Culture Building Part 1 - "The culture stupid!"

What does the word ‘culture’ mean to you? Can you define it?

It seems a strange question perhaps, but to understand the reason for asking it, try this … the next time a colleague or client uses the word ‘culture’ or the phrase ‘culture change’, ask them what they mean by it. Ask them a probing question like “what does that mean precisely?” or “what culture do you want to have?” and see what happens. Often, they hesitate. Sometimes, they are unable to provide any kind of answer at all. We use these phrases assuming that we share the same understanding about what they mean. But do we?

Increasingly in recent years, ‘the way we do things around here’, has become the preferred definition used to describe the culture of an organisation. Do you subscribe to this definition?

It has a lot to recommend it. It is simple and concise and there is something quite unifying about it … it appeals to a sense of togetherness that we like to feel about our lives and our work. But what does this definition tell us about culture and is this definition helpful when considering culture with a view to ‘culture change’?

Firstly, ‘the way we do things around here’ suggests that there is a way of doing things that we all agree with and support. It suggests that an organisation’s culture is something uniform and consistent, a defining characteristic perhaps. Do you think an organisation’s culture is as constant as this implies?

Try this … put this aside and think about how you would describe the culture in Victorian England. Take some time to think about this. What would you say?

Many would say something like … Victorians were ruled by a detailed code of manners and etiquette, that they were straight-laced and prudish. They would say that Victorians prized propriety and reputation and that the lives of Victorian children were very formal and often lacked outward expressions of affection.

Whilst this may have been true, increasingly so perhaps over the course of Queen Victoria’s reign, particularly of the middle class that grew exponentially during the period, it was never universally true of course. It was just true enough, often enough that it came to define the Victorian era.

Cultures vary. They vary from country to country and from region to region, even in a country as small as England. In an organisation, whatever the size, culture can vary from site to site and from team to team. And it might even be true to say that the culture of a particular team can vary from time to time.

I have had the good fortune of working with a number of great companies, several of them household names at home and globally. Some of these famous brands have had television programmes made about them, or they have produced fabulously inspiring promotional films, in which employees speak about how fantastic their company is to work for and how proud they are that they do. I get a lump in my throat when I see these films and I am reminded of how proud I am to have been associated with them too.

And yet, even as I watch these films feeling as choked as I do, I am aware that, at times, these same organisations can be extremely dysfunctional and the experience of working with them can be exasperating to say the least. And some of the people I see in these films, who are talking so eloquently about how fantastic the organisation is, I know spend a considerable amount of their time at work frustrated and as negative as it is possible to be.

Of course I am not suggesting for a moment that these people are being anything less than absolutely genuine; they do love the organisation and hold it in the very highest esteem. The simple fact is, that organisations can be both things at once, heaven and hell, exhilarating and frustrating in equal measure. And culture can be far more complicated and nuanced than some definitions would have us believe.

So, to define culture as if it were something uniform and constant (or that it could be), is neither accurate, nor is it particularly helpful when it comes to deciding how to improve culture.

A prevailing wind in a particular place is a wind from the direction that is predominant or most usual. Occasionally however, the wind blows from another direction.

We believe that culture describes the prevailing personality or character, the feelings and beliefs of a group of people. As such, when thinking about influencing culture and achieving the culture you aspire to have for your organisation, the goal should be to have the culture that you want, more present in more groups of people for more of the time.

And here is a thought we can return to later … you probably have the culture you want already, but it might not be present enough, often enough for it to be defining.

Secondly, ‘the way we do things around here’ is often understood to be referring to the things we do, meaning the practices we have and the procedures we follow, which is contrary to how most people naturally think about culture.

Try this … ask people how they would describe the culture in their organisation. Most would say something like, “it’s a supportive culture,” or “it’s a collaborative culture,” or “it’s very authoritarian.” In giving answers like these, people are not thinking of the things people in that culture do, they are thinking about the way people are and what they see as the predominant characteristics of the environment in which they work.

This might seem like semantics because clearly, if we say, “it’s a very supportive culture”, what we mean is that people are very supportive towards each other. If we say, “it’s a collaborative culture,” what we mean is that people behave collaboratively.

This is highly relevant however, because our understanding of the definition we accept, influences the decisions we make. And if our understanding is that it alludes only to the things we do, then at the outset we are focused on practices and procedures when in actual fact, what we instinctively feel about culture is that it is to do with the way things are and the way we are, our character, our basic assumptions, our principles and values.

This is demonstrated by the fact that often, when an organisation decides it needs to improve its culture, it will subscribe to a new way of doing things. A behavioural safety programme for example, is one such initiative organisations often consider thinking it will have a positive influence on its culture. Behaviour-based safety involves a process where employees observe the behaviour of their colleagues with a view to understanding and addressing the factors that drive unsafe behaviour.

But ask yourself this … do you think that implementing a behaviour-based approach, will make the culture right? Or do you think that having the right culture is an important pre-requisite for a successful behavioural safety implementation?

Many will think the latter is true. Many people will reflect that if an organisation is going to ask its employees to observe their colleagues’ behaviour, it had better be sure that the culture of the organisation can withstand such a practice and make it work. Of course, many behavioural safety implementations do not work.

James Carville was campaign strategist for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign against the incumbent president, George H. W. Bush. In March 1991, days after the ground invasion of Iraq, Bush polled a 90% popularity rating, so Clinton had his work cut out, you might say. To keep Clinton’s campaign on message, James Carville hung a sign in Bill Clinton's campaign headquarters that read: The Economy Stupid. Although the sign was intended for an internal audience of campaign workers, the phrase became a de facto slogan for Clinton’s election campaign and by August 1992, 64% of polled Americans disapproved of Bush's performance.

The point is this … behavioural safety campaigns, Kaizen initiatives and 5S programmes may have much to recommend them, but if it is the culture of the organisation you want to improve, it is the culture you have to improve, and the culture is about the way we are.

Michael Emery, CMIOSH

Michael Emery is owner and director of Securus Health & Safety Limited, a Lancashire-based consultancy. He has managed health and safety for several leading organisations, household names at home and abroad, and he has worked freelance since 2009. As a qualified Executive Coach accredited with the Academy of Executive Coaching in London, Michael has been helping organisations large and small develop their coaching capacity for several years. What these organisations appreciate, is that the way people communicate with each other determines, to a large degree, the kind of culture the organisation has, and engaging positively and collaboratively as coaches do, is important in shaping the kind of culture they aspire to have.