Intentional Culture

The Nacirema compose a fictitious culture that has been used as a tool for many people in diverse fields for more than 60 years.  They were first “discovered” and “studied by Horace Miner in 1956.  Since then, many scholars have studied their fictitious progress through time, including a post-apocalyptic study conducted in 1972 by Neil B. Thomas in his paper The Mysterious Fall of the Nacirema.  Although this civilization has, apparently fallen, it is not to be forgotten.  In 1986, students in a philosophy course taught by Ronald Green found themselves faced with the challenge of role-playing various participants from this make-believe land (Soderberg, 2000).

The dichotomy is that although there are no such people as the Nacirema, scholars and thought leaders use this as a tool with which to study their own culture.  This framework provides them with the challenge of looking at the culture of which they are a part as though they have no experience in said culture.  This is almost reminiscent of Freud’s attempt to psychoanalyze himself; however, due to the framework, the anthropologist is better able to inject some professional distance between himself and his own culture.

In the original glimpse of this culture, Miner describes, without any pretense of intimacy, several practices that our culture habitually practices.  His paper begins with a description of what we know to be a bathroom and the practices that go on behind within the privacy of this “shrine.”  He goes on to describe tooth-brushing in such a manner as one might if one had never been indoctrinated into these “sacred practices.”  Miner also describes the manner in which people in our culture might store unused prescription medication (or “potions”) that were prescribed by a doctor (“medicine man”) and filled by a pharmacist (“herbalist”).  Miner also describes the tortures[1] one might face while visiting the dentist in his description of the “holy mouth man.”

The assignment asked students to identify which Nacireman behaviors were common in our lives.  The truth of the matter is that I personally share almost all of the rituals described, with a few exceptions.  First, when visiting the hospital, I do not stop to make a payment.  Instead, I carry “health insurance,” which is a new method of ensuring that the “medicine man” can be paid.  This system allows me to make small economic gifts to a group of “medicine men” each month.  In return, I am allowed to visit any number of practitioners on an as-needed basis.  This includes subjecting myself to the tortures imposed by the “medicine mouth man,” as well as visits to the “herbalist.”  Further, there is a new system called the “Internet,” where the medicine man is able to tell a machine called a “computer” what potions I should take.  His computer is then able to use magic or technology to reproduce the ingredients on a similar “computer” at the “herbalist,” who then (after about 45 minutes) hands me a package.  The package is a small white bag with directions for use stapled on the outside.  Inside of the bag, there is a box, which also has directions for use.  Inside of the box is a bottle, which also has directions for use.  Inside of the bottle are generally several capsules that contain the powder that the doctor thinks will remedy whatever ails me.  Of interest is the fact that the directions on each layer of the packaging, I am instructed to take the capsules on a regular basis until they are gone.  However, in a manner similar to the Nacirema of 1956, I find myself often forgetting to finish the capsules and tucking them away in the mirrored box above the basin in my body-ritual shrine.  It seems that this is a common practice for all who are a part of the culture, indicating that although we find it necessary to visit the medicine men regularly, we all seem to believe that we understand the rituals of our own body better than those who have made a study of human physiology.

These are a few of the differences that I note between Miner’s Nacirema and the group with which I am familiar.  These differences notwithstanding, I believe that I share most of the normal rituals described within the paper.  There is one particularly important body ritual that does not seem to be described, but is an important part of our lives: the daily baptism, or immersion in water.  In my culture, we believe that we enter into either a large basin of water or a cascading waterfall (either may be used) on a regular basis to cleanse ourselves of the day’s impurities.  The belief is that we enter into the water as dirty humans and, after certain rituals involving different phials of strong smelling semi-liquids, emerge as cleansed and purified.  This baptism is generally performed daily, but some disbelievers perform this ritual weekly or even monthly (whether they need it or not).  These disbelievers are generally shunned by most members of the community.

References

Miner, H. (1956). Body Ritual Among the Nacirema. The American Anthropologist, 58, 503-507.

Soderberg, W. (2000). The Game of Philosophy. New York, NY (USA): University Press of America.

Thompson, N. B. (1972). The Mysterious Fall of the Nacirema. Natural History.

