A Story of Organizational Culture

     Story telling is an art as old as humanity itself. We have the capacity to empathize with storytellers and story characters, and in a sense experience a situation in a way much deeper than a simple description of the concept. It is ingrained in our minds, and unfortunately also becoming a lost art in our society. In an era of efficiency and statistics, the subtle value of taking that extra time is difficult to prove.

    In a study published in the Journal of Organizational Change Management (Direct Link), instances of storytelling proving to bring about effective change in the workplace is examined. It was found that in the realm of affecting workplace culture, this method was especially effective. Since culture derives from experience, so too must a form of experience be used to change it.

    For example, I could tell you about Jean Valjean. Jean was just released from a French prison in the 1800s. He was penniless, wearing the rags of a street beggar. Having spent the last nineteen years in prison, he was alienated from his family and everyone in his past life. In the humble country town of Digne, rolling hills of green and mild weather is juxtaposed with not-so mild gossip on the streets. "Why is there a criminal our town?" asks a woman as Jean walks past. He furrows his brow but trains his eyes straight ahead. As a stranger in this small down, the gaze of suspicion falls upon him by all he passes. Required by law to carry a yellow slip of an ex-convict, there is little he can do to assuage this suspicion.

    Each inn he visits refuses him, all having heard about the potentially dangerous criminal. Even a request for a glass of water was met with one particularly fervent innkeeper presenting a rifle. The evening chill set in harshly as he climbs a steep hill, towards a church looking down upon the town below. The housekeepers advise Bishop Myriel to lock the gates because of the released prisoner only minutes before that very prisoner knocks on their door. Against their advice, the Bishop lets him in. He presents Valjean with the first warm smile he's seen in four days of freedom. Refusing to accept pay from their guest, they give him a hearty meal and accommodations. Furthermore, the Bishop orders their silverware and their best wine to be shared for the evening, in honor of their guest. That night Valjean marveled at the feeling of a proper bed for the first time in nineteen years.

    That morning, Bishop Myriel was tending to his garden when one of his housekeepers cries that they have been robbed. The silverware (made from real silver) was missing, it must have been the stranger. Soon after, soldiers approached the church with Vajean under arrest. They claim they searched him because he looked suspicious. They found the silverware, and he claims he stayed at the church the night prior. Unfazed, the Bishop presents the same warm smile as before and says he gave Valjean the silverware. After releasing Valjean, still in shock, the Bishop said, "I'm glad you're back. You left in such a hurry you forgot to take the candlesticks."

    Dropping to his knees wordlessly, tears filling his eyes, Valjean sees the Bishop present him with candlesticks made of fine silver. "Promise me and don't forget, don't ever forget, that you will use this silver to make an honest man of yourself. You no longer belong to evil but to good. Jean Valjean, my brother, it is your soul that I am buying for you. I am taking it away from black thoughts and damnation, and I am giving it to God."

    Now that could be viewed as a long way of saying, "Giving the right person a second chance can make someone a better person." However, in reading that story the reader might really come to understand on a different level exactly why that is. Moreover, they will certainly be more apt to remember it. 

    Of the many lectures I've heard in my academic career, sermons heard at church, and speeches at work, it is the ones with a story that I tend to remember the most. It doesn't have to be a story as long as the one I presented above, even just a short sentence or two where a series of events demonstrate the reason behind a rule can be effective. 

    Thinking of my own workplace and the potential application of this concept, there are possibilities. We have a workplace culture rooted deeply in respect for others. This permeates into everything we do, as a great deal of trust is invested in others. Challenging someone, especially regarding their area of responsibility, is not seen unless there is a clear undeniable error made. When everyone is viewed as an expert in their field, every benefit of the doubt is afforded before bucking the system. This contributes greatly to our company being a great place to work, with a high amount of job satisfaction and a low amount of conflict. Attracting and retaining skilled workers is essential in a technology-driven industry like aviation.

    If I were giving a speech, I could relay a story about how, because of the great mutual respect between offices, calls for urgent action are met with promptness and without question. This is especially true for our Procurement office, as through a great working relationship spanning many years, we have learned how to serve each other better. By respecting them, I know not to cry wolf and demand that all of my requisitions are 'top priority' just to get them worked. I believe they will all be attended in good time, and save the alarm bells for when something is truly specifically an above-average priority. In turn, they know I rarely call for such immediate action, and so they jump on it when I do. 

