We all develop since early childhood a “culture bias”: what we perceive as similar to our own culture values, we consider to be “good” or “right”. Whatever we perceive to be different from our own culture values, we consider to be “bad” or “wrong”.
We look at the world through colored spectacles or sunglasses, which distort our perception. We see everything through these tinted sunglasses, and each culture has its own biased vision, shared by members of that culture. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in research, it’s not just some “pipe dream” or somebody’s opinion.
In order to understand the world outside of your own culture, you first need to be aware of your own culture bias. You first need to be aware of your glasses and take them off, in order to see other cultures as they really are.
Media content generators in the English language are largely wearing “Contest” culture glasses. This means that the main providers of news on a global scale (CNN, BBC, Fox, Sky, NYT, FT, Economist and others) are wearing tinted glasses and we should all be aware of that. Let’s take a look at the glasses they are wearing and what the world would look like if these glasses were removed.
“Contest” Culture Glasses
Hofstede’s 5D model revealed in research that the Anglo-Saxon culture (“Contest”) is egalitarian, individualistic, performance-oriented, relatively comfortable with ambiguity, and it is normative. Knowing this allows us to see the type of glasses usually worn by people from this culture. The glasses they wear affect their perception, thus affecting the content they generate and disseminate in the media. Here are some typical issues which get distorted and/or overblown by “Contest” culture glass-wearers.
Privacy
We see in the media (TV, internet, newspapers, magazines) that “privacy” is a big issue. People are worried about surveillance cameras, phone hacking, identity cards, because these things represent a threat to privacy. They constitute potential invasions of privacy, and that’s a big thing.
Well, actually, it’s not… Or, rather, it is an issue indeed in the “Contest” culture and also in all “individualistic” cultures. However, these cultures account for less than 15% of the world’s population. This means that 85% of the people on the planet are not really that much into the whole “privacy” thing. I’m not saying that invasion of privacy is not an issue; I’m just saying it is not such a BIG issue as you would be led to believe from what you see in the media.
When the BBC reports on “invasion of privacy” being a major concern in the Middle East or in Asia, they are actually talking about the BBC’s (English) bias when looking at what is happening there. The reporter’s outrage may be genuine, but it is not necessarily the outrage of the people who are affected by happenings in that location. It’s in the eyes of the beholders, and if the beholders are all wearing tinted glasses (also people watching in London and New York), the picture being painted will seem real to all of them, but not to the subjects being portrayed.
People in “collectivistic” cultures are not that worried about privacy; they will easily share details of their lives with complete strangers, something unthinkable to members of an individualistic culture. The reaction of “individualists” to such sharing is often “Whoa! Too much information! I don’t need to hear that!” To collectivists, they are just trying to be friendly, and the negative reaction is perceived as “rude” and “cold”.
So, if you are part of a “Contest” culture or any other individualistic culture, please remove your glasses before getting riled up on privacy issues outside your own culture. For most people on the planet, it’s not THAT important. They are more concerned with gaining intimacy rather than protecting their privacy.
Polarization
This gives the expression “polarized glasses” a different meaning… In a “Contest” culture there is a tendency towards seeing two opposing forces confronting each other. Issues are easily seen as “bi-polar”, that is: there is always a thesis and always an antithesis opposing it. In such cultures there is less value ascribed to multilateral thinking: the coexistence of many different forces or opinions regarding a certain issue. The “Contest” culture generates typical expressions such as: “you are either with us, or against us”, “it is ‘us’ versus ‘them’”, and “there are two kinds of people in the world”.
This leads to a certain oversimplification of complex issues. The situation in Europe is a good example of such a complex issue, which is usually oversimplified by American and English media reporting on it. To the UK and US, European leaders are incompetent because they are unable to decide between two options when confronting issues. Leaders in Europe look at situations and see many different options, equally important, rather than a confrontation between “A” and “B”. By definition, a multilateral perspective is more complex than a bi-lateral one, so it is no surprise that discussions take longer and a conclusion is difficult to reach. Alliances are necessary, and these require time, plus they may add to the complexity.
The “polarized distortion” applies to other issues in other parts of the world, as well. The “Contest” culture sees two opposites everywhere: it’s “the haves versus the have-nots”, the “capitalists versus the communists”, “New School versus Old School”, “macho versus feminists”, etc. In other cultures, such as the Dutch and Scandinavians, or the Latin Americans, or the Africans, the same situations are viewed as “multilateral”.
This difference is very evident in politics: while “Contest” cultures are typically “bi-partisan”, other cultures have many equally relevant parties and need coalitions to govern. It is less evident but equally true in other aspects of life. For instance, gender issues are not “just” about men and women, but they are also about gays, and lesbians, and people who are gay-lesbian sympathizers, and people who think gender equality actually depends on age, or on the nature of the role, or who consider sexual preference as different from gender, and so on. Religion is not viewed as “Christians versus Muslims”, but rather as the many Christian and Islamic sects, plus the Buddhists, Hindu and others still.
Meritocracy
Management textbooks seem to take meritocracy as a given, but we tend to forget that the majority of them are produced in “Contest” cultures, which are clearly performance-oriented. Cultures which are more “caring-oriented” and “quality-of-life” oriented will pay lip-service to meritocracy (to comply with the textbooks) but will act very differently in practice.
Actually, in these cultures, meritocracy is “de facto” trumped by caring. People get promoted because they have been longer with the firm, or because they belong to an influential family, or because they went to a renowned business school. People from the “Contest” cultures will look at these situations and express outrage. They will think that their outrage is shared by “the locals”. In reality, “the locals” will also express outrage when they are on the losing end of a decision, but will typically decide according to the same criteria they criticize, when put in a deciding position in a similar situation. Don’t be so quick in promoting meritocracy and deriding other approaches—look at the context first, take off your glasses and then try to see what would be best in a certain situation.
Urgency
In “Contest” cultures speed is valued: acting fast, deciding quickly. There is usually a great sense of urgency, time is of the essence. When decisions take a bit longer, people get anxious. When looking at decision making processes in other cultures, often “Contest” people are irritated when things do not happen as quickly as they would like to see them happen. The concept of “time is money” is deeply ingrained in a culture which is performance-oriented, and performance can be easily appraised by measuring time spent and the amount of money made.
Yet, in “Network” cultures such as the Dutch and the Scandinavian, urgency is trumped by other factors: making sure that all stakeholders are included and heard is more important than making decisions quickly. Deadlines are often not met, but this is not important, if missing the deadlines was necessary to ensure quality of output or satisfaction of stakeholders.
“Contest” culture media will typically report that missing a deadline or delaying a decision are signs of failure (refer to discussions on the Euro zone). Yet the people involved, if they are members of a “Network” culture, will not consider this necessarily as a problem. They may simply think that stakeholder satisfaction is more important than deadlines. What is portrayed as failure in one culture may be portrayed as success in another.
Women’s Rights
The “Contest” media is filled with items about women’s rights. It seems, sometimes, that the only reason for NATO to be in Afghanistan is because of women’s rights. Yet the issues of gender equality most often are seen from a different perspective by women from other cultures. I’ve always found it amusing that some cultures look at the US and see it as a matriarchy, a culture in which women dominate men… To an American feminist this seems to be utter nonsense, but we all need to take off our glasses and look at cultures more objectively.
Since “Contest” cultures are performance oriented, caring for the family is seen as less important, it is less valued. Family reunions such as Thanksgiving are often portrayed as unpleasant affairs. Feminists fight for equality in the workplace, because work is more valued than quality of life.
In some other cultures, quality of life is more valued than performance. Women are less interested in work, and men are also less interested in work. Gender equality discussions focus on asking men to be more active in taking care of the family and doing home chores; they are asked to be more “caring-oriented”, rather than to support equal pay at work.
I was pleased to read that a woman in Libya rejoiced at the downfall of Colonel Khaddafi, because he had forbidden the wearing of bhurkas. Now this woman was celebrating the fact that she could wear a bhurka, like she wanted…
“Contest” culture feminists tend to think that women all over the world share the same struggle for equality. Actually, gender equality has different meanings and connotations in different cultures, and these need to be considered carefully. Depending on the culture, the objective of gender equality will be reached through shifts in the roles of both men and women, in ways which are consistent with that culture. Women’s ambitions also may be different from one culture to another.
Democratization
Churchill once said that “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried.” This, of course, is a very Anglo-Saxon point of view, and as such it has been often repeated and amplified in the Anglo-Saxon media. People from other cultures may also take a similar view, especially if they are coming from an egalitarian society. However, the same is not true in hierarchical societies, in which many people take the view that a form of “enlightened despotism” is preferable to democracy.
This is considered totally undesirable in a “Contest” culture. People from “Contest” cultures tend to misinterpret protests against government in hierarchical societies. They tend to see them as movements demanding democracy, when actually most of the times these protests demand simply the replacement of government by someone who will do a better job of running the country.
There are more than enough examples of this, the most blatant ones to be seen in Russia and China, both hierarchical societies. In both countries there was a long history of despotism, for centuries. In both countries, the despots were overthrown and replaced by communist regimes, in the 20th century. The communist leaders proceeded to lead with as much authoritarianism as their predecessors, with support from the majority of the population.
In both countries, again, there was a point in time in which the communist regimes were challenged. In Russia it was replaced by a capitalist republic, yet the same ruler has led the country for almost 20 years with an authoritarian style (and the support of the majority). In China the economy is becoming capitalist, while the political regime is authoritarian communism. In both cases, a form of democratization may be happening, but in a way not at all similar to what is seen in the US or the UK. Democratization, if it happens at all, will take a very different shape in each country, according to the respective culture.
Research has shown that it is people who “make” dictators. A hierarchical culture will generate strong rulers with absolute power, regardless of the political regime. An egalitarian culture will generate rulers who are less authoritarian, because authoritarianism is not accepted.
“Contest” culture people look at hierarchical societies and see people who are oppressed by force and who are yearning for democracy. The reality is, the ruler can only keep himself/herself in power with support from the people. As soon as that support is lost, dictators are overthrown, and replaced by another strong ruler. Every dictator has support from a large part of the population, most often by the majority. “Contest” culture people may find dictators despicable, but in hierarchical societies most people feel that strong rulers are needed to maintain order. They just want a strong ruler that is also inspiring and effective.
Equality
Underlying the concept of democracy is the concept of equality, the idea that all people are equal and should have the same amount of power in society. “Contest” cultures hinge on the notion that life is a competition, but all people should have an equal opportunity to “win” this competition through their performance and fair play on a level playing field. Any idea straying from this notion is extremely annoying to “Contest” culture individuals.
However, Hofstede’s research revealed that only 9% of the world’s population live in “egalitarian” cultures (basically the Anglo-Saxons, Germanics (includes Swiss, Austrians) and Dutch-Scandinavians). Everybody else lives in hierarchical societies. In these societies, people consider that there is an unequal distribution of power in any community, no matter how large or how small, and that this is just a fact of life. It is a reality to be accepted.
This doesn’t mean that people like it; it just means that they consider it unavoidable. Therefore, many focus on making their way to the top of the pecking order. They may oppose the current rulers or bosses, but once they are able to replace the incumbents, they will exercise power in a very similar way and maintain its unequal distribution.
It’s a mistake to think that people from hierarchical cultures have a desire for equality; more often then not, they are simply striving to improve their own position in the hierarchy.
Supremacy Of Reason
In “Contest” cultures there is a notion that people should be rational, and that emotions are a “lesser” aspect of human beings. Emotions interfere with the efficiency and effectiveness of making rational decisions., therefore they should be suppressed. Values are seen as a “fluffy” subject, in conflict with the pragmatic aspects of life. Discussing values simply delays concrete action, so such discussions should be avoided or kept out of the way.
In other cultures, such as in Latin America and the Middle East, emotions are equally important as reason, if not more. Decisions are often taken due to emotional motives. People are often admired for doing that, rather than for “keeping their cool”. Being “hot blooded” is regarded as a positive quality, rather than a weakness. When the “Contest” culture media criticizes someone for “being emotional”, they should realize that in many parts of the world such behavior is encouraged and praised, rather than punished.
As for the values discussions, pragmatism often is used as a justification for unethical behaviour. The need for acting swiftly should not be such that it means choosing for rapid action which is unethical, rather than carefullt considering ethical implications before deciding on action.
The financial mess that happened in 2008 was brought about precisely for looking at “rational” business issues and not looking at ethics, nor at the emotional basis and consequences of economic behavior. Cultures which put reason in perspective and which regard it as just as important as, but not more important than, emotions and values, may be in a better position to cope with the complex issues we all need to face in the 21st Century. Being comfortable with emotions and values is just as important as being comfortable with rational analysis.
Wear Sunscreen, But Take Off Your Glasses
Years ago an article by Mary Schmich went viral. It dispensed many life lessons and pearls of wisdom, but the main one was wearing sunscreen, repeated several times. Here we emphasize not sunscreen, but tinted glasses; and we don’t recommend wearing them, but rather taking them off… Wearing “Contact” culture glasses all the time leads to serious misinterpretations about what is really going on in the world outside the Anglo-Saxon culture. Wearing tinted culture glasses does not improve your vision, it distorts it.
This, of course, is a problem not only in Anglo-Saxon cultures, but in any culture. In order to improve cross-cultural understanding, the first thing we must all do is take off our glasses. In other articles, we will look at the glasses worn by people from other cultures.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Europe without the UK?
The future of Europe is integration. Not cultural integration, but economic, fiscal, legal integration. The challenge will be to develop this kind of integration, while simultaneously preserving the diverse identity of different cultural groups, which are even more numerous than the countries involved.
Cultural diversification will increase, and that means that among the 27 nation-states which form the EU, we must recognize that there are over 40 different cultures.
However, these 40-plus cultures can share the same legal framework, the same fiscal policies, a single retirement plan, and the same currency (why not?).
In order to do that, people will have to accept a loss of sovereignty, of course! It is no surprise that the country which scores highest in Individualism (UK) has the greatest difficulty in accepting this loss of national sovereignty... Plus, the UK is a "low-Power Distance" culture, and not as likely to accept a central authority based elsewhere.
From a cultural perspective, it is only natural that France and Germany are leading the push for EU integration. For the French (and other high Power Distance countries) there is no problem in accepting strong authority. They can even accept it AND value Individualism simultaneously. Perhaps this is the best example of the values underlying an integrated EU, this co-existence of high-PDI and Individualism.
For the Germans, the driver is order. The EU needs to be better organized. It makes sense to have a common currency, common fiscal policies, a common legal framework, etc.
For the Dutch and Scandinavians, the key is "leveling". If all stakeholders are heard, if there is a relative balance among members of the EU and all opinions are taken into account, then why not?
The UK are the only Anglo-Saxon culture among EU members, and they risk becoming isolated because of that. Being an island doesn't help. However, all sides stand to lose more than gain from an EU without Britain and Britain stands to lose the most.
Perhaps the discussion should be about the reasons why Cameron has decided to withdraw from the treaty agreed last week. Was it about Britain or was it about the banks operating in the UK?
Even "The Economist" has clearly stated this was about the banks.
Cultural diversification will increase, and that means that among the 27 nation-states which form the EU, we must recognize that there are over 40 different cultures.
However, these 40-plus cultures can share the same legal framework, the same fiscal policies, a single retirement plan, and the same currency (why not?).
In order to do that, people will have to accept a loss of sovereignty, of course! It is no surprise that the country which scores highest in Individualism (UK) has the greatest difficulty in accepting this loss of national sovereignty... Plus, the UK is a "low-Power Distance" culture, and not as likely to accept a central authority based elsewhere.
From a cultural perspective, it is only natural that France and Germany are leading the push for EU integration. For the French (and other high Power Distance countries) there is no problem in accepting strong authority. They can even accept it AND value Individualism simultaneously. Perhaps this is the best example of the values underlying an integrated EU, this co-existence of high-PDI and Individualism.
For the Germans, the driver is order. The EU needs to be better organized. It makes sense to have a common currency, common fiscal policies, a common legal framework, etc.
For the Dutch and Scandinavians, the key is "leveling". If all stakeholders are heard, if there is a relative balance among members of the EU and all opinions are taken into account, then why not?
The UK are the only Anglo-Saxon culture among EU members, and they risk becoming isolated because of that. Being an island doesn't help. However, all sides stand to lose more than gain from an EU without Britain and Britain stands to lose the most.
