The Last 3 Weeks
On the conflicts of business anthropology
The last 3 weeks have been deeply immersed in rapid anthropology in the form of ethnography or ethnographic research on the East Coast of the United States.
Although I can’t release the details I can attest that it has been a typical case of “business anthropology” and other types of qualitative research in the business sector; the high rise and elation of the big unknowns of the culture we are studying and the specific phenomenon then the specific phenomenon under study. As social scientists we are often more excited about studying the culture than the phenomenon that will lead to business results. I myself am hugely fascinated with the understanding of this particular culture and it’s social institution.
From the rituals, traditions, object culture, cultural artefacts, hidden processes, rules, that take time to understand to the technical language mixed with historical and modern language, this has been a fascinating albeit a rapid study.
3 things I find most fascinating:
- the symbolic interactions beyond the utility of the service we are observing (meaning making)
- the ways in which this culture tells, reinforces, and updates their narrative through media, artefacts, and conversation.
- that the social institution is so broad in it’s coverage, acting as a place for inner actors and semiotics, along with conflicting attempts to professionalise while staying familial in what I see as an attempt to become timeless. (you’d have to be there to understand.)
It began with excitement between all of us, then came the ambiguity of “what are we looking at?” and when can we start asking direct questions. An early issue we faced was early signs of confirmation bias; I had provided a high fidelity prototype of a possible outcome before doing research as a tool to help gain access to location(s), which we began to focus on it a bit.
Beginning with the ironic term of ‘rapid ethnography’ which to those who are too anthropologists or sociologists practising ethnography outside the business world, you will find most derangement with this pairing of those words.
Cultural sensitivity
The culture picked for study is thought of as being very sensitive to outside innovation and it isn’t clear why, not just from an anthropological perspective but from a business perspective; the culture seems to reject the diffusion of innovations and seem “just fine” with what they have if not in some cases, feeling “better off” about it. Many people I interviewed with would encapsulate their reasoning into the phrase “that’s not how things are done” or “that doesn’t suit us”, and perhaps it doesn’t. What I see here is a conflict or tug of the modern world of technology and commerce and the need to keep the principles of their long held identity. We also see the culture as highly influential to mainstream culture, the literature supports this in America and we were able to see this grappling being a point of distinction but also tilting mainstreams assumptions and possibly beginning to uproot the status quo.
(Will write about the project after it is over, so excuse the broadness)
Social science and business
Many anthropological issues exists in every domain, it is the job of anthropology to look at these issues and ensure they aren’t being misunderstood by outsiders. So what our clients might see as “incorrect’ or inefficient, say something such as time per job, the culture being studied may see this as a core value or as an essential piece of their practise. This is usually where we solve problems in a linear way; we look at cultural sensitivities shared by many people of the culture and we either deliver important insights to design for, or we end up co-designing(client & us), the offering (service or product) with our insights as design sensitivities. Inherent in this issue of anthropology is this look but do not touch policy we seem to still have, since anthropology was not explicitly set up with the goal of behavioural change or giving products a natural fit. So we tend to have this inclination to let many of our insights turn into rules of designing for x culture rather than looking at root causes, in my opinion this also has to do with the time constraints that business projects are typical of. To understand the difference so that it is culturally rational as I am putting it, we end up designing around those cultural sensitivities; the products end up maintaining the culture or possibly enhancing it while keeping the parts where meaning is made still intact.
So what is problematic about this?
That we, at times, don’t look at the latent needs and safe guard the offering for the sensitivities rather than breaking them down and postulating, abductively what that outcome might look like if we did without cringing reflexively. So we can end up missing the possible root causes that could offer us a key design direction focused on latent needs. At these points we bypass the incremental and we put ourselves on the edge to possibly end up solving a key problem in the culture and the business.
If we provide culturally sensitive products/services to this culture will it maintain the rituals and traditions that are so loved, will the meaning still be intact?
