ShapingCultureThroughActionSets

Table of Contents
Part 1
Reading Culture
The very practice oriented theory
of reading cultural issues in an
organization. Developed, tested
and applied in various C-Suite
advisory projects
Part 2
Mapping Culture
Simple standard frameworks
that allow thinking strategically
and talking and evangelizing
target culture.
Part 3
Changing Culture
Practical guide in implementing
cultural change programs in a
step by step fashion.
Management Perspectives
Board and Shareholder Perspective (Not included in this presentation)
Part 4
Reading the situation
Reading cultural gaps from KPIs
and competitive development
Part 5
Changing Positions
Identifying entry points to the
cultural change process and key
positions to be re-filled
Part 6
Implementation Roadmap
Talent Acquisition, Culture Books,
Operating Models and KPIs.

Action Sets Contracts
Population
Velocity

Action Sets
▪ In every action taken at any moment by any individual, the individual has to make a decision on how to act.
▪ Every decision can be mapped in a limited set of possible options that have several benefits and drawbacks.
Observation
Classes
Option 1
Best of all Choices
Option 2
Best Indiv. Perf.
Option 3
Underperform
Option 4
Perf. To hurt others
How to read
decisions
▪ Every decision for one of the options is in full faculty of one‘s ability
▪ Underperforming can be stress-induced, being demotivated by an event or being angry with employer
▪ Best individual performance implies focus on reward and focused effort for self rather than team
▪ Hurting others can be due to being overstepped, attacked, ego-issues or perceived threats or toxic personality
▪ The best of all choices typically requires high levels of trust, support, attention and target culture vision
Part 1:
Reading Culture Introduction to Action Sets
Section 2:
Action Sets
Actions over Time
Influence
Factors
The following factors can influence what action a person takes
▪ General skills, ability and discipline of the individual
▪ Motives, Intents and shifting goals
▪ The visibility of the action by different sets of audiences (→ Contracts discussed in the next section)

Part 1:
Reading Culture An example of possible actions within an organization or group
Section 2:
Action Sets
Example
Individual obtains a task that (a) is good for individual performance, (b) falls into an area where someone
else is usually in the lead, (c) would be benefitial to discuss in the team and align with others, (d) has the
potential to negatively impact the work of someone else.
Example
Strategies
Option 1
Best of all Choices
Option 2
Hurt someone
▪ (a) try to take the lead but evalute who best can support to make team win
▪ (b) be sure to align with the person usually in the lead on how to proceed
▪ (c) involve the entire team and discuss how to benefit the team using the task
▪ (d) Be sure to proactively address the issue for the other person and resolve it amicably
▪ (a) focus foremost on personal gain in performance and in the team
▪ (b) assess if the person in the lead is powerful. Otherwise step over his lead
▪ (c) involve the entire team but be sure to overstep and push out the lead and impacted person
▪ (d) ideally exclude the impacted person from the team or ensure nobody listens to the person
Option 3
Personal Benefit
▪ (a) Find the best supporters on your side and take the lead on this topic
▪ (b) Do not inform the person in the lead on this topic and try to be better than him/her
▪ (c) Do not involve the team as it could backfire. Only involve your supporters
▪ (d) Avoid making an enemy out of the impacted person, but also do not involve the person
Option 4
Do nothing
▪ (a) Find a reason why this is not your job and you do not want to do it.
▪ (b) Push responsibility to the lead and support him and getting others involved
▪ (c) Use the team meeting to lobby for the importance of this and find others to do it
▪ (d) Leave the issues with the negative impact on someone else ignored and to the lead

Part 1:
Reading Culture An example of possible actions within an organization or group
Section 2:
Action Sets
Example
Individual obtains a task that (a) is good for individual performance, (b) falls into an area where someone
else is usually in the lead, (c) would be benefitial to discuss in the team and align with others, (d) has the
potential to negatively impact the work of someone else.
Example
Strategies
Option 1
Best of all Choices
Option 2
Hurt someone
Option 3
Personal Benefit
Option 4
Do nothing
▪ The contract with each team member is likely positive and focused on sharing
▪ The contract with the team is about honestry, transparency and sharing responsibilities
▪ The contract clearly accepts the pecking order of the team and uses its power
▪ The contract with the person to itself is to remain with integrity and think for the company
▪ The contract with the hurt members (lead and negative impact) is violated with this
▪ Individual displays power over others and strengthens is power in the team contract
▪ If this is tolerated by the superior, this strengthtens the contract with the superior
▪ If the superior has to tolerate but does not want it, the superior loses power
▪ The contract with the work sponsor is improved „I am your got to person“
▪ The contract with the team and peers that should be involved is violated
▪ If the team and nobody is responding with punishment, then this rewrites the entire
trust contract among the team and reduces the cohesion of working together
▪ The individual likely will receive less work from the sponsor
▪ The colleagues may think the individual is lazy and does not want to work
▪ The positive impact of sharing communication is overlooked and the negative aspect
of distributing work – as a colleague – is perceived as shirking out and negative

Part 1:
Reading Culture Example of Sandwhich of Instructions
Section 2:
Action Sets
Example
Example
Strategies
The same logic applies. But this time an individual is instructed from several sources and needs to
find a balance between meeting requirements of e.g. several bosses
Three Parties: A = Boss 1 B = Boss 2 C = Individual
Layer of Instructions:
A instructs B to perform task X B performance depends on X
B instructs C to perform task X C performance depends on X
A instructs C to sabotage task X C performance overriden by A if he sabotages X
The desired outcome of A and B now depend on the action of C.
But A‘s performance is independent of task X. But B‘s performance is dependent on task X.
C can now serve the contract with ist direct superior and be loyal to B. Performing the task X.
C can also defect from B, assuming A is more powerful and hence sabotages B.
If C follows the signal from B, B will protect C and A will at 10% chance hurt performance of C and 10% hurting B.
If C follows the signal from A, B will not protect. A will be hurt by B and A by 40%. And B will be hurt by by 50%.
This sandwhich tactic is typical in set-ups where loyalties of teams are being tested and/or where weak managers
are being sorted out. The solution of this problem is to always focus on bottom-up cohesion and acknoledge the
dependency of B and C on each other, while both together have a stronger arm than the superior A.
But if C chooses as he does depends on the contracts set in the team level of C.

Example
Observation
Option 1
Best of all Choices
Option 2
Best Indiv. Perf.
Option 3
Underperform
Option 4
Analysis of
Influences
Part 1:
Reading Culture Analysing Actions
Section 2:
Action Sets
Actions over Time
Strategy
This is the standard mode of operation in the team and defines the reputation of the individual
The individual had the impression it needs to show better performance to make a good feedback and performance review. It assumes high attention.
The individual did not get the promotion or pay rise and is angry. It tries to cope with this fact by reducing its effort when unobserved.
Person B won against A politically a few times and insulted A. A is now furious and its ego is hurt. So it tries to hurt B.
After the fight with B, A is exhausted and a bit paranoid from the stress. A can hardly focus and underperforms.
▪ The team leader realizes that the choice of Option 4 was the result of him allowing B to hurt A. For the sake of the team, he will reprimand B.
▪ As A was demotivated after the lack of promotion, the short underperformance was okay and accepted. No action required.
▪ The yellow action showed that A is capable of achieving more but is not fully motivated to give its best. The team lead devises strategy for motivation

