Agents2Change - Smart Business Thinking

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 Leading Edge - The Zuckerburg effect

As Facebook readies itself for floatation, the debate centres around what leadership is required to take it forward and whether Mark Zuckerburg is the right person for the job.  At the heart of the issues are concerns about how much power and influence he will have to veto shareholders post IPA.  But are they valid and does history suggest that they are right to be concerned?

Why does the Founder CEO make us so nervous?

We have in this blog looked at other founder CEO’s and the impact that they can have on an organisation.  The love/hate relationship that emerges because of  founders controlling and some might say over-bearing influence often causes frictions with shareholders, who are not used to playing second fiddle to a CEO. 

The front-runners in the category are obvious:  Steve Jobs, Michael Dell and Bill Gates.  It’s also interesting to note that a recent study by Wharton Business School, concluded that founder CEOs outperformed professional CEOs.  Their decisions tended to be longer-term, linked to a deeper understanding of core products and strategy; and less influenced by the whims and demands of shareholders. 

But there is the other equally tricky aspects of the founder CEO.  As can be seen in the biographies of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and others; the archetype founder CEO often takes on a maverick role in how they run their organisation, and this is what makes investors and analysts most nervous about the Facebook floatation. 

An unswerving focus on the future

But what Founder CEO’s particularly in the technology field have proven again and again, is that there vision is beyond our grasp until it comes to fruition.  Apple were about to go down the ‘me too’ PC strategy until Steve Jobs returned in 1997 and took the radically different step of complete vertical integration.  A model that was seen as totally outdated at that time  (Amstrad anyone?).

Zuckerburg has also shown such courage, fighting off many law suits and rejecting many lucrative offers in Facebook’s history.  But he has also show an awareness of the need to bring in operators, who will spend time thinking about strategy and core operations, such as the appointment of Sheryl Sandberg.

As Facebook moves closer to becoming a founder-led public company many will feel ambivilant about whether the leader that brought Facebook to here, is the one that will lead it on to profitability in the future.  A profitability that is still relatively untested and in its infancy.

Certainly some of the pitfalls of the Founder CEO, are the tendency toward the Maverick.  A tendency to view one’s own opinion as superior and an intolerance to dissent.  But we have seen how even these poorly viewed leadership practices have brought out the best in some organisation’s performance, so we wait to see how well Facebook lives up to its early promise under Zuckerburg’s control.

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

Examining Culture #4 - GLOBE - Linking Leadership to Culture

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 and Fons Trompenaars.  Today we are looking at Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness or GLOBE as it is known.  Tomorrow we will review Hall, both very influential and insightful studies into Culture.

The research for GLOBE was initiated by Robert J House of the University of Pennsylvania in 1991.  His initial purpose was to find a way of measuring and defining the leadership qualities across different cultures.  Building on and expanding the seminal work of Hofstede, and that of other organisational theorists, House set about developing a multi-country, multi-organisational research program.  This has now encompassed over 16,000 middle managers in over 60 countries.   

 

Whilst there is clear overlap with the work of Hofstede  (see Hofstede 2010), it also brings some new insights, particularly in the area of leadership and leadership performance.  More particularly, GLOBE spans more than 951 organisations, rather than one entity, as in Hofstede’s case.  Shi & Wang in their thorough comparison of the two models, outline the differences in methodology below.

 

 

We cannot say by looking at this table, that one approach is better than the other.  We can say however, that they bring different aspects of data into the body of knowledge on multi-cultural management.  Hofstede was concerned with finding differences in national cultures, so only having one organisation, but one that could provide over 117,000 respondents still brought a larger data sample in which to achieve this task then had ever been done before. GLOBE, on the other hand, was a broader research piece, which looked at defining leadership qualities across different cultures.  Both are useful, but need to be considered within their respective frame of reference. 

The GLOBE model identified nine cultural dimensions, which as we can see from Table below, have parity with Hofstede’s model on many counts:

 

 

GLOBE enhances rather than detracts from the original work of Hofstede.  It goes one step further in looking at the impact of culture on organisational performance, through the introduction of the Performance Orientation dimension and the definition of institutional collectivism. 