Perhaps the discussion should be about the reasons why Cameron has decided to withdraw from the treaty agreed last week. Was it about Britain or was it about the banks operating in the UK?
Even "The Economist" has clearly stated this was about the banks.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Comment on "Three Ways To Overcome Career Anxiety" by Daniel Gulati on Harvard Business Review
Interesting article, touching on the issues we discussed on a call with AIESEC International on Wednesday...
The article, of course, is very biased by culture: don't forget HBR is very culture-biased, with all the pros and cons this entails.
The three issues mentioned in the article are typical of the problems young Americans face now. Are they also faced by people in other cultures? Perhaps yes, to a lesser extent. The problems are felt with greater intensity in the "Contest" cultures (US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) because the culture of these countries emphasize that life is a competition, and you have to be a "winner" in that competition or else be considered "a loser", a failure. This basic concept can be very motivating for young people, because it simplifies the complexity of life. It boils everything down to one thing: being successful, as measured by making a lot of money.
The problems arise later in life, when people who have made "a lot of money" find themselves feeling empty and lost... Many turn to psychotherapy, but many more turn to drugs, alcohol, religion or other forms of dependency. The problem is that the "Contest" cultures (Anglo-Saxon) do not provide deep, long-term answers to existential questions. Actually, these cultures hardly recognize the existence of existential questions in the first place!
The three issues
Gulati identifies three typical issues that are specially difficult for American youths:
1) large companies are not safe options anymore - after the Enron and Wall Street busts, belonging to "the biggest" companies is not synonymous to "having it made"; Gulati emphasizes the "safety" aspect, but I think he is a bit off track in this aspect. What motivated young Americans to work on Wall Street (or on big corporations in other industries) was not "safety"--if that was the case, youngsters would aspire to work as civil servants. The real motivation was (and still is) "success" in that competition that life is supposed to be.
2) social networks increase anxiety - comparing yourself to peers and competing with them is reinforced in "Contest" cultures, though you may also find it to a lesser extent in "Network" cultures like the Scandinavian and Dutch, plus a few others in Europe;
3) too many options - as we discussed, people today need to find a sense of meaning/purpose to guide their choices. Making more money than your neighbors does not provide spiritual gratification. With so many options available, what's to guide a young American in making choices (when the culture tells them it's all about competing and WINNING!)...
So the three issues identified by Gulati may be important issues across cultures, in different parts of the world, but they are especially relevant in "Contest" cultures because they are magnified in these environments.
Advice given
The three bits of advice given by Gulati are "spot on":
1) de-emphasize prestige and compensation (easier to do in other cultures, more difficult in the "Contest" cultures, as it means swimming against the current);
2) start experimenting - this is a great advertisement for AIESEC! Go abroad, experience other ways of doing things, other forms of learning, find out which things touch you deeply, emotionally, look beyond the "Contest" perspective;
3) Spend time defining your passions - It's all about answering those two basic questions: who are you and what do you want? The "AIESEC Experience" should help people find those answers.
As Gulati rightly points out, it's not about finding "that one answer" (another "Contest" culture trap is to seek that "ONE" answer, like "one ring to rule them all"...). Life is more complex than that.
Be satisfied with two or three valid answers and learn to live with them as they change and evolve over time. Be more flexible and less normative. (Hofstede's 5th dimension of culture). There is more to learn about that from the Asians and Latin Americans than there is from the US and Europe.
The fact is that today, as we transition from 2011 to 2012, you can connect with anybody else on the planet... But can you connect with your inner self? That is what you will need to do in order to find out who you are and what do you want. That is what will guide you in making career choices and life choices.
The article, of course, is very biased by culture: don't forget HBR is very culture-biased, with all the pros and cons this entails.
The three issues mentioned in the article are typical of the problems young Americans face now. Are they also faced by people in other cultures? Perhaps yes, to a lesser extent. The problems are felt with greater intensity in the "Contest" cultures (US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) because the culture of these countries emphasize that life is a competition, and you have to be a "winner" in that competition or else be considered "a loser", a failure. This basic concept can be very motivating for young people, because it simplifies the complexity of life. It boils everything down to one thing: being successful, as measured by making a lot of money.
The problems arise later in life, when people who have made "a lot of money" find themselves feeling empty and lost... Many turn to psychotherapy, but many more turn to drugs, alcohol, religion or other forms of dependency. The problem is that the "Contest" cultures (Anglo-Saxon) do not provide deep, long-term answers to existential questions. Actually, these cultures hardly recognize the existence of existential questions in the first place!
The three issues
Gulati identifies three typical issues that are specially difficult for American youths:
1) large companies are not safe options anymore - after the Enron and Wall Street busts, belonging to "the biggest" companies is not synonymous to "having it made"; Gulati emphasizes the "safety" aspect, but I think he is a bit off track in this aspect. What motivated young Americans to work on Wall Street (or on big corporations in other industries) was not "safety"--if that was the case, youngsters would aspire to work as civil servants. The real motivation was (and still is) "success" in that competition that life is supposed to be.
2) social networks increase anxiety - comparing yourself to peers and competing with them is reinforced in "Contest" cultures, though you may also find it to a lesser extent in "Network" cultures like the Scandinavian and Dutch, plus a few others in Europe;
3) too many options - as we discussed, people today need to find a sense of meaning/purpose to guide their choices. Making more money than your neighbors does not provide spiritual gratification. With so many options available, what's to guide a young American in making choices (when the culture tells them it's all about competing and WINNING!)...
So the three issues identified by Gulati may be important issues across cultures, in different parts of the world, but they are especially relevant in "Contest" cultures because they are magnified in these environments.
Advice given
The three bits of advice given by Gulati are "spot on":
1) de-emphasize prestige and compensation (easier to do in other cultures, more difficult in the "Contest" cultures, as it means swimming against the current);
2) start experimenting - this is a great advertisement for AIESEC! Go abroad, experience other ways of doing things, other forms of learning, find out which things touch you deeply, emotionally, look beyond the "Contest" perspective;
3) Spend time defining your passions - It's all about answering those two basic questions: who are you and what do you want? The "AIESEC Experience" should help people find those answers.
As Gulati rightly points out, it's not about finding "that one answer" (another "Contest" culture trap is to seek that "ONE" answer, like "one ring to rule them all"...). Life is more complex than that.
Be satisfied with two or three valid answers and learn to live with them as they change and evolve over time. Be more flexible and less normative. (Hofstede's 5th dimension of culture). There is more to learn about that from the Asians and Latin Americans than there is from the US and Europe.
The fact is that today, as we transition from 2011 to 2012, you can connect with anybody else on the planet... But can you connect with your inner self? That is what you will need to do in order to find out who you are and what do you want. That is what will guide you in making career choices and life choices.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Democracy in China
The press in the US and the UK keep bitching about the lack of democracy in China and in other parts of the world, notably in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Recently, when totalitarian regimes (supported by the US, by the way) were overthrown in Tunisia, in Egypt and Libya, the press was quick to label it as the “Arab Spring” and hail a new era of democracy coming to Northern Africa. As other popular revolts began to appear in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria, again the press interpreted that as movements demanding democracy. Soon there were articles asking whether China would be next, or how long until democracy would begin to be demanded also in China.
None of those article authors seemed to be aware of the most important factor underlying all these different situations: culture. All those authors looked at the situations through their own culture biases, failing to be aware of that. And all failed to comprehend what was going on in North Africa, as they also fail to understand what goes on in China.
Even though Geert Hofstede published his first research studies in the 70’s, many people still do not understand the implications and continue to ignore the influence of culture values in politics and in the way societies organize themselves. It may come as a surprise to those authors that other cultures do NOT share the same values as the US and the UK.
High Power Distance Cultures
A few years ago I was facilitating a workshop on managing across cultures for a group of people coming from several different cultural backgrounds. We were well into the discussion of the five dimensions of culture identified in Hofstede’s research, and we were specifically dissecting “Power Distance”. An American lady asked what could be done to remove the present rulers from power in China, in order to change the culture to a lower Power Distance Culture. Obviously, she didn’t get it…
Power Distance is defined as “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations accept that power is distributed unequally in society.” Therefore, Power Distance (PDI) in a society is not determined by its rulers, but rather it is determined by the values of the people.
She still didn’t get it. She argued that the rulers in China, enjoying absolute power, were manipulating the culture to ensure that it continued to be “high PDI”. That is the mistake often made by people brought up in “low PDI” cultures, or should I say, the chain of mistaken assumptions usually made:
1. High PDI is “evil”
2. High PDI is created and maintained by the individuals in power
3. “The People” want their culture to change and become a “low PDI” culture
What this American lady failed to realize was that, in fact, high PDI is not “evil” per se. It is only perceived as such by people coming from a different culture. Conversely, people from China (or any other high PDI culture) might look at the US (or any other low PDI culture) and say: “How terrible! People show no respect for authority! What an evil, chaotic society!” They might even add “how could we overthrow their incompetent leaders and replace them with someone who earns the respect they deserve and restores the natural order of things?”
It seems that it is difficult to accept, in low PDI cultures, that it is not the dictators who define their power, but rather it is the acceptance of others who defines it. And yet, the fact that people accept a strong leader, with a lot of power, does not mean that they are happy with their current leader. They may very well protest and rebel against the current regime, and replace it with a different leader. However, the new leader will be empowered by the people to enjoy a high level of authority, just as the previous one. People in a high PDI culture are not necessarily longing for it to change into a “low PDI” one. Most often than not, all they want is a change in leadership, not a change in leadership style.
Understanding the “high PDI” mentality
People in high PDI cultures believe that some people have much more power than others, and that is just a fact of life. It is readily seen in all kinds of situations, beginning with the family (where the elders hold more power than their children) and extending to work, schools, public institutions, everywhere. Leaders, managers, bosses, teachers, all are authority figures. They have “ascribed power”, through their positions, which is seldom challenged, rather than “attained power”, which can be challenged (and frequently is) in “low PDI” cultures.
Along with that ascribed power, they have privileges and responsibilities. The people in that culture believe that these things go together: power, privilege and responsibility. Figures of authority have power and they are entitled to privileges. It is only fair, since they also have the burden of bearing huge responsibility. All decisions are made by authority figures. All responsibility lies also with these authority figures. They are in charge of taking care of their people.
“Até amanhã, se Deus quiser… João Francisco e a mulher. E os filhos que tiver!”
This old regional Brazilian saying, from the South, means literally: “Until tomorrow, if God wills… João Francisco and his wife. And the children they may have!” João Francisco was an army General in charge of protecting the border between Brazil and Uruguay. For almost 30 years (1893-1923) he not only did that but in fact ruled the region exerting extreme power. He was known for taking no prisoners in the many fights that broke out among Uruguayans and Brazilians who disputed the demarcation of the border line, the revolutionaries who challenged the local governor, and cattle rustlers who smuggled sheep and steers from one country to another (often these three groups were the same people). Such was the respect people gave him, that this expression became popular: nothing would happen without him willing it (and also his wife and kids). In high PDI cultures power is assigned to the position and to the family members around it. Family members do not need to earn respect, it is their right simply from being part of the power holder’s family.
The “great responsibility” that goes with it means that anything that goes wrong is basically the power holder’s fault and he/she has to fix it. The power holder is responsible for everything. The power holder also is responsible for taking care of the people who are loyal to him (or her). If someone is sick, or has an accident, the power holders need to take care of the situation. If the accident was caused by a reckless driver, it is up to the power holders to punish the person who caused the accident. If the roads were in bad conditions, it is the responsibility of the power holder. If the driver didn’t have a driver’s license, it is the responsibility of the power holder to ensure that people without a license are not allowed to drive. The power holder needs to have police on the streets, constantly controlling if people have the proper drivers license, etc. If a building collapses, it’s because the power holders should have ensured that it was being properly built by people with the proper license/authorization.
This creates a rather comfortable situation, which helps to explain why these societies continue to function in this way. People with no power (or with less power) have no responsibility (or less responsibility). There is always “someone higher up who is actually accountable, not me!” And those “higher up” guys are entitled to privileges, in line with the responsibility they bear.
Years ago I proposed an “egalitarian” health care plan in the company I worked for, in Brazil. The existing health plan, which had five levels of increasing coverage as one went up the hierarchy, would be replaced by a plan with only two levels. The proposal was shot down. Why? Because “people expect to get more privileges as they go up the corporate ladder! How can you propose to take that away from them? This is what motivates them in their career progression.” Less privileges in hierarchy was perceived to be de-motivating.
China will never become the US
In China, a high PDI culture, people have ascribed power, rather than “achieved power”. Such ascribed power lies not only at the top of hierarchies: it begins with the first levels of hierarchy, such as policemen on the streets, teachers in classrooms, first-line supervisors in factories and offices. It is often in these lower levels of hierarchy where one finds the most common abuse of power. These lower-level power holders are the most sensitive to challenge and the ones who most often avoid such challenge by abusing the power they have. They are the stalwarts of a high PDI culture, not some evil creature tucked away in a palace at the top of the civil service hierarchy. Power in China is not exerted by a handful of people at the top; it is exerted by hundreds of millions of people in every rung of the societal ladder.
If Barack Obama magically replaced the Prime Minister of China, he would be totally powerless to turn China into an American democracy. This would not be because his fellow cabinet ministers would oppose it; this would be because hundreds of millions of Chinese would oppose it, from the bottom up.
Changing the culture would mean giving responsibility to the millions who currently have little or no responsibility at all. It means they would have no one else to blame but themselves, for the big and the small things alike. It would mean removing the privileges that every middle manager has fought so hard to get. It would mean changing everybody’s role in society, not only in government, but also at work and in the homes. The complexity and reach of such a change is beyond imagination.
Will China ever become a democracy? Well, yes, it might… but not a democracy as described in the US or UK, with only two political parties who are in constant conflict alternating in power. A democracy in China is more likely to resemble the democracies you see in Latin America, in Africa or in other countries in Asia: dominated by one political party and a coalition of supporters, who remain in power for decades before a different party with its own coalition of supporters takes over and reigns for the next couple of decades. A democracy in which rulers enjoy more power, privileges and responsibility, than their counterparts in the Northern Hemisphere.
Right now, the paradox is that China has never been so democratic in its entire history (which, by the way, is four times longer than the UK’s history and forty times longer than the US’s). Never before have so many people in China enjoyed so much individual freedom of expression, equality of income and distribution of power… It may still seem very hierarchical compared to the US, but it has never been less hierarchical than in the past ten years.
It is likely to continue to move, very slowly, towards even greater egalitarianism. Just how slowly? Chinese slowly. The time perspective in the Chinese culture is longer than perhaps any other culture in the world. It is especially the opposite of what you see in the US and UK, where people think in terms of weeks, rather than decades.
When the Chinese say “the US Dollar should be replaced as an international currency by a basket of currencies managed by the IMF”, they don’t mean “by the end of next year”. They mean “over the next 20 years”.
When they say “China is ready to help Europe resolve their financial issues” they don’t mean “by the end of next quarter”. They mean “over the next 20 years”.
The Chinese do have the ambition to rule the world, eventually. But they intend to do it peacefully, without firing a shot. They will do it through the power of their economy, their values, their culture. When do they expect that to happen? Very shortly: by the end of this Century
None of those article authors seemed to be aware of the most important factor underlying all these different situations: culture. All those authors looked at the situations through their own culture biases, failing to be aware of that. And all failed to comprehend what was going on in North Africa, as they also fail to understand what goes on in China.
Even though Geert Hofstede published his first research studies in the 70’s, many people still do not understand the implications and continue to ignore the influence of culture values in politics and in the way societies organize themselves. It may come as a surprise to those authors that other cultures do NOT share the same values as the US and the UK.
High Power Distance Cultures
A few years ago I was facilitating a workshop on managing across cultures for a group of people coming from several different cultural backgrounds. We were well into the discussion of the five dimensions of culture identified in Hofstede’s research, and we were specifically dissecting “Power Distance”. An American lady asked what could be done to remove the present rulers from power in China, in order to change the culture to a lower Power Distance Culture. Obviously, she didn’t get it…
Power Distance is defined as “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations accept that power is distributed unequally in society.” Therefore, Power Distance (PDI) in a society is not determined by its rulers, but rather it is determined by the values of the people.
