Kevin Pietersen – the cultural theory explanation
Cultural theory and Kevin Pietersen
I have been trying to avoid Belinda Lester, our Director of Fellowship. As an Australian she thinks the meltdown of English cricket a few months before the Ashes series is a subject for endlessly amusing badinage. Fortunately, I have developed a clever defence mechanism. My RSA colleagues, like I’m sure my blog readers, have become heartily sick of me banging on about cultural theory.
So, in the Gerard Bar this morning when Belinda told me she used to be Kevin Pietersen’s next door neighbour, I pre-empted further mickey-taking by offering her my cultural theory of his downfall. Suddenly, she remembered an urgent meeting on the fourth floor…
Cultural theory’s three active modes for social relations – the hierarchical, the individualistic and the egalitarian – are immediately apparent in the Pietersen episode. KP himself is the classic individualist. For him what changes the world – and what wins cricket matches – is individual drive and talent. You’ve either got it or you haven’t. KP has, and he finds it hard to respect others who lack what he sees as the only legitimate basis for leadership. He has consistently rebelled against hierarchical authority based not on individual merit but on order and rules.
England coach Peter Moores represents hierarchical authority. This is a model of change in which the system matters as much as the individuals. Moores himself may not have been a great cricketer, but he can achieve success through organisation and applying the right rules and techniques. He stands for the authority of the cricketing establishment. For him to be openly challenged is a threat – not just to his own status, but to the hierarchical culture as a whole.
‘The dressing room’, aka the rest of the team, represents the egalitarian voice in this drama. The repeated call from this quarter is for Pietersen and Moores to put aside ego and power struggle in favour of ‘the good of the team’.
In attributing these roles cultural theory does not seek to diagnose personalities. In other parts of his life and at other times KP may be a rigid hierarchist or a soggy egalitarian. The point is, first, that in organisational conflict of this kind the hierarchical, individualist and egalitarian perspectives are bound to be somewhere at play and second, as cultural theory emphasises, each perspective draws its power from its critique of the others.
The individualist view tends to see hierarchy as second rate, out of touch and self serving. The hierarchical view sees individualists as dangerous and morally dubious. Egalitarians close ranks, warning of impending disaster and bemoaning the lack of solidarity and self denial amongst those who don’t share their values.
KP lost out because he failed to find any common ground with either the hierarchy or the team. This was tactically inept. The hierarchists and egalitarians have now joined ranks, abandoning the individualist and trying to move on. But this is made problematic by the context of the conflict; the public believe Pietersen’s individualism is necessary for victory. KP’s decision to stay in the team may be driven by his love of the game but it may also be that he still thinks he can win.
There were two ways the meltdown could have been avoided. If KP had carried the team he could have seen off the hierarchy. But he lacked the inclination or skills to do this. Or, if there had been an honest broker armed with cultural theory, she might have tried to get each party to reconcile their own perspective with the need for all three ways of seeing things to be recognised and engaged with.
Crucial to such a resolution is for the adherents of each view to feel secure that the strength of their own stance does not depend upon them attacking the others. For example, the rest of the team will always feel some distance from a charismatic captain – and some scepticism towards hierarchical authority – but this can be expressed through player solidarity without having to become a dressing room rebellion.
When the three active perspectives clash so disastrously the space grows for the triumph of the fourth perspective; fatalism; ‘It doesn’t matter what happens, England always find a way of blowing it’. Which is, more or less, what Belinda said to me as she left the Gerard Bar.
*********************
Over the festive season I wrote two week long series of blogs. This seemed to go down OK so next week I plan to do the same, with the focus being my interpretation of cultural theory and how it can be applied by practical policy makers and managers.
No related posts.
Comments
6 Comments on Kevin Pietersen – the cultural theory explanation
-
Erica Wooff on
Fri, 9th Jan 2009 10:03 am
-
David Wilcox on
Fri, 9th Jan 2009 10:28 am
-
matthewtaylor on
Fri, 9th Jan 2009 3:29 pm
-
matthewtaylor on
Fri, 9th Jan 2009 3:31 pm
-
Jonathan on
Fri, 9th Jan 2009 4:51 pm
-
matthewtaylor on
Mon, 12th Jan 2009 9:15 am
Hi Matthew,
As promised, I checked out the RSA website.
I know nothing about cricket but cultural theory is a pet of mine and I am knee-deep in it in my little outpost of the Church of England.
Managing change with a staff team of sixteen who are all volunteers and all individualists, I have tried over the first three months to promote what I thought was egalitarianism and all I have achieved is being perceived and assigned the moniker of supreme hierarchical autocrat.
Result: misery.
This post has been helpful in making me aware of this. Hopefully this new awareness will give me an opportunity to to achieve resolution by reducing perceived threats.
cheers and I’m now even more commited to joining so send me the forms!
Erica x
What a brilliant metaphor for understanding cultural theory – thanks Matthew. You highlight the role of the “honest broker armed with cultural theory”. Where do we find – and how do we support – those new-style facilitators, mediators, social artists? Maybe something for the next installment …
Hi Erica
Lovely to hear from you. I am finding more and more cultural theorists out there. As we think more concretley about how to apply the ideas I aim to develop a network of interested people in and around the RSA.
Your forms are in the post
Absolutely David. How about an RSA cultural theory network (see Erika’s e-mail)? Have a good weekend
I’d certainly like to hear more about cultural theory and how it can be applied strategically rather than as an explanatory device and about the sort of empirical evidence base one might offer for it.
There are all sorts of other theoretical frameworks one might use to explain the Pietersen affair – one can imagine a rich psychoanalytic reading for example. Is there any empirical basis for preferring the Cultural Theory Account?
If it is not falsifiable then its claim to greater plausibility rests on its ability to work towards particular outcomes and not just explain them. It would be great to see more on how you think we (or your honest brokers) can proactively use Cultural Theory in this way and to look at any case studies that already exist.
Similarly, would it be help to clarify its applicability by exploring scenarios in which it is not useful and explaining why?
Thanks JCW
I was planning to do a lot more on CT in my blog this week. I’ve been sidetracked today by some interesting stuff I heard about the recesson but if I have time this evening I’ll start a CT series. Lookng forward to your further comments.
Matthew
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
RSA Pamphlets
RSA Vision
RSA Animate
RSA Comment
- Twitter @RSAMatthew
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.