This is very interesting to me and I’m curious. What are the specific words and phrases I’ve used that you suspect could cause semantical difficulties for a “business leader looking to create a cultural transformation?” I’d certainly like your feedback and feedback from others on this point.

Best to you.

You have spoken of “code words” but those to whom you are speaking may be reacting to what they (rightly or wrongly) perceive as “code words” coming from you.

The study of Cross Cultural Communications, both the history of the problem and the Semantical study of the problem, suggests that in situations similar to the one that you describe both sides view the other side as “in the wrong.”

The following is in no way intended to suggest that the bombing of Pearl Harbor was justifiable. However, post war communications between the American Culture and the Japanese Culture suggests that the breakdown in the relationship between the two countries while indeed partially the result of Japan’s frustration over not being allowed access to resources which it (rightly or wrongly) thought that it had the right to access was exacerbated by the fact that semantically speaking both sides were defining words and phrases which the other side had used in communications differently.

Cross Cultural Communications can even break down when two sets of people speak the same language. In American History there are many examples of difficulties being caused by semantical differences between divergent cultures both in our Foreign relations with the British Empire and in our internal discussions.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting that the fundamental problem which you are addressing in this article, the dismissal of the subjective or “human element” does not exist in the business world. This problem most certainly does exist.

But reading through your article, I was struck by how many of the words which you use in the article as being part of your culture, could easily result in semantical difficulties even when a business leader is looking to create a cultural transformation.

Please do not view this as a “verdict” because it is only intended as a “talking point.”

James

Thank you so much for the encouragement.

There is such a price to awareness, it seems. I’m glad you are out there doing your work and taking the risks. I think everything we do, even if others don’t always get it is another small but critical victory. I send many good wishes to you. And, yes, I am also very grateful to David. What we have in this community is fantastic.

Best to you.

I appreciate your rant, and please keep them up…given enough promotion, I’m hopeful that people who are willing to acknowledge that the Emperor wears no clothes will step up and do the right thing for the humans that make organizations run.

So glad that David Zinger twittered you! (Or is it tweeted?)

Thanks for your kind words!

Absolutely!

Thanks, Dick. As always, your insights are wonderful.

The dilemma is, and probably always will be, that many people want change without having to change. The best of the lot in my past were open-minded and willing to try things that were uncomfortable; to push the boundaries of their own comfort zone.

One missing piece in Herb’s rules is that they don’t offer any way to gauge willingness and open-mindedness. We each have to develop our own guidance system for making those judgments. Sometimes we overshoot, expecting them to go places they have never been and don’t want to go. Sometimes we undershoot, swimming with them in their comfort zone and getting nowhere. I’d rather risk overshooting than undershooting although, I must admit, it cost me a few consulting gigs. Part of why I want to take that risk is to keep my own energy and fun level up. If I don’t, I’m no good to the client and not good to myself either.

More than once a client said something like, “We were talking about sending you home by lunchtime on Day 1. I’m glad we didn’t.”

Having been in the field for twenty years — and with no plans to leave it — I now find there are parts of me that I’ve suppressed precisely in the name of the beliefs and strategies I’ve absorbed. I’ve trusted and deeply appreciated Herb Shepard’s rules, and I think they are mostly right. But I’m also finding that my internal guidance system is now examining those beliefs and finding some of them wanting.

The other night I attended a reading and presentation by Pulitzer winner, Junot Diaz. In response to a question about his frequent use in his writing of a common racial epithet, he replied that he had been called this word all his life. He then went on to ask the audience, and this struck me deeply, what we owe to such words, words that have afflicted us our entire lives? It made me think of how language gets used, how words are power and how they can be used not only to define, but also to control and dismiss.

The very next day I got a call from someone who wanted me to write something about my work. Apparently, there was a problem with simply forwarding a link to my website to managers in her organization because my website (and probably this blog) contains too much “touchy-feely” stuff. I’ve been dealing with such reactions forever, and so after a few moments of conversation, I offered to write a short, specific proposal about what I could do for the clients in language that might better communicate with them. I’m okay with that; in fact, maybe it’s even an advantage.

But what was suppressed in me certainly did come forward, and with it, in a raw way, I see an opportunity to lead, maybe by helping myself and others think about the meaning of these words, “touchy-feely.” A couple of years ago I found another rule for change agents in a lovely little book called, Attracting Perfect Customers. And the rule is this: “Don’t Move the Lighthouse.” When I think of that phrase, it encourages me not only to keep the lighthouse my work may represent for others exactly where it is, but to be sure to turn on the light and shine just as brightly as possible.