Agents2Change - Smart Business Thinking

How Social Media can humanise Leaders

In an interesting article from emarketer, they suggested that a new study had shown that increased use of social media such as blogging or twitter had had a positive impact on the relationship and reputation of CEOs.  We have written in the past about the game changing nature of social media, particular mini blogging platforms and how they can enhance engagement.  Here is a another example of how it could bring great benefits.

According to a study by social media branding firm BRANDfog consumers and employees regard company leaders who engage on social media platforms positively.  Read More: via www.emarketer.com

About us

Agents2change works with some of the world's largest companies on change and engagement issues.   If you’d like to know more contact us at:  feedback@agents2change.com.

Want to share your experiences of social media in your business?  Post a comment here.

The Five Personalities of Innovators: Which One Are You? - Forbes

We have just completed a two-parter on personality types  (Myers Briggs and the Four Temperaments, and as if to complement that, Forbes have just published this article on the five personalities of innovators.

The Forbes Insights study surveyed more than 1,200 executives in Europe across a range of topics and themes. Using a series of questions about their attitudes, beliefs, priorities and behaviors, coupled with a look at the external forces that can either foster – or desiccate – an innovative environment, a picture emerged of five key personality types the play a role in the innovation cycle.

Are you a:

Movers & Shakers;
Controllers;
Star Pupil;
Experimenter;
Or a
Hanger on?

 

 

 

Read More here:  via www.forbes.com

 

 

About us

Agents2change works with some of the world's largest companies on change and implementation issues. We regularly use personality frameworks for leadership, team and organisational development.  If you’d like to know more contact us at:  feedback@agents2change.com

Myers Briggs – which type are you?

In our previous blog we explored the four temperaments, perhaps one of the oldest personality type models on the planet.  But to this, we now add a good all-rounder that has proved a helpful framework in which to consider why you work the way you do. 

No psychometric model predicts behaviour, but they can go a long way to explaining the motives behind our actions.  The Myers Briggs model is particularly robust, since it has been developed through over 60 years of research and has shown a high degree of reliability.

Where does the model come from?

The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was developed by Katherine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Myers Briggs, building on the work of Carl Jung.  It was Jung that first coined the Psychological Types in 1921, and his work was taken up by Katherine Brigg and her daughter post World War II to develop into a model of psychological preferences. 

Jung based his original theory on observations of many hundreds of patients and colleagues, whom he found displayed distinct differences in how they responded to the demands of everyday life and arrived at decisions.

 

What are the Types?

The MBTI is based on four opposing pairs, or dichotomies, that are related to how we interact with the world around us and arrive at our own decisions.

A questionnaire helps to define the preferences for each individual, which are always at the heart of our psychological make-up, but may not be immediately obvious to us, as we have learnt to adapt and change our responses based on work and life experiences. 

 

The MBTI model helps to explain why some people :

• may need to talk through their decisions in detail; whilst others need time to reflect and then present their decision.
• are very good at organising and planning their work and others appear to work in chaos.
• are good at remembering fine detail from a situation and others refer to general themes and patterns.
• make decisions based on facts; whilst other will refer to the emotional impact on others.

 

How can you use MBTI?

The framework like all self-assessment tools helps to raise your awareness of how you work and think and how this may impact on your work with others.  The Type indicators can also be informative when thinking of your career and life choices, by helping you to better understand the work roles and organisational settings that will suit you. 

For teams and organisations, it provides a common framework and language from which to explore the many differences in how team members, managers and leaders operate and can lead to a better understanding of the benefits of a diverse workforce.

 

About us

Agents2change works with some of the world's largest companies on change and implementation issues.  We regularly use MBTI as a developmental framework for leadership, team and organisational development.  If you’d like to know more contact us at:  feedback@agents2change.com

 

The Four Temperaments – What’s your type?

These days there are a plethora of tools, models and frameworks designed to explain the human psyche and how we work, but many of them do not stand the test of time.  However one model, which is perhaps the archetype of all modern psychometric models is that of the four temperaments. 

