Hack:
Want to unleash human potential in others? Then make sure the good guys can flourish. Forget busting the bureaucracy. First blend with it. Then bend it.

                 ‘You cannot solve a problem you do not understand.’

 

With few exceptions most attempts at solving the problems of the hierarchical structure have been doomed from the outset. As Gary Hamel, in his Hangout with Jonathan Becher said, , ‘We have been talking about this for 50 to 60 years and we haven’t seen any major changes. Why not?’ Here are two explanations.

First, we start with the wrong mindset -  for example we still talk of busting the bureaucracy – as if the bureaucracy can be busted.  

Second, we need new mindsets, new tools and a new structure  - our aim should be to blend and then bend the bureaucracy to a new state.

 

This Hack focuses mostly on 'the Problem'. At the outset we believe ‘You cannot solve a problem you do not understand.' As such it is important to understand 'mindsets', their relationship to structure and how they relate to beliefs and behaviors.

We also believe that 'You cannot solve a problem at the same level at which it was created.' As such it is important to develop a ‘meta’ view of mindsets to understand the ‘level’ at which mindsets are created. One way that we will tackle this is to explore where our current dominant mindset has come from. 

Finally the current structure makes it too easy for the ‘bad guys’ to win at the expense of the ‘good guys’. We want to show how the ‘bad guys’ are able to exploit the hierarchical or pyramidal mindset in to their advantage.’ What do we mean by bad guys? – the bullies, people who put their egos first and manipulate others to get into positions of power. They are those who are blind to inconvenient truths and those who find scapegoats instead of accepting responsibility. What do we mean by good guys? – people who care about their work, who care about their colleagues and people who as Aristotle first advised ‘take responsibility for the predictable outcomes of their behavior.’

 

Problem – you won’t care about what we know until you know that we care.

 

Before going any further you may want to know a little about where my comments are coming from. So let me say that I have been a consultant in the OD leadership space for over 25 years. I originally trained as a medical doctor and then transitioned through to become a psychotherapist and clinical family therapist. My serious interest in hierarchical structures dates back to observing how Australia fell into line and followed the US into the 2003 Iraq war. Before the war began I had attended demonstrations against our involvement but was amazed to see how difficult it was to sustain protest once both our governments had ratcheted up their programs of war promotion and suppressed dissent. I was amazed too at how quickly the mistakes were passed off and how inconvenient truths were dismissed by both governments. What’s going on in our organizations and institutions, I wondered, that allows – not just flawed - but deeply flawed individuals to take on senior leadership roles?

I found there was a significant body of literature about the heroic leader and dependent follower, about myth creation, the invention of tradition and how all these components were part of the hierarchical structural paradigm. A little later I attended a workshop run by a wonderful consultant, Antony Williams, and somehow we found ourselves talking about the influence of social structure on behavior. Quakers, who met in circles, seemed to have a different perspective on the world and their place in it compared to other religious groups whose social structures resembled hierarchical organizations. Something seemed to be going on that begged further exploration.

In the decade since then my eyes, ears and heart have been opened by many extraordinary writers and thinkers. Over this period I have worked with a number of people who have been generous enough to jointly experiment with some new ideas about structure – some of which did not work – but gave rise to great learning. Several of these leaders have subsequently won national awards for leadership and earned public commendation. This is said not to big note myself but to point out that a number of sophisticated leaders have taken many of these ideas seriously. .

One last point.  You will notice that in this Hack (except for this section) I use the pronoun “we” instead of I. This is not an attempt to artificially inflate the status of the comments rather it an effective way of moving away from having too many “I”s. As a former psychotherapist and consultant I loved it when people made “I” statements but when reading too many “I”’s are a bit of a turn off.  And there is another, maybe even more important reason. Like the John Stewart Mill who credited his lover and wife Harriet Taylor Mill for improving much of what he wrote, nearly every comment I have written has had input from many sources especially my wife and business partner Ann Rennie. So in a very real sense the fact that this makes sense is a credit to her.  

 

Problem – it starts with our mindset.

