When cultures collide...

I was talking with a colleague the other day about coaching a young woman from another culture. In passing we touched on a question that has been haunting me ever since.  Does our coaching implicitly teach or assert that the assumptions of our culture are better than the assumptions of hers?

I am a great advocate of, and great believer in, individual agency coupled with individual responsibility.  Much of my coaching involves helping people to think through what their goals are, what options they have in pursuit of those goals and what actions they will therefore take (or what experiments they will run to establish what actually works in their context).

This coachee came from a culture that places a much higher emphasis  on deference to the wisdom of parents, teachers and older people more generally. The underlying assumption being that those with more life experience may have more wisdom than those with less; and further that tradition is the cumulative wisdom of the lived experience of those who have gone before.

Yet when as coaches we hear someone say they need to do what their parents, boss, or indeed tradition instructs them, our instinct is to ask: 'But what do you think?'

Is this a form of cultural imperialism? Are we not implying that the Western liberal understanding of personal responsibility, autonomy and agency is superior to their culture? And given our current Western liberal concerns about de-colonising our educational offerings, should we not be giving this more thought?

I find these difficult, but important, questions...  What do you think?

Be careful what you wish for...

One of the things many people I talk with wish for is to work for an organisation that is values-led; or at least has a set of values aligned with those of the individual.  And one of the things I enjoy about working with so many universities, who now form the majority of my clients, is that I truly believe in the importance and value of learning in all its aspects.

So why do I sound a note of caution?

The reason is that I have also noticed that it is in values-led organisations (whether commercial, educational or third sector) that some of the most painful conflicts have arisen.  And perhaps the reason is obvious, but it took me a while to understand and articulate it for myself, so perhaps it will be helpful for others.

When we work for an organisation that is aligned with our values, we are engaged at a very deep level - and so is everyone else. So when differences arise about how we should act, they are deeply held, and also more difficult to discuss dispassionately.

I still remember vividly working with a Christian charity that faced a difficult dilemma. They were clear that they would recruit anyone who wanted to contribute to their charitable purposes; but when it came to Board appointments, things were not so clear. On the one hand, some believed that the values of equality and inclusivity, founded in the Christian virtue of Charity, demanded that they appoint people to the Board regardless of their religious affiliation (or lack thereof). On the other hand, others believed that the integrity of the organisation as a Christian charity, demanded that the Board (or at least the majority of the Board) should be believing Christians: Faith is also a Christian virtue, of course. Their concern was that removing the Faith-based requirement for Board appointments would inevitably result, over time, in the organisation losing its Christian ethos.

As you can imagine, people on either side of the debate felt very strongly indeed; and it was difficult to discuss the issue without the emotional temperature rising very rapidly.

Similar conflicts can arise in all arenas, of course. In a university, a proposal that would be beneficial to students but onerous to teaching staff is one example. Some would argue that the students' perspective is the most important - whatever facilitates their learning should be prioritised. But equally, others argue that motivated and productive lecturers are the most important determinant of student learning: so over-burdening and alienating them is clearly wrong.

And because our values are involved - because we are deeply invested in the issues - these conflicts are far more difficult to discuss and resolve than if we are arguing about some issue where our intellect - and our passions - are not so deeply involved.

So by all means work for an organisation that is led by the values that you adhere to - but don't indulge in the fantasy that everything will therefore be sweetness and light!

The Entrepreneurial Contract

As the antidote to the Patriarchal Contract (which I described here) Peter Block also outlines the Entrepreneurial Contract, and how that differs.

As I said in the previous post, his book (The Empowered Manager)  is a call to action for managers in all types of organisation - but particularly Bureaucratic ones where the Patriarchal Contract dominates. It is a courageous, rather than a safe, strategy that he advocates, for reasons which should be self-evident. 

As he points out, organisations start entrepreneurially - by definition!  Over time, with growth and a desire for stability, a degree of control is introduced, leading to an increasingly bureaucratic organisation.  Too frequently, that takes on a life of its own and becomes the prevalent culture of the organisation.

Here is my summary of his thinking on the Entrepreneurial Cycle.

The Entrepreneurial Cycle

1    The Entrepreneurial Contract

The essential difference in the entrepreneurial cycle is a fundamental shift of attitudes about people.  The Entrepreneurial Contract is based on the belief that the most trustworthy source of authority comes from the individual, rather than from the boss.  The primary purpose of the leadership is to enable people to give of their best in the service of a joint vision.  

In place of obedience, individuals take responsibility: within the agreed overall direction, strategy and guidelines, individuals are empowered to make the decisions that they believe to be in the best interests of the organisation.

