Let me begin by posing this reflective question to corporate leaders. Which stakeholders in your company germinated the prevailing work culture in the first place? Your answer: The employees at large because they represent the majority in the company? Do I hear an unequivocal yes from you? Well, I beg to differ........that work culture is not created by the ordinary workforce. The ensuing elaborations will explain the contentions of my views.
I believe you have had seen the popular comical photograph of three monkey - the first from the left side with hands closing both eyes, the second one covering both ears, the third pressing tightly its mouth. The caption expresses SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL. Obviously, the cheeky apes are connoted as imitating the gestures of their trainer (not shown in the photo). What they observe, they follow.
Related to this parody, a venerable mentoring guru left a lasting impression in me. During a pep talk organised by me for senior officers of a corporation some years ago, he propounded that humans - just like monkeys, also of the sapiens kind - are prone to copy work habits of their leaders according to what they observe. He cautioned his audience to be mindful of their disposition (actions, behaviour, countenance, interaction style, attitude etc) as "monkey see, monkey do."
For example, if a high rank officer is frequently not punctual for meetings, be assured his subordinates will follow suit because being late becomes a norm. And if a leader exhibits the "business as usual" (BAU) work attitude, surely his subordinates will nonchalantly do the routine, with what they have, from where they are, instead of energetically pushing further ahead proactively. What they observe, they follow.
I know of a long established international financial service player which underwent a culture shift emanating from acquisition of another large player and change of management team. Previously, there was a spirit of fraternity whereby top executives, including the chief executive officer (CEO), and management personnel had close interconnections with the sales force. Sales force members could approach officers to discuss issues. However, the new management practised rigid bureaucracy by applying top-down directives without any prior deliberation. Sales force members no longer could have easy access to backroom officers for discussion on service issues because of the new closed door administrative policy. The assertive management expected the counterpart party to adopt its directive, i.e. they should solely focus on selling, and if they failed to meet their minimum production requirements, they would be terminated without hesitation.
The same atmosphere subsequently infiltrated all segments. Department heads and sub-heads became bureaucratic in dealing with both staff and sales force members. Decisions were executed by the book unilaterally - no leeway for flexibility. The silo culture crept in. The previous friendly fraternity and mutual help across departments morphed to the individualistic state. Extension of assistance to another department or segment ceased although inter-related by functions. I was dumbfounded when an officer once painted to me the silo scenario there with this prose: "You are you, and I am I. You do your thing, and I do my thing. I am not in this world to meet your expectations, neither are you in this world to meet my expectations. And if at all by chance we agree with each other on an issue, that will be a miracle."
Up till the time I wrote this article, the restructured corporation still failed to achieve its desired top rank status (by new business revenue) in the industry despite having been merged from two prominent players into one entity at high acquisition costs some years ago. The unfriendly bureaucracy, lacking synergy among internal stakeholders, posed as the main contributory factor causing this snag. It was the top executive level, not the employees, that spawned the mindset and behaviour change depicting the revised work culture. The employees observed, then emulated what the top leaders did........the case of monkey see, monkey do.
I remind top corporate leaders to review their disposition, demeanour and actions portrayed to their employees. The latter will copy the same characteristics for carrying out their course of work. If you, their leader, is passive, be rest assured your immediate downline officers will also be passive. If you talk with a condescending tone, be rest assured your direct subordinates will cascade the same manner in communicating "at" (not with) their subordinates. Whether the environment in your office is positive or negative depends on your image conveyed to your people.
I knew a few key personnel and department heads who gave directives and critiques to subordinates but not playing any hands-on part to drive initiatives jointly with their respective team. When results turned out well, they claimed personal credit for effective leadership; when flops occurred, they pointed at their subordinates. No wonder the blame game and indignant feelings enveloped the work environment. I also knew high turnover of staff spun off because of general poor morale. I am sure you agree with me this is pathetic. I will comment more about pseudo leaders fond of passing the blame to others at the later portion of this write-up.