She still didn’t get it. She argued that the rulers in China, enjoying absolute power, were manipulating the culture to ensure that it continued to be “high PDI”. That is the mistake often made by people brought up in “low PDI” cultures, or should I say, the chain of mistaken assumptions usually made:
1. High PDI is “evil”
2. High PDI is created and maintained by the individuals in power
3. “The People” want their culture to change and become a “low PDI” culture
What this American lady failed to realize was that, in fact, high PDI is not “evil” per se. It is only perceived as such by people coming from a different culture. Conversely, people from China (or any other high PDI culture) might look at the US (or any other low PDI culture) and say: “How terrible! People show no respect for authority! What an evil, chaotic society!” They might even add “how could we overthrow their incompetent leaders and replace them with someone who earns the respect they deserve and restores the natural order of things?”
It seems that it is difficult to accept, in low PDI cultures, that it is not the dictators who define their power, but rather it is the acceptance of others who defines it. And yet, the fact that people accept a strong leader, with a lot of power, does not mean that they are happy with their current leader. They may very well protest and rebel against the current regime, and replace it with a different leader. However, the new leader will be empowered by the people to enjoy a high level of authority, just as the previous one. People in a high PDI culture are not necessarily longing for it to change into a “low PDI” one. Most often than not, all they want is a change in leadership, not a change in leadership style.
Understanding the “high PDI” mentality
People in high PDI cultures believe that some people have much more power than others, and that is just a fact of life. It is readily seen in all kinds of situations, beginning with the family (where the elders hold more power than their children) and extending to work, schools, public institutions, everywhere. Leaders, managers, bosses, teachers, all are authority figures. They have “ascribed power”, through their positions, which is seldom challenged, rather than “attained power”, which can be challenged (and frequently is) in “low PDI” cultures.
Along with that ascribed power, they have privileges and responsibilities. The people in that culture believe that these things go together: power, privilege and responsibility. Figures of authority have power and they are entitled to privileges. It is only fair, since they also have the burden of bearing huge responsibility. All decisions are made by authority figures. All responsibility lies also with these authority figures. They are in charge of taking care of their people.
“Até amanhã, se Deus quiser… João Francisco e a mulher. E os filhos que tiver!”
This old regional Brazilian saying, from the South, means literally: “Until tomorrow, if God wills… João Francisco and his wife. And the children they may have!” João Francisco was an army General in charge of protecting the border between Brazil and Uruguay. For almost 30 years (1893-1923) he not only did that but in fact ruled the region exerting extreme power. He was known for taking no prisoners in the many fights that broke out among Uruguayans and Brazilians who disputed the demarcation of the border line, the revolutionaries who challenged the local governor, and cattle rustlers who smuggled sheep and steers from one country to another (often these three groups were the same people). Such was the respect people gave him, that this expression became popular: nothing would happen without him willing it (and also his wife and kids). In high PDI cultures power is assigned to the position and to the family members around it. Family members do not need to earn respect, it is their right simply from being part of the power holder’s family.
The “great responsibility” that goes with it means that anything that goes wrong is basically the power holder’s fault and he/she has to fix it. The power holder is responsible for everything. The power holder also is responsible for taking care of the people who are loyal to him (or her). If someone is sick, or has an accident, the power holders need to take care of the situation. If the accident was caused by a reckless driver, it is up to the power holders to punish the person who caused the accident. If the roads were in bad conditions, it is the responsibility of the power holder. If the driver didn’t have a driver’s license, it is the responsibility of the power holder to ensure that people without a license are not allowed to drive. The power holder needs to have police on the streets, constantly controlling if people have the proper drivers license, etc. If a building collapses, it’s because the power holders should have ensured that it was being properly built by people with the proper license/authorization.
This creates a rather comfortable situation, which helps to explain why these societies continue to function in this way. People with no power (or with less power) have no responsibility (or less responsibility). There is always “someone higher up who is actually accountable, not me!” And those “higher up” guys are entitled to privileges, in line with the responsibility they bear.
Years ago I proposed an “egalitarian” health care plan in the company I worked for, in Brazil. The existing health plan, which had five levels of increasing coverage as one went up the hierarchy, would be replaced by a plan with only two levels. The proposal was shot down. Why? Because “people expect to get more privileges as they go up the corporate ladder! How can you propose to take that away from them? This is what motivates them in their career progression.” Less privileges in hierarchy was perceived to be de-motivating.
China will never become the US
In China, a high PDI culture, people have ascribed power, rather than “achieved power”. Such ascribed power lies not only at the top of hierarchies: it begins with the first levels of hierarchy, such as policemen on the streets, teachers in classrooms, first-line supervisors in factories and offices. It is often in these lower levels of hierarchy where one finds the most common abuse of power. These lower-level power holders are the most sensitive to challenge and the ones who most often avoid such challenge by abusing the power they have. They are the stalwarts of a high PDI culture, not some evil creature tucked away in a palace at the top of the civil service hierarchy. Power in China is not exerted by a handful of people at the top; it is exerted by hundreds of millions of people in every rung of the societal ladder.
If Barack Obama magically replaced the Prime Minister of China, he would be totally powerless to turn China into an American democracy. This would not be because his fellow cabinet ministers would oppose it; this would be because hundreds of millions of Chinese would oppose it, from the bottom up.
Changing the culture would mean giving responsibility to the millions who currently have little or no responsibility at all. It means they would have no one else to blame but themselves, for the big and the small things alike. It would mean removing the privileges that every middle manager has fought so hard to get. It would mean changing everybody’s role in society, not only in government, but also at work and in the homes. The complexity and reach of such a change is beyond imagination.
Will China ever become a democracy? Well, yes, it might… but not a democracy as described in the US or UK, with only two political parties who are in constant conflict alternating in power. A democracy in China is more likely to resemble the democracies you see in Latin America, in Africa or in other countries in Asia: dominated by one political party and a coalition of supporters, who remain in power for decades before a different party with its own coalition of supporters takes over and reigns for the next couple of decades. A democracy in which rulers enjoy more power, privileges and responsibility, than their counterparts in the Northern Hemisphere.
Right now, the paradox is that China has never been so democratic in its entire history (which, by the way, is four times longer than the UK’s history and forty times longer than the US’s). Never before have so many people in China enjoyed so much individual freedom of expression, equality of income and distribution of power… It may still seem very hierarchical compared to the US, but it has never been less hierarchical than in the past ten years.
It is likely to continue to move, very slowly, towards even greater egalitarianism. Just how slowly? Chinese slowly. The time perspective in the Chinese culture is longer than perhaps any other culture in the world. It is especially the opposite of what you see in the US and UK, where people think in terms of weeks, rather than decades.
When the Chinese say “the US Dollar should be replaced as an international currency by a basket of currencies managed by the IMF”, they don’t mean “by the end of next year”. They mean “over the next 20 years”.
When they say “China is ready to help Europe resolve their financial issues” they don’t mean “by the end of next quarter”. They mean “over the next 20 years”.
The Chinese do have the ambition to rule the world, eventually. But they intend to do it peacefully, without firing a shot. They will do it through the power of their economy, their values, their culture. When do they expect that to happen? Very shortly: by the end of this Century
Friday, August 19, 2011
Boat versus Shopping Mall
Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, has written an article on the IHT titled “A rudderless world” (19 Aug 2011). He describes the world as “…people living in more than 190 cabins on the same boat. Each cabin has a government to manage its affairs. And the boat as a whole moves along without a captain or a crew.”
According to Mr. Mahbubani, “the demand for global leadership has never been greater. The world is truly lost in trying to find a way out of the current crisis.” I would like to provide a different perspective.
Who needs a leader?
The need for leadership is culturally determined. Different cultures express different needs for different kinds of leaders. Research shows that in Singapore hierarchy and respect for authority is much more highly valued than, for instance, Northern Europe and North America. For every Singaporean who wants strong leadership to “run the boat”, there is an American Tea Party member who wants less leadership, and more autonomy and freedom for all those different people living in the 190 different cabins. The “need for leadership” needs to be qualified.
Margaret Thatcher once said “There is no such thing as ‘society’. Everyone should look after themselves.” A fine example of individualist, “low power distance” thinking, which is predominant in North America and Northern Europe. Research also shows that, on the other hand, most of the world’s population live in “hierarchical” societies. Outside of Northern Europe and North America, practically everybody else is in a “hierarchical” culture, totaling 91% of the world’s population. Only 9% of the world’s population live in “egalitarian” societies, which include Australia, New Zealand and Costa Rica, in addition to the aforementioned NA and NE.
If we lived in a planetary democracy, indeed we would choose, as a planet, for a strong leader as Mr. Mahbubani seems to be asking for. However, the reality is that those 9% of “egalitarians” in the Northwestern corner of the world account for 36% of the world’s GDP. Their share of production is proportionately much higher than the rest, and that gives them more political clout.
The US alone spends more on its military budget than all the other nations combined. This also tilts the scales towards the Northwest. Still, what has changed in the past 20 years is that connectivity has grown exponentially, and the share of GDP held by “the Northwest” has actually decreased (it was much more in 1970) as emerging markets have developed at a quicker pace (notably China and India, but others as well). Moving forward, the trend is that the economic imbalance between “the Northwest” and “the Rest” will decrease.
Mr. Mahbubani points out that “geoeconomics require consensus”, but “geopolitics of the world are running at cross purposes with the geoeconomics of the world.” He concludes that “The world is adrift”. This is where I think we need to look at this from a different angle. The need for leadership is different, depending on whether you come from Asia or from North America. And if geoeconomics require consensus, maybe that means we need a different analogy to guide our thinking.
Ship or Shopping?
The metaphor of being on a ship and needing a captain to tell the crew how to run the ship and how to “look after” the passengers in the cabins is a very hierarchical one. It assumes that all parties involved share “hierarchical” values, which is not the case. It also plays down the notion of sovereign states. Granted, that notion is outdated and will be replaced by a different political order. However, that will be a long process, lasting perhaps yet another 20 or 30 years, if not more.
Our situation at present is more akin to that of 190 shop owners in a shopping mall. We form a kind of condominium that needs to be managed, but the mall manager does not hold the same kind of authority as the captain of a ship. The shop owners may appoint someone for the role of mall manager, but they have complete authority in managing each their own shop. From time to time, they need to meet in a sort of assembly, to decide on certain broad issues, such as opening hours, shared services such as security, cleaning, waste management, energy consumption. The analogy to Planet Earth is more clear than thinking of a ship.
The mall manager of Planet Earth needs to be more of a coordinator, rather than a captain. Mr.Mahbubani argues that Barak Obama is “the best candidate for global leader”. I agree, but only if he relinquishes the presidency of the US (to Sarah Palin? Rick Perry? Hillary Clinton?). The mall manager cannot manage the mall and simultaneously manage the largest shop in the mall.
One might argue that the mall manager is the Secretary General of the United Nations. I would say that the UN has become too bureaucratic and has lost much of its legitimacy. It needs to be replaced by another institution, with a similar purpose but a different mandate. We need a fresh institution with a different governance model, perhaps with an Economic Council made of the G20 and a different arrangement for the Security Council.
The irony in the US is that Obama may not get re-elected, because people in the US want a leader that is aggressive, decisive and bold. They want a cowboy type like a Texan, but with the intellect of a Bostonian. Those two archetypes seldom come together… and having to choose between the two, Americans may go for the stupid cowboy rather than the wimpy intellectual. Yet, if there were global elections to appoint a global leader, Obama would win by a landslide.
The Crisis OF Democracy
Mr Mahbubani asks: “Have democracies become dysfunctional?” I would say the short answer is: “Yes. But only temporarily and only in very specific parts of the world.” Anglo-Saxon democracies, notably the US and the UK, have become dysfunctional. For how long, we don't know. The US is paralyzed due to their “Competition” model of governance pitting Democrats against Republicans. They need a “third force” to solve the impasse. The UK is in crisis because of their similar model, pitting Labour against Conservatives. None managed to secure a majority in the last election, so they had to form a coalition which has found it difficult to manage the economic issues.
However, one should not judge Europe by looking at the UK. And we should never judge Europe looking at it through the eyes of the UK, either. The European Union is all about trying to reach consensus through coordination. This profoundly irritates advocates of the Anglo-Saxon model of decisive leadership, and it also annoys very much all those living in hierarchical societies, who expect a strong, authoritarian leader, even if they might not like the person currently in that position and would prefer someone else. However, the EU is not hierarchical and it is not Anglo-Saxon. It has a diversity of values and of governance models which demands something different from the simple “top-down” approach found in hierarchical societies and also different from the decisive model valued in the US and UK.
Northwestern democracies need renewal, yes. The bad news for the Anglo-Saxon advocates and for the hierarchical advocates is: in a multilateral world with a more balanced distribution of power among the US, Europe, China and a couple of other key players, the more appropriate leadership style may be the coordinator, the” mall manager”, rather than the ship captain.
The Dutch and Scandinavian cultures have had such governance models running for at least a few hundred years, maybe more. They have some of the best Human Development scores in the world, so they must be doing something right… We need to look at that more closely, for therein may lie the best alternatives for the world going forward.
According to Mr. Mahbubani, “the demand for global leadership has never been greater. The world is truly lost in trying to find a way out of the current crisis.” I would like to provide a different perspective.
Who needs a leader?
The need for leadership is culturally determined. Different cultures express different needs for different kinds of leaders. Research shows that in Singapore hierarchy and respect for authority is much more highly valued than, for instance, Northern Europe and North America. For every Singaporean who wants strong leadership to “run the boat”, there is an American Tea Party member who wants less leadership, and more autonomy and freedom for all those different people living in the 190 different cabins. The “need for leadership” needs to be qualified.
Margaret Thatcher once said “There is no such thing as ‘society’. Everyone should look after themselves.” A fine example of individualist, “low power distance” thinking, which is predominant in North America and Northern Europe. Research also shows that, on the other hand, most of the world’s population live in “hierarchical” societies. Outside of Northern Europe and North America, practically everybody else is in a “hierarchical” culture, totaling 91% of the world’s population. Only 9% of the world’s population live in “egalitarian” societies, which include Australia, New Zealand and Costa Rica, in addition to the aforementioned NA and NE.
If we lived in a planetary democracy, indeed we would choose, as a planet, for a strong leader as Mr. Mahbubani seems to be asking for. However, the reality is that those 9% of “egalitarians” in the Northwestern corner of the world account for 36% of the world’s GDP. Their share of production is proportionately much higher than the rest, and that gives them more political clout.
The US alone spends more on its military budget than all the other nations combined. This also tilts the scales towards the Northwest. Still, what has changed in the past 20 years is that connectivity has grown exponentially, and the share of GDP held by “the Northwest” has actually decreased (it was much more in 1970) as emerging markets have developed at a quicker pace (notably China and India, but others as well). Moving forward, the trend is that the economic imbalance between “the Northwest” and “the Rest” will decrease.
Mr. Mahbubani points out that “geoeconomics require consensus”, but “geopolitics of the world are running at cross purposes with the geoeconomics of the world.” He concludes that “The world is adrift”. This is where I think we need to look at this from a different angle. The need for leadership is different, depending on whether you come from Asia or from North America. And if geoeconomics require consensus, maybe that means we need a different analogy to guide our thinking.
Ship or Shopping?
The metaphor of being on a ship and needing a captain to tell the crew how to run the ship and how to “look after” the passengers in the cabins is a very hierarchical one. It assumes that all parties involved share “hierarchical” values, which is not the case. It also plays down the notion of sovereign states. Granted, that notion is outdated and will be replaced by a different political order. However, that will be a long process, lasting perhaps yet another 20 or 30 years, if not more.
Our situation at present is more akin to that of 190 shop owners in a shopping mall. We form a kind of condominium that needs to be managed, but the mall manager does not hold the same kind of authority as the captain of a ship. The shop owners may appoint someone for the role of mall manager, but they have complete authority in managing each their own shop. From time to time, they need to meet in a sort of assembly, to decide on certain broad issues, such as opening hours, shared services such as security, cleaning, waste management, energy consumption. The analogy to Planet Earth is more clear than thinking of a ship.
The mall manager of Planet Earth needs to be more of a coordinator, rather than a captain. Mr.Mahbubani argues that Barak Obama is “the best candidate for global leader”. I agree, but only if he relinquishes the presidency of the US (to Sarah Palin? Rick Perry? Hillary Clinton?). The mall manager cannot manage the mall and simultaneously manage the largest shop in the mall.
