A framework for approaching

Cultural Change

David T LeeOctober 2013

@heydavidlywww.linkedin.com/in/davidtailee

The following is a framework for addressing cultural change. It is based on cultural changes seen in both corporate and public environments.

Using this framework, we can develop programs to move an organization towards a culture in which it hopes to operate vs the culture in which it currently operates.

A framework for approaching

Cultural Change

Here is everyone.

These are the people who you are trying to influence.

Here are your RULEMAKERS. These are the people who have the ability to official changes to policies, incentive

plans, or laws.

RULEMAKERS

Here are your ACTIVISTS. These are the motivated people who are leading the effort to change. Sometimes they have leadership positions, sometimes they do not.

RULEMAKERS

ACTIVITISTS

When your RULEMAKERS and ACTIVISTS are aligned, the population will more easily move toward the intended behavior. When the rules support the intended movement, progress can be mandated.

RULEMAKERS

ACTIVITISTS

Consider the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The RULEMAKERS (Congress) move to support

of the work of the ACTIVISTS (Civil Rights leaders) and

large scale cultural progress is formalized.

Sometimes there are ANTI-ACTIVISTS. These are motivated people who actively look to reach a different (or opposite) goal than your ACTIVISTS.

RULEMAKERS

ACTIVITISTS ANTI-ACTIVITISTS

When the ANTI-ACTIVISTS influence as strongly as the ACTIVISTS, their efforts cancel out and the population doesn’t move. This stalemate will persist if the RULEMAKERS do not exert an influence one way or another.

RULEMAKERS

ACTIVITISTS ANTI-ACTIVITISTS

An example of this is the debate around abortion in

the US. Here, both sides work tirelessly to influence. In contrast

to attitudes towards civil rights, the population has moved hardly at all since the

1960’s.

There are also OUTSIDERS who are not subject to the influence of either the RULEMAKERS or the ACTIVISTS. However, they are important because they provide social proof to the population.

RULEMAKERS

ACTIVITISTS ANTI-ACTIVITISTS

OUTSIDERS

When the OUTSIDER position is heavily polarized compared to the target population, there may be movement regardless of what the RULEMAKERS or ACTIVISTS want to see happen.

RULEMAKERS

ACTIVITISTS

OUTSIDERS

In a corporate environment, this can be

seen when all other competitors in an

industry adopt a practice or develop a service.

Examples include airlines charging for

checked bags or banks loosening underwriting

standards to stay competitive.

It’s important to consider that sometimes the OUTSIDERS may be much, much larger than the target population.

RULEMAKERS

ACTIVITISTS

OUTSIDERS

The OUTSIDER population might be huge!

Nirvana for cultural change occurs when the RULEMAKERS, ACTIVISTS, and OUTSIDERS all align to paint a vision of the future that seems clear to everyone.

RULEMAKERS

ACTIVITISTS

OUTSIDERS

Weak / Non-existent ANTI-ACTIVITISTS

A clear example of this is the dot-com boom of the late

90’s where everyone saw the value of doing business on

the internet.

You can group your population into three subsets regarding the adoption of cultural change. SUPPORTERS and SKEPTICS take more and less adoptive stances towards the change. THE CROWD is indifferent with the change, but will move with the larger audience.

SUPPORTERS

SKEPTICS

THE CROWD

As you make progress towards cultural change, you will see the population of SUPPORTERS grow and SKEPTICS shrink. Obviously, a population with more SUPPORTERS is easier to move.

SUPPORTERS

SKEPTICS

THE CROWD

To accelerate cultural change, stories of HEROES demonstrating model behavior need to be shared and celebrated. The SKEPTICS need to be shown PROOF that the new ways are better.

SKEPTICS

THE CROWD

HEROES

SUPPORTERS

PROOF

Nordstrom and Zappos spend a lot of time

cultivating HEROES and sharing stories in their

culture.

Lou Gerstner used his own behavior and

financial results as PROOF to win over the SKEPTICS

while transforming IBM.

ACTIVISTS and RULEMAKERS need to provide OPPORTUNITIES for SUPPORTERS to become HEROES. This can be though arranging events or simply giving people PERMISSION to exhibit the model behavior.

SKEPTICS

THE CROWD

TO BE A HERO

SUPPORTERS

OPPORTUNITIES

From the Civil Rights movement, Rosa Parks was

asked to play the role of HERO.

In business, the RULEMAKERS at Lockheed

Martin separated a Skunk Works® team to work

outside the normal rules.

Google and 3M build these opportunities into the

everyday work life of their engineers.

RULEMAKERS

ACTIVITISTS

SUPPORTERS

SKEPTICS

THE CROWD

1. RULEMAKERS give PERMISSION and incentiveto ACTIVISTS and SUPPORTERS to exhibit model behaviors.

2. ACTIVISTS work to create OPPORTUNITIESfor SUPPORTERS to become HEROES.

3. HERO STORIES are shared with SUPPORTERS and THE CROWD to give energy to the movement.

4. Real-world results and evidencefrom OUTSIDERS are shared with SKEPTICS as PROOF that this cultural movement is the more valid model for the future.

HEROES

How it can work together

OUTSIDERS

HERO STORIES+ PROOF

OPPORTUNITIES

CULTURAL CHANGE

PERMISSION

RULEMAKERS

ACTIVITISTS ANTI-ACTIVITISTS

OUTSIDERS

SUPPORTERS

SKEPTICS

THE CROWD

HERO STORIES+ PROOF

PERMISSIONOPPORTUNITIES

CULTURAL CHANGE

A Framework for Cultural Change

RULEMAKERS

ACTIVITISTS ANTI-ACTIVITISTS

OUTSIDERS

SUPPORTERS

SKEPTICS

THE CROWD

There are two common actors in cultural change that are purposefully avoided in this framework:

VILLAINSThese are the people whose actions represent the direct opposite behavior of the HEROES. In this framework, these actors could be considered HEROES to the ANTI-ACTIVISTS. This framework asserts that VILLAIN STORIES will be counterproductive for the change effort, because it acts to polarize and energize the SKEPTICS and ANTI-ACTIVISTS.

EXTREMISTS These are far-end activists. In the real-world, these may materialize as fringe organizations or individual radicals. It’s important to recognize that these actors may help a cause by painting the moderate ACTIVISTS as more reasonable actors. However, in a corporate environment, EXTREMISTS are probably not tolerated (for long) and don’t need to be incorporated in this framework.

Who is avoided in this framework?