Allow me to share my own testimony. In my "developing" years attached to a renowned financial service institution, I had to be nimble with up-to-date facts and figures constantly regarding my jurisdiction. Two CEOs, in their successive tenure over two decades from 1980 till 1997, expected all managers to keep track on relevant developments, including daily business scores. Because they were facts and figures orientated, the sales director who supervised me acted likewise. Frequently at random, I would be asked to report the latest new business scores and short verbal narratives on updated sales activities. The managerial intricacies cast from the top groomed many branch managers to be meticulously proactive to acquire important details at their finger tips. We also inherited the trend encouraging hands-on involvement with subordinates and peers in order to keep abreast with updated developments.
Culture setting does not rest on the CEO of a corporation alone. CEOs come and go. If the duty lies solely on the CEO, then each chief may try to establish their own preference, which then means continuity will not be in place. To ensure continuity, particularly relating to corporate governance, the right culture should be determined by the board of directors too for long term prevalence. Their apt role is not just to attend monthly meetings and give comments, but also understand the dynamics of the organisation under their purview. This calls for some form of direct involvement to spearhead directions.
Seemingly positive cultures disseminated from the top may slide to adversity if not well balanced and instituted prudently. For example, many top managements are fond of exerting high pressure to drive results. By being too forceful, they create fear. Would that be positive or negative? By micro view, it is positive if the fear pressure could spark immediate coveted results. But by macro view over the longer run, that could spin various negative side effects. Employees may ultimately face anxiety, or turn a deaf ear to the taunts, or become rebellious, or be antagonistic; or the worst scenario, ushering good employees to leave and join competing companies. No doubt the stoic ones may perform well under pressure, however these personalities are few.
Here is a classic example whereby unreasonable fear pressure finally sounded the death knell for a leading communication cum mobile phone giant early second decade of the 21st century. Afraid of losing leading market position, its top management hit hot nails into the middle management. The aggressive behaviour of the No. 1 executive, who often raised his voice angrily, subdued subordinates from voicing out the truths on impractical projects while compelling them to work their hearts out. They felt pointless to offer comments since their supremo refused to hear negative feedback albeit plausible. Contrary to the false notion that all were progressing in good order, product development in fact degraded. Eventually, the erstwhile giant phased out of the market without the competitive edge it once possessed - the negative impact of fear work culture.
In my view, some form of pressure may be required to goad employees nimble on their toes. Why? A laid back mentality gradually engulfs an organisation when a relaxed work atmosphere prevails over time due to overly amiable top management style. The BAU or "let it be" attitude becomes the phenomenon if pressure from the top is visibly absent. Undeniably, excessive fear and work pressure driven from above is counterproductive. However, unrestrained congeniality in an organisation is also counterproductive. It is a matter of striking a balance between the two extremes to conduce a positive organisation aura. A very laid back culture needs more pressure screws tightened. Conversely, employees feeling the brunt of excessive work pressure ought to be loosened a bit from the pressure screws. The right call rests on the top management based on correct analytical observations.
Another long-term negative impact ignited by the fear pressure factor is the "fire fight" condition. Scrambling to complete assignments quickly at the expense of paced prudent pre-assessment on viability of any initiative normally leads to repercussions. Impromptu impulsive acts do not allow sufficient time to examine all related perspectives necessary for ensuring effectiveness and efficiency. I know of companies facing countless data mismatches after system migration implementation because their management hammered hard onto their technical personnel to deliver the works within short time frames. Thereafter, the technical teams spent endless drag times to patch up discrepancies whenever complaints on mismatches cropped up. They have already assumed the mindset of "quickly complete first, settle the errors later" for future IT system projects.
Now, on the negative leadership mentality of "pass the buck" or pass the blame management style. Some so-called leaders readily shift blame down the line when a fault materialises. Worst is, they claim they are not aware of the fumbling issues. One morning, I was taken aback when reading the lead story of a local mainstream English newspaper. A senior minister of the (erstwhile) government declared that advisers appointed by the cabinet should bear the full blame for any fault derived from their advice. He was quoted as blurting out: "The downfall of a leader is usually the result of his advisers. The formation of a nation does not depend on kings and political leaders, but also by the advisers to leaders." Huh?? Should not the leaders who appointed these advisers be equally blamed? No wonder many senior civil servants under this previous regime could still sit firmly despite episodes of highlighted debacles occurring within their jurisdiction - by diverting the responsibility and accountability to their juniors, just like what the senior minister encouraged so.