One might argue that the mall manager is the Secretary General of the United Nations. I would say that the UN has become too bureaucratic and has lost much of its legitimacy. It needs to be replaced by another institution, with a similar purpose but a different mandate. We need a fresh institution with a different governance model, perhaps with an Economic Council made of the G20 and a different arrangement for the Security Council.
The irony in the US is that Obama may not get re-elected, because people in the US want a leader that is aggressive, decisive and bold. They want a cowboy type like a Texan, but with the intellect of a Bostonian. Those two archetypes seldom come together… and having to choose between the two, Americans may go for the stupid cowboy rather than the wimpy intellectual. Yet, if there were global elections to appoint a global leader, Obama would win by a landslide.
The Crisis OF Democracy
Mr Mahbubani asks: “Have democracies become dysfunctional?” I would say the short answer is: “Yes. But only temporarily and only in very specific parts of the world.” Anglo-Saxon democracies, notably the US and the UK, have become dysfunctional. For how long, we don't know. The US is paralyzed due to their “Competition” model of governance pitting Democrats against Republicans. They need a “third force” to solve the impasse. The UK is in crisis because of their similar model, pitting Labour against Conservatives. None managed to secure a majority in the last election, so they had to form a coalition which has found it difficult to manage the economic issues.
However, one should not judge Europe by looking at the UK. And we should never judge Europe looking at it through the eyes of the UK, either. The European Union is all about trying to reach consensus through coordination. This profoundly irritates advocates of the Anglo-Saxon model of decisive leadership, and it also annoys very much all those living in hierarchical societies, who expect a strong, authoritarian leader, even if they might not like the person currently in that position and would prefer someone else. However, the EU is not hierarchical and it is not Anglo-Saxon. It has a diversity of values and of governance models which demands something different from the simple “top-down” approach found in hierarchical societies and also different from the decisive model valued in the US and UK.
Northwestern democracies need renewal, yes. The bad news for the Anglo-Saxon advocates and for the hierarchical advocates is: in a multilateral world with a more balanced distribution of power among the US, Europe, China and a couple of other key players, the more appropriate leadership style may be the coordinator, the” mall manager”, rather than the ship captain.
The Dutch and Scandinavian cultures have had such governance models running for at least a few hundred years, maybe more. They have some of the best Human Development scores in the world, so they must be doing something right… We need to look at that more closely, for therein may lie the best alternatives for the world going forward.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
New Virus Threatens The US & Europe
The US & the EU have been struggling awkwardly to resolve the world’s economic woes for three years now and what is most appalling is the epidemic of stupidity that has claimed thousands of victims among world leaders on both sides of the Atlantic.
A New Health Threat: The VSL-2 Epidemic
Only just recently scientists have been able to identify a freak strain of a virus that has been linked to the economic crisis that began at the end of 2008 and continues until today. The virus (named VSL for “Very Stupid Leadership) has been known for years in its milder form: VSL 1, which is as usual as the common cold and affects many business leaders. VSL-1 is easy to diagnose and to treat. The usual symptoms are narrow-mindedness and short-term thinking, often accompanied by selective amnesia (forgetting past mistakes or commitments made just a few days ago).
Treatment of VSL-1 affected patients is pretty straightforward, consisting basically of workshops and coaching. However, when treatment is interrupted after only a few applications, the symptoms usually return and blame is cast upon the treatment. In reality, the cure can only be obtained if one persists with the treatment systematically for at least a year. In some cases, up to three years of regular treatment are necessary before the patient can be safely declared to be free of the virus.
The form identified now is a different strain (dubbed VSL-2) and has some peculiar characteristics which make it far more dangerous than the previously known form:
1. The main symptom is a severe decrease in intelligence as in the ability to solve common problems. This can easily be verified by using IQ tests, which will show a negative impact of 30 points or more when compared to scores obtained before the infection. The main difficulty is convincing the subjects to take the test once they have been infected (see next item).
2. It is far more difficult to recognize and isolate in a laboratory, because it is accompanied by strong denial and feelings of righteousness
3. It affects especially leaders in senior political positions, policy makers and regulators. Apparently people under 30 are immune to it, and so are investment bankers. The reason behind the immunity of investment bankers is still a contentious issue among researchers: some say that it is a function of the nature of their activity, others say that it is a function of their age (most are under 30) or of their mental age (certainly most have a mental age well below 30). Still other specialists have even claimed that investment bankers are not really immune, they just look smart when compared to regulators who have been deeply affected by VSL-2.
4. The short-term thinking is not as severe, eluding first efforts at diagnosing it. VSL-1 patients think in terms of quarters, while those affected by VSL-2 have a management horizon of 12 months. The pathology is determined by the fact that the 12-month outlook is applied even to issues that require thinking in five-year terms (or more), such as economic recovery and managing government debt.
5. VSL-2 brings about selective blindness to economic data, specially unemployment data, and damages the perception of social unrest.
It’s The Stupidity, Stupid
The main problem world leaders face right now is not political, it is the economy. However, the real problem beneath that, the root cause of the prolonged economic crisis, is the stupidity caused by VSL-2. Apparently the virus also causes leaders to avoid taking measures that are consistent and “go all the way” in a certain direction. Rather, they end up implementing “half-baked” solutions or “watered-down” compromises which are insufficient to address the issues as needed.
In the US, leaders struggled to decide for economic stimulus packages and “quantitative easing”. Basically, they opted for injecting billions of dollars into the economy, when the need was for much more: trillions of dollars were needed in order to capitalize the banks, create jobs and allow companies to hoard cash (and be less dependent on the banking system). The chosen solution proved to be insufficient, but since it increased the national deficit (DUUHH!) politicians quickly shifted their attention to decreasing that deficit, rather than increasing to the point where it would actually have an impact in job creation. The situation now is that banks and companies have excess cash, but not enough to invest in production and expansion (creating jobs).
In the UK, conservatives blamed the crisis on the Labour Party (a smart move, before the virus affected them), won the election by a narrow margin and proceeded to implement a programme of economic reform. That’s when VSL-2 set in, and the programme went off-track. Rather than cutting expenses intelligently, leaders made the cuts in all the wrong places, totally overcome by VSL-2 (poor bastards!).
These symptoms are quite similar to what I have encountered in private companies, where leaders affected by the common VSL-1 have made stupid investment decisions (spending on the wrong things) and later have reverted to cutting expenses indiscriminately, across the board (which results in cutting expenses in the wrong items). In both cases, rather than deciding to invest smartly or to manage expenses with intelligence, affected leaders choose the easy (and stupid) option of doing it across the board. Eventually they are replaced by healthier substitutes, when it’s not to late to save the company.
Stupidity on one side of the Atlantic (US: spending badly, on the wrong things, and not enough, then reverting to expense-cutting across the board). Stupidity on the other side of the Atlantic (UK: refusing to invest in job creation and cutting expenses across the board). The VSL-2 epidemic has become a pandemic.
Continental Europe has also become affected in dealing with the Greek-Irish-Portuguese-Spanish-Italian-French crisis. Leaders have failed to inject enough money in the economy, have failed to commit enough money to bail out Greece and the other countries involved. Rather than issuing Euro-bonds which would solve the problem in the long term, they are still debating as if the continent was still made of sovereign countries. The future lies in strengthening the European Union as such, but leaders affected by VSL-2 fail to see that.
Meanwhile, the investment bankers, who are immune to the virus, are playing the international financial system and having a ball! They pick targets each week:
IB1 - “Ok, let’s do Italy next week, then Spain again…”
IB2 – “Not Spain again! There’s more potential in doing a different country. How about the US?”
IB1 – “Not yet. Wait until we’re closer to the elections, then we can really make a killing! Let’s do France instead.”
Up until now, China seems to have avoided contagion. Some say that their cultural DNA is immune to narrow-mindedness and short-term thinking, but there have been some signs of contamination. Can they remain immune or is it a matter of time? No one knows for sure.
The Cure
In the 80’s, the band “The Cure” had a number of hits, one of which was the song “A Forest”. Therein lies the remedy against VSL-2.
Leaders need to look at the forest, rather than the individual trees, to fight against narrow-mindedness. In Europe they need to look at Europe as a whole (including the UK!) and not at the outdated and obsolete concept of sovereign countries. In the US, they need to look beyond partisan divisions and local states interests, focusing on the American economy which stretches beyond national boundaries and spans the whole planet.
Everywhere, leaders need to think long term, as if they were planting a forest which will take years, maybe decades to develop. Someone once remarked to a man planting a tree: “Are you planting a tree? That’s going to take years to grow and provide a return on your investment, in terms of shade, shelter or fruit!” To which the man replied: “Then I’d better do it now, rather than wait any longer!”
Until someone discovers a pill that removes stupidity caused by VSL-2, let’s launch a campaign inspired by another “The Cure” song, called “Close To You”. Let’s each of us get close to a leader we know and let’s try to help him or her fight against narrow-mindedness and short-term thinking. Let’s do what we can to influence these leaders in a positive way, looking at the bigger picture. By helping them we will be helping society as a whole, both in the short term and in the long term.
A New Health Threat: The VSL-2 Epidemic
Only just recently scientists have been able to identify a freak strain of a virus that has been linked to the economic crisis that began at the end of 2008 and continues until today. The virus (named VSL for “Very Stupid Leadership) has been known for years in its milder form: VSL 1, which is as usual as the common cold and affects many business leaders. VSL-1 is easy to diagnose and to treat. The usual symptoms are narrow-mindedness and short-term thinking, often accompanied by selective amnesia (forgetting past mistakes or commitments made just a few days ago).
Treatment of VSL-1 affected patients is pretty straightforward, consisting basically of workshops and coaching. However, when treatment is interrupted after only a few applications, the symptoms usually return and blame is cast upon the treatment. In reality, the cure can only be obtained if one persists with the treatment systematically for at least a year. In some cases, up to three years of regular treatment are necessary before the patient can be safely declared to be free of the virus.
The form identified now is a different strain (dubbed VSL-2) and has some peculiar characteristics which make it far more dangerous than the previously known form:
1. The main symptom is a severe decrease in intelligence as in the ability to solve common problems. This can easily be verified by using IQ tests, which will show a negative impact of 30 points or more when compared to scores obtained before the infection. The main difficulty is convincing the subjects to take the test once they have been infected (see next item).
2. It is far more difficult to recognize and isolate in a laboratory, because it is accompanied by strong denial and feelings of righteousness
3. It affects especially leaders in senior political positions, policy makers and regulators. Apparently people under 30 are immune to it, and so are investment bankers. The reason behind the immunity of investment bankers is still a contentious issue among researchers: some say that it is a function of the nature of their activity, others say that it is a function of their age (most are under 30) or of their mental age (certainly most have a mental age well below 30). Still other specialists have even claimed that investment bankers are not really immune, they just look smart when compared to regulators who have been deeply affected by VSL-2.
4. The short-term thinking is not as severe, eluding first efforts at diagnosing it. VSL-1 patients think in terms of quarters, while those affected by VSL-2 have a management horizon of 12 months. The pathology is determined by the fact that the 12-month outlook is applied even to issues that require thinking in five-year terms (or more), such as economic recovery and managing government debt.
5. VSL-2 brings about selective blindness to economic data, specially unemployment data, and damages the perception of social unrest.
It’s The Stupidity, Stupid
The main problem world leaders face right now is not political, it is the economy. However, the real problem beneath that, the root cause of the prolonged economic crisis, is the stupidity caused by VSL-2. Apparently the virus also causes leaders to avoid taking measures that are consistent and “go all the way” in a certain direction. Rather, they end up implementing “half-baked” solutions or “watered-down” compromises which are insufficient to address the issues as needed.
In the US, leaders struggled to decide for economic stimulus packages and “quantitative easing”. Basically, they opted for injecting billions of dollars into the economy, when the need was for much more: trillions of dollars were needed in order to capitalize the banks, create jobs and allow companies to hoard cash (and be less dependent on the banking system). The chosen solution proved to be insufficient, but since it increased the national deficit (DUUHH!) politicians quickly shifted their attention to decreasing that deficit, rather than increasing to the point where it would actually have an impact in job creation. The situation now is that banks and companies have excess cash, but not enough to invest in production and expansion (creating jobs).
In the UK, conservatives blamed the crisis on the Labour Party (a smart move, before the virus affected them), won the election by a narrow margin and proceeded to implement a programme of economic reform. That’s when VSL-2 set in, and the programme went off-track. Rather than cutting expenses intelligently, leaders made the cuts in all the wrong places, totally overcome by VSL-2 (poor bastards!).
These symptoms are quite similar to what I have encountered in private companies, where leaders affected by the common VSL-1 have made stupid investment decisions (spending on the wrong things) and later have reverted to cutting expenses indiscriminately, across the board (which results in cutting expenses in the wrong items). In both cases, rather than deciding to invest smartly or to manage expenses with intelligence, affected leaders choose the easy (and stupid) option of doing it across the board. Eventually they are replaced by healthier substitutes, when it’s not to late to save the company.
Stupidity on one side of the Atlantic (US: spending badly, on the wrong things, and not enough, then reverting to expense-cutting across the board). Stupidity on the other side of the Atlantic (UK: refusing to invest in job creation and cutting expenses across the board). The VSL-2 epidemic has become a pandemic.
Continental Europe has also become affected in dealing with the Greek-Irish-Portuguese-Spanish-Italian-French crisis. Leaders have failed to inject enough money in the economy, have failed to commit enough money to bail out Greece and the other countries involved. Rather than issuing Euro-bonds which would solve the problem in the long term, they are still debating as if the continent was still made of sovereign countries. The future lies in strengthening the European Union as such, but leaders affected by VSL-2 fail to see that.
Meanwhile, the investment bankers, who are immune to the virus, are playing the international financial system and having a ball! They pick targets each week:
IB1 - “Ok, let’s do Italy next week, then Spain again…”
IB2 – “Not Spain again! There’s more potential in doing a different country. How about the US?”
IB1 – “Not yet. Wait until we’re closer to the elections, then we can really make a killing! Let’s do France instead.”
Up until now, China seems to have avoided contagion. Some say that their cultural DNA is immune to narrow-mindedness and short-term thinking, but there have been some signs of contamination. Can they remain immune or is it a matter of time? No one knows for sure.
The Cure
In the 80’s, the band “The Cure” had a number of hits, one of which was the song “A Forest”. Therein lies the remedy against VSL-2.
Leaders need to look at the forest, rather than the individual trees, to fight against narrow-mindedness. In Europe they need to look at Europe as a whole (including the UK!) and not at the outdated and obsolete concept of sovereign countries. In the US, they need to look beyond partisan divisions and local states interests, focusing on the American economy which stretches beyond national boundaries and spans the whole planet.
Everywhere, leaders need to think long term, as if they were planting a forest which will take years, maybe decades to develop. Someone once remarked to a man planting a tree: “Are you planting a tree? That’s going to take years to grow and provide a return on your investment, in terms of shade, shelter or fruit!” To which the man replied: “Then I’d better do it now, rather than wait any longer!”
Until someone discovers a pill that removes stupidity caused by VSL-2, let’s launch a campaign inspired by another “The Cure” song, called “Close To You”. Let’s each of us get close to a leader we know and let’s try to help him or her fight against narrow-mindedness and short-term thinking. Let’s do what we can to influence these leaders in a positive way, looking at the bigger picture. By helping them we will be helping society as a whole, both in the short term and in the long term.
Monday, August 8, 2011
London Riots
The BBC and the NY Times say that people are “puzzled” and “trying to make sense of sudden outbreak of violence” in Tottenham in early August. I’m not sure if it is “people” who are puzzled or is it the journalists writing about the events…
It seems clear that what sparked the violence was the killing of Mark Duggan, a 29 year-old black man, by police officers on Thursday, August 4. The headlines on August 7 might have well been: “Police Violence Spark Public Outrage”. Rather, the local media chose to under-report the incident, and also the reactions to it, until it became impossible to ignore the scale of what was going on.
If this had happened in China, I’m sure the headlines in the US and UK would have blared against government censorship of the local media, who was kept from reporting fully on the incident. When the same thing happens in the UK (or the US) what do you call it? Self-censorship? Are government officials actively involved in “giving a call” to media editors, asking them to “be careful not to over-react” or “blow this out of proportion”?
