The power of three (or four) times three (or ‘how chief executives with too much time on their hands build sandcastles in the air’)
As the New Year approaches, thinking about the world, life and the RSA, it all falls into a pattern for a moment. The questions, with which I hope my reader friends will help me, are these; is this original (I fear not only that I have written it all before but that there are a hundred and one other ways of thinking that are, to all intents and purposes, the same), is it useful (it may be true that I am made of the same sub atomic particles as a filing cabinet, but so what?) is there anything that can be done with it (how could these ideas be tested, debated, developed?)……..
As in nature, the infinite complexity of individual and collective thought derives from the interplay of a finite number of base elements. This is the starting point for theories of plural rationality. I have written a great deal about one of these, labouring under the unhelpful name cultural theory. It argues that perspectives on change in organisations can be traced back to the interplay of four paradigms; the egalitarian, the hierarchical, the individualistic and the fatalistic. These four are always at play, continuously generating new demands, shaping conflicts and determining the success of solutions.
MRI scans, undertaken by neuro-scientists interested in the physiological basis of ways of seeing the world, have suggested that different perspectives seem to be consistently associated with activity in certain areas of the brain. It may seem far fetched (and reductionist) to suggest there is a piece of the brain reserved for, say, hierarchical thoughts, however, cultural theory’s four organisational paradigms could be seen to reflect broadly a more basic set of behavioural alternatives.
Faced with a social choice we can do what we want or feels right for us (individualistic impulse), do what the group expects/needs (egalitarian impulse), do what we have been told (hierarchical impulse) or ‘decide’ it’s not worth making a choice (fatalistic impulse). Is it credible and useful to think of the everyday experience of free will as the process of switching between these alternative responses?
Between moment to moment choices and collective strategies lies the narrative of our lives. Here too we can measure along three axes. We aspire to a good quality of life; to getting what we believe we deserve and gives us pleasure (nb this is not the same as selfishness). We want also to succeed; to make an impact (and be seen to make an impact) using the powers and skills we possess. And we want to feel we are doing good; to meet our responsibilities to the community in which we find meaning. (By the way, I have tried to map the sources of life satisfaction onto the choice options and the cultural theory paradigms but find any attempt obscures more than it illuminates)
The reason key aspects of our lives (e.g. family and friends, paid work and structured voluntary activity) satisfy us one day but, even though they have remain unchanged, not the next, may be because we view our life as a whole through distinct lenses. A job which meets our need for good pay and conditions and gives us plenty of status and control may feel empty and pointless when viewed through the lens of duty. Just as in an organisation – where the temporary dominance of one perspective generates a counter reaction along the lines of the other perspectives – so in our lives a period in which the fulfilment of duty has predominated will gradually generate dissatisfaction with a perceived lack of enjoyment or recognition.
Institutions are places where people make choices, pursue life wishes and respond together to challenges. Institutions that hope to endure and to fulfil a social mandate (like the RSA) need: to develop a set of norms (egalitarian impulse), rules (hierarchical) and incentives (individualistic) that make it more likely day to day choices will strengthen the institution, (in order to address the inevitability and danger of fatalism they must also allow sufficient space for reflection and autonomy). The institution will also seek to provide sustenance for the different sets of life wishes, so that through whatever lens a participant is looking at the institution (pleasure, duty, ambition) there are reasons for positive engagement. Finally, the institution will recognise, foster and seek to balance the different sources of organisational energy which derive from egalitarian, hierarchical, and individualistic ways of thinking about change (collective individualism is not an oxymoron as individualists can be united by their disdain for egalitarian, hierarchical and fatalistic views).
Needless to say there are many additional sources of complexity. For example, while certain people or certain positions within the institution may have a predisposition to a certain way of viewing change (managers to hierarchy for example), the perspectives are dynamically and unpredictably generated in relation to specific challenges. Also, an institution contains many different levels of organisation, each one of which contains the dynamics of plural rationality. For example, while the management team may adopt a hierarchical stance in relation to the organisation as institution, the team as an organisation itself is prone to dividing internally along the four paradigms (the hierarchically-inclined departmental supervisor may be an egalitarian subversive in the corporate management team).
The important thing for the leaders of an institution is to understand the core elements which structure choice, work satisfaction and collective approaches to change, to recognise that each element is inevitable and has something to give, and to understand how the dynamic interplay of the elements can never be resolved and indeed is the source of innovation and growth.