Shi & Wang (2011) remind us that whilst “GLOBE study is less criticized than Hofstede’s work, possibly not because there are fewer controversial issues, but perhaps more because it is much more recent, and therefore researchers have not yet fully analysed and tested it” (P. 93)

GLOBE provides a framework that goes beyond the measuring management or only considering one organisation and systemically looks to gather data from across sectors and countries.  GLOBE goes one step further in linking culture to performance, and important advance in thinking of why culture? and why now?

As we see more and more mergers and acquisitions failing to deliver on promises and a global recession that is continuing to bite, GLOBE provides us with some through-provoking ideas about how we might continue to motivate and manage people across organisational and geographic boundaries.

 

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

 

References

Hofstede G (2010) The GLOBE debate; Back to relevance, Journal of International business Tudeis, 41: 1339-1346

House RJ, Hanges PJ, Javidan M, Dorfman PW & Gputa V (2004) Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The  GLOBE study of 62 societies, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage

Shi X & Wang J(2011) Interpreting Hofstede Model and GLOBE Model:  Which way to go for Cross-Cultural Research?, International Journal of Business and Management, 6(5), 93-98.

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.

Corporate & Functions # 4 – Achieving Operational Excellence

In this mini-series we are looking at the role and value that Functions can play in supporting large global corporations.  In this instalment we explore the importance of achieving operational excellence. 

Like so many things in life Operational Excellence has an intuitive aspect to it, in that it is often easier to spot what it is not, than to clearly describe what it is.  In organisations where Functions are not performing well the noise from the business segments is consierable.  However gaining agreement on what would constitute exceptional performance becomes harder to fully describe and achieve.

The modern phenomenon of shared services, outsourcing and offshoring makes this ever more difficult as the distance between service delivery and end customer increases.  The perceived loss of control for outsourced services tends to be one of the biggest issues that emerges.  One will often hear the cry “our IT support services were dreadful in-house, but at least you knew who you were talking to.  Now it is just a faceless name, in some remote office that is ignoring a request for help.”

Whether Corporate Functions are in-house or outsourced, one essential component of excellence must be a set of service standards and performance criteria that are transparent and hold consequences for non-delivery.  A Performance Dashboard similar to the example above can be developed, openly shared and visible across the organisation. Defining specifc and relevant measures can be done through a mixture of external benchmarking and internal dialogue.  Upholding those standards can be done through a mixture of leadership accountability and performance incentives. 

This requires a different kind of conversation to be held between functional leaders and business leaders within the organisation.  In order to move the Function from transactional provider to strategic partner (the ultimate goal of world-class Functions) organisations need to be well-above fire-fighting mode and demonstrate flawless service delivery.  It is only then that business leaders will trust Functional leaders to address longer-term problems. 

In our next instalment we will look at Harnessing Creativity.  If you have experiences you wish to share, please comment here or contact us at feedback@agents2change.com

 

Corporate & Functions # 3 – Role Clarity – Who should be doing what?

In this mini-series we are looking at the role and value that functions can play in supporting large global corporations.  The second of our five areas is role clarity within Functions. 

Although there is a logical and clear argument for the need for functions, in practice the 'what & how' of functional contribution to business success can be blurred.  This confusion can be a symptom of unclear strategy or the lack of clarification at key points during the organisation’s growth and diversification. 

The frustration that is felt by the businesses when there is this confusion is palpable.  In their need for quick, responsive and appropriate services they can sometimes resort to extreme measures including the creation of ‘shadow’ functions within their segment. In one global financial services provider this had become a common way of overcoming corporate obstacles, leading to a plethora of IT and finance systems within the group.

The coordination between functions when they implement cross-functional or group-wide processes can also lead to breakdowns in communication.   Businesses can be overwhelmed by the latest imperative from Finance Function, whilst in the middle of a major IT implementation.  The deadlines compete or over-ride one and other, leaving the businesses overwrought and under-resourced.  A global credit risk insurer were implementing a mult-strand major strategy overhaul and  soon ran into the ground with their implementation efforts.  It became clear that the reason for this was that there were simply too many corporate centres making requests of the business units, leading to high levels of tension and communication breakdown.

