Category Archives: Culture

When You Allow It

Leave a reply

“David,” she said, “you are one of the most capable people in this program. Your work is genuinely good. Your analysis is rigorous when you allow it to be.” She paused. “You don’t allow it to be, often enough, because allowing it means staking a position that someone might disagree with. And you learned, this program taught you, very effectively, that the risk of being wrong in public is greater than the cost of being right in private. So, you seek consensus. You look for permission. You ask people like me what you should do so that when it goes wrong you can escape accountability.”

Premeditated Culture, now available on Amazon.

Tested by Reality

1 Reply

Folklore has it, the gauntlet was an ancient rite of passage in 18th century France. Each wearing an armored glove, members of the military would stand double line, facing each other, the subject directed down the middle, to receive striking blows from the armored gloves. In an adapted ceremony, tribal lore sent a graduating pubescent male down the line to receive stunning blows from sticks, clubs and rocks. The purpose was not to kill or maim, only to inflict maximum pain. Each participant had once passed through that same gauntlet, branded by the group, now as one of their own.

It was also the opportunity for a hidden rival to lay ambush, exact retribution for a past transgression. The culture of the gauntlet did not punish the ambush. All saw it as a test of character for the brave new warrior.

Premeditated Culture, now available on Amazon.

What We Tolerate

Leave a reply

“But I want this place to feel like a family. I want people to feel warm inside when they think about our company. That’s the kind of culture I want to create,” Tracy explained.

“First, I can’t see what someone thinks,” I replied. “I can only see behavior. Culture may impact the way we feel, but culture drives behaviors. Culture starts with beliefs, but even beliefs are invisible. Tell me what people do, and it will give you insight into what they believe.”

“I should look at behaviors?” she wanted to know.

I nodded. “For example, let’s say we want to focus on safety, we want to create a safety culture. This is not your warm and fuzzy culture feeling, but a belief that every team member goes home each and every day with ten fingers and ten toes. If that is what we believe, what behaviors does that drive?”

“That they wear safety glasses, steel toed shoes,” she said. “That they watch for unsafe work practices. They watch perimeters, safety walk equipment, pay attention to balanced loads. Most important, watch out for each other.”

“So, you have a whole series of behaviors connected to ten fingers, ten toes,” I smiled. “What if your best technician shows up in tennis shoes? You see, behaviors get tested by reality. You don’t stand for the aspiration, you stand for what you tolerate.”

“Our best technician does not get a pass,” Tracy was firm. “He goes home, gets the right work boots.”

“And those behaviors that survive the test of reality become our customs and rituals. Daily safety huddles, site specific safety exposure meetings, maintained safety equipment, those become rituals. And those rituals reinforce what we believe – ten fingers, ten toes.”

Premeditated Culture – Consequences of What We Tolerate is now available on Amazon.

Which Truth?

Leave a reply

“It’s like they fight all the time,” Sheldon explained. “Each manager thinks they know how to run the whole company, if I would just step out of the way.”

“What’s happening, explain the friction?” I asked.

“Once again, the project was late and when it was delivered to the client, it didn’t work. Pretty simple explanation. It’s the fix that’s complicated. When we only did one project at a time, everything seemed to work well. On time, on budget, never missed a beat. Then we got two projects, three. We now have seven projects in-house and they all have problems, missed deadlines, cost overruns and quality issues.”

“And?”

“The project manager is ripping his hair out. The response he is getting from all the other managers is a mix of blame and excuses,” Sheldon shrugged.

“What do they say?” I prompted.

“Want a list?” Sheldon chuckled.

  • The Sales Manager says he asked Engineering for timetable before he promised a delivery date.
  • The Engineering Manager says there were too many changes in the scope of work.
  • The Ops Manager says the timetable from Engineering was unrealistic.
  • The Accounting Manager says the budget didn’t allow for any profit.
  • The Marketing Manager says that if he had known the priority of the client, he would have put more people into the product rollout.

“So, who is right?” I smiled.

“That’s the problem. They are all right. Every word is true.”

Commitment or Compliance

Leave a reply

“If people do their best work in a place where they feel safe, what is it that managers can do to create that space?” I asked.

“We always want to do,” Pablo started. “If managers would only do this, do that, things would be better. It is not so much a matter of what managers do, it is a matter of the relationship between the manager and the team member. Do we have relationships built on dominance, pressure and compliance, or relationships built on trust, cooperation and commitment? Organizational structure is the way we define the working relationships between people.”

“This sounds like culture,” I replied.

“Organizational structure defines the working relationships between people. Organizational structure is culture.”

—New, available soon, on Amazon.  Premeditated Culture, Consequences of What We Tolerate.

Connection

Leave a reply

“In evaluating the health of any team, I need to look for states of connection and disconnection?” I asked.

Pablo nodded. “When you see a team in disarray, you will find disconnection. The team doesn’t go there intentionally, it goes there without thinking. Facing any dilemma, the team wants to remove the discomfort. The four typical responses of any team under stress is to fight, flight, freeze or appease. When they do, the group panics and fractures.”

“And the leader?” I asked.

“The inexperienced leader follows. In a meeting, you have seen it. A project is behind schedule because someone dropped the ball. Everyone knows who dropped the ball, but no one wants to call it out. People get defensive, engage in blaming behavior or avoid the subject altogether. There is silence, eyes look down. Then someone looks at the leader, who becomes the target for all eyes around the table. The body language clearly communicates that it is the leader who must save the team.”

“You said inexperienced, how so?” I prompted.

“The leader is being seduced,” Pablo replied. “The seduction is subtle, for the team is looking to be saved by the leader, but needs the leader to be complicit in the saving. And, the leader cannot resist the opportunity to be the savior. It is the hero incarnate. I know it sounds religious, but the mythology is there to illustrate the principle.”

