Innovate Vancouver

Article Contents

The culture fit model is a social construct. It is used to evaluate whether a given ‘input’ will meet performance specifications and responsibilities within a specific culture. These models have been implemented and defined in different ways. They have changed over time as new insights, opportunities, and risks are realized. The challenge is that not all

changes are adaptive or substantial; some merely represent past practices but with a new logic. In these situations, the company cannot easily adapt to change. This includes adopting new tools, providing training, and making modifications to the business model.

The outcomes supported by the culture fit ‘model’ are greatly determined by the context. This means culture fit in one context may mean something different in another context. The values may not be realized by everyone. The results can be quite selective. They support and reinforce homogeneity, access, and/or the status quo. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the discontinuous application of the culture fit model across the ‘citizen journey map.’

Inconsistencies concerning the application of the model surface throughout the ‘journey map.’ This raises the question of coherence, leadership, and commitment to innovation. It also surfaces opportunities for improvement or identifying when a pivot is required. Resolving these inconsistencies provides an opportunity. It helps strengthen the culture fit model. It also aligns its implementation with its original intent. The goal is to create an aligned business culture and business model. This approach continues to deliver value for its customers.

“…..some managers don’t think carefully about whether their organizations have the capability to successfully execute assigned jobs. They often assume that people working on a project have the required capabilities individually. They think these individuals can get the job done well. They believe that the organization also has the capability to succeed. This assumption is mentioned by Clayton Christenson.”

The question then becomes how alignment is achieved, what culture is being reinforced, and what values are being delivered?

• Tools,
• Processes,
• Policies,
• Values, and
• Technical assets

These inputs contribute to the structure, priorities, and outputs received by the stakeholders. Constraints introduced as inputs directly influence the solutions that are later made available to stakeholders.

How culture fit is applied and evaluated determines the societal value created through its implementation. Constraints that limit the implementation of the culture fit model have a significant impact. They determine what opportunities are available later on. They also affect the threats and weaknesses that need to be managed.

Planning

The tools, processes, and values that guide the use of the culture fit model offer guidance. They influence the consistency, precision, and quality in which the model is used. Misalignment can occur during which the value and vision of the model is lost and replaced. 

The intended values are often lost in translation if left un-monitored. The construct takes on a more administrative definition. The criterion for ‘fit’ or ‘access’ becomes more restrictive. The resulting filter constrains inputs not by necessity but by preference or convenience.

Project Management Tools – Fit

Without this foundation, the culture fit model’s authority and credibility would not exist. This is because there are many different paths to achieve the same outcomes.

A study of complexity acknowledges the value inter-dependencies between many of the public and private models that guide strategic priorities. Because diversity initiatives are often implemented in complex and varied legislative and regulatory contexts it may be useful to check the application across different sectors and locations in order to gain further insight into:

• Limitations
• Barriers, &
• Opportunities

The application of the culture fit model values is not limited to the workplace. These values also influence the delivery of other public programs and services.

The result is a citizen journey map. It supports conflicting experiences and values across overlapping domains. This map helps highlight the challenges and risks of constructing culture-based models.

The following domains provide a fertile ground for discussing complexity and the risks of working with a narrow definition of culture fit:

1. Ethical immigration policies,
2. Diversity in the workplace,
3. Human rights,
4. Healthcare,
5. Corporate Citizenship, &
6. Emotional Intelligence

The challenge facing leadership at all levels is the ability to recognize, evaluate, and act on value discontinuities when they surface:

• Alignment: How are these models aligned?
• Misalignment: How are these models misaligned? Why?

Immigration

• Alignment: Supports a global community
• Misalignment: ….based on historical, economic, and relational or social determinants.

Government immigration policies establish the criterion by which applications to immigrate are evaluated. There are currently four categories in Canada (for example): Family Class, Economic Immigrants, Other, and Refugees.

The federal skilled worker program (economic immigrants) emphasizes skills in demand by employers. The skills inventory is matched directly against employer needs. Criteria guide the immigration recruitment and evaluation process. The goals and criterion for this program change with employment and economic trends. Ideally, the changes remain aligned. However, the updating process is slow. Accessibility barriers continue to exist even for qualified immigrants.

Informing immigration legislation with diversity programs is reinforced as long as the culture fit construct stays agile. It should focus on the larger systemic vision. With changing historical and economic trends the public and private sector, including citizens, often advocate for establishing different priorities. Although these priorities often follow certain lines of thought (republican, democrat, etc.) the discourse fluctuates to match the urgency, quality, and characteristics of platform.

Diversity in the Workplace

• Alignment: Supports inclusion and creativity
• Misalignment: ……..based on the business model and existing support competencies which may be resistant to change.

The path between diversity in the workplace and business engagement or innovation is multi-linear. There are many ways to support diversity. However, there are just as many, if not considerably more, ways in which diversity initiatives are thwarted.

The constructs, values, and tools implemented at the beginning of the ‘pipeline’ directly influence the quality of the diversity initiatives. They also affect the outputs that follow. Without adequate monitoring the workplace can become overly homogeneous and resistant to the dynamic values aligned with diversity. Definitions of culture fit are not always open, or inclusive.

