Or, it's not only who you know in the organization, but also what you know about how the organization works.
The ability to speak a language, use algebra, design and use complex processes or work with complex equipment requires all sorts of knowledge that is rarely known explicitly, even by expert practitioners. The same is true of the knowledge of "how" an organization works, it's real priorities and deeply held impressions. This "tacit knowledge" in the form of "rules" and "mental models" has far-reaching consequences and impacts our career futures.
I've always liked to pride myself in the fact that as a consultant I only lost three gigs over the past thirty years, often staying with clients for a couple decades. But in all three instances my failure was tied to the fact that I was simply unaware of the organizations' unique, tacit mental models--its "rules"--by which people worked.
In a previous post, I commented that knowing the organizations' gossip often held keys to figuring out the "rules" or "mental models." I learned that one way to get at these "rules" was to finish interviews with the question "how do you get in trouble in your organization?"
Some essential mental models
As a result of an in-depth study of two major organizations and an analysis of a dozen or so other organizations, I've learned that there are nearly a dozen issues providing potential for organizational rules or out-of-awareness mental models. Typically, however, a division or group won't hold tightly to more than 3 or 4 mental models built on these issues. But knowledge of those mental models can ...
The following are not the actual mental models, but they are the fundamental rules on which organizations build mental models.
Here's my list:
--How things get done in the organization. That may include who, when, why, even where, and for what purposes. It also can explain why other things don't get done even though there's a lot of noise about getting something done.
--How to keep out of trouble. Or, how to avoid unpleasant outcomes. What you can do or say in one organization ain't necessarily true of what you can do or say in another organization. It can also include knowledge of proprietary processes and ability to work within or around those processes.
--Knowing the critical priorities. That may be as simple as not bad-mouthing the CEO or as complex as dealing with multiple expectations and timelines of a marketing, sales or R&D group.
--What counts as adequate information or data. This is all about the underpinnings of decision making. I'd like to think that decision making is about fact-based, truthworthy information, but that's rarely the case. Fact of the matter, the organizational politics may be more important than the facts.
--How to act appropriately in various situations. In addition to what is said, that may include, dress, language, nonverbals, turn-taking and even the use of space--and the team thermostat. I've often chuckled about the fact that when my eldest was a manager under an EVP at a major Chicago firm, employees typically stopped and asked whether it was a good time to talk to "the boss." Her answer varied from "it's OK," to "I don't think you want to talk to him today." They got the point. The inherent rule was that you'd didn't talk to the boss without clearing it with his manager. People who failed to observe the rule could get an earful from the EVP.
--What's the unique role of our discipline. That can vary widely from organization to organization--and in a number of different ways. For example, R&D gets terrific attention at 3M, as does marketing at Ralston Purina. They're viewed as company drivers. But HR gets short shrift at RP and some attention at 3M. Understanding the organizational drivers is just one piece of this issue--and it takes a while to learn the ins and outs of such in most organizations. Some people never seem to learn these "rules."
--How to relate to other disciplines. How much attention to pay to other disciplines, when and for what. When to ignore them and whether it's OK to badmouth them. Or whether and when to share resources and knowledge bases. And whether and when to build interlocking relationships. It's also a big issue when relating to external customers and clients. Many, perhaps most firms have little sense about how to relate to external clients. And that can really impact the bottom line.
--What are our discipline's expectations about problem solving? This is tied to the issue of how things get done in the organization and what counts as adequate information or data. One discipline may deal with those issues quite differently than another discipline in the same organization.
--Deeply held impressions about the organization. If the organization, like Microsoft, Google or 3M has positive views of itself, you'll find the bulk of employees will hold those impressions. Those that disagree often fail within the organization and end up leaving as unhappy campers. In still other organizations where the execs hold positive views but employees don't, it can be a catch 22, requiring political astuteness.
Some important conclusions about mental models and the "tacit."
This information is usually "out of the awarness" of individuals. It regularly surfaces in conflicts and sometimes in great success. Candidly, you may never learn these rules or mental models until you've stepped outside them. And that might just be too late.
It's a mistake to think that models and rules are either consistent or reasonable. Ignore those conversations. They rarely go anywhere.
Models are both developed and passed on to others within the discipline or organization. Even though they rarely stay the same for long periods of time, their history is usually forgotten. That makes them more dangerous and undecipherable.
The actions which grow out of these models or rules are often, perhaps usually tacit. Employees don't know why they act or believe that way: they just do.