http://www.meridiangrp.net/articles/Newsletter54.html

This year's Oscars reward uncertainty. Tolerance of uncertainty is an essential quality of successful cultural leaders. Sadly our broader culture is largely intolerant of uncertainty. Creating trophy CEOs doesn't help the situation either.

“Crash” won “Best Picture” at the Oscars this year. I saw the film last year and recommended it to friends as “One of the best pictures I had ever seen.” It had no simple, one-track storyline and no ending. It was like life, like culture.

But “Crash” is not for everyone. Some people are just too uncomfortable with uncertainty, with open-ended situations. To some extent we all are. We each wish for a more orderly, planed, predictable world, where life's events (or other stories) have clear beginnings and endings. The real world offers no such panaceas.

If evolution has taught us anything it is that all events are responses to existing circumstances*—there are no beginnings—and all apparent endings are simply moments on a continuous path. But human nature being what it is, we prefer novels and films that validate out dreamed for world, with clear beginnings, a sequential plot, and [hopefully] a happy ending. We don't like a messy world where demons and uncertainties spring from dark nooks and crannies, or where we are left naked, exposed, and "hanging".

The popular media satisfies this broad need. Television treats news stories as isolated events without context and definitely without interpretation or meaning. There are good guys and bad guys. We are right, they are wrong. Blame Bin Laden.

Simplification may be explained away as the pressure of the short time available, but if viewers really wanted context and deeper understanding, no doubt the news channels would provide it.

The few times we may be given the social or historical context are in investigative reports. But even when longer articles in quality newspapers and magazines provide history and context, they often fail to provide the psychological interpretation that leads to true insight and understanding.

This is particularly true of business books and magazines that, like all media, sell because they tell readers what they already believe. It's a maxim of the publishing world that “If you don't tell readers what they already know or believe, they won't buy”.

In light of that reality, business books and magazines necessarily reflect the attitudes and beliefs of the managers who read them. In my experience, most managers, reflecting their company’s culture, studiously avoid context and largely reject, as a “waste-of-time”, the kind of introspection or reflection that might bring meaning or lead to deeper understanding of business situations—particularly the motivation, beliefs, or behavior of the people involved.

As an example, the current month's (March 2006) Fortune magazine lists the “Most Admired Companies”. Toyota is the first non-American company to make the top 10 short list. The Fortune article focuses on the Prius, inferring that this popular hybrid made Toyota successful.

But most readers know that the opposite is true. It was Toyota that made the Prius. This hot selling eco-friendly car emerged from a highly successful and innovative culture that for three decades has been the envy of the auto makers’ world. It is the culture of Toyota that brought forth many innovations, such as the just-in-time inventory, employee teams, and bottom-up management.

The engaged employees of the Toyota culture had already produced such high-quality market leaders as the Camry and Lexus. The "only-if-you-put-your-name-on-the-waiting-list" Prius is just the latest product of their successful work culture. Yet Fortune does not mention Toyota’s culture. I wonder why?

Other articles in that March Fortune discuss the top-ranked companies, focusing on the CEO, suggesting that this person makes the company. Reading these articles—and also the February 2006 issue of Fortune where the cover article was "Star Power"—reminds me sadly of how much the top levels of corporations encourage public-relations, spin, enheroment, entertainment, and pandering sycophantism. No doubt about it, business leaders are now larger than life.

What is it about the culture of companies, supported by the broader society, that delivers entertainment and exaggerated, nonhuman portraits—these Hollywood-like corporate stars?

I don't know the answer, but I do know that star-struck executives alienate lower levels of managers and employees, thereby working against building an engaging, productive workplace. Self absorbed executives unthinkingly block companies from managing their most important asset, their own culture.

It is now been 30 years since I decided to focus on understanding and assisting organizations build more successful company cultures. It has been a very gratifying though difficult path. There is something about the concept and reality of company culture that is hard for most managers to examine and manage.

Logically this is difficult to explain, particularly when there is nothing more important than a company's culture to overall performance and profitability. As I see it, the explanations, though many and varied, probably fall into two general camps. They seemed to be either psychological, e.g. “the uncertainty, openness, and vulnerability of real cultural leadership is too scary”, or sociological/economic, e.g. “there is no underestimating the extent to which greed and personal ambition will influence a person's behavior”.

I don't say these things to be pessimistic but rather to highlight just how difficult it is for today's leaders to focus on what really counts in life. The current rage for order works against the quality of human life, creativity and personal fulfillment at work. I have great hope that the future will reward those who pay attention to creating a positive cultural stage, best for employees and stockholders.

I see the Oscar awards as a possible omen that uncertainty is becoming mainstream. Heisenberg in Hollywood? That's a good sign for those of us who care about the quality of human experience in the workplace. I wish those of you who see both the forest and the trees—who consider the effect of their immediate local actions on the broad company culture—my congratulations and good luck.

Thomas Huxley's immediate reaction to reading Darwin's explanation of evolution was, "How extremely stupid not to have thought of that”.

