Have ready some stoned olives, filled with stiffly-whipped cream flavoured with Coralline pepper, and put on the top of each little mound a little round of egg white encircling each olive.

From the Wool Wool Cookery Book, 1903.

Is it just me, or have tastes changed somewhat in the last 100 years?

This work describes national cultural patterns, and how they affect knowledge sharing.  Here is a simple summary diagram I have put together of the four basic types they described:

Both types of culture in the left column are independent and individualist, and predominantly Western. 

The top left quadrant is the domain of the rugged individualists.  They are mostly found in France, Germany, the UK and USA.  These people see each other as unique, and accept inequalities.  Thus they can naturally accept a social class structure.  They tend to hoard knowledge, and see this knowledge hoarding as power.  They like theoretical analysis.

The horizontal individualists in the bottom left domain see themselves as equal in status with each other.  Bhagat et al state that they also have “a relatively high tolerance for ambiguity and complexity”.   They are mostly found in Denmark, Sweden and Australia.  This is of particular interest, and will be discussed further.

The collectivist cultures represented in the right column are mostly Eastern.  These collectivists are interdependent, and tend to be much better at sharing knowledge than the individualists.  They historically share knowledge by storytelling, and have persistence – they are happy to let time take its course. 

At the top right, we have the culture of duty and conformity found in China, Korea, Singapore and India.  People in this cultural pattern respond to hierarchy and authority, and believe in service and sacrifice for the benefit of the group.  At the same time, individuals still see themselves as different from each other. This pattern is particularly evident in the caste system in India.  Another feature of this cultural type is favouritism shown to family members – seen in some developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Finally – and perhaps most interestingly – is the horizontal-collective pattern, shown in Japan and the kibbutzim in Israel.  People in this pattern tend to have similar tastes and preferences, and strong group customs and relationships.  They have an ideal of equality as “oneness” with the group.  They are independent thinkers, yet prefer to make decisions by consensus.

Individualist cultures prefer working with explicit knowledge; collectivist cultures are comfortable with tacit knowledge.  There may also be a left brain – right brain analogy here as well.

Application of the model

I would suggest that this particular view is a somewhat blunt instrument – there are many other distinctions between cultures.  However, George Box’s maxim “all models are wrong, but some are useful” applies here.  Even at this coarse level, this model is useful for increasing our understanding of the impact of basic cultural types not only on knowledge sharing, but on many aspects of how the world operates.

The main intent of the model was to understand the barriers to knowledge sharing between different cultures.  Knowledge sharing between the cultural domains is easiest up and down the diagram (individualist to individualist or collectivist to collectivist), more difficult across the diagram (individualist to collectivist or vice-versa) but most difficult along the diagonals.

Looking at the nationalities exhibiting these cultural patterns, this highlights the great difficulties involved when attempting to take knowledge across some borders, such as, between Japan and the USA.  Similarly, it may also explain that even though Australia may be geographically part of Asia, we struggle to be seen as culturally belonging.

It is also useful in attempting to understand some of the basic differences in cultural context – the differences that cause global conflict.  People in one culture have difficulty with even a basic understanding of how people in another culture view themselves and the world.  This shows why attempts to impose universal moral standards generally fail.  

For instance, the concept of democracy is attractive to some cultural groups; less so to others.  It is not that some people “like” it more than others; it just makes more sense in some contexts than others.  Democratic cultural groups see democracy as an absolute, to be sought after regardless of context.  They cannot understand why people in other parts of the world would not want to be democratic, nor can they understand that these people may not see democracy as an absolute, but only as another aspect of a foreign culture – as much to be sought after as fast food restaurant chains.

I also find the impact of these cultural types on knowledge sharing and other activities within the culture just as interesting.

It is interesting to look at the model through the Cynefin lens.  Individualist cultures in general are represented as having an affinity for ordered systems, and collectivists as more comfortable with complexity.  This is perhaps reflected in the problems that Western cultures have in coping with complexity.  It seems that we still persist in attempting to use analysis and other ordered systems approaches to solve complex problems.

