Enculturing Soft Skills for Social Commerce

When Chaordic design principles are applied within an organization the result is a, sustainable, dynamic culture that withstands change. Developing a fully self-organizing, self-governing chaordic organisation is a deeply integrated, iterative process.

The term Chaordic was coined by Dee Hock the founder and former CEO of the VISA credit card association. He says:

“By Chaord, I mean any self–organizing, adaptive, non-linear, complex system, whether physical, biological, or social, the behavior of which exhibits characteristics of both order and chaos or, loosely translated to business terminology, cooperation and competition”

Most employees have flexible, informal or autonomous aspects of their work such as work hours, information sharing or responsibility for assignments.  Examining how a team currently self manages these tasks  provides insight  into  the underlying organizing principles, intention and relationship dynamics within the group.

Following the principles of the Chaordic design:

• The activities must be equitably owned by all participants. No member should have intrinsic preferential position. All advantage must result from individual ability and initiative.
• Power and function must be distributive to the maximum degree. No function should be performed by any part of the whole that could reasonably be done by any more peripheral part, and no power vested in any part that
• might reasonably be exercised by any lesser part.
• Governance must be distributive. No individual, institution, and no combination of either or both should be able to dominate deliberations or control decisions.
• It must be infinitely malleable yet extremely durable. It should be capable of constant, self–generated, modification of form or function without sacrificing its essential nature or embodied principle.
• It must embrace diversity and change. It must attract people and institutions comfortable with such conditions and provide an environment in which they could flourish.

Successfully moving from control and command to flexible, self organized work teams requires the intention and ability of each individual to understand the principles as outlined  above by Dee Hock and  apply them in a fashion that releases human ingenuity for the benefit of all.

To cope with changes and differences when they arise,  trust, respect, participation and altruism need to be highly valued culturally norms.  It is the quality of human relationships that provides endurance during challenging times.

The altruistic  fashion in which these principles are applied,  from human being to human being, with  respect, trust, sharing and altruistic assistance create the fertile environment where a chaordic organization can flourish.  Learning about ourselves, our relationships with others and how our behavior shapes the whole is key.

It is for this reason that we have integrated into the Relationship Management Institute’s Learning Modules the values, principles and a guiding ethos that create organizational cultures that place human values in the forefront.

In Fritjof Capra’s 2002 book The Hidden Connections he uses the principles of complexity theory to analyze human interactions. In order to be sustainable, the principles underlying our social institutions must be consistent with the organization that nature has evolved to sustain the web of life . In this book he shows how the theoretical ideas of science can be applied to the practical concerns of human nature. He describes culture as resulting from human social dynamics which produces a sustainable system of shared values and beliefs :

Our ability to hold mental images and project them into the future not only allows us to identify goals and purposes and develop strategies and designs, but also enables us to choose among several alternatives and hence to formulate values and social rules of behavior.  All of these social phenomenon are generated by networks of communications as a consequence of the dual role human communication. On one hand, the network continually generates mental images, thoughts and meaning, on the other hand, it continually coordinates the behavior of its members. From the complex dynamics and interdependence of these processes emerges the integrated system of values, beliefs and rules of conduct that we associate with the phenomenon of culture.

For our systematic analysis of social reality we need to focus on the anthropological meaning of culture, which the Columbia Encyclopedia defines as “the integrated system of socially acquired values, beliefs and rules of conduct that delimit the rage of accepted behaviors in any given society.”  When we explore the details of this definition, we discover that culture arises from a complex, highly nonlinear dynamic. It is created by a social network involving multiple feedback loops through which values, beliefs and rules of conduct are continually communicated, modified and sustained. It emerges from a network of communications among individuals; and as it emerges, it produces constraints on their actions. In other words, the social structures, or rules of behavior, that constrain, the actions of the individuals are produced and continually reinforced by their on network of communications.

The social network also produces a shared body of knowledge – including information, ideas and skills – that shapes the culture’s distinctive way of life in addition to its values and beliefs. Moreover, the culture’s values and beliefs affect its body of knowledge. They are part of the lens through which we see the world. They help us to interpret our experiences and to decide what kind of knowledge is meaningful. This meaningful knowledge, continually modified by the network of communications, is passed on from generation to generation together with the culture’s values, beliefs, and rules of conduct.

The system of shared values and beliefs creates an identity among the members of the social network, based on a sense of belonging. People in different cultures have different identities because they share different sets of values and beliefs. At the same time, and individual may belong to several different cultures. People’s behavior is informed and restricted by their cultural identities, which in turn reinforces their sense of belonging. Culture is embedded in people’s way of life, and it tends to be so pervasive that it escapes our everyday awareness.

Cultural identity also reinforces the closure of the network by creating a boundary of meaning and expectations that limits the access of  people and information to the network. Thus the social network is engaged in communication within a cultural boundary which it members continually re-crate and renegotiate.  This situation is not unlike that of the metabolic network, which continually produces and recreates a boundary – the cell membrane – that confines it and gives it its identity.  However there are some crucial differences between cellular and social boundaries.  Social boundaries, as I have emphasized are not necessarily physical boundaries but boundaries of meaning and expectations.  They do not literally surround the network but exist in a mental realm that does not have the topological properties of physical space.

“Diversity transcends race and gender, affirmative action and Equal Employment Opportunity. It must encompass a fundamental appreciation of one another and a respect for both our similarities and our differences. It must include a heartfelt respect in attitude and in behavior towards those of different race, gender, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity and those with disabilities. All the facets that make each individual the unique and precious resource that each of us is.”
Ronald Brown, Former American Secretary of Commerce

Respect, acceptance, and tolerance are all attitudes desirable in partners, colleagues and significant relationships.  They collectively have the  influence of making each of us feel esteemed, valued and worthy. Respect forms part of our principle value set and is a foundation upon which other values and measures of integrity are based.

The Respect Research Group, founded by several young scientists from different academic fields who wanted to create an environment of excellence for studying the pressing questions around the phenomon of respect, defines it as ‘an attitude of one human versus another, in which the first recognizes in the latter a reason which justifies in itself that the other should be recognized and treated in a way so that he/she feels acknowledged in value and significance’. Regardless of our individual values and convictions, it is paramount that the people around us treat us with respect, compassion and integrity and that we reciprocate in kind.

In 2007, a research team led by Oregon doctoral candidate, Eda Gurel-Atay, commissioned a survey in which 1,500 Americans were asked to rate the importance of eight social values, and to identify the one they considered most important. They compared the results with those from similar surveys taken in 1976 and 1986. Self-respect led the list in all three surveys, with a greater percentage of Americans ranking it as the most important value with each new survey. By 2007, 28.8 percent ranked it No. 1, compared to 21.1 percent in 1976 and 23.0 in 1986.

The basis for mutual respect is acknowledging, appreciating and reinforcing the values that are commonly identified as beneficial to any relationship, social or professional . The values of self-respect (“to be proud of yourself and confident in who you are”), security (“to be safe and protected from misfortune and attack”), warm relationships with others along a sense of accomplishment, self-fulfillment, being well-respected, a sense of belonging and fun were rated as significant.

A personal and/or cultural value is an absolute or relative ethical value, the assumption of which can be the basis for ethical action. A value system is a set of consistent values and measures. In today’s challenging business economy,  workable, trusting, professional associations with people, who know your business value and credentials, is a lot more valuable because of the referral relationship capital impact. Diverse workforces often challenge our cultural conditioning in relation to our views on gender, race, age and other religious persuasions, reflecting our personal prejudices. Harnessing the power of mutual respect and cross-cultural understanding is a sign of maturation and wisdom, emerging from internal scrutiny of a personal value set. Organisations who adopt cultural normatives that require common courtesies to be honoured amongst colleagues find that soft skill training does much to improve collegial relations. Neil Chalofsky’s article ‘Meaningful Workplaces; Reframing How and Where we Work’ has a chapter on Values-Based Organizational Culture that clearly identifies the benefits of respectful attitudes at work.

Picture courtesy of Johnson Controls: www.globalworkplaceinnovation.com
For The Smart Work Company: www.thesmartworkcompany.com

Gary Vaynerchuk and Kathy Sierra discuss their personal re evaluation of social media engagement. You can step away from the machinery and smell the roses without fearing missing a tweet or ingesting some critical piece of information that might give you new insight. Being connected doesn’t mean littering every hour of your waking existence with virtually derived data. However, we have become nervous twit-chers. Time to re evaluate and this is beautifully articulated with consideration between two intelligent, realistic people:

A cognitive bias is the human tendency to draw incorrect conclusions in certain circumstances based on cognitive factors rather than evidence. Such biases are thought to be a form of “cognitive shortcut”, often based upon rules of thumb, and include errors in statistical judgment, social attribution, and memory.

Eric Fernandez of The Royal Society of Account Planning has produced a visual study guide for cognitive bias.

You can download the PDF here http://www.mediafire.com/?rizzmmdn1bi

The list of  social cognitive biases was sourced from the wikipedia article where you can click on each bias for details

• Actor-observer bias – the tendency for explanations of other individuals’ behaviors to overemphasize the influence of their personality and underemphasize the influence of their situation (see also fundamental attribution error). However, this is coupled with the opposite tendency for the self in that explanations for our own behaviors overemphasize the influence of our situation and underemphasize the influence of our own personality.
• Dunning–Kruger effect – a two-fold bias. On one hand the lack of metacognitive ability deludes people, who overrate their capabilities. On the other hand, skilled people underrate their abilities, as they assume the others have a similar understanding.
• Egocentric bias – occurs when people claim more responsibility for themselves for the results of a joint action than an outside observer would.
• Forer effect (aka Barnum effect) – the tendency to give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. For example, horoscopes.
• False consensus effect – the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them.
• Fundamental attribution error – the tendency for people to over-emphasize personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behavior (see also actor-observer bias, group attribution error, positivity effect, and negativity effect).
• Halo effect – the tendency for a person’s positive or negative traits to “spill over” from one area of their personality to another in others’ perceptions of them (see also physical attractiveness stereotype).
• Herd instinct – common tendency to adopt the opinions and follow the behaviors of the majority to feel safer and to avoid conflict.
• Illusion of asymmetric insight – people perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their peers’ knowledge of them.
• Illusion of transparency – people overestimate others’ ability to know them, and they also overestimate their ability to know others.
• Illusory superiority – overestimating one’s desirable qualities, and underestimating undesirable qualities, relative to other people. (Also known as “Lake Wobegon effect,” “better-than-average effect,” “superiority bias,” or “Dunning-Kruger effect”).
• Ingroup bias – the tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others they perceive to be members of their own groups.
• Just-world phenomenon – the tendency for people to believe that the world is just and therefore people “get what they deserve.”
• Notational bias – a form of cultural bias in which the notational conventions of recording data biases the appearance of that data toward (or away from) the system upon which the notational schema is based.
• Outgroup homogeneity bias – individuals see members of their own group as being relatively more varied than members of other groups.
• Projection bias – the tendency to unconsciously assume that others share the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions.
• Self-serving bias (also called “behavioral confirmation effect”) – the tendency to claim more responsibility for successes than failures. It may also manifest itself as a tendency for people to evaluate ambiguous information in a way beneficial to their interests (see also group-serving bias).
• Self-fulfilling prophecy – the tendency to engage in behaviors that elicit results which will (consciously or not) confirm existing attitudes.^[12]
• System justification – the tendency to defend and bolster the status quo. Existing social, economic, and political arrangements tend to be preferred, and alternatives disparaged sometimes even at the expense of individual and collective self-interest. (See also status quo bias.)
• Trait ascription bias – the tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality, behavior and mood while viewing others as much more predictable.
• Ultimate attribution error – similar to the fundamental attribution error, in this error a person is likely to make an internal attribution to an entire group instead of the individuals within the group.