Toxic Places of Work & the Road to Redemption

Photo by Beth Jnr on Unsplash

There is no magic wand to miraculously wave away workplace toxicity, but there are actionable steps that can be taken to correct the course. 2020 has offered up challenges for employers and employees alike. From financial concerns to illness and future-state ambiguities, there were only one of two ways for toxic tendencies within workplaces to go. Toxicity was either brought to the surface, where the sunlight brilliantly exposed wrongdoing and dysfunction, or it was filtered out and left behind. The societal wake-up call(s) we’ve faced in the past six months -- one may even say a metanoia-like experience -- reshaped how organizational leaders chose to move forward. Many quickly got back on track without consequence (the “filter”), they knew time was up to be on the right side of history, taking into account equity, diversity, and overarching priorities. 

But not all are so lucky. 

There were organizations that exposed toxic behaviors and practices by happenstance, and yet proceeded in normal course and missed an opportunity. This spring there was a monumental moment in time to consider the current landscape, make changes, and proceed with a new North Star (crises can be good for that sort of thing). But perhaps these companies are now considering reworkings. They have lost too many valuable clients and employees, and are flailing in the water. What can these companies do? 

Acknowledge Deficiencies.

Workplaces with toxicity tend to have repeat offenses. If you are a leader, do the work: Why are people leaving? What is the consistent feedback loop? Why is there concern? This is the launchpad. Use this to admit to and recognize inadequacies. Shed light on areas of improvement as well as on the process for resolution.  

Re-engage: Actively Communicate & Revitalize. 

Effective communication is critical to the survival and success of any organization, regardless of location and size. Actively communicating goals, shortcomings, and progress around failures, demonstrates a commitment to change. Almost 75% of employees feel they do not receive consistent company communication from the organization for which they work. With a global pandemic, the necessity for companies to be even more communicative is at an all-time high. [I’m not suggesting you write daily books to employees - remember adults’ attention spans… A helpful tip: Employees are two times as likely to watch a video than read text.] 

Revisit the company vision and company values. Rework communication to incorporate these standards into the messaging. Keeping employees engaged during a period of correcting course makes them feel like a part of the process. Lean on this and dedicate the time to listening. Also, be cognizant of who is communicating these messages. Does the individual stand behind and embody the changes?

Universal Standard Setting 

If a company has admitted to shortcomings and is taking steps to improve the culture, it’s essential to set standards of excellence, especially for leaders. Revisit the code of conduct and make changes to it if necessary. Letting one incident slide turns into a slippery slope. All employees must be held accountable, regardless of seniority. Not addressing incidents is how toxic cultures fester. Some guidelines to ensure consistency include a) accountability, b) known consequences no matter how senior, c) offering employees a safe way to share their observations or concerns.  

First published on LinkedIn.

Culture Styles in the Workplace

This week we address cultural styles as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each. In previous weeks we discussed (1) how leadership influences culture and the foundational elements or assumptions about culture and (2) the dimensions of culture – including people interactions and response to change.

Under this framework, it is clear culture is multifaceted. Often leaders understand that culture is comprised of behaviors, environment, ethical constructs, cliques, mores, and the like. And, when a leader is tuned into the culture, it is not atypical to identify areas that need to be changed or adjusted. Below are eight cultural styles identified by Harvard Business Review (HBR). Each includes a brief description as well as correlating advantages or disadvantages.

To consider: With what style does your organization align? What areas could your organization benefit from adopting?

*A = Advantages
*D = Disadvantages

A Culture of Caring:

Unsurprisingly, Caring cultures are defined by being relationally focused. Behaviors of this culture are rooted in sincere connection and are associated with warmth and support.

A: Engagement is high, as is trust
D: Slowed decision making

A Culture of Purpose:

Does your organization offer, and abide by, explicitly clear direction? Then it likely functions under a Purpose culture construct. The aim is to achieve ideal outcomes.

A: Social importance increases, e.g., diversity or corporate social responsibility
D: Idealism may hinder addressing immediate concerns

A Culture of Learning:

This cultural undertone would easily fall under the interdependent dimension of culture that is tolerant to change. Learning cultures encourage innovation and exploration.

A: Organizational learning yields invention
D: May not capitalize on current competitive advantages (always looking for the next opportunity)

A Culture of Enjoyment:

The foundational elements of Enjoyment revolve around joy and play. HBR recognizes this construct as fun-loving. Although I do not see this culture often, we would be wise to adopt some of its attributes (due to the observed advantages).

A: Engagement is high, as is creativity
D: Playfulness may yield minimal discipline

A Culture of Results:

Unlike its Learning cultural brother, a Results culture is goal focused and achievement oriented. Under the cultural dimensions, you will see Results align with independent frameworks where competition and autonomy are valued.

A: Goal achievement and execution increases
D: Collaboration suffers and work/life stress increases

A Culture of Authority:

As the Authority term is defined – it is bold and dominant. There is little room for indecisiveness and sensitivity is not valued.

