Season 92, Episode 1097: Culture Is A Leading Indicator: A Monologue Series

Speaker A: If culture protects the spirit of an organization, how exactly? If culture. If culture protects culture, protects the spirit of an organization. Keep that. Remember the quote. This is from the introduction of Maps of meaning. Maps of meaning, the architecture of belief. The quote I'm about to share. Because what I want to address today is if culture protects the spirit of an organization, how exactly is culture created? How is it, um, transmitted? How is it created? How is it transmitted? How is it destroyed? Is it destroyed? Uh, what creates it or curates it? What transmits culture? If culture is the spirit of the organization, How is it created? How is it transmitted? How is it destroyed? Going back to the quote, uh, that comes to mind from M. Interestingly enough, a book, uh, really I think of it as less of a book and more of a. A long conversation. Um, less of a book and more of a long conversation. Like an exploration through thoughts, uh, and. Yeah, thoughts and conceptualizations of society, the human, individual, reality in the world. It's like part psychology and part philosophy and part mythology and theology. Like a long conversation between, you know, the authority and themself. A long conversation to explore. And the opening quote in the preface of Maps of Meaning that I remember. I just think, wow, what a powerful summation of this book, of this long conversation, of this text which goes by, uh, something we cannot see protects us from something we do not understand. The thing we cannot see is culture in its intrapsychic or internal manifestation. The thing we do not understand is the chaos that gave rise to culture. If the structure of culture is disrupted unwittingly, chaos returns. We will do anything, anything to defend ourselves against that return. If the structure of culture is disrupted unwittingly. So then there's this whole book to attempt to confront this quote or reveal it or maybe expound upon it or, you know, I look at that quote as a summary of this long conversation. Well, if culture protects the spirit of the organization, we're looking at this in a business. So that's a whole broader, I think, applicable to. Conceptualizing business and how organizations organize and the people relate to one another and to. The purpose of the organization and the beliefs that drive organizations to grow and to, um, respond to competition and to innovate and continue their protection of their employees, jobs and their value proposition for customers and their culture or the identity of these many societies within society that have influence over the lives and are part of shaping the lives of the people that work for them. That on a spectrum of engagement, someone that is working for a company at one extreme, that is at the let's say at the absolute, uh, extreme of their attention and their engagement and their involvement and their investment of their time and space and all things that come with it, their identity. And then on the other extreme, someone that's the farthest opposite of that, asymmetrically disengaged. Their attention is not on their job, their responsibilities, their role is not living up to expectations relative to not only the bare minimum. Yeah, not only the highest peak, but not even the bare minimum, but way below that. So the complete opposite extreme that reveals their intentions are not aligned with the intention of the organization. They're on the fringe of the fringe. They're disengaged. Their energy is not going back into the system. Their energy, their positive energy is leaving the system. Let's just keep simplicity sake. Negative energy is going into the system. Their positive energy, their spirit. Here. Ah. Their spirit. If culture. Their spirit. Because the spirit is the organization. Their spirit, their potential to invest their attention and intent and be engaged in the organization. Their space, time is not in it, it's outside of it. But what's in it are all there. It's all the worst of what, uh, an individual has to offer for a system. The disengaged employee is. Well, they're modeling, uh, behaviors that then put into question the organization of others. They're modeling that behaviors that. Yeah, create. Hmm. M. I don't know. Should I be working as hard or as diligently as I should be? Their behavior is bringing things into question that could actually be signaling something that could be valuable for the organization. Say, what's the fringe saying of our organization? Is there a way to improve the organization that, uh, the most disengaged team members, actually, they have the answer. You know, how can we learn from and get some of that? Because in between, where is the spirit going? Well, it's outside of the organization. And something else is inside of the organization. We're not benefiting from their labor. We're not benefiting from their thoughts, their words, their deeds. However, there's still a cost to the organization. Meaning energy is leaving the organization through pay. They're receiving it in their personal life. They're disengaged. The energy is leaving the system. It's not coming back. So capital is leaving the system to pay them. Their energy is not coming back into the system. Or rather some of their energy is coming back into the system. But it's energy that puts into question the organization of the other people that now are thinking, should I work as hard or should I leave or should I da, da, da. Now this is an interest. This is a signifier. If the people in the organization are questioning that and not just saying to that person, hey, pick it up, get it together. You got this. Or even just signal. There's plenty of ways that there's groups of people that are a tribe and there's camaraderie and there's relationship. They'll use humor and ritual to lessen the likelihood that an outsider comes in and creates amok to indirectly influence an outsider to kind of say, you know what? This isn't. This isn't my tribe, this isn't my place. I should probably get out of here. Versus put the outsider in a position where they are publicly shamed, like explicitly. There's a lot of implicit nuance that uh, occurs when there's an engaged group that's protecting their organization. Essentially what I'm saying here is that the peer to peer relationships will kind of push out the outsider that hasn't integrated through plenty of means that just make them feel like this isn't the place for me. If. And in a way, you know, um, that would be a signal that there is. The overall organization is. Their story is clear, their