In our continuing series on the transformation of our institution into a powerful and competitive partner in Industry 4.0 ecosystems, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]we now discuss the next lesson learned in the review of this process [2] [7]:
Fifth Lesson: A focus on the culture and people is fundamental. No amount of investment in technology, processes, training, seminars, consultants, or certifications will overcome a culture and people that are not ready to take on this job. Transformational leadership again takes center stage.
There will likely be more articles focused on the transformational leadership aspect of this lesson learned, but a summary of this concept was covered in the Call for Champions article. [5]
If we want to study "culture", we could spend hours, even years debating its definition, limitations, content, and inspirations. For powerful simplicity with regards to the corporate world, I like the definition by Hoebel:
“the integrated system of learned behavior patterns which are characteristic of the members of a society and which are not the result of biological inheritance” [8]
In this context, culture is something alive, active, reactive, evolutionary. It is something that is done, expressed, sought, changed, and becomes reality. Culture is not destiny or punishment. It is neither a sentence nor a shackle. But it is something in which we have participation and co-responsibility for creating and maintaining. At its core, our people conform our culture – it is impossible to consider transforming one without considering the impact upon and inclusion of the other.
Some time ago, I covered this topic much more extensively in an iideas conference titled: Breaking the chains of culture (Rompiendo las cadenas de cultura). We won’t go into every detail here, but rather summarize the most salient points. In this talk I mentioned several anchors to which we can be chained that keep us from the progress we should enjoy.
First anchor: Inherited culture (DilbertTM on cultural fit)
An incredible leader and innovator in the first computer revolution was Admiral Grace Hopper who had this to say about our inherited culture:
"Humans are allergic to change. They love to say, 'We've always done it this way.' I try to fight that. That's why I have a clock on my wall that runs counter-clockwise." [9]
Meanwhile, Elser at Inc.com identifies the six words that will kill a business:
We’ve always done it this way. [10]
As the authors of "How Google Works" explain, most of the integrated processes of business management, institutions, and humans have their roots a century or more ago. Back then information was slow and scarce, and many business errors were incredibly expensive. Often, only the top executives could hope to have comprehensive information for decision-making. This outdated model seeks to eliminate or tremendously reduce risks and allow decisions to be made by "well-informed” executives. [11] The anchor from a culture’s history cannot be ignored. Change is necessary, vital, and important to survive as a successful company or institution in this new world. We may need champions [5], but if we don’t have the transformational leadership to find and foster these champions, no significant change will take root.
Second anchor: Ignored culture (DilbertTM on cultural contradiction)
This can be one of the more difficult cultural anchors to face. These are the contradictions we ignore, hide, and pretend don’t exist. These contradictions exist in any aspect of society, to be sure, but in this series, we’re considering those areas in which a University can generally get mired. Our institutional mission is lofty: Create currents of thought and train leaders to transform society. However, how many contradictions to this mission do we allow ourselves?
Creating currents of thought is by its definition disruptive. It’s new, it’s comprehensive, and its aim is to transform society. Are we creating new, disruptive thought? Is it truly our primary mission to train new leaders whose focus is to make these currents of thought operational in society’s transformation?
Or can we get lost in the weeds of daily minutiae? Is the student’s leadership training my primary mission…or my rank in the National Researcher System (SNI)? Am I striving to foster new thought and new ways of thinking with my new curriculum…or am I more worried about what the federal government thinks my opinions should be through SEP and CONACyT? Am I encouraging all my students to live significant life experiences as an integral part of their training…or am I limiting their activities to the main points in a CONACyT checklist of priorities for accreditation? Am I striving to foster professionals that will have a lasting impact on our society…or am I hesitant about giving a student who happens to be a corporate executive a lower grade they earned when they see their degree as transactional rather than aspirational? Am I fostering a culture of trust and respect…or am I working on the assumption that if I can’t find someone at their desk they must not be working in our institutional best interests? Etc., etc., etc.
Again, these contradictions exist everywhere, and UPAEP is no special case. However, if we are to transform the culture around us, we must face our internal cultural issues head-on. We must be bold enough to change where so many others do not, and we must be brave enough to hold ourselves to our own stated values despite all the external and internal pressures to let these simply be “pretty words” that look good on a sign or memo.