Although top leaders play the main part as protagonists for culture setting, employees at large of a company bring to work their own traits inhered from their social and communal exposure. For example, Westerners may be more upfront in speaking out compared to Asians who are less expressive. Top executives need to be cognizant of such varying traits before mapping out a cultural change strategy. A trait that is acceptable in one social or communal group may be abhorred by another group. Mismatch of traits is a hurdle to overcome by the management concerned before a culture change can successfully take place.
Moulding a new corporate culture normally goes through an initial period of tribulations, more so when two large companies merge as one entity. The process requires sheer patience, determination, prudent planning, unrelenting communication, counselling, monitoring, encouragement and at times admonition where necessary. Cultural transformation cannot evolve via quick winds of change. Tedious - often also trying - incessant efforts may likely encounter some bane elements before reaching the boon stage. Bear in mind the long term benefits that come after successful entrenchment of a positive work culture, versus the short term trials experienced at the beginning of implementation. Whether the intended culture is an inaugural one (of a new institution) or a turnaround (of old culture), the right process entails intricate sequential steps, per my suggested outline below:
1) First, identify the desired organisational values and behaviours to be instilled into the employees.
2 Board directors together with the chief executive and other key officers map out the strategies for driving the assigned values and behaviours.
3) Board directors and top executives commit to playing the role model, earmarked for emulation by employees.
4) Take note of the communal trait disparities among the existing workforce.
5) Top management officers jointly map out the desired structured procedures for promoting the desired culture. The plan includes the communication approaches, training, counselling, monitoring, governance framework guidelines and devising methods to manage trait disparities.
6) Tailor a conducive platform to allow discussions and inputs on the intended culture by employees. Incorporate inputs that are valid for shaping up the culture.
7) Incorporate compatible rewards for employees who achieve positive results via conspicuous assimilation of the culture.
8) Selective recruitment of new personnel. Engage candidates whose profiles befit the parameters of the culture.
9) Be prepared to embark on tough decisions that may be unfavourable to some personnel. Administer actions to weed out unhealthy practices although preferred by employees. Formulate a plan to tread on this with prudent discretion.
10) Face up the possibility of losing some business scores temporarily for the sake of gaining firmer stability in the longer run. E.G: To phase out improper fire sales and misleading techniques for the sake of ethics and sounder business footing, the board directors and CEO ought to expect there may be a temporary drop in topline (gross sales revenue) but with anticipated better bottomline (profits) at the later run. Over the longer tenure, the overall growth covering both topline and bottomline scores could escalate prominently because of a healthier sales culture.
I now sum up this write-up by sharing a few quotes........
# An organisation that values certain character traits like accountability and integrity, perseverance, grit and curiosity has to build a culture in which employees can be guided along the way to behave in this manner.
(eva.christodoulou@leaderomics.com)
# When you are inspired, others around you will sense it by the way you work, provide guidance, implement ideas and lead. Others will feed off your enthusiasm and this would cause a resonance of the similar energy throughout the team.
(nithiaroshan@leaderomics.com)
# Bear in mind that a corporate culture is often the by-product of what the company's leadership is like. So, leaders need to embody the change first before they expect their employees to pattern after it.
(Adrian Yap -editor@leaderomics.com)
# When an organisation tolerates small breaches of rules, unethical behaviour can snowball.
(InTheBlack magazine - May 2017)
# Rather than focussing on the numbers, we really focus on the behaviour.
(John Murray - head of enterprise risk, retail and compliance, AIA Australia)
# Boards should be held accountable (for corporate governance); they appoint the CEO, they are the guardians of the culture.
(Dr. Attracta Lagan - principal with Managing Values)
# If fear can spur people and teams, it can also cause them to shut down.
(Tyrone Carlin - CPA Australia)
# If employees think it will be futile to speak up, they won't use their voice.
(James Detert - University of Virginia)
# These days we often communicate 'at' others by e-mail, posting on social media, and text message, rather than communicating 'with' others by an ongoing, real-time, face-to-face conversation.
(Samantha Hardy - principal at Conflict Coaching International)
No comments:
Post a Comment