It’s an age-old question. Are humans an innately compassionate and altruistic species, or are they innately self-serving and narcissistic? Which version do you believe to be true? It’s also a circular question, where conversationalists may never emerge with a consensual position on the matter. A workplace culture, on the other hand, is a primary crucible for exposing human nature at its best and at its lowest common denominator; especially when those elements that forge a culture, are allowed to operate in a state of unchecked fluidity.
From the small, three-person unit, to the larger fourteen-person department and all the way up to the multi-layered hierarchy, it’s risky business to allow a culture to go unexamined.
When cultures remain unexamined, that’s an invitation for the forces of goodwill and ill-will, that both reside in the human species, to either become locked in a battle that may not have a happy ending for stakeholders, or to be in lockstep, depending on who’s in charge…….if the business is lucky.
A workplace culture, on the other hand, is a primary crucible for exposing human nature at its best and at its lowest common denominator; especially when those elements that forge a culture, are allowed to operate in a state of unchecked fluidity.
Allowing a culture to go unexamined, runs the risk of a landing point that will depend heavily, on whether social justice genes are dominant or regressive amongst its leaders and on whether their leadership practices are progressive or archaic.
A culture that has no process for examining itself, can turn out to be a space that is in a continual cycle of tension and contention. How does one manage a space that has no guardrails for acceptable and unacceptable behaviours? The other problem of course, is that persistence of this scenario may head into cultural anarchy, where anything goes.
This reminds me of a story I once read, in which a grandfather and his grandson were having a conversation about human nature. The grandfather tells the grandson that our human nature is like two wolves, one that is ruled by greed and hatred and the other, ruled by kindness and love. The grandson asks which of the two wolves wins, to which his grandfather replies, “The one that you feed.” My vote is for feeding cultural integrity. This is where the focus on culture goes past being a game of chance and past the linguistic niceties that often define its discourse in the boardroom.
When cultures remain unexamined, that’s an invitation for the forces of goodwill and ill-will, that both reside in the human species, to either become locked in a battle that may not have a happy ending for stakeholders, or to be in lockstep, depending on who’s in charge.
A culture that’s being examined, always has some tell-tale signs. The channels that support self-examination and self-assessment are plentiful. One channel would be the sustained hosting of employee forums that act as barometers for measuring how well desirable cultural standards are being observed at all levels of the hierarchy. Another channel would be how swiftly action is taken to remediate any divergence or violation of agreed principles, norms and practices by leaders. Nothing strengthens cultural integrity more than when the most senior leaders in a business, assume responsibility for their misdemeanours and demonstrate accountability for corrective action.
I’ve seen this in action at one of my clients, where a senior officer was guilty of violating an agreed practice in the way that he handled a situation involving an employee’s misdemeanour. He called a staff meeting and apologized publicly, to the employee, whilst owning responsibility for his own misdirected actions. This act of sincere leadership accountability, created a huge wave of positive currency for the leader and a source of inspiration for cultural integrity.
Another tell-tale sign of a culture under examination, is widespread commitment on the part of team members, to work on overriding their lowest common internal denominators. It’s when individuals voluntarily “hold themselves accountable” for doing their best work, without prodding from team leaders.
A culture that has no process for examining itself, can turn out to be a space that is in a continual cycle of tension and contention.
Oh, another sign is that employee surveys no longer are anonymous. Employees are happy to have their names affixed to their opinions, because the culture is not tainted by a lopsided application of rules based on seniority, favouritism or fear mongering. There’s a refreshing level of candour in an examined culture, because from the executive suite to the shop floor, there is equitable application of the rules of the workplace.
The reality though, is that not every business leader is inclined to put in the effort that is required to achieve a culture that is not ensnared in drama or cultural irregularity. Some leaders love the drama, others derive their sense of power from creating calamity or discord and yet others may have a genuine interest in creating a harmonious environment, but may simply not know where to start.
Regardless of the reasons, leader hesitancy in curating enriched cultures, where agreed norms, mores and standards are upheld across the board, is prevalent. Could it be that these leaders are unsure about their sufficiency to lead by example?
Nothing strengthens cultural integrity more than when the most senior leaders in a business, assume responsibility for their misdemeanours and demonstrate accountability for corrective action.
The good news is that there are those leaders who are resolute about building a culture where people feel welcome, standards are upheld, wrongs are put right and opportunities to strengthen cultural weaknesses are maximized.
Now…..if this is how examined cultures function, shouldn’t their existence in plentiful numbers be the norm?