The Great Depression impacted norms and behaviors in almost every corner of the world.  The stock market crash of 1929 led to a series of calamities that dramatically affected personal income, attitudes on savings, international trade, employment, and global finance.  We do not know yet, if there are long-term consequences for our culture coming out of the recent recession.  We can, however, compare these two major global events to extract important lessons for organizations and individuals who are driving change or being driven by changes in their business culture.

Let’s first look at the definition of “culture.”  Anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists and organizationalists use various definitions, but in short, it is:  How we do things around here.  Unlike thinking about culture as a set of values (which may be brought forward from a past generation or simply be aspirational), what we end up actually doing is a more accurate description of culture.  These changes will be seen in our collective actions, and be seen in how our institutions operate.

Although this recession has impacted individual behavior, we have not yet seen the creation of a generation of hyper-cautious savers like those who experienced the 1930’s.  We don’t know if today’s young people will be marked for life with the widespread risk aversion and the same loss of confidence that the next generation would be better off financially.

We do know, however, that any resulting culture change is largely determined by the number of people impacted and how long it lasts.  Today, in Spain unemployment is roughly the same as during the Great Depression at about 25%, and even worse for young people at 45%.  Possible factors that affect a possible culture change for the Spaniards include the long term effects of lost potential, the impact of such large numbers of young people searching for work in other countries, the cultural impact of eventual repatriation of thousands of Spaniards with new and different ideas from around the world, and the cultural impact on the families that have been separated.  To be certain, while the situation is dire in Spain right now, we won’t know the outcome for some time.

The Great Depression was the longest, most widespread, and deepest depression of the 20th century, lasting more than ten years affecting children who grew up and were surrounded by it.  In contrast, — plenty of younger people may not see long-term financial fallout from this recession, but then again, we’re still in it.  Culture change takes time.  We do not know how long the doldrums will last, whether the impact will be felt among all classes and age groups, or how quickly or how much the economy will accelerate in the out years.

The same principles that drive macro-cultural changes (large and thorough influences applied over long periods of time) are also needed for planned change in organizational culture.  Consider the likelihood of success of a CEO we know who recently sent a memo announcing the new culture will be high accountability and effective teamwork.  The CEO proclaiming the new culture does not make it so.  And while we can’t yet know if or how she will achieve it, there will be much work ahead for them if they are serious about this change.

Studies show that culture-change initiatives — like the proclamations of the CEO above — have a poor success rate.  Cultures — in organizations and economies — are durable.  They are durable because they develop over years and take hold in multiple, layered ways.  For organizational change to be implemented and accepted, a sustained, multi-pronged, systematic set of actions is required that is oriented toward new behavior, with human resource infrastructure adapted to support — and even drive — the change.

As players in the global world we can draw lessons from history, too.  The personal strategies outlined here may help those in a rapidly changing work environment adapt, even before larger and slower-developing cultural changes are clear:

• Expect interruptions, even new kinds of interruptions in everything you do.  Treat them as the norm,  not as exceptions.  It is often false expectations that drive disappointment and anxiety.
• Be clear on your own strategy and its alignment with your organization.  This clarity will help you set priorities, express yourself, accomplish more, and make it easier to change if an approach is clearly not working.
• Balance your communication so that you cite what works well twice as often — before and after — as what does not.  For example, “I like the way we communicate fluidly across  different time zones.  We have done very well with this.  I would also like to find a way to include the IT group into our conversations. That way, whatever solution we design will integrate their ideas from the beginning.”
• Expand your awareness through new people and situations to learn and gain insights.  If you are  uncomfortable working with people from a certain culture, for example, seek those individuals out and deepen your relationships with them.  Or if you are less comfortable with financial data, find a way to regularly expose yourself to the topic.
• Acknowledge what remains the same.  People like to know what is durable and will not change in the foreseeable future.   For example, during a time of changing business priorities, you might reinforce that the team will continue to      communicate using the same processes, that the team’s role will not change, and that particular values, goals and standards will remain the same.

In addition to these personal strategies, we learn from the long arc of cultural changes past.  Faith that change has always been taking place, reminds us that it is futile to try to control the amount of change coming our way.  We can ready ourselves, however, within our businesses, and our businesses within the world marketplace to respond more adequately and competently to an ever-changing new normal.

