We all have big beliefs, or narratives, that run through our business and impact and limit our actions, especially when not accompanied by critical thinking.
Me
Metanarratives, or grand narratives, are overreaching theories or stories shaping our perceptions and experiences. They attempt to provide a comprehensive explanation of various historical events or practices. Some examples of social metanarratives are:
Progress comes from reason and science
Education improves lives
Society is getting more civilized
The concept of metanarratives, or grand narratives, was introduced by the French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard. He brought this term into prominence In his work "The Postmodern Condition: A report of Knowledge" in 1979. He argued these grand narratives have lost their credibility in the postmodern era, which is characterized by increasing skepticism. But recent history has put a twist on this stance; with the prevalence of social media facilitating the creation and proliferation of local narratives, fomenting political and social division and extremism. These local narratives are widely accepted theories among specific groups and are based on partial truths, or poorly drawn conclusions. These semi-closed systems of like-minded agents are catalyzing local narratives to the point they are mimicking metanarratives in impact.
Social media logarithms are meant to increase face time within the platform, so they introduce feed that reflects user behavior. But ultimately this creates boundaries between groups and increases the prevalence of local narrative proliferation, as people encounter mostly common ideas and explanations without applying critical thinking. The narrative magnification arises from the similarities in the thinking, and the belief these ideas or perspectives are further evidence of fixed mindsets. This increases bias by confirming similar thinking, and the collective local narratives comingle, catalyzed by social media logarithms, and become reinforcing within the group or subsystem. This observation is an important one for our business environment.
In isolated, and semi-closed systems like businesses, often only similar ideas are introduced and entertained. And here is the rub, as a result, vision and options become restricted and even suppressed. If you are sitting there thinking there are no metanarratives or local narratives impacting your business, I challenge you to read further.
Let's look at this from a symptom diagnostic view. There are different ways that amplified local and metanarratives impact your business:
Are alternative perspectives excluded from discussions? Narratives often marginalize or exclude alternative viewpoints, particularly those of minority or less powerful groups. This can lead to a homogenization of culture and knowledge. We all know what this looks like in society. As it relates to business, this can be in the form of leadership teams. Or relating to the less powerful, consider new front-line employees; how much input do they have, even though they might have critical insight into the hiring and training process? Think about the power difference between sales and customer service and shipping in most companies. Conversely, do you know which department almost always has power? Accounting. In fact, the one with the most power in the organization is often called "Controller". Controlling costs is a responsibility of management, but as a solo business strategy, by definition, it is limiting.
Are power structures legitimized? Narratives play a crucial role in legitimizing prevailing power structures and upholding the current order. Through the dissemination of a singular, dominant narrative, they reinforce authority and credibility of existing power dynamics. This process not only justifies the status quo but also perpetuates the influence and control of those in power. For example, think about the statement, "The main elements of our strategic framework are X, Y, and Z". This excludes alternatives such as "A" or "L", among others. It is essential to recognize that individuals entrusted with determining the strategic direction of a business often share a common perspective, shaping decisions and initiatives in alignment with established power structures and ideological frameworks.
Is there an assumption of objectivity, even in metrics? Narratives claim to offer objective truths, yet the selection, measurement, and interpretation of numbers and metrics can distort perceived progress. Conclusions about direction and future events and the state of the system may not be indicative of the data. This is because we very often measure the wrong data or miss crucial information. For example, companies often congratulate themselves when they have several hundred days without a lost-time safety incident, and conclude their safety program is effective, while not realizing a situation or vulnerability is developing.
Is there Inflexibility, and fixed mindsets? Narratives can be rigid and inflexible, failing to account for the complexity and diversity of human experiences. A very common way businesses coerce employees into conforming is through establishing culture and values. Policies are often riddled with "shall nots" and "don'ts", putting the brakes on behavior and thinking as soon as new employees walk in the door, only to solicit freedom, flexibility, and innovation through culture and values. Calling out a persona or employee characteristic can be limiting in business. This is further complicated by our different perceptions of language meaning.
Is there discourse that overgeneralizes? Narratives tend to overgeneralize and simplify complex phenomena, which can lead to misunderstandings and misrepresentations. The characterization of "They always...", or "They don't really care" are common workplace stances taken about the "other" group. The case study below is an example of a narrative that simplified complex phenomena, and delayed progress.