Leadership
and
Performance
Option 1
Best of all Choices
Option 2
Best Indiv. Perf.
Option 3
Underperform
Option 4
Part 1:
Reading Culture Cultural Shapers
Section 2:
Action Sets
Actions over Time
The Destroyer
▪ Leader C is joining the company. All of a sudden, people around him become more mediocre and start to engage in politics. People get blamed and fail.
▪ C now steals the success of others while taking their participation in success lower in order to get promoted. If this happens, this will inspire others to follow
▪ The cooperation will go lower, defenses are being built, smart people will break defenses and slanders others to get ahead. The cooperation falls apart
▪ Most of the energy in the organization is spent on politics, the “hard work” left for the “hard workers” who operate in terrible conditions.
Leader A Leader B Leader C
Measuring
People
Impact
▪ Every organization requires people to collaborate to get things done. But because of this interdependence, we can measure person X impact on others.
▪ If we observe any random team, by replacing the leader, we can either improve or reduce the productivity of the team or it remains unchanged
▪ Unchanged means the person has no impact and is likely irrelevant to the team; if it improves, the person is having a good impact, etc.
▪ Sometimes, leaders or individual members have such a profound impact that the average of behaviour in the entire team is shifting drastically. Let’s analyse
The
Influencer B
▪ Leader or employee B joins the team. Suddenly everyone’s performance turns better. He coaches, he leads by example, he gets imitated.
▪ The key fact is that to a good leader the change in performance of the team can be reverse engineered and root-caused to the new member
▪ If such behaviour is rewarded, this can serve as a lighthouse example to the entire company and it can reduce political action and promots coach-types
▪ This then will improve everyone’s motivation to learn new things, share this knowledge and to coach others to elevate the performance of the team

Action Sets Contracts
Culture
Velocity

Part 1:
Reading Culture Introduction to Hidden Contracts
Section 1:
Contracts
How many
Contracts?
Impact
On
Groups
Example
What are
contracts
▪ Whenever two people work together, they both have to also jointly find an action set to follow. Are they both giving their best?
▪ Even more important, even if two individuals work extermely well together and turn into friendly peers, A might treat B different if the boss is around
▪ In general, relationships among people is based on contracts that regulate recurring actions being taken.
▪ But there is a unique and different contract if someone else is joining the group. Overall, every group of people follows ist own contrats.
1. A talks to B frequently and both do enjoy great discussions
2. Once C joins the group, A is mistreating B while C accepts it. But it does not affect the contract of 1.
3. If D writes to A, A will abandon work for C or B and will focus entirely on D. He might talk about B and C.
The number of contracts in any organization is equal to the # of possible subsets of people in the organization
=> 1 People = 2 Contracts 1 to the power of 1 the empty set
=> 2 People = 5 Contracts 2 to the power of 2 the empty set
=> 3 People = … 3 to the power of 3 the empty set
Individuals maximize their personal utility function based on their reading of contracts in different settings.
Typical simple rules that are not always in line with target culture include:
- Be nice in one on one contracts, but reduce workload and sharing of information as to increase goodwill
- Be most competent and active contributor towards a superior that measures performance to show competitiveness
- In multi-user settings, entice the most relevant individual for increasing personal benefit in daily functioning
- Isolate as much communication and insight from opponents as possible
More
Abstract
▪ How person A behaves towards a group of people B
▪ Expectations that A has towards the group and members of the group
▪ The fear and ambition that person A has within that group

Part 1:
Reading Culture Abstract explanation of how contracts operate in real life
Section 1:
Contracts
Relationship
▪ Once one member of the group joins or leaves the „meeting“ of the sphere of „visibility“ in the group, the contract changes.
▪ If the contract changes, different patterns in the action set emerge.
▪ The patterns in the action sets emerge over time and reach a steady state over time if everything else remains equal
▪ But a shift in power by one individual in a larger group can change the contract between two people when they are alone
Layer 1
Power
Games
▪ Whenever a group of 5 disconnects and two remain, they have to formulate their relationship and create a contract
▪ One typically makes a move to either build or destroy connection.
▪ In general, trying to destroy the connection is an act of domineering that invites the other to submit or leave
▪ An attempt to build a connection can either be submisse or it can be dominant, depending on the others reaction
▪ After a few cycles of ping pong between two individuals, their overall contract is set and put into stone.
Layer 2
Power
Games
▪ The set in stone contract is static untill a major event changes the perception of the status quo. This is called a „frame game“
▪ For example, adding deception and pretenting to a contract usually does not change the fact that the contract is there and binding
▪ But a person may exit the contract and demand a renegotitiation by saying that the original contract was only a „play“ and no longer is binding
▪ Then the contract has to be re-negotiated. Depending on the power of the one who has no interest in changing the contract, any breach of contract
is usually used to change the perception of the contract-breaker in the wider group.
▪ If the individual who is confronted with a breach of contract is politically weaker, the person usually is „humiliated“ and has little options
Layer 3
Power
Games
▪ The connections between any two people might be governed by the overall power architecture of the group and hidden alliances. Meaning that the
strongest power can dictate the contracts played between others based on their proximity to the power and the powers ability to use alliances to
retaliate for its members
▪ But the power center in such a group does not necessarily change the contract of the entire group if another superior and more powerful person is
joining the group with a stronger contract.

Part 1:
Reading Culture Example overview of possible contract settings in a company team
Section 1:
Contracts
Trans-Team
One-on-One
Orchestrate team / joint tasks and make both equally responsible on the result (sharing and collaboration)
Focus on „retrospective“ discussions that focus on reflections of each contributor (reduce free riding/domneering)
Assign mentor function to each individual on specific area and assign mentees. Measure results cyclically
Intra-Team
Be sensitive to individual position taking and reduce exposure and acceptance for strongly domineering individuals
Strategically shift attention and „liking“ towards the weakest group member to increase ist influence
Be very sensitive to individuals excluded from communication or not involved and challenge team on why over and over
Inter-Team
Debrief meetings cross-team level and ensure proper discussion of any anti-behaviour (e.g. attention-seeking)
Use one-on-ones with team to align on communication („We“ vs „I“ for both wins and failures)
Always ask „why is it that you were taking the lead? What made you excel? How can you share this with team?“)
Sane
Borders
Make it a habit for the team to discuss any request coming from higher up outside of normal communication to
share the request in teh team and always respond with the entire team in copy to reduce this behaviour
Challenge people who do not share with other tasks and deprioritize their needs as team member
Be aware of the each members one-on-one relationships outside of the team
Understand if relationships being built are used for the benefit of the team or the individual and focus on team-players
Understand if relationships are being built to actually hurt team-members or the team

Part 1:
Reading Culture Management Aspects
Section 1:
Contracts
Border
Protection
Anti-
Competition
Authentic
Trust
▪ Allowing individuals to break the trust they choose in one-on-one contract with any individual
by behaving in contrast to this agreement in a group setting erodes he entire idea of trust overall
▪ If person A is nice to person B, but domineers B in a group setting, person B loses face and confidence
▪ While person A may feel special if it gets assignments and information out of the team scope, not
sharing and withholding this information and prioritizing over team issues creates a culture where
everyone starts to think individual goals versus team goals
▪ If the contracts define that nobody shares information and everyone needs to learn by oneself to be
accepted as expert in the group, this ultimately sets up a toxic competition in the group.
▪ Sharing and collaboration then does not work unless the „boss is present“ contract overrides the rule.
But knowledge sharing will not happen in a „no boss is present“ configuration.

