Culture


  • Saying Goodbye to the Brigade System

    Recently-resurfaced abuse allegations against chef René Redzepi at Copenhagen’s Noma restaurant, now closed, have called into question the so-called Brigade System. The French chef Georges Auguste Escoffier developed the hierarchical structure in the late 19th Century to instill discipline and efficiency. Yet many restaurants still use the Brigade. Le Cordon Bleu, the French culinary education organization, conflates the Brigade System with collaboration. While collaboration may exist in Brigade System kitchens, it exists in spite of the system rather than because of it.

    With the executive chef at the top of the kitchen org chart, the Brigade System not only instills hierarchy. The system also gives rise to star culture with the chef as the star. It’s not just kitchens where star culture flourishes. As I describe in the Introduction to the expanded and updated edition of The Culture of Collaboration book, we turn artists, athletes, chefs, politicians, surgeons, influencers, television hosts, entrepreneurs, corporate leaders and many others into stars. This tendency creates the impression that we accomplish great feats by ourselves. Yet we know better. Hierarchy and star culture are two of the Ten Anti-Collaborative Cultural Artifacts I identify in the book.

    Escoffier’s goal, as Pete Wells points out in his well-researched New York Times story, was to mold disorderly kitchen staffs into a profession. Yet as many organizations have discovered, instilling “order” can also discourage dissent, spontaneity, and creativity. No wonder expensive tasting menus seem formulaic, and customers perceive plunging value in fine dining.

    In contrast, Chez Panisse has never used the Brigade System. Rather, the Berkeley, California restaurant embraces a collaborative ecosystem of stakeholders which includes farmers, team members and customers. Team members often rotate roles and enjoy greater autonomy than at other restaurants. Chefs, servers, bussers and managers enjoy a daily meal together with wine—and it’s often the same meal the staff serves to customers.

    Evan Rosen and Alice Waters in the Chez Panisse kitchen

    A Chez Panisse principle revolves around food education—how food should be raised and prepared. Accordingly, the restaurant has a word-of-mouth, open-door kitchen policy. On a recent visit, I walked into the kitchen. Team members were focused but seemed relaxed and willing to answer questions. Chez Panisse founder Alice Waters was sitting at the prep counter enjoying a glass of rose and waiting for her dinner which is obviously more civilized than Rene Redzepi’s reported approach. We chatted a bit. I then walked back to the production kitchen where a prep cook was cutting the ends off of just out-of-the-ground sugar snap peas. Had Noma customers wandered back to the production kitchens, they might have observed the alleged abuses that reportedly occurred there. In any industry, command-and-control and star culture may appear to work. Yet in time, these Anti-Collaborative Cultural Artifacts backfire and compromise value. Instead, a collaborative ecosystem creates lasting value.



  • General Motors and the “C” Word

    General Motors CEO Mary Barra is taking aim at the “C” word.

    “I hate the word culture,” Barra is quoted as saying in an article by Joseph B. White in the Mary BarraSeptember 30 edition of the Wall Street Journal. “Culture is really just how we all behave,” according to Barra. The comments are curious in that Barra testified before a Congressional subcommittee last June that she would

    GM CEO Mary Barra outlines new strategic plan  (Image copyright GM)

    not rest until GM’s “deep underlying cultural problems” are resolved. The subcommittee was investigating GM’s failure to recall thousands of cars with defective ignition switches for eleven years.

    It’s myopic to dismiss the word culture. Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s third definition of culture is “a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization.” GM would benefit from focusing on these issues plus the broader context of the word culture. In his Tusculan Disputations, the ancient Roman orator Cicero introduced the concept of culture as cultivation of the soul as a farmer cultivates crops. Culture has come to represent beliefs and customs of societies. Cultural anthropologists study social structure and customs in populations ranging from villages to corporations.

    Culture is inextricably intertwined with collaboration in that how “we all behave” in Barra’s words determines whether we’re working together towards common goals or working at cross purposes. Ironically, in a July 28, 2014 post, The Culture of Collaboration® blog took General Motors to task for overemphasizing culture change without structural change. Culture change typically delivered as an edict often highlights the desired result without providing a way to get there. This common prescription from leaders, pundits and management gurus often fails, because the shift originates with executives without detail, discussion or broad buy-in. Meantime, the outmoded organizational structure stays the same. To achieve collaborative culture and the payoff that collaboration provides, it’s necessary to change the organizational structure. Then culture change can happen.

    On October 1, GM outlined its new strategic plan that focuses on technology and product advances, growth in China, establishing Cadillac as a separate business unit “headquartered” in New York City and delivering “core operating efficiencies.” Incidentally, the notion of headquarters is a relic of Industrial Age command and control. Nowhere does the plan mention structural change, which the automaker sorely needs. Changing GM’s structure requires overhauling everything from how team members share information across levels, roles and regions to how the company recognizes and rewards people as I detail in my book, The Bounty Effect: 7 Steps to The Culture of Collaboration®.