Note: this article is part of The Transatlantic Debate Blog series, which forms a conversation between Dr. Katrin Muff and Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins on business sustainability. Read the previous post here.

In looking back over the blogs Katrin and I wrote this year, I noted that “change” is a theme connecting most if not all of them. We discussed the urgent need for change, various levels of change, forces that propel change as well as those that hinder it. We examined the need to understand our own change-related assumptions. We offered suggestions for how to become change experts. And last month Katrin described an engagement with a client where she facilitated a change process. All along we have acknowledged that change is difficult. This month I will reflect on how recent change-related challenges have confronted me personally and what I have learned as a result.

When Katrin and I were together this past summer, we discussed how differences in strongly held values complicate a change process requiring commitment. Just as we aren’t willing to compromise our own values, neither are others whose values diverge from our own. I came away from our conversation with a firm belief that that this dilemma deserved significant attention. Soon thereafter, I was faced with the very quandary that we discussed. Currently I am still looking for a clear path towards a solution.

While only just barely surviving emotionally from the U.S. presidential election, I am struggling to find a way to respond to others who welcome a political change that I believe violates my deeply rooted values. To make matters worse, many who seem to be embracing these changes are my childhood friends and family members. My unanswered question is whether we can find a way to move forward together.

I must admit my first inclination has been to avoid any uncomfortable interactions with those whom I perceive to be on the “opposite side”. Of course, readers of this blog know that I have argued against this behavior repeatedly and in fact throughout my entire professional life. I am not unaware of the dangers in adopting avoidance as a long-term solution. However, while my emotions are still high, ducking these uncomfortable interactions may be healthy for the short term.

As I look to the longer term, I wonder if I will ever be able to bridge what feels like a yawning gap dividing me from many others. Of course I am all too aware of the advice that I have offered others in this same predicament over the years. I have consistently advocated acknowledging the legitimacy of varying worldviews. I have urged others to accept the fact that some core values are deeply embedded and are difficult, if not impossible to challenge. Therefore the best approach is to seek to understand and perhaps find some overarching common ground.

Thus I have proposed that the best way forward is to engage with others in open and nonjudgmental conversation where each respects the other’s points of view. I do still stand by all of these suggestions for many if not most conflicts that rest on values differences.

However, at the same time I believe that some changes are worth resisting. It seems to me that occasionally we will be confronted with opinions and behaviors that are not worthy of respect even if they do represent the values of others with a different worldview. This is a conclusion that I draw reluctantly. I like to think that there are always avenues for finding common ground.

Nevertheless, I have concluded that sometimes we may face circumstances where respecting the values-driven opinions of others violates our own moral codes. Undoubtedly these situations are rare. And the trick is in recognizing them. Personally, this task is difficult for me. I, like most, am very good a rationalizing my own attitudes and behaviors. My avoidance of engaging with dissimilar others around the issues raised by the recent election could in fact be a rationalization. Or it could represent my being true to myself. I do believe that, at times, resistance is not only acceptable but also imperative. And, of course, I am aware that avoidance is not the same as resistance. Therefore to choose a path I must question my own motives and delve into actions that my convictions justify.

I am ending this blog with no firm conclusion concerning which path is the right one for addressing my current challenges. What I do know is that I must continue to ask these questions hoping that I will find an answer that I can embrace with conviction.

Author: Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins 

Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins is a social psychologist and is the CEO and owner of Miller Consultants , a firm specializing in organizational development, executive coaching and change management. Her work involves helping companies create and sustain organizational cultures that are conducive to executing sustainable strategies. She has worked with companies such as Toyota, IBM, Kindred Health, Brown-Forman, Lexmark, Anthem, Ashland Chemical, the U.S. Military and BC Hydro.

We live in a complex world fraught with challenges that require large-scale change. Thus all of us need to become change experts who can function at the individual, organizational and societal levels.  These statements echo the themes of Katrin Muff’s blog last month.  I agree with her premises.  Therefore, this month I will build on her idea by examining the importance of mental models to change expertise.  This is a complicated and much discussed topic, and I don’t intend to cover it thoroughly.  I will merely introduce it in this blog and include my arguments as to why it is important for change expertise.

What Are Mental Models

Mental models are the frameworks and filters through which we view the world. Even though our mental models are often hidden, we all have them. They include our values, assumptions and beliefs, and they shape our attitudes and behaviors.  We develop our mental models through our individual and cultural experiences.

Ideally these frameworks evolve as we gain new experiences and information.

However, mental models may blind us to ideas that do not conform to our version of the world.  When these models become rigid, they can prevent us from understanding others and can limit our ability to find new and creative ways to solve problems.

Challenging our Own Mental Models

Assumptions are key components of our mental models.  And, by definition, assumptions are accepted as true without question or proof.  Therefore, we are indeed unlikely to be fully aware of the frameworks that guide our thoughts and actions. However, we can learn to bring our mental models to the surface and to challenge our assumptions.  Some common methods include:

• Interacting with others whose viewpoints differ significantly from our own.
• Exposing ourselves to situations outside of our normal experiences.
• Asking ourselves why we act as we do.
• Examining what our thoughts and speech imply about our mental models.
• Analyzing how we developed our assumptions, e.g. what information, experiences, values might underlie them.
• Actively look for evidence that might disconfirm the way we view the world.

Mental Models and Change

Mental models concerning change vary and certainly influence how change experts approach their tasks.  I describe the following two frameworks as examples.

Mental Model 1:   Many change experts assert that people naturally resist change.   They imply that the role of the change agent is to overcome the opposition.  They offer suggestions on how to understand resistance, how to prevent it, and most frequently how to overcome it.  They tend to recommend presenting facts, communicating frequently, making rational arguments and engaging in all kinds of persuasive techniques to win over the challengers.  Their desired outcome is to bring others around to their point of view. Most likely their underlying assumptions include the following:

• I can change others.
• Most people don’t like change and thus will resist it.
• People are rational in reacting to change.
• My efforts are effective to the degree that others adopt my point of view.