Over 2,500 years ago in the time of Hippocrates the idea of different types to define the human condition was introduced; this was called the Four Temperaments.  The early thinking was that the differences in mood, emotions and behaviours could be defined by ‘type’ has been a recurring theme in human history.  In the middle ages, right the way up to the eighteenth century, the four temperaments had an enduring appeal, although at that time it was linked to the rather dubious idea of physiognomy; the idea that one’s outer appearance could define one’s inner attributes.  

Of course such thinking could easily lead to stereotypes and discrimination and gradually the concept of the four temperaments fell out of favour.  However it does provide a remarkably fresh and topical way of thinking about the differences in human nature, and deserves to be reviewed in a more judicial light.  Essentially the four temperaments are linked to elements that help to explain and describe the behavioural characteristics within them.

 

 

Sanguine – Air

Typically this temperament is associated with creative and artistic types.  They would have a reputation for being energetic, changeable and perhaps hard to pin down to long-term commitments.  They are outwardly focused and concerned about the world and the environment they live in.  People gravitate towards their energy and often find them inspiring. 

Choleric – Fire

As the element suggests, this is often seen as a strong personality.  Focused on goals, actions and outward success; Cholerics are good at getting things done and getting those around them to follow.  At their most positive they are charismatic and charming, however if less well developed they can come across as dogmatic and bullying.  They often excel in entrepreneurial and leadership roles.

Phlegmatic – Water

One of the top qualities often associated with this temperament is reliability and calmness.  They are seen as hard workers, who will get on with their work with minimum of fuss.  Whilst they can make good leaders, it is not something that they would naturally pursue, preferring instead to have their own space and time to do what they wish.  Rules and routines are important to them and they do not like to have these interrupted or changed unneccesarily.

Melancholic – Earth

This temperament like its element, has its feet firmly rooted in the ground.  They are concerned about the here and now, and do not like needless flights of fancy.  Action and roles must have clear purpose, and they are often the first to find fault in poorly put together plans.  They tend to be quiet and thoughtful, but are in danger of becoming obsessive, if they are left to worry too much about details. 

 

Using the Four Temperaments in your organisation

The temperaments framework, like any other gives us a common language to consider the similarities and differences that are evident between us and our colleagues.  As one of the oldest personality theories, it provides a useful, easy to way in which to reflect on how and why we work the way we do.  To help you to do this, consider the following:

• Which one is your type and how might this differ from your boss and your colleagues?
• Does that impact on how you influence others?
• Can it help  you to understand conflicts that emerge in the workplace?

In our next blog we will look at how the model has been updated and is evident in the Myers Briggs type indicator which is widely used today.

About us

Agents2change works with some of the world's largest companies on change and implementation issues.  We'd love to hear your thoughts on this blog, innovation or change in general.  Share your comments here or email us on feedback@agents2change.com

Trouble at the Bleeding Edge – Or how the Mighty Fall

Earlier this week we talked about challenges at the Leading edge of change.  But what about at the other end of the spectrum?  It’s a salutary reminder of the unrelenting pace of change, when you hear that Eastman Kodak have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.  It is a mighty fall from grace, given the near monopoly status that Kodak held in the world of photography for over 125 years.  Yet it is also a stark reminder of the dramatic changes that our digital based economy has wrought. 

Kodak was once viewed amongst the world’s most innovative companies, providing innovation not only in the camera but also in the development and print field of photography.  Yet in the last 30 years it has gradually slipped further and further from the mainstream, as smaller more agile competitors, better able to respond to the rising tide of digital technology started to take its place, alongside that of the multi-media smartphone. 

Management arrogance is one of the accusations for its demise.   Yet perhaps its biggest failing was not realizing that the moment to change had arrived and passed it by; quietly and swiflty.   It is one of life’s truisms that the moment to change, is just when everything seems to be going swimmingly.  It is at the point of our greatest successes when we have to consider its demise and therefore the need to innovate and change. 

