“Oh,” my supervisor said, “they’re going to want you to put your bike in the outdoor cage.”

The cage is like a bike rack with police tape around it. “Hey,” it announces, “these bikes might be worth taking a look at.” It offered slightly better security than police tape, of course. If you were using really thick police tape. well, that would be a different story.

I kept my bike in my office.

On day three, an email came from Corporate Services:

Government Services has advised me that bikes are not allowed in the building and have asked me to pass along that message to you.  There is a locked cage/compound off the alley that has been designated for employees to secure their bikes if they are not comfortable locking them in the [non-cage - ed] bike racks.  If you would like me to show you the compound please come see me.

Thanks for your co-operation.

My response:

Is this a written policy? I’d like to know if I can satisfy this policy without removing my bike. I’m concerned that my bike may not be as secure outside. Does the policy specify any liability the employer assumes for damage or theft? Thanks for offering to show the compound. I am aware of its location and the combination lock.

I kept my bike in my office.

There was no response to my email. There’s some funny things about bureaucracy. One of them is that if you practice civil disobedience you can sometimes get your way.

My theory… actually, the theory of civil disobedience… is that if you have a fairly reasonable justification for not following the rules, you might be able to make the powers-that-be engage in a dialogue about the policy. Ghandi said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” I’d hoped someone would come and speak to me plainly about their interests and I could express my needs as an employee. We could negotiate and find a shared solution. Not so. I was ignored.

The week before I left, a full-fledged written policy on everything related to our use of the office space came out.  If it has to do with offices, it was in there. The author appeared to have been given a clear assignment: Whatever it is, offload all responsibility onto the individual employee. The only convenience to be considered is our own.

The section on bicycles says no bikes are to be in any government building. All liability resides with the owner of the bike. I’m disappointed with this policy, of course. It is completely organization-centric and has nothing to do with the interests, needs or engagement of public service employees. A sort of a black mark, I’d say, against an organization pursuing a brand of “employer of choice.”

Perhaps, if I was still there, my bike would still be in my office. Maybe I’d have gotten a “fight.” I think I would have enjoyed that.

OK, I’m not sure I’m a traditional populist, but I’m expropriating the word and it’s basic definition to describe what I believe.

In truth, I don’t want to have the discussion about the systems that govern my province or country. I think they’re broken. Addressing them is for another blog, one I’m not sure I’ll ever write.

When I say “populist,” I don’t mean in a political arena. I mean in relationships. I mean in how we trust and respect the people around us.

Populist means to trust the wisdom and judgement of the people. It implies also that we’re going to be wary and distrustful of the elite, the ones who profess to have the answers and directions already laid out for us. In a political setting, a populist is saying “remove the government and let the people directly have a stronger voice.” It’s a little more organized than anarchy, but it’s in that direction.

I went and found a good description of the metaphor between the Matrix and our life. As the article suggests, The Matrix offers us the ability to examine our world with exceptional clarity.

This got me thinking, though. I saw all of this ten years ago. I think I “got it” then. At that time, why did I go back to my job on Monday and keep working in my own Matrix? Or, the real mind-bender, how different is it this time?

Before Neo becomes Neo, he’s Thomas Anderson. Don’t you think Thomas Anderson got to go to a movie on a Friday night and watch something like The Matrix? Did he step out into the cool evening air and realize he was inside an artificial construct? Apparently not. The human mind doesn’t seem to have that kind of sudden-insight capacity. It wasn’t until he took a red pill from Morpheus and physically got some distance that he understood the limitations of what he was thinking and seeing.

So, as I see this movie for the second time, I think I have some physical distance from my artificial construct, and I’m trying to get more. The first time I saw this movie, it was sort of a description of what was going on, while I was in it. I was like an early Neo, hearing the whisper of “Matrix” in the corners of a dark room. There was a more fulsome theory of what was real and what was artificial that needed to be poked and prodded, but I couldn’t see it. As Morpheus says, “Unfortunatley, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.”

