{"id":24035,"date":"2019-09-16T11:27:07","date_gmt":"2019-09-16T18:27:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/?p=24035"},"modified":"2019-09-16T11:27:07","modified_gmt":"2019-09-16T18:27:07","slug":"design-thinking-across-cultures-receiving-egalitarian-thought-in-a-hierarchical-culture","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/design-thinking-across-cultures-receiving-egalitarian-thought-in-a-hierarchical-culture\/","title":{"rendered":"Design Thinking Across Cultures – Receiving Egalitarian Thought in a Hierarchical Culture"},"content":{"rendered":"

With my working title defining me as \u201cTeam Leader for International Missions Innovation,\u201d Erin Meyer\u2019s <\/span>The Culture Map<\/span><\/i> provides applicable insight. My R&D team exists \u201cto innovate and expand opportunities to further God\u2019s Kingdom around the world.\u201d Working with people from differing cultures along Meyer\u2019s eight continuums of cultural differences is a large part of our daily work. Making these differences more explicit and supplying a language for conversations is very helpful.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In the innovation ecosystem, words like \u201crapid,\u201d \u201cagile,\u201d \u201csprint,\u201d and \u201cquick\u201d abound. Cultural differences can be further triggered or bull-dozed when pause isn\u2019t given in a \u201cDue date?: Yesterday\u201d type of environment. A moment of pause is well worth the time. The advertisement blurb on the cover, \u201cHow people think, lead, and get things done,\u201d suggests that these differences are simply \u201ccute\u201d observations, but important values that could accelerate or impede progress on getting things done.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Design Thinking and the current innovation theory coming out of Silicon Valley highlights the need for egalitarian thought. According to these thought leaders, ideas could come from every level of the organization. Large organizations like Google have worked diligently to flatten the organization and have a two-way communication pathway between the CEOs and the lowest level with activities like TGIF, an all-hands meeting where employees from every level can approach the CEOs. This describes the far left side of lower power distance and egalitarian on Meyer\u2019s spectrum (Meyer, 125).<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

My R&D team was recently approached from a staff member who serves as a country director from a highly hierarchical culture. Due to recent security, his field staff could not meet with recently converted students and use paper copies of follow up materials or Bible studies. The staff quickly created a short-term solution by simply taking photos of each lesson and then open their photo library on their smartphone and working from there. While that is very resourceful, there has to be a better and more transferrable way – an app, document viewer, something.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ministry practitioners often quickly move to a single idea as a solution. While snap-judgment and quick intuition can sometimes serve well, it also violates a couple Design Thinking principles. First, one major principle is to \u201cgo broad to go narrow.\u201d There needs to be several ideas, not just one, to prototype and test. While a smartphone app might be the best solution, there might exist a much less labor-intensive and costly solution like a PDF viewer. Second, Design Thinking has two steps before ideating:\u00a0 gaining empathy with the end-user and clearly defining the problem. Sometimes this process is quickly and subconsciously carried out, sounding something like, \u201cI heard from our staff (empathy) that they can\u2019t use paper copies due to security (problem), so we need a smartphone app (solution).\u201d However, there might be a lot of assumptions or missed opportunities along the way. Security is an issue for whom? Expatriate missionaries? Indigenous people? Both? What type of security? Physical witnesses? Mobile? Is web access monitored? How many of your staff have smartphones? With so many variable and assumptions, we need the thought and input from the end-user.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Here exists the challenge: Design Thinking is at its best when serving the end-user (in this case the field staff, volunteer, or student), not simply the boss\u2019s demands. How can our team gain the egalitarian thought needed to gain empathy and define the actual problem, while not offending the hierarchy of the client\u2019s culture? I\u2019m open to input from the cohort, especially as it results to applying Meyer\u2019s work. The following are our team\u2019s attempts in implementing Meyer\u2019s suggestions on working with a hierarchical and top-down decision making culture:<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n