Culture Is Not Only a Nation-to-Nation Thing
The Trunk of the Tree
I once asked a group of young potentials to produce their image of a perfect leader. The vision they conceived was of a tree. It was not the first time that I had heard leadership (or other abstract constructs, for that matter) described using the metaphor of a tree (Figure 11.1). But, it was the first time that I had seen it expressed in quite this way. The group posited one’s kitchen table values (see Chapter 2) as the roots on which any healthy leader-tree feeds, in order to grow and the leaves, branches, blossom, and fruits represented the output or tangible or perceivable leadership style. Nice. I got the analogy, but, in all honesty, it had not bowled me over reflectively, up to that point. But, the way they presented the trunk caught my eye. This group envisaged the trunk of the tree; the stable structure that supports the whole crown; the mast that—when diseased—poisons everything above and below it; the torso of the frame that, if cut down, suffocates all growth as organizational culture. This metaphor I like.
Figure 11.1 Culture is the trunk of the leadership tree
No matter how transformational leaders act, irrespective of how unshakably they identify with their values and inner beliefs, the culture of communication and work ethic around them can irrevocably affect their ability to lead as they would like. The internal culture of each organization of people is distinct, and each has developed its own nuanced approach to problem-solving, communication channels and direction, respect of hierarchy and subordination, not to mention the makeup of different bodies, processes, and structures each company and organization has established. Peter Drucker is famously credited (Cave 2017)1 with having said: “culture eats strategy for breakfast.” What Drucker is suggesting here is that ignorance to the (existing) power of a culture of a team or unit is to open yourself up for potential failure as a leader, no matter where your motivations lie or how detailed your planning is.
Continuing the metaphor2 , what is of interest is that the trunk of the tree affects both what is above it and below it, both positively and negatively. If the trunk is healthy and strong, then the crown of the tree will blossom and thrive. By the same token, if the trunk is unhealthy, then it can contaminate both its own root system and the surrounding soil. The culture of the plant affects its surroundings. In the botanical world, the lupin flower gives off nitrogen into the earth around it, and oak trees release tannic acid. In other words, our culture and establishment impacts everything around it—our values, our processes and output, and the climate we perform in. Culture can be very cogent, in all directions.
We usually hear the word culture with regards to describing national tendencies or stereotypical traits of people in different countries. But, culture can establish itself and affect the interaction and actions of any sized group from just a handful of people up to networks of millions. Indeed, intercultural guru Geert Hofstede describes culture as “The collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one category of people from another” (1991). This somewhat provocative use of the word programming implies trance-like, robotic response from group members, but programming is exactly what happens, when we slowly, but surely learn and observe each other’s behavior and develop similar attitudes in order to comply and feel comfortable within that group. Such patterned responses are deeply rooted in our limbic survival instincts (see Chapter 7) and our forefathers’ and mothers’ desires to congregate in tribes to share responsibilities in a strengths-oriented manner and to search for safety in numbers from predators (Harari 2014). Developing similar traits to counterparts over time is absolutely human and very natural.
Hofstede conducted a huge quantitative, anthropomorphic study in the 1960s and 1970s interviewing 118,000 people from 40 different countries (this dataset was later added to by other scholars to encompass responses from over 90 nationalities) and established a six-dimensional3 cultural model. According to Hofstede, different groups cope with
- Inequality (Hofstede calls this power distance index, PDI),
- Uncertainty (uncertainty avoidance index, UAI),
- Relationship with(in) the group (individualism versus collectivism, IDV),
- Masculine and feminine attitudes (MAS),
- Long-term orientation (LTO), and
- Indulgence (indulgence versus restraint, IND)
to lesser or greater amounts. Although Hofstede’s dimensions have been used for decades to compare national groups, their precepts can be used to help leaders observe cultural traits in organizational cultures in equal measure.
PDI deals with the concept of how subordinates and superiors interact and respect each other’s authority. Do members of staff question or openly challenge decisions made by superiors or do they subserviently accept instructions, irrespective of whether they agree with them or not. In groups with high PDI, subordinates accept paternalistic or autocratic decisions, and superiority is taken for granted. Hierarchy is rigid and abiding. In low PDI cultures, hierarchies are flatter and decision-making channels free of dictum.