    By providing the above example I can demonstrate how mutually beneficial having trust and respect can be, giving context for the concept.   

Respecting the 'Other'

 The 'other' is a concept discussed by Elizabeth Lesser in a TED talk from 2010, a topic I perceive has only increased in relevance to our society over the last decade. Everyone has their own 'other', that is those from another side of our own personal beliefs and convictions. Religious and political identity are clear examples of this discussed in her speech. Unfortunately, our media benefits so much on sensational reporting and generating controversy that it has fanned the flames of the enmity between the opposing political sides immensely. 

Here is a link to the 11 minute speech if you'd like to listen.

Direct Link

It is central to the human mind to categorize persons and things broadly, as a shorthand of sorts to more efficiently utilize the finite resources of our brain. One consequence of this is the 'us vs them' mentality, grouping those like us in any way our mind deems important. It can be difficult to maintain respect and not fall into negative stereotyping when considering the 'others.' Elizabeth Lesser makes a case for having an open mind and humility, with a 'I don't know it all' mentality. Our world is sorely lacking in humility, with a tendency to believe our perspective on the world is the only correct one. Even many of those who proclaim tolerance and diversity are just as guilty.

An exercise proposed here is to take 'the other' to lunch. Find someone who we have opposing beliefs with and spend some time getting to know them and attempt to understand them as more of a multifaceted human rather than a preconceived stereotype. Because of the echo chambers we tend to insulate ourselves within, with media that supports our existing views and like-minded friends, we tend to focus on the most extreme and negative examples of the other side without acknowledging that those notable examples may not represent the majority. So this exercise can help to break through these pervasive beliefs.

In order to accomplish this, she suggests some rules both should agree to beforehand:

1)    Don't persuade, defend, or interrupt.

2)    Be curious, conversational, and real.

3)    Listen.

There are also three questions she suggests asking:

1)    Share some of your life experiences.

2)    What issues deeply concern you?

3)    What have you always wanted to ask someone from the 'other side'?

Thinking personally on this topic, I have my own identity like anyone else. I am a Christian, I consider myself nondenominational and Bible believing. Although I believe there is only one path to salvation, I believe a spirit of humility is essential and I am a sinner just as imperfect as anyone of any other faith. Politically I consider myself a right-leaning libertarian in the spirit of Milton Friedman. I usually vote Libertarian although I consider the candidates as individuals and have voted for members of the Constitutional party, Independents, Republican, and even Democrat parties. 

    Here is a visual aid from the Libertarian party that does a good job of depicting how they have aspects both parties might agree with, as well as their own unique positions. There are many flavors of libertarian and I don't agree with the Libertarian party on everything, but this chart is a good introduction to understanding libertarianism. I find I agree with the general Republican stance on about 40% of issues, Democrats about 20%, and disagree with both sides the remaining 40%.

Although I don't identify as a Republican, I did in the past, and many of my friends and family identify that way. In talking to Republicans, we find a fairly high amount of common ground, and usually have a pleasant conversation, even on topics we disagree on. Many Republicans are Christians, and those who aren't at least have some respect for the religion. Because of this, I can't help but feel a bit personally attacked when Republicans are characterized negatively as a whole, as if nearly half of this nation can fit a particular negative stereotype. So therefore, for me the other would be Democrats, especially atheists who often have negative preconceptions about Christians.

A moment from the video struck personally with me, when she asked her conservative 'other' "Why do you stereotype us so badly?" and she responded that she felt it was them who was unfairly stereotyped more often. This characterizes a lot of discussions I've had with 'others' as issues one side is concerned about, the other side thinks is not prominent. It's almost as if both sides exist in different realities, no doubt thanks in part to the echo-chamber effect mentioned above.

Someone that comes to mind I could potentially try this experiment with is a coworker who I see whenever I go in to work. We have talked politics before a little and I'm aware he is a left-leaning atheist. We haven't discussed religion yet, and I'm not sure how he would take it if I told him I was a Christian, and not just an in-name only one. We have somewhat of a friendship and I enjoy talking to him, but we've never met outside of work. However, I think I've gleamed enough from him that we would be able to share our perspectives with each other and still come away from it with respect for each other.

