Beyond the spirit of the game: purposeful culture design
Summary
When culture is a fuzzy concept, it’s open to interpretation. People unwittingly wield their interpretations like shields or swords. Well-documented cultures, on the other hand, are open to scrutiny yet transparent and easier to govern and co-own.
A few months back, India and England clashed in a hard-fought test series. In the fourth test at Old Trafford, the two Indian all-rounders, Ravindra Jadeja and Washington Sundar, stitched together a 203-run partnership, while making the English attack lose all taste of battle. It was vintage test cricket, where a draw is as much a legitimate result as a win or a loss.
But before the match ended, there was a peculiar incident. Ben Stokes, the English captain, marched up to the two batters with his hand outstretched, offering a draw. This is standard practice. If the fielding captain, in this case Stokes, believes that they can’t force a result, they can offer a draw to the opposing batters. Chess, too, has a similar practice. It’s the opponent’s choice, however, to accept or reject the draw.
While Ben Stokes saw the writing on the wall and wanted to get his players off the field, Jadeja and Sundar were on the cusp of centuries. They preferred reaching those milestones before agreeing to a draw. Jadeja invoked his captain and refused the handshake. Stokes was livid! How could Jadeja refuse a handshake? To Stokes and the English players, chasing a personal milestone in a no-result situation felt counter-cultural. Boy, it was even against the “spirit of cricket”!
Except that few can tell what the holy spirit of cricket is. Cricketers define the spirit in line with the values of the regions they grew up in. Some of these values have little to do with the sport itself. In an achievement-bound region like the subcontinent, it’s no surprise that players like Jadeja and Sundar care about personal milestones. The “spirit of cricket” is an interpretive concept that people can unintentionally mould to their personal values. The culture of cricket, however, is not that interpretive. The 79-page document describing the laws of the game codifies the behaviours that shape the true “spirit” and “culture” of cricket. If anything, Stokes’s petulant behaviour was against the “spirit of cricket” as the preamble of the laws defines it. Here are some lines from that document.
Respect is central to the Spirit of Cricket.
Play hard and play fair.
Create a positive atmosphere by your own conduct, and encourage others to do likewise.
Show self-discipline, even when things go against you.
Congratulate the opposition on their successes, and enjoy those of your own team.
Let’s now revisit the English team’s behaviour in light of the laws of the game.
Was Stokes creating a positive atmosphere with his on-field outburst? Well, no!
Did the English cricketers show self-discipline when Jadeja refused the draw and carried on batting? Nope!
Did the English team show grace by playing hard, even when the draw was a foregone conclusion? No, Stokes had his part-timers bowl the final overs, instead of his premier bowlers.
Did the English show respect for Jadeja and Sundar’s hard-fought centuries? No! Bowling part-timers was a way to diminish those achievements.
All in all, the “spirit” in the English team’s heads and hearts was very different from the “spirit” that the laws of the game define.
As a cricket nerd, I consider the game to be one of the most culturally rich sports in the world. The sport is global – played in 100-odd countries and followed by 2.5 billion people. You can’t leave the culture of such a popular game to people’s imaginations. This is why the International Cricket Council (ICC) maintains the laws of the game. As times have changed, the governing body has revised these laws. People can behave however they like outside a cricket field, but once they cross the white line as players, they must act in accordance with the laws. Those documented, oft-practised behaviours define the culture and indeed, the true “spirit” of the game.
All this is a long-winded way to say that until you define culture explicitly, you leave it open to interpretation. People’s imaginations run wild, and they unwittingly use their notion of culture or “spirit of the game” as a shield or a sword. I explained how such interpretations are problematic in sports. Loose interpretations are also pernicious in citizenship, politics and governance. That’s why countries have constitutions. For example, the most essential parts of India’s constitution - the preamble, fundamental rights, fundamental duties, and directive principles of state policy - define the aspirational culture for India as a republic.
Similarly, corporate cultures become inscrutable when they only reside as convenient versions in people’s heads. Management expects one thing, while workers expect something else. In such environments, stakeholders stand divided over their definitions of the corporate culture. Everyone has an opinion, and consensus is hard to find. It’s a bit like the blind people and the elephant. Unsurprisingly, such environments are deeply unfulfilling to work in.
Undocumented, oral cultures are open to interpretation
The most forward-thinking companies document their culture like the ICC documents the laws of the game. Let me give you four examples, a couple of which I’ve cited earlier on this site.
Gitlab’s radically transparent public handbook explains its mission, values, value-aligned behaviours, and everything else you’d like to know about how the company works.
37Signals lists 37 signals that drive their company. Once you’ve read through them, you know what to expect if you were to work with them as a customer or an employee.
The Little Book of IDEO documents their culture and how they work. I absolutely love the section about their values, with the short, fun videos that explain each value and why IDEO is a “Peopley-Weopley” organisation.
Valve’s new employee handbook is a truth-telling device. Candidates and new hires know what to expect, and Valve is also crystal-clear about what they’re not good at.
Documenting culture this way is no easy task. It takes courage to write up your culture. The moment you write things up, you’re making an implicit promise to your stakeholders about the way you’ll act and behave. Indeed, when you act in accordance with your documented culture, you attract praise. Conversely, you attract criticism when you act out of line with your culture.
But isn’t that a better place to be than the constant struggle between the different spirits of your company?
Wouldn’t you want all your stakeholders to be custodians of your culture?
Wouldn’t you want to do the right thing for your brand even when it’s the hardest thing you can do?
Those are essential questions for all culture-shapers to ponder over. Will you choose the enigma of oral cultures, or the co-ownership of documented cultures? I’d love to know.