The Danger of resting on one’s laurels

Whilst Kodak fades to black, we can see a similar struggle occurring with Research in Motion's (RIMs) Blackberry.  Once the smartphone of choice for Executives around the world, it has become more and more obscured by the rise of Apple products and the demand for tablet-based technologies. 

Blackberry like Kodak is accused of failing to read the market conditions and consumer choices.  Being unclear where its core market base lies – ‘are we the smartphone for executives, or the consumer product for young people?’.  This fuzzy marketing focus has led to inconsistent R&D (such as the disastrous launch of the Storm and Playbook and the lack of a single OS platform for software development).

Fuzzy leadership  and poor engagement are also cited for Blackberry's demise.  As we fully embed ourselves in the digital age, companies that fail to provide a figurehead to tell their story, or those that don't engage their customers through the infinite options of social media are at risk of being ignored, overlooked and eventually shunned completely by their once loyal customers.

Engagement & responsive-ness, the new watchwords

How can you ensure that you are listening to and engaging your customers as you develop your products and services?

• The world’s most innovative companies all have a strong and clear strategy, communicated by a strong and clear leader
• Using social media – twitter, facebook, youtube etc., as well as the traditional media channels ensures the widest possible circulation
• Creating closed loop marketing opportunities e.g. Once an Apple product owner, one naturally migrates to the next Apple product.
• Anticipating rather than responding to trends – this one of course is the silver bullet, but the world’s most innovate see this as their raison d’étre.  What are you doing to anticipate?

About us

Agents2change works with some of the world's largest companies on change and implementation issues.  We'd love to hear your thoughts on this blog, innovation or change in general.  Share your comments here or email us on feedback@agents2change.com

Examining Culture #7 - And finally! Building a Cultural Map

In this mini-series, we have looked at the challenges of managing across a diverse range of geographic and cultural boundaries. We have taken a look at the theories on national culture and organisational culture.  In this, our final instalment, we explain our approach to developing a cultural map in organisations.

The major growth strategy for multi-nationals has been heavily reliant on Mergers & Acquisitions  in recent years.  These have often been in key markets and geographic locations; for example there has been significant increase in Eastern Europe and South and Central America.  This brings access to new and growing markets for companies who have plateaued in their home countries, but it also brings cultural challenges in how best to integrate and align these target companies into the established corporate culture. 

The reason that integration and value creation is so difficult in the post-merger organisation is multi-fold.  Many reports and research papers conclude that the reasons for poor results are often down to poorly targeted acquisitions, unclear goals, unrealistic valuation of the target company and more often than not, an incompatible company culture. 

However culture is not an indefinable or unchangeable concept.  On the contrary, it can be defined, measured and with concerted effort, changed.  To do that, requires accurate diagnosis and practical ideas on how to address cultural needs.

Our View of Culture

Over the years, the Agents2change team have been brought in to address many issues around performance, improvement and integration in some of the world’s biggest companies.  Our combined expertise spans over 90 years of organisational change and understanding the key levers towards integration.  Indeed our founder, Mary McGuire has undertaken extensive research in the area of multi-cultural management at Masters level and is linked with a number of business schools. 

We apply our knowledge and understanding of the most  influential models and theorists on culture (from Hofstede to Schein) and have developed our own unique Cultural mapping model.  We take the view that there are certain cultural ‘flags’ that allow us to interpret, measure and intervene in culture to achieve integration. 

A central premise of our model, is the view that integration must come from a shared understanding of the direction and goals of the organisation.  This is impacted by a number of areas, including how motivated people feel, how equipped they are to do their job (knowledge) and whether they believe this is a company that they want to be associated with (commitment).

Building A Cultural Map

We have developed an exclusive internet survey that allows for the collation of data from small or large populations.  The survey takes only 15 minutes to complete and has the advantage of being customisable for an organisation’s own requirements.  Using sophisticated survey design, which allows for a mixture of response types, the questionnaire is intuitive to use and eminently user-friendly, as reflected in the very good completion rates we typically achieve.