In place of the denial of self-expression, individuals are encouraged to express themselves honestly and enable others to do the same: the resultant exchange of real ideas and information will generate excitement, enthusiasm, conflict, passion... and engage people in their work in a far more energised way.

In place of sacrifice for unnamed future rewards individuals make commitments to do what they believe in: this rests on the assumption that people want to contribute meaningfully to the organisation.  Instead of trying to cajole or bully them into work that is meaningless, an entrepreneurial culture is one in which people find meaning in their work - and then give of their best.

The belief that these principles are just points the way to a more positive and optimistic view of human nature.  It is true that some employees may not respond well to such a culture, but the fundamental assumptions are that most will, that it stultifies the whole organisation to write the rules for the unmotivated few, and that other ways need to be found to deal with poor performance than assume that all workers (and supervisors and managers) are fundamentally not to be trusted.

2    Enlightened Self Interest

If we are to transform our organisations, we need to step outside the myopic self-interest of pleasing bosses and playing it safe.  If we are to choose courage over caution, we need to be clear what is truly important to us.  Typically the entrepreneurial mindset finds value in:

• Meaning
• Contribution and service
• Integrity
• Positive impact on others’ lives
• Mastery

The great thing about these is that they are all under our own direct control, and when pursued provide a profound satisfaction - as well as making a genuine and lasting contribution at every level: to individuals, teams, the organisation and society.

3    Authentic tactics

If we are committed to serving our vision of a better future, and to developing our own and others’ autonomy, then we do not need to indulge in the manipulative tactics designed to win approval.  instead we can be models of authenticity in the organisation.  In particular, we can:

• Say no when we mean no
• Share as much information as possible
• Use language that describes reality
• Avoid repositioning for the sake of acceptance.

All of these may require courage and risk-taking - and all will help both the individual who does them and the others with whom he or she interacts to become more autonomous.  Fundamentally it is treating people as though they are trustworthy adults, not irresponsible children.  Most will respond appropriately.

4    Autonomy

The entrepreneurial contract and a service-oriented definition of self-interest support each individual in developing more autonomy.  Autonomy both reduces our fear of those above us, and makes us take more responsibility for our own actions and contribution. It encourages us to use our minds at work, to communicate honestly and contribute to a more vibrant, exciting, stimulating and risky organisational culture.

The Patriarchal Contract

I posted the other day (here) about the implicit contract that people sign up to when joining an organisation, and some of the implications of that.

I was basing my analysis on work by Peter Block (The Empowered Manager) which I find very interesting.

In the ComBox, Andrew Derrington pointed out that having some way to diagnose whether one was working in a patriarchal/bureaucratic culture would be helpful.  

 So here is my summary of Block's thinking on that (and he acknowledges some of his ideas particularly around the Patriarchal Contract, are developed from David McClelland's in Power - The Inner Experience, which I have yet to read).

1    The Patriarchal Contract

David McClelland

This contract assumes that the organisation or boss knows best.  Therefore obedience is at a premium, with an associated denial of self-expression.  Moreover, we are expected to make sacrifices for unnamed future rewards, and believe (or pretend to believe) that this is just.

The problems with this, in terms of sustaining an entrepreneurial culture include:

The emphasis on obedience assumes that the source of wisdom and knowledge is outside ourself.  That in turn feeds our dependency and wish for approval. It is initially a comfortable position for those at the top (they are revered) but eventually untenable (they have to decide everything, take responsibility for everything...).  Likewise it is initially comfortable for the led, as they don’t have to take responsibility, but ultimately leads to feelings of helplessness and victimhood.

The denial of self-expression leads to everyone knowing what’s wrong except the people who need to know.  Nobody will tell the boss that his idea is flawed, but they certainly tell each other.

The idea of sacrifice for unnamed future rewards leads to resentment and cynicism.  The implicit reward is often ‘if you work hard you will have a promotion/job for life.’  However no organisation can guarantee that, and as they lay people off, they violate that bargain, causing deep resentment.

The belief that these ‘rules’ are just simply reinforces a set of assumptions that together make for dependency.  Yet the evidence is mounting that participative management achieves better long term results than authority-driven cultures.

2    Myopic Self-Interest

If the basic contract is patriarchal then it is no surprise that people’s view of what is in their best interests becomes focused on pleasing those above them in the hierarchy.  

If success is defined as promotion or approval from the boss, we are immediately entering the realms of a bureaucratic culture.

To assess this in your organisation consider, is success:

• Advancement?
• Approval from above?
• High salary?
• Safety?
• Control?
• All of the above?

If so, that’s bureaucracy.