It’s not just the censoring that we should worry about, it’s the broader attitude of trying to ignore the seriousness of the unemployment issue, trying to sweep it all under the carpet.
Reports from London talk of people saying that “This country has changed. We’ve lost something”.
DUHH! Of course the UK has changed. Guess what? All countries have changed. All countries have lost something. Or did they have it, in the first place?
The NY Times has reported that people ask “where has common decency and respect gone?”. Well, common decency and respect was not there, in the first place, as something demonstrated to all. There was racial discrimination for centuries. There was a class distinction between “the ruling class” and “the working class”, also for centuries. These things, unfortunately, do not go away at the blink of an eye. And, in terms of culture, a decade is equal to the blink of an eye.
Blame it on the outsiders
It’s amazing how, all over the world, there is this “knee-jerk reaction” to blame outsiders for all your troubles. Foreigners are the favourite “outsiders”. It’s a tribal reaction, to blame the outsiders. The funny thing is to realize that people in cosmopolitan cities like London, New York, Paris and Berlin, are all still subject to this type of tribal behavior. “Blame the immigrants” is the reflex reaction. Ironically, the “immigrants” are blamed equally by Muammar Gaddafi for what happened in Libya, as well as by Tory leaders for what happened in London.
Even the local residents of Tottenham have said that “these people who are looting and rioting, they don’t live in this neighbourhood”.
That is one of the issues of our times: people move around. People communicate (facebook, twitter, mobile phones). It’s no use blaming the outsiders, in a global world there are no “outsiders”. You cannot cordon off neighbourhoods. Would you like to introduce Apartheid in London? I don’t think that would solve anything, it would only aggravate the problems.
The fact is that when financial disaster struck in 2008, the Labour Party was blamed for it. The irony is that the crisis was caused by speculation gone wild among investment banks, run by people who typically vote and support the Conservative Party. So the conservatives caused the financial melt-down, blamed the progressives, then got elected to run government and quickly set about to implement a series of policies that shifted the impact of the crisis away from “the ruling class” and on to “the working class”. This is not only ironic, it’s also tragic.
Unemployment has grown tremendously and is likely to continue at high levels for years, because of the policies adopted by the Tories. Reducing government spending immediately increases unemployment, as any second-rate economist will tell you. More important, still, is where are the spending cuts directed. According to the BBC, programmes to prevent crime have been cut harder than programmes to repress violence. Is this just stupidity or is there an evil mind behind all this, manipulating politicians to ensure that they make the worst possible choices in economic and social policy?
Conservatives were quick to “do unto others, before they do unto you”, so they blamed the integration policies. According to their views, the “outsiders” are simply “bad people”, and the integration policies of the past decades have failed to turn them into “good people”. The failed integration policies are blamed on Labour.
The case for real integration
Unless economic policies AND social integration policies are changed dramatically, the situation will get worse before it gets any better. The first step is to recognize how serious the situation is. The UK is not on the road to recovery. Unless policies are changed, they will continue to have an increasing negative impact on unemployment, and that will stir more social violence.
The priority of economic policies needs to shift towards job creation, even if it means increasing government debt. Creative policies are needed here. Think about Schumacher’s book “Small Is Beautiful”. We need to create millions of job opportunities for young and old. Unemployment turns millions of people into outcasts and turning to crime is just one step away, especially when figures of authority are demoralized.
Right now, the police are demoralized. They’ve shot innocent people more than once in the past three years and stood idly by while the riots spiraled out of control. The politicians are demoralized: the hacking scandal revealed more than hacking, it uncovered a web of corruption in which press officials and politicians exchanged money and bought favours from each other. The police are also involved in that web, and all parties are also guilty of trying to keep a lid on the whole thing, withholding evidence and delaying investigations. The Church has also been demoralized, most recently by accusations of pedophilia and covering up investigations about it.
David Cameron has been said to favour “a shake-up” in London police. I’m afraid it has to be more than just a “shake-up” and it has to involve other institutions as well, including Parliament, government and the Judiciary Power. The reform needs to involve private institutions too, such as media companies, and also the whole education system. We have a crisis of values, and this means the issue is broader and deeper than normally portrayed. It is still manageable, but it needs broad and deep action, not just your usual “panis et circensis” (“give them bread and entertainment, and people will behave”).
Integration policies need to change in order to foster real integration. This means gradually shaping a society which is the product of all social forces involved. It does not mean turning the UK into a Muslim society, but it also does not mean turning all Muslims into Anglicans. What it does mean is turning the UK into a pluralistic society in which the diversity of cultural backgrounds is seen as a strength, rather than as something to be avoided.
Yes, this country has lost something. It has lost the acquiescence of minorities to social abuse. Minorities have been taught the Anglo-Saxon values of egalitarianism, individualism and performance orientation. Guess what? They learned these values and adopted them! They believed the people who told them that “all people are created equal”, “freedom is an individual’s most important right” and “all people should have the same opportunities to progress at work based on performance and merit”.
Now, this country can gain something. It can gain the richness of diversity. It can realize the benefits of learning from people who are different from you. It can learn to show respect to all people, even to those who share a different religious belief, to those who come from a different ethnicity. It can renew its Anglo-Saxon values by ensuring that indeed society is egalitarian and does not privilege those who live in certain neighborhoods. It can ensure that individuals are held accountable, no matter how high in government their positions. And it can enforce the value of performance as being the criteria for progress at work, rather than sharing the same club with a government official.
The UK of the 21st Century will be perhaps more balanced in its values. It may evolve into a kind of balanced egalitarianism in which there are no longer distinctions between “the ruling class” and “the working class”, yet there is still respect for authority. It may come to value freedom of expression in balance with maintaining group harmony. And it may temper performance orientation with quality of life and caring for others, so that people get a better work-life balance. The answer to its social issues lies in looking ahead, looking towards new solutions, rather than trying to return to the past. We need to respect and understand the past, so that we can avoid repeating it. We need to create a future that is better than our past.
It seems clear that what sparked the violence was the killing of Mark Duggan, a 29 year-old black man, by police officers on Thursday, August 4. The headlines on August 7 might have well been: “Police Violence Spark Public Outrage”. Rather, the local media chose to under-report the incident, and also the reactions to it, until it became impossible to ignore the scale of what was going on.
If this had happened in China, I’m sure the headlines in the US and UK would have blared against government censorship of the local media, who was kept from reporting fully on the incident. When the same thing happens in the UK (or the US) what do you call it? Self-censorship? Are government officials actively involved in “giving a call” to media editors, asking them to “be careful not to over-react” or “blow this out of proportion”?
It’s not just the censoring that we should worry about, it’s the broader attitude of trying to ignore the seriousness of the unemployment issue, trying to sweep it all under the carpet.
Reports from London talk of people saying that “This country has changed. We’ve lost something”.
DUHH! Of course the UK has changed. Guess what? All countries have changed. All countries have lost something. Or did they have it, in the first place?
The NY Times has reported that people ask “where has common decency and respect gone?”. Well, common decency and respect was not there, in the first place, as something demonstrated to all. There was racial discrimination for centuries. There was a class distinction between “the ruling class” and “the working class”, also for centuries. These things, unfortunately, do not go away at the blink of an eye. And, in terms of culture, a decade is equal to the blink of an eye.
Blame it on the outsiders
It’s amazing how, all over the world, there is this “knee-jerk reaction” to blame outsiders for all your troubles. Foreigners are the favourite “outsiders”. It’s a tribal reaction, to blame the outsiders. The funny thing is to realize that people in cosmopolitan cities like London, New York, Paris and Berlin, are all still subject to this type of tribal behavior. “Blame the immigrants” is the reflex reaction. Ironically, the “immigrants” are blamed equally by Muammar Gaddafi for what happened in Libya, as well as by Tory leaders for what happened in London.
Even the local residents of Tottenham have said that “these people who are looting and rioting, they don’t live in this neighbourhood”.
That is one of the issues of our times: people move around. People communicate (facebook, twitter, mobile phones). It’s no use blaming the outsiders, in a global world there are no “outsiders”. You cannot cordon off neighbourhoods. Would you like to introduce Apartheid in London? I don’t think that would solve anything, it would only aggravate the problems.
The fact is that when financial disaster struck in 2008, the Labour Party was blamed for it. The irony is that the crisis was caused by speculation gone wild among investment banks, run by people who typically vote and support the Conservative Party. So the conservatives caused the financial melt-down, blamed the progressives, then got elected to run government and quickly set about to implement a series of policies that shifted the impact of the crisis away from “the ruling class” and on to “the working class”. This is not only ironic, it’s also tragic.
Unemployment has grown tremendously and is likely to continue at high levels for years, because of the policies adopted by the Tories. Reducing government spending immediately increases unemployment, as any second-rate economist will tell you. More important, still, is where are the spending cuts directed. According to the BBC, programmes to prevent crime have been cut harder than programmes to repress violence. Is this just stupidity or is there an evil mind behind all this, manipulating politicians to ensure that they make the worst possible choices in economic and social policy?
Conservatives were quick to “do unto others, before they do unto you”, so they blamed the integration policies. According to their views, the “outsiders” are simply “bad people”, and the integration policies of the past decades have failed to turn them into “good people”. The failed integration policies are blamed on Labour.
The case for real integration
Unless economic policies AND social integration policies are changed dramatically, the situation will get worse before it gets any better. The first step is to recognize how serious the situation is. The UK is not on the road to recovery. Unless policies are changed, they will continue to have an increasing negative impact on unemployment, and that will stir more social violence.
The priority of economic policies needs to shift towards job creation, even if it means increasing government debt. Creative policies are needed here. Think about Schumacher’s book “Small Is Beautiful”. We need to create millions of job opportunities for young and old. Unemployment turns millions of people into outcasts and turning to crime is just one step away, especially when figures of authority are demoralized.
Right now, the police are demoralized. They’ve shot innocent people more than once in the past three years and stood idly by while the riots spiraled out of control. The politicians are demoralized: the hacking scandal revealed more than hacking, it uncovered a web of corruption in which press officials and politicians exchanged money and bought favours from each other. The police are also involved in that web, and all parties are also guilty of trying to keep a lid on the whole thing, withholding evidence and delaying investigations. The Church has also been demoralized, most recently by accusations of pedophilia and covering up investigations about it.
David Cameron has been said to favour “a shake-up” in London police. I’m afraid it has to be more than just a “shake-up” and it has to involve other institutions as well, including Parliament, government and the Judiciary Power. The reform needs to involve private institutions too, such as media companies, and also the whole education system. We have a crisis of values, and this means the issue is broader and deeper than normally portrayed. It is still manageable, but it needs broad and deep action, not just your usual “panis et circensis” (“give them bread and entertainment, and people will behave”).
Integration policies need to change in order to foster real integration. This means gradually shaping a society which is the product of all social forces involved. It does not mean turning the UK into a Muslim society, but it also does not mean turning all Muslims into Anglicans. What it does mean is turning the UK into a pluralistic society in which the diversity of cultural backgrounds is seen as a strength, rather than as something to be avoided.
Yes, this country has lost something. It has lost the acquiescence of minorities to social abuse. Minorities have been taught the Anglo-Saxon values of egalitarianism, individualism and performance orientation. Guess what? They learned these values and adopted them! They believed the people who told them that “all people are created equal”, “freedom is an individual’s most important right” and “all people should have the same opportunities to progress at work based on performance and merit”.
Now, this country can gain something. It can gain the richness of diversity. It can realize the benefits of learning from people who are different from you. It can learn to show respect to all people, even to those who share a different religious belief, to those who come from a different ethnicity. It can renew its Anglo-Saxon values by ensuring that indeed society is egalitarian and does not privilege those who live in certain neighborhoods. It can ensure that individuals are held accountable, no matter how high in government their positions. And it can enforce the value of performance as being the criteria for progress at work, rather than sharing the same club with a government official.
The UK of the 21st Century will be perhaps more balanced in its values. It may evolve into a kind of balanced egalitarianism in which there are no longer distinctions between “the ruling class” and “the working class”, yet there is still respect for authority. It may come to value freedom of expression in balance with maintaining group harmony. And it may temper performance orientation with quality of life and caring for others, so that people get a better work-life balance. The answer to its social issues lies in looking ahead, looking towards new solutions, rather than trying to return to the past. We need to respect and understand the past, so that we can avoid repeating it. We need to create a future that is better than our past.
Helping People Cope With Change
Life is, by definition, equal to change.
Human beings are quite complex organisms and, as such, they change a lot, they grow and develop a lot, even though they don’t go through the same metamorphosis as a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. Yet, as people grow and change, they need to retain their sense of identity, they need to be able to still recognize themselves in a mirror, even though they have grown a moustache, changed their hair colour, or both.
If people change too much, to the point of not recognizing themselves, physically and mentally, then we say they “go crazy” or “loose their mind”. We are all a bit afraid of “going crazy” when we experience too much change in our lives. We all need to maintain a balance between remaining the same, keeping our identity, and turning into someone completely different, losing our identity. Not changing at all, means death. Changing all means madness. We need to grow AND keep our identity, maintaining that dynamic balance.
Learning is change (a form of change). Not all change is learning, but all learning is change. Whenever we learn something, we become a little bit different from who we were before learning what we did. Yet we can still recognize ourselves as being the same person. We also need to maintain our balance in terms of learning, avoiding the loss of identity. We all have a certain fear of learning, as we have a fair of changing (too much). Keeping that balance is key.
When we look around at the world in 2011, we can see that a lot is changing everywhere. All that change requires a lot of learning, just to keep up, and all of this is very threatening (to our identities). The more changes, the more threatened people feel. The paradox, then, is that change can trigger a conservative reaction. The more a person is exposed to change, the more this person feels threatened, and the more this person turns to conservatism in order to avoid change and maintain a sense of identity.
The more we challenge people to change, the more threatened they feel and the more defensive they become, fleeing from change towards the certainty of continuity. The best approach is to provide support for such people, strengthening their sense of identity. The paradox here is that people who have a strong sense of identity are actually more open to change. They are capable of managing change in their lives without losing their identity of feeling afraid to lose it.
We cannot stop change from happening and most of the time we cannot even slow it down. What we can do is help people strengthen their sense of identity by making them aware of their core values (which tend not to change). The better you know who you are, what you stand for, what do you want, the better you will be able to cope with changes around you without losing your identity.
Fear Of Change
The biggest obstacle in all this is balancing support and challenge, balancing the need for continuity to maintain identity and the need for change to adapt to new realities. On one side of the spectrum you have “progressives” who push for change, on the opposite you have “conservatives” who resist change.
This is a different dimension from being “right wing” or “left wing”. Conservatives are basically fundamentalists, and the “clash of civilizations” between “West” and “East” is actually a misnomer… In reality it is a clash between conservative Christians and conservative Muslims.
Progressives have nothing to do with that. Progressives are about integrating religions and values to build a better future. Conservatives are about fearing the future and thinking that the past was better, therefore we should preserve it and try to return to it. Progressives are about “up, up and away”; conservatives are about “back, back and stay”.
We need both identity AND change. We need to balance both in order to move forward without loosing our minds and going crazy.
In that sense, the craziness of Oklahoma and Oslo are a signal that, for some people, progress is going too far, too fast, too soon. That doesn’t mean we should stop social progress. It does not mean we should stop immigration and miscegenation, it does not mean we should go back to the notions of apartheid, “pure” races and Nazism.
It does mean that we must address the social discontents and misfits who turn to violence. We must manage social change in such a way as to avoid that the Geert Wilders of today turn into the Adolf Hitlers of tomorrow. We need to acknowledge that the “Tea Party” movements all over the world are expressions of the fear of progress, and these movements, when not addressed, may spin out of control (even out of control of their own creators and leaders) and generate mass murder, genocide and even destruction of the whole planet.
Sarah Palin did not order the Tucson shootings, but the rhetoric she uses gives crazy people justification for doing crazy things. Nobody told the Oslo attacker to go out and murder 76 people, but the rhetoric of extremist right-wing parties in Europe gives a crazy mind reinforcement to go out and do crazy things.