values are clear, they're listening to the people, they're providing the resources and the relationships. And. Potentially if. If that play, essentially it's like play versus bullying. Play will naturally occur to help people reorient to like, you know what? I better get to work on time. Let me get it together or let me go to, you know, m. My organization has some resources. I could talk to someone to like get my. Because life is not linear. You know, it's up and down. It's like a roller coaster, people. There's all sorts of reasons why someone that uh, is of value is not engaged in an organization could completely be something that's going on in their lives and they're unable to get it together in air quotes. And the organization potentially has the relationships like the camaraderie, the culture, people to talk to, the resources to get them help that they need in safe containers that are within means of confidentiality and sophistication and education, respect. And that's all provided by an organization that's functioning like a business that. And of course it's not lost to me that as I'm saying all of this, I started off with that quote and these broader themes of psychology and philosophy and myth and so on from a, uh, subject matter expert or a clinician that's become a cultural or part of the cultural zeitgeist. Uh, I'm talking about this within the context of business. The organization design and business architecture and governance and systems and personnel and hiring and retention and letting go of staff and the complexities that arise when we're talking about human beings, their livelihoods, the meaning of their lives. I think all of this applies to business. Of course it does. Because we spend, spend so much of our lives working for causes that we didn't create. If we're not the founders, and of course the founders are spending their lives on causes that they think they created, that they did. People that start businesses, it's not as obvious to them or everyone else why they do it. I think it isn't as obvious to them or everyone else why they do it. And that is revealed in when they get later in their lives those entrepreneurs that found a business that now have founded families are uh, confronted with the great unknowns of who they will be when they are no longer at the helm of the businesses that they created. That others that are a part of their identity, their, their history, their future, their blood, their immediate environment are questioning whether they will have the opportunity to steward the family legacy or if they even want to do it. Like I'm going to say, I think the family, the natural shirt sleeves of shirt sleeves in three generations or the rice paddy. Rice paddy or the, the story about the camel and the Mercedes, you know, these are different stories in different parts of the world that all these human cultures are confronted with. The passing on a business to the next generation demonstrates there's clearly complexity from a psychological and uh, familial respect to what an entrepreneur actually is, what that means and what they face, what human beings that choose to take on risk in the capital, take on risk of capital and credit and reputation that start businesses. There are all these livelihoods, employee, customer, customer employee, shareholder, stakeholder and so on. And ultimately family and then future family is on their shoulders. It's business means something or can mean something and influences at a significant degree the meaning of our lives, what we do with our time here on earth. As far as participating in the economic part of society. Matters. The culture of businesses matter because culture matters generally in the greater expanse of the world. Culture in business culture matters because it reveals and reflects our times through the organization and incorporates, increases or decreases the possibility for self discovery and integration into society, of the people and into their own, uh, families and communities and the options and their own protection of their home and their family. And that funerals are expensive statistically, but a key to all of the uh, life costs. And so work is a part of solving to those costs to protect. And going back to the quote, if the structure of culture, something we can see, protects us from something we do not understand. The family culture, the family units impacted by the business, like someone that is working within a home. Example, whether it's more like uh, a nuclear family situation where one participant is laboring for the economic, um, outputs necessary to take care of children and spouse, that work relationship is. The more conflict going on there that's not being m exercised in the proper fashion is going to come into the home. Like that doesn't take a great leap of imagination to foresee that the business's success or failure is going to influence work. Success or failure is going to influence how stories are shaped and rituals occur or don't occur, family vacations or not at home, there's a meaningful impact on the home and on the family life from the organization. They're inextricably linked, business and business culture and culture of society. And they fuel and feed each other. Which brings me to something I think is going on in a macro sense of business, which is that culture, like business culture matters. Well, maybe in the past it didn't need to be said. It wouldn't have been said or uh, been on the forefront of thought because it was a lagging indicator when there were different. The society was different, the technologies were different, the like. For example, uh, there's employees on average are staying at organizations way less than they used to. The generations coming up, what they value as far as their lives and what they're seeking in employment is different than prior generations. So there's people, they're operating in different stories as they relate to work. Companies have to understand those stories and figure out how to meet them where they are and to potentially influence their story in a way that gets them what they, Gets them what they want, gets them what they think they want, helps them understand what they may not want they do want or could want or what they may not. What they may. Yeah. What they may not want, they're right for not wanting it. And they can learn and are learning from the younger generations. That's a very spirit going back to spirit that's necessary to innovate and to actually redesign what organization looks like in the future so that those companies are most successful as possible. And ultimately the people that work