The official BLOG of the corporate culture institute in Vienna.

2014-11-11

Of sheep and wolves


Throughout the winded course of my professional life I immersed into several distinctively different corporate ecosystems. On the surface there shouldn't have been much of a difference. Don’t we all have to go for a job after all, to earn some money, to make our living? However, when digging deeper, more arcane individual life concepts were revealed. This insight still might not appear to be very surprising but rather in line with the experience of many of us. 

At first sight many of your cohabitants in the open space offices don’t really draw much of your attention: Just uninteresting, average office people with rather mundane, earthly desires for cars, holiday trips or detached houses in some remote suburbs (and they're all made out of ticky tacky; and they all look just the same).

But I should better have been prepared for surprise. On some dull occasion, when forced into a travel companionship with one of these allegedly unremarkable colleagues, perhaps while waiting for the bus to take us both to a mandatory compliance seminar, I accepted my fate and started some small talk to maintain an easy flowing conversation, meant to wrap the day into a gentle packing. Then something unexpected happened: the ‘average colleague’ granted me some insight into his secret inner life, a rich world of personal interests, carefully cultivated passions or private studies on side topics, which could well fill the major subject.

What a contrast! During office hours they unresistingly accept their fate, ducking away, completing their assigned tasks. During their free time they switch the context completely, beaming themselves out of their current space-time continuum to their preferred parallel universe. They are studying old Egyptian hieroglyphs, are deeply involved in social care projects or combine their several years’ vacations to traverse deserts or jungles by foot or bicycle. How can they at the same time work in such a dumb job and maintain such a rich inner life? Well, it’s not is spite but because of the uninspiring day time job. Take it as compensation.

It might look like a strange passion, to dig such deeply into the individuals’ very personal matters. But I didn't do it on purpose. It just happened. When in my early years I once was on a consulting assignment for a large chartered accountant firm at a huge Insurance corporation, my team mate pointed me to an apparently strange phenomenon: “The employees here all have such a happy expression in their eyes. What is so special on this environment? What is the real reason?”
 
“Well they simply feel no pressing need. There’s nothing to complain about. Everything is organised and predetermined. It is like in Socialism: The flock of sheep is well herded.” I responded. This was a bit unfair and even not completely correct. Not everyone behaved like that: there were some wolves hidden among the sheep.

Once aware of the situation they were easy to spot. The fast dynamic body movements, the tall and slender appearance, the flickering glance, the carefully dosed aggressiveness of their approach. They were mountain climbers or marathon runners. Their career was on the fast track. Of course, they were working extra hours – when worthwhile.

Carefully they avoided the trap of becoming a domain matter expert. There were sufficient sheep around, who were – in some cases – highly knowledgeable in their small specialized niche. And those were happy to get involved and receive at least some acknowledgement for their otherwise unnoticed efforts. No, wolves see themselves as leaders. They excel in tactics although pretending to think strategically. Decisions were happily taken, but from their specific career centered opportunistic viewpoint. This approach of course did leave no room for corporate or long-term considerations.

Wolves were looking at sheep with disdain – however they needed them. Sheep lived in fear of wolves or at least viewed them with incomprehension. But sheep in turn also couldn't maintain their sheltered ecosystem without the wolves. They lived in symbiosis.

And if they did not die, they still live today - in banks, insurance companies and other lage corporations.

2014-09-10

Banking cultures - or, why are they so weird?

I have seen several institutions in the financial sector, dwelling in different niches in the same sector, being located in as different countries as Ukraine, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, UK. Also these are not my first musings on this topic.

But they still puzzle me.


Although each has its own characteristic depending on the embedding country culture, the market forces driving a certain behavior or some more individual traits rooted somewhere deep in their history, they also do have something in common: something inanimate, inhumane, somewhere in between a machine and a pack of raiders.

Yes, and at least for a while, I am back in a typical banking culture - and I wonder why banking cultures use to be so weird. By the time three distinct suspicions came to my mind – and refuse to fade away again: reputation, money and product. Ok this needs some explanation. So let me elaborate a bit on this threefold suspicion.

I suspect it is because compared to other industry sectors the single employee's contribution is less important here. Rather the reputation or image (or you may call it false face) of trustworthiness and professional competence of the whole abstract organization drives the success. Such set-up does not require motivated employees. They just have to comply with the rules, the more machine like approach.

Also - as banks traditionally deal with money - employees are distrusted at first hand and are heavily supervised. They might get corrupted by the huge assets; they have to take care of, while themselves they may struggle to pay their rent. They in turn react in their way - just 'work' for the money, turning them to - how NNT would call them - corporate captives.

Maybe banking culture is influenced by the fact, that banks don't have real products to sell to their customers, at least no tangible ones, and most often even not a conceptually defined and implemented ones. They, more or less, go straight for the numbers. The bottom line however doesn’t stimulate the member’s imagination. Of course there are so called ‘banking products’. And if you take investment banking, they may become so complex and sophisticated, that even the more simple minded individuals among the bankers, and there are some of those around, don’t understand them – but happily sell them. But, take retail banking: a simple current account is not enough a product, which can be attributed customer value to, to safely isolate even benevolent individuals from the cruel forces of the bottom line.

After having said that, it may not surprise you, that several banks invest some serious effort to deliberately change their culture (e.g.:  here) – giving me the impression, that they consider their culture like a broken washing machine, which just needs fixing. To take an – dated – example, according to the above mentioned source: “Citi’s new CEO Michael Corbat is trying to change the culture to bring more accountability and discipline through the use of score cards for top executives based on a set of weighted goals from five categories: capital, clients, costs, culture and controls.” However, to cite the voice of a non-disclosed British regulator: “The cultural change that we hoped for never actually happened”.

Deliberate culture change is not impossible per se. But it has to be done firmly founded on truthfulness of the underlying intentions. Corporate culture cannot be cheated. It will otherwise strike back and possibly eventually honor Bertold Brecht view “What is the robbing of a bank compared to the founding of a bank?

And - as always - comments are very welcome!

2014-08-27

The rude manners expert – fire or keep?

Recently I received the following request for advice:

Hi Horst, I have a colleague who is very efficient, hard working but she is very rude and insensitive. She shouted at me until now 4 times, even when all people can hear that. Besides, she has conflicts with all senior colleagues here. I think I will cancel her working contract. But I am afraid that means I cancel the working contract with the hardest working person in this office. What do you think?

Yes, I know this problem. I was confronted with this kind of conflict before too – more than once.

During my past I mostly decided in favour of continuation of working with that person. It mostly meant the continuation of the tense situation.

Today I would most probably decide differently and terminate cooperation.

It is because - very much like a tree - success has many roots; more than just the single person's good and hard work. In the end the team has to succeed. You all have to thrive as a group, as a collective with mutually accepted positions. As more manual and routine work will be automated, companies will undergo a shift towards knowledge based and communication bound working processes. And the way we interact – if among each others or to the outside world – expresses our common corporate values, hence is at the core of our corporate culture.

Therefore, if interaction is disturbed, in the end each one better should follow his / her own way. Enforcing this process means quit the contract, fire the person in focus.

But as this implies a critical change, it needs a clear and careful communication to send the right signals to those whom you want to keep. Also you should keep in mind, that the leaving person will spread some messages about these unpleasant events in the public. So we prudently shouldn’t charge the situation with emotions beyond the damage, which is already done. But rather cool down and take a rational, professional approach by arguing from the enterprise perspective and the cultural alignment.

In any case, regardless how you may decide, it will cause some pain for all of you.

Well, this is my opinion. What is yours?