Edgar Schein, arguably the godfather of corporate culture, long eschewed the notion of putting qualifiers ahead of the word “culture”. In his writing there was no “good” or “bad” culture but a recognition that organizations had the culture they had and the central question any leader faced was if that culture was accelerating or impeding their business success.
Could a culture of risk-aversion ever truly embrace the necessity to try new things? Especially things that might fail spectacularly?
Could a culture steeped in deep hierarchical control ever push decision-making down to the point of contact with the customer required in many service categories?
Could a culture that rewarded and promoted internal “competition” ever rally together to ward off an existential external threat?
While these scenarios are the types of real (tough) questions that business leaders should be asking of themselves, and the cultures they’ve created, there are a number of topical questions that have captured the business stage right now.
Does our culture embody a genuine level of diversity and inclusion that can capture new ideas, new markets and new opportunities?
Does our culture enable the velocity and momentum we need now many of us are working remotely?
In the last 90 days, there has been tremendous (and overdue) energy placed against dealing with the inequalities inherent in the workplace. I applaud the many pioneers in this space that are taking up this challenge with vigour.
My hope is that these efforts are genuine. That the energies expended lead to sustained and legitimate changes and don’t fall from corporate agendas when the spotlight and social media frenzy move on to other hot topics. For too long diversity has sat like a large grey elephant silently eating peanuts in the corner of most Executive suites. My hope is that when my two daughters enter the workforce this will be a non-issue. So please hurry up you Diversity pioneers, you have less than a decade!!
Equally the WFH challenge (or opportunity) has become the organizational topic de jour. The energy with which we all left boardrooms and expensive downtown real estate for the safety and sanctuary of our home offices and dining room tables has subsided. Now the very real spectre of how we survive and thrive in these individual life-rafts looms large. When the most informed organization on the planet – Google – makes a universal proclamation that they’re not going back to a central office until Summer 2021, the rest of us should ponder what is it that they know that we should be paying more attention to?
With many organizations seeing heightened levels of employee fatigue and concerns about the impact on mental health and wellness becoming more pronounced, its little wonder that the 3 C’s of successful organizations – collaboration, coordination and cohesion – are real worries. This recent HBR article about Microsoft reveals some very interesting observations they’ve seen by tracking, in real time, how their organization – and their culture - has tackled this enormous upheaval.
Two significant advantages I’d suggest Microsoft has over many of you reading this post. One, it is unlikely their workforce or technology infrastructure was unable to flex to this new reality. They’d not have faced bandwidth chokepoints, inconsistent server access and colleagues who didn’t know how to join calls on mute with the camera off. They had both the tools and the competency. Two, their culture, under the very public leadership of Satya Nadella, had been evolving significantly to address the previous internal competitiveness that was best described in the popular cartoon below.
There is a veritable tsunami of great work (and great content) that is being shared on these topics. I find myself turning to Jeppe in Denmark, Daria in Canada and Tim in the USA to keep me on my toes.
Here’s something that I’ve been thinking about amidst all this change.
Three dimensions of culture and engagement that I keep wondering about. Three dimensions that should drive, I believe, some much-needed individual introspection from both leaders and employees.
After all, every culture remains a collective exercise created, reinforced, refined and evolved by the participation of each and every employee.
If culture really is a measure of how we behave and ultimately make decisions, considering these three dimensions may help bring some clarity to where, and how, our cultures might need to adapt.
Quite simply, it comes down to our own participation in the culture of our organization. And is that participation tacit, tangible and tactile?
So the 3 questions…
Am I willing to participate?
Am I able to participate?
What occurs when I participate?
I didn’t promise it was profound but it has been a simple personal structure to think about people and what they need from any organizational culture.
Am I willing to participate?
Yes, no or maybe? Am I prepared to lean into this culture with my time, energy, ideas, relationships and attach my reputation and my aspirations to this organization? Or am I only willing to passively observe, watch the lay of the land and only act or participate when I’m called upon directly?
Am I able to participate?
Are there real (or imagined) impediments to my participation? Do I get invited to meetings or excluded from projects? Is that accidental or deliberate? Does this organization have a clear sense of where and how I can contribute and creates the space and opportunities for that to happen? Is there a mechanism or (technology) infrastructure that let’s me participate in clear and unambiguous ways when I want to?
What occurs when I participate?
This is the dreaded feedback loop. If I am willing and able, what happens when I do? This is the reward and recognition moment or the derision and demotivation part. Is my participation welcomed or endured? Are my ideas or feedback given air or stifled? Ultimately, to quote The Clash, “Should I Stay or Should I Go?”
In the midst of profoundly charged and critical changes in our work and our organizations, being able to answer these three questions openly and objectively has tremendous benefit.
It forces some real introspection on the part of leaders to identify THEIR accountability for the culture around them. Equally it forces each and every employee to consider where they have a personal accountability to unlocking their full potential.
If we’re going to evolve our cultures to tackle these very real thorny challenges, we must all – from CEO to intern - be willing to identify our own individual culpability and change accordingly.
Is that even remotely possible?