1
2
3
Organization
Team
Individual
Organization: How Contracts and Culture are Shaped in Practice
Architecture
of Change
Organization
▪ It is not possible to change rules top-down or even discussing rules directly
▪ Skills of manipulating contracts does change how quickly culture change can happen, however
▪ Rules must be formulated rather abstractly, while contracts are designed within the relationship
▪ The ability of the organization to change contracts and culture hinges on the commitment, clarity of
definitions and the enforcement and skill of all intermediary managers as they rewrite the contracts
▪ In the intra-team set-up among equals, leading by example typically does not change contracts
▪ But the behaviour can change as to make everyone appear to honor the new contract
▪ The adaptation only truly works if there is a direct benefit for the individual to adopt the contracts
▪ That is only the case if those who have the power
▪ give the benefit (promotion, information) only if the contract is adhered to
▪ Have high sensitivity and are able to identify individuals who only pretend
▪ Have the backbone to challenge and actively manage against the false flag behaviour
▪ And if among those who have power
▪ Each member adheres to the target contract model
▪ And if the intra-team members themselves are actively living the contract
▪ Which means they identify anti-behaviours within the peer group
▪ And also have the backbone to challenge the behaviour
▪ The way to align all these contributors behaviour is to :
▪ Have a vision of a better world that everybody believes in
▪ Have the commitment to enforce the new culture
▪ Are living the culture and actively promote it
Part 1:
Reading Culture
Section 1:
Contracts Examples

1
2
3
Organization
Team
Individual
Teams: How Contracts and Culture are Shaped in Practice
Architecture
of Change
Team
▪ In the intra-team setting, rewriting contracts is not possible by setting and enforcing rules
▪ New contracs are only enforced if the team is committing to it as a whole and believes in it
▪ Typically, the team itself has to be set up as a real team that
Change comes from the team
▪ As a general rule, new contracts and cultures can not be set by a manager but have to evolve from the team
▪ Typically two individuals or more are building a new contract and start advocating it more or less openly
▪ This then typically needs to a beneficial treatment (attention, proximity) which leads to adoption
▪ A team lead can only sprinkle ideas of new cultures in one-on-one meetings and hope the individual grows it
into an adopted framework. It is not possible to define a new cultural framework and force people to adapt
Personal Contracts
▪ In general, personal one-on-one contracts always shift with one promoting a better culture, and one promoting
a worse culture. This assymetry is always there.
▪ The power dynamics in the group define which of the two proposals is ultimately winning over the other at any
time. A change in power dynamics can hence not force a new culture, but shift the one-on-one contracts to a better
outcome. This can be done by a team leader setting a new vision for how to interact as a team
▪ There is a natural limit to changing this culture. If the leader sets a culture that is far beyond the best outcome of all
one-on-one contracts, the team distances from the leader and the influence on power dynamics is reduced
▪ Hence whoever leads one level below needs to observe the contracts and proposals to understand how much change
can be brought about at the moment. As this small change is happening, new even better contracts are devised by
the members of the team and different „groups“ and their contracts might even exchange ideas and create even
better contracts.
Part 1:
Reading Culture
Section 1:
Contracts Examples

1
2
3
Organization
Team
Individual
Individuals: How Contracts and Culture are Shaped in Practice
Architecture
of Change
Individual
▪ Each and every individual comes with ist own belief set, its own ego, self-image and mental and intellectual makeup
▪ Changing rules rapidly by e.g. having 50% of the population be ready for a new culture might shock the other 50%
▪ Such shock lead to a dissociative state of misbelief, lower confidence, elevated fear and stress which yields to either
becoming very passive or becoming very political and aggressive/domineering willing to sabotage the change effort.
Recalibration of Attention and Focus of Management and Team
▪ The weakest who were supported in the old structure might cope with this quite well.
▪ The strongest in the old culture may now actually be the weakest and require most hand-holding and attention
Individual Barrier Events
▪ Tuckmans change cycle implies it can take several months for individual to fully process the shock. New model has
▪ The power dynamics in the group define which of the two proposals is ultimately winning over the other at any
time. A change in power dynamics can hence not force a new culture, but shift the one-on-one contracts to a better
outcome. This can be done by a team leader setting a new vision for how to interact as a team
▪ There is a natural limit to changing this culture. If the leader sets a culture that is far beyond the best outcome of all
one-on-one contracts, the team distances from the leader and the influence on power dynamics is reduced
▪ Hence whoever leads one level below needs to observe the contracts and proposals to understand how much change
can be brought about at the moment. As this small change is happening, new even better contracts are devised by
the members of the team and different „groups“ and their contracts might even exchange ideas and create even
better contracts.
Part 1:
Reading Culture
Section 1:
Contracts Examples

What is
Velocity
Part 1:
Reading Culture What is Velocity?
Section 3:
Velocity
Academic
Debate
Business
Discussion
Warp
Speed
Perfect
Solutions
Efficient
Solutions
Blind / Toxic
Speed
▪ The velocity of a culture is the speed and level of thoroughness of decision making that drive daily business operations
▪ In the slowest case, the business operates like an academic organization where tiniest details are discussed at length
▪ In the center rests the pareto efficient way using a best effort, but also sufficient effort foundation for business decisions
▪ In the right extreme, decisions are made on pure judgement calls, void of reasoning and analysis. Effectiveness is destroyed by speed. (“Firedrill”)
What does it
have to do
with culture?
▪ As the velocity of decisions and actions increases, proper analysis and reasoning slowly disappear. Decisions are based on judgement.
▪ As decisions increasingly are driven by individuals judgement, their judgment and power starts to drive business decisions. “Decision Cults” emerge.
▪ As decision cults emerge, individual gain and competition over making decisions festers in the organization and the decisions of key decision makers
can no longer be easily verified or attacked without retaliation. The speed also increases the risk of bad decisions which increases the retaliation.
▪ As this process unfolds, documentation and analysis is further suppressed and power is moving from data and facts to judgements and statements
▪ As data and facts leave decision making, individuals either harbor secret data or are leading by pure “fiction” and “belief” which starts turning the
organization into an operating mode, where individual egos and their interest are driving decisions which are based on their individual view on the world,
which on top are affected and changed based by competitive behaviour in the organization
▪ If this gets very extreme, toxicity arises and people that do not aggree get isolated, gangs start forming and toxicity in the workplace is getting elevated.
▪ Ultimately, this can take the extreme form where a leader is under full and total control over everyone around and under him, retaliates and punishes
anyone who challenges the decisions and the entire culture becomes distached from reality and just focuses on pleasing the cultish leader.

Evolution of
Velocity
Step by Step
Deterioriation
from Fact-
and Data-
Driven to
Toxic
Personality
Cult
Part 1:
Reading Culture Evolution of Company Culture Degradation from Velocity
Section 3:
Velocity
1 Every single statement made by any individual requires a full comprehensive research agenda by several independent individuals to establish
The ruth of that statement. If the truths have been establish, a peer-reviewed iteration of proposals is made to evaluate potential options. And
the perfect decision based on all possible options that the group is capable of developing is used to move towards the next step.
Academic
Debate
Business
Discussion
Toxic
/ Delusional
1
2 Pareto Principle applies on any decision. If the information provided is sufficiently rich and relevant and deemed enough to proceed, it is
accepted. Based on the established best-effort truth, the best effort pareto-efficient solution is chosen and a cost-benefit analysis might
be applied. All discussions are stored 100% in protocols, exhaustive documentation, based on hard data. And in retrospective, the decisions
are reviewed and analysed by the audit team to ensure all decisions have been made based on best effort.
3 Decision speed and “gut feeling” is applied, documentation is created to the level necessary to not create risk for the organization. All decisions
are still subject to review and assumptions made can be challenged later on. But no decision needs to perfect at the time of the decision.
It is expected that the best motive and intent is behind the decision and documentation is sufficient to identify anyone putting personal interest
over company interest. Extreme judgement calls can be identified and corrected in the future.
4 The documentation and audit trail is no longer sufficient. Most likely everyone still tries to do the best effort decisions based on reality and
provable statements. The intent is still to make the right decisions and the team reviews each other and provides feedback on possible issues.
5 The first mover advantage is taking over. The interest of the decision maker is to favor his own benefit, position actions of the team and to
outperform others. Statements can be at times “stretched”, facts might be unknown, but there is overall no issue until a larger failure. There
is no intent to review the decisions made and any attempt to analyse the decisions or draw conclusions on their fairness is vigorously attacked
by the person in charge.
2 2 4 5
6 Lies, deception and false statements are increasingly used to force decisions. People are coerced into falling into line into the decision. Incompetence
is hidden. Power dynamics guides the main decision making. But the toxicity is still mostly focused on the drivers and management, not everyone.
7 Decisions are made purely out of speculation and lies. Entire teams start slandering others for hinting at the idea that decisions are not optimal,
or based on full illusion. Entire team operates like a cult and the leaders dictate activity with no direct impact. Highest level of toxicity. Everyone
jumps into line to support the lies to not get run over by the group dynamics. Speed is used to cripple any reflection and no documentation is created.
6 7

