In a response to my last blog post there were several very thoughtful comments. I want to use this blog post to respond to Jay’s comment which raises a number of important issues.
Commenting on the complexity of my model of culture presented in a previous posthe said:
“To illustrate this point, I rely on the following quote from C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. I believe it says a great deal about what’s required to catalyze an alteration in human behavior and the related consequences…
“The rule for all of us is perfectly simple. Do not waste time bothering [determining] whether you [believe you do or must] ‘love’ your neighbour; [simply] act as if you did. As soon as we do this we find one of the great secrets. When you are behaving as if you loved someone, you will presently come to love him.”
It’s in the context of bringing about rapid and lasting culture change that I take the translation of this passage/quotation to mean that inculcating a belief in whatever behavior or attitude is desired or expected of one individual toward another need not precede the “acting or doing”. Rather, the mere act of doing often leads to a transformation of the belief system…”
Ergo, it seems most logical to me that in an organizational transformation context, where culture change is a central issue, getting employees to act in the desired manner best precedes any attempt(s) to alter their belief system (which appears at the center of your framework).”
I think this is a great observation. It is true that my model has belief systems at it’s center and one might then assume that one may need to solidify these beliefs, establish “faith” first, then expect behavior to align with that belief system.
The issue of believing first, or feeling first; or on the other hand behaving your way into a new way of feeling and believing, is a debate that goes back to Plato and Aristotle. It is a difference in view that has separated entire schools of psychology – humanism, behaviorism, etc. I will certainly not attempt to argue that one is right and the other wrong. What I will argue is that the human system, like the system of a culture, and organization, or the human body, is a complex system with constant interactions, each affecting the other. And, people have diverse responses to their environments. We do not all learn or change in the same way.
As a practical matter I think it is important for organizations to define and communicate a strong set of beliefs. That does not mean that everyone must become a true believer in those values before they start engaging in “right” behavior. I think “loving thy neighbor” is very analogous to treating customers with respect, integrity and a desire to please. If I owned the company, I would not feel the need to convince everyone, to create faith in the belief of customer service, rather I would very frankly “tell” everyone that this was a requirement of their job. This is one of those “Just-Do-It!” moments. If you do it, you will learn to appreciate the value of putting the customer first. Similarly, if you exercise, you will learn the value of exercise. If you eat well, you will learn the value of a healthy diet.
I think it is the job of the leaders in the organization to align values and behavior. Based on your values, you then define behavior or competencies for all levels of management and employees. This “competency model” should be aligned with the organization’s values. This alignment makes sense of the requirements for behavior. It also leads to consistency of behavior in the culture.
In the United States we have a defined belief system enunciated in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. But, after several hundred years, there is constant testing of the alignment between behavior and beliefs. When can the police search and seize? Are there limits to free speech? Can the government mandate buying health insurance? In a sense, the Congress and Supreme Court are like the strategy team, or “design team” in an organization seeking to define behavior and competencies, systems, structure and symbols to be aligned with the core values of the organization. Just as in our country, I think the search for this alignment in an organization is something that will be an aspect of continuous improvement forever.
This interaction between beliefs, behavior and organization is the illustration of the non-linear nature of complex systems. I agree that it is not necessary that belief precede behavior, or the reverse.
Jay also said that…
“…based on personal experience, it has been through the applied use of learning laboratories (i.e., intentionally created safe environments in which experimental learning, rapid/adaptive problem-solving, and modified behaviors can be put into effect) that rapid culture changes can be “seeded” into an organization. However, one of the keys to having such seedings take root is the ability to create and sustain a fertile environment. And maybe that’s where the complexity of your framework comes into play? It’s in the context of creating and sustaining such an environment, one that’s conducive to the desired behaviors and consequences, that I can see your framework functioning as a planning/assessment mechanism. Unless it’s clearly understood and demonstrable up front what behaviors are the desired ones and which existing ones need to be replaced and why (thereby defining a gap), it seems to me your framework alone would be rather difficult to leverage from the get-go in bringing about the desired cultural and associated behavioral changes. Your thoughts?”
