Making A Difference With Differences

I've always been bothered by the seemingly well-intentioned books and workshops that fall under some variation of  "Managing Differences".

Have a look at the graphic and we'll continue. You  can click on it for a full-page view.

Style vs. Substance

Style:

It would be safe to say that most "Differences" activities focus on issues of Style. These are attributes that we all see in each other and which become magnified when we try to work together in groups. It's a good idea to become aware of one's own inherent approach to these things and how others inherently go at them in a totally different way. I heartily endorse and, in my consulting business, practice that kind of understanding.

The Style issues reveal more about how you are. However, they're only the tip of the iceberg and that's not what sank the Titanic.

Substance:

These are the "Why" questions of life. They tell people who you are and what you believe and value, personally and professionally. It's the level of information needed to get past a surface relationship and into a real one.

Workplace rules and legislation exist to protect people from undue and ill-willed intrusion into some of these areas. At the same time, it's pretty tough to be "engaged" with other people if we don't know what they are really about. Taking time to find out hopes and expectations for teamwork; what each person values in interactions and task-performance; and some previous experiences that have led them to those concerns will go a long way toward deeper relational understanding without playing the "let's spill our guts on the meeting table" gambit. However, you might just find that each time you learn something more of significance about each other, the willingness to have even deeper relationships will increase.

Thank You For Your Service. We are Deporting You.

A number of years ago I accepted a 2-year consulting and training gig in the Middle East. It was suggested that we develop a "Time Management" program for the executives. This raised a flag for me since, culturally, the notion of "managing time" showed up nowhere in daily experiences, personal or professional; and, I don't believe in "Time Management." Time is finite and unchanging; one has to be clear about priorities and manage those.

If you are anywhere close to the training and development industry, you know that certain eras produce "must have" programs whose related buzzwords  go unquestioned. And so it was with Time Management. A program was developed and then advertised in the company curriculum newsletter. Which is when we showed up on the front page of the local newspaper with a headline that I won't fully repeat but which included the word Infidels (actually, a lot of companies would refer to their consultants that way) and other unflattering adjectives which had been attached to us by the Committee for the Preservation of Virtue and The Elimination of Vice.

Cut to the chase: Indeed, the notion of time management went much deeper than the typical "we move a bit more slowly in hot climates" type of thing. According to the Cleric who was the spokesperson, "managing" time was an affront to the god of their faith who was in control of all things related to time.

OK. We got it. No more Time Management. Instead, "Setting Priorities At Work" satisfied both parties' underlying beliefs. And we didn't have to pack up and head to the airport.

It wasn't a matter of Style, it was a matter of very deep Substance.

What needs to happen where you are to float your corporate iceberg a little higher in the water?

.

Comments

[Mike Wagner]

Good distinction. Helpful observations. Of course that is why All Things Workplace is bookmarked on my browser.

"Taking time to find out..." is the counter-intuitive step that leads to the desired depth of teamwork. Counter-intuitive because it seems slow. But sometimes you have to slow down to speed up organizational success.

Thanks for stirring things up Steve!

Keep creating...with abandon,
Mike

[Wally Bock]

Great post, Steve. Your mention of the Middle East got me thinking about Hofestede's Cultural Dimensions and how helpful they are when you need to work with people who were formed by other cultures. Normally you both have values that are so obvious that you don't talk about them, but that conflict with the others' values.

[Steve Roesler]

Mike, good to see you weigh in.

What is it about the human condition that stops it from "taking time" to do what it knows is best for it?

Film at 11...

[Steve Roesler]

Wally,

Thanks for the Geert Hofestede mention. He's done some terrific work in this area yet I've not run into many companies who are familiar with him.

[Mile High Pixie]

WOW, Steve! That example about your work in the Middle East is a great example of style vs substance. Style is really a superficial quality, while substance is more about the culture of a place, or really the subculture of a company (affected by its overall culture but having its own identity).

And now I need to look up Geert Hofestede.

[Dan Erwin]

Steve: Style and substance differences surface a lot more clearly in intercultural situations. I'll add your experience to my catalog of intercultural examples.

Your suspicion that the majority of talked about differences are style makes a lot of sense. Yet, when we need to do some in-depth collaboration, decisionmaking or strategic thinking, then the substance differences often surface loud and clear. Sometimes--I think the reason we're so focused on style is because it's just more obvious than substance. On other occasions, I suspect we don't pick up on substance issues and stay away from them on purpose. Substance differences can lead to real conflicts.

And those difficult substance settings require more tools than many of us can find in our toolbox.

[Chris Witt]

Steve,

I deal with this issue -- style v. substance -- all the time in my work as a speech coach. I find that most presenters focus on style over substance. Their main concern is with their slides. (How many bullet points can they get away with? What kind of graphics should they use? Is clip art always cheesy? Why does importing an Excel spreadsheet directly into PowerPoint look okay on a computer screen but not in an auditorium?) If they’ve somewhat savvy, they may be concerned about appealing to people’s visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning styles. And, if they get around to it, they may try to use greater vocal variety and more expansive gestures.

