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.
How many of us come forward when push comes to shove?
According to the magistrate who heard the case, certainly
not the bus driver (who "could have done more") or other
members of the drunken group of Ocean Grove footballers
watching a mate torment an orthodox Jew walking down the
street with his two small children; not former Amcor
executives listening to others talking about Nazis and gas
chambers and how Hitler should have done a better job; not
staff of the West Coast Football Club who counselled and
cajoled errant players but evoked no consequences until it
was too late. And why? Because Cousins was a demigod and
only mere mortals have substance use problems.
And what of behaviour consequenced? The Amcor Board took
decisive action and sacked several of its executives in the
wake of the price fixing allegations that emerged in 2004.
Christine Nixon attempted to do that months ago when she
sought powers to suspend and/or dismiss police over serious
matters and still some police members cried foul and still
the Police Association defended them to the death. What
does someone have to do in this country before an
organisation can cut the tangled parachute for the sake of
others? The smear campaign against Janet Mitchell, former
Police Association President eventually wore her down and
ran her out of town. Ultimately the OPI will determine
whether or not the infamous Kit Walker affair and the
defamatory emails allegedly sent by someone in the
Association are worthy of further scrutiny or punishment
but what about the casualties of war along the way
including organisational brand and public confidence? Why
should thousands of other dedicated and decent sworn and
unsworn staff of Victoria Police have to pay a price?
In an era where companies are obsessing (yes, right word)
about how to hold on to good people, why give them the
cringe factor about their employer as collateral damage?
What does scandal, corruption and poor culture mean for the
collective esteem of those who work in an organisation
where bullies, sociopaths, misogynists, bigots and
narcissists rule the roost either formally or informally.
What respect exists for senior managers who may not
perpetrate such examples of bad behaviour but effectively
condone it because the perpetrators are popular and
charismatic, opinion leaders or money makers or
well-connected to the right people and therefore become
Teflon-coated?
It is imperative in a civilised democracy country like ours
that there are laws and regulations that obstruct
impassioned managers wishing to jump the gun on process and
punish or exit staff without the punishment fitting the
crime or worse still, where no 'crime' was committed. Thus
the means to uphold the principles of natural justice must
be fundamental to any workplace relations regime. The
system must make it difficult to do the wrong thing but if
we are going to jealously guard good culture, it must not
be almost impossible to do the right thing. Undoubtedly
many organisations make brave decisions every day about
what they will or won't put up with. The context in which
they operate must support that and where an employee can
always cite custom and practice as a reason why things
shouldn't change, ethical management will draw a new line
in the sand, ensure everyone can see it and demand that
everyone respect it or expect to face the consequences. A
Spanish proverb notes that every cask smells of the wine it
contains. We will inevitably be judged by the company we
keep and what we condone and reward in the people that work
in our companies. © Leanne Faraday-Brash
----------------------------------------------------
Leanne Faraday-Brash is an organisational psychologist,
Principal of Brash Consulting and co-founder of the
Workplace Justice Consortium
Visit her websites at http://www.brashconsulting.com.au
http://www.workplacejustice.com.au
No comments:
Post a Comment