Today’s article is a strategic analysis of a fable.  Yes, I did just say that.  In fact, it is not just a fable, but the one from which I drew the name of this blog.  Kotter used a fable as an interesting medium to relate his ideas when it comes to implementing intentional change within an organization.  He did a very good job putting this story together.  The book itself is a solid read, though it only takes an hour to get through.  I’d recommend this book to anyone who is interested in organizational change.

Kotter’s fable Our Iceberg is Melting demonstrates a case where organizational change was successfully managed.  The story focuses on a group of penguins living on an iceberg in the Antarctic.  One clever penguin (Fred) noted that the iceberg was in danger of breaking apart from freezing water within canyons left behind when portions of the iceberg melted.  This penguin first gathered evidence, and then identified the proper manager (Alice) to whom he should report the issue.  Fred showed Alice his evidence and presented his hypothesis.  Alice agreed that the consequences would be severe, should the iceberg break, and that it was likely to occur.

At Alice’s request, the Head Penguin (Louis) invited Fred to share his evidence and his conclusions at the next leadership meeting.  Fred prepared a model of the iceberg and used it to demonstrate his findings.  The Leadership Group, comprised of ten elder penguins, was not convinced after Fred’s presentation.  Fred recommended a test where a glass bottle was filled with water and left outside overnight.  The point of the experiment was to demonstrate the danger presented by the expansion of water as it freezes.  At the conclusion of the experiment, the glass bottle had indeed broken, thus convincing enough of the Leadership Group that the danger was very real.

It should be noted, however, that at least one influential member of the Leadership Group (Nono) was a very vocal dissenter to the validity of the danger and any changes that the penguins might make in response to said danger.

Based on the evidence, Fred’s presentation, and the results of the experiments, the Leadership Group decided to share the findings with the entire penguin population.  Alice and Fred led the discussion, communicating the danger to the large group of birds.  Fred and Alice again used the model that Fred created as a visual aid to assist in communicating the technical aspects of the danger.  They also displayed the broken bottle and explained the test that they used to determine the likelihood of the danger occurring.  The presentation was successful in that the audience understood the urgency associated with the problem; however, the Leadership council did not have any solutions to offer.  The result was that the penguin population felt a sense of urgency and understood that there was no room for complacency in this matter.

After the assembly, Louis identified a group to lead the change.  The group consisted of Alice, Louis, Fred, a likable penguin named Buddy, and a very intellectual penguin nicknamed The Professor.  The Change Leaders at first suffered from some (not a lot of) internal conflict, but this was quickly resolved.  Louis also led the Change Leaders through a couple of team-building exercises, during which the individuals quickly became a cohesive unit.

During the course of the next few days, the Change Leaders identified options, determined an ideal solution, and then presented the solution to the penguin population.  They were so successful in communicating the vision that most penguins got behind the change effort immediately.  Of course, there were some dissenters (encouraged by Nono); however, the Change Leaders continued to communicate the vision and the danger so well and so often that the resistance was quickly overcome.

Through the leadership of the Change Leaders, and with the cooperation of the general population, the entire group was able to embed the necessary changes into their organizational culture that allowed them to not only avoid the danger of this one instance, but to evolve the culture to one that would embrace future changes, should the need arise.

Strategic Analysis

The penguins followed Kotter’s eight step change process (not surprisingly, because the fable was actually written by Kotter).  Each step of the process summarized above coincided with one of the steps necessary (per Kotter) for successful change.

Step 1: Create a Sense of Urgency

Fred completed this step in three phases.  First, he reached out to Alice and convinced her of the need for change and the importance of acting immediately.  Next, Fred (with Alice’s help) convinced the Leadership Group.  Finally, with the general blessing of the Leadership Group, Fred (again, with Alice’s help) addressed the need for change and the urgency of the situation to the entire penguin population.

Step 2: Pull Together a Guiding Team

Louis was the one who performed this step.  He created a team that was a powerful group in order to guide the change.  Louis carefully selected members who had complimentary leadership skills, credibility within the community, excellent communication skills, carried ample authority, demonstrated analytical skills, and already exhibited signs of an internalized sense of urgency.

Step 3: Develop the Change Vision and Strategy

Once the Change Leaders decided on a solution, they carefully created and communicated a vision of the future and a way that the population could realize that vision.  They clarified how the future would be different from the past, and created a logical process to follow in order to make the future a reality.