3    Manipulative Tactics

Another hallmark of the bureaucratic culture is the use of manipulative tactics.  That is to say, indirect and sometimes devious behaviours aiming to win us success as defined above.  Typically, that involves:

• Manoeuvring people
• Managing information to our own advantage
• Making friends with the powerful or those who can do us good
• Seeking approval of bosses
• Being cautious of telling the truth

All of these can become habitual ways of behaving that serve neither the organisation nor the individual, and contribute to a sense of dependency.

4    Dependency

The Patriarchal Contract, the narrow definition of self-interest, and the manipulative strategies that spring from them all contribute to a dependent mentality.  People end up believing that their fate is in others’ hands, that even if they want to contribute in an entrepreneurial fashion, they can’t have an impact, that it is not safe to raise your head above the parapet, and so on.

--

Peter Block's book is a call to action, and a manifesto for change, beginning with each individual manager.  He makes a strong case for an entrepreneurial culture, with associated entrepreneurial values.  I will summarise that in a future post.

What's the contract?

This week, a friend of mine who is a senior teacher has just managed to find a suitable new job, after quite a search. He had not wanted to leave his last school, but his job fell foul of a reorganisation.

Another friend has just left a senior job in a charity, which he had only started earlier this year.  I am not clear on the details yet, but gather it was a political issue, rather than anything to do with competence or performance.

In both cases, these were senior and successful people, who could reasonably have assumed to have some job security.  Both are also the main wage-earners for their families.

Which raises the interesting question: what is the (implicit) contract governing employment these days.

There used to be an understanding that normally, if you were competent and worked well, you could be fairly secure in a job, at least with a large organisation.

Peter Block writes about this in an interesting way, in The Empowered Manager.  He contrasts two types of implicit contract, which he characterises as the Patriarchal and the Entrepreneurial.

The Patriarchal Contract: This contract assumes that the organisation or boss knows best.  Therefore obedience is at a premium, with an associated denial of self-expression.  Moreover, we are expected to make sacrifices for unnamed future rewards, and believe (or pretend to believe) that this is just.

The Entrepreneurial Contract: The essential difference in the entrepreneurial contract is a fundamental shift of attitudes about people.  The Entrepreneurial Contract is based on the belief that the most trustworthy source of authority comes from the individual, rather than from the boss.  The primary purpose of the leadership is to enable people to give of their best in the service of a joint vision.  

He teases out the implications of each in interesting ways.   For example, the idea of sacrifice for unnamed future rewards leads to resentment and cynicism.  The implicit reward is often ‘if you work hard you will have a promotion/job for life.’  However no organisation can guarantee that, and as they lay people off, they violate that bargain, causing deep resentment.

In fairness, I should say that both of the friends I referred to at the start of this post are unlikely to harbour resentment and cynicism, as they are too sensible and focused on moving on.  However, that does not mean that their treatment was just; and also the fact that they will not harbour resentment and cynicism does not mean that others who have witnessed their experiences will not.  Organisations are finally catching up with the fact that their treatment of one person who exits the organisation sends strong messages which are most certainly read by those who remain.

So it is worth reflecting: if you are a boss, what is the implicit contract you have with your people?  Is it just and honest?  Can you honour it?  Or should you consider a more explicit contract, that is more just and honest?

And as an employee: what assumptions are you making about your contract? What do you think is expected of you?  Is it just and honest? Can both you and your employer honour it?   Or should you consider a more explicit contract, that is more just and honest?...

Best predictor of group effectiveness?

As I have remarked before, it is always pleasing to come across research that matches and validates one's own beliefs and values.

In this case, it is an article by Adam Grant in the McKinsey Quarterly, called Givers take all: The hidden dimension of corporate culture.  In it, Grant argues that the single strongest predictor of group effectiveness is the amount of help that people give to each other.

Note that this is not just about individuals being prepared to offer help, but also for that help to be accepted: that is to say, it is about a culture in which people are both generous and open with their time and their skills, but also have sufficient humility to recognise that they need help.

He explores not only why this might be the case, but also how to go about developing such a culture, and cites many examples, including the intriguing Reciprocity Ring exercise, with which I shall experiment (watch this space).

I won't summarise the whole thing here: it is worth reading in full - not least for the wonderful example with which Grant concludes his piece. I have no doubt the book, on which the article is based, would be worth reading, too.


As a Christian (work in progress) I have long thought about the relationship between virtues and leadership (and organisational behaviour more generally). 

I think one could draw up a remarkably robust set of corporate values based on the virtues: faith, hope, charity; justice, fortitude, prudence and temperance.  

So I am delighted to see that work like this validates such things as charity and indeed humility. Understanding the value of virtues is one thing; putting them into practice is, of course, another and more difficult challenge.  But as Grant points out, in his final paragraph, walking the talk is essential (or as one team I worked with put it: we may not always walk the talk, but be do try to stumble the mumble.)