Beyond values – exploring the twenty first century organization

Exploring the21st centuryorganization

27

Beyond values – exploring thetwenty-first century

organizationJohn D. Burdett

Orxestra Consulting, Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada

The organization, under attackOne of the few institutions that has survived the ravages of time is the RomanCatholic Church. The reasons for its longevity are an object lesson for anyenterprise seeking to outlive its founder: a compelling mission, adherence to awell-defined set of beliefs, a strong focus on learning, an insightful appreciationof how power is distributed, and an effective succession process.

The church has also gained immeasurably from an organization structurewhere between the parish priest and the pope there are only two levels – thebishop and the archbishop (or in some instances the cardinal). In addition,empowerment is a notion well established within the management process asevidenced by the fact that the parish priest has historically been given a greatdeal of latitude regarding local, non-dogma related decisions.

Implicit in the 2,000-year history of the church is also the reality that – notwithstanding the fact that it took three centuries to admit that Galileo was right– it has managed to either facilitate or (eventually) respond to societal change.And yet the church, the one institution that has thrived through war, pestilence,famine, and plague, is in trouble: its recruitment of young priests has reachedcrisis proportions, sex scandals have diluted its moral authority, and, wereCatholics who practise birth control to stay away from mass, the church wouldface financial ruin.

The fraying of the fabric that holds together the Roman Catholic Church isjust one example of how, as we approach the twenty-first century, even the mostenduring organizations are under attack. It is a broadside that has resulted inhalf of the enterprises quoted, as little as a decade ago, on the New York StockExchange being acquired, merged or broken-up by corporate predators. It is afrontal attack that has seen millions of middle managers dubbed “surplus torequirements”. And it is a sabre thrust that has resulted in long-held beliefsabout the practice of management being replaced by organizational forms andapproaches that a generation ago would have been received by, at best, bemusedsilence.

What is involved is more than just an adjustment of the currentorderOn 24 August 1346 there took place one of the most important battles of theMiddle Ages (Fuller, 1970, pp. 295-319). The English force, 8,500 strong, led by

Journal of ManagementDevelopment, Vol. 17 No. 1, 1998,

pp. 27-43. © MCB University Press,0262-1711

Journal ofManagementDevelopment17,1

28

Edward III, faced a French army the core of which was “a galaxy of knights thelikes of which had never been seen before on one battlefield”. Headed by PhilipV, the French were, nevertheless, routed. Among those on the losing side whotook their last breath on the field of Crécy were a score of the nobility, 1,542knights and squires, and upwards of 10,000 common soldiers. The Englishlosses were less than 200, all but two of whom were from the ranks.

The difference between the forces, apart from Philip’s inept handling of histroops, was one of the finest weapons of war ever conceived: the English long-bow. Made from a six-foot length of elm, the longbow fired arrows that were threefeet long. The force of a single arrow was so great that it could penetrate twolayers of mail armour. Far faster to load, having a greater range, and significantlymore powerful than the French crossbow, this unique weapon of destruction wasused by the Welsh and English archers to “harvest” the pride of France with littleless effort than had they been cutting down a field of ripe Kentish wheat.

History paints a picture that suggests about every 200 years a breakthroughin technology comes along that rewrites the rules of the game; a breakthroughso dramatic that nothing is ever the same again. The English longbow was onesuch event: the stirrup, the printing press, steam power, and electricity similarlytransformed the society into which they were introduced.

None of the earlier technology-based social revolutions, however, can comparewith the impact of today’s transformational technology – the microchip – where,by comparison to anything hitherto witnessed, the speed of change evoked isbreathtaking, and the social fallout, resultingly, potentially far more dramatic.

A phrase that has been added to every manager’s lexicon in the past decadeto better understand what is involved is paradigm shift. What is needed, it issuggested, is a new way to see problems, challenges and, indeed, the businessenvironment.

But is a new frame of reference, in and of itself, enough? Arguably no! Thedepth of change required demands that those charged with charting a passagethrough hurricane-like seas do more than run up a new set of sails. What isinvolved equates to a quantum shift in, not just learning, but how we learn; notjust in doing things differently, but questioning whether we should be doing manyof the things we currently believe in, at all; not just in drawing together moreinformation but in questioning how we know what it is (we think) we know.

A new era demands a new responseThe response from those in roles of influence and leadership to an entirely newmanagement era has been predictable. Many have taken the position that, ifthey ignore the signals that define tomorrow’s reality, “the problem” willeventually go away. It is a posture that of necessity defines change as doingmore of what “we” have always done: tighter control, ever more aggressivemicro-management, and deeper cost cutting.