What Jay is very well pointing out is the reality of how people learn. Managers and employees need a laboratory in which they can practice desired behavior without fear of ridicule. With most of my clients over the years I have assisted in the development of a top-to-bottom team process. Everyone is doing it. This makes it safe. The leadership team, middle management teams, and hourly teams, are all practicing the skills of problem solving, facilitation, process mapping, creating customer feedback loops, etc., etc. This is “programmed” and by that I mean that everyone is asked to engage in the behavior whether they believe in it or not. Then, and gradually, it becomes comfortable as they develop competence. Then they begin to see the positive results in performance. Then the managers and systems begin to reinforce the learned behavior. All of these elements need to be present for learning, or a change in the culture, to take seed and be sustained.
Jay replied with the following, but posted it to a previous post:
Hi Larry,
On a slightly different note, it’s my understanding that system dynamics and chaos theory represent two distinct bodies of knowledge and analytical perspectives. I concur with your reference to system dynamics as a mental and/or mathematical framework for depicting the interactions/interdependencies between inter-related components comprising an overall system; along with the notion that there can be potentially dramatic impacts on overall system behavior stemming from slight changes in one or more of the system components. In contrast, it’s my understanding of chaos theory that it represents a body of tools, techniques, and methods for dealing with or deciphering the seemingly choatic patterns of behavior in non-linear, yet deterministic systems. As the most fundamental level, system dynamics is a framework for modeling/understanding complex systems behaviors by defining the components that make up the system and the relationships that exist between those components. And chaos theory is an approach to understanding/modeling complex system behaviors not by looking at the components within the system, but rather by modeling the system as a whole… thereby requiring a completely different set of methods, tools, techniques. System dynamics thinking tends to operate on a micro scale, where chaos theory tends to operate on a macro scale (because of the greater tendency for non-linear/chaotic/random behavior to be manifest at the micro level (i.e., regional vs local weather).
Based on these distinctions, I find it more difficult to relate chaos theory to organizational culture dynamics than system dynamics thinking.
Jay,
You may have a better understanding of the distinction between system dynamics, chaos theory and complexity theory than I do. However, I see them as very much interrelated and with similar characteristics.
From an organizational design and cultural change standpoint what is important, as I see it, is the following:
a) Like in the human body with different organs/systems, organizations have different functions (IT, HR, Marketing, structure, etc.) which too often are dealt with as distinct and separate, unrelated things. This often results in sub-optimizing the change process as these systems are not aligned and don’t support the same cultural goals.
b) Organizational systems, like the human body, the economy, or the weather, are very complex and it is impossible to manage change in an “engineering” sort of way, with completely determined and predictable steps. Rather, their tend to be key “levers” that may trigger change in different sub-systems. It is the complexity of the interactions between sub-systems that makes change difficult.
c) As in attempting to manage the economy, the ecology, or other complex systems, it is helpful to have a model of the macro systems components and a plan to study and align those systems. At the same time it is important to be humble about one’s models. They are only an attempt to describe a much more complex reality.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Larry and Jay,
thank you for the interesting discussion. Being an active change agent as we speak (Prophet, Barbarian, Builder & Explorer… you name it) and seen the organization culture taking a 180 degree turn in just in two months here are my few thoughts.
People want to believe in a rapid change. Revolution has not without a reason had a romantic connotation because there is hope things to get better. As a prophet (referring to the life-cycles) when you first come in you will bring hope. Hope that things can, and will, be different. And always some people tend to believe you, even without proof, but soon expect some tangible things.
The theory to rely on is the empirical model of process control (see wikipedia) which “provides and exercises control through frequent inspection and adaptation for processes that are imperfectly defined and generate unpredictable and unrepeatable outputs” (do note the chaos part). In practice, while increasing transparency when you find out that something is out of the acceptable limits then there is will to find a solution, means to change it, and move on to the next one.
Changing a deep-rooted behavior is not easy since the effects are usually wide. But when things start to change rapidly, and there is a sign that as soon as the light of transparency reaches even the darkest corners of the organization there will be even more changes, then the hope to believe increases. And then you have the fertile environment ready to start making changes which affect the behavior and the culture, as you described. The change will be self-sustaining when they themselves learn to adapt the system as soon as they see something is not right.