Cultures with high IDV are ones where the individuals’ focus is on personal achievements, whereby members of the collectivist groups act as part of a whole and prioritize group interests and goals ahead of their own achievements and recognition.
How groups deal with ambiguity and uncertainty is UAI. Organizations with lots of rules, regulations, and resistance to change differ strongly from teams where decision making is more agile, team members are open-minded to change, new direction or risk and the culture is one of openness to new concepts and strategies.
According to Hofstede, networks of people with strong MAS exhibit traits such as: competitiveness, assertiveness, materialism, ambition, power. Groups that he describes as feminine more typically value relationships, quality of life, and respect over more obvious materialistic gains.
A subculture’s time horizon is illustrated with LTO. If a group focuses on the future, is long term in its planning and strategic approach, is persistent and pragmatic when achieving goals oriented toward success and reward, then it is a high LTO group. Other cultures may show evidence of focusing more on past achievements, aggrandizing tradition, and holding face-saving as more important than direct, transparent communication. Teams with low LTO reciprocate deeds, as a sign of respect for former acts.
IND cultures allow for fun and indulgence and encourage freedom of expression and celebration. Success is often openly celebrated and lines of business and pleasure are more blurred. Team-building measures may proliferate, and the team celebrates together. Some teams show more restraint and suppress gratification. Open celebration may be considered unfocused or unprofessional, and more importance is given to moving on to the next project and not wasting time and money on celebrating perceived successes.
Keep an eye out for your organization’s culture. Does the whole corporation exude the same cultural traits or do different divisions manifest Hofstede’s dimensions to differing amounts? If you are new to the group, enquire about its culture and ask colleagues for tips on what cultural strategies they used to assimilate into the group. Can you see any parts of your group’s cultural tree that you think might be poisoning the soil or the branches? What decisions would you make as a leader, if any, to change the culture in your team?
The mix of how much or how little of each of the culture dimensions any group may exhibit gives us the culture apparent in our organization. According to Schürmann (2018) there are six typical organizational cultures:
Power culture: Fear, public rewards and penalties, change driven from senior management, strategy is driven by one personality, checks and balances follow our every move in this culture.
Team culture: Self-accountability, feeling of we as opposed to them and us, collaboration proliferates, and team members motivate one another to follow shared goals. Strong levels of accepted individuality.
Consensus culture: The individuals bow to the groups’ perceived wishes and needs. There is a lack of individuality and personality. Conflicts are avoided and compromises preferred. Hierarchy does not inhibit performance.
Patriarchal culture: Dominant behavior patterns abound, senior members of staff are respected, and the leadership style is very personality-driven. Loyalties are hugely important and love or respect must be earned and can be easily lost. That image originates from the father or mother figure at the head of the organization. Usually, no succession planning and lesser chances of employee movement. Common in family-run organizations.
Bureaucratic culture: Unnecessary levels of regulations and rules. The amount of and complexity of processes stifles productivity and creativity. Employees are required to follow a set path to promotion. Such cultures are very self-involved, emotions and personal opinions are hidden, and the buck is regularly passed.
Hierarchical culture: Junior management defers by default to more senior executives. Control is exerted with the use of privileges (company cars, parking spaces, business class travel, corner offices, and so on). Information is shared selectively, and discipline is expected and punished when broken. Ranks and responsibilities are well known.
Whichever culture is prevalent in your organization, the vital point to keep in mind is how strongly culture can drain or encourage productivity. Culture is the third cog in the business wheel, without which the machine will not turn and which sets your corporation apart from the rest (be it for better or worse). As you can see in the following diagram (Hagemann 2018), the structure of an organization tends to be rigid (Figure 11.2). Add to that the (often top-down) set strategy, and it is no surprise that many traditional, large companies are finding things increasingly difficult in this modern, volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) (Bennett and Lemoine 2014) world we live in today. In recent generations, such (infra)structure and long-term strategy (including set, established supplier, and supply chains) served corporations well as they tried to keep production costs low through economies of scale and provide for their (usually) stable market and their well-known, recognizable, usually faithful target group. But today, in our VUCA world (Hagemann 2018), where the largest real estate company in the world (airbnb) does not own any property, where the most successful taxi company in the world (uber) does not own any vehicles, and where products and services are produced for markets, which hitherto did not exist; for target groups, who did not know that they wanted the things in the first place (see tablets, apps, wearables, and so on)—all bets are off. Structure and strategy have been our friends in the business world in the past, but moving forward, agility through culture will make or break every organization born in the 21st century.
