Further reflections on the EDI Agenda

In a previous post I commented on the ill thought through guidance on Trans inclusion, published by the CIPD. My point was that their naive approach didn't work, as it wasn't - indeed couldn't be - reciprocal across all the different groups with protected characteristics under the Equality Act (these are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation).

I have been reflecting further on this, and think that the EDI challenge is profound, if not intractable.

It has been brought into sharp, and tragic, relief by the events of the weekend. How do we (and indeed should we) create an organisational culture that includes the most radical supporter of Hamas and the most radical Zionist?

Will the CIPD be publishing inclusivity guides?  Based on their recent track record, they should say:  authenticity – empowering Hamas militants to express their authentic self in the workplace, and showing outward acceptance when they do. and likewise, of course: authenticity – empowering Zionists to express their authentic self in the workplace, and showing outward acceptance when they do.

One problem I have with the EDI agenda is that I don't think anyone really believes it: not all the way through. Would anyone argue for equality and inclusion for the sake of diversity extending to those we believe to be advocating evil, or supporting genocide?

And it is an intellectual cop-out, I think, to say that it doesn't extend to those who express themselves outside what is legally permissible. We cannot outsource our consciences to the law; nor can we assume that the law is always just, as even the most cursory look in a history book - or indeed survey of current legal systems around the world - will confirm.

Or do we really mean, EDI (for those whose opinions I value)?

Because I am interested, too, in whom we seek to shame. It's a useful barometer of the moral atmosphere. People often talk as if shame is some evil that enlightened people have left behind. It is deemed quite wrong to fat-shame or to slut-shame, for example. But in fact, what has happened is that the targets of shame have changed. All the vogue words that end in -phobe (for example) seem to me designed to shame those who hold views that we now deem shameful (and possibly rightly so). Shame is, in fact, a useful and important moderator of undesirable behaviour. It would be a good thing if politicians were ashamed to lie, or celebrities ashamed to indulge in sexual exploitation. But we seem incapable of being honest about this; or even talking about it openly and clearly.

So where am I on all this?

My current thinking, and it is somewhat provisional, is that Equality, Diversity and Inclusion are not absolute goods (though we are invited to reverence them as though they are) but rather that they are, in reality, useful indicators. Where one or other of them is lacking, it should cause us to stop and take notice. And what we should take notice of, I think, are justice and truth and compassion.

That is, we shouldn't unjustly (or dishonestly, or cruelly) exclude someone; or unjustly (etc) demand that they conform, or unjustly treat them as less than equal.  But there may be occasions when it is indeed just to do so. Men are justly excluded from women-only spaces; students are justly required to conform to intellectual rules (such as not plagiarising) and children are justly placed under the authority of responsible adults for their own protection. 

Justice and truth, then, I see as absolutes to which we can - and should - commit; and compassion a default operating system. They are not, of course always easy (or even possible) to attain, but we should commit to striving for them. And I find it interesting that the pursuit of truth is so out of fashion in some intellectual circles; and further, I wonder if it is the search for a value-base to replace the gap left by its absence that has led EDI to be promoted to the first rank, when it should, by my reckoning, be in the second.

And it is with wry amusement that I notice that it is often those who refute the notion of truth who make strident truth-claims for their own particular dogmas; and occasionally do so with a pronounced lack of compassion. 

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!

Shame and Guilt

Over the last couple of days, I have been at a Daring Way workshop, run by Jacqui Sjenitzer, and based on the work of Brené Brown (see here for an account of a previous workshop with Jacqui on this material).  I will blog more about the workshop overall (it was excellent) when I have had time to reflect on it further. In this post I want to pursue one particular line of thought. 

One of the many helpful distinctions that Brown makes is between guilt and shame. According to her understanding, guilt is 'I did something bad,' and shame is 'I am bad.' Further, she states that shame is positively correlated to addiction, depression, and many other problems; whilst guilt is inversely correlated to them: it leads to much better outcomes.

That led one of the participants on the programme to say: "People talk about Catholic guilt; but really it's Catholic shame..."

I understand that for many people, that may be their experience of Catholicism; and I am not going to argue with their lived reality. However, it is also my experience that the opposite is true, and that my Catholic upbringing, at least, has allowed me to deal appropriately with guilt and not be shackled by shame. We didn't get into that discussion on the workshop - it would have been a fairly major digression, and Jacqui wanted us to move on. So here are my reflections.

