Spring and Autumn Roles (3)—Flatness in America

Click here to go to section one of "Spring and Autumn Roles."
Click below for the other "Spring and Autumn Roles" posts.
1         2         3         4        to be continued

During the autumn months I will be posting new segments of The Emperor's Teacher (the big business book that will rock the world). Chapter three is (provisionally) called "Spring and Autumn Roles" and forms (along with three more chapters that will follow) the "middle" of my management book—part two of three.

If you have read The Art of War, you have arrived at the doorstep. Still, no one ever managed anything in China having just read Sunzi (Sun-tzu), but don't despair. You are now ready for what comes next in leadership. Compiled nine-hundred years ago, it is the greatest management book ever written, and there are only two problems: (1) it is in "medieval" Chinese; (2) it is 10,000 pages long. No worries, though. That's what I am here for. I have been studying this stuff for thirty years, and I have been waiting for you. Welcome. 歡迎. Let's begin to study real Chinese management together.

[a] Flatness RF

After reading chapter one, "Breaking the Vessel," you will have some acquaintance with Sima Guang and the Comprehensive Mirror (資治通鑒). If you have completed chapter two, "Living and Learning," you know a good deal about various "learning strategies" in ancient China, and some of the ways that they were employed in later times. You are now ready to tackle the big themes at the heart of the greatest management text of all time. It is time to consider how managers managed in Chinese history, and how you might use these lessons to think more clearly about managing yourself, your family, and all under heaven. 

Don't worry too much about the order at this point (these are blog entries and not a book...yet).  If you want to start here and loop back to part one (Chapter One: Breaking the Vessel and Chapter Two: Living and Learning) in due time, that is fine.  This chapter should stand on its own as a way of thinking about the multiple roles that shape life and work at any time and in any place.

III
Flatness in America

One U.S. president with rather modest oratorical skills happened to utter one of the most quoted lines in the history of American politics—it was Calvin Coolidge who stated that "The business of America is business." This may or may not be a useful guide to politics in our own day, but it certainly is in the air. Alexis de Tocqueville certainly would have concurred, had he heard those words, spoken some ninety-five years after his own trip to the American states. Instead of contending with Coolidge's assertion, I would like to twist his words into a reckoning with today's American business culture. If Coolidge were writing a management text today, he might very well have said something along the lines of "America's business is flatness."

Let me explain.

[b] Small hill RF

As we discussed in the last post, Americans often wish to see "flat" social terrain, even where many other people might see rolling hills. It is a little like perceptions many people have of Iowa. If you have never been there, you are as likely as not to call it "flat." Have you ever ridden a bike across Iowa? You had better get rid of that 42-tooth small chain ring that powers you across the rail trails of your hometown. You had better have your bike mechanic outfit you with 39 or fewer "teeth." Trust me.

The cycling analogy is actually just about perfect for this discussion. Perhaps you have ridden across Iowa, started racing, and are ready (this is fiction, so bear with me) for something a little tougher—like the Tour de France. Let's just say that you get your chance. Do you want to win a stage in Le Tour? Well, you had better get over your tendency to think of landscapes as flat. If you persist in thinking of flatness the only thing deflated will be your hopes of victory. You don't stand a chance.

[c] Tour RF

You see, every great cyclist—from Jacques Anquetil to Eddy Merckx—understands "false flats." It is a common term in the cycling community, and someone who expresses beffudlement with the concept is likely be regarded as something of a dolt. The stretches of road to the finish line (the difference between first and, not uncommonly, forty-seventh place) either go up or down—sometimes almost imperceptibly.

There is nothing subtle about the results, though. Failing to understand the "grade" of the false flat is the difference between success and failure, and countless cyclists have seen this when smooth road seemingly turns to sticky tar as their better-attuned opponents sprint away from them. They failed to see the road veering ever-so-slightly upward, and stayed in the wrong gear. Oops. Too late. They get to watch while the victor sprays the crowd with sparkling wine. And collects the prize money.

This is what I find so odd about the American business book craze over the "flat organization."[1] To my Chinese historiography-meets-professional cycling mind, it says "I want to lose!; I want to be outsmarted and beaten to the finish by a more savvy competitor!; I want someone else to get the greatest financial rewards!"

I don't really understand it, yet to the extent that American corporations create "false flats," they fail to achieve the results (especially in the international sphere) of which they are capable. Like a Tour-winning cyclist, those who "learn to read" subtle inclines and declines will have a leg up on success. Learning to sense the hierarchies at work—seeing the real lay of the corporate landscape—allows us to click into precisely the correct gear in the final sprint to success.

***  ***

[d] Towering RF

Is this really so difficult to understand? Yes, apparently it is. As Alexis de Tocqueville once remarked, the children of 1776 are often quite touchy about issues of role, status, and hierarchy. Indeed, these otherwise quite discerning people are often dumbstruck by issues of protocol and tradition that other countries take very seriously.

