Question 2: Critically evaluate LEGO’s approach to key organizational behaviour and management issues.
Analysis for question 1 should have already altered you to a range of organizational behaviour management issues at LEGO but do not need to refer back to question 1 analysis.
Answer: 150-200 words each section.
Introduction Lego’s approach to organizational culture;
- a) Culture of play – Play is highlighted as one of the core aspects of LEGO’s culture.
Find academic papers on (benefits and the darker side of) play at work.
A good starting point:
Sørensen, B. M., & Spoelstra, S. (2012). Play at work: Continuation, intervention and usurpation. Organization, 19(1), 81-97.
Play can be approached from the functionalist perspective which highlights the role of play in e.g. fostering innovation and motivation (by promoting flexibility and self-actualization)
- b) Culture and Control (neo-normative control).
Critical perspectives looking at power and control – helpful to include them.
A useful starting point:
Alexandersson, A., & Kalonaityte, V. (2018). Playing to dissent: The aesthetics and politics of playful office design. Organization Studies, 39(2-3), 297-317. [the section on Jacques Ranciere is difficult. You do not need to get to grips with it.]
Playful offices rely on extensive use of eye catching design, e.g. bright colours, settings and artefacts typically associated with leisure (McNamara, 2016).
Playful offices seek to prescribe a certain view of work and play; they usually try to encourage entrepreneurial behaviours and a communal orientation.
A shift from normative control (with a focus on conformity with a shared set of values) to management gurus more entrepreneurial ‘Being yourself’ cultures (e.g. Peters, 1994; 2003)
More useful papers –
Fleming, P., & Sturdy, A. (2009). “Just be yourself!” Towards neo-normative control in organisations?. Employee Relations, 31(6), 569-583.
Müller, M. (2017). ‘Brand-centred control’: A study of internal branding and normative control. Organization Studies, 38(7), 895-915.
- c) Culture, identity and image (Brand).
Organizational culture is also closely linked to the brand image. Hatch and Schultz (2002).
Schultz, M., & Hernes, T. (2013). A temporal perspective on organizational identity. Organization Science, 24(1), 1-21.
- d) culture and innovation.
Organizational culture (e.g. Martin, 2002; Alvesson and Sveningsson, 2008’/2015) has been found to play an important role in fostering (but also hampering) innovation (e.g. Hogan and Coote, 2014; Lau and Ngo, 2004)
Look at how culture can support innovation. Culture that stimulates creativity and innovation – Martins and Treblanche (2003).
Authors highlight ‘determinants of organizational culture that influence creativity and innovation:
- Strategy: vision, mission, purposefulness
- Structure: flexibility, freedom (autonomy, empowerment, decision-making, people)
- Support mechanisms: reward and recognition, availability of resources (e.g. IT)
- Behaviours: mistake handling, idea generating, focus on learning, risk taking, support for change, conflict handling
- Communication: open communication
There are some papers that discuss design and structural changes at Lego (reorganisation/ restructuring of the company) aimed at addressing the darker sides of innovation, e.g.
Ringen, J. (2015). When it clicks, it clicks. Fast Company, 192, 72-98. [focuses on the Future Lab]
Mocker, M., & Ross, J. W. (2017). The problem with product proliferation. Harvard Business Review, 2017(May–June), 8.
- e) Legos approach to change management, you can explore leadership with this topic.
As you know, Lego has had some turbulent past; has been in a crisis and has been undergoing considerable transformation.
When analysing Lego’s approach to change you can consider:
- how they use a combination of a planned and emergent approach to change
- change and empowerment; role of middle managers
- change and experimentation
- the strategic usage of symbolism/ leadership in change
Useful papers:
Schultz, M., & Hernes, T. (2013). A temporal perspective on organizational identity. Organization Science, 24(1), 1-21.
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of management Journal, 51(2), 221-240.
Sommer, A. F. (2019). Agile Transformation at LEGO Group: Implementing Agile methods in multiple departments changed not only processes but also employees’ behavior and mindset. Research-Technology Management, 62(5), 20-29.
These papers can also be useful for Q1. There is some but more limited insight here on the process of change:
Andersen, P., & Ross, J. W. (2016). Transforming the LEGO group for the digital economy. [available on google scholar)
Schlagwein, D., & Bjørn-Andersen, N. (2014). Organizational learning with crowdsourcing: The revelatory case of LEGO. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 15(11), 754-778.
- f) Lego’s approach to teamwork
Collaboration and teamwork are crucial for Lego. Lüscher and Lewis (2008) describe an earlier shift towards teamwork.
Sommer (2019) provides quite an in-depth discussion of Lego’s on-going shift towards AGILE teams.
There is more research on Agile teams, e.g.
Moe, N. B., Dingsøyr, T., & Dybå, T. (2010). A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case study of a Scrum project. Information and Software Technology, 52(5), 480-491.
Stray, V. G., Moe, N. B., & Dingsøyr, T. (2011, May). Challenges to teamwork: a multiple case study of two agile teams. In International conference on agile software development (pp. 146-161). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
See also a paper on the limits of less hierarchical organizing:
Lee, M. Y., & Edmondson, A. C. (2017). Self-managing organizations: Exploring the limits of less-hierarchical organizing. Research in organizational behavior, 37, 35-58.