Well the danger on the rocks is surely past
Still I remain tied to the mast
Could it be that I have found my home at last?
- Steely Dan

As a culture researcher and practitioner I was excited to read James Heskett’s interview HBS Working Knowledge, September 28) in support of his new book (Culture Cycle: How to Shape the Unseen Force that Transforms Performance). In it he renews claims of a link between profitability and culture, a question that has fueled leaders’ interest in organizational culture for over four decades. And so, like Ulysses invoked in Steely Dan lyric, could it be that, after a 40 year quest we finally are “home” on this great question?

On the basis of this interview, unfortunately, I think not.

Dr. Heskett continues to put forward a position that remains, regrettably, unsubstantiated in the culture literature, at least in academic disciplines also seriously concerned with organizational culture such as psychological anthropology and social psychology. The first is that culture is an object of normative control to be shaped and changed by CEOs through values, hiring practices and the like, much in the same way a CEO might shape brand strategy or the budgeting process. The second is that culture is shaped by founders. Oh that it were that simple! Unfortunately, there is little evidence in these literatures that culture responds in a linear and direct fashion to leader intervention. And there is even scarcer evidence that founder values are sustained, intact at least, in a culture beyond the first few years.

The problem concerns both definition and measurement. The definition problem  is the  same one that has vexed anthropologists for 100 years: what is culture? Is culture a variable to be changed, or a force to be reconciled in change? (for those interested, Joanne Martin wrote a useful book on this very problem, adding even more complexity  — and rigor – to this question).

Unfortunately, most management thinkers have not dodged the bullet: ‘culture research’ continues to posit reductionist definitions (culture is values, culture is norms, culture is attitudes, culture is employee behavior, etc.) and then put forward unassailable “proof” that variables like hiring practices, leader values, etc. will conclusively and indelibly shape that culture and, therefore, by simply pulling the culture lever all good things will follow. I suppose if you reduce culture to one variable and then “measure” it, you too could make a claim that you are changing culture.

Even if we accept Dr. Heskett’s definition of culture as ‘the way we do things around here’ – a contemporary working definition posited by many researchers and practitioners, myself
included – then there is also the measurement problem: culture researchers must  reasonably account for how they know what they claim to know. Culture variables such as dominant professional culture, dominant national/regional culture, task and regulatory environment, historical inflexions in firm history, market forces, multinational fiduciary structure, and other variables surely shape ‘how one does things’. Yet, what accounts for what?

Exactly. Isolate for me, please, the dependent and independent variables in that question.

Simply put, the culture problem is much more complex than much of the management literature would have us believe. Yet year after year management books continue to be published making claims to the contrary (which is why Stanford professors Jeffrey Pfeffer and Bob Sutton have led the so-called “evidence-based management” movement, arguing for more rigor and academic research and less intuition and gut in management).

I am not suggesting culture does not exist or shouldn’t be addressed by leaders and change agents. It should.

But it’s a question of what you privilege and how you privilege it. From our perspective, it starts with a culture definition that is less reductionist and more operational (i.e. culture is not just what people believe or say but what people – and organizations – do). From there it follows that culture interventions are less formulaic and more systemic and contextual. The most effective interventions will use the latest and most broad based inter-disciplinary thinking and evidence and tailor it to the needs of the organization in its environment. Meaning, the work of changing culture is multi-modal, all-encompassing, and sustained.

Which, of course, is exactly what many leaders don’t want to hear.

“What was the group like?” my partner, David, asked upon my return. As I thought about the answer, I realized that I didn’t have a word that fit the whole group. In fact, the group didn’t feel like a group at all. It felt like a collection of individuals.

From one perspective, identifying a group of people as a “collection of individuals” is exactly right – if we see people through the lens of the “group”, we miss what is most important. How can I acknowledge, respect and connect with a group without getting to know the individuals? From another perspective, however, isn’t cohesion a characteristic of an effective group?

This brings me to the question I have been examining for my entire career: what gets in the way of a cross-cultural group from becoming cohesive? It’s not easy, after all, to bring a group of distributed, culturally diverse people together, especially those who work in different functions. But there are many procedural, structural and behavioral considerations that shed light on the answer.

A study from the MIT Sloan Management Review* showed that groups will have natural “fault lines”, that can easily break into subgroups based on demographic characteristics. When fault lines occur subgroups rarely collaborate with other subgroups, instead tending to share knowledge only within their own. The authors found that one defining factor on whether fault lines occurred depended on the behavior of the team leader and the way in which she or he structured the leadership role. Some leaders were able to reduce the problems by how they prioritized their actions, specifically, if they were aware of when to move from a focus on the task to a focus on the group process, or vice versa.

