Culture Is Downstream From … Well, What?

 

I’m sure most (if not all) of GTIM Nation is familiar with the axiom “politics is downstream from culture,” but what is upstream from culture? In using the upstream and downstream analogies, I mean that changes in the “downstream” entity follow ones in the “upstream” categorization, sometimes with a clear cause-and-effect manner, other times more subtly. So, if the politics version of this axiom is apt, what would be the equivalent connection for, not the hopelessly complex culture in general, but for the more specific corporate culture, or the Project Team’s?

If you perform an internet search on the truncated version “Culture is downstream from …”, a common answer is “leadership,” but this is problematic in that it leads to a form of tautology. Since most nations elect their leaders in some form of a political process, the whole upstream/downstream business becomes cyclical, as in Politics is downstream from Culture, which is downstream from Leadership, which is elected politically. Within the confines of the specific organization, leadership determining corporate culture does have the ring of reasonableness about it. Sure, there are going to be at least some cultural values shared by the macro-organization, but individual management leaders are going to have a far more direct impact on the Project Team’s philosophy than executives who may have little or no direct interaction with any of them.

GTIM Nation knows of my respect for the work of Michael Maccoby, specifically his book The Gamesman (Simon and Schuster, 1978) where he asserts four archetypes of workers, The Craftsman, The Company Man, The Jungle Fighter, and The Gamesman. Now consider a scenario where the macro-organization has a certain set of values and managerial philosophies that make up its “culture,” such as it is. Some of these values and philosophies are formal, and documented in policies, procedures, and in other venues. Others are unspoken and undocumented, either because they’re considered to be obvious, or else because they make up a behavioral expectation that’s part of the business model, but would reflect badly on the macro-organization if they were to be articulated openly. But make no mistake: transgressing the unspoken rules of the corporate culture can easily be as career-threatening as breaking the stated rules, should the outcome be other than unmistakable success. Funny thing about success – it has a way of reducing the stigma of having broken cultural norms, if not clearly-articulated rules.

But back to The Gamesman. Bouncing off of the notion that Culture is downstream from (Project) Leadership, your Project Team’s derivative culture will almost certainly be influenced by the Maccoby archetype of the PM, so:

• The Company Man will adhere to both the spirit and the letter of the stated values of the macro-organization, and will only follow the unspoken versions to the extent that they are consistent with the documented ones. The frustrating thing about having a Company Man as PM is that they will almost always follow policy even in those instances where common sense points to a different course of action.
• The Jungle Fighter will also follow published guidance, but for a different reason. This type of PM is in a difficult position in that they typically have minimal technical expertise on the scope being pursued, having arrived at the PM position via some avenue other than pure merit. Following official organizational guidance serves as a defense against the day when their lack of expertise catches up to them, in that they can claim to have “followed the book” in setting the technical agenda, even in the face of individual failure.
• The Craftsman is likely to begin testing the limits of the unspoken corporate norms, and even some of the documented ones. This type of PM puts a premium on quality of output, and not so much on the very corporate culture that seeks to shape decisions. As long as they attain the desired favorable outcome, they should be positionally safe.
• Then we have The Gamesman, who lives almost definitionally in the zone where success serves as a metaphorical get-out-of-Corporate Policy – jail—free card. This type of PM knows the rules – they are, in fact, masters of them – but they also know that taking measured risks is part and parcel of attaining that success AND often antithetical to the type of behavior that those policies seek to control.

It follows, then, that if my assessment of what happens at the intersection of Maccoby archetypes and Project Team sub-culture influence is reasonable, that “culture” follows success; and, if that success is attained by bending (or even breaking) the spoken and unspoken codex that represented the existing culture, then that codex will change towards one that is more conducive to future Project victories (or the organization will fail, depending on how rigid the existing codex may be). Two implications from this conclusion stand out: (1), “organizational culture” cannot be directly changed, but can be influenced by those managerial leadership approaches that result in success, and (2) Company Men and Jungle Fighters are particularly poorly placed to effect such changes.

Oh, well.