Culture Change and Open Systems. Communication skills training courses, presentation skills programmes, public speaking, leadership development and executive coaching.

Culture Change and Open Systems

"Culture change" has become the popular jargon for organisations looking to make a major shift in the way they operate.  But what does "culture change" actually mean?

At Impact Factory we find the term vague and unspecific.  To us, the way an organisation communicates within itself is the key indicator of its "culture".  If there is open, honest and direct communication then the "culture" will always be changing.  This has to be a fluid process that takes into account changes in people's status and needs, the company's growth and the current economic climate.

It is when an organisation communicates in a closed, rigid, and dictatorial fashion that it becomes obvious what the weaknesses and difficulties within the company actually are.

At Impact Factory we prefer the term "system" to define the way in which an organisation communicates.  An open system means good, healthy, evolving and developing communication.  A closed system means bad, stuck, negative and unchanging modes of communication. 

What we have found is that when organisations say they truly want a "culture" change they actually mean that they want to move from operating within a closed communication system to an open communication system. 

The purpose of this document is to explain in some detail how Impact Factory defines systems work and how it accomplishes major changes within companies using this model.

What is a system?

A system is any self-contained entity or unit made up of interconnected elements or parts.  Anything that affects one individual, singular part of the entity will affect the entire entity:  things cannot happen in isolation in a system.

Another component of systems is one of wholeness: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and all systems result from the interaction of each part to each other part of the system.  Each component of a system is partly a whole and wholly a part.

Earth is part of a solar system and yet as we go about our daily lives we don't think of ourselves as being interconnected to Mars or Jupiter, for instance.  We are aware of the sun and the moon and that's usually as far as it goes.  However, anything that happens to any planet in this solar system will affect every other planet in the system, possibly in quite a radical way.

In the same vein, the human body is one system made up of a variety of sub-systems:  the circulatory system, the skeletal system, the respiratory system, etc.  If anything changes in any of those sub-systems, again, the whole will be affected.

All systems have principles and rules or laws governing them, and one of the primary ones is that a system must stay in balance (homoeostasis) and it will do anything that it has to in order to stay in balance.  For instance, the sea is a system and no matter how many sea walls are built, the sea isn't suddenly going to stop eroding the shore:  it will simply erode the shore where there isn't a sea wall.  It will find another way to stay in balance in the face of man-made defences.

 
Approximately 40 years ago biologists began to make the connection that families operated as systems as well and began to translate the same rules or laws that governed systems in nature to family systems.  It was seen that one member of the family with a major problem (such as alcoholism, sexual abuse, anorexia) could impact to a huge extent the way a family functioned; that no one in such a family system could remain unaffected.  Each person relates to every other person in the system, which creates a series of inter-related relationships, all dependent on keeping the system in balance.

Through our experiences in the business world, we at Impact Factory have become more and more aware that the whole concept of systems work is directly related to companies and how they operate.

A lot has been written about 'organisation theory', much of it very good.  However, much of it is also very complex.  We believe that focusing the problems in the workplace from a systems point of view can reduce many problems to manageable size and provide much simpler and yet highly effective solutions.

Most people who work are seeking to affirm their identity through the fulfilment of basic human needs.  And in turn, the workplace is an ideal setting to meet these needs, which can be defined as:

The need to achieve self-actualisation; where 'who I am' can be experienced by oneself and others.  This also includes the need for self-acceptance, which will define self-worth.

The need for security, productivity, challenges and stimulation; which in turn produces creativity, curiosity and fun.

The need for structure; which reinforces positive dependency and also a feeling of belonging and being part of something which is useful.

Recognition, encouragement and affirmation to create motivation.  People need a sense of responsibility, of being trusted.  They want to be treated as adults.

And finally, everyone needs a variety of relationships that confirm the sense of self.

How these needs are met helps defines whether a system is open or closed; healthy (functional) or unhealthy (dysfunctional).

The term 'consensus reality' is used to define the 'culture' or mode of operating that everyone in the system agrees to either openly or tacitly.  For instance, if you work for a company where withholding information is part of the communication style, then in order to go on working there you will acquiesce to that unspoken agreement.  You will now be part of a reality that might actually be different from your own in order to fit in.  You will have accepted the 'consensus reality'.