What we deliver is understandable management reports, split by function or country and giving a thorough analysis and explanation of what the data is saying.  We also supply recommendations, based on our experience of what makes change stick and how to make it happen in geographically spread organisations. 

Cultural mapping can be done for any size of organisation to suit any budget.  We can do a small review for a team of 20 staff, or provide a global review covering several thousand staff in multiple languages.  Our approach is completely flexible and designed around your needs.  If you feel you could benefit from this service, contact Mary McGuire: mary@agents2change.com, for a confidential, no obligation discussion.

What experiences have you had with cross cultural conflicts?  Does this model help explain the reasons for those conflicts?  Please share your thoughts or experiences on cross cultural management here, or email us if you would like to find out more about our work in this area at feedback@agents2change.com

Examining Culture #6 - 'That's just the tip of the Iceberg!'

In this mini-series, we are looking at the challenges of managing across a diverse range of geographic and cultural boundaries.   We have already looked at the key writers on National Culture.  Today we turn to organisational culture theory. 

Probably one of the most extensive writers of recent years is Edgar Schein of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MiT) who has over the years provided much insight into the complexities of understanding and managing cultures within organisations.  He introduced the concept of Culture as an iceberg, in that those things that are observable on the surface are but a small percentage of the issues that are occurring underneath the surface.  

Schein describes culture as multi-layered.  At the visible layer we see artifacts and symbols that represent culture, which in turn come from beliefs and attitudes.  These all stem from basic assumptions that are  deep-rooted and often held at the sub-conscious level.   We don’t often think about how culture is expressed in organisations, and yet its influence is everywhere.  From the organisational structures, to the brand identity to the communications and visual art observable within the office.  It all speaks to the values and underlying assumptions of what this culture represents.  Apple and Google are probably the best proponents of culture as a tangible asset to be encouraged and encompassed by all employees.  Other headquarters such as banking and insurance, exude power and status messages to maintain status quo.  One sector is about game-changing and the other is about the old order. Both are valid, just different.

Schein went on to describe Three Cultures that arise in distinct occupational communities.  The Executive culture is about hierarchy and control.  The Engineering culture is concerned with design and process.  The Operators culture is concerned with the hands-on day-job, whether that be manufacturing or service based.   

When we look at how global companies today are often a made up of many legacy companies that have come together through acquisitions, each with their own distinct history and culture, this therefore poses some challenges for the post-merger integration efforts. 

What we at Agents2Change have found useful is some a cultural mapping exercise to help explain the key differences that occur across organisations.  We will look at this in more detail in our next and final instalment in this Culture series.

What experiences have you had with cross cultural conflicts?  Does this model help explain the reasons for those conflicts?  Please share your thoughts or experiences on cross cultural management here, or email us if you would like to find out more about our work in this area at feedback@agents2change.com

 

 

Examining Culture #5 – The High’s and the Low’s of Cultural Difference

In this mini-series, we are looking at the challenges of managing across a diverse range of geographic and cultural boundaries.   We have already presented the findings of Hofstede,  Trompenaar & GLOBE.  Today we are looking at the last of the National Cultural theorist, Edward Hall.

 

In his book ‘Beyond Culture’ Hall took an anthropological approach to considering cultural differences.  In his book he looks at the various ways that societies deal with conflict, justice, truth and relationships.  He considers cultural differences from the perspective of how much meaning is interpreted through the context of the situation or how much relies on explicit messaging.  He introduces the concept of two main types of culture.  High Context – those which have meaning embedded in the fabric of life – through symbolism, rituals and relationships leading to short-hand or understated communication.  Low Context, by contrast, is more rule-bound, concerned with regulations and expectations, leading to explicit forms of communication.     See examples (below):

 

 

Hall’s model offers us insights into why some cultures spend more time codifying human behaviour and rules (Germany, America) and those that spend more time on relationships (Southern Europe).  We then see these differences manifest themselves through the way we, for example, develop statutes, run justice systems, appoint leaders etc.   