Is there resistance to change, or feelings of commitment that prevent change? Narratives can resist change and adaptation, making it difficult to incorporate new information or perspectives. There is so much investment in policy, process, culture, a way of working or doing business, etc. that businesses can be hesitant to change. The irony of it all is that we are often the source of our own resistance.
Consider this case study: This is a real story of a marginalized group whose views were disregarded, though their perspective had great value. A global organization's machining plant in an isolated area had early success, but lackluster sales performance in recent history. There was a story of a visiting manager observing an operator running a machine without tooling; the machine was running with no output for "hours". The conclusion was this was done to "game" the system and increase the asset uptime, with no production. This same story circulated as an explanation of the lower performance, and became a legendary expression of the resistance in the plant. The same story was told by sales, engineering, quality, and executive groups-even multiple vice presidents. It was told multiple times by different people as the observer, or as their coworker as the observer. A third-party investigation revealed the machinists were being subjected to overengineered equipment with insufficient installation, operational, and performance handshake, orders scheduled with no available tooling or raw material, drastically insufficient equipment maintenance, and machine programming that would not yield parts in specification, and often result in crashes of the tooling with the workpiece, or chuck. What was this company's next action? They locked the machinists out of the programs to prevent revisions. True story.
This case study illustrates all of the dangers of local narratives. No idea if the operator story was true; it may very well have been. If it was, the two main questions were: (1) What was the thinking involved in doing this?, and (2) What is the link between spindle time and sales? These manufacturing work conditions were just issues that needed resolved, but the environment was not conducive to collaboration. When we exclude a specific group due to preconceived notions or assumptions of their motivations, we miss important information, increase cognitive bias, prolong problems, reinforce poor performance, and increase workplace stress unnecessarily.
Addressing the impact of local narratives and metanarratives takes a multiprong approach that decentralizes power, diversifies thinking, challenges truth and status quo, and institutes pluralism. Here are specific approaches to decrease the impact of local and metanarratives.
Metacognition, thinking, and bias awareness:
Interact at the thinking level; behavior is born of mental models. Provide training on thinking, critical thinking and metacognition. (See Cabrera Lab UpThinking)
As a first step to anything, challenge boundaries of inclusion.
Investigate the reasons some ideas are pursued while others don't get traction.
When things go well, talk through what didn't go wrong, and why.
Value in perspective of even negativity:
Find ways to embrace bad, unfavorable news. Have it be accepted within your organization that it is just feedback that your system needs adjusted.
When dissent arises, catalyze dialogue and understand the reasoning behind the opposition. Legitimately incorporate changes to address concerns. If not part of the primary discussion, find out why these voices weren't initially included and fix it.
When examining data, look for anecdotal information and how the numbers "feel". Look for contradictory information. Try to identify alternative interpretations that are less favorable.
Understanding and knowledge in pluralism, holism, and homeostasis:
Use multiple methodologies and views of the same situation or system.
Project and identify system context to better understand the importance of the system, direction, and viability concerns. Conversely, identify the parts of a system and flush out purpose and relationships between elements and agents for a better understanding of the system's innerworkings.
Increase option access by removing cognitive bias and tamp down decision making triggers.
Share power by distributing authority and accountability and move decision making ability as close to the situation as possible. This will also reduce work stress.
These are post-modern approaches and should be instituted systematically. Post-modernism accepts multiple interpretations of the world and tolerance of difference. It encourages a pluralistic design to every endeavor, particularly inquiry systems and discourse. Post-modernism emphasizes the fluidity of language and the dynamic nature of thinking. It recognizes that language is not static but rather evolves over time, reflecting the changing values and beliefs of society. Further, post-modernism views thinking as a valuable resource that should be continuously explored and utilized to its full potential. By incorporating these post-modernist principles into systematic approaches, organizations and individuals can foster a more inclusive and open-minded environment. This approach encourages creativity, innovation, and critical thinking, leading to a more dynamic and adaptive society.
Lori G. Fisher, PMP
PLS Management Consulting
Purpose | Leap | Surge
Comentários