Transformation, Technical Debt and Toxicity... Episode 3

Episode 3 - Toxicity

In previous instalments on undergoing a technology transformation within a business, I discussed why a transformation is sometimes necessary and how technical debt can be the motivation for what is a hugely disruptive business change. Now the most difficult part of a transformation; culture and unfortunately having to work in a toxic environment.

Willingness by staff to embrace a transformation is the key element in its success. It would therefore be remiss not to address company culture and toxicity. A company's culture can make or break any transformation and a toxic one is guaranteed to destroy any transformation effort (and eventually the company itself).

As with other episodes, this article is focused on companies with a high technology component to their business and Conway's law springs to mind:

Any organisation that designs a system, will produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organisation's communication structure

Or simply; if you have a dysfunctional company you will produce dysfunctional systems. Creating systems is a collaborative effort within an organisation. Dysfunctional methods of communication and toxicity will bleed into any software that is developed.

Culture vs Atmosphere

Rather like the difference between climate and weather, I consider the shorter term "atmosphere" within an organisation as an indicator of the longer term "culture" of the company. All firms go through bright and rough patches (the day to day atmosphere as it were) but if day to day or month by month atmosphere is a constant negative impact on employees then the culture (climate) is probably toxic.

If the atmosphere of a company is it's weather, the culture is its climate

Signs of toxicity

There are many signs that a company's culture has become toxic. The most obvious of which is high staff turnover. Who wants to spend a significant part of their life being miserable at work? People will vote with their feet, even in harsh economic times.

Another sign of toxicity, often masked by high staff turnover (as you can always blame the person who just left) is chronically low productivity or constant missed deliverables in your organisation. Demoralised staff does not make for high quality delivery and rather than examine the underlying reasons, usually it is lost in the din of the blame game.

Constantly missing deliverables is also be a sign that the organisation either doesn't know; or worse doesn't care, about the current capabilities of technology/delivery teams. This itself is a precursor to a toxic environment. Other signs of toxicity are pretty obvious: bullying, lies, mistrust, backstabbing and favoritism to name but a few. These toxic behaviours stem from the formation and tolerance of workforce cliques.

Cliques. Most collaborative workload is allocated to groups (division of labour by specialism) and this naturally leads to certain staff working closer together and forming bonds outside of the at hand workplace tasks. Closely knit, (and hopefully high performing) teams are of course to be encouraged but when a grouping of staff becomes a means exclusion of other colleagues it is a problem. Clique formation can mean teamwork has gone beyond the needs of high productivity or is the result of staff insecurity.

Cliques are about the "othering" of work colleagues who do not fit into certain criteria. Probably seen as a threat to the perceived status quo, job security or institutional status of members of the clique. If you can maintain a "them and us" excuse at whatever the required level in a company, you do not have to change; all unforeseen events are the fault of "them" or "they".

It is not just high performing teams that can be exclusive; cliques serve as a means of comfort for its members in the workplace, low performing, insecure or unskilled staff are even more adept at forming cliques than a skills based grouping (which retain elements of meritocracy, especially in technical fields where there are fewer hiding places). Unskilled & insecure staff, armed with experience of an organisation we have the mindset that:

Treachery will overcome skill - Fausto Coppi

While it is often advised to check Hanlon's razor if you suspect nefarious intent:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. - Hanlon's razor

Unfortunately in my experience of a lot of transformations and organisations, malice is the final tool used by the incompetent to preserve their position and disrupt timely delivery.

It is from cliques that the distasteful atmosphere of a company is generated. Cliques by their nature seek to treat certain staff differently from others and entrench the current status quo in their favour. The politics, gossip, kudos, blame, backstabbing and undermining of colleagues are all created, reinforced and given credence by cliques. Add elements of institutional power to clique members and company objectives are then processed and allocated on the basis of favoritism rather than experience or skill set. Blame for non-delivery is apportioned quickly and loudly.

Prospera omnes sibi indicant, aduersa uni imputantur (victory has many parents, failure is an orphan) - Tacitus,

Employment law and human resources issues aside, this is how toxicity undermines a business. A single bully or difficult individual is not an insurmountable problem to overcome (and should be addressed quickly). Cliques are far more serious problem for business if left unchecked, as the interests of the clique take priority over the interests of the organisation. So much so that cliques can actively undermine any transformation effort a company undertakes if it is the interest of the clique to do so. Worse still is a clique that is also in a position of high institutional power. It is then an internal cabal that rots a business from the inside.

Culture and gravity

Culture in a company is like gravity in that it tends to flow downwards. While the day to day atmosphere may be generated bottom up by the daily working lives of staff, it is how management react to and steer behaviours that define a company culture. Having a toxic culture is the very definition of weak leadership. Allowing toxicity and the cliques that feed it to exist and thrive, is the opposite of good leadership.

The first warning flag of weak leadership on culture is allowing any toxic staff member(s) to remain in-situ without change for an extended period (no matter what level of seniority). Toxic cultures cannot exist without toxic actions and the toleration of this by management is the oxygen of poor corporate culture.

Another sign is where leadership is saying one thing and doing another. Internal communications from the HR department about "core values" is just hot air when not demonstrated through action by company leaders. Not only does senior leadership need to demonstrate these values through action, but have to be seen to do so without fear or favour. Without this, core values and vision statements are often times a rogues gallery of what a company is currently dreadful at. No action or change by leadership will simply ferment a toxic culture and usually it only gets worse.

Managing people inconsistently as hinted above and playing favourites is a surefire way of destroying employee morale the quickest way possible. It is even worse than having difficult or impossible tasks to perform with unrealistic time lines. It erodes staff trust and once lost it is almost impossible to recover. As the hackneyed phrase says:

People do not leave companies, they leave bad managers

We all have an innate feeling of fairness, injustices in the workplace are deeply felt by staff. Be they either real or imagined, they hasten departures like no other. It is perfectly acceptable for a management style to be "harsh but fair" but at the very least be fair; and be so consistently. Inconsistent management perpetuates the "them and us" mentality of a clique. For a company as a whole, leadership should demonstrate the self-evident principle of:

There is no "them" and "us", there is only "us"

If there is a "them" mentality tolerated in an organisation it means that the enemy of any transformation is an enemy within. Toxicity feeds on conflict, ego, self-interest, lies and endless corporate climbing. Leadership is about resolution, humility, service, truth and team building. If senior management do not understand this then they are weak and poor. The thing with a weak and poor management is it tends to lead to its own demise over the long term. Employees however will not wait around long enough for management to fail, and even hasten their departure further if poor leaders and managers fail upwards in the organisation.

In Summary

The tolerance of a them and us mentality within an organisation allows a culture to become toxic. It will strangle any and all transformation efforts and guarantee failure. Workplace cliques are the manifestation of this mentality and can be driven by staff insecurity. Tolerance of cliques by management is the playing of favourites, the inconsistency of treatment of employees this brings will hasten staff departures. It is a clear sign of poor management and the opposite of leadership.