Another significant observation from Hall is relationship to Time.  Monochromic and Polychromic societies display differences in how they respond to and use time.  Monochromic  being those groups that take time as a finite resource, where punctuality is expected – ‘time is money’.  Polychromic groups view time as a flexible resource that can be juggled around the needs and priorities of relationships and tasks at hand.  We can easily imagine how business leaders from one group, negotiating and working with a leader from the other dimension, might well lead to frustration and conflict, merely because their approach to tasks and punctuality might vary.  Hall’s booked helped to highlight these difference and what might be the basis to them. 

Hall’s insights and models were developed from an anthropological perspective.   This means that his lens was both US based, but also concerned with human behaviour and rituals in the context of their unique evolution.  It was not developed with the business world in mind, unlike the other models, but it does provide a useful frame of reference in which to consider the manifestation of conflict and tensions across different national cultures.

What experiences have you had with cross cultural conflicts?  Does this model help explain the reasons for those conflicts?  Please share your thoughts or experiences on cross cultural management here, or email us if you would like to find out more about our work in this area at feedback@agents2change.com

Examing Culture #2 - Is Hofstede's view of Culture relevant?

Hofstede is seen as one of the key writers and proponents of cultural theory, through his research in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s and to which he has continued to add.  His research was based on employees within one organisation – IBM and covered over 116,000 responses, 72 national subsidiaries and 20 language, taking the data at two points in time over a four year period.  When first published, over 20 years ago, it was one of the most extensive pieces of research in the area of culture and lead to some critical thinking of what characteristics are observable in different national cultures.

The central premise to Hofstede’s work is that Culture and cultural identity are learned attributes developed over time and he coined the process ‘mental programming’.  

 

We can see how culture is ever-changing, in the ways that values and priorities change from one generation to another.  For example, we can see if we look back at key decades in UK society, that values changed from:  Being frugal and economical in the 1940’s  (key themes: ‘War’ and ‘Rations’); being hard-working and strong family values in the 1950’s  (key themes:  Post-war Industrial growth); being expressive and freedom of speech in the 1960’s  (key themes: Feminism, Free Love, Student Revolts); being politically aware and experiencing hardships in the 1970’s  (Increased political unrest, widespread strikes and large scale unemployment).  Thus we can say that culture is at the same time traditional yet ever changing.  The shifts in cultural values are harder to view in the day-to-day, but evident when looked at through a longer lens. 

This brings some interesting challenges to modern day multi-nationals, as it means that cultural identity and values needs to be understood and observed to a point, but that people are open to and willing to change their values and priorities if it makes sense for them to do so. 

Culture can feel like an intangible and hard to grasp concept, yet it is both general – i.e. definable at a national or continental level; but also specific – i.e. definable at an organisational, team and even family level.   And for each of these situations a new set of norms might be applied. 

Hofstede originally defined  four dimensions of culture as a way of mapping and explaining differences in national cultures.  If we look at how European countries map out on these dimensions, we see some interesting patterns:

Each dimensions looks at a different aspect of human interactions:

1.            Power Distance:  Defining and prioritizing power in their environments – e.g.. how much are hierarchies respected and maintained

2.            Uncertainty Avoidance: How important is it to know what is coming next and how much effort is invested into avoiding uncertainty

3.            Individualism ‘v’ Collectivisim:  What is more important – to be known and respected as an individual or to be part of and respected as part of a community (or group effort)

4.            Masculine ‘v’ Feminine:     “Masculinity pertains to societies in which social gender roles are clearly distinct and focused on material success; femininity pertains to societies in which social gender roles overlaps (i.e. both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender and concerned with quality of life)” (Hofstede P.82)

To these original dimensions, a fifth was added – Long Term’v’ Short Term Orientation.