Down under

So how well does Australia fit into the horizontal individualist pattern?  “Australian culture” can be interpreted in a number of different ways.  There are also people who would claim that the term itself is an oxymoron.

Traditional Australian culture, as typified by “bush” culture or the Anzac legends, is the culture of mateship, of the “fair go”, of “she’ll be right”.  It is the culture of the larrikin or ocker, with scant respect for authority – or at least for authoritarians.  This is horizontal individualism at its purest – “I’m just as good as you are”.  (Even the grammar defies conventions!)

It is the dry, black humour born of the hardship of the pioneering days.  The original title of this blog was based on a typical Australian story dating from World War II.  It is interesting that this culture of equality was born out of a rigid class system – the history of squatters (landed gentry) and convicts.

Even the exalted position of the Anzac in Australian culture is interesting.  The Anzac legend was born from the crushing World War I military defeat at Gallipoli.  Even though the Anzac spirit is all about the sacrifice and the journey, the stories of the time are full of irony and self-deprecation.  Today’s pomp and ceremony seem a little out of place when you read these stories.

The Australian sense of equality is so ingrained that whenever people from vertical individualist cultures address me as “sir” I feel slightly offended, and find it hard to take them seriously. 

Successive waves of immigration have also added to and strengthened an amazingly rich multicultural nation.  Where else can you walk into your local Turkish restaurant to see a wedding reception in progress where the groom is Maltese and the bride Malaysian?

This culture has many laudable characteristics, but it is a coin with two sides.  It can also be racist (even if usually in an offhand, non-malicious way); it can also be misogynist.  It has historically ignored the existence of the indigenous inhabitants of the country that gave it birth – or looked on them with misguided pity or worse.  The concept of universal equality gives rise to the “tall poppy” syndrome, where even our loved heroes are eventually torn down to same level as the rest of us.  This indicates a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.  In some ways, maybe we are still not comfortable with who we are.

On its brighter side, though, this typical Australian culture should give us some potential advantages in the knowledge age.  It is a beneficial environment for knowledge sharing, and a natural habitat for social media.  All tweets are equal.

But is this the whole story?  The culture that we see around us in organisations in Australia today seems to be much more vertical individualist in nature.  We have adopted much from the business culture of the USA and UK.  This may have been a good idea during the industrial age, but it no longer serves us well.

We have just been celebrating Anzac Day a week or so ago.  Let’s see if we can bring back some of the best aspects of the Anzac spirit and strengthen the collaboration in our organisations!

The topic of organisational change – and getting people more involved in it – is something I have been becoming quite passionate about for a while now.  This presentation at trampoline will be the first time I have presented on the topic. I intend to develop this work, and its linking themes, in time to come.  I am currently playing with a new term for this – “orgsourcing”. You heard it first here!

OK, so it’s not original – but I rather like it. Received by email from my son:

A boat docked in a tiny Mexican fishing village. A tourist complimented the local fishermen on the quality of their fish, and asked how long it took him to catch them.

“Not very long.” they answered in unison.

“Why didn’t you stay out longer and catch more?”

The fishermen explained that their small catches were sufficient to meet their needs and those of their families.

“But what do you do with the rest of your time?”

“We sleep late, fish a little, play with our children, and take siestas with our wives. In the evenings, we go into the village to see our friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs. We have a full life.”

The tourist interrupted, “I have an MBA from Harvard and I can help you! You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat.”

“And after that?”

“With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers. Instead of selling your fish to a middle man, you can then negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City, Los Angeles, or even New York City! From there you can direct your huge new enterprise.”

“How long would that take?”

“Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years.” replied the tourist.

“And after that?”

“Afterwards? Well my friend, that’s when it gets really interesting,” answered the tourist, laughing. “When your business gets really big, you can start buying and selling stocks, and make millions!”

“Millions? Really? And after that?” asked the fishermen.