My thesis is that Catholicism is very powerful. And like anything that is powerful, when abused, it becomes very destructive. But used properly, it is a great force for good.

I was pleased that one of the other participants, at the end of the programme, chose to share a quotation attributed to Mother Teresa, which she felt summed up the spirit of the course:

People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives. Be kind anyway.

If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies. Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you. Be honest and sincere anyway.

 What you spend years creating, others could destroy overnight. Create anyway.

If you find serenity and happiness, some may be jealous. Be happy anyway. 

The good you do today, will often be forgotten. Do good anyway.

Give the best you have, and it will never be enough. Give your best anyway. 

You see, in the final analysis, it is between you and God.  It was never between you and them anyway.

That, it seems to me, is an example of Catholicism done properly.

One of the things that interests me is how much of the new wisdom on how to live a healthy, happy and successful life is already embedded in the Catholicism in which I was raised.

From Viktor Frankl, we learn of the importance of meaning and purpose: from my upbringing, I know that my meaning and purpose are to love and be loved.

In a world that seems ever more bitterly divided, I hold fast to my Faith that all were created by love, in love, and for love.

To move on from difficult stuff, Brown (and others) teach us that we need to acknowledge it, learn from it, apologise or make amends when appropriate, and then leave it behind. Many use therapy to help with this. In my tradition, that need is met by a daily examination of conscience, prayers of contrition, a resolution to do better next time, confession, and absolution. The psychological benefits of this practice, alone, are extraordinary (when correctly practiced, of course).

The research on the benefits of meditation is convincing many people of the importance of this as a daily practice. We learned that from the Desert Fathers (and Christ himself, of course), and daily meditation is the cornerstone of a life of prayer.

Almost every book on leadership talks of the importance of integrity, based on clear values. I strive to run my business (and indeed life) according to the values of Faith, Hope and Charity; and informed by justice, prudence, temperance and fortitude. (Temperance is not a fashionable word, but it is vigilance against excess: and how much that is needed at present!). My favourite (and recurrent) feedback is that I help to re-kindle or strengthen hope.

We are learning more and more about the beneficial effects of the practice of gratitude. From my earliest years, I have been taught to give thanks for every day, for every meal on the table..., in fact for everything.

As I say, I recognise that others have had a dreadful experience of a Catholic upbringing, and that is truly tragic (and shameful for the Church). But I think that the other story also deserves to be told; the formation that inspired not only Mother Teresa, but also Maximilian Kolbe, the friar who volunteered to die in place of a stranger in Auschwitz, Lech Walesa, the leader of Solidarity, and countless others in every field of human endeavour.

Open Space and Graphic Recording

The inspirational new head of the HASS Faculty and Newcastle University has launched a Faculty-wide discussion about the values of the Faculty. She is pursuing this in various ways, and in conversation with her a while ago, we agreed that an Open Space event might be a valuable part of the process.

We held the event last week, at St James' Park (home of NUFC)  and around a hundred academics and professional support staff came along for the day.  As ever, I was slightly apprehensive at the start of the day: a hundred people and no agenda...  But as ever, people were full of ideas about the important questions to discuss, and quickly generated a large number of options.

Then there was the slightly messy business of constructing the agenda: people signing up for the questions they personally wished to discuss and then arranging the timings of the sessions so that as many as possible could get to all the topics they had chosen. Some people find this stage of the process uncomfortable,as it is somewhat chaotic and, finally, arbitrary. I always enjoy it: seeing order emerge from the chaos.  And in my experience, the group always manages to produce an agenda that works very well.


We had also invited John Ashton along - a graphic facilitator, recommended by Eleanor Beer, with whom I have worked before. John started with a blank sheet of paper, which mirrored our process of course, and over the day built up a comprehensive record of all the many discussions that had taken place. A number of participants were intrigued to watch this process, and the resultant poster (and electronic copies of it) will be very helpful both in reminding attendees and informing others who were unable to attend, of the range and key themes of the many rich discussion.

What I particularly enjoyed about the day was the huge, and unexpected, range of topics discussed: from how to have fun to how better to engage with the city and region.  But you can see the full range of the discussion in John's graphic poster, below. 