In the US and UK media people talk about avoiding that “rogue governments” or “terrorists” (as in Muslim terrorists) gain access to nuclear weapons or chemical weapons and wreak havoc and destruction among millions. I am equally concerned that some crazy Christian fundamentalist in Utah may do the same thing!
People who are afraid of social progress can be very dangerous, whether they pray in a mosque, in a synagogue, or in a cathedral. To avoid the madness we must turn to acknowledging it, recognizing it, understanding it and treating it. It’s no use trying to control it by force, by imposing an Orwellian police state. We do need to address it through education (and I mean radically changing traditional education practices), through social and political debate, through innovative approaches and policies.
If we ignore the craziness next door, we run the risk of becoming their next victim, or worse: we run the risk that our children become the victims of the social craziness we did not address.
Human beings are quite complex organisms and, as such, they change a lot, they grow and develop a lot, even though they don’t go through the same metamorphosis as a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. Yet, as people grow and change, they need to retain their sense of identity, they need to be able to still recognize themselves in a mirror, even though they have grown a moustache, changed their hair colour, or both.
If people change too much, to the point of not recognizing themselves, physically and mentally, then we say they “go crazy” or “loose their mind”. We are all a bit afraid of “going crazy” when we experience too much change in our lives. We all need to maintain a balance between remaining the same, keeping our identity, and turning into someone completely different, losing our identity. Not changing at all, means death. Changing all means madness. We need to grow AND keep our identity, maintaining that dynamic balance.
Learning is change (a form of change). Not all change is learning, but all learning is change. Whenever we learn something, we become a little bit different from who we were before learning what we did. Yet we can still recognize ourselves as being the same person. We also need to maintain our balance in terms of learning, avoiding the loss of identity. We all have a certain fear of learning, as we have a fair of changing (too much). Keeping that balance is key.
When we look around at the world in 2011, we can see that a lot is changing everywhere. All that change requires a lot of learning, just to keep up, and all of this is very threatening (to our identities). The more changes, the more threatened people feel. The paradox, then, is that change can trigger a conservative reaction. The more a person is exposed to change, the more this person feels threatened, and the more this person turns to conservatism in order to avoid change and maintain a sense of identity.
The more we challenge people to change, the more threatened they feel and the more defensive they become, fleeing from change towards the certainty of continuity. The best approach is to provide support for such people, strengthening their sense of identity. The paradox here is that people who have a strong sense of identity are actually more open to change. They are capable of managing change in their lives without losing their identity of feeling afraid to lose it.
We cannot stop change from happening and most of the time we cannot even slow it down. What we can do is help people strengthen their sense of identity by making them aware of their core values (which tend not to change). The better you know who you are, what you stand for, what do you want, the better you will be able to cope with changes around you without losing your identity.
Fear Of Change
The biggest obstacle in all this is balancing support and challenge, balancing the need for continuity to maintain identity and the need for change to adapt to new realities. On one side of the spectrum you have “progressives” who push for change, on the opposite you have “conservatives” who resist change.
This is a different dimension from being “right wing” or “left wing”. Conservatives are basically fundamentalists, and the “clash of civilizations” between “West” and “East” is actually a misnomer… In reality it is a clash between conservative Christians and conservative Muslims.
Progressives have nothing to do with that. Progressives are about integrating religions and values to build a better future. Conservatives are about fearing the future and thinking that the past was better, therefore we should preserve it and try to return to it. Progressives are about “up, up and away”; conservatives are about “back, back and stay”.
We need both identity AND change. We need to balance both in order to move forward without loosing our minds and going crazy.
In that sense, the craziness of Oklahoma and Oslo are a signal that, for some people, progress is going too far, too fast, too soon. That doesn’t mean we should stop social progress. It does not mean we should stop immigration and miscegenation, it does not mean we should go back to the notions of apartheid, “pure” races and Nazism.
It does mean that we must address the social discontents and misfits who turn to violence. We must manage social change in such a way as to avoid that the Geert Wilders of today turn into the Adolf Hitlers of tomorrow. We need to acknowledge that the “Tea Party” movements all over the world are expressions of the fear of progress, and these movements, when not addressed, may spin out of control (even out of control of their own creators and leaders) and generate mass murder, genocide and even destruction of the whole planet.
Sarah Palin did not order the Tucson shootings, but the rhetoric she uses gives crazy people justification for doing crazy things. Nobody told the Oslo attacker to go out and murder 76 people, but the rhetoric of extremist right-wing parties in Europe gives a crazy mind reinforcement to go out and do crazy things.
In the US and UK media people talk about avoiding that “rogue governments” or “terrorists” (as in Muslim terrorists) gain access to nuclear weapons or chemical weapons and wreak havoc and destruction among millions. I am equally concerned that some crazy Christian fundamentalist in Utah may do the same thing!
People who are afraid of social progress can be very dangerous, whether they pray in a mosque, in a synagogue, or in a cathedral. To avoid the madness we must turn to acknowledging it, recognizing it, understanding it and treating it. It’s no use trying to control it by force, by imposing an Orwellian police state. We do need to address it through education (and I mean radically changing traditional education practices), through social and political debate, through innovative approaches and policies.
If we ignore the craziness next door, we run the risk of becoming their next victim, or worse: we run the risk that our children become the victims of the social craziness we did not address.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
When Fear of Change Turns Into Mass Murder
The attacks in Norway on July 22 were a tragic illustration of madness empowered in our modern society. They showcased just how crazy an individual and our society can both be, and they raise some important issues we need to face and manage going forward. And I do mean going forward, not going backward.
Power to the people?
We have all heard the mantras of empowering people, repeated endlessly in the egalitarian societies of Northern Europe and North America, and trumpeted across the globe as THE way to manage people in communities and in organizations. Never mind the fact that only 9% of the world’s population live in egalitarian societies and 91% live in hierarchical societies, the egalitarians think they have it right, and everybody else has it wrong. It has come to the extreme of trying to impose “Northern” values on the rest of the world by employing military force.
The truth is, no culture in itself is better than any other. They are not “right” or “wrong”, they are just different.
To each and every culture there are “positive” and “negative” aspects that must be acknowledged and dealt with. No set of cultural values should be imposed on another community.
For decades the Scandinavian model has been touted as an utopia by many media voices. The tragedy in Norway puts the spotlight on some of its shortcomings. The tragedy also raises important issues about the “right” versus “left” movements in politics and about leading change and managing integration in modern society, in all cultures.
Technological advances in communication (the web, social networking, mobile devices) has given enormous power to individuals. This enables people to find their friends and keep in contact, instantly, no matter where they are. This empowerment of the individual has been hailed by the individualistic and egalitarian media as the apex of “Northern” values come to life, utopia becomes reality: everyone is powerful and free to express themselves as individuals.
The popular revolts I the Arab World have been hailed by such pundits as “Facebook Revolutions” and welcomed as a shift towards egalitarian and individualistic values, leaving hierarchical and collectivistic values behind.
However, we need to realize that social networking is not a value in itself. It is just a technology, and it may be equally used for evil purposes as well as for noble purposes. You can find your friends to conspire, to commit crimes against humanity, just as well as you simply agree to meet on Saturday night to have fun together.
Empowerment of individuals may not necessarily be a good thing, when it also empowers the crazies of Oslo and of Arizona, as well as the jihadists and Al Quaeda. The real issue is not “Facebook”, but rather what is it being used for.
People have criticized the Chinese government for trying to control the internet, but the issue all societies need to tackle is: how do you strike the balance between individual freedom and collective harmony? And how do you resolve the dilemma between equal distribution of power and respect for authority?
Every society has to resolve these dilemmas, and each has done so in a different way. That is the basis of the research and analyses made by Hofstede, Trompenaars and the many social scientists who study culture.
Dark Side of Individualism
The dilemma between Individualism and Collectivism, as enounced by Hofstede, or between individual freedom and group harmony, has actually been approached by many philosophers throughout history. It is sometimes summarized as “my rights go as far as where the rights of my neighbor begin”. Hofstede’s research went as far as measuring exactly how far do societies go in terms of choosing between extremes, and he identified (through factor analysis) five dimensions of cultural values, one of which is precisely the “Individualism versus Collectivism” dimension.
Looking at that research we can see how 100 different countries score as compared to each other, and we can see that the cultures who most treasure individual freedom are the Anglo-Saxon, the Dutch-Scandinavian and the Germanic. These are also very egalitarian cultures, as opposed to the collectivistic and hierarchical cultures found in places such as Guatemala and Malaysia, to mention just two examples on the opposite side of the spectrum.
My point here is that extremes tend to be dysfunctional, no matter on which side they are. When you are sitting in one of those extremes, culture-wise, you tend to think that the other side has got it “wrong”, while you have it “right”. However, it is very important to look at the downside of these extreme cultural choices, as we strive to develop cultural values that will make our world a better place for generations to come.
Individualistic and egalitarian societies offer many benefits to individuals, such as freedom of expression and a sense of empowerment. They also value individual accountability and the respect of individual privacy. However, the downside is sometimes the isolation of individuals and a feeling of loneliness in the crowd.
The empowerment of these societies means that anyone is free to buy automatic weapons and “express himself” by shooting random people. Of course, no society deliberately endorses that, but we need to realize that distortions result from the values we espouse.
Whenever a madman goes on a rampage (Oklahoma, Tucson, Oslo, etc) or when we suddenly find that an individual has kept someone as a prisoner in his basement for years (Austria, Germany, California, etc.), we ask each other: how could that happen? How could this have been averted? Why was this not detected earlier?
The answer lies precisely in the values treasured by these cultures. The extreme valuing of freedom goes overboard and the respect for privacy translates into “not noticing” that someone next door is keeping prisoners captive for 20 years. (!)
Similarly, a guy acts crazy, starts sending all kinds of signals that he is psychotic or a psychopath, but people around fail to see that, or fail to act on that.
People fail to see the signs, because they have been brought up to look at explicit communication, rather than implicit communication. They look for content, rather than format. While people in Guatemala and Malaysia (just to use my previous examples) have been brought up to strive for “group harmony” and therefore are keen on body language, non-verbal communication and implicit signs of expression, people in Scandinavia, the Us and in Germany disregard such signs and focus on the explicit content of messages.
People fail to act on the signals they perceive (if they perceive them) because of the respect for privacy and the unconscious voice that tells them “I am responsible for my own actions, not for anybody else’s… this is none of my business”.
And then disaster happens.
This “individual responsibility” taken to extremes leads to social isolation and even lack of solidarity. It breeds individuals who go crazy and turn against those around them.
The opposite example was shown to me recently in Singapore, where a Chinese presenter stressed the importance of “mindfulness” when leading groups in Action Learning. To my request for clarification, she explained that “mindfulness” is “an awareness of the people in the room, of the situation as it unfolds, being sensitive to what is going on”. Collectivistic cultures (such as the Chinese) foster this “mindfulness” in everyone, since childhood. Individualistic cultures do not.
Best Of All Worlds
I am not saying that the Chinese culture is better than the Norwegian. Nor am I saying the opposite. Let’s just stop advocating that this cultural model is better than that one. Let’s start by becoming aware of our own culture bias and how they lead to prejudice. Let’s start looking at the pros and cons of our respective cultures, and let’s explore ways in which we could make them less extreme, in both sides of the respective spectrum.
Right after the Norway tragedy, BBC reporters where suggesting that Norway should “change its policies” regarding police not wearing guns and lacking surveillance and control of public spaces. These reporters did not realize that they were asking Norwegians to become more British, in terms of reacting to the incident as if they were British. They failed to see that they were judging the situation from their own cultural perspective, rather than trying to take an impartial stance or simply asking open questions and allowing the interviewees to express themselves freely.
Perhaps I am asking too much when I long for news reporters who do not strive to push their own agendas as they broadcast from different parts of the world… That would show some real respect for people!
What I am asking for is for us to look at our values and to discuss ways of improving the way we teach our children the notion of “right” and “wrong”, beyond what we were taught by the previous generations. Globalization means that we have the opportunities to explore and learn from all cultures. Globalization is not “Americanization”, it means exploring the full spectrum in each cultural dimension and forging different futures for each community.
It does not mean moving towards a “single global culture”, but it does mean tapping on the richness of exposure to all cultures, understanding where your own culture is coming from, and shaping your community’s future.
Fear Of Change
The biggest obstacle in all this is balancing support and challenge, balancing the need for continuity to maintain identity and the need for change to adapt for new realities. On one side of the spectrum you have “progressives” who push for change, on the opposite you have “conservatives” who resist change.
This is a different dimension from being “right wing” or “left wing”. Conservatives are basically fundamentalists, and the “clash of civilizations” between “West” and “East” is actually a misnomer… In reality it is a clash between conservative Christians and conservative Muslims.
Progressives have nothing to do with that. Progressives are about integrating religions and values to build a better future. Conservatives are about fearing the future and thinking that the past was better, therefore we should preserve it and try to return to it. Progressives are about “up, up and away”; conservatives are about “back, back and stay”.
We need both identity AND change. We need to balance both in order to move forward without loosing our minds and going crazy.
In that sense, the craziness of Oklahoma and Oslo are a signal that, for some people, progress is going too far, too fast, too soon. That doesn’t mean we should stop social progress. It does not mean we should stop immigration and miscegenation, it does not mean we should go back to the notion of “pure” races and Nazism.
It does mean that we must address the social discontents and misfits who turn to violence, that we must manage social change in such a way as to avoid that the Geert Wilders of today turn into the Adolf Hitlers of tomorrow. We need to acknowledge that the “Tea Party” movements all over the world are expressions of the fear of progress, and these movements, when not addressed, may spin out of control (even out of control of their own creators and leaders) and generate mass murder, genocide and even destruction of the whole planet.
In the US and UK media people talk about avoiding that “rogue governments” or “terrorists” (as in Muslim terrorists) gain access to nuclear weapons or chemical weapons and wreak havoc and destruction among millions. I am equally concerned that some crazy Christian fundamentalist in Utah may do the same thing!
People who are afraid of social progress can be very dangerous, whether they pray in a mosque, in a synagogue, or in a cathedral. To avoid the madness we must turn to acknowledging it, recognizing it, understanding it and treating it. It’s no use trying to control it by force, by imposing an Orwellian police state. We do need to address it through education (and I mean radically changing traditional education practices), through social and political debate, through innovative approaches and policies.
If we ignore the craziness next door, we run the risk of becoming their next victim, or worse: we run the risk that our children become the victims of the social craziness we did not address.
Power to the people?
We have all heard the mantras of empowering people, repeated endlessly in the egalitarian societies of Northern Europe and North America, and trumpeted across the globe as THE way to manage people in communities and in organizations. Never mind the fact that only 9% of the world’s population live in egalitarian societies and 91% live in hierarchical societies, the egalitarians think they have it right, and everybody else has it wrong. It has come to the extreme of trying to impose “Northern” values on the rest of the world by employing military force.
The truth is, no culture in itself is better than any other. They are not “right” or “wrong”, they are just different.
To each and every culture there are “positive” and “negative” aspects that must be acknowledged and dealt with. No set of cultural values should be imposed on another community.
For decades the Scandinavian model has been touted as an utopia by many media voices. The tragedy in Norway puts the spotlight on some of its shortcomings. The tragedy also raises important issues about the “right” versus “left” movements in politics and about leading change and managing integration in modern society, in all cultures.
Technological advances in communication (the web, social networking, mobile devices) has given enormous power to individuals. This enables people to find their friends and keep in contact, instantly, no matter where they are. This empowerment of the individual has been hailed by the individualistic and egalitarian media as the apex of “Northern” values come to life, utopia becomes reality: everyone is powerful and free to express themselves as individuals.
The popular revolts I the Arab World have been hailed by such pundits as “Facebook Revolutions” and welcomed as a shift towards egalitarian and individualistic values, leaving hierarchical and collectivistic values behind.
However, we need to realize that social networking is not a value in itself. It is just a technology, and it may be equally used for evil purposes as well as for noble purposes. You can find your friends to conspire, to commit crimes against humanity, just as well as you simply agree to meet on Saturday night to have fun together.
Empowerment of individuals may not necessarily be a good thing, when it also empowers the crazies of Oslo and of Arizona, as well as the jihadists and Al Quaeda. The real issue is not “Facebook”, but rather what is it being used for.
People have criticized the Chinese government for trying to control the internet, but the issue all societies need to tackle is: how do you strike the balance between individual freedom and collective harmony? And how do you resolve the dilemma between equal distribution of power and respect for authority?