Problem of
Direction
Part 1:
Reading Culture Unlocking Action Potential by Changing the Velocity of the Converation
Section 3:
Velocity
Academic
Debate
Business
Discussion
Toxic
/ Delusional
1 2 2 4 5 6 7
Academic
Starting Point
Defines
Strategy.
▪ Academic structures that rely on truth often can stifle into inaction and death by committee
▪ These cultures need dynamic, fast paced stakkatos of lofty lies to build vision and drive
▪ It will empower those with drive and motivation slowed down by old and slow processes
Delusional
▪ Delusional structures that are following a vision distached from reality need a slow down
▪ Setting standards in telling the truth and remaining factual can be a strong motivator
▪ It will unlock and empower those interested in real results based on real data
Business
▪ A centered organization needs no “direction“ but will naturally drift depending on its top executives’ style

Core
Questions
Part 1:
Reading Culture Critical Questions on issues regarding Velocity
Section 3:
Velocity
1 If a person A makes a proposal or statement about a fact in the organization, can this statement be challenged to be verified?
(a) “We need to invest into this new tool to get returns.” => The Fiction is focused on the facts of business
(b) “Person B has failed to execute on the project X and did not even try.” => The Fiction is starting to judge the behaviour of others.
(c) “Person B spoke to Person C in an inappropriate way” => The Fiction is moving to targeting personality
Once an organization loses touch of reality and the requirement that decisions and statements made in the “fast mode” no longer can be
challenged, the organization becomes cultish and toxic.
In the above examples, while the organization moves close to warp speed, there must be a mechanism to say “Stop. Break. This needs analysis.”
2 If a personal A made a proposal or statement and it was challenged, can the organization quickly and effectively determine the root caus?
Assuming there was a circuit breaker and “Stop. Break. This needs analysis” was called effectively. Is there sufficient data and overall trust
in the organization to resolve the issue amicably?
(a) No data or protocol exists to verify claims of B. The resolution is judgement based. B is not popular and hence he loses the challenge. => No real answer
(b) There are protocols and data to prove the challenger is right. But it has no effect, because A is too powerful to be punished. => Too powerful
(c) The error can be proven and B is right. A now gets extremely severely punished and now fears to move fast. => Slows organization
(d) The debate is so intense and thorough, that nobody ever wants a debate again, because it takes too much energy and time. => Cost of challenge
3 What is the target velocity and what is the real velocity?
(a) Understaffed teams with too much on their plate become extremely fast. And might make errors. And correcting them is costly.
(b) Teams competing against each other to point out errors of the other team create toxicity and slow down the organization
(c) Without any eye and control over velocity, teams might evolve into inefficient entities (too slow or too fast)

Population
View 1
Part 1:
Section 4:
Population
CEO
COO CIO CTO
A
B
C
G
H
I
J
K
L
Formal Structure
CEO
COO CIO CTO
A
B
C
G
H
I
J
K
L
Alliance Structure
CEO information and power network
COO information and power network
Grassroot Network under COO, but with own vision
The alliances
protect their
own interests
and form “safe”
zones.

Population
View 1
Interpretation
Part 1:
Section 4:
Population
CEO
COO CIO CTO
A
B
C
G
H
I
J
K
L
▪ It is an ancient Chinese teaching that says that the best
way to lead is to be silent.
▪ In silence, those with ambition and goals will reveal
themselves in their actions.
▪ Any reaction of a leader for or against the drivers
of change may reveal intent from the leader which
can cause harm to the dynamics of the group.
▪ Hence the best way to lead is to let the dynamics of
those lead play out in front of the court.
▪ Applied to modern management:
▪ A leader can not create a vision to make his subordinates
do what he wants
▪ Instead, he observes the forces in the team and guides
their conflicting impulses by giving general judgement
and advise on the issues where he sees the needs
▪ And by doing so and holding frequent meetings, the
leader can observe the different factions and their
motives and draw conclusions on where these ideas
and impulse come from, what interest they serve and
where he needs to interact with the dyna´mics
▪ Applied to change management
▪ Change happens if the general population already wants
it. And the leaderships creates the vision that allows those
with ambition and skill to act where before they were not
able to.

Population
View 2
Part 1:
Section 4:
Population
CEO
COO CIO CTO
A
B
C
G
H
I
J
K
L
Fact 1: The strongest drivers create most “pull”
▪ Power Ambition Network drives the show
▪ CEO and key leadership have very strong effect on culture
▪ Whoever decides bonuses and career wins
▪ A strong low-level ambitious person with the right network
can shape the culture tremenduously
Fact 2: The most resilient cultures survive
▪ You can not wipe out a culture if it is very strong
▪ The only way to change these is to cut it out of the company
▪ But they adapt to the ruling culture
▪ In general, these groups put themselves over the company
Fact 3: Champions are the key chessboards
▪ In any change campaign, there is a set of people if they
hear about the change, they are willing to leave their
comfort zone and support driving the change
▪ A “selfish motives first” campaign has its own champions.
A “company over personal gain” has its own champions.
▪ Good CEOs test initiatives and look at who adopts

Working
with
Champions
Part 1:
Section 4:
Population
Phase 1: The mission
▪ CEO has a new vision for the company
▪ CEO has 15 – 20 “ideas” on how to change culture
▪ CEO “articulates and discusses” ideas in network
▪ CEO promotes a few ideas sponsored by his network in
company and gathers feedback
Phase 2: Feedback Cycles
▪ CEO identifies 5 – 10 people who speak up on the topic
▪ CEO tries to recruit them as “agents” or “spies”
▪ Spies give information on how population thinks about
the new initiative
Phase 3: Identify the Champions
▪ CEO gets feedback of who had similar ideas
▪ CEO gets feedback on what ideas really existed before him
▪ CEO gets feedback on how far these ideas evolved over time
▪ CEO identifies champions with own ideas and motivation to execute
▪ CEO calls them champions and adapts his “15 – 20 ideas”
➔ You can not always win people for your ideas, but you can find
people with own ideas who invested into it that match your vision
➔ Those are the change agents that will drive the change
CEO
COO CIO CTO
A
B
C
G
H
I
J
K
L
CEO
Existing Network
COO CIO CTO
A
B
C
G
H
I
J
K
L
Change Network
Phase 4: Execute Change
▪ CEO supports new champions via setting “agenda”
▪ CEO supports new champions via spies (who works against it?)
▪ CEO supports new champions via budget and staffing
▪ CEO creates panel and forces his enemies to think the new agenda through
▪ Etc.

The issue of
Capability
and
Feasibility
Part 1:
Section 4:
Population
Fact 1: Not everybody has the mental skills to adapt
▪ If you want to turn a process organization into agile, you will fail
▪ You have to set up centers of excellence and wait and wait and wait
▪ Loop in HR and influence the hiring decisions. Accept to hurt some team leads
Fact 2: You need buy-in from the powerhouses or you fail
▪ If you hurt the interests of the powerful you will never succeed
▪ You need to know how to position the powerhouses in the new paradigm
▪ If they are unable to execute, you need to help them or get rid of them
▪ Getting rid of disturbances requires next-in line to be ready. This reduces option set
Fact 3: You can’t turn an autist into a sales rockstar
▪ If the capability mix of the organization is not equipped for the new paradigm, it will fail
▪ You have to rely on HR and leadership to get sound advise on limitations. Including feedback from spies
Fact 4: You need a long breath
▪ If chances are you are taken out after 3 years but this requires 10 years to happen, forget it
▪ If your stakeholders above and below do not belief in your tenure, forget it
▪ Even if people believe, but there is too much resistance, forget it (look at population support)
Summary: Know your population or forget change.