 

The dimensions give us a frame of reference in which to consider and view culture, and it does allow us to perhaps explain differences that emerge across different countries, even in one geographic regions such as Europe.  However Hofstede was at pains to point out that the purpose of his cultural landscape was not to allow us to fall in to the trap of stereotyping countries and national cultures.  Far from it, Hofstede believed that by having a frame of reference, we could free ourselves up from our own cultural bias, to look at cultures with a more objective lens. 

There are a number of issues with Hofstede’s study methods and conclusions, which remind us of the need to treat it critically.  The first is that the data is focused around the respondents in one organisation – IBM.  Whilst an organisation of sufficient size  (well over 120,000 employees at the time of the research) to provide a statistically significant sample, but that does not mean it is representative on a national level.    

Blodgett et al (2008) after examining Hofstede’s model conclude that “Hofstede’s cultural instrument lacks sufficient validity when applied at the individual unit of analysis”.  McSweeney B (2002) goes further to systematically deconstruct and debunk his theories stating that “The scale problem of Hofstede’s research is radially compounded by the narrowness of the population surveyed” and that Hofstede oversimplified the importance of organisational culture as a component and a relevant factor when matching samples across countries.  Yet despite this criticism, I think that St Claire-Ostwald (2007) offers wise words when she states  “To reject totally Hofstede’s or similar functionalist models of national culture, before more satisfactory models have been developed, would be to throw away valuable insight.”

Hofstede’s model still has influence on our current thinking of Culture and its interpretation.  One can see his influence in other important models, such as those of Trompenaars and GLOBE, which will be covered in the next section of this series. 

Culture is ever-present and all-pervasive and however much we want to imagine that business as usual can continue without it, it cannot.  However by becoming more aware of it, is the first step in managing its consequences.

Please share your thoughts or experiences on cross cultural management here, or email us if you would like to find out more about our work in this area at feedback@agents2change.com

 

Further Reading:

Blodgett J, Bakir A &  Rose G (2008)  A Test of the Validity of Hofstede’s Cultural Framework, Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 35)

Hofstede G (1994) Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival; Software of the Mind, London: HarperCollins

McSweeney, B. (2000). Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89-118.

St Claire-Ostwald B (2007) Carrying Cultural Baggage: the contribution of socio-cultural anthropology to cross-cultural coaching, International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring 5(2), 45-52

 

Multi-Cultural Management and Its Challenges – Introduction

In this mini-series, we will look at the challenges of managing across a diverse range of geographic and cultural boundaries.

We will revisit the writings of the key writers on Culture – Hofstede, Trompenaars and Hall and we will also look at some up to the minute examples of multi-cultural management challenges faced by some of the world’s biggest companies.

But first, let’s set the scene.  A Spanish technology group has recently acquired a British IT company operating in a similar area.  They both operate in the same market and offer similar technology, yet every attempt to merge, integrate or transform their processes to a common approach is failing.  It is not that they don’t see the benefits of the changes, or even of working together more closely; yet any percieved attempt by one side to impose a process on the other is contentious.  Sound familiar?  Well this type of situation occurs in over 80% of post-merger organisations.

Often what is interpreted as resistance to change is based in a mis-understanding of culture and cultural needs of the legacy teams and organisation.  Even in this example, if we look at some of the cultural markers defined by Hall's definiton of High and Low Context cultures, we find that Spain would fall more into high context cultures, meaning that more is interpreted from the wider reference points of non-verbal, historical and social expectations, creating a much smaller dependence on and trust in written communication.  Britain, by contrast, falls into the low context cultures, which means that explicit forms of communication are preferred and expected and less value is placed on non-verbal or subliminal messages.  Whereas one country would put much more store in face-to-face meetings to reach agreement, the other would not want to act without clear written agreements.

Over the next few weeks we will take you on a cultural journey, exploring what continues to be the issues faced by modern management in multi-national organisations and what we can learn from the extensive body of knowledge that is already out there to help us navigate this tricky landscape.

Do you have any experience of multi-cultural management you would like to share?  Or would you like to have a more detailed discussion on how we support multi-cultural management?  Please feel free to leave your comments here.  Or contact us at feedback@agents2change.com.