Figure 11.2 Only agile organizational culture can produce best performance in a VUCA world
It is only with the development of a flexible, strengths-oriented, winning culture, combined with lean processes and talent that we will release the potential in future teams and facilitate leaders to add value in the next decades.
With the power of culture established, where does this culture thing come from, anyway?
The Monkey Paradigm
Once upon a time, there was a zoo and there were five monkeys in the monkey enclosure. One day, the zookeeper decided to try out an experiment. She placed a bunch of bananas on the floor near the monkeys and took a step back. Then, as the first monkey approached the bananas, she grabbed a hose and sprayed the monkey that had tried to help itself to the banana bounty and all the other four monkeys. The lead monkey returned, disgruntled to his friends. All were soaking. All were very sad.
The next day the zookeeper positioned some bananas again and this time something different happened. As the second monkey approached the bananas, the others, not wanting to get drenched by the zookeeper’s hose, beat him black and blue. The monkey changed his mind and did not try for the bananas. The beating had persuaded him otherwise. On the third day, a third monkey tried for the bananas, and she too was prevented from doing so by a beating from her monkey colleagues, none of whom wanted to get sprayed. On the fourth day, the fourth monkey was bashed for approaching the bananas, and the same happened to the fifth monkey on day five. All knew: if you go for the bananas, we all get wet, so anyone trying, will be whacked.
One day, the first monkey was transferred to another zoo, and soon afterward, a new monkey arrived. Upon seeing the bananas, he immediately ventured toward them only to get summarily beaten up. Not understanding what had happened, he slouched off into a corner. One day, all four of the remaining original monkeys had been transferred to other zoos and had been replaced with other monkeys. On that day, there are five new monkeys in the enclosure, none of whom has ever been sprayed for stealing bananas. The next day the fifth new monkey sees the loot, goes for the fruits and is duly scratched, thrashed, and punished by the other apes. With consternation, he loafs back toward the pen and (presumably in monkey-language) asks: why did you all beat me up when I went for the bananas?
And they all, in unison, respond,
We do not know why we beat you up when you motioned toward the bananas—it is what we have always done!
That is how a culture paradigm establishes itself and how a culture of behavior develops. Often blindly, often inadvertently, and usually slowly. In a similar vein to how a mother only notices the growth of her child when a shocked relative arrives at the door and cries in consternation at the sight of the nephew,
Wow, how you have grown!
So too can culture creep up on a group. Mr. Twit in Roald Dahl’s grim and ghoulish children’s book The Twits (Dahl 2003), wanting to prank his pesky wife, adds a slither of wood to the bottom of her walking stick every day for weeks until one day Mrs. Twit notices that walking with her stick has become difficult, and she comes to the only logical conclusion: that she is shrinking. The unnoticed drip-by-drip lengthening has driven her to perceive the problematic status quo all wrong. We do not observe culture developing, but we oh-so-often complain about and suffer under its ramifications after it has established itself as normal in our surroundings.
As a leader, you have a powerful opportunity to drive the culture in your team toward strengths orientation (see Chapter 4), reward mode (Chapter 7), and productivity, but you first have a responsibility to appreciate what is making your walking stick lengthen and then to ask yourself: what kind of culture would I like to work in? When you have the answer, your first responsibility to live by those values (see Chapter 1) every next day.
Role Model
My trainer colleague and project management maestro Christine Ait-Mokhtar once regaled me of the following story about a former leader she knew.