Every society has to resolve these dilemmas, and each has done so in a different way. That is the basis of the research and analyses made by Hofstede, Trompenaars and the many social scientists who study culture.
Dark Side of Individualism
The dilemma between Individualism and Collectivism, as enounced by Hofstede, or between individual freedom and group harmony, has actually been approached by many philosophers throughout history. It is sometimes summarized as “my rights go as far as where the rights of my neighbor begin”. Hofstede’s research went as far as measuring exactly how far do societies go in terms of choosing between extremes, and he identified (through factor analysis) five dimensions of cultural values, one of which is precisely the “Individualism versus Collectivism” dimension.
Looking at that research we can see how 100 different countries score as compared to each other, and we can see that the cultures who most treasure individual freedom are the Anglo-Saxon, the Dutch-Scandinavian and the Germanic. These are also very egalitarian cultures, as opposed to the collectivistic and hierarchical cultures found in places such as Guatemala and Malaysia, to mention just two examples on the opposite side of the spectrum.
My point here is that extremes tend to be dysfunctional, no matter on which side they are. When you are sitting in one of those extremes, culture-wise, you tend to think that the other side has got it “wrong”, while you have it “right”. However, it is very important to look at the downside of these extreme cultural choices, as we strive to develop cultural values that will make our world a better place for generations to come.
Individualistic and egalitarian societies offer many benefits to individuals, such as freedom of expression and a sense of empowerment. They also value individual accountability and the respect of individual privacy. However, the downside is sometimes the isolation of individuals and a feeling of loneliness in the crowd.
The empowerment of these societies means that anyone is free to buy automatic weapons and “express himself” by shooting random people. Of course, no society deliberately endorses that, but we need to realize that distortions result from the values we espouse.
Whenever a madman goes on a rampage (Oklahoma, Tucson, Oslo, etc) or when we suddenly find that an individual has kept someone as a prisoner in his basement for years (Austria, Germany, California, etc.), we ask each other: how could that happen? How could this have been averted? Why was this not detected earlier?
The answer lies precisely in the values treasured by these cultures. The extreme valuing of freedom goes overboard and the respect for privacy translates into “not noticing” that someone next door is keeping prisoners captive for 20 years. (!)
Similarly, a guy acts crazy, starts sending all kinds of signals that he is psychotic or a psychopath, but people around fail to see that, or fail to act on that.
People fail to see the signs, because they have been brought up to look at explicit communication, rather than implicit communication. They look for content, rather than format. While people in Guatemala and Malaysia (just to use my previous examples) have been brought up to strive for “group harmony” and therefore are keen on body language, non-verbal communication and implicit signs of expression, people in Scandinavia, the Us and in Germany disregard such signs and focus on the explicit content of messages.
People fail to act on the signals they perceive (if they perceive them) because of the respect for privacy and the unconscious voice that tells them “I am responsible for my own actions, not for anybody else’s… this is none of my business”.
And then disaster happens.
This “individual responsibility” taken to extremes leads to social isolation and even lack of solidarity. It breeds individuals who go crazy and turn against those around them.
The opposite example was shown to me recently in Singapore, where a Chinese presenter stressed the importance of “mindfulness” when leading groups in Action Learning. To my request for clarification, she explained that “mindfulness” is “an awareness of the people in the room, of the situation as it unfolds, being sensitive to what is going on”. Collectivistic cultures (such as the Chinese) foster this “mindfulness” in everyone, since childhood. Individualistic cultures do not.
Best Of All Worlds
I am not saying that the Chinese culture is better than the Norwegian. Nor am I saying the opposite. Let’s just stop advocating that this cultural model is better than that one. Let’s start by becoming aware of our own culture bias and how they lead to prejudice. Let’s start looking at the pros and cons of our respective cultures, and let’s explore ways in which we could make them less extreme, in both sides of the respective spectrum.
Right after the Norway tragedy, BBC reporters where suggesting that Norway should “change its policies” regarding police not wearing guns and lacking surveillance and control of public spaces. These reporters did not realize that they were asking Norwegians to become more British, in terms of reacting to the incident as if they were British. They failed to see that they were judging the situation from their own cultural perspective, rather than trying to take an impartial stance or simply asking open questions and allowing the interviewees to express themselves freely.
Perhaps I am asking too much when I long for news reporters who do not strive to push their own agendas as they broadcast from different parts of the world… That would show some real respect for people!
What I am asking for is for us to look at our values and to discuss ways of improving the way we teach our children the notion of “right” and “wrong”, beyond what we were taught by the previous generations. Globalization means that we have the opportunities to explore and learn from all cultures. Globalization is not “Americanization”, it means exploring the full spectrum in each cultural dimension and forging different futures for each community.
It does not mean moving towards a “single global culture”, but it does mean tapping on the richness of exposure to all cultures, understanding where your own culture is coming from, and shaping your community’s future.
Fear Of Change
The biggest obstacle in all this is balancing support and challenge, balancing the need for continuity to maintain identity and the need for change to adapt for new realities. On one side of the spectrum you have “progressives” who push for change, on the opposite you have “conservatives” who resist change.
This is a different dimension from being “right wing” or “left wing”. Conservatives are basically fundamentalists, and the “clash of civilizations” between “West” and “East” is actually a misnomer… In reality it is a clash between conservative Christians and conservative Muslims.
Progressives have nothing to do with that. Progressives are about integrating religions and values to build a better future. Conservatives are about fearing the future and thinking that the past was better, therefore we should preserve it and try to return to it. Progressives are about “up, up and away”; conservatives are about “back, back and stay”.
We need both identity AND change. We need to balance both in order to move forward without loosing our minds and going crazy.
In that sense, the craziness of Oklahoma and Oslo are a signal that, for some people, progress is going too far, too fast, too soon. That doesn’t mean we should stop social progress. It does not mean we should stop immigration and miscegenation, it does not mean we should go back to the notion of “pure” races and Nazism.
It does mean that we must address the social discontents and misfits who turn to violence, that we must manage social change in such a way as to avoid that the Geert Wilders of today turn into the Adolf Hitlers of tomorrow. We need to acknowledge that the “Tea Party” movements all over the world are expressions of the fear of progress, and these movements, when not addressed, may spin out of control (even out of control of their own creators and leaders) and generate mass murder, genocide and even destruction of the whole planet.
In the US and UK media people talk about avoiding that “rogue governments” or “terrorists” (as in Muslim terrorists) gain access to nuclear weapons or chemical weapons and wreak havoc and destruction among millions. I am equally concerned that some crazy Christian fundamentalist in Utah may do the same thing!
People who are afraid of social progress can be very dangerous, whether they pray in a mosque, in a synagogue, or in a cathedral. To avoid the madness we must turn to acknowledging it, recognizing it, understanding it and treating it. It’s no use trying to control it by force, by imposing an Orwellian police state. We do need to address it through education (and I mean radically changing traditional education practices), through social and political debate, through innovative approaches and policies.
If we ignore the craziness next door, we run the risk of becoming their next victim, or worse: we run the risk that our children become the victims of the social craziness we did not address.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Pirates of Talent Across Cultures
The war for talent in a global market has gone “nuclear”. Although there is unemployment in North America and Europe, that unemployment has not made it easier for companies to find the talented people they need in order to be competitive in a global world.
As companies strive to become more efficient, more competitive, they try to keep the people who can drive that efficiency. They shed the others, those who do not have the skills to be top performers. As a global society, we are facing some complex dilemmas: the more efficient we become, on a global scale, the more we end up differentiating between “talented” people and “less-talented” people. We become efficient as organizations, but we increase unemployment by shedding jobs and the less-talented occupants of jobs.
If you look at these issues from a local perspective, thinking of your country as being your “world” or being your “market”, perhaps the equation seems deceivingly simpler. At least the size of the labor and consumer markets will appear more manageable, counted in millions, and the boundaries of those markets seem clear.
However, when you look at it from a global perspective, the boundaries disappear and the whole issue multiplies in complexity and in numbers. The moral issue of efficiency versus unemployment also becomes more difficult to manage, from the sheer size of looking at a 7 billion people figure as the planet’s total population.
If you are a business person, a government policy maker or an educator, you don’t have to worry about being bored… But what can you do, in practice, to help your organization survive in such turbulent waters, and keep your own job from sinking in a sea ridden with pirates?
The Curse of the Black Pearls
As a company, your talented people are a treasure, on which your company’s future is dependent. This treasure, however, is a living treasure. It needs to be nurtured as it is made of living creatures, not inanimate objects like jewels and precious metals. This living treasure can be made to grow and develop, making it even more valuable. Yet it needs to be protected from pirates, the talent-poachers from competing companies, just like you would try to protect a treasure of gold and jewels. Perhaps you might think of talented people as pearls: they can be cultivated or they can be sought out in the wild. And there are some which are very rare and very valuable: we’ll call them “the black pearls”.
If you are a talent manager in any kind of organization, you need to ask yourself some basic questions, in response to which you will need to make some initial decisions, or choices. That will be your starting point to go out in the world in search of the black pearls to ensure your company’s survival.
Will you cultivate pearls or will you seek them out in the ocean (market)? There are pros and cons to both approaches, and in order to make your strategic choice, it might be good to lake at your overall corporate culture and business strategy, to make sure that your talent management is consistent with those.
In terms of corporate cultures, there are six basic types of cultures. Your specific organization may fall neatly into one of these six basic types, or it may be a combination of two or more of these types among the six basic models. The types are based on Hofstede’s pioneering research on culture and its continuous evolution over the past 40 years (see “Cultures and Organizations” by Hofstede at al. , 3rd Edition, 2010).
The “Contest” culture is typical of US and UK based companies. It emphasizes competition, internally and externally, it focuses on individual performance, measurable results, challenge as a way of motivating people, and financial rewards and prestige linked to individual performance. Since over two-thirds of management books are written and published in North America and the UK, most often people think that this is THE desired culture for any company, anywhere. Actually, it is not. American and British management practices may be very effective in their own markets, but they can be total disasters in other parts of the world.
The “Machine” culture is typical of Germanic societies (Germany, Switzerland, Austria and others). It emphasizes structure, organization and clear processes and procedures. The underlying assumption is that you have a well-designed and clearly communicated process, your company will perform excellently and be successful. It depends heavily on expertise for the design, communication and control of such processes, but once you have these in place, the system is practically foolproof.
The “Network” culture is commonly found in Dutch and Scandinavian companies. Its emphasis is on satisfying all its stakeholders. This means not only shareholders (return on investment), and clients (market share) but equally important: staff, suppliers, government regulators and the community at large. Maintaining this balance can be very difficult, but companies with this type of culture have become adept at doing that. Emphasis is not so much on performance, neither individual nor team performance, but rather on stakeholder management. There are huge implications on management practices, which may differ sharply from those found in a “Contest” company.
The fourth style is the “Pyramid”, found in most companies based in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East (also some coming from Russia and Eastern Europe). These companies are more hierarchical in the way their structures operate. There are clear lines of authority, communication is “top-down”. Business is done with an emphasis on relationships more than on tasks, internally and externally. Loyalty is essential. Leaders, at every level, determine the success of an organization or its failure, more than the quality of its teams or the expertise of its individual technicians. Again, huge implications for management practices, differentiating from the previous three corporate culture styles.
The fifth style is “Family”, more often found in Asia. Very similar to the “Pyramid” because of its emphasis on hierarchy and relationships, it differentiates from the “Pyramid” because the informal organization is often more important than the formal. “Family” companies also tend to be more flexible and “ulterior-motive” oriented. Positioning in the market for the long term is deemed more important than obtaining profit in the next quarter.
The “Solar System” is the sixth basic type, and it is characterized by a significant tension between centralized hierarchy and the autonomy of middle managers. On one hand the “sun” in the system pulls planets to follow centrally designed directives, communicated in a top-down fashion. On the other hand, the “planets” (middle managers) re-interpret these directives and keep their own “satellites” spinning around them, each of them acting as king of his own hill. This type of culture is often found in companies based in Southern Europe (France, Italy Spain), but also in Poland and Belgium.
So, as a talent manager, the answers you may have to the primary issues of your function will be influenced by your company’s culture.
If your company has a “Contest” culture, you will seek to identify the best performers as early as possible, who can deliver measurable results in the short term, and who are also the most confident and ambitious individuals yearning to grow and develop into larger roles. You may easily select a pool of talent among your broad employee base, perhaps just 5 or 10 percent of your total staff, and give them your total attention. Other staff members may yearn to be on that selected pool, but they are aware that there will be opportunities for them to be included, as long as they are committed to improving their performance and winning the internal competition to be selected.
If you are in a “Family” corporate culture in a Malaysian company, for example, it’s a different situation and a different approach may be needed. Selection criteria may be influenced by relationships as much as by performance. The sheer ability to relate to clients and colleagues is more valued as a part of excellent performance, rather than the “bottom line” only, “hard facts” approach of a “Contest” culture. You are likely to put more weight on potential, rather than on performance, when assessing talent. Your very definition of “talent” may be different, to begin with.
If you are in a “Network” company and you try to select just 5% of your staff to be in your talent pool, you will face enormous difficulties. “Network” companies are very egalitarian. They reject the notion of choosing a small group to be outstanding. They reject the sheer notion of “black pearls” being more valuable than “common pearls”, and they frown on whoever tries to stand out among the rest. Your “black pearls” will be cursed by their colleagues, rather than admired, and they are likely to be sabotaged and ostracized.
All I am saying is: be aware of your company’s culture bias, as you start thinking about the way you wish to manage your talent; and be aware of the culture bias behind each of the procedures and tools that you are considering. Avoid using approaches that may clash with your corporate culture. If you choose for the clash, do so at your own risk and be prepared to dedicate a lot of energy to manage the clashes involved.
Talent Management 2: Dead Man’s Chest
As you progress in your talent management endeavours, you need to ask yourself about how you are planning to develop your identified talent, and even before that: what will you be developing them for. By that I mean: what kind of positions will be filled by these “black pearls” (whether you cultivate them or decide to find them in the depths of the ocean (I mean, “market”).
You need a succession plan, in terms of identifying key positions, for which you will need to hire or groom talent to be ready when those positions become vacant, in the near or distant future. Think of each key position as a role whose current occupant will eventually “die”; that is: the occupant will leave the position, to take another position in the company or in another company, or to retire. For each person who “dies” for that position, you need to have a chest of potential candidates, identified as capable (or almost) of filling that position. For each key position you need to have a “dead man’s chest” of candidates, hopefully with a few “black pearls” among those candidates.
Because, if you don’t match your pearls with open positions, you run the risk of losing your pearls to the pirates. Your talent will leave the company to work elsewhere if they feel they will not get the opportunities they deserve.
What are these positions like? Are they positions that require occupants to be “a mile wide and an inch Depp” (I mean deep, sorry…), as generalists, or should they be “an inch wide and a mile deep” as specialists? Should you develop your talent to be generalists or to be specialists?
Again, corporate culture determines different approaches to succession planning, to career development and to matching positions with candidates. In “Contest” cultures you can keep people motivated through challenging projects, recognizing individual performance, providing performance-linked bonus schemes. People may remain in the same job level for quite some time (hierarchy is not so important) as long as they feel that their performance is being rewarded in a way that makes them feel proud.
In a “Family” culture, motivation is more linked to position (hierarchy), to the scope (responsibility) of the job, to how many people report to you. Motivation is also more linked to the importance you are perceived to have in the informal structure, rather than in the formal organization. This can be quite complex.
In a “Pyramid” culture the “dead man’s chest” is quite clear to all concerned. There are clear positions in the formal structure. In a “Family” structure the formal position may be rather irrelevant. It is more motivating to be a trusted advisor in a “side” role close to Senior Management, than to be a Director in a role with no real authority or autonomy in practice. Managing talent in a “Family” culture requires more nuanced approaches, which may be more demanding for some people less comfortable with that kind of situation.
Generalists are easier to develop in a “Contest” culture. Successful performance is valued for its results, so a good manager needs not be an expert on a specific line of work, as long as he (or she) can deliver the expected results on the bottom line. In “Pyramid” cultures it is important that a manager demonstrates knowledge of the subject, since the way his department operates is more important than financial results.