Although I've not tried this exercise exactly as described, I do have some 'other' friends and family and have engaged in a wide variety of discussions. In some discussions I mostly let them talk and don't contradict them. One example of this is a business trip I went on last year with a (higher ranking) coworker of mine. He freely shared his political views and inquired about mine, I felt a bit intimidated by his fierce conviction and his higher rank to me, so I wasn't eager to risk souring his opinion of me. I did state that I'm a libertarian, a position he began challenging, and ended the conversation by saying I disagree without really explaining. However, I did learn a lot about him, his personal experiences, and the reasons for his beliefs. At the end of the day, I still respect him as a person and I know he's definitely an intelligent man.

Communicating open and honestly in these situations can be a bit scary, as none of us like to invite conflict with someone we respect. However, if the interaction is predicated on heightening mutual understanding rather than convincing then that concern disappears. Having a spirit of humility is important, as one can communicate with thoughtfulness rather than arrogance, and listen with interest rather than incredulousness.

Having an honest discussion like this with coworkers can lead to mutual respect and understanding. When we view our different perspectives not as barriers and weaknesses but rather as something with its own potential merit, then we have true diversity. Not the kind of diversity that comes from people who look different, but from people who are different people by choice, and that is the kind of diversity that matters most. 

It's much easier to learn to respect someone for being different because they came from a different part of the world than it is to respect someone who grew up in the same nation but chose to be different. It's not easy, and only possible with a spirit of humility. But achieving that respect is a kind of fulfillment unique to itself.

The Meaning of Words

 I recently had the privilege of listening to some insightful words from John Koenig on the meaning of words, and found surprising depth and unexpected implications. Little else do we take so for granted as our language, there may be a lot to learn in this world but understanding our native tongue is something we can feel assured in our mastery. And so a topic such as the meaning of words may seem of little interest or even trite, but there is a lot going on with the use of language that receives little direct acknowledgement. Understanding some of these interactions can be enlightening and useful, both in a personal and professional sense.

Here is a link to the 17 minute speech if you'd like to listen.

                                                             Direct Link

Our words possess much more ambiguity than we may realize, yet we often operate as if they were definite. We may be inclined to harshly judge another's words because we make assumptions about their intentions, that they chose their words exactly as we would. One example of such a misunderstanding could be asking someone if they need help. This could be interpreted as a condescending question, one that assumes they do need help. An alternative interpretation could be just the opposite, that its more of a gesture of goodwill and willingness, even if it seems likely help isn't needed.

One term that may be relevant here is 'arrow managers', which refers to a manager that communicates in straightforward simple messages, placing the burden of understanding the message on the reader. The difference here between this mindset and one of effective communication is that the later will see value in multiple avenues of communication, as well as feedback. They may send an e-mail, have a meeting, and invite feedback. This may seem inefficient on the surface, but intentionally widening the communication channel can create opportunities and identify problems that would remain unknown if the burden is placed entirely on the reader.

Another takeaway from this is that we should be willing to expand our vocabularies and allow language itself to change and grow, because succumbing to the inherent limitations of language limits our ideas. It is true that certain concepts are very difficult to convey concisely in the English language, as we simply lack terms that could be present in other languages. And yet, much of even our limited English language goes underutilized, since most communications use a low reading level standard for wide appeal.

Jargon and lingo are common in the business world, as these contexts and situations drive very specific requirements. We humans tend towards efficiency, excluding unnecessary work whenever possible, and using concise exact words are one way of doing that. Also, it cuts down on the ambiguity mentioned earlier, if these words mean a very specific thing. And finally, they create a sense of cohesion within the company group.

Some of the jargon I've seen include RoR (repair of repairable) and shipper. RoR seems redundant at first glance, but it really does speak to a specific thing: a repair effort of a single item, as opposed to repairing something like a vehicle or a facility. The other term, shipper, refers to an internal document that serves as a request form for the shipping department to use to commission a freighter like Fedex. This document would have information like need date, origin and destination address, and list of items. One could say 'shipping paperwork' or 'shipping label' but shipper is specific and efficient, traits I find necessary for jargon to really catch on.