Mission, Culture, Values

Mission, Culture, Values

In ‘The Socially Dynamic Organisation’ i explored a new model of Organisational design, based upon the notion that the context of Organisations has evolved (the Social Age), the nature of engagement has shifted (to intersection of formal and social), and the mechanisms of effect and adaptation have evolved (social co-creation, discretionary investment, social sensing and sense making, the narrative organisation etc). A theme in this work was ‘interconnectivity’, the social wiring around the formal structure (which connects this work to Social Leadership).

No alt text provided for this image

Today i am considering some more traditional aspects of the Organisation: ‘mission’, ‘culture’, and ‘values’. I have explored culture and values in great detail before, but taken less of a focus on mission. The writing today is some light and early thinking about these aspects, based upon one (but not necessarily the only, or correct) illustration of mission (running forwards as a backbone) with ‘culture’ and ‘values’ feeding into it. I’ve also included some confounding or influencing elements: ‘Safety’, ‘Control’, ‘Emergence’, ‘Power’.

Organisations are intended (generally) to be purposeful: either to do a known thing, to discover a new thing, or at the very least to hold enough structure to be distinguishable from the background noise. In service of that, we have invented or adopted a vocabulary that may give a greater illusion of efficiency and control than is truly the case.

A mainstay of collective entities is to have a mission: a defined and then shared purpose. These will range from the wildly aspirational, through the almost entirely abstract, to the narrowly defined or even mundane and ordinary. I realise as i write this (with some embarrassment) that even my own Organisation has a ‘mission’ (to ‘help Organisations get fit for the Social Age’). This one at least is suitably vague, whilst conveying a sense of certainty…

It seems pretty sensible to have a mission, albeit with a?humility?to recognise that it may need to be evolutionary, or that it may itself become constraining if context changes.

From here, we tend to read ‘left to right’ and define culture and values. If we know our mission, we may be curious as to what type of culture, and which specific values, will ‘get us there’. Again, all well and good, so long as we do not fall into an engineering mindset. Neither ‘culture’, nor ‘values’ are any more ‘real’ than the mission, so we end up stacking up systems of belief. These are not deterministic of outcome, although they may be enablers of it.

It is probably this constructed logic that gives us the greatest risk: the idea there is a certain comfort in thinking that we can follow a process, that we define and build out the detail, and hence we reach out destination, but life is rarely that simple, at least in the complex world of social interaction and productivity.

I think one thing to focus on is the difference between ‘values’ and ‘culture’ as being owned, or given, as opposed to them being discovered, co-created, and lived. A common mistake is that a small group of (typically senior) people make a journey to discover ‘values’, and then treat these values as treasure to be distributed to everyone else. Whilst in fact, the treasure is not the outcome, but rather the journey itself.

We would often be better off abandoning the tidy and polite published ‘values’, in favour of hearing individual values and exploring the diversity of language, understanding, and thought.

We know for sure that published values do not determine behaviour – and yet we are often afraid of addressing this.

Partly this may be because visible and published narratives around mission, values, and culture, reinforce the underlying legacy structures of power, safety, and control, but negate the potential for emergence.

Values and culture are inherently intangible: we can only ever report on observed or narrated features – what people think and feel. They are not ‘real’ except in the ways we report on them. But we treat them as if we are, and hence they become almost so. Culture operates as a social constraint (albeit often a good one): it limits or determines the language and behaviour we use. And hence limits our ability to express thought, uncertainty, or dissent. Culture (as published and inhabited) will inevitably have a relationship to existing power (although not necessarily enforcing it – it may oppose it).

Systems of power tend to be multi layered, but inhabited, codified (formally or socially) and nested within. So power structures seek to persist, and hence constrain cultural structures to do so too.

As stated earlier: Organisations are entities of purpose. And to be purposeful we like or need to feel we can exert influence on the system: the framework of mission, values and culture is a reasonable attempt to do that, provided we do not somehow imagine it to be real.