Insightful thinking, on the other hand, seems to offer three potential means tobetter respond to the turmoil implied. The first: a belief that at the centre ofevery storm there needs to be an area of calm, a premise that the more things


29

change the more those immersed in change need to know what is important. Itis an approach that underscores the need to define, and manage through, a setof well stated values.

The second approach emphasizes speed and simplicity, the anthem being –“at all times keep it simple”. The thinking employed is one best captured underthe caption: “the 80 per cent solution”, the argument: complex theories andelaborate solutions not only take too long to implement, but by the time thesolution has been implemented the opportunity has been lost or, equally likely,the context has changed and the intended solution has become irrelevant.

The third approach defines both the need for, and the benefits of, systemsthinking; the rationale for systems thinking being that if one thing changes theneverything else, by implication, is also impacted. Thus, to introduce one processwithout considering, and taking advantage of, the wider impact is short-sightedand naïve.

In a world where the average manager is becoming overwhelmed by the rateand nature of change each approach has validity. Indeed, each has itschampion. Max Dupree (1989), the son of the founder, and at the time of writinghis book Leadership is an Art, the CEO of Herman Millar (selected by Fortuneas one of the ten most admired companies in the USA), wrote: “Leaders need tobe concerned with the institutional value system which, after all, leads to theprinciples and standards that guide the practice of people in the institution”(Dupree, 1989, p. 14). Jack Welsh, the inspiration behind General Electric’srecent success, is a strong advocate of speed and simplicity (Tichy and Charan,1989). Systems thinking, meanwhile, is a rationale for charting the impact ofchange suggested 400 years ago by, none other than, Leonardo da Vinci.

It is not intended that the three “change strategies” be presented as beingbinary: it is not a case of one or the other. There is no suggestion, for example,that Welsh is not a strong advocate of values (Slater, 1994, p. 113); in fact quitethe opposite is the case. Similarly, there is no reason to assume that theexecutives within Herman Millar believe that holistic thinking is anything otherthan important. As for Leonardo da Vinci, in addition to being a scientist, painterand architect, he was also a brilliant engineer. And, as anyone who has seen hisdesigns for military machines, and his sketches of potential flying machines, willattest to, at the core of his genius was, above all else, an elegant simplicity.

There is another important point worth drawing out: breakthroughtechnology, a new order of things and an accelerated rate of change representboth problem and opportunity. For those with the courage to go beyondassumptions of “managing change”; for those who frame change as a dimensionof competitive advantage; for those – as Gareth Morgan so elegantly expresses– prepared to ride the crest of change, living with and managing throughturbulence becomes the very essence of sustained leadership.

A need to manage paradoxThe problem is that there are several perceived paradoxes that surface whenmanagers attempt to take a balanced approach to new opportunity;


30

contradictions that make it easier to follow one path to the exclusion of theothers. Simplicity, for example, in some people’s minds, mitigates againstsystems thinking. Similarly, speed of response can often be positioned asworking against values such as respect for the individual and/or an expressedneed to involve employees.

In reality many of the apparent contradictions are resolved by building anappropriate context that allows different trains of thought to emergeconcurrently. Speed and systems thinking are both eminently possible, forexample, where those involved in making key decisions bring to the table a richexperience base, a capacity for openness, and a high level of trust in their ownintuitive judgment.

The three approaches described go beyond philosophy. The speed andsimplicity directive is a natural point of introduction for processes such asprocess re-engineering. A systems thinking mentality, on the other hand, is afoil for interventions that extol the virtues of synergy and/or imply a strongneed for organizational learning. And a values philosophy is the perfect nestingplace for solutions espousing the merits of coaching as a means to move theorganization forward.

The problem: process re-engineering without considerations as to thebroader context is likely to create as many problems as are resolved;organizational learning without a broad-based understanding of what isinvolved serves only to confuse; and the executive who believes he/she canchange an organization one person at a time is destined to be sadlydisillusioned.

An integrated approach What is needed is a means to pull together what would otherwise be discreteinterventions/processes; a conceptual frame of reference that recognizes theneed to complement a values orientation with speed of action; a container thatholds both an openness for breakthrough process and, at the same time,reinforces the need for alignment; a culture that simultaneously providessupport for heightened levels of ambiguity while engendering focus; a businessplatform that emphasizes leadership and concurrently provides a safeenvironment for team and individual initiatives to flourish; an integratedapproach that underscores value creation as an overriding goal. (See Figure 1.)

Value creation is, of necessity, the implied mission of any organization. Fromthe customer’s standpoint, as defined by Michael Treacy (1995, pp. 19-20) in hisbook, Discipline of Market Leaders, success through better delivering valueequates to giving more of what it is the customers value. Value creation,however, must go beyond the concept of market value added (the company’smarket debt when compared to total capital tied up over the company’s life). Putsimply, value creation is sustainable only where the actions involved holdmeaning and worth for all of the stakeholders: employees, suppliers,shareholders, customers, strategic partners and the local community.