Fast forward ten years, I’ve made some pretty significant leaps outside the conventional lines of my Matrix. I’ve chosen in places not to follow the rules of social expectation. I’ve shed some of the consumer/recipient role. I’m no longer a dispassionate observer saying, “wow, what if that were real?” I’m a participant, receiving motivation and inspiration that I’m not alone in believing our current world isn’t the way it’s supposed to be, or has to be.

If my quasi-rambling post isn’t making sense, let me put something on the record. I don’t think machines are putting artificial constructs in my mind. I think the systems and conventions we’ve built up over generations are.

The movie also reminds me that I chose the red pill. I have an obligation to do something with what I’ve seen and learned.

Morpheus: “Neo, sooner or later you’re going to realize, just as I did, that there’s a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.”

Culture, it seems to me, is a pretty static, identifiable thing. If only someone had studied the essential elements of culture… which brings me to my post title. Isn’t anthropology ALL ABOUT understanding culture? Well, not quite. Google tells me there’s more to it than that: define: anthropology – the social science that studies the origins and social relationships of human beings

On Wikipedia, I learned that E.B. Tylor is one of the grandfathers of anthropology. He described culture as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”

There’s a start! If we’re trying to address culture, this definition provides some assistance. First, we can acknowledge that culture is “complex.” Perhaps with that knowledge we can forever disavow the use of uni-dimensional solutions that barely scrape the surface of addressing culture. Second, what a helpful list: knowledge, belief, art, morals, laws and customs. Maybe this needs a little tinkering for the contemporary organization, but we see all of these in the workplace:

• knowledge in, well, knowledge, and how we transfer it, share it and use it
• belief in our paradigms, like “senior staff always knows best” and “mistakes are bad”
• art – well, this one’s a stretch. There’s not much expression at work. Our lack of expression – the corporate language and the way we communicate is our “art,” I think, and it is significant in defining our culture.
• morals like putting in lots of hours, being available 24/7, producing just what the boss asked for… you know, the required societal behaviours to earn promotion
• custom – customs are things we just do because everyone else does, right? Like taking our shoes off at the door, shaking hands when we meet and defending our program even though the critic has a point.

This isn’t just a fun comparison, though. We could use this list. If we really want to address culture, this list is a great place to start. Tom, you create some solutions to improve how we write our documents. Sally, please put together a team to identify and question the customs we’re just doing.

I’d be pretty excited to work in an organization that said, “Culture is necessary for our success. Let’s put our energy into getting it right for the long haul.”

Like any good bettor, I used the available information to place my bets. It looked like a tremendous winning streak, until there were too many wins to just be luck. Then others suggested that I had the game at home, or somehow I was cheating. I wouldn’t call it cheating. I was taking the loosely formed (and mostly just implied) rules of the game and using them as best I could. By (math) skill and insight, I was cleaning up.

Rationalization aside, I don’t think I can adequately describe the anxious feeling I had as I exploited my loophole. I was so far ahead, I was sure I must be doing something wrong. It couldn’t be this easy. I felt huge pressure to stop playing the game. Eventually, I did stop.

It’s a goofy little story, but I was reminded of it today as I read Moneyball by Michael Lewis. It’s an artfully crafted story about one team’s application of objective, rational assessments to the selection of baseball players when seemingly every other team in the league uses judgments steeped in baseball culture. They’re using beliefs that are irrational. The only thing that keeps the beliefs alive is that it’s what everyone else is doing, too. General Manager of the Oakland A’s, Billy Beane, is at a completely different level as he selects ball players because they’ll perform and win games, even if they’re not the traditional prototype. It’s a massive success. As an outsider looking in, it’s sort of a “well, duh” thing, but I know it wasn’t easy. There’s a breaking of convention. Unfulfilled social expectation. People that look for how you’re cheating. The possibility that you’re wrong, that you’ll fail. It would be so much easier to just follow the same implied rules as everyone else.

The lesson, of course, is that it’s the person with the willingness to stare down those pressures and stick to a new, rational belief that finds the way to be much more effective and, perhaps, eventually change the game.

If I had figured that out in high school, I could have purchased a bigger plastic novelty item with my play money.