Mental Model 2: Now let’s consider a different framework for understanding change.  Change experts operating within this framework suggest that people usually react to change in stages. In the first stage, they are likely to experience ambivalence. The role of the change expert at this stage is to assist people in resolving this ambivalence. Thus the change expert would accept ambivalence as normal and acknowledge its validity to those experiencing it.  In this first stage, the change expert would assist others in weighing the pros and cons associated with the change.  They would ask open-ended questions as they seek to understand the others’ views.  They would engage in more listening and reflecting than telling and persuading.  They could tentatively offer facts and opinions only after listening to the others carefully.  When they do so, they should also share their own underlying assumptions. In all cases, they should remain non-judgmental and avoid implying that they have all of the answers.  Most likely the underlying assumptions of this approach include the following:

• I cannot change others.
• People experience ambivalence when faced with change.
• All change holds pros and cons.
• People react to change emotionally before responding rationally.
• People will make their own choices as their ambivalence lessens.
• My efforts are effective when people make choices and move forward.

I am not suggesting that one of these mental models is more superior to the other. I am arguing that the differing assumptions underlying each of these models will guide how the change expert acts.

In our complex world, no one has all of the answers for solving our individual, organizational or societal problems.  However, as change experts, we can function more effectively in all three levels when we learn to challenge our own assumptions. Especially at the societal level, our ability to consider multiple mental models is critical.  By exploring various ways of viewing the world, we are more likely to land upon new and more creative solutions to the issues that often seem to be so intractable.

Author: Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins 

Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins is a social psychologist and is the CEO and owner of Miller Consultants , a firm specializing in organizational development, executive coaching and change management. Her work involves helping companies create and sustain organizational cultures that are conducive to executing sustainable strategies. She has worked with companies such as Toyota, IBM, Kindred Health, Brown-Forman, Lexmark, Anthem, Ashland Chemical, the U.S. Military and BC Hydro.

Questions about the Unknowns, too many question marks

Few of us are caught by surprise these days when change occurs in our organizations.  However, the rapidly escalating pace of change can sometimes leave us breathless.  What’s worse, many organizations are now engaging in large-scale, transformational change, heading in a defined direction but not necessarily knowing where they will end up.  They adjust their change path as the journey evolves.  Thus people inside of the organization face great uncertainty as the process unfolds.

In her May blog, Katrin Muff described the Business School of Lausanne’s transformational journey. She portrayed the change process as both personal and organizational. According to Katrin, some of the challenges along the way have been inconvenient and discomforting.  She concluded, however, that the results of the changes are nevertheless continuing to be very rewarding.

I believe the school deserves great credit for pushing through the inconvenience and discomfort, and persevering in spite of it. Many organizations might not be courageous enough to persist in the face of so much uneasiness; and if so, they would miss out on benefits that could otherwise have been theirs. To excel at transformational change, organizations and the people who comprise them must accept change-related discomfort and adjust to it as a natural expectation.

While large-scale change is likely to be somewhat discomfiting, each of us can diminish the stress it brings by developing greater tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity.

Why Change is Difficult

Organizations and human beings have a natural tendency to preserve stability.  Stable and long-standing processes, procedures and cultures at their best can enable our organizations to function smoothly and consistently.  When our environment is stable, ordinary routines ease our stress levels.  Life is more predictable when we can experience a sense of control over our outcomes.

Large-scale change, whether we welcome it or dread it, is disruptive.  Since change is often fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty, our routines may no longer serve us well.  As a result, we may begin to lose our sense of equilibrium.  When we feel off-balance, we are likely to experience anxiety – some of us more than others.  While anxiety is truly part of life, left unattended, anxiety can threaten our functionality and our sense of well-being.   While we may not be able to eliminate it completely, we can learn to manage it.  As we develop greater tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity, we are less likely to experience high levels of stress.  And when we do, we are more likely to handle the tension more positively.

Tolerance for Ambiguity:  The Key to Handling Change

While actions such as exercising, meditating and deep breathing are effective antidotes for the symptoms of stress and anxiety, developing a higher tolerance for ambiguity gets to the root cause of these tensions.  Research studies show that people with high tolerance for ambiguity tend to experience less stress, think more clearly, and have a greater sense of well-being than those who are less tolerant.

Characteristics of Those with High Tolerance for Ambiguity

People who have a high tolerance for ambiguity accept the premise that life is often uncertain.  They acknowledge that change is complicated and unsettling. They reject the notion that it is either negative or positive.  Rather, they tend to believe that every change incorporates some of both.  To the best of their ability, they view change as more challenging than threatening.

In addition to using a different frame for viewing change, those with high tolerance for ambiguity are also more likely to possess the following characteristics:

• They focus on the more probable impacts and outcomes of the change rather than on any and all possibilities.
• They don’t dwell on “worst case” scenarios and possible catastrophic outcomes that are highly unlikely.
• They differentiate what they can control from what they cannot.
• They base their actions on the controllable factors and avoid worrying about the others.
• They are willing to take reasonable actions with incomplete information. Therefore, they rarely feel paralyzed in the face of change.

By acting on what they can control, they raise their sense of personal power over their fates.  This feeling tends to lead to a higher level of well-being.  In truth, these characteristics are more natural to some than to others.  Nevertheless, all of us can develop them to some degree.  When we do learn to tolerate ambiguity better, we are more likely to handle change well and are less likely to experience constant anxiety and stress.

Summary and Conclusions

Change is upsetting because it disrupts our sense of stability.  Unfortunately, many of us still experience change as threatening.  We can, however, reframe our thoughts to view change as challenging rather than something to fear.  By reframing our views of change, hopefully we can also decrease our negative emotional reactions to it.

