Each of these aspects are embedded in American anthropologist Edward Hall’s work, including his concept of “high-context versus low-context” communications. In high-context communications, very few words are shared, but both sides of the exchange share a lot of meaning based on shared backgrounds and experiences; nonverbal communications carry as many clues and meaning (context) as verbal clues. In contrast, low-context communications require words to be exchanged, as the population lacks the shared history together.
An esteemed professional colleague of mine once said: “Diversity is the mix; inclusion is what you do with the mix.”
When The Clarion Group built The Secret 7 culture framework, we wanted to address three main aspects of global communications: 1) direct vs. indirect styles; 2) comfort (or not) with conflict and confrontation, and 3) the level of information sharing from senior leadership to all employees.
We’ve seen many organizations shifting their command and control, autocratic and authoritative leadership style to one that fosters collaboration, often through taking risks, empowering their people and their teams, and welcoming the dissonance that comes from breaking down silos and allowing for horizontal, cross-functional teams to form.
In the context of organizational culture, “time” is defined as the priority people place on time vs. relationships, and in our experience, organizations that “get it right” more often than not enjoy greater success. Many clients over the years have challenged us as to whether they need to choose between the two ends of this dimension. “No, you don’t.” But you do need to know when to play each end of the culture dimension of time to get the best results.
Imagine a culture where all ideas are welcome, even the crazy and “out of the box” ones, where employees feel safe to ask the question, “Have we ever thought about X before?” A work environment in which senior leaders create a “no idea is a dumb idea” environment such that teams come together, brainstorm new ways of looking at organization-wide problems, and create breakthrough ideas together?
“Naval-gazing” and “myopic” are two phrases often used to describe insular, internally focused, and inward-looking organizations. Of course, leaders must take care of their people, be empathic to the employee experience, and focus on improving and strengthening internal processes. These are all critical steps in building a high-performance organization. However, leaders also need to constantly look out ahead, anticipating customer needs, trends in the industry, and market forces that can have an impact on not only their customers, but also their relevance as a provider of certain products and services.
As the momentum of the Black Lives Matter movement continues to grow, I have been struck by how companies are responding to it. Most are openly acknowledging the unintentional complicity of their own organizations in perpetuating the issues; implicit biases are being illuminated like never before. I am impressed by how this movement that is challenging systemic (i.e., across the “ecosystem”) biases is unearthing the core of our implicit biases. The broader context from which this heightened awareness has spawned has come about, I think, from the collision of many forces that are culminating to create one giant breaking wave: confusing and divisive messages from the U.S. administration, pent up isolation and angst from COVID-19, an economy that has heightened the disparity between the “have and have nots,” positive overseas relationships with allies turning adversarial, and so much more. Metaphorically, these forces, strengthened by mass-impact movements such as Black Lives Matter, have created a huge pile of dry kindling; the death of George Floyd (following way too many others) was perhaps the spark that ignited the bonfire now burning. Companies today have three choices to make in response to the challenge so well-articulated by the Black Lives Matter movement: Do nothing, assuming “this too shall pass.” Assess, and where needed, adapt their own internal culture and operating environment in ways that surface and eliminate implicit biases. Embrace the work in choice #2 WHILE CONCURRENTLY : Developing holistic clarity around how, as a player in society, the organization is knowingly – or unknowingly – perpetuating biases, racist principles, and divisive behavior in their marketplaces; and then Making the changes needed, accepting that pillars so foundational as mission, vision, and values may be at stake. I am optimistic that the Black Lives Matter movement is going to make a difference – ideally at the systemic level but at least at a “dent” level. So many company leaders with whom we’ve worked have chosen #3 as the necessary course to follow. This is encouraging as it reflects broad recognition that the organization’s contribution to societal change requires both “inside” and “outside focus.” In our experience, working with literally hundreds of leaders, most organizations had begun the journey towards creating truly diverse and inclusive cultures some time ago; the fires now have accelerated those efforts, prompting deeper consideration into areas such as: Talent Management : How is our leadership team “mapping” (from a diversity perspective) to our customer base, employee base, and the communities we serve/operate in? Leadership Principles : Have we reviewed our leadership principles and considered development strategies/learning to ensure we are building the muscle required of our leaders to be inclusive leaders, who also stretch themselves to form diverse-by-design teams intentionally to broaden the unique perspectives brought to a business problem or opportunity? Today we see leaders and their organizations examining with real scrutiny “who they be” with their customers, partners, and shareholders: How are we selecting the market segments to do business with? Why? Do these choices harmfully exclude others from our products/services? Have we reviewed our approach to supplier management and selection and considered any implicit bias or leanings based on historical relationships only? Who do we recruit and select to represent us in the marketplace, either our employees, agents, distributors, or sales representative agencies? Are we too aggressively going after the segments where we can maximize profits or are we balancing the need to make money with the needs of all of society? How do we best reset our strategic choices on the ways we interact with the marketplace so as to not perpetuate implicit bias and exclusion? We should all applaud the companies that are pursuing this much bolder and harder path. It is not lipstick on the pig; it is holistic and systemic change. It will take years of concerted effort, millions of dollars, and great courage to stay the course to fully operationalize the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Patience is needed but inaction is unacceptable. For the companies being heralded, we should expect to see steps of progress while always remembering that lasting systemic change will take time.
One of the most important dimensions of culture anywhere in the world is the concept of power.
For almost 70 years, organizational culture has been described by scholars, executives and corporate anthropologists along continuums that are intended to represent polarities of behavior. For example, authoritarian vs. consensus, team-based vs. individual-driven.
In response to the human emotions around coping with COVID-19, the Harvard Business Review (HBR) recently published an interview* with David Kessler, a globally respected expert on the stages of emotional response when confronting negatively perceived change (ultimately, death) initially formulated by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross. (Clarion founder and my partner, Bill McKendree, published a good piece last week on this: Times of Crisis Call for Leadership Heart ). With Kubler-Ross’ family’s agreement, Kessler postulated the presence of a sixth and final stage beyond acceptance – finding meaning. I think that finding meaning in the face of such loss of human life and economic devastation crosses over into a profoundly human spiritual dimension. That HBR would have the courage to enter that dimension is somewhat astonishing. But it is also an accurate and insightful acknowledgement that COVID-19 has erased any artificial boundaries between business and humanity. It is a door opened that I now walk through cautiously. It seems obvious that in past times we would have looked to spiritual leaders for the kind of guidance sought in the face of grief, death and dying. Here, now, in the face of a global pandemic, the stage for spiritual leadership feels very, very empty. Sadly, the divisiveness that rips across a complicated mixture of ethnic groups and religious sects, clinging to seemingly irrelevant historical and political conflicts, undermines the ability of any one religiously affiliated person to represent us all, to speak to us individually, to touch our hearts directly. How then do we find even the slightest thread of meaning that is in fact by its very nature fundamentally spiritual, but does not say so in a way that alienates any one of our fellow employees? Or our customers? Our neighbors? Our friends? Perhaps it is just me, but there is something about the nature of COVID-19 that I cannot help but feel is speaking to us all, collectively, in a single, unifying voice. We are all human. We are all vulnerable. We are all able to help. We are all in this together. Right now , that alone is meaningful. If a virus can view us this way, why can we not view ourselves this way? Our survival may depend upon it, and yet we remain stuck in our separateness. We are our own worst enemies. If it helps, then see this “meaning” as coming from a purely scientific view, not a religious view. At one level it is more important that we just see it. But truth be told, it is not one or the other. As seen by a scientist, it is both:
