What happens when an academic mindset and corporate culture collide

I’ve had a pretty sheltered work life, so what may be obvious to others wasn’t to me. After graduating from high school, I worked for four years in a small plumbing shop and then entered university where I stayed for the next 42 years – most of the time as a professor. About two years after I retired, I started a volunteer position with a nationwide charity. My job entails cleaning, inspecting, and repairing equipment and I quite enjoy the work.

A couple of weeks ago, I heard from a paid colleague that there was a new standard for the placement of labels on the equipment and that we would have to re-label every piece of equipment despite them all having perfectly legible labels, just not in the newly-correct position. This sounded like a waste of time to me so I emailed my supervisor (who is located in a different city) and made known my reticence to waste time on this task in the absence of a good reason why it wasn’t a waste of time.

I think he was somewhat taken aback by my response and took some time to reply to me with what he considered an argument for the necessity of the task. He had three main points to his argument. The first was an argument for having labels on the equipment, but not for repositioning them so was completely irrelevant to the question. The second was simply an assertion that the task was important in some vague and general way. The third was the beginning of an argument for efficiency but it was unclear what efficiency would be gained and whether any gained efficiency would offset the time spent on the task in the first place. These main points were followed by a statement that I would certainly not be required to take part in this exercise if I was not keen on doing so, but that my paid colleagues would be doing it because “it was mandatory.” I was somewhat dismayed at my supervisor’s inability to present a cogent argument despite my considering him an intelligent person, but the statement that the task was mandatory is where the penny dropped for me: I was dealing with a clash of cultures.

I come from an academic culture where if you respect someone, you must take the ideas they present seriously and you must honestly and constructively, criticize those ideas. This honest exchange of ideas is the cornerstone of the intellectual process. When one is required to defend one’s ideas, flaws in those ideas become apparent and appropriate adjustments can be made leading to better ideas. Thus, when I argue with my work supervisor it is because I respect him and because I respect what he is trying to accomplish and I wish to contribute to it. Not to debate his ideas would imply that they are not worthy of my time and thought and that would be disrespectful.

I concluded (and I’m sure some of you are wondering why on earth it took me so long) that I was dealing with a different, corporate culture where vigorous discussion of ideas was neither demanded (as in my familiar academic culture) nor even particularly desired. This culture was marked, rather than by a desire for vigorous discussion of ideas, by a desire that those ideas be carried out without debate. This is similar to the military culture where unquestioning obedience is valued. As long as your orders come down the chain of command your task is simple: carry out the orders you’re given. This seems to me to be an appropriate cultural model in the military (for the most part – results of the Nuremberg trials suggest that such a model is not always appropriate). It might even be an appropriate cultural model for emergency response programs where quick action is of the essence. However, I have doubts about this cultural model more broadly in the charitable sector, and my concerns will not change the fact I am now working in a chain-of-command driven corporate culture. I’m pretty sure I can manage that now that I’ve, perhaps belatedly, come to that realization.

In the context of such a corporate culture, my second conclusion (given my supervisor’s inability to effectively defend the policy he was attempting to implement) was that the policy was passed down to him and that his job was simply to ensure that it was carried out. He did come into town the week after our phone call and we had a good discussion about the task, the process, and my attempts to influence it, which he claimed to appreciate as did his supervisors. I will continue to attempt to influence the policies and procedures (being careful to not be too vocal for fear of being recruited to some policy committee – we all know how that works!) but will do so with a better understanding of the context in which I’m working.

And I know this is where some of you are shaking your heads at my naivety: how could I not have recognized this corporate culture when for the last couple of decades of my academic career university administrations have been trying to implement such a culture, with increasing success. I can only say that perhaps it’s because I was so busy fighting against it alongside many of my colleagues that I didn’t immediately recognize it when it was so universally accepted by those around me. … or maybe I am just hopelessly naive.

Scott Allen is a retired associate professor of psychology who taught at the University of Lethbridge.