Let’s Talk Culture

Organizational culture is a regular topic of discussion. It is mentioned often enough that in many circles it is somewhat of a buzzword instead of being treated with the reverence required, considering its effect on organizational outcomes. I believe it’s because we do not understand culture, what it really is and why it is important to the work we do, the successes we achieve or do not achieve.

 In the article “What is Organizational Culture and Why Should We Care?” Michael D. Watkins (2013) explains he intended to start a conversation and to provoke debate about organizational culture by eliciting peoples’ definition of culture on LinkedIn.  The result of his inquiry yielded more than 300 responses, which included “culture is how organizations do things, it’s a product of our compensation and its civilization in the workplace”. One other describe culture as being an organization’s immune system, with another explaining it as dynamic and shifting constantly to the changes that occur internally and externally; with yet another responding that culture is an organization’s personality. (Harvard Business Review, 2013).  What all these definitions reveal is, culture like our personality is extremely complex and understanding it or defining it is also complex. What is implicit however, is that culture will play a significant role in an organizations’ failures or successes.

 According to Edgar Schein, culture is “the accumulated shared learning of that group as it solves it problems of external adaptation and internal integration; which has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, feel and behave in relation to those problems. This accumulated learning is a pattern or system of beliefs, values, and behavioral norms that come to be taken for granted as basic assumptions and eventually drop out of awareness” (Schein, 2017; p.6).    He also explains that the deep assumptions of an organizational culture constitute the DNA of that organization.

 The concepts of DNA, personality, behavioural norms and habits are very strong connotations and they provide the inference of deep-rootedness of organizational attributes over time. If we are to continue the alignment of culture to human characteristics such as DNA and personality, it can be described from the perspective of “Nature vs Nurture”.  

DNA as the ‘nature’ component introduces the concept of the blue print of who one is, and that would be the same for any organization.  What an organization is in business to do is generally predetermined before it’s created. It’s system of beliefs and values come from the owner, creator and espoused by its executive leadership. Personality while determined by our blue print or an organization’s blue print, can be altered over time through the effect of ‘nurture’; which includes leaders’ beliefs, behaviours, actions taken or not taken over time.  Consistency of these behaviours and actions as Edgar Schein (2017) explains become organizational norms; meaning, they become the habit or the custom. While personality will foster tendency to certain behaviours and actions, habit forms through repetition.

 All organizations are in business to achieve success whether that success is financial or not.  In for-profit businesses we understand that success is measured in profit margins, and in not-for-profit businesses, success has varied metrics. Regardless of how success is measured, organizations want to be high-functioning with high preforming teams and cultures. High preforming cultures are positive, collaborative, supportive, proactive, they have trusting environments, their employees are provided with opportunities for growth, they recruit top talent with the end result being engaged employees (Culture IQ, 2020). They commonly foster aspects of transformative and servant leadership styles; these organizations promote a just, equitable and safe environment which allows for debate and diversity of thought and actions; resulting in successful outcomes. Low performing, low-functioning cultures however, usually engender toxic work environments where most of the individuals’ energies are spent on blaming and shaming; lack of accountability, fear, lack of trust, bias and unfair treatment, high level of deviance and arrogance with authoritative leadership styles, which foster low team morale and high attrition.

 If the objective of businesses is to achieve success, the question needs to be asked, why are so many organizations condoning and promoting an environment of fear, negativity, gossip, bullying, and overall employee surrender and submission? Have you ever been in a work environment when top talent leaves and no one thinks about it and the narrative becomes, ‘they did not fit’? Here is a reality check: There are many employees, leaders included, who stay in organizations not because they are engaged, or because it’s in the best interest of the organization. Low functioning, toxic, self-serving employees protect their turf; they will do whatever is required not to be exposed by their inabilities and non-production. They are social, they get involved with everyone especially the leaders with whom they find common ground because they share similar attributes.

When high performers leave it is not always because they want to. They are made to leave by low functioning leaders and coworkers who consistently extract from them, utilizing their skills and abilities for personal and professional advancement. Why don’t many leaders ask the questions “why are you here” and “why are you leaving” respectively? Why do low functioning or toxic cultures not prioritize exit interviews when high performers are leaving?

Mathew Corritore (2020) and colleagues review of organizational culture outlines that the “best cultures encourage diversity to drive innovation but are anchored by shared core beliefs” (Harvard Business Review, 2020). I believe that analysis can be applied in reverse to say toxic cultures discourage diversity, stifle innovation but are also anchored by shared beliefs.

Some of my colleagues have asked; whom do I believe is responsible for setting organizational culture?  As noted earlier, once the cultural blue print is set, there are those who are entrusted with leading and cultivating the blue print; they create, set and enforce the culture. The employees/subordinates/followers are responsible for the survival of that culture; which is the nurture aspect of framing the organizations’ personality.