Time for business to take a lead
My breakfast yesterday was at an event to mark the latest edition of the excellent Times science supplement Eureka. The event featured a fascinating but largely depressing panel discussion about the fallout of the Copenhagen Summit. It got me thinking about climate change through the prism of my old friend cultural theory.
As regular readers will know, the theory suggest there are four fundamental ways of thinking about social change; the individualistic, the egalitarian, the hierarchical and the fatalistic.
Fatalism is the default option for most people. Climate change is a huge, complex process that no individual or community can affect alone. Tackling climate change is in large part about shifting this sense of fatalism.
Copenhagen was all about the hierarchical dimension of change: top down, strategy led, enforced through rules. But it largely failed. This reflected three problems; first, the difficulty of leaders committing to definite sacrifices in the short term for possible gains in the long term; second, the failings of international governance and, in particular, the idea that 192 countries could all reach a far reaching agreement; third, the difficulty of reconciling national political pressures to the demands of global decision making. Steve Howard from the Climate Group made the important point that even if the summit had agreed legally binding targets, it is very unlikely that President Obama could have got them through Congress (remember what happened when Al Gore signed up to Kyoto).
This is why the commitment of each country to lay out its national commitments by the end of January 2010 may be a good thing. It may be easier to stitch together an international plan from national agreements than to make a global deal and then try to impose it on suspicious national populations and parliaments.
On the egalitarian front – that is change driven bottom up by shared norms and values – the debate on climate change is in danger of shifting away from those who want action. I wrote recently that more and more people I meet from the political right talk about climate change in the same way they refer to the European Union, as a kind of conspiracy dreamt up by meddling lefties looking for a way to justify state interference in our lives. This mixture of right wing belief and populist anti establishment feeling can be very powerful. Over the top language from environmentalists calling for an abandonment of Western lifestyles doesn’t help. Climate change scepticism has been growing steadily in the USA, it has become the rallying call of the right of centre Australian opposition and it will no doubt be used by leaders and oppositions in other political systems.
Individualists argue that the best way to tackle climate change it to look to markets, innovation and technology to find solutions. The story here is mixed. On the one hand we hear serious industrialists arguing that all cars could be electric within a few years; on the other hand, it is easy to be seduced into complacency by wacky schemes like piping sulphur into the atmosphere which are not only unproven but could prove on closer examination to be impossible or even counter productive.
So, overall, things look pretty grim. Going back to the European Union analogy, I think business has a major role. Back in the mid-1990s business leaders argued strongly for the UK to join the euro but as the popular backlash grew (egged on by the media and note how the Express has now become outspokenly sceptical) they were less and less willing to put their head above the parapet.
In terms of encouraging political leaders to get their act together, in relation to tackling right of centre suspicion and in relation to fostering technological innovation the global corporate sector is vital.
But will it step up to the plate? When I asked this question on Monday, James Cameron (FRSA), Vice Chair of Climate Change Capital was very upbeat about business commitment while other speakers talked about the growing market for low carbon products and services. But Times Editor James Harding introduced a note of caution. If you ask the CEOs of the FTSE 100 if they care about climate change they will all say the right thing, he suggested, but if you ask finance directors in the same firms you might get a very different response.
In the wake of Copenhagen there is a huge opportunity for international business (including investors) to take a lead in demanding and shaping global action. And they have a window of opportunity ahead of next year’s Mexico summit. This may be a job for the Climate Group, but how about a New Year declaration from ten of the world’s most powerful corporate figures: Mittal, Buffet, Brin, Voser laying out their commitment and what world leaders need to do to create the right framework for future green investment? Sadly, I don’t have their blackberry numbers but if you do feel free to forward this post.
My demon diary
I used to take great pride in posting a blog every day. But now I seem to fail at least once a week. It isn’t a loss of enthusiasm; merely that my diary has become a voracious beast from which I can neither run nor hide. I’ve also been tardy in responding to comments even though I am always rather touched that people take the time to respond to my ramblings.
In a desperate attempt to fight back I have written a piece for today’s Times which should relieve at least some of the pressure by discouraging any speaking invite for a public sector conference.
I am writing this at Heathrow on my way to give a lecture in Northern Ireland.
My long term reader (sorry mum, we really must book up a drink after work soon) may remember my enthusiasm for cultural theory and its four paradigms of social change; the egalitarian, the individualistic, the hierarchical and fatalist.
