“Know thy enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are sure to be defeated in every battle.”
~ Sun Tsu
For me, this quote explains why conservatives are eventually going to lose the “culture wars”. They consistently insist on ascribing thoughts and values to liberal and progressives that are figments of their overactive imaginations when, in fact, they are more often than not projecting. They don’t know their “enemy”, nor do they know themselves.
This isn’t to say they won’t cause a lot of damage, destruction, and even death as they attempt to control the narrative and impose their values on everyone. But I do believe their “causes” will never prevail in the long run, in large part because they’re clueless about not only our motivations, but even their own.
We Americans (in the United States, that is) are, in my opinion, a little too fond of bad-mouthing people who don’t speak English, don’t speak it well, or speak it but don’t pronounce it like we do . . . the latter of which, given the number of regional accents in the U.S., seems a bit ridiculous. Furthermore, have you ever listened to most English-speaking Americans try to pronounce any other language? It would be humorous were it not pathetic.
I’ve always felt that pronouncing another language correctly is both a sign of respect, and an exercise in emulation. I don’t understand people who can’t learn to pronounce words from a language other than their native tongue. After all, the people who speak that language have no trouble with the pronunciation, and they’re human beings too. We share the same physiology, so what’s the problem?
It seems to me it’s cultural and, with many, culturally chauvinistic. I know, when I was younger I felt a little odd pronouncing Spanish words correctly, as they didn’t quite sound like they were coming from me. I have to admit it took a while before I was able to really pay attention and learn how to properly pronounce words that weren’t native to me. Especially important, and somewhat difficult, was learning how to roll my “Rs” when speaking Spanish.
I taught myself Spanish before I traveled to Cuba with the 6th contingent of the Venceremos Brigade, in the Spring of 1973. I purchased a Spanish/English dictionary and a book called “501 Spanish Verbs Fully Conjugated” and I spent hours every day reading and practicing. I also had a book of short stories written in Spanish with side-by-side English translations.
The rules of grammar were not terribly difficult; they’re def easier than those for the proper use of English. My first discovery was that of patterns in infinitive verbs and their conjugation in the three basic tenses: Past; present; and future. It really made the use of verbs fairly easy once I knew the infinitive. There were some irregularities, but nowhere near the quantity found in my native tongue.
Pronunciation, however, was another story entirely. I came to the conclusion—and believe it to this day—that native speakers will forgive grammatical errors more easily than they forgive errors in pronunciation. Think about it the next time you’re listening to someone speaking English with a foreign accent.
With that in mind, I spent a great deal of time learning how Spanish is pronounced. I practiced continuously. In fact, I distinctly recall sitting on the bus in which we were traveling around the country during the last week of our two-month stay, heading for the western province of Pinar del Rio. The name presents a pronunciation challenge, as the “r” in “Pinar” is pronounced with what is called an “alveolar tap,” where you touch the tip of your tongue to the roof of your mouth. The letter generally ends up sounding like the letter “t” or “d” in English pronunciation.
The “R” in “Rio,” however, is rolled (also referred to as “trilled”) as are all “Rs” at the beginning of a word. Double “Rs” are always rolled, regardless of where they occur in a word. I would sit in the bus, staring out at the Cuban countryside, repeating “Pinar del Rio” over and over and over, until I could effortlessly shift from the alveolar tap to the trill without screwing it up.
One problem this created for me was that people for whom Spanish was their native language, upon hearing me speak Spanish, assumed from my meticulous pronunciation that I could speak fluently. I could not. I could carry on a decent conversation, though deep philosophy was not in my repertoire. I can probably still carry on a conversation all these years later, and am quite certain I could blend in to a Spanish speaking area within a couple of weeks.
Bottom line . . . speaking, and pronouncing, another language correctly is both an intelligent thing to do and a sign of respect for those who speak that language as their primary tongue. The human mouth, tongue, and throat are designed to make the sounds that humans make, regardless of where they’re from or how strange their pronunciations may seem to you. It just takes practice and, maybe, a little courage.
Corporate
culture consists of three levels: Artifacts; espoused values; and shared tacit
assumptions.[1]
Each of these levels is important in understanding not only what corporate
culture is, but how it works, and how it can be both changed and used to the
benefit of the organization as a whole.
Artifacts
Artifacts
consist of real, tangible things which can be associated with the organization.
For example, McDonald’s has its golden arches, KFC has its colonel, and Nike
has its swoosh. These are the most obvious, though not necessarily the most
powerful, artifacts which can be associated with a company or organization. The
more important artifacts are, for our purpose, things like architecture, décor,
and the way people act while at work.
Some
of the deepest feelings attributable to an organization’s culture are
engendered by artifacts. For example, outside the main entrance to Rocketdyne
sits an F-1 Rocket Engine. The engine stands approximately 20 feet high and, at
its base, is around 12 – 15 feet in diameter. In front of it is a simple,
bronze plaque, which informs you that this is the engine, along with four
others, which lifted the Apollo Lunar Modules off the earth on their trip to
the moon.
For
anyone who works there, and knows anything about the company where they work,
this engine evokes powerful feelings of accomplishment and success. I know from
firsthand experience and observation that this frequently translates into a
willingness (at the very least, resignation) to work that extra hour, to take a
little more time in assuring your work is the best it can be.
Espoused Values
These
may be characterized by, among other things, an organization’s beliefs, level
of communication, and methods of accomplishing it mission. These values may be
seen in such things as a company’s rules, policies, and procedures. It may be
found on the walls as slogans and posters. In talking to members of the
organization you may be told that the company believes in things like teamwork,
“best practices”, continuous improvement, and lean manufacturing.