Beliefs Maturity
Leadership
People

Part 2:
Mapping Culture Beliefs, Values, Mindsets: How do they relate to the Culture?
Section 1:
Beliefs
Simplified
Contracts
▪ Managing many complex contracts is typically too difficult for individuals especially if the environment is small
▪ The rules of each contract are then transformed into a smaller set of „rules“ that guide how an individual behaves in a wider set of people
▪ Essentially, the individual thinks about how a specific type of action will be perceived and how it will affect his life
Action Set
Filters
▪ The simple rules essentially limit the individuals ability to act differently. The individual acts always in the same way.
▪ This not only reduces the set of actions, but also the ability to perform well in different contracts environment
▪ This limitation starts to create predictability and an overall reputation on „how smart and tactically complex is this person“
Limited
Network
▪ Whoever acts always the same and cannot adapt to the contract environment is simplistic and not always useful for anyone
▪ This means the individual loses access to different networks or at least „reputational standing“ in different networks and their contracts
Simplification
Justification
Cognitive
Dissonance
▪ By simplifying the complexity of contracts and limiting action sets and losing reputation, power and network, the individual bears a cost
▪ The indidual explains his „lazyness“ or „lack of skill“ by creating „values“ that underly his decision making. For example „Be nice to everyone.“
▪ As a result of values and the limited behaviour set, people start to build a reputation which they increasingly have to adhere to
Cognitive
Prison
▪ The reputation allows others to demand the individual behaves according to its reputation (-> „Character“) or it will be discredited and shamed
▪ By allowing reputations to be created and by taking reputation hostage, the individual becomes predictable in its own limitations to act (-> „Prison“)
▪ The predictability does not make useful for others, but it sterilizes the individual from „politics“ and „influence“ in total. The individual cannot be trusted
Outcome
▪ The ultimate result is that any organization creates a pecking order that is stable on the surface
▪ It is this pecking order that defines the values, beliefs and mindsets for any organization
▪ Everyone in the organization that is adapted to the culture and ist peers will see and feel the values and beliefs play out in day to day life
▪ This is why everybody can talk about values and by values, beliefs and mindsets can be used to define vision

Part 2:
Mapping Culture Beliefs – Drivers of Good Culture
Section 1:
Beliefs
Curiosity
Trade
Sharing
Belief
▪ Sharing knowledge is a valuable activity in itself
▪ Paying it forward will be rewarded in the future
▪ Leading by example is the driver of change
▪ Sharing knowledge only costs time and effort
▪ Paying it forward is not rewarded
▪ Leading by example has no impact
▪ Creating insights is my natural habitat
▪ Sharing occurs naturally as I create insights
▪ Displaying my curiosity is my brand
▪ Creating insights is not rewarded or frowned upon
▪ I keep my insights for myself as nobody cares
▪ My curiosity makes me look „unfocused“
▪ Sharing makes the team stronger
▪ Others use my insight to perform better
▪ As a team we share all we do
▪ Sharing makes me weaker and the other strong
▪ Others use my insight to outperform me
▪ Nobody shares with me or others
▪ I trade my knowledge for secrets
▪ I trade my knowledge for other knowledge
▪ I share my knowledge for money
▪ Nobody trades relevant information with me
▪ Nobody returns the favour and harbors insights
▪ I get no reward for sharing and helping others
Controlled by Individual Controlled by Company Culture
+ -

Part 2:
Mapping Culture Anti-Beliefs : Inhibitors of Culture
Section 1:
Beliefs
Anti-Curiosity
Team
Incentives
Fear
If I share, I give others more power
If I share, it might seem I have nothing to do
If I share, people may take me for granted
- Nobody shares and everyone is powerless
- Everybody is busy doing easy things difficultly
- Everybody is invisible and operates as a silo
I might need to work longer to share knowledge
My targets may increase if I perform well
Others may judge me for being a know-it-all
Increasing our capability yields more work for us
Increasing performance means new cost reduction
This means I will hurt my beloved colleagues
The best team is if we all do our jobs on our own
The team does best if we do not do anything new
If I share ideas, I violate the silent code
- Silos emerge and empathy decreases
- The company is stuck at ist current stage
- Habits form against sharing and innovating
- No knowledge is created. Externals are paid for it.
- People perform on target. But never beyond.
- Nobody shares to protect reputation and prevent attacks
- The best ones get overloaded and leave or go silent
- Organization is scared of positive change
- Meaning good does harm to the culture
Impact on Individual Impact on Culture
- -

Part 2:
Mapping Culture Laloux Model of Company Maturity
Section 2:
Maturity
Laloux
Model
▪ Model that explains cultural maturity from cultish gangs to process organizations and true teams
▪ Can be applied to entire organization and to individual teams and can easily be understood with contracts
Talking
Laloux
▪ It is very easy to explain group dynamics using this model. Are there some key figures? Is true teamwork happening?
▪ Group dynamics and belief systems in different teams can be discussed
▪ The model provides an evolutionary model that gives a guide on how to develop the team to the “next level”
▪ The HR performance system typically reveals the level that the organization wants to achieve but has not done yet,
so the organizational model is typically one level below that of HR
▪ The diversity in different teams and extreme degradation in some teams shows how much more work is to be done
and where resistance against progress in the organization is coming from
Graphical
Evolution

Part 2:
Mapping Culture Different Stages of the Culture
Section 2:
Maturity
Bands
Elders
Chiefdoms
Stick
Carrot
Stakeholder
Nirvana
▪ People only work with people they like
▪ They only do things they know and want to do
▪ Individual motivation drives focus of group
▪ Some people came, some stayed, some left, new people join
▪ Knowledge is in the elder. No formal process. Elders coordinate tasks
▪ Elders do their best to coach newcomers and are respected in the hierarchy
▪ Power politics among elders starts and competes with young influencers
▪ What is being done is negotiation among chiefs
▪ Each resource is a tool in the war of chiefs over power
▪ Chiefs occupy key positions and an org chart is created based on their areas
▪ Formal org chart implies hierarchy and structure which now is dictating silo activity
▪ Management coordinates silos, new hires fit the likes of the chiefs
▪ Incentives are being implemented and performance is measured with contributions
▪ Pure skill and output is rewarded, which pushes those motivated and punishes chiefs
▪ Silos still remain, but the structure now is dominated by high performers
▪ With high performers who act as „team“ dominating, scope focuses form perf. to impact
▪ As competitive marketplace is won, and performance isn‘t an issue, brand becomes an issue
▪ Hiring and organization more focused on cultural fit, DNA of company and strong team players
▪ All new hires are top skilled, highly motivated, team players and visionaries with entrepreneurial DANN
▪ Focus is on outperforming competition at lowest cost and spending time on growth and experimentation
Almost anyone can think
about its current situation in a
team, whether at work, family
or in social clubs and will find
the team is one of these
states.
If the HR team does not pay
20 – 80% bonuses for top
performers and everyone is
managed by fear or stick, the
organization is still in
chiefdom stage.