31

An integrated approach does not mean that the elements always, or of necessityshould, bind together comfortably. Pablo Picasso once remarked that hepreferred his pictures to be hung crooked (Huffingdon, 1989, p. 213). His reason:the symmetry of the room in conjunction with the exact proportions of theframe softened the passion and anger he wanted to convey through his work.Conversely, the juxtaposition engendered by hanging the picture askew addedto the overall visual conflict and the sense of emotional discomfort, he felt theviewer should confront. As a simple statement, it said much about Picasso theman – a complex and cruel genius.

As homespun philosophy, Picasso’s words hold out the thought that far toooften managers have been more concerned about what fits comfortably together– what is easy to manage – than of taking advantage of the tension derived fromrejecting the status quo, the learning engendered through asking new questions,and the innovation drawn out of positive discord.

A return to our roots?Submerged in the urgency of wide-scale organizational change is also a strongargument to be made along the lines of: “as we dash headlong into the future, as

Figure 1.

SPEED

STRUCTURE

STRATEGICINTENT

SIMPLICITY

FINANCIALCONTROL

PROCESS RE-ENGINEERING

TQM

INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY

MARKETLEADERSHIP

FOCUS

EMPLOYEEINVOLVEMENT

VALUECREATION

LEARNING


32

we create new organizational forms, we must be careful that we don’t lose thatwhich is natural to our needs as individuals and as members of a team”.

Desmond Morris (1994, p. 68) in his wonderful book The Human Animalpresents a compelling case for the hunt and its planning as being pivotal toman’s development. From the need to co-operate, early man developedlanguage; the chase built athleticism and stamina; the duration and dangerimplicit in the hunt necessitated focus, strategy and teamwork; and, equallyimportant, the communal nature of the kill meant that man had to develop asharing mentality.

Morris expounds the belief that the loss of the hunt deprives modern man ofmuch of the meaning central to, and hard wired in, “his” hunter’s brain. Hefurther suggests that work has become the modern substitute for the primevalchase – a substitute that for most contains little of the challenge, excitement andteamwork that untold generations of self-selection designed us for.

The human ravages of the Industrial Revolution, compounded by theinstitutionalization of scientific management, did much to destroy thecommunity spirit that existed when our forebears lived off the land. And whereany dignity did remain it was stripped away by the dehumanizing nature of thepost-Industrial Revolution work environment; a workplace designed, by intent,for output with little thought as to the social cost; a centre of human endeavourwhere the overriding ethos has been one based on fear.

The worship of output made the worker little more than an extension of theproduction system – and a menial one at that. What is surprising is thatorganizations formed on, and competing through, intellectual capital have, all-too-often, bought into those same organizational assumptions – have becomewedded to mind sets drawn out of a world where the machine ruled.

Rebuilding a sense of mutualityWhere command and control is a way of life, lack of a sense of mutuality hashistorically counted for naught – if the boss has the levers of power at his/herdisposal what else matters? However, when the team, as opposed to theindividual, becomes the basic building block of organization design; where self-management comes to the fore; where simplicity, a focus on values, and systemsthinking become interwoven, mutual support, and shared assumptions becomean imperative.

The need for mutuality is even greater where the dynamics implied by theterm virtual corporation are engaged. Operating as if traditional boundaries –international and functional – do not exist; continuously reforming to meet and,at times, create customer opportunity; differentiated through access to, and thecreation of, knowledge; and communicating through real-time networkingcapability, the virtual organizational state cannot exist unless the glue that tiesthe disparate elements together is reflective of an overriding sense oftogetherness.

This is not to say that mutuality has been ignored in modern organizationallife – the continued presence of trade unions, for example, presents at least one


33

reference point to the contrary. The dilemma is that the feelings of brotherhoodembodied in union membership are not a direct response to a striving for sharedsense of future purpose, or even social injustice (the raison d’être of unions), butthe result of a lingering lack of basic trust between management and front-lineemployees.

In addition, one needs to look no further than the raft of entrepreneurial high-tech start-ups spawned over the last decade to see both the value of and theneed for a sense of interdependence. When meritocracy is wedded to speed ofaction, and value creation is dependent upon idea generation, traditional “bossdriven” rules of organization life fall by the wayside. The difficulty ofsustaining a sense of shared commitment becomes apparent, however, once thenewly minted firm reaches the point where established relationships becomeoverwhelmed by lack of organization, ill-defined roles, and shortfalls in process.Or as one highly successful high-tech CEO puts it: “let chaos reign and then reinin the chaos”.

