<snip> Also there is a suggestion to promote across deparment behaviour. To promote employee to communicate across different areas. But to go there it is necessary to understand where the organization is right now. How different parts of it behave today. What are the differences, etc. <snip>
One way I have seen companies deal with this as a long term strategy was through rotating employees through different departments. Each year each employee would take a position in another department of the company for a year. This was (and I assume still is) a very big part of grooming a person for upper management.
In college my minors were chemistry and anthropology (focusing on cultural anthropology and comparative analysis of religions courses). It's been a long time, but here are my thoughts.
What you are seeing in the company is associated with tribal/clan (aka departments or functional units) relationships. I've never seen a way to break the barriers in a significant way in large companies. These barriers are rare in companies of under 40 to 50 people. As a company approaches 100 people divisions begin to establish themselves much the same as in extended families where the focus group (the nuclear family - mother, father and siblings) is close but as one extends out into extended family cohesion and communication starts to drop off. For example, look at families and you will see where one nuclear family in a clan will have emotional bonds due to "blood" with other nuclear families. As the family lines play out (think family tree) further these bonds begin to break down as, for example, one nuclear family may be very religious while that family's father's brother's nuclear family is not. They are related by "blood" (
aka breeding
aka the "family tree") but they are very different.
This is not to say that even in a nuclear family there won't be significant differences in relationships. For example, girls
tend to bond closer to their mother (looking at a number of years rather than occasional short term disturbances) than their father or a brother or a sister). In the extreme there are the cases of brother
against brother (even in the news of late out of Libya where family feuds have been exposed - read the Coca-Cola story). It's not unusual to read about where (as an example) a brother kills his brother over something as simple as the last piece of pie at a family gathering. It's not even particularly an issue of "power" - It's typically more of an issue of personal greed and that person's perception of what is theirs vs. what is not theirs. But as a nuclear family (or a clan for that matter) vs. "the outside world", when a threat to the nuclear family or clan occurs the nuclear family (or clan) tends to regroup and put their internal differences aside (at least until the threat from the outside has passed) to confront the threat. We see the same sort of thing when we look at what is happening in places like Afghanistan and Libya, as well as many other states based upon tribes/clans such as Iraq. In these places religion typically plays a big part in the clan/tribe aspect playing a role in cohesion of a clan/tribe across "blood" relationships as the size of the clan/tribe increases. If you look at the world, though more so in years past, the essential binding forces in a society (a very large clan/tribe) were (and are) "family" and religion and territory.
One thing I think is interesting is asking people in the US what their priorities are given a short list of: Country (nationalism), Religion, Family, State, Self. My mother valued country over family and family over religion. Then came Self. State was last in her world view. I have a friend who says his priority is religion, family, self, country, state. Another is family, self, country, religion, state.
In companies the same type of grouping (nuclear families {very close friends within a department} and even a somewhat extended clan especially in larger companies) occurs because of their purpose and their measurables of achievement and success. In the extreme, sales (as an example) and design and development communicate but not always on amiable terms. Their goals and their purposes are different (often they are at odds). This is not to say they do not share some common goals and values. Another example is manufacturing vs. the "quality" folks. How many times have you heard of manufacturing shipping product )to meet a delivery schedule, for example) which was rejected by the "quality" folks? Technically everyone is on the same "team" (an extended family - the company its self). That doesn't eliminate inter-departmental clans and their perceived "territories" from existing along with all the baggage that comes with "defense" of their immediate family/clan, its goals and its values.
A professional may be able to help management better understand and break down some of the communication barriers (and how often do we all hear about communications barriers within companies being significant problems). The bigger question is what will happen in the long run. My very limited experience is that they eventually resurface within 6 months to a year after the "family gathering" (remember those?) is over. In some cases evaluation of dictated interactions (procedures) can lead to better communications over the long term. I have seen some rather long term success through revisions to procedures. Of course, the failure mode is then people who will not follow written (not to mention verbal) procedures typically by individuals, but it is seen in departments as well.
Personally I think it would be interesting to see what a social anthropologist would come up with. I think Wes is on the right track suggesting that you contact a university and speak with someone in the anthropology or sociology department. I would recommend someone in cultural or social anthropology rather than sociology, but that's my bias. I'm not a big believer in psychologists, by the way, but that's just another one of my biases.
NOTE: When I was in college years ago we who considered ourselves "anthropologists" (we were, of course, a clan) way beyond sociologists whom we felt were shallow (not much archeological, anthropological and comparative religious education which we, of course, felt was important). So even in college there were clans/interest groups, each with their own values and goals. Obviously I'm biased.
Also note my major was biology and that was also a clan within the college I attended (Westminster in Fulton, MO). I never saw any use in fraternities so I never joined one, but those are an example of other "sub-clans" within most colleges and universities.
Just some thoughts...
