The Elements of Style

When I was in College and Graduate School, I used to carry around Strunk & Whites Elements of Style. In this nifty little manual, all my obtuse and not so obtuse questions regarding the writing style and grammar were answered. I carried my dog-eared, coffee-stained copy everywhere because, well my undergraduate and graduate days were filled with reading but even more writing.  When I left graduate school and ventured into business, I devoured business books but few of them stood out as "nifty little manuals" in the same way that Strunk had served me. 

So its with a smile on my face and a bit of amusement that I find Culture Change discussions and manualesque rules and bullet lists of do's and don'ts when attempting to alter corporate culture. 

Over on the Hill & Knowlton community today  I came across a blog by David Ferrabee entitled "Culture Change" in which the author states (emphasis mine):

I believe that there are a few commonly held misconceptions about organisational culture:

1. Its all about  relationships and behaviour: more often than not [culture change] it is process driven: new systems, changing business conditions, new leadership.  To make people 'do' things differently, you need to change the way they do things. 

While I agree that new leadership and new ways of thinking are critically important to driving cultural change and that systems and disciplines are also important, without a vision of where the company needs to go, without leadership that can inspire both the vision AND the loyalty to do the hard work to get there, all the new systems and discipline won't amount to a hill of beans unless the organization knows where its headed. In other words, in many corporate cultures, especially those with deep, intricate informal networks, change is all about relationships and behavior.

2. It's heavily influenced by national culture, diversity and geography: Two businesses in the same field can be widely different.  But managers in France and managers in Iceland will tend to approach things in broadly similar ways.

I'm sorry but I must respectfully disagree with spirit of this remark.  Although managers may be "trained" to manage employees in a similar fashion. It has been my experience as an American manager, having the opportunity to manage Americans, Germans, Indians, Russians, citiizens of Eastern Europe and the UK and people of all races and creeds that each nationality demands a fundamentally different approach to management. For instance, when I speak in Germany I used to get up and call out the great work that so and so employee did.  NO NO NO. While this flies in the US, it certainly doesn't fly in Germany.  And my employees told me so in no uncertain terms. The consensus, team oriented mentality drives differentiation. Same for India. There are vast differences stemming from culture that alter the way one manages a team.

3. Certain business sectors will always have certain cultures: There are many examples of sectors that are deemed to be one way acting the other.  If you visit Abbey in their London HQ or Nationwide in Swindon you will see that banks don't act or look like we expect them to.

Now interesting enough, although national culture, language and other societal norms driving behavior modify  corporate cultures, I believe that fundamentally a bank is a bank is a bank. Yes, SOX compliance reigns in the US while Basel II in the EU but again, I think the author misses the mark.  I believe there is more consistency among sectors than difference regardless of geography.  Its the underlying corporate culture drives differentiation and that's where the "sector" issues come from.  Lets be focused on root causes shall we?

4. A culture change programme will need to touch every part of your business: Culture change programmes can be quite small and discrete.  You can change the way work is done in one part of the business.  We do it all the time.  A manager or employee will suggest a change it will alter the culture of that part of the company.

Of course one can compartmentalize change and in some limited cases that's warranted. But most often is the case, the interdependencies among even silo'd organizations minimize the effectiveness of discrete change management initiatives.  While boiling the ocean is never a valid business strategy, comprehensive change, where dependencies among functional units are factored into the change equatoin is a must. 

So its a nice little Elements of Style type approach to culture change, only in this instance I'd be tempted to rewrite the manual.

Comments

[David Ferrabee]

1.

Steve,
I am very gratified to see this post. I hadn't anticipated that it would be taken too seriously, and I have fallen into a pattern of writing in numbered bullets, because readers tend to read those. (Wrong! I can hear EBWhite saying.)
A few clarifications, if you're interested.
1. My point here is as much that culture change is dragged along with other org changes.
2. I agree with you. And to many real national cultural changes are a surprise. To most Europeans they are not. However, the surprise for me, is that most of us know to adapt to local culture, but forget that two businesses in the same field can and will be fundamentally different in their approach to... everything.
There's some interesting research by a Cranfield Prof on this. His name is Andrew Kakabadse.
3. Same. I am not black and white here. It's just a nuance that people should be aware of. I also think I respectfully disagree. HP & Microsoft? Not alike. Citibank and BoA? Not very similar either. But maybe people who have worked at both will know better.
I like your take though. Happy to write the manual together!
Cheers
/df

[Steve]

2.

David.. appreciate your comments. I'll take a look at the research you recommend. Also, a note on HP and MS . Yes they are not alike. Not even in the same sector, one is a combo, HW/SW/Services company, the other an enterprise sw org.

Again, thanx!

[Miki]

3.

Hi Steve, I think that cultural change is even more fundamental, since it stems from the top person's MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™), whether actively or passively enabled.

Executives, managers and employees add to and alter it, since each of their interpretaions is filtered through their own MAP.

Many efforts at cultural change start one level up from MAP, which often dooms them to failure. Unless the new flavor is basically the same or synergistic to the old one MAP will reject it.

Don't get me wrong, MAP is definitely within a person's control and changeable, but the changes are internal and can only be encouraged—not externally forced. This is a major reason why trunover often goes hand-in-hand with cultural change. (Click my name for more information about MAP.)

[Steve]

4.

Miki.. aware of your MAP and love it. I agree DNA is DNA -- whether genetic or corporate. Corporate Genetic Reeningeering while doable is substantial undertaking.

Hope you are well.