for them are as successful as possible at the benefit, not the cost of the customers that need the products and services that they offer. Ultimately, the culture in the past was, I think, was a lagging indicator. It just was a natural. Like okay, that's not something we're going to need to be focused on because our society is different. The technologies, the work, something as simple. And today it's a leading indicator. Culture is a leading indicator today. Understanding it, conceiving it, approaching even if they're small companies. And like in the past, like it's becoming exponentially more important to understand how to, how to approach culture, architect culture, all of these, um. The intuition of the entrepreneur must go from implicit to explicit as organization grows. The uh, how do I say this? The intuition of the entrepreneur as an organization grows must m. Go from implicit spirit to explicit story and values and symbols and rituals and organizational design systems. It all expands and there are departments that fill different void like all of that. Uh, and that's part of the journey from founder to CEO. Psychologically, if the entrepreneur is continuing to actually run the business and evolve as a uh, business person, as a leader of leaders, not just a. Evangelical of a vision around a solution to a problem from a product or service standpoint, but maturing, evolving into a leader of leaders, into someone that people follow, don't just admire meaning they model their behavior and the behavior is aligned with the customers need not. They don't just follow. I'm sorry, they don't just admire or like say oh I admire that person. And how they show up day to day is pretty impressive. And I couldn't do that and I wouldn't do that. So those people are personally detached. So you don't want admirers, don't be build a company followers do at the same time in the sense that they're modeling, they're able to model the behaviors of the highest of that leader while simultaneously calling into question the leader. Like being in having the environment psychologically safe enough where they can. That's probably why that ah, that's my other. That word phrase has risen up because of the product of the culture of our times. Our society which influences business is that person. The people aren't just following in a literal I'm going to do anything that this person does dogmatically. It's that they are courageous enough, willing enough, open enough to model the values within the business context that are most valuable for the customer journey and serve the organization at the highest that serves them because it's all aligned and congruent. Of course the organization has to become if it's not serving its own purposes, if it's out of orbit, yes, then people will not want to follow the leader and that's where leadership comes in. But, uh, if culture, Culture protects the spirit of an organization, how exactly is culture created, transmitted or destroyed? I've talked a little bit about how it's created. There will inherently be a, uh, culture. The question is, what is it? And is it in, in the best service for customers, Organization people or customers people, organization or customers, Organization people, shareholders, stakeholders or stakeholders, in whatever order that that organization works best for them, based on what they do and why they do it and how they want to do it, they're going to be different based on who's running it and who benefits from it and what and how they want to do it. There will be differences that all of what I. All of those components and the order of each of them, they could all be different. And it could still potentially work for whomever's, uh, benefiting from it based on what they want and why they want it and what life they're looking to take from it. And people will join it and leave it, and they'll decide. Now, in some it's easier to decide, in others it isn't. But my point is that the thought around even thinking about this is part of what not creates it. It's always there, but codifies it or clarifies it or, uh, potentially leads to it to be more productive and more purposeful. That's a way to look at it. It's like what is our internal operating system as a consequence of who we are and what we want for our customers and our people and our shareholders and our stakeholders, or whatever order or ourselves, whatever order we're looking at, that will reveal the DNA of where we're at today and maybe where we want to go. And then from around that, uh, a system can be built. And this is the thing, building all of that doesn't make it a great culture. And even that is going to be a debate and a conversation. And that each organization has to have that, just like as any society would have to have that and shape it and devolve it over time. So, say, transmission happens through. And this is. I got to go back to, uh, why I think culture is a leading indicator today and not a lagging indicator. The transmission is dependent upon variables like are we working? Are we meeting and gathering in a place physically, or is it work from home and how technology influences that? Are we, um, what are the expectations of the actual labor of like, what they want and why they want, how they view work in that society over time and how the organization's meeting them and responding to that. The transmission. It's transmitted through story, through values, through rituals, through the modeling of the leadership, through the overall symbolism of the brand, how the brand is viewed by the general marketplace and the pride that comes from that, and how congruent that is with what happens to the organization and so much more. But as society evolves, or that may not be the right word, but as society changes, society changes, that's going to influence how organizations adapt and respond to those changes. And the transmission, when that is going to inevitably get disrupted, which answers the question, how is it destroyed? It's destroyed because the transmission systems of society will change like they are now. Which makes culture a leading indicator more than the past, where it was a lagging indicator. Because, uh, as society changes, the transmission systems change how we view work, life, business, labor and so on. And when people aren't going to the office like they used to, for example, they're not seeing a lot of the modeling that we talked about. So that's going to change how an organization responds to actually curate a culture where people are bought in and they're getting a return on the investment they make in their people versus not, uh, it changes everything.