At World’s End
When your company is operating in a global marketplace, things get more complex and more difficult. You will have positions in different corners of the world. They will be occupied by very different people, perhaps by people coming from parts of the world which are different from where the positions are located. The criteria for measuring success will be different, the criteria for attracting and retaining talent will be different. Successful companies are the ones capable of adapting their practices to the different locations they are operating in.
Historically, “Networking”, “Machines” and “Solar System” companies have done better at adapting their practices to far-flung parts of the world. The Dutch can be quite good at it, perhaps because they come from such a small country and have learned to do business “at world’s end” centuries ago. Some argue that the Dutch “East India Company” was the first multinational corporation, established in 1602. Others point to the fact that, in the Middle Ages, Holland was regarded by many as “the end of the world”, being on the tip of Europe. Groningen, a village at the Northern edge of the Netherlands, was referred by the Dutch as being “the end of the world”. Locals argue that, actually, it is not; but from Groningen you can see it…
The fact is that, by contrast, “Contest” companies have a scattered record in that respect. Some have been very successful as global companies, others failed miserably and had to retreat back to their home markets. Nowadays more and more “Contest” companies are learning to be more adaptable. Even McDonald’s, once proud to serve the very same products all over the world, has in recent years adapted its menu to cater to different tastes in different countries.
When you manage talent “at world’s end” you will need to adapt your practices, and perhaps make good use of the fact that young people are asking for international opportunities, more and more. Europeans and North Americans are eager to travel, to get international exposure, and to return to their home countries with that added experience.
However, when your talent is originating from a developing market (such as Paraguay or Pakistan), then often people prefer to continue their careers in the US or Europe, rather than returning home. This becomes a problem for those companies based in emerging markets and who perhaps financed the development trips of their “pearls”, only to lose them before reaping the fruits of the investment made.
On Stranger Tides
The new, stranger tides, which we see in 2011 are due to the rise of emerging markets, which are increasing their share of the global trade flows, of the global consumer markets and of the global labor market as well. Europe and North America are still struggling with the financial meltdown of 2008. Asia, Latin America and Africa are booming and driving the global economy’s shaky recovery. Young people all over have flocked to Europe and the US to get a better education, and have often stayed there to get better jobs, refusing to return to their home countries. Now the tide is changing.
The jobs in Europe and North America are scarce. Barriers to immigration are being erected, higher and higher. Opportunities in emerging markets are becoming more abundant and better paid, more competitive than before. There are also more continuing education offerings of comparable quality, with many American and European universities setting up campi in Asia, for instance. Emerging market companies are also becoming global companies, competing for leadership in the global market whether their head offices are in Sao Paulo, New York or Kuala Lumpur. These companies tend to have “Pyramid” and “Family” corporate cultures, and they are just as effective in the global markets as other culture styles. Their talent management practices are also different, but just as effective, as long as they are consistent with company culture and business strategy.
For a talent manager, managing talent “on stranger tides” means that you have to search for talent in all seven seas and be able to fight off the pirates in all of them as well. Companies are hiring Vietnamese engineers to work in Africa for Brazilian companies. How do you manage people from a certain culture, working in a different culture environment for a company based on still a different culture environment?
If you are in Malaysia, a young nation formed as such less than a century ago, itself combining Malay, Chinese and Indian cultures, how do you decide on your talent management strategy? Is your company a “Contest” company like the British and American companies, or is it more of a “Family” corporate culture, closer to the values found in the Malay, Chinese and Indian cultures? Or is it (probably) a combination?
You need to develop your own approaches, consistent with your corporate culture and business strategy. Don’t feel compelled to follow a text book produced in a different culture. Design your own models and adapt them when applying them in other countries. Use them daily and Knightely (sorry, nightly…) and watch your talents Bloom!
As companies strive to become more efficient, more competitive, they try to keep the people who can drive that efficiency. They shed the others, those who do not have the skills to be top performers. As a global society, we are facing some complex dilemmas: the more efficient we become, on a global scale, the more we end up differentiating between “talented” people and “less-talented” people. We become efficient as organizations, but we increase unemployment by shedding jobs and the less-talented occupants of jobs.
If you look at these issues from a local perspective, thinking of your country as being your “world” or being your “market”, perhaps the equation seems deceivingly simpler. At least the size of the labor and consumer markets will appear more manageable, counted in millions, and the boundaries of those markets seem clear.
However, when you look at it from a global perspective, the boundaries disappear and the whole issue multiplies in complexity and in numbers. The moral issue of efficiency versus unemployment also becomes more difficult to manage, from the sheer size of looking at a 7 billion people figure as the planet’s total population.
If you are a business person, a government policy maker or an educator, you don’t have to worry about being bored… But what can you do, in practice, to help your organization survive in such turbulent waters, and keep your own job from sinking in a sea ridden with pirates?
The Curse of the Black Pearls
As a company, your talented people are a treasure, on which your company’s future is dependent. This treasure, however, is a living treasure. It needs to be nurtured as it is made of living creatures, not inanimate objects like jewels and precious metals. This living treasure can be made to grow and develop, making it even more valuable. Yet it needs to be protected from pirates, the talent-poachers from competing companies, just like you would try to protect a treasure of gold and jewels. Perhaps you might think of talented people as pearls: they can be cultivated or they can be sought out in the wild. And there are some which are very rare and very valuable: we’ll call them “the black pearls”.
If you are a talent manager in any kind of organization, you need to ask yourself some basic questions, in response to which you will need to make some initial decisions, or choices. That will be your starting point to go out in the world in search of the black pearls to ensure your company’s survival.
Will you cultivate pearls or will you seek them out in the ocean (market)? There are pros and cons to both approaches, and in order to make your strategic choice, it might be good to lake at your overall corporate culture and business strategy, to make sure that your talent management is consistent with those.
In terms of corporate cultures, there are six basic types of cultures. Your specific organization may fall neatly into one of these six basic types, or it may be a combination of two or more of these types among the six basic models. The types are based on Hofstede’s pioneering research on culture and its continuous evolution over the past 40 years (see “Cultures and Organizations” by Hofstede at al. , 3rd Edition, 2010).
The “Contest” culture is typical of US and UK based companies. It emphasizes competition, internally and externally, it focuses on individual performance, measurable results, challenge as a way of motivating people, and financial rewards and prestige linked to individual performance. Since over two-thirds of management books are written and published in North America and the UK, most often people think that this is THE desired culture for any company, anywhere. Actually, it is not. American and British management practices may be very effective in their own markets, but they can be total disasters in other parts of the world.
The “Machine” culture is typical of Germanic societies (Germany, Switzerland, Austria and others). It emphasizes structure, organization and clear processes and procedures. The underlying assumption is that you have a well-designed and clearly communicated process, your company will perform excellently and be successful. It depends heavily on expertise for the design, communication and control of such processes, but once you have these in place, the system is practically foolproof.
The “Network” culture is commonly found in Dutch and Scandinavian companies. Its emphasis is on satisfying all its stakeholders. This means not only shareholders (return on investment), and clients (market share) but equally important: staff, suppliers, government regulators and the community at large. Maintaining this balance can be very difficult, but companies with this type of culture have become adept at doing that. Emphasis is not so much on performance, neither individual nor team performance, but rather on stakeholder management. There are huge implications on management practices, which may differ sharply from those found in a “Contest” company.
The fourth style is the “Pyramid”, found in most companies based in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East (also some coming from Russia and Eastern Europe). These companies are more hierarchical in the way their structures operate. There are clear lines of authority, communication is “top-down”. Business is done with an emphasis on relationships more than on tasks, internally and externally. Loyalty is essential. Leaders, at every level, determine the success of an organization or its failure, more than the quality of its teams or the expertise of its individual technicians. Again, huge implications for management practices, differentiating from the previous three corporate culture styles.
The fifth style is “Family”, more often found in Asia. Very similar to the “Pyramid” because of its emphasis on hierarchy and relationships, it differentiates from the “Pyramid” because the informal organization is often more important than the formal. “Family” companies also tend to be more flexible and “ulterior-motive” oriented. Positioning in the market for the long term is deemed more important than obtaining profit in the next quarter.
The “Solar System” is the sixth basic type, and it is characterized by a significant tension between centralized hierarchy and the autonomy of middle managers. On one hand the “sun” in the system pulls planets to follow centrally designed directives, communicated in a top-down fashion. On the other hand, the “planets” (middle managers) re-interpret these directives and keep their own “satellites” spinning around them, each of them acting as king of his own hill. This type of culture is often found in companies based in Southern Europe (France, Italy Spain), but also in Poland and Belgium.
So, as a talent manager, the answers you may have to the primary issues of your function will be influenced by your company’s culture.
If your company has a “Contest” culture, you will seek to identify the best performers as early as possible, who can deliver measurable results in the short term, and who are also the most confident and ambitious individuals yearning to grow and develop into larger roles. You may easily select a pool of talent among your broad employee base, perhaps just 5 or 10 percent of your total staff, and give them your total attention. Other staff members may yearn to be on that selected pool, but they are aware that there will be opportunities for them to be included, as long as they are committed to improving their performance and winning the internal competition to be selected.
If you are in a “Family” corporate culture in a Malaysian company, for example, it’s a different situation and a different approach may be needed. Selection criteria may be influenced by relationships as much as by performance. The sheer ability to relate to clients and colleagues is more valued as a part of excellent performance, rather than the “bottom line” only, “hard facts” approach of a “Contest” culture. You are likely to put more weight on potential, rather than on performance, when assessing talent. Your very definition of “talent” may be different, to begin with.
If you are in a “Network” company and you try to select just 5% of your staff to be in your talent pool, you will face enormous difficulties. “Network” companies are very egalitarian. They reject the notion of choosing a small group to be outstanding. They reject the sheer notion of “black pearls” being more valuable than “common pearls”, and they frown on whoever tries to stand out among the rest. Your “black pearls” will be cursed by their colleagues, rather than admired, and they are likely to be sabotaged and ostracized.
All I am saying is: be aware of your company’s culture bias, as you start thinking about the way you wish to manage your talent; and be aware of the culture bias behind each of the procedures and tools that you are considering. Avoid using approaches that may clash with your corporate culture. If you choose for the clash, do so at your own risk and be prepared to dedicate a lot of energy to manage the clashes involved.
Talent Management 2: Dead Man’s Chest
As you progress in your talent management endeavours, you need to ask yourself about how you are planning to develop your identified talent, and even before that: what will you be developing them for. By that I mean: what kind of positions will be filled by these “black pearls” (whether you cultivate them or decide to find them in the depths of the ocean (I mean, “market”).
You need a succession plan, in terms of identifying key positions, for which you will need to hire or groom talent to be ready when those positions become vacant, in the near or distant future. Think of each key position as a role whose current occupant will eventually “die”; that is: the occupant will leave the position, to take another position in the company or in another company, or to retire. For each person who “dies” for that position, you need to have a chest of potential candidates, identified as capable (or almost) of filling that position. For each key position you need to have a “dead man’s chest” of candidates, hopefully with a few “black pearls” among those candidates.
Because, if you don’t match your pearls with open positions, you run the risk of losing your pearls to the pirates. Your talent will leave the company to work elsewhere if they feel they will not get the opportunities they deserve.
What are these positions like? Are they positions that require occupants to be “a mile wide and an inch Depp” (I mean deep, sorry…), as generalists, or should they be “an inch wide and a mile deep” as specialists? Should you develop your talent to be generalists or to be specialists?
Again, corporate culture determines different approaches to succession planning, to career development and to matching positions with candidates. In “Contest” cultures you can keep people motivated through challenging projects, recognizing individual performance, providing performance-linked bonus schemes. People may remain in the same job level for quite some time (hierarchy is not so important) as long as they feel that their performance is being rewarded in a way that makes them feel proud.
In a “Family” culture, motivation is more linked to position (hierarchy), to the scope (responsibility) of the job, to how many people report to you. Motivation is also more linked to the importance you are perceived to have in the informal structure, rather than in the formal organization. This can be quite complex.
In a “Pyramid” culture the “dead man’s chest” is quite clear to all concerned. There are clear positions in the formal structure. In a “Family” structure the formal position may be rather irrelevant. It is more motivating to be a trusted advisor in a “side” role close to Senior Management, than to be a Director in a role with no real authority or autonomy in practice. Managing talent in a “Family” culture requires more nuanced approaches, which may be more demanding for some people less comfortable with that kind of situation.
Generalists are easier to develop in a “Contest” culture. Successful performance is valued for its results, so a good manager needs not be an expert on a specific line of work, as long as he (or she) can deliver the expected results on the bottom line. In “Pyramid” cultures it is important that a manager demonstrates knowledge of the subject, since the way his department operates is more important than financial results.
At World’s End
When your company is operating in a global marketplace, things get more complex and more difficult. You will have positions in different corners of the world. They will be occupied by very different people, perhaps by people coming from parts of the world which are different from where the positions are located. The criteria for measuring success will be different, the criteria for attracting and retaining talent will be different. Successful companies are the ones capable of adapting their practices to the different locations they are operating in.
Historically, “Networking”, “Machines” and “Solar System” companies have done better at adapting their practices to far-flung parts of the world. The Dutch can be quite good at it, perhaps because they come from such a small country and have learned to do business “at world’s end” centuries ago. Some argue that the Dutch “East India Company” was the first multinational corporation, established in 1602. Others point to the fact that, in the Middle Ages, Holland was regarded by many as “the end of the world”, being on the tip of Europe. Groningen, a village at the Northern edge of the Netherlands, was referred by the Dutch as being “the end of the world”. Locals argue that, actually, it is not; but from Groningen you can see it…
The fact is that, by contrast, “Contest” companies have a scattered record in that respect. Some have been very successful as global companies, others failed miserably and had to retreat back to their home markets. Nowadays more and more “Contest” companies are learning to be more adaptable. Even McDonald’s, once proud to serve the very same products all over the world, has in recent years adapted its menu to cater to different tastes in different countries.
When you manage talent “at world’s end” you will need to adapt your practices, and perhaps make good use of the fact that young people are asking for international opportunities, more and more. Europeans and North Americans are eager to travel, to get international exposure, and to return to their home countries with that added experience.
However, when your talent is originating from a developing market (such as Paraguay or Pakistan), then often people prefer to continue their careers in the US or Europe, rather than returning home. This becomes a problem for those companies based in emerging markets and who perhaps financed the development trips of their “pearls”, only to lose them before reaping the fruits of the investment made.
On Stranger Tides
The new, stranger tides, which we see in 2011 are due to the rise of emerging markets, which are increasing their share of the global trade flows, of the global consumer markets and of the global labor market as well. Europe and North America are still struggling with the financial meltdown of 2008. Asia, Latin America and Africa are booming and driving the global economy’s shaky recovery. Young people all over have flocked to Europe and the US to get a better education, and have often stayed there to get better jobs, refusing to return to their home countries. Now the tide is changing.
The jobs in Europe and North America are scarce. Barriers to immigration are being erected, higher and higher. Opportunities in emerging markets are becoming more abundant and better paid, more competitive than before. There are also more continuing education offerings of comparable quality, with many American and European universities setting up campi in Asia, for instance. Emerging market companies are also becoming global companies, competing for leadership in the global market whether their head offices are in Sao Paulo, New York or Kuala Lumpur. These companies tend to have “Pyramid” and “Family” corporate cultures, and they are just as effective in the global markets as other culture styles. Their talent management practices are also different, but just as effective, as long as they are consistent with company culture and business strategy.
For a talent manager, managing talent “on stranger tides” means that you have to search for talent in all seven seas and be able to fight off the pirates in all of them as well. Companies are hiring Vietnamese engineers to work in Africa for Brazilian companies. How do you manage people from a certain culture, working in a different culture environment for a company based on still a different culture environment?
If you are in Malaysia, a young nation formed as such less than a century ago, itself combining Malay, Chinese and Indian cultures, how do you decide on your talent management strategy? Is your company a “Contest” company like the British and American companies, or is it more of a “Family” corporate culture, closer to the values found in the Malay, Chinese and Indian cultures? Or is it (probably) a combination?
You need to develop your own approaches, consistent with your corporate culture and business strategy. Don’t feel compelled to follow a text book produced in a different culture. Design your own models and adapt them when applying them in other countries. Use them daily and Knightely (sorry, nightly…) and watch your talents Bloom!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
