Making Space for the Truth

Jason-



A follow-up to my last post.



So here is the dilemma…

Organizations (like any social group) require a certain amount of conformity. There are certain rules and policies and norms (implicit and explicit) that you need to follow in order to have membership. The more conformist an organization is, the less it is able to utilize the intangible assets that it has access to…things like the curiosity, creativity, ideas, questions, experiences, perspectives, diversity, passion, etc. that live within its workforce. These things make people stand out and so in a more conformist environment they tend to stay buried.

So.

If an organization wants to minimize conformity in order to harness its intangibles and maximize its ability to learn, adapt, innovate and evolve, how does it do that? Here are some thoughts.

Look for and expect dissent. If you are talking about anything of substance and there is not some disagreement, you should be very concerned. As General Patton said; “If everyone is thinking the same thing, someone is not thinking at all.” This can be a significant blind spot when we are in a position of leadership though, because we start out thinking pretty highly of our own ideas and when everyone around us agrees with them, who are we to see that as problematic?

Teach people how to disagree respectfully. Talk about this starting in the interview process, include it in job descriptions and in performance evaluations, provide training and feedback. Make it a normal and central part of the culture.

Create and support a different kind of leadership. A big part of why this is a problem to begin with is that we have a way of leadership/management that is largely built on being right and owning the truth. This stands in the way of candid conversation, challenging assumptions, and questioning decisions...all of which can be incredibly valuable for an organization.

Crush politics at every chance. The validity, value and necessity of organizational politics are greatly overrated. We have organizational politics to the extent that we do because that is what we tolerate. Be less tolerant. Organizational politics come at great cost as employees end up with truncated identities and trade their passion and ideals in for the rules to the game.

I think the "how do we do it?" question probably has a lot of different answers, but I think that these are a good start.

-joe

Bringing Yourself to Work

Joe,

Do you bring your full self to work?  This is a question that I know we are both very interested in because the answer to this question is so often "no" for some many of us, and yet the reasons underlying this answer are so complicated.

I've been meaning to write a post on this subject for some time, but hadn't committed to do it until I saw Trish McFarlane's clever post this weekend titled Embrace the Real You which detailed her journey to the eventual purchase of a minivan.  Her post talked about the fact that she had get comfortable with who she was before she could give up her sports car and replace it with a minivan.

I think that you and I would probably both agree that an ideal workplace would be one where people could bring their full self to work.  I also think we'd probably both agree that this type of workplace is an idealized pipe dream that doesn't actually exist.  Therein lies the problem.  Why is it that workplaces require us to edit, censor and limit what parts of our self we bring along when we show up each day?

One of the things that makes this so utterly complicated is that we, as human beings, are rarely quite sure of what our true self looks like.  As Trish outlines in her post, her reluctance with buying a mininvan came from an internal struggle to embrace who she really is.  Since this is a common struggle and since we are constantly evolving and changing as people, it could be very difficult for anyone to decide what version of themselves is the real and authentic self that they'd want to showcase to the world if they had such an opportunity.  But, let's put this aside for the time being and talk about what might be going on at work that prevents us from being ourself when we go there.

Here are a few observations about what I see going on in companies that are contributing to this problem.

1. We fear conflict.  This is why we are trained never to talk about politics, religion or sports at work.  These discussions inevitably lead to disagreement and debate, so we are told to just flat out avoid the topic at all cost.  So, if you are deeply religious, political or a sports fanatic, keep that to yourself because that would just make others uncomfortable if you talk about this part of yourself.
2. We don't promote weirdos.  Intentionally or not, most corporate cultures have strong immune systems that weed out those who are different.  In a law firm, it's the person with pink hair who's the weirdo.  At a creative ad firm, it might be the person who wears a suit to work.  If you want to get promoted, you need to fit in.  If you stick out, it's probably going to cost you.  
3. Companies still think they are in control.  For the past fifty or sixty years, conditions within the US workforce have enabled a situation where companies have been able to get away with doing what was in their best interest, often at the expense of their employees.  The result is an expectation that to have a job at company A, you must figure out how to fit in at company A--to become a company A man or woman.  But, if you decide to move to company B, you need to learn a whole new way of being (talking, dressing, acting, etc.) in order to fit in there.  So, the message to employees has long been this: it's not who you are that matters, it's how well you can adapt and fit in at our company that really counts.  