The boss, a medical doctor, was described as a workaholic, high-intensity manager, who set herself extremely high standards and openly expected equally high-level performance from her team. Part of the boss’s demands was that her staff’s attendance be as exemplary as hers. Thought-provokingly, the boss, to ensure that she was never absent from work, self-prescribed herself with the medicine she felt she needed to keep her on her feet and working to the optimum. Of course, her team did not have such ready access to prescription drugs to keep them work-ready. Resultantly, an unfortunate subculture developed within the team due to the combination of the boss’s famously high attendance expectations twinned with her penchant to self-medicate. Namely, the team, unable to write themselves prescriptions to keep giving themselves the boost needed to attend work, started attending work despite illness, for fear of castigation from their superior. A culture of staff coming to work although sick developed and the negatives for staff health, patient health, staff welfare, team motivation, and of course, productivity or efficiency are obvious.
As leaders, we carry a huge responsibility to act as role models. Setting high expectations of your team is fine, but are the expectations realistic? Are your well-intentioned standards creating a culture of expectation management which is unfair, unethical, or unrealistic? Team members might either look up to their leaders to watch, learn, and copy, or they might observe your questionable behavior and expect to be able to act in a similar manner. Subordinates invariably follow their leader’s lead (for better or worse). If I am late, does that mean it is okay for my subordinates to be late? Do my emotional outbursts at work give others the green light to shout and scream? Does my corner-cutting infect my team and lead to a culture of that will do? Return to your standards we discussed in Chapter 1 and assess what kind of role model you would like to be and what kind of culture you intend to establish in your department.
Research has shown that “self-enhancement values related positively to charismatic leadership, which predicted managerial performance and followers’ extra effort” (Sosik 2005).
According to leadership expert Martin Webster (2018), there are six core elements to becoming a transformational leader role model:
- Be motivated. You cannot motivate others if you are not motivated yourself.
- Self-reflection. Self-reflective leaders strive to constantly self-develop and set high standards for themselves and their team.
- Self-awareness. Be open to new ideas and never stop learning.
- Empathy. When you are aware of your own impact, you will genuinely impact on others.
- Vision, courage, and integrity. If you do not have a clear vision of where you are going, why should anyone follow you?
- Ready to lead. The definition of role model leadership: Be honest, sincere, lead by example, and practice what you preach.
Being a role model “can improve both the ethical climate and the internal work environment of an organization” (McMahone 2012). Leadership is a challenge, no doubt, but to truly create waves, change culture, and create a productive, high-performance environment, in which people can develop, every leader needs to start reflectively with him or herself and act as a role model to draw in followers.
As Derek Sivers (2010) so aptly puts it “the first follower is what transforms a lone nut into a leader.” Without brave, mercurial followers, a leader remains a solitary stone-thrower with cooky ideas. But, without a role model, there are no followers. With followers; team members; those who have shared values, a leader is born. One of your greatest challenges in the near future will be to convince others of your drivers and philosophies, enter into discussion with high-potential colleagues, and to successfully share your vision and begin winning like-minded followers.
My management trainer colleague Lutz Pickhardt does a nice exercise with his participants, whereby he climbs onto a table, offers his hand to the nearest person, and invites them to join him on the table. There is often hesitation from the participant invited up onto the desk. Some completely refuse to climb up all together. Lutz jumps back down from the table and turns to the group and says:
You can ask someone to do something (get on the table). You can even make things as easy for them as you like (offer them a hand up), to help them join you. At the end of the day, though, the final choice lies with the person, whether they follow you or not.
Your job as a leader is to make that choice as easy as possible.
Chapter Leadership Challenge
Take a look at your group’s culture. Put together a culture pilot group. Involve all levels of hierarchy in the discussion, from the CEO to the trainee. With this snapshot of the culture prevalent in your organization, ask the pilot group involved to envisage what kind of culture they would like to work in. Culture change can be slow, but the rewards can be paradigmatic.
By the same token, reflect on your team’s own subculture, too. How do you do things in your team? The culture in your team may or may not be different from the organization’s culture. Scrutinize the pros and cons of your group’s subculture.
1It has often been disputed as to whether Drucker actually said this (Anders 2016; Cave 2017).
2 I am grateful to Doreen Köhler for this analogy.
3Initially, Hofstede composed four cultural dimensions, but these were expanded to six after work from Micheal Bond (1991) and Micheal Minkov (2010).