Culture as a force for shared meaningPerhaps the key to understanding what is meant by culture lies in exploring theforces that bind primitive societies together; the chemistry that enables bandsof men and women to survive (and thrive) in the most difficult conditionsimaginable.

Anthropologist Frank Speck’s classical study of the Naskapi Indians in theperiod immediately before the Second World War is a case in point (Speck, 1935).

The Naskapi ranged across a region bounded by the Hudson Bay, theAtlantic Ocean and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Described by Speck, when he firstencountered them, as being: “among the earth’s crudest peoples”, these semi-nomadic groups lived out their lives in one of the planet’s most inhospitableenvironments.

What Speck discovered is that, regardless of the fact that their technologywas limited to wood and bone, and despite living year-round in caribou-skintents, their existence had a richness that others had overlooked. Speck proposedthat the harshness of their environment had: “inspired the Naskapi to greaterresourcefulness than was to be discovered among their detractors”. The sourceof that richness was to be found in their belief systems, the discipline drawn outof tribal magic and the spiritual considerations that ruled their behaviour.

One example of the latter was the Naskapi practice of heating a cariboushoulder blade over a fire until it cracked; the pattern in the crackingdetermining the direction of the hunt. Known to anthropologists asscapulimacy, the resulting strategy for the hunt meant that the direction takenby the hunters was entirely random. The randomness in turn was an importantmeans to avoid exploitation of one part of the hunting territory which would, inturn, cause “experienced” caribou to be infinitely more difficult to kill.

Further insight into this subtle thing called culture lies in the work of theeminent anthropologist, A.F.C. Williams, whose extensive research led him to


34

conclude that culture is the organization of diversity and not, as many havesuggested, the replication of uniformity.

William’s work is amplified in the confusing, yet apparently culturallysustaining, caste system of India. At least 2,000 years old, and comprising 3,000plus castes and over 25,000 sub-castes, this dysfunctional and highly divisivesystem originated because of the need for an agrarian society to develop amultitude of discrete occupational roles.

Regarded universally as a pernicious and social evil, the caste system has,nevertheless, as seen by the anthropologist John Reader (1990, p. 185)“functioned as a component of ecological equilibrium that has sustained India,undisturbed, while waves of conquest and foreign empire ebbed and flowedacross the country throughout historical times. Technical innovations, ideas,aspects of religion and art were absorbed or discarded as the case may be, butIndia’s agricultural base and social traditions were largely unaffected, and itsancient equilibrium seemed timeless”.

The basis for understanding the caste system lies in the Hindu willingness toaccept the status quo: an attitude drawn out of a belief in reincarnation. Only byfulfilling the tasks given one in this life can one be reborn to a higher order.

The nature and meaning of culture can also be found in the work of YirYoront, an anthropologist who lived with a group of Australian Aboriginals inthe 1930s (Sharp, 1952).

Yoront soon discovered that a major social transformation was taking placewithin the tribe: traditional stone-cutting tools were being replaced by steelaxes. Distributed to the Aboriginals by well-meaning whites, the new axesrepresented not only a technological revolution, but also a source of sweepingcultural change.

Up until this time the Aboriginals continued to live their traditional self-supporting existence in the bush. Part of that way of life embraced veneratingthe older members of the tribe and respect for elders who knew how to find theraw materials, and craft the stone tools, upon which survival of the groupdepended. This meant, for example, that to have use of a stone axe, youngermembers of the band had to ask an older male. In doing so he/she set in motionall of the elements central to harmonious social order.

The introduction of steel axes, on the other hand, as recorded by Sharp(1952): “led to a revolutionary confusion of sex, age, and kinship roles”. Sharpwent on to add: “The result [of stone axes] was the erection of a mental andmoral void which foreshadowed the collapse and the destruction of all YirYoront culture, if not the extinction of the biological group itself”.

Culture and valuesMost managers have been introduced to the concept of culture through the workof Deal and Kennedy. In their landmark book, Corporate Cultures, firstpublished in 1982, the authors describe culture in the following terms: “Valuesare the bedrock of any corporate culture”. They go on to add: “As the essence ofany company’s philosophy for achieving success, values provide a sense of


35

common direction for all employees and guidelines for their day-to-daybehaviour” (Deal and Kennedy, 1982, p. 21).

The Deal and Kennedy approach – that culture is amplified largely throughvalues – was based on earlier work undertaken by McKinsey consultant JulianPhilips. The belief that values represent an important piece of the managementjigsaw has, however, long been part of informed management thinking.Corporate values were, for example, integral to the work of Reg Revans, as farback as the 1960s (Revans, 1982, p. 322). Appropriately referred to as the fatherof action centered learning, Revans, in particular, developed a series of exercisesto explore congruency of values among a firm’s senior management.