 

There is a growing understanding that we 'change agents' are part of the problem. This is implied in the title of Marvin Weisbord and Sandra Janoff's popular book ‘Don't Just Do Something - Stand There!’ And it is captured in Peter Block’s prose

'. . we have a deeply held belief that the way to make a difference in the world is to define problems and needs and then recommend actions to solve those needs. We are all problem solvers, action oriented and results minded. It is illegal in this culture to leave a meeting without a to-do list. We want measurable outcomes and we want them now. What is hard to grasp is that it is this very mindset which prevents anything fundamental from changing. We cannot problem solve our way into fundamental change, or transformation.'

It is a systemic problem. The problem is deeply held by our clients. They, like us, inhabit a paradigm that seeks certainty to allay fear and doubt. The stereotypic hierarchical CEO seeks what Erica Jong in ‘Fear of Flying’ termed 'the zipless f**k'. That is, they want it quick and they want it good. It may seem a parody but deep down their fantasy is for a paradigm shift with all the bells and whistles - something that will answer all the questions and allay all the fears. As Gary Hamel implied in his statement above, not only have we been talking about this for 50 to 60 years but we have been consulting on this too. The change agent industrial complex has made billions of dollars based on the delusion that the outcome can be proscribed and that the process can be controlled.    

If you accept that there is a problem with our current mindset and that part of the solution involves developing new mindsets then it makes sense to know a bit more about mindsets.

 

Problem: We don’t fully understand the link between mindsets and social structures

Definition: mindset: a particular way of thinking: a person's attitude or set of opinions about something: a fixed state of mind (Merriam Webster)

The relationship between social structures and mindsets has a long history and is well documented in the sociological literature.

                                   Social structures shape mindsets

                                                            AND

                                 Mindsets shape social structures

 

But it is not well known in the OD literature. Two reasons:

First although some OD writers and practitioners are aware that social structures shape mindsets relatively few are aware that mindsets shape social structures and even fewer are aware of its implications.

Second, for most outsiders, including us, the vocabulary of sociology is - well – academic. In this field sociologists use terms like structuralism, structuration (yes) hermeneutics, constructivism and so on. But if some of these words are new there are good reasons for them that go beyond jargon.

The reality is that if we are going to talk about new mindsets frameworks, new tools and new structures we are going to genuinely need new words or at the very least expand the definition of old words. For example in order for a late 18^th ship’s captain to fully comprehend and make use of the fact that the earth, both rotated on its axis and orbited the sun, (and not the other way around) he or she needed to know about; gravity, latitude, longitude, sextants and marine chronometers. All of these concepts and tools were inventions of the late 17^th and 18^th centuries i.e., they were invented to both explain and take advantage of this new paradigm.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

A digression

When Galileo, in the early 1600’s, was attempting to explain the Copernican, heliocentric planetary system, he had no explanation for how the earth could be held in orbit around the sun. The concept of gravity hadn’t been invented. To an early 17^th century citizen the earth seemed to be a strange attractor and everything seemed to fall towards its center. How could the tiny sun hold the earth in orbit? many people argued. . .

So why are we telling you this story?

Galileo, like Copernicus before him had no simple way of explaining the heliocentric planetary system. All Galileo could do was to in effect say – “The old theory of Ptolemy can not explain what we observe. The best fit was proposed by Copernicus . . .  .” He needed a book to set out the explanation and he called it, ‘The Starry Messenger’.

We are not pretending to be a Galileo but we are doing our best to set out an explanation of something complex – that really needs a book.  We are currently working on this book and if you think these ideas have merit you can help us. The more support we get, the more interest we will get from a publisher – and if you think these ideas are perhaps even worth a prize then we are likely to get a very good publisher.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Problem - we need new terms for the new mindsets, new tools, new frameworks and new structures.

Here are some new terms we will be using in the rest of this Hack.

“Man” as in hierarchical man is used in the generic sense and applies to both woman and man as well as the plural women and men.

‘Pyramidal’ as in Pyramidal man, pyramidal mindset, pyramidal structure, pyramidal leaders, pyramidal cultures . . .  pyramidal is being substituted for the word hierarchical. People often talk about an organizational pyramid or pyramidal structure instead of hierarchical structure.  We have chosen to use the term because it better conveys a sense of structure.

