Organisational culture and leadership. The ability to recognise the importance of small nuances.

Organisational culture and leadership. The ability to recognise the importance of small nuances.

There are many ways to destroy a good organisational culture. It can be corrupted by arrogance and hubris. It can be torn down by poor leadership, nepotism, sexism or other outright unethical practices. But a pervasive lack of attention to detail and nuance can be the most effective way to destroy an organisational culture.

"A pervasive lack of attention to detail and nuance can be the most effective way to destroy an organisational culture."

The above list are examples of explicit diseases in a decaying organisation, highly visible, and therefore also manageable. Our eye is drawn to the exposed, attention is drawn to the obvious anomalies in the organisational culture. In contrast, the whole system rightly sounds the alarm when we see the seismographically large cultural issues, but the same clumsy system is unable to recognise the importance of the small things.

It is easier to fight a recognised and obvious enemy than to tackle something we hardly know or have even seen. In our experience, the most obvious problems in organisational culture need not be the most problematic, largely because the obvious problems are often already identified and hopefully on their way out.

How then can organisations understand factors they have not yet discovered because they seem too insignificant to be worthy of attention? These factors can often be the most problematic and toxic. Lack of attention to culture and its details is a prime example.

Imagine a meeting to discuss the importance of good organisational culture - an area which has been identified as a potentially important issue. In the meeting room are people from senior management, leaders from other levels and a range of specialists and representatives from staff functions.

The meeting kicks off just as meetings usually do. An eager few can hardly wait to throw themselves into the discussion and set the tone on a topic they are passionate about. Others can only elicit lukewarm comments that "the issue is (well) important". Those eager to push the issue find little response, so they comment more sharply in order to be heard. Instead of engagement, the heightened temperature triggers defensiveness and results in participants retreating into their shells. A pervasive silence takes over and the potentially important issue has got off to a really bad start.

If you recognise the scenario described, or variations of it, you may well be working in an organisation where the 'care factor' is generally low and knowledge of the organisational culture is weak. All organisational cultures have built-in defence mechanisms against change which do not manifest themselves in visible resistance but in much more subtle nuances.

Unfortunately, there is a deep lack of commitment in many of our workplaces. People generally do not show up at work out of interest and joy, more out of duty. People disagree, but still maintain consensus. Disagreement, however revealing, at least signals that people care. The suffocating silence that comes from disengagement drains the energy from those who are truly committed to improving culture and performance. And worse, they are made insecure by the lack of contour in the resistance they perceive but cannot touch. Engagement is drained by an organisation that fundamentally does not care enough.

"Unfortunately, too many leaders ignore the little tendencies. It's hard to say why, but a not-too-bold guess is that they haven't practised dealing with subtle, interpersonal issues or understood their important links to better performance and happier workplaces."

Organisations can fight the visible demons, the obvious problems and the obvious shortcomings. Getting at the deeper, less visible parts of culture requires leadership. Admittedly, it is not easy to know where to start. The problems don't present themselves as one item among others in the minutes, more as silent faces in meetings, inadequate responses, anxious neutrality and lack of energy. Unfortunately, too many leaders ignore these small tendencies. It's hard to say why, but a not-too-bold guess is that they haven't practised dealing with subtle interpersonal issues or understood their important links to better performance and happier workplaces.

Every organisation needs many people who care, many people who feel and perceive if the small trends are going in the wrong direction. They should be able to pick up on the nuances of how people in the workplace talk to each other, how long it takes for things to happen and how customer issues are handled. The role of managers is to curiously engage with the problem at the same level, i.e. in everyday life, in the small, in the meeting between people.

There is a simple management practice that is often underestimated, "management by walking around". However, this discipline receives disproportionately little attention in the management literature. Henry Mintzberg is one of its most ardent proponents, but his management theories are hardly standard in business schools around the world. Mintzberg believes that organisations where people genuinely care are by far the most sustainable and successful over time. Mintzberg has been studying leadership in practice for 50 years and has observed that managers who often "walk around" the organisation experience the culture as it is created, in everyday life, which is a much better source of understanding than if the same culture were portrayed in the management meeting. According to Mintzberg's research, the most effective leaders are those who recognise early on that employees have "checked out" and eagerly address problems as they happen.

Perhaps it is easier and more rewarding in the moment to focus on the big and obvious issues. Understanding the small destructive nuances, which risk growing into devastating natural disasters if given free rein, requires "both". Leaders who tackle the big and obvious questions and are curious about the details of everyday life.

"We need leaders who don't allow important issues to be sidelined by 'fake measures' and platitudes. Leaders who do not accept silent meetings, because they do not allow people to remain disengaged."

We need organisations where people care and then we also need leaders who care about organisational culture, leaders who understand the particle physics behind organisational culture. We need leaders who don't allow important issues to be neglected with "fake measures" and platitudes. Leaders who do not accept silent meetings, because they do not allow people to remain disengaged.