Thinking about Values

Lots of things have been prompting me to think about values and their relation to the work we do. We had a fascinating day in Cardiff recently looking at what it might mean to be a values-led Institution, informed by two of their philosophers, and also a guest speaker from Findhorn; but mainly drawing on the collective wisdom of the assembled academic and professional staff.  I have also been working with Winchester University on a similar agenda; as well as writing about my own practice for my ILM Diploma assignment; and most recently discussing possible futures for the SAgE Faculty at Newcastle, including the underlying principles of any strategy.

Thinking about all of these, I have not been able to come up with anything more potent and relevant for my own business than the classic articulation of Christian philosophy, building on Greek philosophy. That is, I see my business as being founded on the three pillars of faith, hope and charity, and run (as best I can) with prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance. 

Clearly, as I am a Christian, each of these has a supernatural meaning for me. But they also have a very definite here-and-now aspect, which I think is relevant to people of all belief systems, including agnostic or atheist ones.

Faith, in that sense, I associate very much with Viktor Frankl's insights on the importance of meaning (see here for more of my reflections on Frankl, and here for an external summary of his life and work). One of the things I do when I am working at my best is help people to find meaning in what they are doing and experiencing, and thus the belief that it is of worth and value (or if not, the belief that it is worth addressing that issue!).

Hope is foundational to my work. More than once, I have received unprompted the feedback that what I help people to do is to discover or re-kindle hope, and how powerful that is. That hope may be built on the realisation that we really can make a difference, that we can make the future better for ourselves and for others, and that however dreadful a situation one finds oneself in, our response to that, and to that extent our future, is open for us to influence: which of course links back to Frankl's work.

Charity is an orientation to the good of other people: seeking to do things for the benefit of others, and avoid things that will be against their best interests. First of all, do no harm... Again, I seek both to live like this, and to help others to do so. A lot of my work with conflict and negotiation is about seeking to get people to understand the perspective of their adversary; and that includes ceasing to view them as an adversary, but as a human being with rights and good intentions and good will.

Prudence, I think, has a bad press. I see it as being about taking courageous decisions, whilst avoiding being reckless. Again, that is something I strive to do myself, but most often see with admiration, and sometimes awe, in my clients. 

Justice is widely recognised as one of the fundamental values to which most organisations commit, and it is very clear that if employees, for example, sense inequity in their treatment, that is very bad for the organisation. Increasingly, organisations are looking beyond internal equity and adopting programmes of corporate social responsibility, to spread justice further afield. In the case of my business, that results in both directors giving significant time on a regular basis to a number of charities.

Fortitude is a virtue that I associate particularly with tenacity and with the courage to tell the truth, even when it is difficult or feels disadvantageous to do so. Again, these are values I strive to honour, but would have to declare them to be work in progress.

Temperance is another misunderstood virtue, in my view. It is the virtue of appropriate moderation. It curbs greed, arrogance and excess. That includes excessive value placed on work activities at the expense of all the other human activities which have a claim on us (our responsibilities to our families and friends, for example) or which would be good for us (such as staying fit). Thus it is closely associated in my thinking with that integration that is at the heart of work/life balance. 

I realise, as I write this, that I am setting a high bar; so I invite those who know me to hold me to these aspirational values, and to let me know each time I fall short of them. Only by constantly working towards them, I think, will I be able to run the business that I want to run.

A Fun Piece of Technology

This week I was running an event with a large group, looking at whether a values-led strategy was a good idea. That included lots of other questions, of course, such as what we mean by values, and what we mean by values-led, and so on.

As well as the usual business of plenary sessions with questions, and syndicate work on case studies, we were keen to do some more participative work in plenary sessions, so we decided to experiment with Poll Everywhere.

This is a web-based solution that allows you to pose questions, and everyone to contribute their thinking, which is automatically, and immediately, displayed on the screen in your conference room. People contribute by logging into the site on their smartphone, tablet or laptop, which then displays the poll question and the options for answers.

So we were able to poll people on arrival, about whether they thought a values-led strategy was a good idea, with the options of Yes, No, and Don’t Know. The Yeses were the largest group, followed by the Don’t Knows.

We then asked why it might be a good idea, and offered a list of options for people to choose from. Likewise, we asked why it might not be a good idea, and again offered a list of options for people to choose from. Finally (in this opening session) we asked them what values they would like to see lead the organisation, and they could write whatever they wanted – the results being displayed as a word-cloud, developing in real time.  That of course meant that people were able to respond to what others were writing: once someone had written ‘Integrity’ many others did so too, so the word grew and grew on the screen.