‘Circle’ as in Circle man, circle mindset, circle structure, circle leaders, circle cultures . . . We are using circle as an adjective. As we will discuss, the circle was the dominant social structure for most of human existence, that is, up until about 5000 years ago.

‘Parabolic’ as in Parabolic man, parabolic mindset, parabolic structure, parabolic leaders, parabolic cultures . . . Think of a parbolic reflecting mirror, satellite dish or the shape of an unfurled umbrella. A parabolic structure (like an umbrella lying on its side with its stem in a horizontal position) is a horizontal social structure that can replace the hierarchical or pyramidal structure to coordinate people in order to achieve complex purposes. In parabolic structures position and status only serve the purpose and not people’s egos. We believe this structure offers significant advantages over both the circle and pyramidal structure. 

 

Drilling down – Understanding Pyramidal man’s default mindset.

As mentioned earlier social structures shape people’s mindsets. Hierarchical or pyramidal structures generate hierarchical or pyramidal mindsets. In other words Pyramidal man has a pyramidal mindset. The pyramidal mindset subtly shapes beliefs about relationships, spirituality, culture, language and the tools they use. In the absence of other social factors, for example, family, colleagues, clubs and church groups etc, that may moderate these beliefs, Pyramidal man looks for differences and abhors equality (in contrast to Circle man - see later) Pyramidal man exhibits the following default preferences:

Winning is everything (we are the champions - no time for losers)

Top is above bottom and top knows best (that's why we have problems with bureaucracy)

Men are above women  (yep it's a major cause of patriarchy and sexism)

Upper class is superior to lower class (yep it’s a major factor in classism)

My race is above your race  . . (yep one of the causes of racism in all its forms)

My God is better than your God . . . (yep it’s a cause of religious wars)

Smarter is better (that's why people don't want to admit their ignorance)

Younger is better . . . (that's why we have ageism)

Status attracts a halo effect (good looks, being tall . . . )

Certainty is better than doubt  (politicians do not want to be seen as flip floppers)

Individuals rate higher than groups (In the Olympics we all remember Usain Bolt but which team won the hockey?)

Right is favoured over left (The preference of right over left is found in most cultures. The word right is mentioned 80 times in the Bible nearly all positively and left is mentioned 25 times and every time negatively)

 

Few can escape its suck and in our society status anxiety is pervasive -  ('fantastic' say the marketers – "buy this, wear this, drive this, be seen here . . ." are all designed to appeal to your desire to differentiate yourself from someone else and be a little higher in the pyramid)

The traditional pyramidal mindset is oriented to support first, senior people’s belief that ‘I know best and it’s my call’ and second, a complementary belief in subordinate people such as, ‘Whatever I think doesn’t matter.’ These complementary beliefs are well developed in most of us. Over the last ten years there have been many experiments that show how quickly most of us slip into these beliefs depending on context. When a random sample of people are asked to be supervisors they behave like bosses and quickly show signs of entitlement and belief in their own superiority. On the other hand when a random sample are given the supervisee role they submit. And it’s not only beliefs that change when people are given different roles. Posture does too. Dana Carney and colleagues have shown that holding certain poses for 90 seconds can change people’s beliefs about their status and entitlement.   

If we look at the tools and frameworks Pyramid man uses within organizations we see that tops assess bottoms with performance reviews. Typically this is a one on one process and rarely in a group. It is unusual for bottoms to assess tops. The boss is usually the chair of meetings, they assemble the agenda and they edit the minutes. They usually speak most and the loudest. Reflection on past decisions is rare and no one takes responsibility for failure. When a mistake is made there is often a search for a scapegoat or excuse to protect the senior person’s reputation. Inconvenient truths get overlooked. Despite claims to the contrary protecting position and status comes first and pursuing the purpose comes second. There is a large gap between what is espoused in terms of values and what is enacted. Tops believe and practice the ‘Noble’ lie – that it the self serving belief that their lying serves the greater good. Over time their lies often become accepted as truths. Lord Acton's statement, 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely' has stood the test of time. A pet saying of the political right is ‘Scratch a progressive and watch a hypocrite bleed’. Sadly for progressives this is often true. ‘Robert Mugabe was once our shining light’ lamented Desmond Tutu.

