In the previous two posts (here and here), I have looked back at a workshop I ran with a new management team. Its aim was to surface and explore the taken-for-granted assumptions within the relevant part of the ‘parent’ organization, as a basis for reflection on the managers' aspirations for their own business. I felt that this raised awareness would help them to understand the impact that they would have, as managers, on the emergence of cultural assumptions within the new business.
Six main themes had been identified during the workshop, which the most senior manager present had then translated into a set of ‘cultural’ statements. As explained in the earlier posts, he had couched these in wholly positive terms, whereas the original source data was much more negative in tone. This threatened to shift the focus of the subsequent sessions away from an exploration of the underlying dynamics of organizational culture, to a more conventional ‘design, build and communicate’ approach to cultural change.
Switching channels
To challenge the manager’s (and team’s) thinking on this, I appended a couple of comments to each of the six statements ahead of the follow-up meeting. The first of these, I suggested, referred to a risk implicit in the statement and the second a paradox that arose from it. These served as a way of ‘switching channels’ (in a sort of ‘lateral thinking’ way) from the mainstream track of ‘rolled out’ cultural change, to one which placed the emphasis on the managers’ own words and everyday behaviours. And it's these risks and paradoxes that I want to share with you in this final post of the 'set'.
Risks and paradoxes
In the list below, each of the manager's six statements is followed by a (hopefully!) relevant risk and paradox that I identified at the time.
#1 - Being seen to deliver and being associated with success.
Risk: It is typically managers, through their words and actions, who define what the labels “success” and “failure” mean (either pre- or post-event). As a result, people who see success in different terms to those accepted by this dominant ‘wisdom’ may be marginalised – even if others recognise the validity of their alternative perspectives.
Paradox: Most innovations emerge after a series of failures; and learning is often most powerful after a mistake.#2 - Being politically astute, with the right connections and able to present information in the most effective way.
Risk: “Political” activity (resulting from different perceptions, interpretations, interests and values) is an inevitable – and potentially constructive – component of organizational life; as are social networks. The risk, though, is that negative politics and personal agendas come to dominate; that nepotism rather than talent and potential contribution determines recruitment and promotions etc; and that presentation is seen as more important than substance.
Paradox: The strength of character required to challenge ‘top people’ is often portrayed as naivety (a perceived weakness).#3 - Being a team player
Risk: If being a “team player” comes to mean always speaking with one voice and not being seen to challenge group norms, ‘groupthink’ can blind the organization to alternative perspectives. This can de-bar innovative approaches, which may be seen as threatening the ‘cosiness’ of existing relationships; and it can cause the group to shy away from open and challenging feedback, etc.
Paradox: The best teams are full of individual talents.#4 - Having a confident, positive, can-do attitude
Risk: In the name of “positive thinking,” managers may be unwilling to listen to important and genuine concerns, alternative viewpoints etc. Staff then learn not to raise their doubts and concerns for fear of being labelled as negative. As a consequence, the organization may become unnecessarily exposed to avoidable risks. Remember the Challenger space shuttle. One man’s resistance to change or to act is another man’s fight to maintain an important principle. As with “success” and “failure,” above, it all depends on where you’re looking from, and who defines what is “positive” and what is “negative.”
Paradox: If the situation demands it, being negative (eg exposing flaws) is the most positive thing anyone can do to ensure the success of a project.#5 - Being recognised as a key player in the company's business
Risk: A “hero” culture, which recognises “movers and shakers” or labels its ‘elite’ in a way which clearly distinguishes them from others, may marginalise other people and their viewpoints, simply because they do not carry the label of “key players”. It often reflects the myth that personality is stable, symmetrical and singular. This maintains that personality is: stable over time (if you’re ‘like that now’ you always have been and always will be); symmetrical (certain characteristics ‘always go with’ certain others – all positively or negatively construed, as appropriate); and singular (‘there’s no-one quite like you’ – for better or worse).
Paradox: The Chinese sage, Lao Tzu, suggests that the best leaders are those whose followers say, when the task has been achieved: “We did it ourselves.”#6 - Putting business success first
Risk: The risk here is to view culture mistakenly as “soft” and discretionary. This leads to a failure to recognise that all words and actions have symbolic significance, and that culture is automatically and simultaneously shaped by people’s perceptions and interpretations of the so-called “hard” aspects of organization. The ‘putting business success first’ assumption also often carries with it an implicit assumption about means as well as ends. The assertion that task must come first in times of crisis would tend to rule out arguments which might suggest that crisis management and the avoidance of crises in the first place (so-called “hard”) might be better achieved by effective people management (so-called “soft”).
Paradox: Business success (and failure!) emerges from the day-to-day interactions of people - the way that they make sense of the world and how they decide to act, in the light of similar and simultaneous processes taking place across the world. Chance has its part to play in this, too! In any event, business success is an outcome. It’s the patterns, content and manner of the conversations that matter. So the best way to “put business success first” is by putting it second and focusing first on shifting these patterns!
And in the end ...
When we had explored these statements again, in the light of the related risks and paradoxes, we were able to refocus attention on how change actually happens in organizations and on the leadership task that flows from this. That is, we looked at how the managers might engage more effectively with the everyday conversations and interactions within the business, to build active coalitions of support for organizationally beneficial change.
Comments