Fault lines are less likely to emerge when all members of a group are fairly similar, or, ironically, when all members of a group are very different from one another. Fault lines are more likely to emerge when there are few, homogeneous subgroups that identify themselves based on demographic attributes which allow them to form distinct, non-overlapping identities.

My eventual observation about the group in Singapore was that the individuals were very different from each other and, therefore, less likely to break into fault lines. Moreover, their active participation allowed them to become highly differentiated from one another. I am reminded that while my first inclination when working with a collection of people is often to support them to integrate. But a more examined stance is that supporting integration is often premature.

So what does this mean for you, leader or facilitator of a culturally diverse group? It means that before you support cohesiveness, you may need to support individuals. What does that look like?

• Acknowledge individuals (challenges, risk-taking, successes, unique contributions, strengths, skills, etc.)
• Be ardent about hearing the differing views during decision making and reinforce the importance of idea diversity in creative solutioning
• Ensure that all put their individual voices into the room by “checking in” when possible at beginning of group meetings or conversations
• Distribute and rotate leadership to individuals
• Support those who exude less influence in the efforts to equalize power differentials

* Gratton, L., Voigt, A., and Erickson, T. Bridging Faultlines in Diverse Teams. MIT Sloan Management Review. July 2007. Volume 48, Number 4, pages 22-29.

We were happy to spend a day in Venice, Italy, this week given our nearby client project.  And our goal in terms of how to get around was to do both, of course, in order to ensure the full Venetian experience.  But the next day, we began to think about the skills that might be required for different kinds of boat captains/pilots and how it links to one of our areas of expertise: integrated talent management.

To set context, you may know there are several kinds of transport in Venice, including water buses, water taxis and gondolas.  Larger water buses (vaporetti) mostly skirt the city center and land on the periphery points and outer islands.  Smaller water buses (motoscafi) have smaller capacity and are used for lower volume routes.  Water taxis are sleek, speedy vehicles that navigate most canals.  The gondola is technically a form of transport but has become rather an adjunct of the tourist industry.

Now if you were to consider that each of the individuals who pilot these vessels into Venetian waterways require many of the same navigation skills, and yet also require distinct skills for their particular vessel, you already have the basis for understanding of how competencies might be the same or different for a particular group within your organization.  But what makes competencies powerful is their role in organizational change.

When the organizational strategy changes in some significant way, people will also likely need to change what they do and how they do it.  Because people are often hired and rewarded for one set of skills, it’s not obvious how the organization implementing a fundamental change in its business will actually realize its new vision with the same people doing the same work in the same way.  Often we find that leaders determine the vision (individually or with their teams) and then make announcements about what everyone now needs to do without truly giving people the structure, tools or processes they need.  Researching and determining what the new competencies are to achieve the change is often an overlooked first step in aligning the organization to the desired future end state.   Moreover, defining what success looks like in this new world helps better engage and recruit employees to the change.

So let’s use Venetian canal pilots as an example.  Let’s pretend that it’s been determined that tourists have begun to avoid water transportation in Venice because captains/boat pilots are unfriendly to non-Italians.  And let’s say the city determines that it is in the city’s best interest to change that.  Implementing an integrated talent management system would begin by us, in this case, helping leaders to further articulate their new strategy, if necessary, and then determine clear definitions of what customer service looks like for captains and boat pilots given what the best canal captains do combined with what the best canal captains need to be able to do in order to enable the new strategy to be achieved.  This would be followed with definitions of possible career paths and supporting processes and systems for people to achieve the change.

At the same time, other benefits to the process are many.  They include:

- Clearer definition of roles and job scope and expected impact at that level
- Organizational transparency which allows employees to see what skills they need to move within the organization
- Clear definitions and tools for hiring and promotion
- Enhanced employee engagement

In short, customized and well-formulated competencies with their accompanying process and talent management structures allow leaders to align what their people are doing every day to the new strategy.   This is the missing link in many change efforts which often focus only on visioning, strategy and information dissemination.  Addressing the human element (and the organizational culture) gives your organization the motor it needs to reach its goals much faster.

A bit more context:   I was working with a leadership team during a period of 10 months, with the objective to helping its leaders and the team become a more cohesive, highly productive team as they integrated a new facility — as well as a new set of leaders — into its operations. In this team of 16, there were three women.