The intense interest in organization culture during the early 1980s was, inlarge measure, a by-product of developments that had been kicked-off a decadeearlier in strategic planning. The dilemma: although strategic planning hadevoked a sense of commercial focus, this was a far cry from having employees –and particularly those at the customer interface – deliver that strategy. In fact,all-too-often the “plan” either lay languishing in a drawer, or could not besuccessfully introduced because assumptions built into the strategy rancounter to the established beliefs that dominated within the business. To makethe strategy live meant, management theorists suggested, having a culture thatwas receptive to the overtures contained within the strategy.

Coming back to Deal and Kennedy, they suggested that a focus on valueshelped employees do their jobs better in two ways:

(1) A strong culture is a system of informal rules that spells out how peopleare to behave most of the time.

(2) A strong culture enables people to feel better about what they do, so theyare more likely to work harder (Deal and Kennedy, 1982, p. 33).

Putting the manipulative undertones aside, it is interesting to note that Xerox,IBM, and Sears, Roebuck all figured strongly as examples of “living the values”in Deal and Kennedy’s studies. These, of course, were all businesses that shortlythereafter found themselves in deep trouble.

A somewhat different view of culture was presented by Kotter and Heskett(1992, pp. 4-5) in their book, Corporate Culture and Performance. The authorshighlight that (as seen from their viewpoint) culture should be seen as residingon two levels:

(1) Deep – somewhat hidden – values shared by the group that persist overtime.

(2) One that is more visible – the behaviour that new employees areencouraged to follow by their fellow employees.

In differentiating between values and overt behaviour, Kotter and Hoskett pavethe way for explaining why corporate-wide, “shared” values can be interpreteddifferently in different parts of the organization (Kotter and Heskett, 1992, pp. 4-5). To use the authors’ words: “Although we talk about culture in the


36

singular, all firms have multiple cultures – usually associated with differentfunctional groupings or geographical locations”.

As might perhaps be expected, these definitions are a long way away fromthe intended meaning of culture, as implied by the use of the term, inanthropology.

Indeed, anthropologists have a far richer understanding of what is meant byculture. Kluckholm and Kelly (1945, pp. 187-201), for example, describe cultureas: “that complex whole that includes artifacts, beliefs, art, all the habitsacquired by members of society, and all products of human activity”. Theauthors make a number of additional points that those attempting to “change”culture would do well to take to heart:

(1) Groups that share some historical continuity tend to share a commoninterpretation of the outside world.

(2) Language is not merely an instrument of communication but a device forcategorizing experience.

(3) Every culture contains within it both content and design: meaning thatsingle “custom” cannot be isolated from the whole. Attempts to abolishor modify elements of culture may, as a result, have repercussions inareas of behaviour where they are least expected.

(4) Culture is never static, it is constantly being created and lost.(5) Learning is, in large measure, the transmission of culture.

The need to take a systems view of culture is amplified by Edward T. Hall(1976) in his book, Beyond Culture. Hall emphasizes the need for man to developmodels of the world as a means to handle the enormous complexity of life;examples of the models we use being: language, philosophy, science, myth.According to Hall, by using models, we see and test how things work and caneven predict how they will work in the future. The models we create, however,are holistic: both overt and covert, conscious and subconscious. Hall (1976, pp.12-13) states: “beneath the clearly perceived, highly explicit surface culture,there lies a whole other world, which when understood will ultimately radicallychange our view of human nature”.

Beyond valuesThe implications of culture, as seen from an anthropological viewpoint, areprofound. Even those seduced by the overt simplicity of organizational valuesas a means to define culture need to bear in mind that the way the values arepresented may be at least as important as the message contained.

There is also concern that a values orientation, presented as a means toorchestrate a common mind set and where the other critical elements of cultureare not taken into account, is unlikely to have lasting impact. Simplicity, withoutconsideration as to the holistic nature of the challenge on hand, is inevitably arecipe for failure. And yet managers, in attempting to provide a behaviouralplatform congruent with the organization’s strategic intent, focus on values


37

with the clear expectation that somehow, magically, everything else will fall intoline. The reality is somewhat different: a car may well have a good engine but ifthe transmission is damaged it still will not run.

In a more provocative vein, if culture is not a measure of uniformity but acontaining force for diversity, the term common culture, as applied to anorganization, would have to be considered an oxymoron. One conclusion todraw is that an anthropologist could, with reason, suggest that the term culture,as used by managers, is, at best, misleading. It is interesting to note, forexample, that few would perceive the Catholic Church as a culture but ratherwould tend to describe it as a spiritual community spanning many cultures.