You might say ‘enough, enough! - You are creating a straw man argument.’ (A straw man argument is where one person loads all the negative characteristics on to one side (to metaphorically send it up in smoke) so the other side looks pristine in comparison.) Sadly the statistics support the dysfunction. In a recent Hangout with Jonathan Becher from SAP, Gary Hamel quoted a recent Human Capital Institute survey drawing data from over 300 companies where only 21% of employees believed their leaders effectively delegate and only 25% of employees believed that their leaders drew on multiple points in decision making. These figures have barely changed since surveys were first instituted.

 

Let’s come back to ask why do social structures have such a significant shaping effect on our mindsets? According to the anthropologists and evolutionary biologists the answer is clear – it was, and still is, a matter of survival.

Homo sapiens needed other Homo sapiens to survive. Man is a social animal and those groups that had the strongest social connections had an evolutionary advantage over groups that had weaker social connections. Here is where the mindsets come in. The better the fit between the mindset and the tribe’s social structure the more cohesive the tribe.

You might argue that evolutionary theory would support the development of the individual through competition. And in truth there has been heated debate about this. However there is growing support amongst evolutionary biologists for the idea of multi-level selection – an idea that Darwin first floated in the 19^th century to explain the phenomenon of empathy and the ‘golden rule’ i.e., do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ which is found in every human group studied - at least when it applies to their own tribes. The multi-level selectionists, championed by Edward O Wilson have done that math and say the jury is “in” on the matter. They are clear evolution for humans and many other primates has been operating at the species level and at a group level. In other words, fit individuals survive better than unfit individuals at the same time as cohesive groups survive better than less cohesive groups. 

Part of the reason there has been so much debate about this has been our pyramidal mindset. The pyramidal mindset supports the idea that we are individuals that there really is an “independent me”.  As such Pyramidal man sees no need for such a close connection between mindset and social structure. But Homo sapiens’ mindsets haven’t always been pyramidal – Pyramidal man was preceded by Circle man.

 

When we understand where our current mindset came from we are more likely to develop a ‘meta’ view of mindsets and thereby understand how we can change it.

 

There is now a growing body of anthropological / archaeological evidence that suggests that for most of human existence (i.e., from about 200,000 years to somewhere between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago) that the circle was the key organizing social structure for tribes and not hierarchy. Of course there were people who were more skilled in some areas, better storytellers, better hunters and gatherers, people with better memories. And of course those skills were appreciated. The anthropologist Christopher Boehme suggests that anyone who showed a tendency to promote their own interests above the others was quickly brought into line. Tribes had different rituals to ensure that no one became special. In some cases the hunter would use someone else’s arrow so the kill could be credited to the arrow maker and not the skill of the archer.

We have called these early people Circle man. Circle man saw themselves as part of nature and not above it – they sought to experience nature and not conquer it. Tourists see remnants of this mindset in Australia when they visit Uluru, a huge monolithic rock bang in the middle of the country. Tourists typically want to climb the rock to get on top, at a psychological level, to conquer or dominate it which is a tendency of Pyramidal man. The Aborigines would prefer that people walked the six miles (9.4 Kms) around the perimeter to try to experience it, which is typical of Circle man.

Circle man treated woman and men as equals, they had a pantheon of gods or spirits. It is probable they were quick learners because there was no shame in ‘not knowing’ only in feigning knowledge which could be dangerous to the tribe.

We are not trying to paint a perfect picture of early man, Circle man had low tolerance for dissenters and anthropologists have described several cases of rough justice including ostracisation – which often meant death within a few days. And there was another major flaw to the Circle structure. Once a tribe reached about 150 people relationships and communication started to break down – in other words Circle structures are not easily scalable. Circle man tribes can live peacefully with each other but coordination between groups is difficult. They were vulnerable to take over by organizations that were scalable such as those created by Pyramid man on the warpath.

