Cultural Change презентация

based on cultural changes seen in both corporate and public environments.

Using this framework, we can develop programs to move an organization towards a culture in which it hopes to operate vs the culture in which it currently operates.

A framework for approaching

Cultural Change

to influence.

ability to official changes to policies, incentive plans, or laws.

RULEMAKERS

leading the effort to change. Sometimes they have leadership positions, sometimes they do not.

RULEMAKERS

ACTIVITISTS

easily move toward the intended behavior. When the rules support the intended movement, progress can be mandated.

RULEMAKERS

ACTIVITISTS

Consider the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The RULEMAKERS (Congress) move to support of the work of the ACTIVISTS (Civil Rights leaders) and large scale cultural progress is formalized.

to reach a different (or opposite) goal than your ACTIVISTS.

RULEMAKERS

ACTIVITISTS

ANTI-ACTIVITISTS

cancel out and the population doesn’t move. This stalemate will persist if the RULEMAKERS do not exert an influence one way or another.

RULEMAKERS

ACTIVITISTS

ANTI-ACTIVITISTS

An example of this is the debate around abortion in the US. Here, both sides work tirelessly to influence. In contrast to attitudes towards civil rights, the population has moved hardly at all since the 1960’s.

of either the RULEMAKERS or the ACTIVISTS. However, they are important because they provide social proof to the population.

RULEMAKERS

ACTIVITISTS

ANTI-ACTIVITISTS

OUTSIDERS

population, there may be movement regardless of what the RULEMAKERS or ACTIVISTS want to see happen.

RULEMAKERS

ACTIVITISTS

OUTSIDERS

In a corporate environment, this can be seen when all other competitors in an industry adopt a practice or develop a service.

Examples include airlines charging for checked bags or banks loosening underwriting standards to stay competitive.

much larger than the target population.

RULEMAKERS

ACTIVITISTS

OUTSIDERS

The OUTSIDER population might be huge!

all align to paint a vision of the future that seems clear to everyone.

RULEMAKERS

ACTIVITISTS

OUTSIDERS

Weak / Non-existent ANTI-ACTIVITISTS

A clear example of this is the dot-com boom of the late 90’s where everyone saw the value of doing business on the internet.

of cultural change. SUPPORTERS and SKEPTICS take more and less adoptive stances towards the change. THE CROWD is indifferent with the change, but will move with the larger audience.

SUPPORTERS

SKEPTICS

THE CROWD

population of SUPPORTERS grow and SKEPTICS shrink. Obviously, a population with more SUPPORTERS is easier to move.

SUPPORTERS

SKEPTICS

THE CROWD

to be shared and celebrated. The SKEPTICS need to be shown PROOF that the new ways are better.

SKEPTICS

THE CROWD

HEROES

SUPPORTERS

PROOF

Nordstrom and Zappos spend a lot of time cultivating HEROES and sharing stories in their culture.

Lou Gerstner used his own behavior and financial results as PROOF to win over the SKEPTICS while transforming IBM.

HEROES. This can be though arranging events or simply giving people PERMISSION to exhibit the model behavior.

SKEPTICS

THE CROWD

TO BE A HERO

SUPPORTERS

OPPORTUNITIES

From the Civil Rights movement, Rosa Parks was asked to play the role of HERO.

In business, the RULEMAKERS at Lockheed Martin separated a Skunk Works® team to work outside the normal rules.

Google and 3M build these opportunities into the everyday work life of their engineers.

model behaviors.


ACTIVISTS work to create OPPORTUNITIES for SUPPORTERS to become HEROES.


HERO STORIES are shared with SUPPORTERS and THE CROWD to give energy to the movement.


Real-world results and evidence from OUTSIDERS are shared with SKEPTICS as PROOF that this cultural movement is the more valid model for the future.

HEROES

How it can work together

OUTSIDERS

avoided in this framework:

VILLAINS
These are the people whose actions represent the direct opposite behavior of the HEROES. In this framework, these actors could be considered HEROES to the ANTI-ACTIVISTS. This framework asserts that VILLAIN STORIES will be counterproductive for the change effort, because it acts to polarize and energize the SKEPTICS and ANTI-ACTIVISTS.

EXTREMISTS
These are far-end activists. In the real-world, these may materialize as fringe organizations or individual radicals. It’s important to recognize that these actors may help a cause by painting the moderate ACTIVISTS as more reasonable actors. However, in a corporate environment, EXTREMISTS are probably not tolerated (for long) and don’t need to be incorporated in this framework.

Who is avoided in this framework?