When we feel threatened we may resist changing, dig in and hold onto the familiar.  Often such reactions only increase the dysfunction and anxiety.  However, if we accept ambiguity as a fact of life and consciously raise our threshold for it, we are less likely to be anxious and more likely to make thoughtful decisions.  While none of us controls our fate completely, by taking action on those things that we can control we develop a greater sense of self-efficacy which, in turn leads to a greater sense of well-being.

Author: Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins 

Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins is a social psychologist and is the CEO and owner of Miller Consultants , a firm specializing in organizational development, executive coaching and change management. Her work involves helping companies create and sustain organizational cultures that are conducive to executing sustainable strategies. She has worked with companies such as Toyota, IBM, Kindred Health, Brown-Forman, Lexmark, Anthem, Ashland Chemical, the U.S. Military and BC Hydro.

Note: this article is part of The Transatlantic Debate Blog series, which forms a conversation between Dr. Katrin Muff and Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins on business sustainability.

Organizations have always been complex.   And in today’s world the enormity of our challenges calls for rethinking how our establishments operate.   In her March blog, Katrin discussed how structure and culture can equip an organization to address current and future challenges.   She argued that many may need an overhaul.  Her primary focus was on changing how the organizations function internally.   I propose that we should also consider how we relate to other organizations outside of our traditional boundaries.  I believe that collaboration across boundaries gives us the best chance of coming up with innovative solutions to at least some of our multifaceted conundrums.

Of course, organizations have varied perspectives with regard to most of our most pressing societal issues.  However, within the right conditions, those differences can enhance rather than detract from problem-solving.   When distinct groups band together to confront common problems, one-plus-one can equal more than two!

Recently I moderated a panel of corporate sustainability professionals as part of Virginia Tech’s Center for Leadership in Global Sustainability graduate program.  The panelists all agreed that companies must take a leadership role in addressing sustainability challenges.  However, they also emphasized the need for cooperation and collaboration among a variety of players including universities, government and NGOs, to name a few.  Mark Weick, Director of Sustainability and Enterprise Risk Management at the Dow Chemical Company, stated that it is time for organizations to engage in “courageous collaboration” built on mutual trust.

Elements of Courageous Collaboration

The term “courageous collaboration” was first used by the national nonprofit, Center for Ethical Leadership.   They outlined the qualities foster courageous collaborations such as establishing trusting relationships, taking risks that matter, and being open to collective creativity.  Our corporate panelists would surely agree with these qualities. In our discussion they spoke to what they believe really makes a positive difference in their own alliances.

1. Reframe our views of “the other” as the enemy.

To build trust and work collaboratively, organizations must give up the all too prevalent tendencies to view “other” groups as the enemy.  For example, our panel discussed the long-held view that governments and corporations are adversaries.  A frequent assumption is that governments set regulations, corporations seek to work around them, and NGOs attempt to expose them.   The degree of accuracy in this assumption is unknown.  However what we do know is that in order to collaborate, many types of organizations must cooperate.   The recent Paris Climate Conference marked the first official recognition that the government cannot solve sustainability-related challenges alone. To succeed in establishing boundary-crossing collectives, organizations must view the others as trusted colleagues and acknowledge that all have a valuable role to play. Only within a trusting environment can collaborative groups achieve what cannot be accomplished alone.

2. Avoid acting solely in self-interest.

If we enter into a collaborative partnership in order to assure that our self-interests are achieved, we are violating the most important quality of courageous collaborations: trust.  For example, many times competitors within the same industry come together to address issues that could affect all.   When the members approach these collectives as a way to safeguard their own interests, or to ensure that they prevail over their competitors, creative approaches to shared concerns are unlikely to emerge.

3. Establish the rules of engagement

All organizations need some certainty in order to move forward smartly, according to Elizabeth Heider, Chief Sustainability Officer of Skanska USA.  She suggested that the varying partners in a collective are likely to have their own disparate rules.  Therefore, the members of the groups, whether representing corporations, government, NGOs, universities or any other organizational type, should establish a common rulebook and sincerely commit to it.

4. Develop a common language.

When the members of a collaborative group come together from dissimilar organizations representing different sectors, industries and countries, misunderstandings are likely.  Only when members work to understand the perspectives of the others and develop a common language can these confusions be avoided.  Heider said that when groups are talking about sustainability-related issues, shared metrics can enable clearer communications.  Courageous collaborators can avoid often dooming misunderstandings by taking the time to develop a common language.

Organizational boundaries aren’t what they once were.  To solve our many difficult challenges, we must all be willing to join with others with perspectives and knowledge different from our own.  However, the mere existence of a group committed to working together on common challenges isn’t enough to guarantee creative solutions.  If we truly want to achieve successes that exemplify how one plus one can be greater than two, we will need to rethink some of the assumptions that enable our comfort.  Instead we need to embrace the qualities that enable  courageous collaboration.

Author: Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins 

Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins is a social psychologist and is the CEO and owner of Miller Consultants , a firm specializing in organizational development, executive coaching and change management. Her work involves helping companies create and sustain organizational cultures that are conducive to executing sustainable strategies. She has worked with companies such as Toyota, IBM, Kindred Health, Brown-Forman, Lexmark, Anthem, Ashland Chemical, the U.S. Military and BC Hydro.

Note: this article is part of The Transatlantic Debate Blog series, which forms a conversation between Dr. Katrin Muff and Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins on business sustainability.

Have you ever thought about how many formerly great companies are no longer around? For example, whatever happened to previously iconic companies like Compaq, Standard Oil, and Polaroid? And who can overlook the gradual demise of Blackberry?  Of course it is difficult to say whether these failures could have been predicted much less prevented.

Yet as we look ahead at the demands and threats that signal our corporate futures, several obvious needs will include:

• the need for proficiency in innovation,
• the ability to attract and retain talent in a tight and changing labour pool and;
• the capability to identify and mitigate risks such as those arising from climate change.