Step 4: Communicate for Understanding and Buy In

The Change Leaders continuously communicated by several methods the vision and the strategy.  They did so relentlessly, and through their efforts, the majority of the population was able to accept the vision and the strategy.

Step 5: Empower Others to Act

By encouraging everyone (from the oldest adult to the youngest child) to act and removing as many barriers as possible, the Change Leaders were able to create an environment where those who wanted to make the vision a reality were able to do so.

Step 6: Produce Short-Term Wins

The Leadership Group began the change process with a large task that was critical to the overall implementation of the change.  Once this task was completed, they celebrated the short-term win in a public manner and ensured that those who were responsible for completing the work were recognized.

Step 7: Don’t Let Up

After the change was partially implemented, the penguin colony could have easily slipped back into complacency, because the immediate danger was mitigated.  However, the Change Leaders continued to press forward towards a more permanent solution.  With each successive step in the change process, the population seemed to accept the change with fewer traumas than the first few evolutions.

Step 8: Create a New Culture

Once the cultural migration was complete, the Change Leaders took steps to ensure that the population would be able to hold on to the new ways of behaving.  They continued to embed these new methods into the culture until they were sure that the new ways became strong enough to replace the old traditions.

Conclusion

The Change Leaders in the story were successful in their change process, demonstrating the validity in Kotter’s eight-step change process.  These five intuitive birds were able to set the stage for change, decide what to do, make it happen, and then make it stick.  Clearly, they were successful in their endeavor and provide a near-perfect case study of Kotter’s methodology.

References

Kotter, J. (2005). Our Iceberg Is Melting. New York City, NY: St. Martin Press.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change.

Today’s article is a discussion on a management theory that is not at all new: Adaptive Leadership.  The article approaches the discussion from a very high level and includes some points to consider when an organization decides to make a concentrated effort to teach adaptive leadership to managers.

Introduction

Our business world is moving more and more towards globalization.  As such, many businesses are implementing multinational operations.  It is very common to see a workgroup whose members are from varied cultural backgrounds.  Often, members of these workgroups are physically located in several regions across the globe.

Some may argue that our business world is already global.  Many organizations are already engaged in multinational operations.  Never before in recorded history have we had a true global marketplace, workforce, and economy.  However, several countries are not well-represented in the globalized marketplace.  As we continue to develop a true global business environment, there becomes a real need for leaders to help direct the changes and development necessary to participate and compete in this large-scale paradigm shift.

As this globalization gains momentum, leaders are noticing a need for change at a rapidly increasing pace.  This need for change often demands that the leaders themselves approach problem-solving in a unique manner for each unique circumstance.  Managers and C-level leaders are no longer able to predefine standardized responses to be applied to all situations.  Instead, many are learning to become adaptive leaders.

Leadership is “influencing change that builds and enables the capacity of individuals and organizations to thrive” (Wolinski, 2010).  The word adaptive “refers to the process that organisms follow if they are going to survive and thrive” (Wolinski, 2010).  Marrying these two ideas together and applying them to business processes yields a three-component process:

1. “Preserve the organizational elements necessary for survival” (Wolinski, 2010).
2. “Remove (or modify) the elements that are no longer necessary or useful” (Wolinski, 2010).
3. Create (aka innovate new arrangements that enable the organization to thrive” (Wolinski, 2010).

Charles Albano further defines adaption as “a dynamic process of mutual influence” (Albano, 2012).  His word choice is very succinct and conveys a good deal of meaning.  Dynamic indicates a changing state.  Process indicates that adaption is not static, but a series of steps.  Mutual influence indicates that while adaptive leadership has an effect on the environment surrounding the leader, the environment also has an effect on the leader and his processes.

Statement of research problem

Traditional leadership is historically mechanical.  Stimulus x requires response a.  Response a yields reaction m.  Reaction m requires response b.  Response b yields reaction n, and so on.  In the past, when the general business environment was stable, this was often the correct approach.  Adaptive leadership, on the other hand, means that the leader “develops new capabilities and strategies to address changes in the environment… and realize strategic vision and goals” (Albano, 2012).  To this end, contemporary organizations are realizing a need to provide their staff with education and training on this responsive leadership approach.  This report will attempt to identify specific areas of focus for an adaptive leadership training program.