The problem is in part with the word culture. The word tall means differentthings dependent upon the context within which it is used, i.e. when used todescribe a basketball team as compared to its implied meaning when describingthe man in the street. Similarly culture has a number of meanings dependentupon the context. For the business executive it describes shared meaningthrough adherence to a set of common values. For the anthropologist it meansthe membrane surrounding, containing and defining the boundaries ofdifference.

Within an organizational context the term culture is further diluted by thereality that no organization exists in a vacuum. Thus an organization-widevalue such as integrity can mean different things dependent upon the widerculture in which it is rooted. The belief that individuals will ignore the deeperethnic, geographical, racial and religious norms within which they live on aday-to-day basis in favour of some abstract notion enunciated 3,000 miles awayis fraught with potential pitfalls. One is left with the reality that, although avalues orientation has certain benefits when describing a somewhathomogeneous group of people, its worth diminishes once national boundariesand different standards of behaviour are factored in.

This leaves those charged with leadership within a global context with alevel of complexity that although understood at an intuitive level is rarely raisedto an appropriate level of strategic dialogue.

And yes the language is important. Terms such as culture are too ambiguousto add a great deal to the challenge implied in selling and delivering,transnationally, a product with consistent levels of service and commonstandards of quality – where value creation is, in large measure, a by-product ofshared learning and best practice. What is needed is a more robust way to lookat issues such as culture and values, a means to describe mutuality in such away that common understanding leads to meaningful action. One place to startis with the notion of community.

Building a sense of communityA sense of the need for community can be drawn from the work of DouglasMerchant and Ruth Ann Prange, both part of Corporate Human ResourcePlanning at AT&T.


38

Writing in the Fifth Discipline Field Book, Prange, in drawing from her ownexperience, says: “I have come to feel that I can’t be a high-quality communityof one unless I pay attention to the community aspects of the organizationwhich I am part of” (Senge, 1994, p. 520). Merchant writing in the same textsays: “The challenge for the global corporations will be to develop a sense ofcollective identity, spanning the planet, so that local decision makers in Tokyo,Kiev, New Delhi – and Basking Ridge, New Jersey, as well – are willing to defertheir provincial self-interest to the interest of the global community” (Senge,1994).

In a real sense, what executives have been referring to as culture buildinghas, in essence, been an attempt to build community all along. This does notmean the difference is one, merely, of semantics. Language is an essential,interpretive tool in articulating what success is and what it looks like. Inattempting to build culture, or, even more daunting, a common culture, from ananthropological standpoint at least, managers have not only been attemptingthe impossible, but have been doing so by expending significant opportunitycost. Building community is possible, meaningful, attainable, and realistic – afocus on culture is, at best, akin to trying to change the ecology of Lake Ontario.

This, of course, brings one to the question: What are the building blocks ofcommunity building? Where does one start? Arguably, there are a number ofelements that need to considered. (See Figure 2.)

In that a model is, at best, a crude representation of reality any model is, ofnecessity, incomplete. Each building block should, however, be considered asessential – exclude or misalign one of the elements and the (inevitable)dysfunctional stress will weaken the whole.

One way to explore the critical components of community building is byposing a number of key questions – questions that are integral to themanagement process whether discussed at an executive level or by teamsacross the organization:

• Is there a well defined, compelling mission? Do those who are beinginvited to join the community know why the community exists? Is themission framed by language that has emotional appeal? Does themission inspire? Is the language of the mission written such that itspeaks to the cathedral builder, not the stonemason? Does the missioncapture a sense of the value added for all of the stakeholders?

• Have those who are charting the course of the community defined howthey want the community to be perceived, both by those within thecommunity and those in the external marketplace? How does thecommunity want to present itself to the world? Is the current perceptionaligned with the “defined” identity? If not, what steps are under way toaddress the gap?

• Are there any easily understood and easy to interpret guiding principlesas to how the community should deal with the outside world, change,crisis and/or opportunity? Have important canons that have historically


39

guided the business/community changed? Eating fish on a Friday! Birthcontrol! Do members of the community know these guiding principleshave changed? For example, is employment continuity still part of theorganization’s psychological contract? Are “kick backs” to suppliersunacceptable even in countries where it is integral to that country’sculture? Before someone is dismissed does there always have to be an

Figure 2.

CONTEXTthe widerculture,history,heroes,societalexpectations,language,symbolism,myth, story,mentalmodels,ethics,morality.

MISSION

IDENTITY

VALUES

ASSUMPTIONS

BELIEFS

KNOWLEDGE

(how?)

INFORMATION/SKILLS

DELIVERY (where?)

community

CORECOMPETENCYbasis of strategicdifferentiation

captures thesounds, images,emotion andlanguage oftomorrow'ssuccess

VISION

(purpose: why do I exist?)