Defining a closed system

A closed system is, quite simply, a system where the rules, roles, structures and relationships are fixed and unchanging, rigid and stuck.

Communication is the primary problem in a closed system.  People do not talk to each other, they second-guess each other, and they make assumptions.  Feedback is critical, negative, blaming and demotivating.

 
Occasionally there is open conflict that never gets resolved, as people get stuck in their need to win, while making the other person wrong and needing to have them lose.  More commonly there is complete shut out where people will do anything to avoid conflict and will not confront even when the problem is obvious.

There is also the conflict avoiding method known as 'confluence' which means agreeing to disagree.  This often can look reasonable, but it is actually another way to keep resolution of problems at arm's length.

Bad communication is also exacerbated by: generalisations ("Management always....."); deliberately edited information; distortions, mind-reading ("I know what you're thinking") and what is known as cause and effect illusions that is blaming the other person for making you feel a certain way.  Much of bad communication comes from people having unclear boundaries, which means not stating expectations, limitations and problems.

Communication or feedback loops are always negative and work to replicate themselves.  In other words people get caught up in poor communication style and behaviour becomes cyclical.

In a closed system, the individuals are infantilised through negative communication loops.

In addition, in a closed, unhealthy corporate system some, or all of the following, will be found:

Denial:  "We're fine; there are no problems."

Dictatorial, Patriarchal and Authoritarian management style:  "Do what I say, or else."

Rules, which are controlling and perfectionistic, govern the system.  There are overt, spoken rules: everyone works 9.30 to 5.30; and covert, unspoken rules:  but you have to stay as long as it takes to get the work done and we don't pay overtime.

Secrets are prevalent:  there are closed secrets, where no one tells anyone anything or information is doled out on a 'need to know' basis; or there are open secrets, where everyone knows while everyone pretends not to know (the Emperor's New Clothes).

Management roles are rigid, people are afraid of losing their jobs if they speak their mind; the general climate is often one of fear and distrust.

Senior management is inaccessible: phone calls aren't returned, e-mails aren't answered; people are in meetings all the time.

People do not know the difference between URGENT and IMPORTANT and tend to operate in URGENCY mode, unable to prioritise.

People are quick to blame and slow to take responsibility for mistakes.

Personal needs are, for the most part, sacrificed for the needs of the system, which usually means that everyone operates with a degree of low-grade anger and frustration.

The end result of all of this is that the individual members of a closed corporate system will adapt their own behaviour, belief structures and communication style to those of the workplace with a resulting loss of identity.  Loss of identity leads to loss of creativity, imagination and flair.  This leads to keeping the system unchanging and so the cycle goes on and on.

 
As well, when the individual submerges identity for the sake of conforming to the rules, conflict will inevitably arise and because conflict is rarely resolved in this type of organisation, stress levels will increase enormously.

One other important point about closed systems is something called 'dynamic homoeostasis'.  What this means is that some dramatic change will be imposed with the intention of changing the way people communicate.  It could be to send one particular department or director on a course or series of courses; it could be to have everyone undergo psychometric testing which can pigeonhole the individual; it could be to try to flatten the hierarchical structure.  Some of those things can indeed be beneficial, but not in isolation to the bigger problem.  What happens is that it looks as though there has been change, but in time (usually a very short period of time) things will go back exactly as they were in the first place, even more so.

What is happening is that the system appears to institute change while doing everything it can to stay in balance in the way it was before.  Thus, the more someone tries to change the system, the more it stays the same (it's like one man digging a ditch while someone right behind him is filling it in).

Defining an open system

An open system is a system where the rules are flexible, fluid and changing.  There is co-operation, an agreement to meet individual and corporate needs and encouragement of the growth and development of each member in order to benefit the whole.

Good systems function through good communication.  All rules need to be overt and clear.  Covert rules (and everyone operates with some) need to be brought into the open and resolved.