The full list is much longer, however I would suggest that it is most critical to explore two related foundational issues that I believe will determine how we handle all of the many other challenges.  These are: (1) defining our assumptions about company purpose, and (2) broadening our view of who counts.

1. Our assumptions about the company’s purpose and role in the world.

An assumption is something that we accept as true without question or proof.  Although often implicit, assumptions underlie much of how we function both individually and collectively within our companies. These assumptions inform our company identity.  They determine the lens that we use when we make decisions. And assumptions, while sometimes hidden, impact how others view us, including our employees, our customers and society at large.

The most critical assumption upon which all others rest is why we are in business in the first place.  My argument is that companies who assume a responsibility and purpose beyond merely making a profit are more likely to succeed in the future than their counterparts. Our increasingly transparent and activist world leads to higher expectations concerning our companies’ ethics and in how we serve the world.

In their recent article The End of the Beginning, Harvard Business School faculty Bob Eccles and Georg Kell state “in an interdependent world, long-term financial success goes hand-in-hand with social responsibility, environmental stewardship, and sound ethics.” [i]

1. Our view of who counts: Stakeholders

Those groups that hold expectations for our companies and that can affect and be affected by us are often referred to as stakeholders. Over the past few decades, companies have limited their acknowledgement of stakeholders to a relatively small number, often including employees, customers and stockholders.  However over the past few years, our awareness of the numbers of stakeholders who impact our outcomes has increased dramatically.  Some argue that most companies have at least 20 impactful stakeholder groups, whether they know it or not.

Nowadays information about our company can be accessed by anyone interested in it. This easily accessible information provides stakeholders with the tools to exert pressure on our companies if they choose to use them. And greater numbers of stakeholders are electing to do so.

Here are three of the many groups of likely company stakeholders to illustrate how their expectations have increased:

• Activists. These groups, sometimes referred to as NGOs, are increasingly significant stakeholders. Many of them monitor the impact of business activities and legislation. Moreover, they work to increase awareness in the population at large of issues that could affect consumers and communities.  Social change is often the outcome. Nike revamped its labour practices in the ‘90s largely due to a boycott campaign. Likewise, Walmart raised its base pay for employees at least partially as a result of information that activists provided to the public about employees relying on government assistance.

• Customers. In a similar vein, customer activism is also on the uptick. They are increasingly concerned about what goes into the products that they purchase. For example, consumers are looking more closely at the ingredients that go into foods and beverages. A study conducted in 2015 showed that 75% of global consumers believe that non-GMO foods are somewhat or a lot healthier.[ii] Likewise, consumers are beginning to show concern about the chemicals that go into cosmetics as well as household and personal care items. These issues do influence their buying choices.

• Investors. These stakeholders have always been influential in our publicly traded companies. Now many are asking for more information about the risk of climate change to the companies in their portfolios. A 2015 study by Mercer showed that the majority of asset managers now take climate change predictions and models into consideration in their risk assessments.[iii]

To summarize, our companies’ futures are likely to be affected by trends that we can already attend to if we choose.  While many future challenges are predictable, how our companies choose to address them may boil down to two basic assumptions:  Defining what our role and purpose in the world is and who counts.  Companies must carefully examine their own assumptions related to these two issues in light of the many large global trends that will impact us all.

[i] http://insights.ethisphere.com/opinion-the-end-of-the-beginning-for-esg-issues/

[ii] http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Manufacturers/87-of-consumers-globally-think-non-GMO-is-healthier

[iii] http://www.theactuary.com/archive/old-articles/part-2/climate-change-looms-large-on-investment-risk-radar/

Author: Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins 

Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins is a social psychologist and is the CEO and owner of Miller Consultants , a firm specializing in organizational development, executive coaching and change management. Her work involves helping companies create and sustain organizational cultures that are conducive to executing sustainable strategies. She has worked with companies such as Toyota, IBM, Kindred Health, Brown-Forman, Lexmark, Anthem, Ashland Chemical, the U.S. Military and BC Hydro.

Note: this article is part of The Transatlantic Debate Blog series, which forms a conversation between Dr. Katrin Muff and Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins on business sustainability.

Last month, in anticipation of the COP21 meetings, my blogging partner, Katrin Muff, wrote about hope for a miracle in Paris. Her desire was for global leaders to come together to create a positive force in the world to address climate change. Now that the meetings have concluded, I believe most of us would agree that her hope was realized.  The outcome of the COP21 was an ambitious multi-country agreement that moves us forward in addressing the urgent issue of climate change.  However, as Jeff Nye states in the title of his recent SustainAbility blog,  We’ve come a Long Way from Rio but the Real Journey Starts Now.  He argues that this treaty merely “fires the starting gun on a quest to deliver a carbon neutral economy within the lifetimes of our grandchildren.”

While each of us owns responsibility for the achievement of this bold goal, individuals can only go so far in addressing the problems. For example, business enterprises contribute a large percentage of GHG emissions, through energy use, production processes, and greenhouse gases in products.   Thus corporations have an especially critical role to play if we are to achieve the treaty’s targets.

While some economic sectors are likely to be impacted by the agreement more than others, (see the EPA’s report on The Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2013) all companies can anticipate encountering the need for change.  In his discussions at COP21, Paul Polman, the CEO of Unilever, advocated abandoning business as usual.  And there are lots of signs that companies agreed to do just that.  For example, 114 companies signed onto the science-based climate goals in partnership with CDP, the World Wildlife Fund and the U.N. Global Compact.  The purpose of these collaborations is to assist companies in building low-carbon, better businesses.  These partnerships represent only one of several business alliances that have come together to tackle the climate change goals laid out in the treaty.   See A Cheat Sheet to COP21 Pledges.