(how do I want to be perceived?)

(guiding principles)

(what has primacy?)

(dominant mind sets)


40

opportunity for him/her to speak to the vice president of humanresources? Is it always the case that we will acquire only businesses thatare non-union?

• When faced with a range of potential directions or when the wayforward is unclear have members of the community been part of anongoing dialogue, within the organization, as to what has primacy? Isquality for example more important than output? Should teamworkdominate? Is the overt behaviour of senior managers aligned with thevalues? Are important management processes such as compensationand promotion clearly aligned with the values? What filters are in placeto ensure that new members of the community are comfortable with, andcapable of, acting in line with the values? What processes are in place toseparate those who fail to deliver behaviour congruent with the values?

• Are expectations clearly defined? Do members of the community knowwhat success looks like? In a corporate setting have issues such asmanagement style, the philosophy with regard to employee involvement,the role of front-line employees in decision making been clearlyenunciated? Are the language, the metaphors, and the coachingagenda(s), within the enterprise, aligned with the underlyingassumptions of success? Do front line employees know how businesssuccess is measured? Are they included in discussion around successesand/or failure outside the scope of their role?

• Is the amount of knowledge available to people within the communityaligned with the emerging needs of the community? How are success andbest practice shared? How does the community draw in knowledge fromthe wider community which it is a part of?

• Are training and development available to ensure not only the ongoingsuccess of the community, but also that the talent is available to fuelfuture and ongoing success? Are the teachers within the communityproperly trained, respected and meaningfully rewarded?

• Do members of the community know what takes place where and thelogic behind those decisions?

• Are the singular elements of community building supportive of, andaligned with, the core business competences of the enterprise. Does thecommunity provide an appropriate behavioural platform for delivery ofthe strategy? In the case of a non-commercial community, is that whichthe community offers strong enough to attract new members?

• Are the future state of the community – and the future reward formembers of the community – clearly outlined in a compelling vision? Isthe language of the vision such that it excites and draws communitymembers towards it?


41

• Does the community have a realistic understanding of the context withinwhich it is operating? Are the community building blocks flexible/robustenough to contain the range of cultures implied and the diversitycontained? Is the past recognized and honoured? Are heroes/heroinesand appropriate role models celebrated? Are powerful and enrichingstories kept alive? Is symbolism and its importance recognized?

Organizational versus personal values Clearly values are an important and pivotal element of community building butthey are not, as has been suggested, the end of the story.

What is meant by values tends to confuse people and especially within anorganizational context. No one who has worked with a management team,where exploring values is a critical element, for example, has not stumbled overthe issue of individual versus organizational values.

It is difficult to imagine an environment where significant lack ofmisalignment between personal and organizational values results in anythingother than the community breaking apart. On the other hand a degree ofdifference – as Picasso – may in fact be a healthy dimension of creative tension.

Two distinct approaches to describing values can be seen by comparing twohighly successful organizations. The first, Caterpillar, has built its wholebusiness and customer interface around “24-hour parts service anywhere in theworld”. The second, Medical Data Sciences (MDS), a Toronto-basedorganization servicing the medical field, has delivered performance by focusingon values such as: respect for the individual, caring and integrity.

A focus on individual values describes, in a way that employees across theorganization can readily relate to: “How should I behave?” A criticism of anindividual focus is that the customer and the market needs are less easilydiscerned. MDS elegantly overcomes this dilemma by publishing core businesscompetences (how the organization creates value for the customer) right along-side their values. General Electric also deals with the potential confusion in acreative way: business characteristics down the left hand side of their valuestatement, individual characteristics on the right.

It can be argued, however, that, as organizations move into more fluid forms,where the building blocks of the organization are separated by time and space,and where innovation becomes a core business competence, personal valuesmove to the fore. Where the product is knowledge the investment in learning isextremely high. The talent pool demanded to fuel the growth and survival ofsuch enterprises is, of necessity, marketed by intellectual independence and ademand for high quality of life. What is more, diversity becomes not anadministrative burden, but an element of competitive advantage. What bindstalented individuals to such organizations will depend in part on their buy-ininto the overall corporate values; even more important, however, will be a senseof fit at a personal level, the degree of collaborative support from colleagues,and the opportunity to balance work and family.


42

Traditional organizations such as the tobacco giants have found that, if theyoffer a high level of financial and job security, individuals will be willing tosubvert their own feelings of self-worth to the apparent benefit of the enterprise.Tomorrow’s knowledge-based organizations are liable to find that life is notquite so easy.