Later in the day, we also used it to collect answers to a case study, which was read out in plenary; and at the end of the day, we polled them again about whether they thought a values-led strategy was a good idea. The Yeses were a significant majority, having gone up, whilst Don't Knows had gone down, and the Noes had also increased. All of which was interesting feedback both for us and for participants about how views had shifted during the day.

So it was a lot of fun. Participants visibly enjoyed the opportunity to take part in this way (and of course it is particularly good for those who don’t like speaking in front of groups). But it was fun with a purpose. It enabled both us and the participants to get a real sense of where the weight of opinion lay, in a very short space of time, and also how that shifted over time. 

At the end of the day, we were able to pull off a report, with graphics of all the votes and the numbers behind them. All in all, a very good package, at a reasonable cost (I think we paid $199 for a month's package, to enable us to build the questions, try them out and so on. Cheaper packages are available for smaller groups, and you can try it for free).

I will certainly be using it again; and judging from the comments on the day, so will many of those who attended the event.

Strategic Five Marketing - Again

I have been reflecting on why I am so angered by Strategic Five's apparently dishonest approach to recruitment, and also doing a little more digging.  This post is a summary of where I am up to. For the background, see my previous post, here, if you have not already read it.

I am angry because it seems to me both wrong in principle and cruel in practice to behave in the way that they seem to do. Cruel is a strong word, and I do not imply that is their intention, but I do not think it overstates the impact of their tactics.

Here's the story of the graduate whom I know best who was fooled by them. He graduated a couple of years ago, started doing a PGCE and then realised that teaching really wasn't for him. So he quit that after a year, and started looking for other jobs. He has found some filler jobs, as it were, to keep the wolf from the door, but is still searching for a reasonable graduate job. 

He has sent in many application forms and CVs and typically heard nothing back: that is a dispiriting process. Then he got an interview for a Graduate Management Programme - and the interview went well. He liked them, and they liked him. So his hopes were raised, his confidence, which had been flagging, was boosted. Over the weekend he told a few friends and got the response: 'I hope it's not Strategic Five...' As I recounted before, he tried to ascertain if he were being led up the garden path, Strategic Five denied it, and then, with tragic inevitability, on the Monday, it was confirmed: he'd been conned. Needless to say, that did nothing for his confidence.

What makes me angry is not just the impact on him, but the fact that Strategic Five seem to have been doing this repeatedly. 

A look at Twitter reveals comments like:

It is interesting that Strategic Five have not responded to these tweets, though they must be aware of them as their Twitter handle was quoted, which draws it to their attention: and their feed is not very busy with notifications, as far as I can see.

Likewise, I took a quick look at The Student Room website and found these. The first is quite recent, but the second is from 2013 - so this has been going on for some time.

Note in both the Twitter comments and the fuller comments on The Student Room how frustrating the experience was for these duped graduates: and then remember that two of Strategic Five's four professed values are Honesty and Respect.

I have emailed Strategic Five, and tweeted at them, but had no reply: again for a marketing organisation, that seems strange. Likewise, I find it strange that they boast about their client base including 'the Nation's biggest brands' but do not name a single client on their wwwsite.

One last thing I dug up: Strategic Five are advertising a range of jobs with a range of salaries on recruitment websites. These are almost certainly bogus, given that their Linked-In site says they have 1-10 employees - recruiting 15 'marketing' jobs would more than double their size in one go.

Strategic Five Marketing: A Scam?

Has anyone come across the organisation Strategic Five Marketing ?

It seems to me that they are conning graduates. I know of three, now, who were enticed with prospects of Graduate Management Schemes, only to discover it is commission-only door-to-door selling.

Here’s the spec for the role:

Graduate Management Program 

Graduate Progression Opportunity - No Working Experience Required
Strategic Five Marketing are an ever growing outsource sales and promotions company specialising in face-to-face customer acquisition, branding and management - and affiliated with the Nations biggest blue chip brands within the industries of telecoms, beauty, charity, electronics and entertainment, and fresh produce. 

With graduation looming, we are now looking for the next generation of ambitious and career driven candidates excited to embrace a graduate opportunity, with full training provided, to kick start their careers.