While I am encouraged by these activities, I nevertheless wonder if corporations are really up to the task.  The questions that linger in my mind include the following:

• Will companies change their company identities, communicate a new vision, revise business plans, and promote an organizational culture that can enable all of the above?
• Will they embed sustainability considerations into their core business?
• Or will they merely try to hammer their new commitments into their current business models and cultures, and relegate sustainability to projects that are peripheral to their core?

Through my consulting practice, I, along with my team, work with large global companies.   Most of the top-level executives state that a commitment to sustainability is important to their long-term success.  Yet many if not most times we find that their employees lack awareness of their leaders’ commitments and actions regarding sustainability.  Likewise, a very large percentage of employees fail to grasp how sustainability relates to their own jobs. Interestingly, most of the leaders with whom we work have been caught by surprise by their employees’ lack of awareness and understanding of the companies’ goals and actions regarding sustainability.  They seem to be less alarmed that their employees don’t connect with sustainability within their own contexts.

In general, we have reached the conclusion that either the leaders have not communicated nor demonstrated their commitments clearly, or their companies have not actually incorporated sustainability into the core business.  They most certainly have not embedded sustainability into all of their underlying processes or their employees would be more aware of how sustainability relates to their jobs. Yet all of these conditions are necessary if the leaders want to have a truly significant impact. Moreover, if the leaders wish to pursue the opportunities that the Paris treaty offers, they must enable an organizational culture that can support their endeavours.

Indeed, as Katrin stressed in her November blog, we are all in this together.  In the long-run our world has much to lose if we do not meet the goals established in Paris.  Businesses play a vital role in our actually reaching them.  Some companies will experience threats in the short-term due to business models that may not be in sync with the agreements.  On the other hand, the treaty also offers companies many opportunities. Those companies with leaders who can see the potential, act on the possibilities and truly enable a culture that can support the efforts will come out ahead of those who fail to do so.  My New Year’s wish is that corporate leaders will take a hard look at their business models and their organizational cultures and will ensure that both are congruent with the challenges ahead.

Author: Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins 

Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins is a social psychologist and is the CEO and owner of Miller Consultants , a firm specializing in organizational development, executive coaching and change management. Her work involves helping companies create and sustain organizational cultures that are conducive to executing sustainable strategies. She has worked with companies such as Toyota, IBM, Kindred Health, Brown-Forman, Lexmark, Anthem, Ashland Chemical, the U.S. Military and BC Hydro.

by Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins

Note: this article is part of The Transatlantic Debate Blog series, which forms a conversation between Dr. Katrin Muff and Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins on business sustainability. Read the previous post here.

On September 18, 2015 the Volkswagen Group received a notice of violation from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the United States for intentionally programming their diesel engines to activate emissions controls only during laboratory testing.  According to the New York Times, this “diesel deception” could cause hundreds of deaths in the USA alone, due to the tons of pollutants released into the atmosphere.  And an October 28th headline in  the  New York Times proclaimed that “Volkswagen, hit by Emissions Scandal, Posts its First Loss in Years.”

Shortly after the scandal broke, CEO Martin Winterkorn resigned amid claims that his management style and the company’s “relentless drive for growth” contributed to the deceit.   Critics argued that VW’s corporate culture of arrogance, fear and blind obedience impeded communications and prevented employees from questioning orders.

Culture Counts!

The culture of an organization has a profound impact on company accomplishments in the long-term.   And the corporate culture also contributes to the impact that the organization has on all of us.  We are corporate stakeholders in our interconnected world.   The actions of our corporations can and often do have a profound impact on each of us as we are employees, customers, and citizens.  We share a common and increasingly endangered planet and how corporations treat it affects all of us.

What is Organizational Culture?

About now you might be asking yourself, “What is organizational culture anyway?”  First, there are several disparate views on how to define it.  My definition is simple. l believe organizational/corporate culture is shared attitudes, beliefs and values that hold a company or any other defined group together.  In more complex terms, organizational culture is composed of the collective viewpoints of group members about what actions are appropriate and, in fact, rewarded or punished. Culture is dynamic.  The collective shared assumptions that comprise it underlie behaviour.  It influences the choices that people make virtually every day.

Why Should We Care About Culture?

So why should we care about culture?  Company leaders should care because culture can affect an organization’s bottom line and impact its future. Just ask Volkswagen’s Board of Directors and stockholders! But even more important, all of us should care because these companies have an impact on our lives.

Here are three good reasons why you should care about corporate culture:

1. Corporate culture impacts the engagement and wellbeing of all of us who are employees.  Overwhelming evidence indicates that employees want work to be meaningful. Our own individual wellbeing connects with our feeling that our efforts somehow make the world a better place.   We want to work for companies that are ethical and trustworthy.  I can’t help but wonder how the Volkswagen scandal is impacting the sense of wellbeing of its 600,000+ global employees.
2. Corporate culture contributes to how we are treated as customers.  Fortune Magazine estimates that the VW scandal could cost each owner $5,000. And that isn’t the worst of it.  Owners of the VW Diesels that have been vomiting pollutants into our communities have to live with the fact that they unwittingly contributed to our planet’s degradation.
3. Corporate culture has an impact on the wellbeing of our world.  Increasingly our companies function within a very broad global environment where many and varied stakeholder groups share a collective fate.  We are all stakeholders in relation to these companies.  Because we share the same planet, we share a common fate.

So what can we do to ensure that corporate cultures support healthy and ethical behaviours?  Most of us are consumers and many of us are employees.  All of us are global citizens.  In these roles we can press companies relentlessly to create cultures of transparency where every employee can speak up, customers are treated with respect, and ethics trump profits every time.

Author: Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins 

Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins is a social psychologist and is the CEO and owner of Miller Consultants , a firm specializing in organizational development, executive coaching and change management. Her work involves helping companies create and sustain organizational cultures that are conducive to executing sustainable strategies. She has worked with companies such as Toyota, IBM, Kindred Health, Brown-Forman, Lexmark, Anthem, Ashland Chemical, the U.S. Military and BC Hydro.