 Promoting Culture

There are many one-liners and sayings about toxic work environments such as, “people don’t quit jobs they quit toxic cultures” (unknown author), which are often repeated; but they don’t seem to resonate sufficiently to make a difference. I have had experiences working in toxic work cultures, and I have also resigned because of toxic work cultures. As leaders we set the tone and we can alter the culture in our environments, the nurture aspect. We can impact and improve our work environments – our subcultures; however sometimes that is not sufficient to dull the impact of a toxic organizational culture. I have had unsavory experiences working in environments where leaders cultivate the toxicity on a daily basis, by either wielding their own brand of behaviours such as fabricating information, supporting those who gossip, condoning and promoting bullying or doing the bullying themselves and providing unwavering support to the non-productive. Many of us have seen those whose modus operandi is to connect with the leaders to protect their non-productivity by feeding information and gossiping which is designed only to serve their interests. These individuals outwardly give the appearance of promoting team and collegiality, but their actions contribute to team and cultural degradation.

Leading by Example:

In a conversation with one of the VPs I previously with worked, he was explaining some the employees’ actions to a given situation. He defended it as, “generally the staff here do not willing accept people who come from outside”.  As I listened to him I thought, is he not paying attention to what he is actually telling me. One would think in his position and with his experience, there would have been a bit of self-awareness and emotional intelligence.

 In another situation, I was having a conversation with a Labour Relations (LR) specialists, we were discussing a union representative’s reaction.  During our conversation I asked rhetorically, “why does it seem that the union get excited whenever they see my name?”  Her response was, “it’s not you per se, it’s more so the concept of you”. Well that picked my curiosity in a big way, so I asked, “and what exactly does that mean?”. Without skipping a beat, she said, “well the union does not like your director.” Then I followed up seeking clarification on whether that was the reason for the many union challenges my colleagues and I were receiving frequently. Here is what she left me with: She was the Labour Relations (LR) person, who one would think, was there to assist us with enforcement of the employment and workplace laws and regulations. Yet she was describing upward bullying without batting an eyelash; the normalization of bullying from the LR branch of the Human Resources (HR) department.

 I also had the misfortune of being part of an organization where two VPs in their infinite wisdom, decided to hold a meeting with all the employees without any members of the immediate leadership (including the director) present. The objective of the meeting was not clear, and I don’t remember one being given. For the record, I am not as averse to the senior leadership team meeting with employees without me being present as some others would be; however, the purpose should be communicated and as leaders we should be aligned in our objectives. That being said, if individuals are deciding to have such meetings, my experience has informed me that they should be prepared to be responsible for the follow through or the fallout depending on what ensues in that meeting.

Following the VPs’ meeting, only one of them met with the leadership team to relay the staffs’ concerns; however, the concerns were greatly misrepresented. The consequences needless to say was complete mistrust, a large scale grievance and significant cost to the organization. During that fallout, the VPs were nowhere to be seen or heard from. From my perspective, this was one explanation for why the employees’ norm was to circumvent conversations with their direct leaders and take all concerns to the executive offices.

 A Call to Action

Some may read this and believe that it’s all fiction, but these are only a few of my lived experiences. As leaders what we condone we promote, what we encourage we continuously breathe life into.  Kouzes & Posner (2017) outlines that leaders set the example, we model the way for others to follow and employees will follow the examples set by their leaders. The questions we all should answer as leaders are: Are we the ones gossiping and carrying the information; are we talking about our colleagues, friends and employees? Are we the bullies? Are we taking care of our teams and do we have their backs? The call to action for all us leaders is to examine the culture we have set or are setting in our work areas and is it what it should be. If not, we need to make the change. Wiseman (2017) proposes making small changes which generally have big impact. 

 One of the common phrases in organizations is psychological safety; however, if work environments are to be collaborative, promote discussion, debate and diversity in thought and actions, why is there a need to promote psychological safety? The energy spent promoting psychological safety, should be spent on dismantling the culture of blame, shame, fare and retribution, and advance leadership training and enhancement. Many organizations promote themselves as diverse; diversity is not only about cultural background, ethnicity or social acceptance. Most organizations are diverse by coincidence, not by choice. However, when hiring or promotion practices incorporate diversity in employees, diversity of thought, ideas and talent then that’s diversity by choice. An organization's internal culture, it’s shared values, behaviors, and the attitudes of its people are significantly more powerful in driving success than well-structured, well designed strategic plans. Singer and her colleagues (2009) have found that a more hierarchical culture was associated with a lower safety climate.

 One of the first steps to shift to a more positive less toxic culture is to start by acknowledging our teams; first start by saying “Thank You”. Kouzes and Posner (2017) classifies ‘thank you’ as the most powerful inexpensive two-word reward. Also stop talking about transparency and model it through transparent communication; don’t make the decisions and then ask “what do you think?” That’s disrespectful. Lead with empathy; simply ask people how they are doing, and genuinely mean it. Enable others by fostering collaboration and encouraging innovation.

 Culture starts with and is transformed by us as leaders, that is inescapable; therefore, we need to be the ones making the difference.

It was Mahatma Gandhi who said; “we but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him…”

 If you have a toxic culture and you are the leader chances are you know it; the suggestion would be to start by making the changes in yourself, your actions and your words. Make a commitment to holding yourself and others accountable, and communicate your commitment to a healthy work environment, work culture and a culture of high performance. With consistency these changes will take hold and the culture will change with one action at a time.

 Aristotle said “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.”