Freedom to think
This area is made up of four cultural dimensions that relate to balances in the thinking phase of a team’s work cycle, and the extent to which people’s thinking is typically free from constraints set by others or organisational policy/process.
At a strategic level they represent leadership dilemmas connected with the development phase of the solution development & delivery cycle, with line of sight to the organization’s unique value proposition and operating model.
A full illustration of the “Time Horizon” 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.
“Time horizon” – Short term vs. long term
This question is about whether we have a tendency to focus on short term problem solving, or long term problem solving – whether attention is more focused on the present, which feels more reactive, or the future which feels more planful.
Low degrees of freedom
Short term thinking, responding to and resolving problems in the present.
High degrees of freedom
Long term thinking, planning ahead with a focus on solving future problems
- Current culture (your experience over last 6 months) 30%
- Required culture (the culture we need) 70%
- Desired culture (the culture you’d like) 47%
Typical Trade-offs
UPSIDES: Good at finding opportunistic solutions to short term market needs
DOWNSIDES: Likely to lag behind competitors in terms of future-focused innovation
DOWNSIDES: Slower to respond to short term market changes
Dimension description/explanation
“Thinking Scale”
This dimension is about how broadly employees in an area are asked to think, relating to the range of customers or audiences they serve. This is the classic “global vs. local” problem solving dilemma I experienced at many well-known international organisations, and the word “global” should be interpreted as broader than local or centralised. The corresponding global or local mindset and ways of working in an area (culture) should reflect that area’s role in the organisation’s core operating model. For example, you don’t want people developing purely local solutions when the strategy and operating model is for that area to leverage central solutions and minimise the amount of local customisation.
“Global” Thinking
UPSIDES: Brand consistency and resource efficiency; typically lower costs and faster speed to market
DOWNSIDES: Solutions less tailored to local customer needs, meaning risk to customer loyalty
“Local” Thinking
UPSIDES: Solutions tailored to local customer needs, increasing likelihood of customer satisfaction and loyalty
DOWNSIDES: More resource intensive, meaning higher costs and slower to market; potential brand implications
“Creativity”
This dimension is about the predominant style of thinking and problem solving in an area – are people generally speaking expected to think “out of the box” and consider unconventional solutions (divergent thinking), or more “in the box”, using standard methods and working on the continuous improvement or adaptation of existing solutions (convergent thinking). This is important as typically organisations don’t want divergent thinkers in highly controlled or regulated environments. This is essentially Michael Kirton’s distinction between Adaptive and Innovative creativity (1976; 2003), and I also envisage an association with the N vs. S thinking style dimension of the MBTI personality type indicator.
Adaptive
UPSIDES: Resource efficient (less costly, faster to market) in situations where “tried and tested” solutions will still work well
DOWNSIDES: Chances of leading and shaping the market as a result of finding a break-through innovation are reduced
Innovative
UPSIDES: Increased chance of a break-through innovation, or finding the optimum solution when the context has changed
DOWNSIDES: Risk to time and costs if “tried and tested” solutions can still be adapted successfully
“Involvement”
This dimension is about the extent to which an organisation tends to involve employees in the development or solutions outside of the remit of their role e.g. in day-to-day problem solving or the design and testing phases of a project. It is a reflection of how collectivist vs. individualist a culture is (ref. Hofstede’s classic culture dimension), and the practical extension of the “Group Emphasis” dimension found under the Freedom to Differ area. There are clear upsides and downsides to a high involvement culture, and these are briefly described across.
Low degrees of freedom
High Involvement
UPSIDES: Likelihood that the quality of the final solution will be higher if a wider range of perspectives are considered
DOWNSIDES: Principally time and costs as typically involving more people slows things down and commits more resources
Low Involvement
UPSIDES: Typically higher speed to market and lower costs if less people involved in the development process
DOWNSIDES: Risk that solutions are lower quality if less perspectives are considered in the development process