Stagnant organizations have a culture of “hanging on,” of trying to keep things as they are. With change everywhere, it’s a doomed strategy. It may feel safe to protect proven strategies, but those strategies were proven for a different environment. Reality changed beneath their feet. The world has changed the way you communicate with customers, the way you recruit employees, the outputs others value, your competitive differentiation, how you’re scrutinized by the public.. the list goes on. The rules are very, very different.

If that’s not enough to stimulate an examination of your approach, think about this: Whether you go down this route or not, some staff are going to feel uncomfortable. You get to choose who. Keep your organization as it is and the people that are most uncomfortable and feel like they’re getting forced out of your organization will continue to be the ones who best see the future. The ones that want change. The ones with the ideas.

Here’s some steps to evoke the new approaches and responsive ideas that exist right within the organization:

1) State a desire for ideas and change

OK, pretty simple, but not to be overlooked. You have to announce a desire for new ideas. You have to document it in a plan. You have to write it on a wall. You have to formalize the want. The majority of your staff won’t even start down this path if it’s not even officially sanctioned.

2) Model the habit

Take some risks. Push an idea that’s right but isn’t popular. Speak truth to power. Proudly play the heretic role. It will be noticed.

3) Create a receptive environment

There’s currently a system that grinds down aberrations. It starts with managers that don’t like surprises. It also includes policies and procedures that round the corners off of everything. This is a good place for you to be a heretic.

4) Accept some unconventional ideas

By no means do I suggest that you accept loony stuff. You’re running a business; you’re pragmatic. But if there are effective solutions that will create some healthy tension and perhaps some resistance, please don’t make compromises before you roll it out. For the sake of your organization, it’s time to make a different group feel unsettled.

5) Build the idea championing capacity of your staff

If you fail on steps 1 to 4, there will still be individuals that try to instigate change. It will cost them dearly in the short term, but some are going to do it anyway. You could have more of those. The best I can suggest to start them on this journey is to give them leadership training. Help them to examine their beliefs and challenge them to change the ones that need to be changed. If they can do it for themselves, they might start doing it for you.

By the way, I don’t see this as an a la carte menu. They all need to be done. If you want change, it’s full scale or it’s just something to prove you tried.

.

He said he had completed his recommendation and submitted it. When he saw it in the next phase, it had substantially changed.

“How did you feel about that?” I asked.

“Well, by the end, it kinda got out of my hands anyway. I was more just interpreting instruction than making choices for the recommendation.”

Turns out, it wasn’t really his project anymore. He was still holding the document, but his “superiors” were calling the shots.

That’s disappointing. That’s a brain underutilized, to say the least.

When the project got into this dynamic, you can guess he was still spending a lot of time revising and editing the document. However, the rules changed in terms of what he did to make it better. Sure, he still found the document could be improved if he applied his knowledge and skill, but he actually did a subtle little calculation that dramatically changes the overall outcome. He first determined if he intrinsically cared enough about the project to go through the eye rolls, the patient deep breaths and the paternal voice that tells him why they’re not doing it that way. Most of the time, you can guess that he determined it wasn’t worth the discomfort.

If you’re a manager, please understand that taking things out of people’s hands isn’t done by announcing that you’re taking it out of their hands. I know you’ve got better sense than to take that drastic step. Taking things out of their hands happens when you amend their work without consultation or you cram your expectations for the product down their throat. I know you’ve got pressures and deadlines. What’s the emergency that justifies ripping the individuality and creativity from your employees?

I would suspect, in both camps, there is an acknowledgment of the importance of the other priority, but when push comes to shove, some managers choose to produce, others to build for sustainability.

My guesstimate of the split is something like 90% production-focused, 10% future-focused.

I think there’s another interesting breakdown. Of the production-focused managers, you can split them about down the middle in terms of their awareness of how critical sustainable practices are. Half don’t see a bigger picture. Sure, they’ve heard of things like diversity and succession planning, but they legitimately think they’re doing the best they can for the organization by focusing on the more immediate challenges. I think it’s fair to say I disagree with their conclusion, but I appreciate that they’re acting on their convictions.

The other half of these production-oriented managers, however, full-well know they are on a sinking ship, it’s just that when pushed, they choose to deliver a product over making choices that are in a longer-term interest. You see, it may not save the company, but it keeps them “safe,” today.