Part 2:
Mapping Culture Culture and Different Sizes of Companies
Section 2:
Maturity
Bands
Elders
Chiefdoms
Stick
Carrot
Stakeholder
Nirvana
1 – 12 FTE 15 – 50 FTE 30 – 150 FTE 150 – 1500 FTE 1500 – 6000 FTE
Cult status in early
stage venture
Hiring based on who
is willing to push ahead
Ego and elder status is
key goal of top hires
Elders and chiefs are the key
competitors that define new
hires and structure team.
Depending on quality of the
chiefs, company can mature
Some will lead teams that
focus on elders or are run
like bands
With larger size, key chiefs are
key to company functioning.
Cash flow is positives and key
chiefs will stay, Providing a
static organization structure.
As competition is based on #
FTE, loyalty and capability,
some compete with strong
hires, others cope with bad
hires that are managed by
the stick.
Focus is on meeting goals
or being punishes. Low level
of incentive
As chiefs mature and whole
teams are stable, backups for
all chiefs exist and the structure
becomes stable.
Incentives used to push the core
policians out and put focus on
performance.
The top performers and their
DNA are monitored to identify
good leaders.
In carrot stage, true incentives
start working and the company
KPI systems become control-
able. The company starts to
build strategies to gear the
company towards a strategic
path.
Lots of turnover and flucation.
As the high performers remain
and are continuosuly replaced,
the core binding kit among all
FTE that stay is culture.
Culture becomes a key issue and
includes treating each other well
and working together with well
motivated teams.
The ability to measure impact of
each member leads to fair pay
hikes and performance appraisals
and incentive plans.
The survivers of the culture and the
incentive plan start forming the
„elders“ and „chiefs“.
As the company starts to just run
well in the business model and the
life cycle of the core product is in
maturation, innovation and the
positioning via culture and branding
becomes a key differentiatior.
Next level is reached.
The model originally was
intended to understand the
life cycle of a company from
its founding days to its death.
With waves of progress and
regress.
Ultimately, it is the ability of
hiring managers to think in
culture that determines into
which direction teams evolve
and with them the entire
organization evolves.

Part 2:
Mapping Culture Cultural Stages Dispersed in Organization + Change Plan
Section 2:
Maturity
CEO
COO CFO CIO CTO
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
Organizations are not uniform and homogeneous
Contracts
▪ Can get very complex inter-team
▪ Can vary greatly intra team or division
Action Sets
▪ Are driven by individual FTE
▪ Are grown using manager skill
▪ Can affect contracts if manager is bad
Velocity
▪ Depends on team skills, tools
▪ Depends on history of team
▪ Is driven by team leader personality
Culture Maturity
▪ Can differ from team to team or division to division
▪ Depends on top leader and his control over unit
▪ Depends on who is groomed and how everyone copes
▪ CEO can change the culture from top to bottom and
drive towards gang culture or focus on cooperation
▪ Building maturity is harder than destroying maturity
Step 1:
A key feature is that to
understand the LaLoux
stage of a company, one has
to map out the teams and
departments “stage”.
Step 2:
Understand the power
dynamics and networks that
regulate whose team
culture influences the other
cultures.
Step 3:
Identify champion teams
and champion networks and
position them in the
organization to drive change
using them.
Step 4: HR
Hire higher stage people (+1 level) into the teams. Fire the lowest level employees or put them in
other teams. Coach managers and “the willing” and get them mentored. Ultimately, the CEO will
have to imitate the strongest culture, but actively drives the company to the next level. You
usually cannot skip levels.
Change
Strategies

Part 2:
Mapping Culture Cultural Stages Dispersed in Organization + Change Plan
Section 3:
People
Powerful, Motivated, Supports the goals
Powerful, Motivated, Sabotages the Goal
No power, or no motivation, or not skilled
Fluidly adapting, but no power or ambition
No skill or awareness, managed to perform
▪ Filter out FTEs that are not part of the program
▪ Be aware of communication boundaries. Who may not know.
▪ Then based on capacity, skill, motivation, select the change leaders
Selected Change Leaders
Step 1: Map and Identify the „Players“
CEO
COO CIO CTO
A
B
C
G
H
I
J
K
L
Step 2: Build Communication Plan
CEO
COO CIO CTO
A
B
C
G
H
I
J
K
L
Step 3: Execute Change Roadmap
CEO
COO CIO CTO
A
B
C
G
H
I
J
K
L
▪ Make sure everyone understands the playing field
▪ Gradually communicate the goal and playing field to new stakeholders
▪ Make sure the connections already exist and strategy is based on it
Selected Change Leaders
Direct connections and good relationships of leaders
Mapping the
Playing Field
▪ Who already has the mindset ? Who has contracts in place that fit the agenda ? Where are these people in the organization ? Who is the opposition?
▪ What networks and trust relationships already exist? How can a campaign be executed without alarming the opposition?
▪ How strong is the dynamics to push the opposition into silence ?
▪ Can the strongest opponents be isolated from their support network gradually?

Part 2:
Mapping Culture The Project Plan: Mapping Organization in Transit
Section 3:
Ladership
Goal
▪ Vision: What is the actual goal? How many maturity levels? Which beliefs? What kind of contracts ?
▪ State: Where is the organization? Is the vision feasible?
Champions
▪ Who: Who in the organization is the candidate for change and the new vision?
▪ Buy-in: How much do these individuals already comply with the vision and tried pushing for it themselves?
▪ Influence: Who of the strongest players is actually influential and powerful enough to pull through? What is the landscape?
Strategic Map
▪ Network Who is talking with whom? Which relationships exist? How secretive are the factions among each other? How strong is rivalry?
▪ Process Is there a potential strategy for the new vision to unfold in the landscape? Can critical mass be created?
▪ Timing: How much capacity is there for the campaign? How long will it take? When is the big bang? Etc.
Beliefs
▪ Contracts: Which contracts exist, work and can be used as lighthouse and can be copied in the organization?
▪ Beliefs: What beliefs are currently in the organization? Who has better ones ? How does it relate to contracts ? What is the target belief?
▪ Incentive: Pain and Gain from anyone supporting the campaign? Do people believe this will materialize and happen? Do they want it?
▪ Fears: How dissatisfied are the people involved with current situation? Is the pain enough to accept the risk and potential benefit?
Team
▪ Who pt. 2 Who will actually now run the campaign and where and how
▪ Leaders? Who will lead? How much commitment? How much influence? How much push-through is there?
▪ Bottle Where are the bottlenecks? What could happen that sabotages the entire plan?
Project
Plan
▪ The project plan is a document that can be used to show potential supporters that this is a structured and goal-oriented, well planned change campaign
▪ It is an assurance for the commitment and feasibility of the change program and also guides reporting of project risks , which builds trust
▪ This plan also is the part of the leadership planning that is required for the change campaign to actually operate in a structured manner

General Framework
With landscape in mind, slowly progress in change by using lighthouses and safe zones
Safe Zones
Team
Lighthouses
▪ Reduce the goal scope from organizational level to unit or team level
▪ Isolate the environment from the organizational context and create barriers to the outside world (safe zoning)
▪ Evangelize and implement change project within the boundaries and create a lighthouse of excellence locally
▪ The boundary creation is crucial for creating a safe communication zone and trust
▪ All members of the safe zone need to committed to the safe zone or excluded
▪ There are some rules about setting up safe zones discussed in the appendix
▪ The key to sharing and collaboration is to create an actual team
▪ Methods for doing just this are explained in the next section
▪ Goal is to turn around the communication and team work mode of operation and mindsets
Rocket
Launch
▪ Timing and execution is critical to get to results that allow the new energy in the team to lift off
▪ Lighthouse has to turn on the light, get resultsand increase visbility of the new cultural model in the organization
▪ Commitment from management must have been sincere and has to follow through or the rocket explodes
Care
▪ In any case of cultural change attempt, show care for the champions. Be their backup. Their loudspeakers.
▪ In any case, never get tired of promoting and evangelizing the benefits of the program and concept.
▪ Never talk negatively or criticize anyone involved in the change process and always advocate the safe-zone.
▪ However, always forcefully defend the barrier of the safe zone.
Implementation
Champions
Architecture
Vision
Leadership
& Motivation
Building teams fueled
by Motivation.