And one morning – after 5 days at the plant – I had one of those “ah-hah” moments regarding gender and diversity.

The topic of the week for the leadership team was “asking for support” which was critically needed and difficult for them to do in general.  As I reflected on my experience with them, I realized that the three women in the group had really been an exception because of their ability within this context to support each other and the team.  

So I wrote an email to the three women to underline the importance of these well-developed skills to the team’s overall success. It was an email of general acknowledgment and support for them.

And then after writing the email I had one of those shifts when you realize something important. It was a lovely moment of self awareness: I had been significantly benefitting from the women’s support of me working at the plant and had not fully realized it.  Like the other members of the team, I had simply enjoyed that support which in turn helped me be much more successful with the team in general.   In a way, I had colluded with the team — the men — in not seeing, acknowledging and practicing this much needed behavior.  I “collude” when I go along with what’s easy and what’s rewarded (especially by those with power) when it is in conflict with what is truly needed from me as a participant in the system.  

These are the women who over the first 2 months of the project stopped by my office in the plant to make sure I took the time to eat, ask me what I needed, and offer to bring me something I may have left at home.  These are the women who provided a dose of attention and care on the human level. These are the women who have made a significant difference in my own experience and level of satisfaction in the work itself.  And these were the women who helped me be aware that without their special kind of support, I could not do as much for the whole of the team.

I see this scenario in part as a diversity issue about gender. Many women do tend to develop the ability to support others by nature and nurture.  And while mostly all of us can point to supportive relationships that have been critical in our development and even survival, being supportive of others is almost always less rewarded in society than getting ahead.   For there to be more gender equality in society, men and women must develop an awareness of the full range of skills that are required to meet the needs of a healthy society. 

Women in the workplace have clearly made strides developing skills generally attributed to men (because of the nature-nurture scenario) given our participation in the more formal work structures during the last 50+ decades, but the challenge for men in this area will continue to be in developing the ability to nurture and support others in an environment that still does not reward its people to do so.   Avoiding collusion will require that men – and all those in societal or positional power — first notice.  Notice and acknowledge the wisdom and abilty of those who are giving support to others.  Start to pay attention to who gives it, who benefits from it, the impact of it, and how they do it.    And then you, you turn your new awareness into the ability to nurture and support others by simply doing the same.

Oh boy, I thought, here’s a choice whether to defer the question or talk about scorecards in front of a group of people who likely don’t really care about the topic. Given it was the first time meeting this whole group, I decided it might be poorly received to do anything but amicably engage.

“What’s your situation?”, I asked, not knowing him, his organization, his role, nor his goals. I had just met him minutes before. He answered in one or two sentences, reluctant to give details. As usual his answer prompted more questions. So I followed his answer with another question. To this, there was joking by several in the group about me being the classic consultant who answers a question with a question.

While I can see the irony and humor of the observation, I am equally surprised how “clients” (paying or otherwise) expect to receive some sort of helpful wisdom without providing any information about their own context. In some fields this is called “malpractice.” The whole event harkened to the “quick fix” we talk about in the video of our ONTOS Global home page. See the video.

The “quick fix” reminds me of the all-too-common “best practices.” Organizations too often fixate on them as a panacea, another form of quick fix. I don’t believe in them because best practices may only be best for one individual or group in a given context under specific circumstances. One group’s “best practice” may be another’s idea from hell, useless for a group with a different goal, role, process, culture, behavior, skill set, and so on.

So balanced scorecard may be a great option for those needing what it offers. Or not. Instead, the real conversation is about what you are trying to measure and why, the quality of the metrics used, the people involved, and the extent to which the tool truly reflects what you’re trying to measure. But for that, I’d have to ask some questions.

Blog posts from International Advantage site “KossTalk” have been migrated to the new ONTOS blog “OntoSomething”.

ONTOS Global, now based in the San Francisco Bay Area, enables leaders and organizations to transform their businesses across cultures. We work globally with leaders and groups to improve their effectiveness and help align, reinforce and sustain change by designing and integrating talent management systems and processes.

Learn about our unique value proposition by browsing our website and watching the video on our homepage at www.ontosglobal.com.

This is the opposite problem that what I tend to find In the U.S., where we often do team-building work because, frankly, in many organizations in our society we’re not that great at it. We tend to be more outspoken and highly individuated relative to the rest of the world, and therefore, are not culturally predisposed to taking into account what the group may need at any particular time.