Where do we go from here?The BaMuti Pygmies recount the legend of a young boy who finds a bird(Turner, 1962, pp. 82-8). When the boy heard the bird sing he thought it had themost beautiful song in the forest. Because of this he took the bird home to feedit. The boy’s father was angry that food had to be given to the bird but afterlistening to the boy’s pleading he gave in. This happened three times. The firsttwo times the father gave in and fed the bird. The final time, however, the fathersent the boy away and killed the bird. In killing the bird the father also killed themost beautiful song in the forest. The father also, immediately after killing thebird, fell down dead.

The story tells much of what lives at the centre of a Pygmy community. Thelegend captures the Pygmies’ love of song and describes how central it is to theircustoms. The death of the father underscores how fragile life is and the extentto which the Forest People’s existence is tied up with the forest. The legend alsopoignantly captures much of the essence of Pygmy spirituality and the subtletyof their beliefs.

One cannot read Team Zebra by Stephen Frangos and Stephen Bennett(1993) – a book about the revitalization of Kodak’s black and white film business– without feeling some of the same sense of community. Strangely enough songwas also part of the ritual at Kodak and one line of a rap song, written tocelebrate the success of one team member, contained the following lines:

It was so complex we could hardly see -aA little patch of forest for all of the tree-a (Frangos and Bennett, 1993, pp. 132-3).

It may not be Academy Award-winning material but it does suggest that thedifference between the two groups, and the way they bonded as a community, isnot, perhaps, so great after all.

Jayne Goodall, the anthropologist, described a patrol by a chimpanzee groupin the following terms:

Perhaps the most striking aspect of patrolling behaviour is the silence of those taking part.They avoid treading on dry leaves and rustling the vegetation. On one occasion vocal silencewas maintained for more than three hours. When patrolling chimpanzees return once more tofamiliar areas, there is often an outburst of loud calling, drumming displays, hurling rocks,and even some chasing and mild aggression between individuals. Possibly this noisy andvigorous behaviour serves as an outlet for the suppressed tension and social excitementengendered by journeying into unsafe areas (Goodall, 1986, pp. 490-1).

What those in leadership roles face is unprecedented, by way of scope,challenge, and social responsibility, since the early Industrial Revolution. It is ajourney not of boss-ship but kinship. It is a journey that will take all of us


43

emotionally into “unsafe areas”. And it is a journey where community becomesnot only desirable but essential.

The journey ahead, however, is unlike anything that man has experiencedbefore. The rate of change in our society is unprecedented. New technology ischanging not just how people communicate, but how we need to think. Thedegree of turbulence necessitates, as a first step, that leaders focus on values,approach problems with an elegant simplicity, and think holistically.

Leaders are also going to have to learn a new set of tools, are going to have tolearn how to sing from a new song sheet. How to orchestrate change, reframemental models, build high performance teams, develop breakthrough learningprocesses, create new organizational forms, all stand at the top of the learningagenda. Little will be possible, however, if the bonding needed to allow teammembers to move into unsafe territory, is not firmly affixed – if community isnot central to the human chemistry. Leadership means we are all going to haveto learn how to heat up them bones!

ReferencesDeal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (1982), Corporate Cultures, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Dupree, M. (1989), Leadership is an Art, Dell Publishing, New York, NY.Frangos, S.J. and Bennett, S. (1993), Team Zebra, Oliver Wight Publications.Fuller, J.F.C. (1970), The Decisive Battles of the Western World, Granada Publishing, London.Goodall, J. (1986), The Chimpanzees of Gombe, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Hall, E.T. (1976), Beyond Culture, Doubleday, Garden City, New York, NY.Huffingdon, A.S. (1989), George Weidenfield and Nicholson.Kluckholm, C. and Kelly, W.H. (1945), The Concept of Culture, The Science of Man and the World

in Crisis, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.Kotter, J.P. and Heskett, J.L. (1992), Corporate Culture and Performance, The Free Press, New

York, NY.Morris, D. (1994), The Human Animal, BBC Books, London.Reader, J. (1990), Man on Earth, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.Revans, R. (1982), The Origins and Growth of Action Learning, Revans and Studentlitteratur.Senge, P. (1994), The Fifth Discipline Field Book, Doubleday, Garden City, New York, NY.Sharp, L. (1952), “Steel axes for stone-age Australians”, Human Organization, Vol. 11, pp. 17-22.Speck, F.G. (1935), Naskapi. The Savage Hunters of the Labrador Peninsula, University of

Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.Slater, R. (1994), Get Better or Get Beaten: Leadership Secrets from Jack Welch, Irwin, Homewood,

IL.Treacy, M. (1995), Discipline of Market Leaders, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Tichy, N. and Charan, R. (1989), “Speed, simplicity, and self-confidence: an interview with Jack

Welch”, Harvard Business Review, September-October, pp. 112-20. Turner, C.M. (1962), The Forest People, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.