This isn't an issue of self-confidence or even being comfortable in your own skin.  I feel relatively far along in both of those areas and yet I consciously pack away parts of my true self when I head into the office every day.

Do you share my concern on this issue?  If so, what you see being the leading culprits in why this exists?  And, the million dollar question, what do we do about it?  

Looking forward to your thoughts.  

Jason

Can you handle the truth?

Jason-

Really, really good post. I think this is an issue at the root of many challenges that organizations and leaders face.

You posed two questions for me...

1.) Does my experience align with yours regarding the desire of most folks to avoid conflict (even at great cost)?

Yes. Emphatically yes. In some of the workshops that I do inside of organizations we spend time considering the culture...we actually examine specific aspects of the organizations culture, assign them a grade and then talk about opportunities for improvement. People seem to enjoy doing this and have no problem identifying specific things that the organization or senior leaders can do better. Then we move on to talk about individual opportunities to contribute to a better organizational culture and the entire conversation dries up. I start to hear things like:

"You just dont rock the boat around here...if you do there will be blowback."
"Change starts at the top, how am I going to make something happen."
"I just do my job and keep my head down."

I do not know if real change ever starts at the top, but there are a whole host of reasons that people have (regardless of their title) about why the environment is not quite right for them to speak out or to take some ownership for organizational culture.

2.) What must we do to solve this problem?

Probably several answers to this question, depending on who "we" is. But I think that the big answer is that we must strive to build organizational culture and organizational leadership that values and rewards personal courage and risk taking. This is a really big shift, as we currently have a way of leadership that defaults to defense of the hierarchy and the status quo. This always compromises truth...which compromises everything else.

You probably have some additional and more specific answers relevant to your role inside the machine. I think that I have to be very intentional about holding myself accountable on this issue, because as an external consultant I can fall into the same trap of focusing on what others want to hear rather than the whole truth. I have gotten much better at having candid (and often times very difficult) conversations with organizational leaders about my observations, but I know that when I first began work as a consultant I did not do a very good job of this.

Again, I think you have touched on a really important topic here and I would love to hear a bit more from your perspective about solutions...are there things that you do to develop the comfort and skill in your direct reports for handling conflict?
-joe

Another round in the fairness fight…

Jason-

Since there seems to be so much that we disagree on related to fairness, allow me to reply to your last post:

I do not think that we should let the organization be “run by employee perception,” I simply think that we need to be a bit more serious about making sure that the employee perception is a) sought out, b) understood, and c) sincerely considered as we make decisions. It can be very easy for us to sit in a room full of HR and OD people and determine what other people need or what other people need to do…but I think that this is a faulty practice. I would even suggest that this is a large contributor to why most organizational change initiatives do not succeed.

Anytime we are in favor of anything other than transparency, I have to wonder why. I know that it is easier that way. I know that there is research showing that pay transparency can contribute to negative outcomes…and the same thing can be said about an issue that I do a lot of work with, diversity. Increasing the diversity or the difference in a workplace can lead to increased conflict, increased turnover, and decreased productivity. But those outcomes are not about difference, they are about the organizational culture and about individual skills and behaviors. Pay transparency can certainly lead to some issues if leaders are not good at setting expectations and consistently communicating feedback on behavior. The problems are not about transparency, but rather they are about a lack of capacity and skill for an open and honest culture.

I also do not think this is as simple as saying that the organizations that do not do it right will find themselves out of business…most companies find themselves out of business eventually for one reason or another. The organizational lifespan is not terribly long and there are a lot of factors that contribute to this. I think that we actually need to consider some new standards for evaluating organizational performance. Profit (which is also not a good predictor of longevity) is often aggressively pursued in the short term at significant long term cost. Fairness is probably a good example of this.

Personally, I am not that interested in what employees are entitled to or what organizations are entitled to. I am interested in what people and organizations are capable of. That requires that the organization and the employer be open, honest and courageous. I don’t really think we can have real fairness (or perceived fairness) without this.
-joe
Fairness, part 1
Fairness, part 2
Fairness, part 3

The Future of the Organizatin, Part 3

Joe,

I think I misunderstood the assignment you provided for this leg of our discussion. I will do as Avis always promotes and "try harder" this time.

So to reset, if business is going to change in these ways . . .

1. Innovation as a key opportunity for competitive advantage
2. Increasing rate of change
3. Disruptive technology
4. Importance of customization and individualization to consumer desires
5. Trust as a key opportunity for competitive advantage
6. Importance of design

. . . how will the organization be different? Rather than talk specifically about what the organization should look like as I did in my last post, I'll instead talk more generally about what is likely to happen in organizations as business evolves in the directions we discussed.