Champions Lighthouses
Leadership and
Motivations
Safe Zones

Part 3:
Shaping Culture What are champions?
Section 1:
Champions
Origin of
Champions
▪ The concept of a Champion is from sales. Any new sale in a new organization requires someone that wants the new sale to happen
▪ The goal of the champion is to use his knowledge of the inside of the organization to strategically maneuvre through objections
▪ Without an identified champion, no complex enterprise sale ever happens
Champions
in Change
▪ Champions in a change campaign have a strong buy-in and belief in the change. They want it. They believe in it.
▪ Champions need to be qualified to effectuate the change within the organization. Powerless people are irrelevant.
▪ Champions need to be willing and able to drive the change process.
Chinese
Philosophy
▪ The supreme ruler in chinese philosophy does not define goals, but reacts to the motives and ideas of his court
▪ Applied to management, the change manager does not set goals, but finds the goals of his champions that fit the need of the organization
▪ A key element is buy-in. People with desires are irrelevant. People need to propose ideas and be invested in them, taking risks
▪ Powerless people with no influence also do not matter. Good champions also are able to affectuate the change if empowered
Key
Facts
▪ Without a sufficient set of champions in the area of change, change is simply not possible
▪ For the organization to change, you need a set of powerful power brokers
▪ For a division to change, you need a powerful set of leads and team manaers
▪ For a team to change, you need a powerful set of employees

Part 3:
Shaping Culture Finding and Strategizing Champions
Section 1:
Champions
Historic
Records
▪ Find personnel records, e-mails or anything stored as record that shows initiative and pull into the direction you are looking for
▪ Identify the reasons that stopped progress and the roadblocks to success
▪ Identify who was involved, who supported the issue and who blocked it ultimately
Casual
Conversations
▪ After identifying targets, get closer and more casual with the right people. Make them talk about their desires without losing face
▪ Have hypothetical discussions, discussions about other companies, things they read. Get information without talking about the current environment
▪ Use the chance to identify true belief, commitment, mindset and also assess what they are willnig to do
Testing
Hypothesis
▪ Throw the ball into he room about hypothetical options available and see who reacts in which way
▪ Observe how these reactions change depending on who is present. Repeat the conversation in different settings
▪ Who is observing whom and hurting whom and why are these people obstacles to the change agents? What does need to happen to solve fear
▪ Be open minded to listen to objectives, alternative options, views, concerns, fears and so forth and note them down and map them out
Power
Analysis
▪ After identifying „motive“ and „impulse“ from positive and negative forces, understand how easy they can be converted and what needs to happen for that
▪ Extract the true power brokers that are hiding behind the individual decisions and fears and correlate with networks and official power structure
▪ Understand the architecture and chessboard of how to move the key blockers in the complex web of relationships and create a plan
▪ Create a milestone plan: who to convert when, who to get rid of when, who bears risk of sabotaging the agenda and why and when, and so forth
Milestone
Plan
▪ Identify a possible action plan and focus excessively on the timeline. What needs to happen to whom by when and what are the opportunities?
▪ How to obfuscate and disguise the entire plan from the ones that are most likely to sabotage the agenda?
▪ What projects and initiatives are needed to pull out the champions from their environment where they are observed and inhibited?
▪ Given the above, what kind of commitments to results and action can you define for the change campaign? Which strategies work best?

Champions Lighthouses
Leadership
Safe Zones

Part 3:
Shaping Culture What are lighthouses?
Section 2:
Lighthouses
What is a
Lighthouse
The idea of a lighthouse is to find a small „island“ of people who drive the change as a test. To serve as a lighthouse for others.
▪ It is very very hard to convert a faction to buy-in into a change campaign and risk all the fallback that comes with it.
▪ Instead, find within the organization the spot where a few key individuals can start the new culture and shown an example „model of excellence“
▪ What are the business cases and metrics that make the success visible and relevant to the organization?
▪ Who are the individuals to drive this? How many teams can be run in parallel to hedge against individual failure? Etc.
Nurturing lighthouses is happening outside of formal reporting lines untill the cultural model has been proven
▪ Whoever is the person that wants to be the lighthouse, the context and stakeholders of this person need to be won
▪ Ideally, a set of team leaders provide employee level recruits that are managed by the lead to create the lighthouse
▪ The results are then presented without anyones knowledge alongside the regular reporting line and make it to the sponsor of the lighthouse
▪ The response of the chain of command gives an insight of how the reporting chain reacts to the new model
Milestone
Plan
Nurturing the
Lighthouse
Many people cannot see „culture“. They think in visions, metrics and easy to follow recipes
▪ Adoption of a new culture by others does not follow simple goal setting. But best practices in nurturing the culture need to be implemented
▪ E.g. The culture is in the architecture and design of activities. Things like „safe zones“ of communication, peer mentoring, etc. Come into play
▪ Leadership oversighting cultural transmission and change need to be well educated and enforce the culture by promoting the right behaviour
▪ Positive promotion does usually not work as it can be „gamed“. The key is to punish bad behaviours in a subtle way. By e.g. Ignoring people.
Building actionable
Frameworks
Following a simple milestone plan is allowing to track progress
▪ 1. Identify capable leaders for the lighthouse, focus on behaviours and frameworks and slowly uncover how to „measure“ success in KPIs
▪ 2. Identify other areas where to implement the new strategy and review the HR situation – hiring, incentives, replacements, etc.
▪ 3. Grow gradually and follow the path of lowest resistance to avoid too many conflicts and generate critical mass to crowd out the old culture
▪ 4. Have a mid-term plan and know exactly what to do if the plan fails. E.g. Shifting teams responsibilities, demotions, replacements.

Part 3:
Shaping Culture What is a safezone?
Section 3:
Lighthouses
What is a
Safezone
A safezone is an isolated environment with unique and safe communication rules that are strictly enforced
▪ In any organization, any individual has its own network within the organization in which information is being distributed and shared
▪ Oftentimes, individuals use their network to get ahead in their career, engage in political behaviour and favoritism to gain advantages
▪ To build a safe zone, a dedicated team that will form e.g. A lighthouse needs to break all external communication on the cultural agenda
▪ To get a buy-in for this, the leadership of the lighthouse needs to clearly sell the vision and benefits of the culture to all involved
Information is king. And new cultures can be easily sabotages if they are detected early and others can prepare against it.
▪ Typically, revealing a new target culture model to opponents can lead to resistance, sabotage and backfires which jeopardize the agenda
▪ In the worst case, the entire organization will look at the new lightlouse and pinpoint errors and will discredit the „self-rightheous“ attempt
▪ With safe zones, the lighthouse or new cultural zone remains in the incubator and well protected from the forces surrounding it
▪ Only by doing this, the lighthouse can grow and learn the right approach and methods to define the metrics that then can be sold to others
Milestone
Plan
Why the need for
Safezones
Building Safe Zones typically involved soft motivators that can not be covered by incentive and career models
▪ A key element of organizational culture is competition that dominates cooperation motives. To bring down competition is a key. Fates must be linked.
▪ Due to competition, information harbouring and undersharing of insights is dominant. Build forums of information exchange and insights sharing.
▪ Members need to be convinced that talking about the lighthouse after it has hatched is more beneficial than talking about it prematurely
▪ Potential carrots – of career advancement – and sticks – of demotion or isolation – also need to be subtlely applied to keep the lighthous safe
Typical Features of
Safezones
Building a lighthouse follows and its safe zone works following a simple pattern
▪ 1. Identify the set of teams forming the lighthouse. Which teams need to connect how to make a potential success story.
▪ 2. Meticulously select loyal and trustworthy individuals who believe in change, will benefit from a safe zone, and would support the idea. Exclude others.
▪ 3. Slowly build new cooperative forums and increase the level of sharing, caring and cooperation within the safe zone. Push to the maximum possible.
▪ 4. Only when a cruising altitude of comfort and safeness is established, turn from general behavioural change to revealing the lighthouse vision
Why
„Safezones“?
The meaning of the word safe zone comes from „It is safe to be radically honest about something. There is no punishment for criticism“
▪ The core idea of a safe zone is direct, honest feedback among members about each others bad behaviours, with the goal to improve, and without judging
▪ Typically, radically honest statements about political behaviour, slacking out, non-cooperation are dangerous to make and offend the „ego“ of people
▪ Especially if the „ego“ is hurt, it increases the chances that the offended individual starts a political campaign against the other.
▪ This is why having a „border“ of communication about the safe zone is crucial to not have this cultural transition backfire.

