Agility and Fear

Frank Furedi argues that human thought and action are being stifled by a regime of uncertainty. The only thing we have to fear is the ‘culture of fear’ itself (April 2007),

McGregor introduced the distinction between Theory X and Theory Y, referring to different beliefs about the behaviour and motivation of workers, which may be embedded in management practices and organization culture. Ouchi argued that McGregor's distinction doesn't work for all cultures, and identified a third theory, Theory Z, which he used to explain the behaviour of most Japanese companies and some Western companies. Theory X refers to a set of beliefs in which workers are lazy, require constant supervision, and are motivated only by financial rewards and penalties. Theory Y refers to a set of beliefs in which workers can be trusted to pursue the interests of the firm without constant supervision, and respond to a range of motivators. Theory Z refers to a set of beliefs about lifetime commitment between employers and employees. eBook Foundations of Business Business Awareness Workshop

If we frame fear in terms of Theory-X, then it becomes fear-and-blame and we can all go tut-tut. But isn't there also a way of framing fear in terms of Theory-Y, without yoking it to blame? Performing artists may experience some stage-fright prior to producing an outstanding performance, and while excessive stage-fright may be debilitating, some degree of anxiety may be a positive stimulus. Are we to ban all forms of anxiety and uncertainty from the organization, so that everyone can feel cosy and safe?

And what about Theory-Z? If an organization is under existential threat, then the members collectively need to focus all their energy and creativity on restoring the viability of the organization, and it would be perfectly normal for them to be emotionally as well as intellectually engaged in this task. Necessity, as they say, is the mother of invention.

All I'm saying is that there are different types of fear, which may have different effects on organizational behaviour. Fear-and-blame is one particular type of fear, but there are other types.

Many workers rightly feel responsible for their work. In most organizations, employees or contractors are ultimately vulnerable to loss of status or loss of earnings if they fail to perform satisfactorily. A completely fear-free organization would be disengaged from its customers and environment, and therefore ethically problematic.

However, a caring organization may be able to attenuate some of this feeling of vulnerability, and provide some kind of safety net that allows people to take reasonable risks without too much fear of failure. Whereas an uncaring organization either fails to provide proper boundaries, or amplifies the sense of vulnerability by capricious and unjust management practices.

Meeting of Minds

@mcgoverntheory asks whether I know of any research quantifying the cost of the meeting culture in enterprises.

There is a lot of research on meetings, but the cost factors are very complicated to calculate and compare.

There are three elements to the cost of a meeting.

Firstly, the direct cost of the meeting - the travel and subsistence costs of the employees, the daily rates of consultants and contractors, facilities and refreshments. Electronic meetings are often cheaper (at least once the infrastructure is in place), but can be less effective, especially for longer meetings.

Secondly, the opportunity cost of the meeting - what the employees could have been doing if they hadn't been in the meeting. For some jobs, this is calculated on the assumption of constant productivity, so for example if your normal job is writing code or selling products, then every hour in meetings represents a given quantity of code not written, or a given quantity of lost revenue. However, for any job requiring any degree of intelligence, creativity or coordination, the assumption of constant productivity simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The third element to consider is the cost of not having the meeting. Good meetings can make people more productive and creative, and help avoid wasted effort. Good meetings make the organization more intelligent - processes become more efficient, decisions get better, the organization learns more quickly - and this increases the overall added-value of the work done. (As part of my ongoing research on organizational intelligence, I am looking for ways to benchmark this kind of improvement.)

However, James asked not about the cost of meetings, but about the cost of "the meeting culture". In many large organizations, there are meetings for the sake of meetings, meetings out of habit, whose purpose and value is not obvious to the participants. Surely this kind of thing is the very opposite of organizational intelligence?

Perhaps so, but we should not be too hasty to jump to conclusions. Many people, while complaining bitterly about too many meetings, know perfectly well that they couldn't sustain a high level of productivity at the primary task throughout the day without some variation in routine. It's just not healthy to sit at your desk all day. The meeting therefore serves a useful purpose, to provide relief in an otherwise unremitting working routine. There is a complicit connivance at arranging meetings, at which issues are discussed but not resolved, decisions are deferred, absent stakeholders are talked about behind their backs, and managers can gently doze with their eyes open. The purpose of the meeting is what it does (POSIWID).

This kind of meeting culture especially thrives in the kind of Theory X or Fordist organization where people are expected to be busy all the time, and to fill in timesheets, because time is money. In a Theory Y or post-Fordist organization, people are trusted to get the job done. When you have been staring at the screen for too long, you can just go to the vacant lot behind the office and play football for twenty minutes instead of having to invent a pointless meeting.

So the cost of the meeting culture is basically the human and financial and strategic cost of Fordism. Just give me a call, and I'll come and quantify this cost for your organization. Or we could have a meeting about it.

See also Notes on the Value of Culture (January 2010)

Loyalty and Trust

@tetradian and @kvistgaard pick up an interesting statistic from the Economist.

"A survey by the Centre for Work-Life Policy, an American consultancy, found that between June 2007 and December 2008 the proportion of employees who professed loyalty to their employers slumped from 95% to 39%; the number voicing trust in them fell from 79% to 22%." [Hating what you do, Economist 8 Oct 2009]

So the figure for trust is much lower than the figure for professed loyalty. Perhaps this is not altogether surprising. You'd probably find a similar disparity if you asked married people if they were loyal to their husbands/wives, and if they trusted them. Clearly professed loyalty is not the same as actual loyalty.

I found another related statistic in the same edition of the Economist.

"According to a survey last month by TNS Sofres, a polling agency, the French have less confidence in their employers (32%) than do either Germans (47%) or Americans (54%)." [Suicide in France, Economist 8 Oct 2009]

Comparing the US figures from these two surveys, I find it curious that the figure for "confidence" is more than double the figure for "trust". Has the mood in America shifted radically in a few months - Obama's election perhaps? Have large numbers of distrustful and non-confident employees lost their jobs, therefore not being included in the later survey? Or is it simply that the two surveys were asking different questions in different ways?

A more serious aspect of the story is the alarming number of suicides in French companies, most recently in France Telecom.

In the bad old days (known as Theory X) employers didn't expect loyalty or trust, they simply demanded hard work. Employees didn't love the work, they only performed when closely supervised, monitored and measured. Trade unions were formed to represent the collective interests of the workers, and got into regular disputes with management about pay and working conditions.

In the brave new world (known as Theory Y) we are all expected to love the work and treat our co-workers as a second family. Trade unions have lost much of their former power, and the individual employee is "empowered" to "go the extra mile" to serve the interests of the company and its customers in a fulfilling and career-enhancing manner.

The trouble is that most companies send mixed messages to their employees - some Theory X, some Theory Y. In some cases, these mixed messages amount to a double bind, obliging workers to adopt an irrational position, and putting them under sometimes intolerable psychological stress.

A few paragraphs ago, I suggested the hypothesis that large numbers of distrustful employees might have lost their jobs. We might think that workers who lost their jobs had been right to distrust their employers, if it wasn't for the cruel fact that distrusting your employer may be a contributory causal factor to losing your job. If you want to keep your job, you must suppress all hostile thoughts towards your employer, including distrust or disloyalty. That's the kind of double bind that can send people over the edge.