Stop the Sterile Talk About “Culture” and “Organisation”

Stop the Sterile Talk About “Culture” and “Organisation”

At PeopleNotTech we make software that measures and improves Psychological Safety in teams. If you care about it- talk to us about a demo at [email protected]  

———————————————————————————————

I must have said this in front of our team here before but I’m non-neurotypical so conceptual clarity is paramount to me so keeping that in mind we need to talk about “culture”.  

There is such a hateful lot about what is “culture” out there that I can’t even dream of touching its definition in the hopes of truly elucidating it. When it comes to the topic, my personal trick as an antidote to the potential despair caused by the many non-actionable conversations is to remember the extreme silver lining of how, irrespective of possible confusion, dis-ingenuity, or lack of good intentions, the fact that we talk about it is undeniable progress and good news for everyone. 

The mere notion that we are to discuss it means “we see people and their interactions” which, let’s face it, is a lot more than could be said till not so long ago. So long may it continue. The talk. Academic, sterile and navel-gazing as it may turn out to be for the vast majority. 

At the risk of trodding on some toes, it is that. The amount of diagrams and word trees that litter LinkedIn naming components of “good culture” is staggering. The proportion of them that contain what I call “fillers” be they synonyms or unimportant examples for the sake of enumeration, is equally shocking. Many of these pieces of content are less concerned about accuracy, as they are about keywords. At times they are truly unexamined. Unclarified. With no regard for redundancy. Born out of a sheer need to fill in a power-point and sound "proprietary" and "expensive" and worth the contract. It can easily make your blood boil if you let it. 

In particular, if you’re the kind who wants to see change not simply discuss a topic ad nausea. 

If you read my book you know I have an unconventional view when it comes to “the organisation” and any talk of it. Useless. After all, as I say, the organisation is as real as Santa and therefore as capable of self-awareness and change. What does exist as a structure is a group aka the team and as an agent of reflection is the individual aka the employee. So we ought to shun any rhetorics that speaks about the organisation and only focus on these two. 

In a sense, the same applies to “culture”. While it is slightly less Santa-like in that it can be observed and analysed, this can only be done post-factum, as an analytic exercise and while potentially intellectually satisfying, it has zero transformational value. If we want the value, we need change and change won’t happen by willing culture to go a certain way that looks good on paper but by understanding what it is composed of- values and behaviours and acting to strengthen the positive ones and lessen the negative ones. 

You’ll see many more terms in those frameworks and lists and word clouds because saying the above seems too easy, too simple, too clear-cut. All the other connected terms - impact, recognition, empathy, gratitude, inspiration, honesty, openness, diversity, respect, purpose, etc, they’ll all be bandied and everyone will claim they have the magic formula to combine them all and “create a healthy culture” but really none of them are an overarching concept at the same level of usability by us, the humans who need them, as “behaviours” and doing something about them aka “the people/human work”

So yes, thinking of “culture” is just an academic exercise unless you roll your sleeves and not only use something like Gustavo Razetti’s map to diagnose it but then start consciously, intentionally and sustainably working on it by affecting the behaviours of teams and individuals. By making them open, caring, happy, performant.

It isn’t only other people who should stay away from empty rhetorics, I’ll put my hands up and admit that even my own concept of HumanDebt™ is sterile and academic if only observed and not acted on. This is why at PeopleNotTech we always try and balance a rant, an op-ed or a theoretical article with exact tips on how to make a change in our videos and Tuesday articles. This is why we make software. This is why we are willing to be broken records or make ourselves unpleasant by pointing out anything less than actions that change behaviours, is pure poppycock.

It’s tempting to say “we can talk about the organisation/culture/HumanDebt till the cows come home but nothing will change” but really we can’t - we are not at a time where we can afford to lose momentum on the human work and allow the rhetoric to be theoretical only, it’s too important that we translate this swell into hefty transformation. 

So make a choice - do you want to observe and examine then debate and lyricise or do you want to see change happen act and transform? If it’s the latter stop talking about “culture” and start talking about behaviours and teams. 

Come back tomorrow to see us talk about “CBT for teams” and how changing behaviour can and should happen and read more about Good and Bad Behaviours of High Performing Teams on our website. 

———————————————---------------------------

This Thursday on the Fundamentals of Psychological Safety Series: “Good Behaviours and Components of Psychological Safety Explained” so make sure to subscribe so you have it in your inbox. 

—————————————————————————

The 3 “commandments of Psychological Safety” to build high performing teams are: UnderstandMeasure and Improve

Read more about our Team Dashboard that measures and improves Psychological Safety at www.peoplenottech.com or reach out at [email protected] and let's help your teams become Psychologically Safe, healthy, happy and highly performant.

To order the "People Before Tech: The Importance of Psychological Safety and Teamwork in the Digital Age" book go to this Amazon link

Rob Jones

Sociological Safety® | The Sociological Workplace | Trivalent Safety Ecosystem

3y

A truism, Duena. Very thoughtful. In fact, everything is imaginary. Even nations and economies are imaginary. I've left my home state and my country by car, and I've checked carefully everywhere for any sign of borderlines, and they are simply not there. There were only people there telling me I could pass their guard station. But no lines. Humans live in imaginary compartments. We draw lines around those compartments and will go so far as to fight and kill and die to defend those lines. We make laws about who should come in and out of the space. We promulgate regulations about who can do what while inside the space. We build entire systems around the "idea" of teams and functions and companies and cultures and countries. And history tells us that they all come and go, in time. Even relationships. When we leave one of those spaces, virtually all of the relationships vanish with them. Thus, you are right. It is about the doing, not the theory of it. The doing is the only thing that can be measured, and it can be measured in only two ways, process, and results. Only when the doing leaves behind something tangible when it is done do any of the measures matter. Otherwise, no matter what we do, we will have done nothing of value, and we will take nothing of value with us.

Like
Reply
Iaen Hodges

Standards Development Manager - Rail Operations and Safety

3y

Refreshing!

Like
Reply

To view or add a comment, sign in

Insights from the community

Others also viewed

Explore topics