Part 3:
Shaping Culture Life inside the safe zone
Section 3:
Lighthouses
Vision
To talk honestly, one needs a joint vision of a better world
▪ The Radical honesty needed can only be nurtured in an environment of deep trust. This can only be created if there is belief in a better world.
▪ Creating the vision needs a deep understanding of each member on how they dislike the current culture, how they see it underperform, etc.
▪ The leader of the safezone needs to build trust and rapport to be able to listen to these concerns, something which takes years
▪ Only if the true picture of he team perception is on the table, the leader can start crafting a vision that everyone can believe in. Then the trust building starts
Trust is key. Absolute trust is king.
▪ With a joint vision and radical honesty, nothing stands in the way of change. But opening up in a competitive political setting can hurt reputation down the line.
▪ It is central to establish trust among the team. This can only be achieved by a strong vision, nurturing of team relationships and very strict and credible punishment
▪ It must absolutely key for anyone breaking the trust barrier that this will likely have a clear and severe impact on one‘s career.
▪ The fact that disloyalty is among the things punished most severely in all cultures is the result of the understanding that trust needs threats to be ignited
Benefits
Trust
Everything has its limits and context. The concept of boundaries applies
▪ Radical honesty still needs limits. Judgement needs to remain non-threatening, change-oriented and empowering. Shaming and attacks can not happen.
▪ Shared information must be clearly classified into „only exists in this meeting“ to „will have a role in changing culture“ to „this might be noted down“ to „reporting“
▪ It must be clear which information is sensitive and it must be clear which punishment awaits which sensitivity level and the monitoring must be credible
▪ The leaders of a safe zone hence must establish before creating the zone that they will credibly be able to detect violations of the safe zone secrecy
Boundaries
The benefits of the safe zone and lighthouse incubation can be summarized clearly and succinctly
▪ Better trust, less hidden prejudice, stronger cooperation will always lead to better team performance and hence everyone will get higher rewards
▪ Living in a culture and team with high cooperation and trust and sharing usually leads to more enjoyment of work and better relationships
▪ Having the joint mission to live the culture and be better than other teams and departments typically is a motivator that translates in higher confidence
▪ Understanding that loyalty and trust does not stand in the way of nurturing ones outside network but benefits career progression helps win more confidence
Radical
Honesty
To break bad behaviours, one has to name them
▪ The core goal is to uncover the hidden rules and contracts in a team and change them to a better, more cooperative playbook
▪ This requires feedback that shows how individuals perceive others, which actions they observe, which motives they follow
▪ Only if a team can openly discuss this and jointly wants to improve the situation to have (a) less stress, (b) more joint success, (c) have higher impact
▪ Navigating this psycho-therapeutic step in an organization requires a lot of trust and believe in the success of this activity.

Part 3:
Shaping Culture The Concept of Motives and Volition
Section 4:
Leadership
Volition
Volition starts when the knowledge of options and motivations are defined and the user starts to putting energy into attaining the goal
▪ People who have jobs naturally expect something from this job which is the reason they joined the job and the reason when they leave the job
▪ When in the job, people naturally do not want to be punished: (a) fired, (b) demoted, (c) prevented from succeeding, (d) isolated from the group, (e) fail at work
▪ When in the job, people expect rewards for their (a) activity, (b) loyalty, (c) membership and want (e) money, (f) promotions, (g) responsibility and freedom
▪ It is the management process that can control the activity and eward and punishment system, but it is the clture and teams that must give the feeling of belonging
Motivation
Motivation is equal to breaking down a long list of possible desires into those that can be attaind
▪ Motivation requires awareness of possible options
▪ Motivation requires an understanding how to get from the starting point to the end goal
▪ Motivation in an organization requires the employees to understand how they need to operate in a framework to be successful (Framework)
▪ The framework in which they operate need to be tied to their goals and in line with what they beleive to be attainable
Leadership
Create the motivation
▪ Find out who your people are, what they want, how they think they can contribute to the organization
▪ Define frameworks in which they can be creative and free to act and contribute (operating model, organizational model)
▪ Teach them how to succeed in the field of forces they are facing where they have to deliver results, can look beyond the horizon and grow
▪ Guide them into the overall process of tying the opportunity they have and the framework to their own growth goals and the goals of the company
Guide the Volition
▪ Ensure the proper reward systems are there and activity is decently measure ot not punish the wrong people (cheaters, free-riders, politicians)
▪ Use OKRs and other tools to give employees a choice in how they contribute to the final goal and become a sparring partner and advertiser of their skills
▪ Remove roadblocks in culture, process and information policies that hinder the motivation, volition and performance of the team
▪ Use the successes of your employees to build a stronger bond and relationship. Give them time to show their contribution and get rewarded by all for it
Ensure the proper culture
▪ You can not hire without bearing culture in mind. A team needs to be friends and colleagues at the same time to function as one
▪ You have to be the head coach that guides the positioning and political actions of each member and keeps it under control
▪ You have to always push positive and collabraative activities and promote it before anything else
▪ In all you do, you need to be decently transparent . Especially relating to when you do not support because of organizational issues and policies

Part 3:
Shaping Culture Working with Motivation and Volution and Vision
Section 4:
Leadership
Step 1: Working with Individual Motivations
▪ Every individual has certain desires and “stars” that motive it
▪ For every star, the individual has more or less strong capabilities to achieve the goal or desire
▪ A leader has to identify these motives, select the ones that the user can achieve and desired and guide it
▪ It is a core concept in social psychology that our ability to lead and activate the motivations of others
defines our ability to recruit people to our own goals.
Identify “fitting” goals Guide towards goal
Step 2: Distribute Work and Vectorize the Direction of Teams
▪ When looking at a team, it is important to align the supported motives so that there is no conflict
▪ To create harmony, everyone needs to be supported to fit into a position that works well for it
▪ The totality of the team has then to create a framework that fits the organizational model
▪ Once this is done, a common goal and direction can be found. Elon Musk calls it “vectorization”
Map Motives to a Playbook Create a joint vision
Step 3: Identify the Champions and their winning teams in the organization under your control
▪ As a top executive or change manager, the goal is to find such functioning teams that are ready
to adapt their positions and joint vision to the new model. Each member having the right stars
and the ability to achieve the stars, and jointly being able to work under the new playbook and
go after the new vision.
Align under new vision Create their new stars

Part 3:
Shaping Culture Thinking like a salesman
Section 4:
Leadership
Technical Buyers: Look for reasons to rejct
▪ “Compliance” which might be weaponized against champion
→ Needs viability and risk management
▪ “IT” which might be weaponized against champion
→ Needs easy installation and adoption and no extra work
▪ “Procurement” which should be neutral
→ Needs comparisons, benchmarks, business case stuff
▪ “Finance” which should be neutral
→ Needs to check the business case and budgets
Enemies: Will lose under the new sale and will try to stop the deal
▪ “Standard Weapons” will be used and need to be dismantled
▪ “Bad adoption” will bear risk for buyer and needs handling
Authorities / Budget:
▪ Signs off usually on “good” deals => Business Case, No red flag, Support
▪ Might be too busy running agenda against the Champion : (
▪ Might not give a crap at all and does not want to bother w.o. C-Level
buy-in
End Users: Those impacted by the
Product who might want it or want
to reject it.
→Need value for their motives
→Need good motives (not evil ones)
→Need freedom of job fear
Seller:
Has different use
cases for the solution
Finding a champion is not enough. Knowing the real users and all other stakeholders is key for winning change.
Win Over Attack / Defend
Champion: Buys the vision. Is the
salesman in the organization.
→Needs a visions
→Needs sales arguments for stakeholders
→Needs a way to convince end users

ShapingCultureThroughActionSets

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to ShapingCultureThroughActionSets

Similar to ShapingCultureThroughActionSets (20)

More from Benjamin Scherer

More from Benjamin Scherer (7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ShapingCultureThroughActionSets