“After that, you’ll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, take a siesta with your wife and spend your evenings drinking and enjoying your friends…”

And the moral of this story is: know where you’re going in life – you may already be there!

This international case study presents the Knowledge Management and Transfer toolkit developed by the Telstra Corporation (Australia) Enterprise & Government KM team.
 
This toolkit was used to capture the product and service knowledge developed by the Product Management teams, and make it available to the business sales force, using an integrated program of content, communications and training initiatives.  This included developing a standard taxonomy, governance processes and templates, with all developed content made available via a single portal.
 
This presentation will focus on the processes used to maintain the currency of content, the use of an open policy and rewards and recognition to promote knowledge sharing, and the use of multiple media to ensure that the needs of the total audience were adequately catered for.

The lessons learned from this development are broadly applicable to knowledge capture and sharing in project teams, organisational changes, enterprise-wide knowledge programs and many other similar situations.

I will also be chairing day two of the conference. 

In other news, my son Scott is in the final stages of planning for a two-month trek on the National Bicentennial Trail with three friends (and six horses). We have set up a new blog for loading stories and photos once the trip commences.  They will be starting at Providence (near Canberra), and the plan is to finish at Knockwood, Victoria.  We will be travelling to meet them at least once during the trip.

So that’s two trips I’ll be doing in March, not counting a few days in Darwin for my mother’s 95th Birthday.  And then there’s the CPA Congress in Newcastle, as well…

Mistake makes ‘iPhone girl’ a celebrity

“A Chinese factory worker has become a celebrity after her smiling face was accidentally loaded onto an Apple iPhone and shipped to the other side of the world, her employer has said.

“The unidentified worker flashed a smile and made a peace sign to a co-worker whose job was to test the device’s camera in the southern city of Shenzhen, said a spokesman for Foxconn, which assembles the phones for Apple.  The woman’s colleague apparently forgot to delete the photo from the phone, which was sold to a consumer in Britain, who posted it [to MacRumors.com] on the Internet, Foxconn spokesman Liu Kun told AFP on Wednesday.”

Apparently Apple have no plans to adopt this as standard practice, but this raises an interesting question:

“As one person wrote in an Internet post: ‘It would be great for every Chinese worker who makes your iPhones to take a snap of herself or her factory friends … a hello from a person you would never otherwise meet.  Globalisation in practise.’”

A new social networking technology?

Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it.  Also, set up a system of cold water sprinklers over the whole cage.

Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs to climb towards the banana.  As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the monkeys with cold water. The monkey will leave the banana alone and try to get away from the water.  Turn off the spray.

After a while, another monkey will make an attempt with the same result. Pretty soon the monkeys will get sick of getting wet, and will stop any of the monkeys from attempting to climb the stairs, even though no water sprays them.

Keep this up for several days.

Now, remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one.

The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. Even the previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm. Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth.

Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked.

Some (and eventually all) of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the monkeys in the cage have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana.

Why is this?

Because as far as they know that’s the way it’s always been done around here…

———————

This story appears in a few places on the web – one is on the Wow Zone site.

The thing that I would really like to know is whether or not this was ever performed as a real experiment, or if it has only ever been a thought experiment.  Either way, though, it seems to be a powerful illustration of the pitfalls in standardised work practices and bureaucracy.  This is another topic that Shugg wrote about recently, too.

When will we learn to keep a constant eye on the things we do to ourselves in most organisations?

Mr Winn earlier updated business leaders on Telstra’s five-year transformation program…  As well, Mr Winn, who began his career as a linesman in the US, delivered a testosterone-charged description of the new management style at the telco.

“We’re not running a democracy. We don’t manage by consensus,” he said.  We’re criticised for it. The fact of the matter is we run an absolute dictatorship,” he said.

A cultural shift was needed at the former government-owned enterprise, along with changes in business processes, he said.  “If you can’t get the people to go there and you try once and you try twice … then you just shoot them and get them out of the way.”