So when working in Colombia and China last month, which are both group-oriented cultures, my group interventions tended to touch on supporting members to individuate. Specifically, how can someone show up with one’s own views, preferences, and needs, so as not to provoke a negative reaction among the others in the group? This is critical because when people don’t speak up, valuable information, ideas, and the chance for departures from the norm, are lost. Leaders in group-oriented cultures often observe employees who don’t speak up and take ownership of organizational problems.

There are a number of ways to set up and work on this issue, but a key component to the conversation is to not forget that the agreed upon behavior (as in “we agree that we will give and receive constructive feedback to another”) must be actively supported by each person in the context of their culture. Indeed, the practice may be counter-cultural. (“Culture” can refer to that of a team, an organization, region, etc.) So while the team might come up with their own set of standards around the kind of communication they most want in the team, challenging them on how they will hold themselves and each other accountable to their commitments – especially necessary in times of stress — is the real conversation.

I had a green Pelé lunchbox when I was eight years old. At the time, I didn’t even know
who Pelé was and probably would have preferred Wonder Woman.

Times have changed. Now American kids love and play soccer more than any other
youth sport. But then at about the age of 13, kids turn their attention to American
football. I wonder why. Of course, most of the rest of the world loves soccer intensely … children and adults.

What can soccer and football teach us about each other? Answer: Lots. Here’s
one consideration: It may reflect your approach to life.

For example: American football correlates perfectly with the overriding American
thought process: Work in teams. Go straight. Push hard. Move little by little, yard by
yard. At any given moment, it’s mostly offensive or mostly defensive. Work out the
strategy ahead of time. Push it through to the goal.

In some cultures, soccer correlates more closely with the thought process: Focus on
stars and power plays. Go forward and backward according to the conditions. Manage
the offensive and defensive at the same time. Change the approach as the conditions
dictate. Work it around from different angles until you score.

5 Tips: How to be a Multi-Talented, Global Player — Using Both Football and
Soccer

1. Ask your colleagues and friends for personal feedback on your thought process
   style: football or soccer? (Do you rely on one style entirely?)

2. Experiment with your less-prevalent style.
   Example: Recently I was negotiating the price of an item, and we did not agree.
   Realizing we were stuck, I changed the subject to other aspects of the sale,
   returning to the issue of price at the end. (I had made no other concessions
   during the conversation.) Then he agreed to my desired price. Why? Soccer
   mentality.

3. Trust others to resolve things in their way.
   I regularly see people criticizing others’ styles (soccer or football) up until the day
   that s/he receives a positive result. Then there is surprise from the criticizer, as if
   it was just luck! This is a sign of one-dimensional thinker.

4. When negotiating anything, focus on the outcome you both want (the goal) …not
   the method. By getting underneath the positions each party holds and finding out what really matters, many more options can emerge. Ask: Why is this element important to you?

5. Strive to be equally adept at both styles (football and soccer). Then use the
   appropriate style depending on the circumstances.
   How? Meet with people you work with (your team, counterparts, clients, etc.)
   after resolution of issues (or ½ way through) and discuss how you work together.
   What worked about the styles or process? Were there moments in which a style did not
   work?

I like to think of thinking style preferences as part of a set of cultural preferences that each of us have based on our DNA and life experiences. Being able to identify and integrate best aspects of any given culture into one’s own style helps us in that by having a wide range of skills makes life easier. It allows for more opportunity for win-win results when navigating our daily experience and lives.

I hope you enjoy the World Cup series, if that is your preference!

I was teeing up a kick off presentation to the mostly Chinese leadership team, and described to my Chinese counterpart a few of the introductory remarks I would make. One of these remarks was to state that my coaching and observing was not to JUDGE them but to find ways to support them in their leadership capacity.

My counterpart reminded me that saying I would NOT be judging them would likely put the idea in their mind that I was there to judge, and it would be preferable to simply state that my role was to find ways to support them.

So in the spirit of being clear and direct, I would easily have missed this point. Assuming that this audience would jump to “judging” is perhaps built in my own cultural frame of reference. By doing so, I pollute this audience with an interpretation that they may have not even considered.

Seems like such a subtle nuance, and yet these sorts of cultural sensitivities can and do make a palpable difference in the outcomes we achieve.