Good communication means being open, honest and direct.  Good communication comes from good self-awareness: being both aware of the internal process of the self and the external processes of others.  It also comes from good sensory observation, e.g. accessing cues.  All this equals Active Listening (congruence). 

Good communication means being clear, giving people information, setting up structures that involve the consultation process both up and down the hierarchy, giving up total control and delegating.

Differences are acknowledged and accepted rather than trying to get everyone to fit in.  In an open system this will lead to conflict, which is good and useful and allows for resolution.  We believe that as long as it doesn't harm the system and the people in it, then differences, conflict, eccentricities even, are OK and allowable.

In an open system feedback is positive, encouraging, supportive and above all, motivating.  Indeed, positive feedback can effectively break up the negativity that is rife in a closed system.  This kind of feedback challenges destructive, authoritarian rules and actually makes old positions untenable.  We know that initiating movement in a system through the use of motivating feedback, changes how a system works (conversely, critical and negative feedback will change it right back to the way it was).

For a system to deal with changes as they occur it must be open, stable and secure without being fixed and rigid in its thinking.  There is a balance between autonomy and efficiency.  There are good boundaries where people express their needs, expectations and requirements so that everyone knows where he/she stands.

 
The company's and the individual's needs are met through recognition, affirmation, challenge, stimulation and self-actualisation.  Healthy systems encourage self-acceptance and integration into the company ethos.  Healthy systems are opposed to any kind of perfectionism that measures through critical judgement, inequality, obedience to a single rigid authority and strict adherence to rigid rules.

Staying open within a closed system

It is also possible for individual teams or departments to create an open system for themselves even in the face of being part of a larger corporate structure that is closed.

Although this avenue has some inherent difficulties, our point of departure is:  even given that what is around me is rigid, fixed and seemingly immovable, what can I do to contribute to my team remaining open, fluid and most importantly, motivated.

This approach reduces blame and is a chance to reclaim responsibility and team autonomy and encourages initiative and creativity.  It also reduces frustration by achieving a sense of doing something positive and overcoming inertia.

By taking positive action within an individual team or department there is also the opportunity to change others by first changing yourself.  Often, we think that the only way change can be initiated is through someone else changing.  It's the "if only" syndrome ("If only he'd listen to me, I could work better."  "If only she gave me more autonomy, I could get on with things.").

At Impact Factory we challenge the "if only" syndrome by saying that the only person you can change is yourself.

If you change you there will almost certainly be change in other people.  It may not always be what you want, but it will happen - it has to youve altered the status quo.  We know that if you keep doing what you've always done in the hopes that eventually things might change, you're going about it in the wrong way.  The quote we use is:  "If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got."

Look for the ways you and your team can "do it" differently.

Fight Fair Rules

Conflict in a healthy system requires what psychotherapist and author John Bradshaw calls "Fight Fair" Rules:

 Commitment to work out differences
 Not staying in conflict or copping out with confluence (agreeing to disagree)
 Being assertive rather than aggressive
 Staying in the now
 No lecturing, no authoritarian "you must's"
 No judgements or criticisms
 Rigorous honesty
 No blaming; no Career Limiting Moves
 Active listening and responding
 Dealing with one thing at a time
 Go for a solution rather than being right (what we would call a win/win)

Rules require accountability
Problems are acknowledged and resolved
All relationships are equal = each person is of equal value as a person
Communication is direct
Members are and will be different
Roles are chosen and flexible
Atmosphere is fun and spontaneous
Mistakes are forgiven and viewed as learning tools

How using open systems can achieve dramatic change in the workplace

You can use the systems model to create major, long-term, effective change.

Examine and define your current communication style and its effectiveness.
Locate the communication bottlenecks.
Assess what is already working well in your current structure.
Speak to people at all levels in the company to determine the 'consensus reality', what people see as the difficulties, what changes people would like to see and how feasible those changes are.
Use team building to get people talking to each other in-depth, forging new agreements and relationships.
Facilitate opening up the communication loops through positive feedback.
Plan with you how to make key management people more accessible.
Initiate a consultation process so that decisions are made up and down the structure.