The problem with being human
Most of our days are filled with moments of trying to understand, predict, or influence other people’s behaviour. Despite millions of years of evolution, these things are still notoriously difficult to do.
It’s the nature of being human that even with our best intentions, what we say, what we do, and what we think we do, can all end up being entirely different; making us unpredictable and confusing. In the same way as we often lack insight into why others do what they do, it’s equally hard to see our own actions objectively and fully understand all the factors that are influencing us.
Over-thinking this in your day-to-day life might lead you down a philosophical rabbit hole (if you’re familiar with Chidi Anagonye’s character in the TV show ‘The Good Place’, you’ll know what I mean!). (1) However, for those of us trying to understand other people’s behaviour and motivations at work to solve problems and get things done, where does that leave us?
As Business Psychologists and Organisation Consultants, OE Cam specialises in unravelling the complexities of human behaviour. Often, the focus isn’t just on the individual level (‘Why would that person think / say / do that?’), but at the collective level of organisational behaviour (‘Why won’t people just communicate / take responsibility / get on board with this?’). The recent Post Office inquiry got us thinking about how leaders can really understand human behaviour in their organisation and the alarming consequences of getting it wrong.
Behaviour as the building block of culture
Let’s start with a simplified definition of organisational culture. In our experience, we believe that in its fundamental form, workplace culture can be boiled down to one thing: Collective behaviour. That is, all that organisational culture is made up of can be defined as the behaviours that are observed, encouraged, expected, valued and rewarded (directly or indirectly; intentionally or not) – or the ones that aren’t.
We typically put the drivers of this behaviour into one of two categories; the ‘hard’, i.e. the formal systems, processes, policies and structures that make up an organisation; and the ‘soft’, such as leadership styles, communication styles, organisational narratives and values.
It’s looking at the two together – the behaviour in context – that enables us to piece together the ‘why’ of people’s behaviour, and of the organisation’s culture as a whole.
…even with our best intentions, what we say, what we do, and what we think we do, can all end up being entirely different; making us unpredictable and confusing.
Looking at culture through a new lens
Our experience of leading change initiatives has led to a growing respect for, and use of, the field of anthropology in really seeking to understand the factors driving collective behaviour. If your view of the anthropological approach still conjures up images of studying remote tribes for months on end, then you are not alone, and you may wish to read ‘Anthro-Vision’, a book by Anthropologist turned FT journalist Gillian Tett (2) who makes the case for introducing an Anthropological lens to business.
Briefly, Anthropology can be defined as the study of what makes us human. Where Psychology generally relies on experiments to understand how individuals think, feel and behave in different contexts, Anthropology looks more broadly at cultures and societies, and relies on fully immersing oneself in a community to generate a deeper understanding of the shared behaviours, norms, rituals, values and ways of life specific to that group of people.
It’s this immersive observation that Tett argues is fundamental to understanding what actually drives people’s behaviour. The core message of the book is that social and cultural context is everything – but we tend to be guilty of forgetting this, falling into the ‘tunnel vision’ trap and failing to see the insights that could help us make better decisions. In the work we do, we see this crop up in the form of what we call ‘the habituation problem’ – being so used to the environment you’re embedded in that you stop seeing the real factors influencing behaviour (read more on this from my colleague Mike Thackray here)(3).
This insight from Tett feels particularly poignant in the context of the recent Post Office inquiry, explored by my colleague Mark Goodridge here. Just how different could things have been if the powerful environmental influences on behaviour had been fully understood, acknowledged and responded to?
The traditional methods used to understand behaviour and culture – such as surveys, focus groups, and talking to Executives about what they’re seeing and hearing – absolutely have their place. Used in isolation however, they often fail to get to the heart of what’s really going on.
Anthropology looks more broadly at cultures and societies, and relies on researchers fully immersing themselves in communities to generate a deep understanding of the shared behaviours, norms, rituals, values and ways of life specific to that community.
Here’s why we believe that can happen:
1.House of mirrors
By relying on individual explanations of behaviour, we are unlikely to get a full picture of what’s going on in an organisation. Everyone constructs their own narrative on a situation, shaped not only by the information available to them, but also by their past experiences, interactions, values, drivers or biases, leading to multiple webs of meaning. Whether or not they feel they are sharing an honest and accurate view (which can be another issue!), they can only share things as they see them – which will be different from one person to the next. This culminates in a confusing ‘house of mirrors’, exacerbated by the problem of ‘habituation’, where we become less attuned to environmental influences on our behaviour.