They less commonly ask themselves about substance -- the content of what they’re saying. What is their core message? (Is it a good idea? Is it true, reasonable, and fair? Do the various elements tie together in a clear and logical way? Does it take into account divergent data and opinions? Are they willing to stand behind it?) Will it benefit the other person in some tangible or intangible way? (How will it help them solve a problem, achieve a goal, or satisfy a need of theirs?) Is it timely? (Why are they addressing this issue at this time?) Is it clear?

I know that style and substance are interrelated. (Bad ideas well presented all too often win out over good ideas poorly presented.) But I still believe in the primacy of substance.

The issue has an intercultural aspect to it, as you point out so well. And I think it has a generational aspect. So I wonder if my bias, favoring substance over style, is more common to people of my generation (baby boomers) than to younger people.

[Dan McCarthy]

Steve -
A good model and story to support it. The iceberg metaphor also works for explaining culture, kind of an organizational style and substance.

Recent blog post: Leadership Scruples: What Would You Do? 20 Ethical Dilemmas for Leaders

[Lisa Gates]

Steve, your post spun me in another direction about creating priorities by matching workplace values to personal values. Rather than co-opt your blog like I normally do :-) I hadta write a post on your post. You'd think after two years of blogging I'd know how to make a track-back, but alas...you solved it for me!

Recent blog post: Two Tips for Getting Your Life in Balance and Going All-In at the Same Time

[Ellen Weber]

A reflection to remember Steve - thanks! Having lived in the high arctic for 2 years the image is even more memorable. Yet I cannot help but think this story is about top leaders in a firm as well as equally about any worker in that firm. Thanks for saying it best!

[Steve Roesler]

MHP,

Knowing your energy for learning and teaching, I think you'll find Geert a very useful resource for your efforts.

[Steve Roesler]

Dan,

You raise a valid point when it comes to hitting those substantive issues and needing skills to deal with them. They can be difficult and even scary to address.

There was a time not too long ago when a lot of our consulting-type work involved helping groups move deeper into the substance of their issues. The work wasn't "therapy" but it was therapeutic. And the ultimate objective was to demonstrate that these kinds of issues could be addressed safely; then, to provide the skills and techniques for the groups to automatically do it themselves.

The result was an openness that allowed people to be themselves, speak their minds and, from a business perspective, get to the heart of issues much more quickly.

Over time, companies moved away from investing in that kind of "work" and erred on the side of spreadsheets. I'm all for profitability. But turning their backs on the substance side of human issues contributed to the two-way lack of trust and loyalty which brings a heavy cost to all concerned.

Thanks, Dan.

[Steve Roesler]

Chris,

Same experience.

As an aside, I started my business years ago as a presentation skills and consulting practice. That is still a large part of my work today.

The advent of graphic software and the related templates was really a turning point in the actual definition of the word "presentation". Over time, I (and many other, no doubt yourself) saw business people begin to believe that a "presentation" was something that you squeezed into a template and put on a screen. Which is when we began to cringe at the imported 8-point type spreadsheets substituting for the story that needed to be told.

You raise the generational issue and it's certainly something to consider. I confess I don't have an answer that I'd want to try and defend. What we do know is that younger people are unbelievably adept at using the software. And, as you mention, style can trump substance in many situations. This is an issue that may be equally or more important than the software. If people are unable to discern--or not taught to discern--the distinctions between style and substance, they confuse the two. That means that the ability to be manipulated increases to an unhealthy and even scary level.

This is a topic that won't--and shouldn't--go away. Here's hoping that your upcoming book will help increase the clarity and distinctions needed for effective and accurate communication.

[Steve Roesler]

Dan McCarthy,

Thanks for the encouragement. I think I actually used the iceberg metaphor originally with a group of execs who wanted to talk about their culture, so I'm glad to know it hit you that way, too.

[Steve Roesler]

Lisa,

Hey, as they say in the hallowed halls of business: "You're a people person." (No need to get bogged down in the technology).

Your acknowledgment is a treat.

[Steve Roesler]

Hello, Ellen,

I should have known that your Arctic experience would have made this one a slam-dunk for you.

Regarding the leader/worker issue: Indeed. This has been an effective visual when working with executives on those things that can "bite" you but seem to be invisible.

Here's to a good year ahead for you, Robyn, and MITA...

[Hayli @ Rise Smart]

When someone starts to explore what people think and why, the person should be prepared to integrate that input into the next plan of action. Everyone loves to be asked their opinion on this or that, and it helps deepen understanding and strengthen relationships. But if you don't plan to use it, then don't ask, because then it's like you're ignoring the input of others and that's just annoying.

[Steve Roesler]

Hayli,

Your comment is a timely one, to say the least. I was just preparing for a meeting and one of the participants suggested that everyone be allowed to speak their minds, then we would do what we wanted to do originally. I freaked.

That's patronizing, dishonest, arrogant, and any intelligent person will realize they've "been had." Your point is the right one: if you aren't going to genuinely consider options, just say so. Adults appreciate honesty more than gamesmanship.