 

How Pyramidal man and the Pyramidal mindset came to dominate the planet

According to the anthropologist Steve Taylor in his book The Fall, some time about 5000 years ago a dramatic climatic event occurred that led to widespread food shortages and major intertribal fighting. The winners were the warriors – those who were best at fighting. Some tribes shifted their orientation from 'living with others' to 'dominating others'. These tribes developed armies capable of slaughtering Circle man’s males and enslaving the women and children. In a short space of time the warrior tribes morphed into Pyramid man and in this way the pyramid as a social structure spread over most of the planet. The film ‘Apocalypto’ is clearly fiction but it is based on the gut wrenching encounter between Mayan Circle man and Mayan Pyramidal man. The film ends with the first arrival of European Pyramidal man.

When we understand that social structures shape mindsets and behaviors it raises the question; why not replace the problematic pyramidal structure with a different structure, for example, a parabolic structure? - which we briefly described above.

But unless you are a “start up” with a greenfield site, trying to impose any new structure on a pyramidal structure is likely to create enormous resistance. Most organizations have a significant number of so called ‘bad guys’ who despite espousing the value of change believe that it is not in their interest to see change. So we need to understand why and how organizations seem to support poor leadership and management practices.

 

Why pyramidal mindsets and cultures give a leg up for the ‘bad guy.’

 

During the late 1990’s the chairman of a highly successful software company made the following admission about his modus operandi to a journalist from the Australian Financial Review.

 

‘You don’t necessarily get to the top by being a good guy. The art of undermining competitors in the workplace remains rife. It takes the form of saying, “I think he would be good for the job, BUT” to the strategic raising of an eyebrow.’

 

When we show this statement to audiences, large and small, there are almost universal nods of recognition – the political animal they say a.k.a. the bad guy.

 

At the same time as this quote appeared based we were developing ideas on how and why some people, who seemed inappropriate for leadership positions, were still being appointed to those positions. Based on the literature and experience in the cut and thrust of consulting we came to the conclusion that bad guys tend to display FIBS characteristics.

 

FIBS behaviour is characterised by leaders who consistently;

            Flatter those more senior to them,

            Inflate their own contributions and downplay those of their colleagues, 

            Break most promises they make except those made to important people,

            Scapegoat others when a mistake occurs.

 

The good guys on the other hand tend to display ROCK characteristics.

 

ROCK behaviour is characterised by leaders who consistently;

            Respect everyone within the organisation,

            Own problems and take responsibility for fixing them,

            Credit others for their good work or thoughtful contributions,

            Keep their promises.

 

From the description of organizations above you can see that dysfunctional pyramidal organizations make it easy for the FIBS guys to work their way ahead of the ROCK guys in many organizations. Pyramidal mindsets and cultures make it easy for the bad guys because most organizations do not reflect on why mistakes occur. Most organizations tend to bury their mistakes. Most leaders are open to being flattered and many ROCK people who accept their part in a mistake become easy targets for scapegoating by FIBS people. 

 

 

So what can be done? – Where to from here.

 

Let us recap.

We have suggested that before trying to implement any solutions people need to understand the problem of how to unleash human potential in others. We have broken down the problem into the following parts.  

Part of the problem is the prevailing mindset and that the change agent needs to develop a new mindset if they are going to help others do the same.

Part of the problem involves understanding why we have the mindsets we have. That mindsets are not fixed and that there is a close relationship between mindsets and structure.

Part of the problem is that people do not believe there is a viable replacement for the pyramidal structure. We believe the parabolic structure of which we will describe in greater detail in the next section is such a replacement.

Part of the problem is that the current paradigm supports bad guys in positions of power and that part of the solution therefore will involve making it easier for the good guys to flourish.

 

This Hack proposes a ‘Blend and Bend’ approach. The approach says first help leaders adopt and model Parabolic mindsets, and when you have sufficient momentum and support within the organization, then and only then introduce the structural change.

 

                               Mindset change first then structural change