In real life, people do not tend to stop and think ‘what do my values say’, nor do they consciously consider culture, except typically to consider what is ‘safe’ to say or do. Many of these things are measured in retrospective judgement more so than in proactive cognition. We look at a situation and judge it.

The illustration of a central theme of ‘mission’, acted upon by values and culture, or cutting through culture, is probably a misnomer. More likely is that all three aspects act upon each other: mission sets parameters, defines an opportunity space, values show stated intent, and culture illustrates lived experience. In this sense, the most real of the three is culture, which is no surprise, because culture is what we ‘do’.

Christy Tonge

Purpose Driven Change-Maker. Growing a passionate community of leaders building innovative, authentic, inclusive orgs that deliver results.

2 年

Love the deep thought you've been doing around Culture, Julian Stodd. Let's keep the dialogue going!

回复
Leanne Halstead

Culture Change Agent * Accredited Foundation Executive Coach at BAE Systems "The ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do" (Adam Grant)

2 年

Interesting article, Julian. I'm drawn to think about the distinction Simon Sinek makes between Purpose (or Just Cause as he calls it in The Infinite Game) and Mission. He uses the example of the Space Race and JFK's Moon Speech. The Purpose in that speech was the exploration of Space. The Mission (more tangible) was the 1st Moon Landing. The thing I love most about his 5 elements of a Just Cause is the last... big, bold and ultimately unachievable because there is always more to be done. A Mission, however, whilst living within that Just Cause, has an end game. You can change Missions and create new ones whilst still staying with your Purpose / Just Cause. You've also got me thinking about Values. I think you have a really good point. We have internal, personal values - which, while they might be 'tweakable', aren't really that much within our control. They absolutely drive us, and it helps to understand what they are through self awareness. An organisation's values, I agree, are about intent. I wonder if Organisational Values is the wrong term. ??

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Julian Stodd的更多文章

  • #WorkingOutLoud on the Planetary Philosophy

    #WorkingOutLoud on the Planetary Philosophy

    I’ve been immersed in this work today, and will be till the end of the week. Sae has carved out some time, and has…

  • Strategic AI: Domains of Disruption

    Strategic AI: Domains of Disruption

    I’m building out the materials for my new ‘Strategic AI’ workshop, based on the book ‘Engines of Engagement: a curious…

    1 条评论
  • Spaces of Safety

    Spaces of Safety

    Our Organisations must hold a somewhat unusual space, when stacked up against what we see in our broader society. As…

    3 条评论
  • Social Leadership Fragments: Permeability

    Social Leadership Fragments: Permeability

    The impact of social and collaborative technologies has been to make many boundariesmore permeable, with a range of…

  • Social Leadership: Organisation as Ecosystem

    Social Leadership: Organisation as Ecosystem

    Today I’ve been working on the new Social Leadership material, and specifically the notion of the ‘Organisation as…

    2 条评论
  • Fragments: Metacognition, Transdisciplinarity, Sense Making

    Fragments: Metacognition, Transdisciplinarity, Sense Making

    Some of the most exciting areas of learning research are considering features such as the ‘expert generalist’, aspects…

    1 条评论
  • #WorkingOutLoud on the Socially Dynamic Organisation: Disaggregation

    #WorkingOutLoud on the Socially Dynamic Organisation: Disaggregation

    The shift from the Domain based Organisation, through to the Socially Dynamic one, is essentially a disaggregation of…

    2 条评论
  • Writing

    Writing

    I spent last week completely focussed on a longer piece of writing and today am simply sharing some fragments of…

  • London Dereliction Walk: the Edge of Practice

    London Dereliction Walk: the Edge of Practice

    This is the third time I’ve guided the experimental London Dereliction Walk, which is a day of exploration and small…

    5 条评论
  • The Social Context of Generative AI

    The Social Context of Generative AI

    ‘Engines of Engagement: a curious book about Generative AI’ was published a year ago, and my thinking has continued to…

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了