Note: this article is part of The Transatlantic Debate Blog series, which forms a conversation between Dr. Katrin Muff and Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins on business sustainability. 

We live in a world of boundaries – a term that can be defined in many ways:

A dividing line.

A point or limit that indicates where two things become different.

Frontiers inviting exploration and development.

Some boundaries appear on maps as divisions between countries.   Others are physical, such as fences or walls.  In recent years technology has removed many of the boundaries that separated us in the past.  However, internal or psychological boundaries seem to have become more entrenched now than ever before.  And since boundaries of any type can enrich or imprison us, the question I am exploring this month is this:  How can we ensure that the boundaries which frame us are generative rather than limiting?

Personal and Social Boundaries

All of us have our own values and beliefs that serve as personal boundaries, distinguishing us from others. [1] In addition, most of us have social boundaries consisting of common rules which we believe to be typical of the groups with whom we identify. [2]  While our personal and social boundaries serve a number of purposes, some of the most critical purposes for boundaries are the following:

Boundaries allow us to develop our own identity – what is uniquely me as distinguished from others.

Boundaries differentiate “us” from “them” and thus provide us with a sense of belonging.

Boundaries can enable us to feel safe and secure.

At first glance, these functions appear to be beneficial.  Yet when we take a closer look at how people perceive and act on their own personal and social boundaries, we often realize they can also hold us in place and prevent us from making positive changes.  Rigid psychological boundaries that confine us to a narrow worldview can:

Alienate us from potentially enriching relationships.

Keep us from growing in ways that could significantly improve our lives.

Block our ability to achieve aspirational goals.

Inhibit productive collective conversations.

Guarantee our vulnerability rather than our safety.

Prevent us from joining with others to create workable solutions to what may seem to be intractable challenges.

As Katrin pointed out in the July blog, we have been arguing for “the need for a common space where burning societal issues can be resolved among concerned stakeholders.”  She used the showdown between Greece and the other members of the EU as an example, arguing that in the end, the conflict  was  resolved with the “lowest possible outcome.”

Katrin maintained that this could have been avoided if the players had established a common vision and followed a sound, facilitated process.  I accept her line of reasoning and add to it the notion that the poor outcomes also resulted national boundaries so rigid as to prevent  solutions in the best interest of all the stakeholders.

While I am not informed enough to jump into the fray involving Greece and the EU, I can comment that some of those same dynamics seem to be shaping up here in the USA.

Boundaries on display in the USA:  Enriching or Imprisoning?

This has been the summer in which political boundaries within the USA have been on embarrassingly rich display.  The popularity of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign appears to be based on several boundary-related issues:

His commitment to build a physical boundary – a wall — to protect the USA from illegal immigrants.

His affirmation of American Exceptionalism that reaches beyond national pride and crosses into blatant disrespect for anyone who is not a white, Anglo Saxon male who values wealth and fame above all else.

His contempt for those who do not share his specific values and beliefs. His favorite descriptions of those who differ from his point of view appear to be “stupid and losers.”

Don’t get me wrong, I too feel national pride in our country.  I believe that the American Exceptionalism boundary can be used for the common good when it enables us to bring our best to the global collective, while at the same time appreciating the assets and contributions of others.   In contrast, Trump uses American Exceptionalism as a line in the sand that not only divides and alienates us from other nations but also creates problematic rifts among our own populace.

And yet an article in USA Today this week pointed out that “Regardless of their feelings toward him, Americans seem to enjoy watching Trump.”  The primary debate in Cleveland drew the largest audience ever for such an event.

Undoubtedly a part of Trump’s appeal is his fame.  This week the Washington Post reported on comments made by criminal justice professor Adam Lankford about Americans’ fascination with fame.  “The priority of fame is more common and stronger in the U.S. than perhaps in any other culture in the world,” Lankford said. And at the same time, “The distinction between fame and infamy seems to be disappearing.”  Is this part of our American Exceptionalism boundary?  And if so, does it enrich our lives or imprison us?  Does it make us safer or more vulnerable?

In the same Washington Post article, Lankford commented on the relationship of our captivation with fame and the very public shootings that have taken place recently.  He argued that in a country where all publicity is good publicity, a small percentage of people will guarantee their own fame by killing and by mass shootings.  A heartbreaking example was in front of the world this week as a disturbed former newscaster in Virginia shot and killed two of his colleagues during a live newscast in order to ensure that the act made it on TV.  The article poses the question of whether some aspects of our American Exceptionalism may be posing an exceptional American problem!

Boundaries that Bring Out Our Best

And now I return to my original question: How can we approach boundaries in ways that will enrich our lives and strengthen our bonds with others rather than imprison us and leave us ever more isolated and vulnerable?

I draw some suggestions from what we know about boundary-spanning leadership.  This is a concept developed through a decade of research conducted by the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL). They define boundary-spanning leadership as “the capability to create direction, alignment, and commitment across group boundaries in service of a higher vision or goal.” [3] The researchers and authors listened to world leaders representing a wide variety of interests to identify signposts to a new type of leadership.  I loosely adapted the following suggestions from their many rich conclusions:

We have to acknowledge the role that boundaries play in our identities as well as those of other groups. In a recent article in Environmental Leader, Gary Lawrence, Chief Sustainability Officer of AECOM Technology, argued for the importance of recognizing that history and identity are key components in all social structures.  “The important issue here is to achieve clarity on which aspects of identity matter most and to ensure that they are carried forward into the future.”

We must not vilify those in other groups as a way of building a false sense of security within our own group.  For example, does our disrespect and actual hatred for those with different religions and ethnic backgrounds really make us safer? New York Time Op Ed Columnist, Charles M. Blow wrote an article this week entitled “Enough is Enough.”  He suggested that we quit giving Donald Trump the attention that he craves for his outrageous assertions and behaviors.    Where is that boundary between fame and infamy? Can we see it clearly?