What this means in practice is that, if asked why you haven’t felt able to raise a concern or challenge a decision made by a senior leader, you are unlikely to respond with “the culture is one where people who challenge are seen as a problem, and an embedded culture of deference to expertise has made this behaviour a career-ending move”. A more likely response to explain why you didn’t speak up might be “My idea is probably a stupid one anyway”.
2. The truth paradox
Much of the time, organisations will run surveys or use other similar methods to try and find ‘the answer’. ‘What’s the one thing we can do that will make people more engaged, bring them into the office more, or stop them leaving?’ ‘Why isn’t performance where it needs to be?’. Aside from the fact that this relies on explanations that we know from the house of mirrors point above to be unreliable, this method is also too eager to find easy solutions. Ultimately, there is no ‘one truth’, but there are always multiple explanations that co-exist and interact with each-other (even seemingly opposite ones).
An organisation struggling with engagement may decide to implement a series of new flexible working initiatives, because it’s come to their attention that people are leaving because they don’t have enough flexibility. While this might be true, it’s unlikely to be the whole truth. What if it’s also true that lots of people love the flexibility they have – and what do these two truths together tell us? This highlights the importance of digging deeper. For instance, is there consistent implementation of existing flexible working policies, or does it depend on who your manager is? What type of flexibility do the people who are leaving want? How can the approach be more tailored to individual needs? By pushing beyond what might at first appear to be ‘the answer’, you will probably find something more complex – but it will lead you to a better solution.
3. The bad apple
The final, and depressingly common, explanation that senior leaders often resort to, is that their people just don’t get it, or even worse are struggling with deep-rooted personality flaws that mean they are committed to doing the wrong thing.
Of course, explanations of behaviour that focus on individual personality do play some part in understanding people’s actions, but are never sufficient on their own. It is why someone who has a history of producing innovative and creative work for example, can find themselves in an environment where this is undervalued, or even suppressed. Admonishing the individual for failing to live up to expectations would be to overlook all the pressures and influences on behaviour that can make it surprisingly difficult to be your authentic self.
It's this immersive observation that ... is fundamental to understanding what actually drives people’s behaviour. The core message ... is that social and cultural context is everything – but we tend to be guilty of forgetting this
Putting anthropology into practice
In summary, traditional culture assessments don’t get to the heart of what’s really going on, because what’s really going on is too complex to be captured solely with these tools. Interviews, focus groups and surveys are often geared towards testing out a preconceived hypothesis on what ‘the answer’ is, which, unfortunately, is unlikely to uncover what’s under the surface.
We believe the right approach to culture and behaviour change needs to be centred around a more interconnected view of the organisation. By using systems-thinking, and focussing on understanding behaviour in context, we can take into account the complex dynamics that influence behaviour and culture.
What does that actually look like?
We are challenging ourselves to be more ‘anthropological’ in how we understand behaviour, and we’ve come up with a checklist as a way of embedding an Anthropology mindset across all the complex cultural change projects we do.
By sharing these ideas, we invite you to use them to guide your own explorations to understand organisational behaviour. If you would like to learn more about these techniques, contact me to hear about our new ‘A new lens on culture’ workshop.
Anthropology Checklist
Embedding an anthropological mindset:
1. What are we observing here? (as well as being told)
By immersing ourselves within the context of the organisation, we will see things that might otherwise be overlooked, left out, or exist beyond people’s awareness.
2. Who could share a different perspective?
If we are interviewing leaders, who else could we speak to in order to build a more rounded picture? (Be that junior team members, customers or stakeholders)
3. What isn’t being said?
While it’s important to focus on the topics that do come up, it’s equally important to focus on the ones that don’t. If no-one mentions something that seems obvious when looking from the outside-in, what could that mean?
4. What preconceptions are we going in with, and how can we take them out of the equation?
By putting any expectations or biases to one side as best we can, and relying on open, unstructured questioning, we can allow more space for unexpected insights to emerge.
Reference:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xsGtcSidFc
2. “Anthro-Vision: How Anthropology Can Explain Business and Life” by Gillian Tett (2021) https://www.amazon.co.uk/Anthro-Vision-Anthropology-Explain-Business-Life/dp/1847942873
3. How Can They Be So Stupid? By Mike Thackray https://www.oecam.com/articles/mike-thackray/how-can-they-be-so-stupid/
LUCY COX
Lucy is a Business Psychologist in OE Cam’s Talent Management practice with expertise in management and leadership development. With experience spanning organisation design, employee engagement, team effectiveness and learning & development, she enjoys using psychological insight to create mindset shifts and drive behaviour change both at an individual and organisational level.