Graduate Management Candidates must be:
Customer focused and confident to build rapports with our customer and client portfolio.Be coachable to embrace creative marketing and branding methods.Career driven and competitive to progress towards team leader, campaign co-ordinator, and marketing management positions.Enthusiastic to learn business sectors including finance, recruitment and HRProfessional and articulate to work alongside the Nations biggest brandsPrevious candidates of the Graduate Management Program 2014 have come from backgrounds of business management, art and design, sports and leisure/ coaching, and also applied backgrounds such as sciences, law and performing arts. 

Successful Candidates will be Offered:
Full training and on-going mentoringInvite to National and local social and corporate eventsInternational and National travel opportunitiesCareer progression and business developmentCareer stability and full time positions

For a graduate looking for work in a tough market, that sounds quite appealing. 

The third of the three I know of was pleased to be invited to an interview, and even more pleased when invited back for the following Monday. Initially he thought it was for a second interview, but then found it was for a day of working with them to see what it’s like. However, over the weekend a friend told him that it was a scam to lure people in to unpaid door-to-door selling.

A mutual friend takes up the story:

So they refused to admit that it was commission based door to door sales right up until the last minute! He phoned ahead to ask what he'd be doing and was told he'd be with someone from accounts. Peter from accounts took him to meet the clients in Sunderland and said that he wouldn't describe it as door to door sales, when asked, although the clients were in their houses and he was knocking on their doors trying to sell them stuff!! In what sense he was from accounts it never emerged, because his job was selling not accounting. Very nutty!  

Another friend has pointed me at these organisations, which, while apparently unrelated, seem to have similar feel: DS-MAX and The Cobra Group. 

I would particularly urge my academic friends and colleagues to let their graduates and their career services know about this. If people want to go into commission-only door-to-door selling, that’s fine by me (I suppose, grudgingly) but not under false pretences.

Oh, and I notice that Strategic Five has four corporate values, of which the first is Honesty, and the third, Respect. I’ve already dropped them a line, and will, of course, report back their response, if any… I did enter a 'visitor post' on their Facebook page, politely asking about this. It has not been posted. In fact, no visitor posts have been posted. I wonder why?

Brain Powered Goal Setting

Today's meeting of the Cumbria Coaching Network included a workshop on brain powered goal setting by Diana Shead. Diana's background is in health, in both clinical and managerial roles, and an integral part of her work as a physiotherapist is helping people with pain management.


She draws on her considerable understanding of the brain in order to help people to set and work towards their goals in ways that work.

So today she took us briefly through that process. She started with a quick overview of the brain's various functions, including the important role of the amygdala with regard to survival; and then she explained how that understanding informs her approach to goal setting.

So she always starts by getting people to consider the context within which they are setting goals: she has learned from experience that context is critical. If someone is already overloaded or stressed, then even a modest goal may be too much at that moment, and trigger amygdala highjack: that is the rush of adrenalin and cortisol that put the body in fight or flight mode. That fast and visceral reaction over-rides the frontal lobes, where our rational processing is centred, so it is important to be aware of that risk.

As she was talking, I was making my own links, too: both with The Chimp Paradox, which deals with similar issues, and Goleman's work on Emotional Intelligence, which highlights the need for emotional self-awareness and emotional self-management.

I was pleased to note that she also used her understanding of the brain to suggest alternative ways of doing the exercises: a left-brain and a right-brain option were offered, which was refreshing.

She then moved on to consider context in another way: the values which sit behind the goals we set. Her thesis here was that any worthwhile goal is derived from some good or goods we are seeking to honour or bring about in our life, and that articulating and connecting with that is important to provide both the motive power and the evaluative standards to help us deliver it.

She also looked at the value of allowing our brain some lee-way in deciding how to accomplish goals; to focus on what we want to achieve, and recognise that there may be different ways to do that; but keep focused on the values and the overall intention, including using visual reminders placed strategically around the home or office. 

Only then did she come on to action planning: and again she has designed a process based on her understanding of how the brain works. Key issues are to make the early steps manageable, so as not to provoke an amygdala highjack, to frame actions in a positive (not a negative) way, to foresee and plan to overcome blockages, and to act as if you are already succeeding.

And then she made two important additional points. One was the importance of celebration of each step along the way, to keep the dopamine reward system active.  The other was the value of an attitude of gratitude: for progress made, for help from others, and for learning when things don't go according to plan.  Again, my brain was busy making connections, this time with Margaret Chesney's work on stress. 

So all in all, a very useful and thought provoking day, which I will certainly be drawing on in my coaching work in the future.

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.