Culture: an Overview

There is a general understanding amongst managers in the UK that ‘culture' is something important. It is often viewed as a ‘given': something which is ‘there' and may be helpful to an organisation, or which may work against the achievement of objectives. There is usually a sense of mystery and of the unknowable about culture: we can never succeed in precisely defining the culture in our organisation – it is a kind of spirit floating in the background.

Managers who have sensed an adverse impact on performance from the culture will, perhaps, have taken a view of what the culture is, and may have decided to ‘fix it'.

These efforts to ‘fix' the culture tend to include an announcement of what is to be fixed. ‘We need to be more accountable at XYZ Company. This lack of accountability is hurting our performance.' The implications in the announcement seem to be that:

• We all know accountability is a problem
• The cause of the problem is the ‘wrong attitude' of staff
• We need a program to ‘pull our socks up'
• We (senior managers) are launching a new ‘socks up' program for all employees

What duly happens next is that the ‘socks up' program is launched. Each employee is to agree in writing a series of objectives or deliverables for which s/he will be accountable over the next six months. At the end of the six months, little will have changed. Some of the objectives and deliverables will have been achieved, but many will not. Strangely, employees seem to feel no remorse about the objectives to which they agreed, but failed to deliver. The reasons for non-achievement will be myriad, but most will boil down to a theme: I wasn't in control, and it wasn't my fault.

So, what went wrong? Nearly everything:

• Most of the employees didn't understand what accountability really is: what it means in terms of beliefs and behaviours
• Many employees may have felt that some other issue (communications with management, for example) is much more important than accountability
• Employees tend to feel that management is part of the problem (not in terms of what they say, but in terms of what they do). In effect, the employees are saying: why should we change when top management, through its behaviour, is causing serious problems, which they conveniently ignore.
• The benefits of accountability, particularly to the individual employee are not clear. What's in it for me?
• There is no substantial dialogue, at the level of feeling and belief between management and employees

Need it be like this? No.

What is culture? It is the intangible force which drives organisational behaviour: an often-complex combination of attitudes, beliefs and paradigms. 

In the long term, culture is more powerful than policies or directives. Culture will have been built up over time – almost brick-by-brick – as a consequence of significant past events. These past events, employee behaviour (particularly top management behaviour) in the face of those events, and the implications of that behaviour for the individual concerned (what were his/her attitudes/beliefs to have behaved like that) are what determine culture. The consequences of the behaviour are relevant only in the context of the employee concerned. If the employee ‘won' with his/her behaviour, the watching employees will have learned that ‘that's the way to get ahead around here'. If the behaviour hurt the company, but the employee profited, the behaviour will be emulated. Note that, because of its power, top management behaviour is crucial to the formation of culture. Employees are keen observers of senior management behaviour. Employees are quite able to see past the (conscious or unconscious) masks of management speak to the real attitudes which drive behaviour.

It is rare for an organisational culture to be 100% supportive of the Strategy of the organisation. Almost invariably, there is one bit of culture which is working at cross-purposes with the Strategy. For example, the Management Team may have adopted a strategy which focuses on quality: ‘We're going to delight our customers with right first time, every time, performance!' Over years, however, the culture has been established as opportunistic, just do it, and many managers, including the top team, have established a well-rewarded just-do-it reputation. Needless to say, the new ‘focus on quality' strategy is going to see, at best, a rocky implementation.

It is fair to say that, in most organisations, the main barriers to performance improvement are cultural. This is particularly true of organisations which have been in status quo situation for a significant period of time. That is, organisations which have not experienced substantial changes in key personnel, corporate structure or external environment in, say, the last five years.

For many organisations, culture change represents a very large opportunity to help deliver performance improvement. But it is not easy, nor will it happen quickly. It is essential for top management to recognise that their behaviour will, almost certainly, be ‘part of the problem'. If there is not a willingness on the part of the top management team to understand more about how they are seen by employees, to face up to some counter-productive behaviour, to concede mistakes and to move forward with a new approach, the culture change outcome will be, most likely, frustration for all involved.

In effect, the culture change process is a voyage of self-discovery for all employees (but the voyage is most visible for the top team).

Having understood the risks and rewards, the next step is for the top team to understand the ‘As Is' culture. One can use the Royal Academy values matrix, which is a set of 14 paired value opposites: a complete description of organisational values. The position of an organisation along each axis, and the score achieved yield a good, objective definition of culture. There are no right or wrong answers here. For one organisation, it may be entirely appropriate to be ‘Tough'; for another, it is right to be ‘Sensitive'. A problem arises when the ‘sensitive' organisation is in an environment which demands toughness. Alternatively, the ‘tough' organisation may have determined that its strategy is to be ‘sensitive to the needs of our customers'.

Royal Academy Values Matrix

There is an alternative method to the Royal Academy values matrix which involves mapping values and paradigms on a grid of the strength of the value vs. its impact on the business: positive or negative.

With either methodology one can also identify the ‘To Be' culture: what are the right values and paradigms for our business?

The identification of As Is and To Be culture should not be completed by the top management team, working alone. It is essential that representative employees at all levels participate in this exercise, because employees at different levels have different views of the organisation. (See the related Article – What Managers Know) What managers will find, as they solicit the views of other levels in the organisation, is that:

1. In some respects, the views are quite different, and
2. Viewpoints which are critical of management begin to emerge

Top management, which has primary responsibility for Vision and Strategy, should look carefully at these as they review the ‘As Is' culture. Does the culture support the vision and strategy? Where do changes need to be made? What are the priorities of these changes?

An extended dialogue needs to take place at this point. All employees need to be afforded an opportunity to hear the data, understand and digest it, and to understand the need for and the benefits of change. A consensus view of the ‘As Is' and ‘To Be' culture should emerge, at least as regards the important items. There should be clear indications that both management and employees are willing to change. A broad acceptance by the organisation of the need for an open and effective change process should also be in place.

The change process itself requires the effort and involvement of an important diagonal slice of the organisation. In his book The Heart of Change , John P. Kotter describes clearly the steps which must be taken. He emphasizes that actions must be directed toward employees at a feeling level .

Michael Beer developed a short hand version of the change process more than 20 years ago. He said that C = D x M x P . Change is the product of Dissatisfaction with the status quo, Model (or vision) of the future, and Process or roadmap for getting there. Notice that change is zero if any of the variables on the right is zero.

The design of the change program should include:

• Clear definition of objectives
• Identification of the expected benefits for the organisation and for employees
• Clear linkages between Culture, Vision and Strategy (they must support one another)
• The involvement of top management
• The involvement of other influential employees
• Capture of short-term wins
• Celebration of successes
• Plenty of communication

Finally it is important to involve a knowledgeable outsider in the change process for two reasons: to maintain momentum so that the process does not stall, and to assure that the best possible results are obtained. We are all change-resistant, and we know that when we have an expert helper and motivator, we accomplish more.

The benefits of culture change can be dramatic:

• Greatly increased productivity
• Improved employee morale, quality of work life, and commitment to the organisation
• More innovation
• More accountability
• Better teamwork
• Much improved customer satisfaction

Culture change is the ‘Big Win' for many organisations.