In particular, Americans are often amused by the consternation wrought in more formal societies by breaches of etiquette, such as the uproar in Britain in 2009 when the American First Lady, in animated conversation with Queen Elizabeth, gently touched the small of Her Majesty's back. This is not to be done, apparently (one does not touch the queen), and the British press was filled with stories about the matter. American media could not resist, either, and commented in various ways, such as in this CNN report from that fateful day, several years ago.

Social and cultural reactions are not monolithic, of course, and the reactions covered a good deal of interpretive territory, from those who mocked British "silliness" to others who took offense at the "cluelessness" of Americans). It does not take years of anthropological fieldwork, though, to understand that Americans tend to be outliers when it comes to asserting equality in school, the workplace, the neighborhood, and the downtown sushi bar. Just call me "Rob," but don't call me late for dinner (yuk, yuk).

***  ***

[e] Equilibrium RF

I bring this up precisely because it has a very large place in business, and an even bigger one in business education. You see, business is culture, and anthropologists would do well to study the way people behave when the stakes are large—where there is, quite literally, a bottom line. American corporations have for the last decade or so spoken of the need to be "flat," and often equate the concept with greater resiliency and adaptability. American management texts are even more notorious for taking this concept to almost ridiculous extremes that have more to do with utopian vision than practical activity.

In fact, every one of us can probably conjure up an image—they are everywhere in advertising, because the idea is a powerful one—of just such a company. Ideas matter, don't get me wrong, and the advertising idea of equals working together sells products. Big time. We think of the first days of Apple® or Google®, and we usually can imagine a garage with a small pack of enterprising equals. If they had guitars, they'd be rock or punk or grunge, and probably be in Seattle...or Liverpool, depending on the decade. Got the image? Good.

Now consider an advertisement that calls upon the ideology of the "flat organization. Through a certain lens, the picture represents exactly how to get the most from one's "team." It is nimble. But now imagine the consternation such a work setting might cause if one's lens (or paradigm) shifts toward our examples from Japan (yesterday). From that angle, it is chaotic. Who's in charge? How do we "report?" How do we do international business?

[f] Flat ADV

What does it all mean? Is there a way to enhance "nimbleness" but still hold confusion at bay? This is one of the big questions in business practice all over the world, and the answers flow in cycles (good, bad, both good and bad) and are then interpreted in the workplace. Think about your own workplace. What is appealing about the picture? What isn't? Would everyone, even in your own workplace, agree?

Look a little more closely at the picture. Come on, admit it. At least if you grew up in the United States, there is a certain kind of democratic charm that most people are likely to feel. You might even notice a little tingle of liberty-mixed-with-equality in a nice, youthful Protestant-ethic-and-the-spirit-of-capitalism sort of way. But now think about the picture from the perspective of your "real world" experience. Is anything really ever completely "equal" in life? I like to look at this from the perspective of conflicts—the smaller the better, because little pangs of annoyance are often hidden gems leading to deeper understanding of larger issues. Look at the picture and ask yourself if they all make the same amount of money. Does everyone share the same risk and reward? Are there any implications that flow from the answers to those questions?

I thought so. Hierarchy crossed the ocean with the Founding (Grand)-Parents; it's "here," too. Almost every person (American and beyond) has experienced the hurt or resentment from inattention to status or the lack of care taken by others for the nature of one's position. Perhaps the most common experience comes early—"sassing." Any parent who has ever had a child talk back to her has experienced, on a tiny scale, the pain of "roles" being slightly out-of-line. The family situation is only the beginning. At work, not matter how "flat" the organization, there are undulations of power and responsibility. Salary is only part of it. Americans often spend an inordinate amount of time trying to pretend that these things do not exist, and (compared to Japan) a different kind of "dance" goes on in relationships throughout the country—a subtle "flattening" of distinctions that could be made in salary, rank, education, neighborhood, clothing, accent, and manners. In East Asia and the United States we dance around hierarchy. We just do it in profoundly different ways.


[1] Don't get me wrong. In the narrowest sense, the "flat organization" is appealing (give team members more say in a flexible organization and eliminate needless middle managerial levels). I get it. There are many other ways to do this, however, and, as this book argues, at least one is much better. The other problem is that the very fine organizational theories behind the flat organization mask all of the cultural issues that this post is really about. Removing needless layers of management is perfectly reasonable. If only the concept of the "flat organization" was only about that. By invoking the term "flat," much, much more becomes involved, and that is my point. "Flatness" is ideological. Want results (and not just sales of management texts to an American audience? Call it something more accurate. If you doubt what I am saying, look up "flat organization" on the web and tell me if "flat" really is the most accurate term for it. Nope. "Flat" is a loaded term that speaks to matters far beyond flow charts and corporate efficiency.

Click below for the other "Spring and Autumn Roles" posts.
1         2         3         4        to be continued

NEXT
Learned Lines
The double entendre is intentional. We learn our roles, and the conditioning begins early. These roles (and accompanying statuses and hierarchies) play out in surprising ways in one of the most colorful spring rituals in American life—the college graduation. We'll spend one more day looking at role and status in American life before beginning our study of Chinese lessons with the Comprehensive Mirror.