“So, how does the leader prevent the seduction?” I looked sideways at Pablo.

“The team is attempting to put the issue squarely on the shoulders of the leader. The leader must resist and put the issue back on the team.”

“But you already described that the team is in panic, a state of fracture and disconnection?” I said.

“The leader must simply outlast the panic. The issue that has the potential to blow the group apart, has the same potential to weld the group together. It’s all about connection and disconnection.”

Clarity of Accountability

Leave a reply

“You talked about managerial systems and organizational structure,” I started. “Those are well-worn labels, but the devil is always in the details.”

Pablo nodded. “Yes, the detail of structure is simply the way we define the working relationships between people. The success of any organizational structure rests on its effectiveness to define two things – in this working relationship, what is the accountability and what is the authority?”

“But, isn’t it second-nature, that especially in a hierarchy, the manager has the authority and the team member is accountable to carry out the decisions of the manager?”

“Not so fast,” Pablo said slowly. “Each has the authority to make decisions within an appropriate span of discretion. And it is the manager accountable for the output of the team member.”

“But, if the team member, within an appropriate span of discretion, makes the wrong decision, how can you hold the manager accountable?” I asked.

“Because the manager selected the team member, trained the team member, assessed the team member and then delegated the decision to the team member. If the team member makes the wrong decision, that outcome is the accountability of the manager.” Pablo stopped to let that sink in.

“When we are clear about accountability, behavior follows,” Pablo continued. “When we accurately define the accountability, people know what to expect and they behave accordingly. If the team member is held to account for a wrong decision or underperformance, there begins a mistrust about whether the manager was clear in their instruction, whether the training was adequate, the right tools available, the circumstance not anticipated. If the manager is held to account for the team member’s wrong decision or underperformance, there begins a supportive relationship to ensure the training was adequate, the working conditions conducive, the selected project appropriate, within the team member’s capability.

“You see,” Pablo said, “the manager cannot allow the team member to fail. In a punitive context, that is why the manager often snatches back the authority for the decision and simply assigns the task. In a trusting context, the manager has to make sure all the variables around the team member are adequate and conducive to success. And, that includes the manager’s selection of that team member in the first place. The success of the organization starts with being clear about managerial accountability.”

Exercise Best Judgement

Leave a reply

“All well and good,” I said. “If we want to build managerial systems based on something other than greed, status and power, where do we start?”

“All at once, and all over,” Pablo chuckled. “Look, the first place we start is by clearly defining the working relationships people have with each other. There are two types, vertical managerial relationships and horizontal cross-functional relationships. When we look at those two types of working relationships, we most often fail to define the accurate placement of accountability and exact scope of authority.”

“Accountability?” I prompted.

“All too often, we fix accountability one level of work too low in the organization, and it plays into the blame game,” Pablo explained. “Between the team member and the manager, it is the manager accountable for the output of the team member.”

“How so?”

“Simple,” Pablo said. “The manager selected the team member, trained the team member, provided the tools for the team member, selected the project for the team member, created the working environment for the team member. The manager controls all the variables around the team member, it is the manager accountable for the output of the team member.”

“But if the team member underperforms, doesn’t that point the finger at the team member?” I countered.

“See, you fell right into the blame game,” Pablo smiled. “The team member does have an accountability, and that is to show up to work each and every day, to bring their full potential, to exercise their best judgement, in short, to do their best. It is the manager accountable for the team member’s output. The first place to start is to fix clear accountability.”

Carrots and Sticks

Leave a reply

“People have a fair, intuitive sense of their own capability,” Pablo continued. “And, they yearn for opportunity to exercise their full potential. To do otherwise causes people to wilt. A great deal of a person’s self-esteem, even identity comes from the value they see in the work that they do.”

“So, the system in which they work has impact on how they behave?” I floated.

“It’s not just the system, it’s what people believe about the system. What we believe, our assumptions, the way we see the world is what drives our behavior. Look, the real question is, if we believe that people want to fully participate at their highest level of capability, spread their wings toward independence, that they do not need a carrot and stick to get on with their work, then what kind of managerial system would we create?”

“This sounds a bit idealistic, don’t you think?” I countered.

“Not at all,” Pablo replied. “This is about hard nosed work. Making decisions and solving problems, tough decisions and difficult problems.”

Self-Independence

Leave a reply

“I would assume most companies have real problems to solve, so what do you mean, if you want your team to feel high levels of job satisfaction, you give them a real problem?” I asked.

Pablo thought for a moment. “Sometimes, companies engage in contrived exercises. To build a team, they take a group to a local ropes course, or a game of tug-of-war over a mud pit. Those exercises provide only temporary relief, short-lived when the team returns to work. The work itself has to be satisfying.”

“What leads a company astray?” I wanted to know.

“Oh, that’s not so hard to understand,” Pablo replied. “First, I think we have misconceptions about why people work. And, then we base our managerial systems on those misconceptions. It’s a flywheel that eats itself.”

“Misconceptions?”

“Some companies think people work only because they have to, only in exchange for meager compensation to put food on their table. Or, more substantial compensation so they can buy a boat. They believe employees are simply self-centered and have no inherent need to work. That our labor system exists only as a commodity. It’s a scarcity mentality.”

“As opposed to?” I said.

“People have an inherent need to work. People have an inherent need to contribute, to their own self-independence, and also to the positive social systems in which we live. Look at the number of hours in a work week. It has been coming down over time, but in the US is currently settled at around 40 hours. People need a substantial, material amount of sustained work, where they can contribute their full capability to solving problems and making decisions. Managerial systems based on this understanding are much different than those based on greed.”