How will the organization of 2020 be different?

• Culture will be important, for the reasons you described, but also because top talent will be increasingly more portable and willing to move. Today's younger generations also put more value on culture as a decision for where they choose to work.
• IT as we know it will no longer exist. As technology gets more pervasive, sophisticated, and inexpensive, the role of the traditional IT department (writing code) will go away and a new strategic IT must emerge. Every person in every function will be utilizing technology in a significant way to do their job. IT will need to become more of an internal consulting organization to help the business make decisions about where and how to implement and utilize technology to make business happen.
• Brand building will become increasingly important. Controlling the company message in the media and community at large is no longer possible so putting out a bunch of BS in an attempt to spin things won't be an option in the future. Web 2.0 tools have created an environment where you will have to authentically "walk the talk" or your employees and customers will crucify you through their blogs and social networks. Thinking of brand in a much larger way will be the key. What you say about your brand must also be true about your culture in the future.
• Specific and deep expertise in a product or service area may become a liability. Organizations who are able to develop competencies in creation, seeing the future, disrupting markets, and solving big problems are likely the ones best able to navigate in rapidly changing markets and business environments. These competencies are also global in that they create value regardless of business and locale. These organizations are likely to be those who are right-brained companies who embrace some chaos and welcome in the deviants who are too "different" to fit in at traditional companies.
• Relationships and communication are going to be critical with both customers and employees. You mentioned building communities with customers. These communities need to power wide-open, no-holds-barred dialogue between customers and the organization. These dialogues aren't about pushing products or promoting the company, they are about only listening and seeking to understand what is being said. And, they are the key to delivering the kinds of things that the market will consume. These same dialogues will need to be taking place with employees.

I hope that this was more in line with the assignment.

-Jason

Still More on Politics and Culture

Joe,

Are you trying to tell me that my ideas aren't all solid gold? :-)

I wish that I could fervently disagree with your points regarding politics and that an organization free of politics should be the goal. I'm afraid that I may be getting jaded by too many years in corporate HR and have adopted a pragmatic perspective of embracing politics as a way to facilitate change rather than railing against their existence.

On a daily basis, I think many of us are faced with the prospect of how to be less political and bring more transparency and authenticity to our work while balancing the risks that accompany that choice. Fortunately, I find myself in a situation to influence corporate culture in a significant way due to my role, but that doesn't make this balancing act any less complicated.

Good debate. I'm glad that we found a topic that we could dig our teeth into.

Jason

Politics and Culture

Joe,

Your post hit on one of the things I find most interesting about the concept of politics. It was very clear to me, if I read your comments correctly, that you consider all corporate politics to be a negative aspect of company culture. And moreso, that our goal should be to drive politics out of our organizations. In my definition, I don't think of politics as a uniquely good or bad thing, but rather as something that exists within organizations. Much like culture, politics can be positive or negative depending on the organization and the people involved.

As to the difference between politics and culture, I would suggest that politics is an element of culture. By my definition, corporate politics is the strategic and tactical understanding of the power and decision strucuture of the organization and the application of that understanding towards accomplishing a change agenda. You can apply politics towards something positive like getting approval for a new succession planning process. But, it can also be applied towards selfish agendas of personal gain or power grabs. Similar to what I would say about Washington politics, it's not the politics itself that's bad but instead the people and their motives that give it a bad name.

I do agree with you that politics today probalby does more harm than good within organizations because too many people apply politics to blatant self-promotion. But, I will also argue that if you are are to be successful within any organization, you must understand the politics of that organization and how to navigate that political realm if you hope to be successful in driving any significant change. The irony is that one would have to know how to "play" politics in order to change how the politics work.

Jason

Politics vs. Culture

Jason-

I have been struggling with this issue a bit and I think that it is a difference of language. You define politics as the unspoken way things get done at work, and I think that is how I would define organizational culture, with politics being one component of culture. I believe that it is a very common component, but I also believe that it is an optional component.

It may not be easy to do away with politics, because we have bought into the idea that it is just part of business, but I do believe it can be done and I think that there are organizations doing some really good work in this direction, with relentless focus on transparency, authenticity, and other characteristics that make less room for politics.

