Stuart French recently wrote an insightful post on culture and the enterprise, summarising a number of articles that examine whether or not Web 2.0 tools can change an organisation that embraces hierarchy, position power and process over flat, collaborative structures.
In my presentations to Web Directions Government, Oz-IA 2008 and ACTKM08, I discussed some of these issues at length, particularly in relation to the introduction of social computing tools and what factors lead to changes in thinking and then action.
When we make decisions about adoption of social computing tools, we balance up our own individual needs (as described by Maslow for example) with our social needs as articulated by our identification with various groups and what they expect of us.
Let’s take me as an example. Behavioural change from contemplation through to action means balancing numerous factors — me as “me”, me as an Aussie, me as a member of the wider geek community, and me as an employee of the company I work for.
All of these groups have their own expectations of me as a member. At different times, they have a greater or lesser influence on my behaviour. Their expectations of me also depend on the environment I’m in and how physically close a member of one of those groups is to me, as well as that person’s influence over me based on legitimate, expert, referent, information, reward, and/or coercive power [1].
For me, culture, therefore, is the description of the behavioural and cognitive norms we see emerging from the group dynamic, whether at the organisational or national level, that emerge as the group’s identity. The sheer force of numbers within the group adhering to those behavioural norms reinforce the status quo. Culture is, of course, therefore a bell curve of behaviour within a group. Statistically aberrant behaviour is certainly exhibited by some members, and even tolerated, but if it results in the group identity being challenged by this, then members are motivated to act in such a way as to bring others into line and normalise that behaviour.
There is, therefore, an eternal struggle within the group and its individuals for normalisation. There is also a struggle between groups to ensure that each maintains its distinct identity — an “us” versus “them” attitude. The truth of the matter, though, is that there is an immense amount of interaction, rather than isolation, between individuals within distinct groups that results, over time, in groups merging and breaking apart. The trick is to change the groups ‘norms’ to ensure successful change at the group level. Given all of the factors at play (and I’ve only described a few) this is no small task. While the right tools can help, they have to fit with the group norms in order to be effective.
All of these factors, cultural and individual, should be taken into consideration when looking to implement technology within a group like a workforce. If you understand the culture of the group you’re targeting, and ensure that you’re targeting the right group, and know that their behaviour is aligned closely to the tools you’re set to introduce then success is likely to be greater. If it runs counter to the way they work or the way the group works, then they are more likely to fail. And, lastly, if you know enough about the psychology of culture, when things are not aligned, you can create a change strategy that will be able to introduce technology successfully in just about any organisation.
M
- – - -
[1] French, J.R.P., & Raven, B. (1959). ‘The bases of social power,’ in D. Cartwright (ed.) Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
2 November, 2008 at 6:11 pm |
Hi Matt,
Thanks so much for taking the time to write this out in such a clear fashion.
As I mentioned to you on Twitter this afternoon, I think our conceptions of culture are closer than you think, but our definitions of emergent are less so. I apologise if my post came across as condescending and I’m sure you have learned more about culture three times over than I have…I just think you are wrong
and I apreciate you letting me having fun trying to express why I think so.
Based on somewhat of a reductionist approach, your psychological view to culture seems to be derived from the known, observable, repeatable facets of social reasoning within the individual (please correct me if I’ve got this wrong) which is then extrapolated out over large groups and the behaviours measured statistically in order to generate a “group norm”.
According to Wikipedia, emergence is the way complex systems & patterns arise from a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions, not a norm or average. It is this multiplicity that makes emergence different from norms or summations.
Your chart shows these effects nicely in the individual, but it’s the next step where I have a problem. When you multiply out these higly complex feedback loops between individuals, you get more than the sum. You get complexity and the culture is an emergent property of this complexity.
In the cultural system you describe, if one person is taken out, then the effect they had on the other individuals will be removed and depending on proximity and types, this will have a greater or lesser effect on the network that is left. Agreed?
But in a complex system, with it’s multiplicity of feedback loops, the next step of the person leaving the effect the changed people now have on all the others, and so on. The end results cannot be predicted, although it may be posible after the fact to look back and see whay a disaster happened. You may even be able to use psychological principles to determine the nature of the breakdown (although I now even have my doubts as the research into Network Theory – http://is.gd/53BO – suggests that the removal of a hub could have catestrophic effect and people would have no idea why unless they understood the impact of every single one of those relational links).
Dave Snowden has written and spoken many times on these and related phenomena, ie: atomism, and retrospective coherence. http://is.gd/5×5i probably describes these in a nice way, although his rant is against Management Engineers rather than Organisational Psychologists
I will read in to French and Raven as you suggested, but in 1959 very little was known about the inner workings of the brain and the concept of culture as embedded and embodied, rather than the sum of distinct cognitive process was a long way off.
Of course the reason I think all this mumbo-jumbo matters is because it informs the ways we go about trying to manipulate an organisation’s culture. Please forgive me, I know you are highly respected in this area and I don’t presume to teach you to suck eggs. I have just seen so many failed attempts to re-engineer an organisation’s culture that it drives me nuts. See my post from three years ago for more: http://www.deltaknowledge.net/2008/06/organisations-organisms-30-oct-2005.html
I would really like to know more. Maybe you should write that book so I can read it? Better still why don’t we write it together?
Stu French.
2 November, 2008 at 9:05 pm |
Because the science of Psychology deals with human beings we can describe behaviour but only within the mathematical and statistical limitations of correlations, covariates and probability.
On observation of individuals over time patterns emerge with likely statistical probabilities that, given similar future conditions and specific variables, the behaviour will occur again. Given large enough sample sizes and measuring the same variables inferences can be made across groups and between groups, between populations and within populations.
It’s not perfect, but its about the only tool science has to determine what factors (internal or external … or both) are likely to influence human behaviour and why.
Taking those factors, though, and then assuming that manipulating them will result in re-engineering a group’s (or an organisation’s) culture is of course silly. A group’s culture is like its personality — long lived and changes very slowly over time.
My point is this though — if we understand how individuals behave, in isolation and in groups, then we can be best informed to make strategic decisions about the best (easiest, smoothest) way to introduce change into our organisations, what ever that change might be.
M
3 November, 2008 at 12:22 am |
You have excellent taste in eyewear !
4 November, 2008 at 9:30 am |
[...] Dreams, “if you build it, will they come?” He followed up that post with another, very academically focussed piece on [...]