In her latest book, Anthrovision: A New Way to See in Business and Life (2021), Gillian Tett writes about the behaviors of organizations, individuals and markets, by “looking through an anthropological lens”. In this interview, the focus is on the role of anthropology in decisionmaking, drawing in part on her book.
We note that a common misperception may be that anthropology is still predominantly
focused on exploring the functioning of relatively primitive societies, following the tradition
of anthropological pioneers such as Margaret Meade. As we learn in this interview, this no
longer seems to be the case. Today, the focus appears to have increasingly shifted towards
exploring phenomena in our modern world. Leading academic centers in this respect seem
to be Stanford and NYU.
To start, for the benefit of business readers, what is “anthrovision”? Ms. Tett asserts that for
much of the typical reasoning around key issues in the many diverse fields of inquiry
(including forecasting in business and economics, predictive reasoning in political science,
and so on), the common approach is to base one’s reasoning on various underlying models,
typically developed from the second half of the 20th century and onwards. But such models
for forecasting are built on specific assumptions. Thus, the insights that we might depend
on, the degree to which the assumptions that we have specified, are reasonable or not.
Assumptions are functions of a given physical context as well as social context. Culture
matters! Thus, different people might come up with radically different “solutions”.
Anthrovision is thus a manifestation of the fact that people may think in different ways, and
that a range of different outcomes might thus be valid. It is thus a matter of recognizing that
outcomes may be different for various organizations, businesses or persons.
It is perhaps useful to embark on a “three-part journey” to come up with one’s specific
position:
- First, try to envision what might be a reasonable end result.
- Second, try to look back in one’s mind regarding why these specific results have
come about. What seem to be particularly critical assumptions?
- Third, try to balance the various assumptions. Are we coming up with a more
multifaceted set of outcomes, compared with where we started from?
Perhaps a good way to think about this process might be to consider it as going from a more
internal focus, to reach a more outside focus.
The anthropological “lens” in its ideal form might be applied by business leaders. For good
business leaders to be on top of decision-making, he/she should attempt to reflect on the
extent to which a given decision might “belong” in a given contextual department, quite
similar to examining the anatomy of a fish in a fishbowl. Might this given decision be part of a different context? Perhaps analogous to observing a fish’s swim from one side of the
fishbowl to another. Or consider a totally different, alternative way! Perhaps analogous to
the fish jumping out of the bowl.
Why are many business leaders not thinking this way, not considering broader arrays of
assumptions? It could be that a particular business leader might see him/herself to be too
busy, and/or “trapped” in his/her own so far relatively successful track record, and/or that
there is some fear to focus on alternatives. It might perhaps be useful to review how many
of the major decision-makers handled the recent COVID 19 pandemic. In general, many of
us could tend to be blinded! (journalists included!)
We have seen how the “three-part set of principles of the anthropologist’s mindset”
(making the strange familiar, making the familiar strange, and listening to social science)
could apply. However, there may be additional issues of importance, such as some which
have come up say, in the Ukraine/Russia conflict. Specifically, much of the thinking of
“western” leaders seemed to assume that Putin was putting high priority on factors of
economics, when in reality he apparently had less of a focus on this, and rather on more
nationalistic factors to “re-establish” the Russian empire! Also, however, what might be
seen as a “dominant cultural view” at a given point in time could be moving. For instance,
rather than annexing the entire Ukraine, the culture seems to have shifted to later focusing on securing a land-bridge from Russia to Crimea. While the outcomes of Russia’s war efforts definitely seemed to have played a role in this change in position or culture, it could also, to some extent, be a realization that the Ukrainians may be difficult to reign!
Shifting focus to China, it apperas clear that the country has become increasingly
totalitarian, none-the-least with the recent consolidation of central “power” by Xi Jinping.
But do we understand how these factors are “accepted” at the grass-root level? Perhaps a
more multifaceted interpretation of what culture entails, could be called for!
Ms. Tett encourages curiosity, listening, observation for business leaders – adopting a
“beginners mind”. Why is this often lacking in today’s business world? This might perhaps
have to do with the extreme interconnectedness among most of the world’s economies.
(While it is true that there may be relatively less focus on open world trade today than
before, the interconnectedness is still there!) Business leaders may thus do well by
considering what might be “shocks”. We saw this when it came to COVID 19, spreading from China. And another “shock” stemming from the pandemic might be that it now seems
acceptable to reconsider how we work – why should we go to the office every day? Shifts in
technology can also “induce” shocks!
So, what could be the biggest advice to business leaders today, as Ms. Tett sees it? “Test”
what one is seeing! For instance, can one be blinded by one’s own success? Explore openly,
talk with different people, try to understand different cultures, dialogue with people from
all types, and yes, also the young!
It does not seem clear whether executive education/business schools could be up to the
task to play key roles in improving our mindsets along the lines that are outlines. Perhaps
relatively too much focus may often be given to exploring disciplinary fields, say when it
comes to finance, accounting, manufacturing or strategy. Classical “models” of the 20th
century still seem to dominate much of what is going on. Perhaps typical departmental
structure, and/or even offices assigned to various disciplinary faculty groups, might add to
such silo-thinking. Instead, students should be “taught” how to look around more, i.e., get
ready for the unexpected!
Business anthropology, along with social sciences such as sociology, psychology and
anthropology each contribute immensely to insights in human behavior and business
organizations. Clearly, observation and learning enrich the anthropological review process,
and can help business leaders to understand interaction and societies, consumer behavior,
marketing and management.
My combined career, focused on academic endeavors (professor at MIT, Wharton, IMD, …)
and the development of a successful business (shipping; investment portfolio, …) has
benefitted from this more anthropological focus and how I came to research various
economic phenomena, in contrast to more common axiomatic foci, perhaps more
sociological! This higher degree of openness, stemming from this dual approach, also seems
to have benefitted the business performance that I have “delivered”.
Interview conducted by Peter Lorange, November 2022.