Methodology

In compiling this report, research studies were examined determine specific areas of focus for the training program.

Literature Review

Simon Swanson, managing director of CommInsure, states that the focus of management has to change when applying adaptive leadership.  He asserts that people are the most important consideration.  This changes the focus from the traditional power-focus to a people-focus.  Swanson also states that values should be given a higher priority than other issues when making leadership decisions (Swanson, 2005).

Swanson goes on to state that “clarity and simplicity is very important…  Products, processes, and dealings have to be relevant and understood by everyone” (Swanson, 2005).  This statement is aligned with his earlier assertion that it is imperative that leaders focus their attention on their people.  The idea is that adaptive leadership creates an adaptive organization that is resilient and capable of meeting the ever-changing demands necessary to thrive in today’s business environment.

In an article entitled Adaptive Leadership: When Change is Not Enough, the authors discuss how change requires a “new allocation of time, resources, or priorities by people within an organization” (Glover, Jones, Friedman, & Rainwater, 2002).  Adaptive change has an additional requirement: “creative problem-solving in which the leaders bring a successful and sustainable alteration in the nature of the relationship between the organization and its environment” (Glover, Jones, Friedman, & Rainwater, 2002).  In other words, positive change means that the organization does not simply implement a new method; rather, it provides an alternative environment in which the new method naturally fits.

Wolinski describes several skills, attitudes, and qualities that facilitate the development of an adaptive leader:

• “The adaptive leader needs to be able to connect organizational change to the core values, capabilities, and dreams of the relevant stakeholders” (Wolinski, 2010)
• “The adaptive leader seeks to foster a culture that collects and honors diversity of opinion and uses this collective knowledge for the good of the organization” (Wolinski, 2010)
• “The adaptive leader knows that change and learning can be painful for people, and is able to anticipate and counteract any reluctant behavior related to the pain” (Wolinski, 2010)
• “The adaptive leader understands that large scale change is an incremental process and that he/she needs to be persistent and willing to withstand pressure to take shortcuts” (Wolinski, 2010)

Albano discusses several views that are aligned with adaptive leadership:

• “Attention is focused on value-added outcomes” (Albano, 2012).
• “Job descriptions are intentionally broad-based to allow for flexibility” (Albano, 2012).
• “Roles are fluid.  Within limits, people are expected to substitute for one another” (Albano, 2012).
• “Contacts are open and networks are encouraged to form” (Albano, 2012).
• “Policies encourage people to take a “can do” mindset to find solutions” (Albano, 2012).
• “The structures are more fluid and of shorter duration.  Changes in design are aimed at enhancing flexibility and responsiveness” (Albano, 2012).
• “Authority is accorded a place, but reliance on it is played down.  Greater influence is accorded people who demonstrate ability to add value” (Albano, 2012).
• “Achievement, innovation, and change are sought and rewarded” (Albano, 2012).
• “Cooperation is a highly regarded value in the organization and is far more easily gained” (Albano, 2012).
• “Information is widely available to facilitate work accomplishment and permit more opportunities for more people to add value to operations” (Albano, 2012).
• “Newer values such as cooperation, and responsiveness along with treating other units as internal customers (Albano, 2012).

Conclusion

Developing a program that reteaches managers and leaders how to approach situations can be quite a daunting challenge.  However, it is imperative that contemporary organizations make this shift to adaptive leadership techniques if they are to survive globalization.  Rigid adherence to traditional methods caused many animal species to become extinct.  On the other hand, animals that remain adaptive to their surroundings demonstrate their ability to thrive in changing environments.  The same is true for organizations.  Rigid adherence is a precursor to extinction while fluid adaptability is an indicator of success.

Bibliography

Albano, C. (2012). What is Adaptive Leadership? Retrieved November 18, 2012, from SelfGrowth: http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/calbano.html

Glover, J., Jones, G., Friedman, H., & Rainwater, K. (2002). Adaptive Leadership. Organization Development Journal, 14-38.

Swanson, S. (2005, April). An Interview with Simon Swanson. (A. Options, Interviewer)

Wolinski, S. (2010, July 7). Adaptive Leadership. Retrieved November 18, 2012, from Management Help: http://managementhelp.org/blogs/leadership/2010/07/07/adaptive-leadership/