If you would like to discuss your own work situation, please email me, Barry Phegan, Ph.D. barry@meridiangrp.net

Barry Phegan

2. Buy the book Developing Your Company Culture; a 187 page toolkit of practical information and examples. Click on http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0964220504



	Site Map \| FAQ \| Search A Better Workplace — Meridian Group's Newsletter, Number 54, 4-15-06 _________________________________________
	The Oscars and Company Culture This year's Oscars reward uncertainty. Tolerance of uncertainty is an essential quality of successful cultural leaders. Sadly our broader culture is largely intolerant of uncertainty. Creating trophy CEOs doesn't help the situation either. “Crash” won “Best Picture” at the Oscars this year. I saw the film last year and recommended it to friends as “One of the best pictures I had ever seen.” It had no simple, one-track storyline and no ending. It was like life, like culture. But “Crash” is not for everyone. Some people are just too uncomfortable with uncertainty, with open-ended situations. To some extent we all are. We each wish for a more orderly, planed, predictable world, where life's events (or other stories) have clear beginnings and endings. The real world offers no such panaceas. If evolution has taught us anything it is that all events are responses to existing circumstances—there are no beginnings—and all apparent endings are simply moments on a continuous path. But human nature being what it is, we prefer novels and films that validate out dreamed for world, with clear beginnings, a sequential plot, and [hopefully] a happy ending. We don't like a messy world where demons and uncertainties spring from dark nooks and crannies, or where we are left naked, exposed, and "hanging". No Context, No Meaning* The popular media satisfies this broad need. Television treats news stories as isolated events without context and definitely without interpretation or meaning. There are good guys and bad guys. We are right, they are wrong. Blame Bin Laden. Simplification may be explained away as the pressure of the short time available, but if viewers really wanted context and deeper understanding, no doubt the news channels would provide it. The few times we may be given the social or historical context are in investigative reports. But even when longer articles in quality newspapers and magazines provide history and context, they often fail to provide the psychological interpretation that leads to true insight and understanding. This is particularly true of business books and magazines that, like all media, sell because they tell readers what they already believe. It's a maxim of the publishing world that “If you don't tell readers what they already know or believe, they won't buy”. In light of that reality, business books and magazines necessarily reflect the attitudes and beliefs of the managers who read them. In my experience, most managers, reflecting their company’s culture, studiously avoid context and largely reject, as a “waste-of-time”, the kind of introspection or reflection that might bring meaning or lead to deeper understanding of business situations—particularly the motivation, beliefs, or behavior of the people involved. First Things First As an example, the current month's (March 2006) Fortune magazine lists the “Most Admired Companies”. Toyota is the first non-American company to make the top 10 short list. The Fortune article focuses on the Prius, inferring that this popular hybrid made Toyota successful. But most readers know that the opposite is true. It was Toyota that made the Prius. This hot selling eco-friendly car emerged from a highly successful and innovative culture that for three decades has been the envy of the auto makers’ world. It is the culture of Toyota that brought forth many innovations, such as the just-in-time inventory, employee teams, and bottom-up management. The engaged employees of the Toyota culture had already produced such high-quality market leaders as the Camry and Lexus. The "only-if-you-put-your-name-on-the-waiting-list" Prius is just the latest product of their successful work culture. Yet Fortune does not mention Toyota’s culture. I wonder why? Is The Star CEO Really The Company? Other articles in that March Fortune discuss the top-ranked companies, focusing on the CEO, suggesting that this person makes the company. Reading these articles—and also the February 2006 issue of Fortune where the cover article was "Star Power"—reminds me sadly of how much the top levels of corporations encourage public-relations, spin, enheroment, entertainment, and pandering sycophantism. No doubt about it, business leaders are now larger than life. What is it about the culture of companies, supported by the broader society, that delivers entertainment and exaggerated, nonhuman portraits—these Hollywood-like corporate stars? I don't know the answer, but I do know that star-struck executives alienate lower levels of managers and employees, thereby working against building an engaging, productive workplace. Self absorbed executives unthinkingly block companies from managing their most important asset, their own culture. Whither Company Culture? It is now been 30 years since I decided to focus on understanding and assisting organizations build more successful company cultures. It has been a very gratifying though difficult path. There is something about the concept and reality of company culture that is hard for most managers to examine and manage. Logically this is difficult to explain, particularly when there is nothing more important than a company's culture to overall performance and profitability. As I see it, the explanations, though many and varied, probably fall into two general camps. They seemed to be either psychological, e.g. “the uncertainty, openness, and vulnerability of real cultural leadership is too scary”, or sociological/economic, e.g. “there is no underestimating the extent to which greed and personal ambition will influence a person's behavior”. Real Leadership Is Hard Work I don't say these things to be pessimistic but rather to highlight just how difficult it is for today's leaders to focus on what really counts in life. The current rage for order works against the quality of human life, creativity and personal fulfillment at work. I have great hope that the future will reward those who pay attention to creating a positive cultural stage, best for employees and stockholders. I see the Oscar awards as a possible omen that uncertainty is becoming mainstream. Heisenberg in Hollywood? That's a good sign for those of us who care about the quality of human experience in the workplace. I wish those of you who see both the forest and the trees—who consider the effect of their immediate local actions on the broad company culture—my congratulations and good luck. Thomas Huxley's immediate reaction to reading Darwin's explanation of evolution was, "How extremely stupid not to have thought of that”. _______________________________________________________________________ Need Help? If you would like to discuss your own work situation, please email me, Barry Phegan, Ph.D. barry@meridiangrp.net Barry Phegan For New Tools to Improve Your Workplace: 1. Visit the informational website www.companyculture.com. 2. Buy the book Developing Your Company Culture; a 187 page toolkit of practical information and examples. Click on http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0964220504 Meridian Group, 1 Spencer Court, Sausalito, CA 94965, 415-332-2164 .



	Home \| About Us \| Services \| Clients \| Results \| Articles and Resources \| Contact Us Website design by ArgonautaWeb