One tool that can help clarify roles is called the RACI.  It records who is Responsible for doing a task; who is ultimately Accountable for getting it done; who needs to be Consulted before a decision is made; and who needs to be Informed that something is changing.  It’s a simple yet very effective tool to bring about clarity.  

 

 

In our next instalment we will look at Achieving Operational Excellence.  If you have experiences you wish to share, please comment here or contact us at feedback@agents2change.com

Corporate & Functions # 2 – Quality of Leadership within & across Functions

In this mini-series we are looking at the role and value that functions can play in supporting large global corporations.  The first of our five areas is Leadership within Functions. 

There are many reasons why leadership is, or is perceived as poorer within the functions rather than in the line.  Sometimes it is about the culture of the organisation.  If the business / segment are encouraged to be independent and autonomous, then Functions can sometimes play second fiddle.  This has the result of undermining the confidence & leadership of the Functions.  Similarly, if the pendulum has swung too much towards the Functions – which is a phenomenon frequently experienced after a lot of merger & acquisition activity - the rush to consolidate to one business identity and creating a ‘one size fits all’ solution can lead to poorly thought out services or policies that are not fit for purpose in the various business environments. 

In both these situations the functional leadership has a critical (& somewhat overlooked) role.  Too often the organisation in its frustration can either parachute in excellent business (line) managers who have a reputation for turnaround situations in the field, but with very little technical understanding of the functions role.  Leaders parachuted in in this way can feel overwhelmed in a new and very different environment and in some situations feel overlooked by the organisation.  Additionally the lack of technical skill can result in poorly thought out or mis-aligned interventions for the businesses.  In one Supermajor oil company a business leader was parachuted in to run the HR function with disastrous results, by oversimplifying the model and the HR offer and increasing frustration felt by the business. 

The other extreme is the Group CEO in his or her frustration hires in a technical expert with a strong track record to oversee the function/ functions without the history of the organisation’s culture, the danger is that in their rush to make an impact, the business can feel browbeaten into accepting changes that seem out of synch with the way that ‘things are done around here’. 

Neither is a good outcome and the ideal middle ground between the two; a leader who understands the technical requirements of the function, whilst still being highly attuned to the needs of the business – which may indeed be quite diverse and even contradictory.  Their confidence as a leader needs to be balanced with their appreciation of their role ‘in service’ of the business.   It requires a finely tuned ego that can switch between leadership and followership as the situation requires.   

In our next instalment we will look at role clarity.  If you have experiences you wish to share, please comment here or contact us at feedback@agents2change.com

Facing the cuts & Surviving

One cannot get away from headline after headline of panic about the impending public sector cuts and how (if you believe the papers) the world as we know it is coming to an end. 

Optimism is probably the most important mental attitude to survive tough times; that, and a bit of foresight.  A beacon of hope, on how to survive the tough times comes from Sunderalnd City Council.  Recently profiled in People Magazine, it has an exemplary performance record and has the lowest council tax in its region.  

Some of the things that stand out as unusual and inspired choices include:

• Avoiding a redundancy program – “because they increase costs and deliver short term gains”.  This avoided a rush of volunteers to leave, some of whom would be critical roles and gave out clear messages of commitment to long term success.

• Making the most of Redeployment – as the council has a multitude of different roles and departments it provides a vibrant and diverse internal job market.  They also parted with traditional thinking that experience and knowledge were the key criteria, instead using profiling that matched aptitude and ability.

• Making the most of surplus talent – Many staff found themselves in transition during the changes and cost drive and rather than having them sitting on a bench waiting for something to happen, teams were developed that provided resources and support for other areas of the council including project teams to bring about efficiencies and improve processes.

• Providing Flexible Win-Win Opt-Out Options – reducing the payroll bill, especially in a unionized environment can be tough and often adversarial, but not if you work with your people on options.  Encouraging staff to buy more annual leave (up to 2 weeks) or go part time,  or helping staff to realise ambitions as entrepreneurs by providing support and income security of part-time work to get started. 

Conclusions

Often organisation's response to a down-turn and cost savings is reactive and lacks any imagination or long-term thinking about preserving the inherent talent in the workforce.  What stands out in this example is the inspired and original thinking, so often lacking.  It shows the power of optimism, insight and commitment to facing challenges without losing sight of the value of your people.