People are always in different stages. Some will be asked to behave in a different way regardless of their belief in the new way of working. But to get the critical mass moving you need to demonstrate in practice that their hope is not unworthy and they know that this is a good thing for them.
Mika
Larry
These are fine notions and what is not lost on me is the fragility of, and neccesity of strong feedback loops in organizations where leaders and staff are trying to align values with behaviours. If we worked more to teach folks how to build and reinforce their own feedback loops in the desired context,it seems to me you might be out of work. 🙂
Carol,
When all behavior, values and systems are aligned… I will be happy to be out of work. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is…
I agree with your point about feedback loops. And… systems in general. I think one of the most important aspects of developing lean culture is the creation of systems, information, reinforcement, training, etc. that are aligned with our values and promote the desired behavior. Systems thinking is the critical skill, I think.
Cheers,
Larry:
As I’m sure that you know, the learning theory that most supports your perspective is Bandura’s social cognitive theory. He proposes that environment, behavior, and personal characteristics such as interests and beliefs are related through reciprocal determinism. This approach, combined with Bronfenbrenner’s developmental ecology theory, comes closest to providing the foundation for your theoretical model. His work, as well as that of his colleagues, who study self-efficacy and self-regulation, would likely provide a lot of stimulating insights for people at every level of the organization.
Based on these last several blogs, I think that Dweck’s work on Mindset might be an excellent place to start a conversation.
Bill,
You certainly provide the academic context here. I have fond memories of Albert Bandura. His “Principles of Behavior Modification” was one of the most read and best books in my library. I miss it and think I will buy another copy, just for old times sake. His social-learning theory and research is some of the most important ever done in the field of psychology, in my humble opinion. I will look into Dweck’s work with which I am not familiar.
Larry:
I share your fondness for Bandura. To me, he is the role model for a questionning, inquiring mind. He started out as a staunch behaviorist, but saw he was incorrect when people changed their behavior without the application of consequences. He developed his social learning model that integrated information processing with operant conditioning. Fifteen years later he changed his framework again because he saw that the linear connections of cause-effect simply did not explain the data and developed his social cogntion theory. If he were still an active researcher I’m sure he would be about to change his mind again based on the work accumulated over the last two decades. A remarkable mind.
Carol and Larry,
In the context of systems thinking, feedback loops, value systems, and behaviors, I have found Peter Senge’s (et al) 1994 publication, The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization, to be a very insightful compendium. In particular, I have found the methods described therein for addressing the issue of organizational leadership’s role in creating an enterprise-wide learning environment – one where employees participate in defining and adapting their desired behaviors – to be highly effective in facilitating positive cultural change. And when those methods are consistently practiced, not only are they, but also the resultant behaviors more likely to become inculcated within the organization in the form of cultural norms.
Hi Larry
To Believe AND To Behave: BOTH Come First
is my way of looking at this!
(One of my biggest tools these days is replacing the word “or” with the word “and”. Then asking myself, what needs to be true for this new statement to work?
We’ve all been frustrated at how slow change can be, amazed at how fast change can be, and are striving to replicate what delivers fast change. (You don’t often have someone resisting the change involved in going home on Friday afternoon for a long weekend break! Well, unless you’re a consultant ….)
In our work with companies we use simultaneously methods to change both the belief / values systems and direct behavioural change methods. The former is well covered here already.
For the latter, we’re using a new system developed by one of the long-time experts in adult education. After all, adult education in organisations is primarily about getting people to do new things that deliver business results. Even those programmes working on beliefs are measured eventually in terms of business impact created by action.
The core elements of the approach we’re using are:
– get crystal clear on what behaviours deliver peak performance on the job.
– get a contract covering mutual expectations about the next training between participant and line manager.
– measure after the training the organisational learnscape impacting training transfer
– address the low hanging fruit.
– get a metric on the impact of the training on behaviours, and estimate RoI
– use these, as you would a control chart in manufacturing, to incrementally improve behavioural change the next time round the loop.
We’ve got a few blogs on this on our site: http://www.tetrald.com/wordpress/?cat=13
Enjoy your days!