Culture fit definitions are thus directly influenced by the following drivers:

• Corporate mission, vision, & values
• Corporate resources, assets, technologies, and competitive advantages
• Core competencies & existing key performance indicators (KPI’s)
• Corporate business model & structure
• Reinforcement mechanisms & incentives

Barriers to workplace diversity can be resilient and challenging to overcome. The previously common phrase ‘[local] work experience’ was often observed in job descriptions and recruitment postings. It was later replaced with ‘culture fit’ during job interviews.

In some countries the interview questions, and evaluation matrix, are required to map directly against the job description. In other countries this quantitative approach to candidate selection is not required. Inputs directly influence the processes and outputs that follow. Change is required in order to adapt to customer and stakeholder evolving requirements.

Human Rights

• Alignment: Supports inclusion, safety, and access
• Misalignment: …………based on location (age, wealth, etc.).

A discussion of ‘Human rights’ outlines the rights and protections that a citizen should be able to expect. Unfortunately the list of rights will vary depending on the country and region in which the individual lives. The list of rights pertains to:

• Opportunity
• Communication
• Self-expression
• Services
• Access, &
• Treatment

Despite these universally recognized (although not equally reinforced) list of rights, their application is often inconsistent across a country. It is also inconsistent within a country. This particularly remains true when considering one’s private versus public life, or professional life.

The skills needed to balance these contradictions are crucial. Rights in one context might be a privilege in the next. This highlights the challenges organizations, governments, and individuals face. They demand their human rights be protected.

Healthcare

• Alignment: Supports global health goals
• Misalignment: ………but determined by location, wealth, technology, etc.

Healthcare demands and services are rapidly changing (and increasing). New technologies, treatments, and scientific insights have been introduced. These introductions have strengthened the healthcare community’s ability to impact national and global health measures. The war on economic and healthcare disparities continues as these advancements are rolled forward. But the barriers to overcoming and resolving these disparities remain.

“…when we compartmentalize based on an idealized conception, we only see a mere metaphor. We fail to approach the truth of what live beings do. Parts interact and are dynamic. This plays out in the way we practice (Livni, 2017).”

Research dollars continue to emphasize issues facing developed countries and on issues that can provide a high return on investment. Access to current technologies and future innovations depends on national and individual wealth. This wealth is a barrier that affects citizens of both developing and developed countries.

Corporate Citizenship

• Alignment: Supports the developing of a business model aligned with social and community impact measures
• Misalignment: ………determined by industry, business model, values, and resources.

Corporate responsibility supports a more systemic view towards business impact. It considers the stakeholders, environment, customers, resources, technologies, and values of the business model. Impact is evaluated from a systemic view beyond financial measures and seeks to merge KPI’s that generate value for society.

The societal values targeted is influenced by the company’s business model and industry. Businesses in the environmental services or oil & gas industry often face challenges. They may struggle to implement a corporate citizenship model. This model must align with the community’s current priorities. Public sector and crown corporations can struggle with transparency. Financial stewardship and innovation are also difficult due to system complexity and resource constraints.

Iterative innovations (and steps) continue to help bridge these gaps. However, what may be needed is an industry level disruption to the business model. There may also be a need for changes to the solutions emphasized.

Emotional Intelligence

• Alignment: Supports a social model of inclusion and respect supported by an increasingly robust library of research
• Misalignment: ……..but is often used to emphasize ‘what others should be doing.’ It reinforces stereotypes and labeling. This approach can (paradoxically) limit healthy empathy.

Emotional intelligence models focus on developing the individual competencies needed to deal with difficult situations. The models start by focusing on oneself. They support self-reflection and self-understanding. The goal is self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and effective relationship management.

The goals are both aspirational and normative, emphasizing future goals as well as performing within the present context. Literature on this subject is easily accessible. It shares anecdotes, platitudes, and metaphors for understanding the social environment. It also helps in learning how to achieve one’s goals within it. Normative statements are used to provide a framework. This categorization of behaviours into groups allows for discussion. New solutions can be explored through this framework.

Innovation

• Alignment: Supports the development of better solutions
• Misalignment: ……but the choice of which product innovations to pursue can emphasize the acquisition of wealth and status.

Processes supporting innovation are often provocative and inquisitive. Generative learning is

Which vectors/values would you prioritize? How does your choice impact the other areas?
How does your decision influence how the other areas are evaluated and labelled?

Does an attempt to be ‘all inclusive’ solve the conflict or simply create new ones?

Innovation models emphasize improvement for the sake of improvement. They can be interpreted to build new products or services. These may offer little to no value to society or the customer.

The gap between present and future value is often resolved through dialogue, marketing, and product/service positioning. The customer is convinced that the new innovation actually solves a new problem. They may also believe the other ‘solutions’ were performing poorly, highlighting the need for a new solution.

Conclusion

Although the culture fit construct is not a business model it represents a significant component of the business model architecture.

When the values shared across these process, social, and technical constructs are implemented differently, it affects the citizen’s experience. Moreover, it influences the solutions provided by the business’s product or service offerings.