A few months ago, after a conversation with RSA Trustee Lord Richard Best, I foolishly asserted that I could use cultural theory as a useful way of thinking about the continuing problem of social segregation in Northern Ireland.
Actually, I might even have been right. The theory can be applied; seeing segregation driven primarily by egalitarian solidarity within the different religiously affiliated based communities, suggesting that individualism might be the most powerful force driving against segregation (if, for example, the only new build homes are in integrated neighbourhoods), and recognising that there is little hierarchical drive behind greater integration.
The problem is that the whole thesis can be summed up in five minutes and I’ve got thirty to fill. At this point my lack of detailed (OK, ‘any’) knowledge about the nature of segregation, or of past attempts to solve it, come into play. ‘Ah’ I say to myself ‘looks like I’m going to have to do some research’. At which point, with a malicious sparkle in its eye, my diary (which has by now become an imaginary demon with gap teeth, red eyes and bad breath) replies ‘jolly good, you’ve got a window in June 2010’.
Fortunately for me I fastened like a barnacle on to a patient and wise advisor at the Northern Ireland office of the Chartered Institute of Housing. When I first explained my predicament she recommended books, then, as my appeals became more pathetic it was articles, and then finally she started to send me selected quotations (not long complicated ones, mind you).
I have no idea how it will go. I could ask you to remind me to tell you next week. But my diary tells me that by Monday I will have to have become an expert on parenting policy (thankfully, my sons don’t read my blog) and how the civil service should manage the transition between administrations.
I don’t even have time to develop my new idea for a film; (working title ‘Appointment book with the devil’, about a man who despite his external show of self confidence and control has become demonically possessed by his own diary.
Suffolk against the state
Suffolk County Council worked me hard last night. I wasn’t sure whether to give my speech about the pro-social council or do my cultural theory experiment, so I asked the audience and they told me to do both! An hour and half later I made my exhausted way back to Ipswich station.
On the cultural theory experiment I ran the same process I undertook last week on the blog. Of the four approaches to climate change fatalism and hierarchy continued to be virtually friendless with the majority of the 120 strong public sector audience plumping for the egalitarian (we must change the way we live) option and a much smaller number going for individualism (technology and markets can solve the problem).
There is a number of ways of interpreting this. It could, of course, be the way I phrased the options. The one I tend towards is that both fatalism (there’s nothing we can do) and hierarchism (it’s up to Government to act) are seen as responses that reflect badly on those who adhere to them.
This doesn’t surprise me about fatalism, but it is fascinating that people don’t want to sound as though they are relying on governments to take the lead in solving a climate change problem which not only self evidently requires concerted state action but on which we have seen quite positive steps both by our domestic government and – over the weekend – by other national leaders.
Has supporting the idea that Government can do good come to be seen as naïve, or even shameful? If so it sounds like more bad news for Labour.
Help me make a fool of myself
Thanks to everyone who helped out on my cultural theory challenge yesterday. I am still hoping for a few more replies but so far options 1 and 3 are doing well with options 2 and trailing badly. This is interesting as, arguably, ‘do nothing and wait for the Government to sort it out’ (a combination of 2 and 4) is the majority attitude of the public.
In line with my emerging habit of ‘dress down Friday posts’ I have another request to make. I have long harboured the ambition of doing a stand up comedy routine. It’s not that I want to be a comedian (any more that I inadvertently am already) I’d just love to do it once and see if I could survive.
Anyway, the idea I have for the theme of my ten minutes is strange things that people say. I don’t mean slips of the tongue or malapropisms but things which are perfectly good English just rather odd when you take them apart
My favourite is simply ‘I said to myself’. But who is ‘I’, who is ‘myself’ and who exactly is this conversation between?
The other day I heard another. In a meeting that was in danger of over running, the chairman tried to push the agenda on by saying ‘I am conscious of time’. What is the appropriate response to this? ‘I am aware of space’ perhaps, or ‘I am in touch with the universe’.
So I am on the look out for another three or four of these. The deal is that if I get them I promise at some point to go to a comedy ‘open mic’ night and give it a go. All my blog readers will of course be invited.
Have a good weekend
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
- Twitter @RSAMatthew
- RSAMatthew: Matthew's blog: Developing development http://t.co/hhhUGYX1
- RSAMatthew: RSA Xmas Party was huge - my whole life I have been a snobbish git about ceilidh type fun - now I want to dance every night
- RSAMatthew: On my way to RSA Xmas party - I won't stay too long as it spoils the fun to have the boss around
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.