Freedom to differ
For me Freedom to Differ sits at the heart of organisational culture – it can be characterised as deeper culture or “meta culture”. The balances here influence both Freedom to Think and Freedom to Act, setting the overall tone for how much control is exerted over people at work.
In a team context, FtD is about the management of similarities and differences; the degree to which alignment is sought and achieved. At it’s most fundamental, it is about norm pressures – how much flexibility (variance) is allowed with respect to the prevailing norms relating to thought and action in an area.
In relation to the framework and survey tool, Freedom to Differ is made up of four cultural dimensions that are about how individual views that differ from (1) the group, (2) the group’s leader, or (3) the status quo, are taken into account as solutions get developed/delivered and decisions need to be made. The fourth dimension (4) is about the extent to which people feel able to talk about these views in a direct way, without fear of reprisals.
At a strategic level these dimensions represent leadership dilemmas that are about reconciling the potentially competing interests of different stakeholder groups – in particular the hierarchical interests of business leaders and owners (which I call the “strong vertical force”) versus the outward facing interests of customers and wider society (which I call the “weak horizontal force”).
A full illustration of the “Group Emphasis” dimension and how it appears in the culture survey tool is given below, along with additional notes on typical trade-offs associated with being at each end of the scale. Brief descriptions for the other three dimensions are also provided, with full visibility of the definitions available via the culture survey tool.
“Group Emphasis” – group-orientated vs. individualistic
This question is about the extent to which weight is given to individual ideas, actions and decisions rather than the ideas, actions and decisions generated by the group. In group-orientated cultures, there is a greater emphasis on similarity, adherence to behavioural norms, and decision making by consensus. In individualistic cultures, there is greater emphasis on individual differences and single-point decision making following consultation.
Low degrees of freedom
Group-oriented (collectivist). Similarities valued.
High degrees of freedom
Individualistic. Differences valued.
- Current culture (your experience over last 6 months) 15%
- Required culture (the culture we need) 84%
- Desired culture (the culture you’d like) 52%
Typical Trade-offs
DOWNSIDES: Where there is a need for group consensus, decisions typically take longer, reducing org agility; heightened risk of group think
DOWNSIDES: Risk of decisions/solutions missing important perspectives and collective commitment
Dimension description/explanation
“Leadership style”
This dimension reflects the well-documented range of leadership styles, captured elegantly and linked to the “degrees of freedom” concept by Tannenbaum & Schmidt as early as 1958 – see the diagram at the bottom of this page. Later contingency leadership theorists such as Fiedler, Vroom & Jago and Hersey & Blanchard have also recognised a similar spectrum. Fundamentally this is about the top down vs. bottom up dynamic between leaders and the people they interact with. Directive leaders tend to instruct others on “what to do” and “how to do it” based on their own views and the views of people more senior than them in the hierarchy. Facilitative leaders tend to draw on the different ideas of people in their team, and across the organisation, before coming to conclusions on how to proceed. The language chosen to describe this range of leadership styles varies considerably, but degrees of freedom (or control) is often the common denominator. For example many people talk about “parent-child” (Eric Berne’s Transactional Analysis) or “command and control” leadership styles, both of which involve low degrees of freedom. Leadership style is widely considered to be the single most powerful influencer of org culture – linked to the phenomenon of social learning from and deference to authority – and it is one of the research aims of this “project” to investigate this hypothesis further.
Top-down, directive
UPSIDES: Provides clear, simple direction to employees; research shows that this style can work well in the short term under certain conditions e.g. in times of crisis or where employees are inexperienced
DOWNSIDES: In non-crisis situations, likely to de-motivate an organization’s most experienced staff or experts, leading to sub-optimal business solutions and retention issues
Bottom-up, facilitative
UPSIDES: Assuming time allows, taps into employee insights and wisdom, building ownership/motivation and enhancing the quality of solutions
DOWNSIDES: Reduces speed of decision making and a sense of firm authority when a crisis hits and people need clarity of direction; inexperienced staff may initially need a more directive approach
Dimension description/explanation
“Risk appetite”
The name I’ve given to this dimension should be familiar to most corporate citizens, but this is about what a high or low risk appetite looks like culturally. Here we are talking about the extent to which it is acceptable for people to take risks, make mistakes and propose ideas which are different from the status quo – established policies, process and practices. It is about the degree to which people in an area are open to new ideas and change versus a preference for sticking to tried and tested approaches. There is a clear parallel here with the “Openness to Change” Big 5 personality trait.
Conservative
UPSIDES: Allows a focus on efficiency, and reduces the risk of error when the external environment is stable
DOWNSIDES: Likely to miss business opportunities or fail to adapt quickly enough to changing external conditions
Open to change
UPSIDES: More likely to lead on innovation and capitalise on emerging opportunities/changes
DOWNSIDES: Risk of introducing too much discretionary change, destabilising the business
Dimension description/explanation
“Freedom of speech”
This dimension is an attempt to describe the significant differences in ways of talking about the important and sensitive issues that exist in organisations, often linked to differences in national cultures. It acknowledges that in certain cultures people are expected to raise difficult issues in a more coded, or indirect, way in order to minimize the risk of someone getting embarrassed or taking offence. In other cultures, it is more acceptable to talk about things in a direct way – exactly as you see them – without as much consideration given to the potential sensitivities of others. The central point here is that if you have an idea or perception that is significantly different from others, or the status quo, this is not much use to the organisation unless you are able to speak about it in a reasonably straightforward way without fear of negative consequences. Themes related to this dimension are the old chestnut of “honest conversations” and the concept of psychological safety (Amy Edmondson).
Sensitive to others
UPSIDES: Polite, stable atmosphere, with minimal unnecessary conflict
DOWNSIDES: Important opportunities or issues unlikely to be surfaced, making the business vulnerable to significant external and internal risks
Free speaking
UPSIDES: Important opportunities or issues likely to be surfaced, allowing the business to maximise value and minimise significant risks
DOWNSIDES: Employees over-express, introducing unnecessary challenge which could destabilise relationships