The truth is that politics, as I understand politics, makes already complex dynamics increasingly and unnecessarily complicated. Politics as I understand them are a waste of valuable resources (such as time, attention, trust, etc.).

I think that your five rules can help people be successful, but I do not necessarily think that means or requires that they playing politics. We might be viewing / defining politics differently… could you share a few comments on how you would define politics vs. organizational culture?

-joe

This Talent Thing (aka Simon - Part 6)

Jason-

Dude.

I think that American Idol example is a perfect framework for examining the ideas of talent and behavior, but we can move on from that.

I do not believe that I changed the topic, I believe I was making a point that applied to both talent and behavior (and competency, performance, etc.).

And my point (which you are now also making through your questions) is this...

The idea that "talent" (or behavior, competency, performance, ability, etc.) is some tangible, measurable scientific thing is horribly, horribly flawed. We all talk about "talent" like it is a gallon of milk...we all know what it is, we are all talking about the same thing and we can measure it with great precision.

That is all bullshit.

This is the same kind of fantasy that we tell ourselves and each other with all of our "best practices" lies. We have a very real habit of taking something very complex and denying its complexity. We have a very real habit of taking something interdependent and ignoring its interdependence. We have a very real habit of taking things that are correlated and assigning causality. We have a very real habit of applying static, finite principles to messy, complex, unpredictable, nonlinear, beautifully flawed human beings, their relationships, interactions and social dynamics.

It does not change the fact that we need to talk about and think about and attempt to quantify talent, but we are being dishonest with ourselves and each other when we talk about talent like it is a gallon of milk. It's not.

My understanding of, expectations of, interpretations of talent are as much about me and as much about the context as they are about the idea of "talent."

When we convince ourselves that we have perfect understanding of and perfect measure of something like "talent" we set ourselves up for a dysfunction, and we make it harder to bring real value into the organization...because when we build a barb wire fence around what "talent" is, we are locking a lot of stuff out...and that stuff that we are locking out is also as much about me and about context as it is about anything.

-joe

On Being Like Simon Cowell

Jason-

I am not usually a terribly big fan of Simon, but I should probably get over that, as my wife says I am a lot like him...not sure how to feel about that.

But Simon clearly resonates with people in his approach to what he does. I think that all of the reasons that you list are important ones, but one of the factors of his success that we often overlook is the team he is a part of. Whether we like the other judges or not, Simon stands out in the way that he does because the the other judges are not like him. If all the judges were very similar to Simon in his approach, we would find less value in it. In fact if all of the judges were like Simon, I think the show would probably be miserable. I think that part of the reason the show works is that you have a balanced cast of characters for judges.

Simon does certainly stand out from the others and part of that is about him and part of that is about who he works with and I think that the very same thing is true at work. A big component in our evaluation and translation of the behavior of others is who they are around and with...and we have a hard time factoring that in and even recognizing it. I think there is a real leap from identifying a talented individual to building a talented team. We have a very real tendency to say "Simon is very good at what he does, go find me more Simons", but each additional Simon adds less actual value and you are probably more likely to end up with dysfunction.

I do think one of the really valuable (and rare) things that Simon does is he is consistently straight forward and honest...he does not beat around the bush, and that is something we could all use a bit more of.

-joe

The Shaking of the Fist

Jason-

Great question.

I think that we need to find a way to bring more emotion back to work with us. This is another of leading less and managing more and I think that it is very costly to us. Fact is, we have come to value politeness, calm and the myth of order over the truth. And the truth is messy. And the truth is emotional. And you can't manage the truth...although our elected leaders love to try. The truth demands leadership.

This focus on calm and polite turns us into soulless zombies or raging passive-aggressives, because we are emotional beings, and when we can't bring that to work our work, something has to break.

We need more fist shaking.

I am not talking about having a vicious, hyper-competitive, dysfunctional culture at work, but a truly functional, healthy and authentic culture. A culture that values the truth. A culture that wants its employees to bring their whole selves to their work. There is a great deal of value in healthy, creative tension...although we may need to re-learn some communication skills if we are going to spend time in that space. That is a space where a lot of opportunity for competitive advantage lives, because it is full of better ideas, bigger questions, creative approaches and the future.

Necessity may be the mother of invention, but frustration is the father. Frustration is under-appreciated, as a source of great value and as an indication of engagement. If companies want robots in their cubicles then they should go buy robots. If they want people, then they should expect and encourage some healthy fist shaking.

-joe