We can “reflect” to foster respect.  The CCL authors describe the practice of “reflecting” which involves groups exchanging images of their own values, needs, hopes, fears and priorities with one another.  Through this process, boundaries are clarified.  As differences are acknowledged, each group gains a sense of safety and security.  At the same time similarities are uncovered which can become common ground.

We can work on reframing boundaries such that we can form a broader community.  The CCL authors maintain that in a multi-stakeholder or boundary-spanning environment, as each group becomes secure in its own identity and learns to trust and respect the other group identities, a common intergroup identity can be forged.  The boundaries can expand and become inclusive so that each group can contribute to the achievement of the common goals.

Boundaries and borders:  We can’t exist without them because they frame our identities. But we can work to ensure that we bring the best of our own identity to the collective spaces where innovation occurs.  This is our best chance at resolving community problems.  And, in time, it’s just possible a few world problems might get solved as well.

References

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setting_boundaries

[2] http://study.com/academy/lesson/social-boundaries-definition-and-examples.html

[3] Chris Ernst and Donna Chrobot-Mason. Boundary Spanning Leadership: Six Practices for Solving Problems, Driving Innovation, and Transforming Organizations. McGraw Hill, 2011

Author: Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins 

Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins is a social psychologist and is the CEO and owner of Miller Consultants , a firm specializing in organizational development, executive coaching and change management. Her work involves helping companies create and sustain organizational cultures that are conducive to executing sustainable strategies. She has worked with companies such as Toyota, IBM, Kindred Health, Brown-Forman, Lexmark, Anthem, Ashland Chemical, the U.S. Military and BC Hydro.

“Something is happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear ”
Lyrics from For What It’s Worth-Buffalo Springfield, 1966

HEADLINES

 “Six Officers Charged in Freddie Gray Death” [1]

 “Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political identities” [2]

As I was writing the blog this month, I found myself distracted by news headlines that seemed to beg for my attention.  I read the stories of riots in Baltimore over the death while in police custody of, a young black man, Freddie Gray.  Eyewitness accounts differed dramatically on the “facts” of what transpired.  And each witness seemed to have great confidence in the details as he or she described them.

Moreover, I ran across an article on climate change that stated, “U.S. believers and skeptics have distinct social identities, beliefs and emotional reactions that systematically predict their support for action to advance their respective positions.”[3]  The authors argued that communication and education are unlikely to resolve the divide since the opinions are rooted in emotion. They stated, “Interventions that increase angry opposition to action on climate change are especially problematic.”

I could have chosen any of dozens of headlines that  demonstrate that we are not good at joining together in our collective space to productively address societal challenges. Yet isn’t it obvious that for the good of us all, we must find a way to do so?

Last month Katrin Muff, in her blog, Occupying the Collective Space, described how a variety of people and groups choose to occupy the “we” space. She was referring to that ground between the personal spaces each of us feels responsible for, and societal best interests. She challenged us to figure out how we can better occupy these spaces for the common good.   In this blog, I would like to respond to this challenge by looking at a couple of steps we might each take to improve how we function in those  “we” spaces when and where emotions are running high and polarization is likely.

Step 1:  Acknowledge Our Own Individual Limitations

How is it that the eyewitnesses in the Freddie Gray case see and remember things so differently? All of us who have read about the tragedy agree that the situation was horrendous.  Yet not only do eyewitness accounts vary, so do the interpretations of the mobile-device-produced video of the incidents. In this, as in most situations, we may find it difficult to admit to ourselves that though we viewed the video, we don’t have access to “the truth” about what occurred.  Social science research provides us with plenty of evidence that our perceptions are subject to many biases.[4]  For example, we tend to attribute our own problematic behaviours to circumstances while we blame others’ for their character flaws. We tend to observe what we expect to see and overlook deviations from our expectations. We tend to interpret what we observe within the context of our own theories about reality. Thus what we notice, remember and understand is always incomplete at best, and flawed at worst. Nevertheless, we continue to draw conclusions with great confidence based on our imperfect observations.

The use of automatic mental shortcuts are merely part of the human condition and don’t imply any moral shortcomings.  So why is it so hard for us to admit that we don’t always have all of the facts, let alone all of the answers?

Again from Buffalo Springfield’s For What It’s Worth, “What a field day for the heat.  A thousand people in the street singing songs and carrying signs mostly say, hurray for our side.”

Step 2:  Recognize Our Frameworks  

In the case of the climate change debate, how is it that the two sides come to such radically differing conclusions even though they have access to the same information?  Perhaps different forces and circumstances have shaped their social identities.

Each of us views the world from our own particular contexts. These frames of reference can come from our personal histories as well as from the social institutions within which we interact.  Social institutions, as defined by sociologists, are complex social forms such as governments, the family, human languages, universities, hospitals, business corporations, and legal systems. [5] They rise above our individual behaviour.  Instead, they are mechanisms for collective orderliness in society.  They tend to be relatively enduring.  And they can serve us well on the one hand, as they provide social meaning and social stability.   On the other hand, they can deter useful critical thinking.  They can support automatic judgments and irrational decisions based on taken-for-granted assumptions of which we aren’t even aware.

Step 3:  Realize that Emotion Inhibits Critical Thinking

High levels of emotion surround the issues and opinions that are tucked under both of the headlines I have chosen to highlight.  And emotionality is often a cue for self-perceived accuracy, according to social science research. [6]  Thus we have a tendency to be overly confident in the correctness of our own theories when passions run high.  Yet much evidence points out that we are more, not less, likely to distort what we see and how we remember when we are emotional.