Whenever I experience this sort of tactic, I’m frustrated, disappointed and more than a little perturbed.

You mean you KNOW that we can’t sustain what we’re doing, what we’ve promised and what we’ve planned, but you’re STILL going to go ahead and do it? Is your salary that good? What legitimizes that behaviour? Does “not my job” cover it? What happens when you fail your customers, your clients or your job disappears? Still not your fault?

Sorry. That’s not really intended for you, directly. If you’re reading this blog, I think you’re either a knowledge worker that just categorized your boss or you’re a boss trying to muster the courage to be part of the 10%… like me.

Reading that over, it’s one big rant – here’s the solution, as I see it – stare your fears in the eye. Play them out. What will really happen? Acknowledge you’re not going to lose your job for speaking up. Find ways to make long-term choices and move the ship, bit by bit. You’ll be surprised to find a large majority of colleagues appreciating (albeit quietly) your efforts.

Your typical employer seeking to hire an employee these days seems to be working under the impression that employees are desperately seeking employment and are always on the cusp of yelling out “Yes! I’ll take it!”

• Understand you’re being evaluated.
• Have a clear picture of what you really need. Don’t do a selection process without first thoughtfully establishing what skills and functions you need the candidate to be able to fulfill. If you’re choosing to name a certain degree or a number of years of experience as a key criteria, it’s an immediate flag that you’re looking for an image, not a result.
• Respect my time. Don’t be late, unprepared or easily interrupted. I want you to be expressing how important this role is from the moment I meet you. If you don’t respect what staff do for you, I self-select myself out.
• Ask good, relevant questions that make me sweat. If you are interested in demonstrating that you’re competent, that’s how.
• Don’t hack on current employees. I’m trying to be one of those. I’m savvy enough to know I’ll get the same treatment.

The employee version of these rules has always been a requirement for applicants to follow, but for the employer, they used to be optional. You used to be able to assume the power position and indicate that you could hardly be bothered with this process… you could do everything including saying, “I’m kind of a big deal.” No longer.

This roll-over response is well ingrained. When you consider the career challenges of later baby-boomers and Gen-Xers, it’s even understandable. To paraphrase Linda Duxbury, when you’re lucky enough to have a seat on the crowded bus, you don’t complain about the rip in the seat. Well, the world has changed. There’s now room on the bus, and an empty one comes in another 10 minutes. The power dynamic has shifted more in your favour.

Aside from this, instantly capitulating to your boss’ ill-formed idea has never been in the best interest of what you’re trying to accomplish. You’re not safe anymore to just let someone else define your work and your direction. You’ll still feel safe, sure. The problem is, that safe stance is very similar to the one taken by people who put bolts on cars. They feel completely justified saying “you get to run this how you want, even if I disagree,” until the day they no longer have a job. Please don’t accept that role.

Here’s the simple first step. Become a student of the Instant Capitulation vs. Dying on the Hill continuum. Objectively examine your behaviour in the context of this scale. Do you like where you’re at?

Step two, try something that isn’t so much instant capitulation. Don’t go all the way to Dying on the Hill. Make a small shift.

Here’s some behaviours to think about:

• Don’t tell anyone, just turn off your email for a morning. Re-engage at 11:45 and see if you can clear your inbox by noon.
• Propose an amendment to the specific wording your boss gave you for a letter.
• Push back on a deadline by saying “I’ve cleared Friday so that I can get my files under control,” or “that task will have to wait until after my coaching session with Tom.”
• Allow all your calls to go to voicemail. Set one hour aside to deal with them all.
• Unilaterally schedule a meeting in your boss’ calendar called “Establishing Performance Expectations with (insert your name here)”

In my experience, establishing the way YOU want to work allows you to benefit from the roll-over response. No one else is spending as much time thinking about processes and what it takes to be effective. Rather than engage with you in a rational discussion about why you are doing this (which would be immensely helpful), they’ll do their own capitulation.

Once again, I’m advising something that doesn’t particularly feel good for the ego, but it should be just about right for your soul and your sanity.