Culture is ubiquitously defined as "the way things are done around here". Note the distinction between how things are done and official mantra, company rhetoric, policy and even, relevant instruments of law. It's what we do and allow others to do that says more about who we are and what matters than any elegant vision and values statement sitting behind perspex in board rooms with marble and fresh flowers everywhere.

I would characterise organisational culture more pointedly. I would rather define culture as what we are and aren't prepared to put up with. It is when we are tested that one understands the true character of both a person and an enterprise. Jan Carlsson, former CEO of the Swedish International Airline referred famously to watershed moments in customer service as "moments of truth". Organisations face "moments of truth" in the context of culture. Behaviour that is committed (when it didn't have to be) is one moment of truth. Bad behaviour called once it's committed says something about the integrity of people who won't sit by and watch bad stuff perpetrated. But the third and very telling moment of truth is when behaviour is consequenced.

At the risk of appearing to be name dropping (shamelessly and sorry, without names) I was doing coffee with an AFL Football Club president some time back when he politely excused himself to take a call following "Mad Monday". He was particularly interested in whether or not anything was likely to blow up in the media that could cause anguish for the Club. When assured by the senior player who'd rung him that nothing untoward happened, I heard my coffee companion ask why. The simple answer coming back was "because we knew there was no way (Coach) would wear it". If clear and reasonable boundaries of behaviour are set in a healthy culture where people are committed to the team, it's vision and are protective of brand, most if not all can be relied on to do the right thing.

Having said that, many if not all of us have had a sudden rush of blood to the head and said or done something we wished we could take back. But when we do step over the line, is that behaviour called? Religious dogma would suggest that if we witness and don't act, it is as if we committed the act ourselves. It is not just when we're young and at school that others drop their gaze, shift uncomfortably in their seats, laugh nervously for fear of being next; sheepishly and tacitly condoning aggressive or ridiculing behaviour. It is undoubtedly happening in a boardroom somewhere near us all right now.

Have you ever wondered about corrupt business practices? Do those who do never get witnessed by those who don't. Unlikely. How does a crooked cop, (and I believe they are in the overwhelming minority), a drug-addled athlete or a defiant trading floor sharebroker keep doing what they're doing and remain part of an insidious in-crowd? At the risk of sounding naive, how shameful to think that supposed cleanskins working in corrupt environments sit by apathetically, or gutlessly and turn a blind eye to shonky practices, intimidation of others or smear campaigns. And if fear of retaliation is the reason, how reprehensible to think that anyone might work in such a climate of fear that speaking up could result in harm to themselves or their families? Something or someone has undoubtedly failed them. But potential dramatic and life threatening consequences for speaking out are not the common condition. In many situations there will be those bystanders who unreservedly disapprove but hold anti-dobbing policy as sacrosanct as ethical business practice or clean policing.

Page 1 of 2 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 | Next