I offer this without further comment.  Please compare this with the earlier post and tell me which view you think offers the best business result…

When leaders learn to creatively engage their subordinates in everyday decision making, they can make change happen.

I have written here before about Change Management.  I am still of the opinion that this is an entirely misunderstood function in most of today’s organisations.  It was thus rather refreshing to read in the current issue of IABC’s Communications World magazine that someone has actually done some research that supports my view!

The quote above is from John Smythe, the author of the article Engaging Employees to Drive Performance.  (This is available to IABC members online at the magazine site above.)

The usual concept of change is that it is “done” by executives (usually aided and abetted by consultants).  We have more recently introduced the discipline of Change Management as a way of helping people to adapt to the agreed change.  Today, we focus more on Employee Engagement as a way of more actively getting staff involved in understanding the change, rather than just being told about it after the fact.

But all of this is still based on a “command and control” model.  It assumes that the CEO has a monopoly on all ideas relevant to the performance of the organisation.  This is a rather unfair assumption in the post-industrial era.  It may well have been the case some years ago, but in the vast majority of cases, organisations today depend much more upon the knowledge held by the people within the organisation.

So, if the people have the knowledge on how the organisation works, why not actually include them in designing the change?

This is where John Smythe’s work has focused.  Working with McKinsey, he researched 59 organisations globally, looking for the “single, most influential cause of more engaged employees.”  He concluded that this was “the appetite and ability of leaders at every level to engage their subordinates in everyday decision making and bigger-ticket change.”

This requires all managers to effectively share their power.  This is not something that is easy or natural for a command-and-control manager!  Nor is it something that we are teaching managers to do.  It means admitting that you actually don’t know all the answers.

Why are we not teaching managers this?  Isn’t it becoming obvious that the more complex our organisations are becoming, the less likely it is that anyone in the organisation has all the answers?

I found in my last term as a team leader that – even with this approach at the core of my own leadership philosophy – it so often seemed to be easier to make my own decisions, and advise the team later.  Yet any time that I did this, I then had to spend extra time explaining the decision to the team, sometimes discovering that if I had involved the team in the decision making process, they would have come up with better ideas – and achieved the result quicker – because they were closer to the work.

It is important for all knowledge-based organisations today that we change the culture of all our managers.  Engaging staff in change must be seen as a sign of strength, not a sign of weakness and uncertainty.  The organisations that Smythe researched have been able to engage staff without slowing down output – in fact, they have improved performance as a result of people sharing ideas across the organisation.

As Smythe summarises it:

Leaders who engage the right groups in everyday decisions and in designing and executing change will benefit both in terms of the quality of decisions and the speed of execution that derives from people who feel ownership of the outcome.

Apparently, Bennett looked at the “Made in China” tag in his new undergarments one day, and decided to find out more.  This led him on a rather strange journey to China, and into Chinese history.

The thing that caught my attention was a story he told of one incident during the journey. 

As I remember the story, he was eating in a small restaurant in a lane-way in a Chinese city.  He was the only tourist in the restaurant, among 30 or 40 Chinese customers. The others in the restaurant fairly quickly noticed his entire lack of ability to eat with chopsticks.  He was “spreading food all over the restaurant, and not eating anything”.  Everyone was very good-natured about it, and some began to laugh at his predicament.  He laughed with them.  One came over and gave him instructions on eating with chopsticks.

By the end of the meal, even though he spoke almost no Chinese, and the other diners little English, they were all laughing and joking together. When he left the restaurant, everyone said goodbye to him.  The waitress even followed him out onto the street to return his tip.

Now here’s the good bit – as Bennett said, imagine reversing the situation.  A 50-something Chinese man goes into a restaurant in Sydney (or Christchurch, New York or London).  Would the same thing happen?  Would everyone in the restaurant say goodbye when he left?  Would the waitress chase him to return his tip?

How much of our behaviour and responses to other people is determined by our context and culture, and how much can we change?