Third anchor: Forgotten culture. (DilbertTM on ancient “wisdom”)
Not all cultural contradictions (ignored culture) are truly and insidiously on purpose. In many cases, we have forgotten or lost the reasons why. Do we always know why we have knee-jerk reactions to certain ideas or changes? Do we know why we’ve never apparently explored certain avenues of institutional opportunities? Do we know why it makes us so nervous to challenge ideas from “on high”? Schmidt et al. identify a mortal danger for any company: HiPPOs (Highest Paid Person’s Opinions). [11] (I recommend the entire book for anyone studying leadership and strategy)
I have recently been exposed to the Dutch doctoral dissertation defense traditions. While largely ceremonial now, the paranymphs and pedel participants in the ceremony stem from the days when aspiring doctors would have to be protected from the public or from the very professors testing and challenging the defender as the confrontation between the established knowledge and the new ideas sometimes ended in violence. The very purpose of a doctoral degree-conferring institution is to generate new and often disruptive knowledge. But, have we identified what silences us or keeps us from fulfilling our responsibilities?
Do we know why something is the “right” way to go about things? In the last paper we covered the example of the original curriculum design “rules” at the UPAEP graduate school. [6] However, when speaking to the original framer of these “rules”, we ascertained that these were meant to be starting-line guides and were intended to evolve into individualized programs. Instead, over the years we collectively forgot that mission and settled into a “rules” system for programs across all disciplines and our “innovations” have mostly focused on deciding how to change the “rules and guidelines” for all.
We have identified three different cultural anchors that can keep us from moving toward our desired transformation. However, it is not enough to merely identify, recognize, or even agree with these anchors. TODAY – what will you do to live more congruently with our mission? TODAY – will you set aside fears, comfort, and stagnation to focus on one change, however small, needed in your sphere of influence? TODAY – will you question if what you’re doing is the best you can do or merely what has come to be expected? And then…will you be willing to do it all over again tomorrow? And the next day? Our very own Identity Mural symbolizes our work as sailing through the seas of life buoyed by our mission and values, and in this spirit …Anchors aweigh!
References
[1] Juan Manuel López Oglesby, "Digitalized Innovation Ecosystem: “iideas”," UPAEP Graduate School, Puebla, Science Strategy Position Paper 2018. [Online].https://goo.gl/y47hbp
[2] Juan Manuel López Oglesby, "The University as a Strategic Partner in Industry 4.0," UPAEP Graduate School, Puebla, Science Strategy Position Paper 2018. [Online]. https://goo.gl/YX16Uj
[3] Juan Manuel López Oglesby, "Industry 4.0 and the University: Self-Study," UPAEP Graduate School, Puebla, Science Strategy Position Paper 2018. [Online]. https://goo.gl/QkgLgH
[4] Juan Manuel López Oglesby, "Industry 4.0 and the University - Digital Trust," UPAEP Graduate School, Puebla, Science Strategy Position Paper 2018. [Online]. https://goo.gl/nXfCg7
[5] Juan Manuel López Oglesby, "Industry 4.0 – A Call for Champions," UPAEP Graduate School, Puebla, Science Strategy Position Paper 2018. [Online]. https://upress.mx/
[6] Juan Manuel López Oglesby, "Industry 4.0: Failing Successfully," UPAEP Graduate School, Puebla, Science Strategy Position Paper 2018. [Online]. https://upress.mx
[7] PWC, "Global Industry 4.0 Survey," 2016. [Online]. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/industry-4.0.html
[8] E. A. Hoebel, Anthropology: The study of man., 4th ed. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill, 1972.
[9] P. Shieber, "The Wit and Wisdom of Grace Hopper," OCLC Newsletter, vol. 167, March/April 1987.
[10] Scott Elser. (2014, July) 6 Words Your Employees Say That Will Kill Your Business. Inc.com. [Online]. https://www.inc.com/
[11] Eric Schmidt, Jonathan Rosenberg, and Ala Eagle, How Google Works, First Edition ed. New York, New York, USA: Grand Central Publishing, 2014.
Dr. Juan Manuel López Oglesby
Director
Graduate Biomedical Engineering Sciences UPAEP