SUMMARY

While all of us unconsciously employ mental shortcuts we can reduce their impact on our critical thinking.  We do have the capability to become more intentional in how we function in those collective spaces where emotions run high and controversy is likely.  I believe that we can become more productive role models in our own “we spaces” by doing the following:

1. We must acknowledge that our perspectives are subjective and are solidified relative to our level of emotion. They are shaped by our histories and contexts.
2. We must accept that garnering the wisdom to solve our collective problems resides in gathering and integrating perspectives coming from both within and beyond our comfort zones.

“There’s battle lines being drawn.  Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.”
Lyrics from For What It’s Worth – Buffalo Springfield, 1966

PHOTO CREDIT: Maryland National Guard, used under Creative Commons License CC BY 2.0

Photo caption: The Maryland National Guard patrols the streets of Baltimore following the riots sparked by the killing of Freddie Gray, 28 April 2015.

References

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/us/freddie-gray-autopsy-report-given-to-baltimore-

[2] http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n3/full/nclimate2507.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201503

[3] http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n3/full/nclimate2507.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201503

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

[5] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-institutions/

[6] http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/ 

Author: Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins 

Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins is a social psychologist and is the CEO and owner of Miller Consultants , a firm specializing in organizational development, executive coaching and change management. Her work involves helping companies create and sustain organizational cultures that are conducive to executing sustainable strategies. She has worked with companies such as Toyota, IBM, Kindred Health, Brown-Forman, Lexmark, Anthem, Ashland Chemical, the U.S. Military and BC Hydro.

For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s futures. And we are all mortal.

John F. Kennedy 

Recap – January Blog

Last month Katrin discussed the “zero decade” – a term used by Naomi Klein to describe our dwindling opportunity to take action to keep human-created climate change in check.  Katrin conveyed how we might avoid an unmitigated global disaster.  She outlined three levels of global responsibility including the individual (I), the collective (we) and the societal (us).  She suggested focusing on how we might effectively occupy that middle space– the “we”.

Transatlantic Questions

When Katrin and I began this debate a year ago, we agreed to discuss the issues from our own differing cultural perspectives. Most of the time Katrin lives and works in Europe (primarily Switzerland) and I in the USA.  Our differing cultures have never failed to provide us with fodder for discussion! This month is different.  Last week I had the privilege of working side-by-side with Katrin at the Business School of Lausanne where we convened our DBA Academy. Our multi-national and multi-cultural doctoral students are all involved in research on some aspect of corporate sustainability within their own countries and industries.   My interactions with the group inspired my further pondering on what change from “I” to “we” might look like within and across our cultures. So let’s take another look at some urgent transatlantic issues!

Culture and Climate Change

As I reflected on my own cultural heritage, I recognized the importance of moving from my own rugged individualist and nationalist frame of references to one with a more inclusive commitment to the collective global “we”. To adequately (or even marginally) address climate change, each of us has to consider sacrificing our own short-term, narrow self-interest for the broad collective long-term good.  And since I come from an individualist rather than a collectivist culture, I do not underestimate the magnitude of the challenge.

Small Town America and the Cowboy

I grew up in a small town in the middle of America – sometimes referred to as the Bible Belt.  We valued the individual “hero”.   For example, one of our most enduring cultural icons is the American cowboy, like the ones I grew up watching in our beloved TV “Westerns”.  They demonstrated a clear moral code for determining right from wrong.  While they were willing to put their lives on the line to rid a community of outlaws, they tended to ride off into the sunset alone upon doing so. They were celebrated for their strong independence.  Compromise and consensus – let alone a focus on the long-term common good needed for a sustainable community – were not the foreground of the “horse opera” genre. The takeaway lessons they provided for our generation implied that real heroes are self-reliant with a steady focus on “I”. The rugged individualist could and should make unilateral decisions for the good of all.

Who is Included in the “We”?

Even though I loved my Saturday morning cowboy TV shows, I also felt a commitment to our small community.  This responsibility to neighbors and kin was a given within my cultural heritage.  However, at this point in my life, my definition of community was quite narrow.  After all, I am from a very small town in Indiana where all of the kids went to the same high school and everyone belonged to one of the two (both Protestant) churches. While I might have balanced my own self-interest with the needs of my neighbors, my concept of “we” did not extend much beyond the town limits.

From Rugged Individualist to Commitment to the Collective

My sense of “we” expanded when I became a foreign exchange student during high school.  I lived with a family in Thailand and experienced a more collectivist culture. I was uprooted from the cultural “givens” that I had never questioned heretofore.  For a short period of time, I became part of a family that did not share my religion, my language or any other part of my heritage. Yet I loved this family and they loved me.  When my exchange experience was over, I returned to the USA with an expanded sense of who and what “we” might include.  Additionally, I had a sense of what this expanded “we” might accomplish together.  That experience still nurtures my desire to continue broadening my sense of “we”.

Cultural Conversations Move us to “We”

In our world today the opportunities abound for exposure to other cultures with differing frames for viewing the world.  With widespread access to the Internet and to other technologies that enable cross-cultural communications, all persons in the USA can expand to a global level experience of who “we” are and what we owe each other.  My personal commitment is to take every opportunity to build personal global connections as a core strategy in our co-creating a “we” that means thinking and acting with a global ethic.

After all, we all breathe the same air.

Summary 

• Global problems aren’t solved with a rugged individualist mind-set.

• Commitment to community is at the heart of the American culture.

• To address our global realities, our definition of community must expand.

• Cross-cultural conversations can lead to a broader sense of “we”.

Author: Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins 

Dr. Kathy Miller Perkins is a social psychologist and is the CEO and owner of Miller Consultants , a firm specializing in organizational development, executive coaching and change management. Her work involves helping companies create and sustain organizational cultures that are conducive to executing sustainable strategies. She has worked with companies such as Toyota, IBM, Kindred Health, Brown-Forman, Lexmark, Anthem, Ashland Chemical, the U.S. Military and BC Hydro.