At
Rocketdyne, the corporate mantra involves team-based component production,
commitment to safety, scientific analysis at all levels of the corporate
structure, and lessons learned, in addition to other policies and procedures
too numerous to mention. It is the background against which our daily
activities take place and translates into copious collections of data, numerous
briefings to higher and higher levels of management, and close inspection and
analysis of every piece of hardware which goes out the door.
However,
while many of these concepts may be spoken of, and may even appear as items of
value on the corporate web pages and on slogans and posters put up around the
plant and offices, it does not necessarily follow that they are actually
carried out in our day-to-day lives. Frequently, managers and others who will
say they believe in stated policies, are nevertheless placed in positions where
they are required by more specific policies to do exactly the opposite of what
the company says it believes in.
At
Rocketdyne, this can be seen in the use of individual awards and yearly
performance reviews, in spite of the outer appearance given by a team-based
organization. This is a case where the management, due to executive
requirements, fails to “walk the talk”, and falls back on “the way we’ve always
done it”.
This
inconsistency leads to what is arguably the most important aspect of culture,
the real, deep assumptions by an organization and its members of how to
accomplish the daily tasks, the sum total of which are the company’s true
vision and mission.
Shared Tacit Assumptions
This
is perhaps the most pervasive and, with respect to efforts at change, the most
insidious of the three aspects of corporate culture. They are the things which
“go without saying”, which we accept as the ways of the world, or the ways in
which things get done. People cannot readily tell you what their culture is,
any more than fish, if they could talk, could tell you what water is.[2]
In
the same way, a company’s shared tacit assumptions are taken for granted. Many,
if not most, people are incapable of seeing any other way to perform a task or
get a particular result. It is all they know, and to think otherwise is, in a
word, unthinkable.
At
Rocketdyne there are numerous ways in which this happens. They are frequently
discovered only when something goes wrong, or when a series of small things go
wrong which, by themselves might go unnoticed, but which lead to a major
problem. We have studied the Valuejet disaster in 1995 at some length, yet as
soon as we return to our jobs we occasionally find it easy to forget that it
can, and sometimes does, happen to us.
We
have instituted numerous methods of improving quality and performance, such as
quality circles, continuous process improvement, and total quality management.
We are in the process of instituting “lean manufacturing” and some of the
aspects of the theory of constraints. Nevertheless, we continue to assume
individual action and heroics are the real way things get done. We look for the
engineer or mechanic who will come up with the answer to difficult problems,
and neglect to look to the whole company for answers.
Recently,
some managers have been looking for people who can “think out of the box”, who
are capable of changing their frame of reference and understanding our problems
in unique ways, or approaching them from a different perspective. Still, the
focus is more on the individual and not on the team.
If
one sets about to change a company’s culture, its view of the world, it is of
the utmost importance to understand not only these three aspects of culture,
but also the depth with which they pervade the organization. Failing to do so
will certainly result in a misapprehension of the difficulty involved in
change.
The
most important things to realize are: 1. Culture is deep – it is tacit and
gives meaning and predictability to our daily lives; 2. Culture is broad – it
involves every aspect of our work and sometimes even invades the way we conduct
our personal lives, and; 3. Culture is stable – people are generally not fond
of change, and are far happier when everything goes along smoothly, just like
it did yesterday and the day before. Any attempt to enforce change is likely to
produce resistance and anxiety.[3]
As
formidable as the technical and procedural issues of Knowledge Management are,
the need to change an organization’s culture far exceeds them. Most all have
heard the term “knowledge is power”. This is generally perceived to be so and
frequently translates into a desire to hoard information. Many organizations
have experienced the “building of empires” which stands in the way of its
freely sharing collective knowledge. Without a major change in our attitude
toward ownership of information, we will not be able to take advantage of the
tools available to us.
Peter
Senge, in his book “The Fifth Discipline”, writes of the steps and the “core
disciplines” involved in creating a learning organization[4]
He points out that, among those disciplines, is that of having a shared vision,
and why it is important. Here is what Senge has to say about shared vision.
“In a corporation, a shared vision changes people’s
relationship with the company. It is no longer ‘their company;’ it becomes ‘our
company.’ A shared vision is the first step in allowing people who mistrusted
each other to begin to work together. It creates a common identity. In fact, an
organization’s shared sense of purpose, vision, and operating values establish
the most basic level of commonality. . . .
“Shared visions compel courage so naturally that people
don’t even realize the extent of their courage. Courage is simply doing
whatever is needed in pursuit of the vision.”[5]
I
can think of no better way to conclude my paper. Moving from our current
relationship with collective knowledge, our intellectual capital, may well
require a massive rethinking of our entire corporate culture. There are
organizations, mostly younger and already possessed of a shared vision which
includes becoming a learning organization, who are already pursuing this path.
However,
there are numerous, often older organizations which will be hard-pressed to
find the courage and character it will take to let go of the control they feel
they now have and embrace a new kind of control; that which comes from an
entire organization pursuing the same goals and vision. Until we experience the
transformation from being data and information driven, to being truly knowledge
driven, we will frequently be at war with ourselves.
Knowledge
Management provides some of the understanding of the problem, and the vision
and direction we must strive toward. However, without fundamental changes in
our attitudes the path will be long and fraught with difficulty. It is, however,
truly a worthy struggle and is almost certainly inevitable. Changes in
technology are coming at us with greater rapidity. We have no choice but to
develop new ways of thinking to better take advantage of the new tools placed
at our disposal. We owe it to ourselves.
[1]
Edgar H. Schein, The Corporate Culture
Survival Guide, (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1999), pp. 15-20
[4]
Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline, “The Art & Practice of The Learning
Organization” (New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell, 1990; A Currency Paperback,
1994)
Systems Savvy 