The gains in efficiency and possibly democratisation of the offering may lead to a market disruption that results in more money but what about the cultural disruption? In my case, I am quite sensitive to just changing something for the sake of more money for a business even my own. Let’s go back to my time example, if we automate a system it probably will make the offering faster and more efficient on paper, but what about the time that cannot be measured quantitatively? The social time where longer times equals more time for a latent discussion about stories of stress in a patrons life and where wisdom could be passed down by other patrons, where random events are allowed to occur and are a key part of the heartbeat of the culture, what are we sacrificing here? Even if the culture accepts it verbally that doesn’t mean they have perceived or thought deeply themselves about the impact it will have on other parts of the cultural journey. A businessman might quickly say do it, but my gut questions me and asks is this ethical? If you “gamify” an industry, will you place people against each other and ethnocentrically bring them closer to your ideal ambition behind capitalism? If you take away the “paper” cash payment system, will it lower trust in the culture? Quantitatively we ask, will the tips go down after this automation? Or will the payments be more consistent? But anthropologically we might ask, are we taking a chunk out of the social script? Is that chunk a key part of the meaning making in their processes or rituals? Does that paper money have symbolism within not just the transaction in general but the micro parts from the act of taking money out of your wallet or pocket, selecting an amount, and handing it to the person who serviced you, and then deciding what to do with the change, and what does that moment when the patron says “keep it” mean, are they putting their money back on the east coast. Does this mean more than a debit card swipe?
Are we getting people wrong by not considering the thick nuanced meaning behind the acts here?
When you yourself are the researcher, the ethnographer, start to fade into the culture, it’s quite typical to at first find it fascinating and then that fascination converts into a deeper empathetic understanding of their world, you then come to respect their way of life. Then slowly you begin, so naturally it seems, to want to protect it, to protect them. To ensure no harm comes to them and that they are respected. From fascinated and unknowing to one who perceives and possibly is perceived to understand, to the protector. This path is common to my experience and studies. This common path must be considered in the realm of business, as it effects the goals and changes our perspective on what we are doing despite the sector not being so concerned with these types of issues. At first, I thought, this is dangerous in the world of business, that when you start to look for a balance in this, it makes you consider just how right is what we are contributing to?You ask yourself should we be using a cultural symbol to entice people when the organisation has no real understanding or attachment of this culture? When there is a connection between the executive’s passion for money or marketshare and not so much at the culture being studied. In the anthropological spirit, you place the weight upon yourself. If you begin to systematically deduce culture (as much as possible) and then in turn reap the benefits without considering what the artificial cultural impact is doing, it seems at best insensitive.
In 20-50 years what will we have done for this industry? Will we have made an empathetic impact on the character of business and increased their sensitivity or will it be that we gave them keys that they would use to simply increase their market share? It is critical that we think about this, because we are effecting and affecting an industry with our popularity rising in the business world. So we should be ensuring that we are doing our best to nudge it in the right direction.
Yes, admittedly it is people like me that have explicitly chosen the private sector to work in, and these are problems that are most obvious from project to project but we must be careful to not become numb to our gut feeling, to our morale compasses. As I have thought more about it, I have come from thinking that we should get out and go back to study indigenous people or 3rd world countries focusing on social impact and non-profits to pondering about this. If we decided to leave it as it is and leave it prey to the continuation of mba thinking in numbers and graphs, that it may still lay in our hands, because we are all reliable for the path we are taking as a species as a planet, so instead I move to say that the humanities should be courageous about entering the private sector. Anthropologists, sociologists, and the like actually need to be in the business sector. These gut feelings where someone else has a lack thereof is exactly why the private sector needs humanities including the social sciences. Because much of the time, they are getting people wrong. Some are getting it right, and most of them are not evil; I believe the tools they have available to them are limited and the choice architecture is flawed and one sided. So this is something we as social scientists have to take on. It is key to the future of our species. So go ahead, flood the private sector without shame. Lead them to epiphanies about themselves and help them find their why, then help them create meaningful offerings. The private sector may not be as important to you as 3rd world countries but I posit that it is just as important; for it is businesses who have great control of most of the world’s future. We need many people looking at the intangibles, the subtle nuance that means so much to people but clearly don’t show up in spread sheets. SO let’s not run from it, let’s embrace it, it’s critical that we not back away but help sort this out. Involving ourselves. Let’s take it upon our backs to be the change we have always preached of seeing.
Christian Ramsey from www.helloesp.com
Cheers to my team at ESP Collective.
Henry Delcore (Anthropologist) + Jazmyn Latimer (Psychologist & Designer) + Manish Sharma (Product Designer + Innovator) + James Mullooly (Anthropologist)