A: Speed to decision-making
D: Toxicity is common, e.g., feeling of unsafety/unease

 A Culture of Safety:

Just as children thrive with schedules and structure, stability can bring people comfort. A Safety culture is always prepared and looks to be rational and realistic.

A: Adequate risk management and stable environment
D: Formal approach may fuel bureaucratic processes, leading to inefficiency

A Culture of Order:

Similar to the philosophical notion of deontological ethics, rules are the guide under a culture of Order. Rules are referenced above all else, but value is also placed on respect and cooperation.

A: Reduced conflict with an improvement in operational effectiveness
D: Rules or constructs may lead to group-think and reduce individualization, affecting (decreased) creativity.

Like most conceptual frameworks, the benefit in understanding nuances is to discover reality, recognize opportunity, and take steps to adopt necessary change. When you reach this point, and need tactical steps to achieve a shift in cultural outcome, contact me.

HBR analyzed organizations, executives, and employees alike to develop a model to identify cultural and individual leadership styles. The eight characteristics above are pulled from HBR’s research; these characteristics are mapped along a grid, aligning with two dimensions as discussed last week: people interaction and response to change. For the full report and further detail, should you find this data collection useful, feel free to reach out and I will gladly send it along.

Two Dimensions of Culture

As learned last week, culture can influence behavior, and culture is often fueled from the top, i.e., leadership. Further, there are underlying assumptions about culture, e.g., its fortitude. Even with consistency among cultural assumptions, there are distinct differences in culture styles. HBR found that regardless of a company’s size, industry, or geography, there are two primary attributes or dimensions that remain the same. These dimensions are people interactions and response to change. [I did say I would dive into the cultural styles this week, but that will have to wait until I define these dimensions further!]

People Interactions

People interactions define a company’s tendency to place priority on independence OR interdependence.

• Does the organization value collaboration, relationship management, and the coordination of group processes/effort? Then it classifies as an interdependent-heavy structure.

• Does the organization focus on competition and stress the value of autonomy and individual contribution? Then it classifies as an independent-heavy structure.

Note: Interdependent organizations and independent organizations can be more thoroughly defined and understood by global cultural differences as well, even if the company is state-side.

The point here is that people define and create culture (not just one person does this – but the majority), and it is the dynamics of interpersonal communication that will dictate an overarching feel of the organization.

Response to Change

Change can be daunting. Psychologists Kurt Lewin and Edgar Schein researched the topic in detail and peeled back the layers of complexity. In short, it is human nature to resist change. It is even in our DNA to associate evolution with danger. But, the good news is once we know our brains react this way, we have the power to overcome the hesitancy to the thing we fear. Looking back to how change influences culture: some cultures place great importance on stability. Stability encompasses consistency, transparent structures, hierarchy, and processes. Other organizations favor flexibility, receptiveness to change, innovation, and openness.

It is no surprise that change resilience is a crucial dimension to culture. Will change shake the organization at its core, or will the organization as a whole see opportunity in change?

Under the dimension framework of people interactions and response to change, it is clear how organizations’ cultures vary. Where does yours fall? If you are aiming to change a culture – or even better: define your culture – it is necessary to grasp what aspects of these dimensions are exuded, practiced, and/or preached.

Cultural styles – and the advantages/disadvantages, are up next week. (For real this time!)

Globalization: The Dimensions of Culture in Your Workday

Last week I said I would delve into some elements that contribute to workplace conflict. The root cause is more often than not an absence of communication.  Under that, though, there are cultural elements at play. This makes communication all the more challenging. Social norms and cues are not only interpreted differently, they have wholly different meanings.

To help your empathy levels increase (essential to creating a culture of respect) here are some cultural structures that will serve you well to understand. Keep in mind there will always be scales of these concepts. The more you learn about your team and work environment, the more you can adjust your ability to see there isn’t a “right” and a “wrong.” Sometimes, it’s as “simple” as the fact there are different perspectives of and around the world. Social psychologist Geert Hofstede studied these five cultural dimensions at length.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Individualism focuses on one’s own interest. The priority lies with the singular person alone. Macro cultures of individualism include the U.S. and Canada. Collectivism, on the other hand, reflect feelings that the group or society should receive top priority. Some societies that follow this notion include Greece and Hong Kong.

Power Distance

Power distance reflect the extent to which members of social system accept the notion that members have varying levels of power. High-power (HP) distance suggests that leaders make decisions simply because they are leaders. HP examples include France, Japan, and Spain. Low-power (LP) distance suggests that social system members do not automatically acknowledge the power of a hierarchy. Examples of LP include Germany, Ireland, and the U.S.

Uncertainty Avoidance

Low uncertainty avoidance is reflected by people who accept the unknown and tolerate risk as well as unconventional behavior(s). Countries with low uncertainty avoidance include Canada, Australia, and U.S. Whereas high uncertainty avoidance is characterized by people who want predictable and certain futures e.g., Israel, Italy, and Japan.  

Masculinity – Femininity

A masculine culture emphasizes assertiveness and the acquisition of money or material objects. It’s also coupled by a de-emphasis on caring for others. Unsurprisingly, when compared to above cultural trends, Italy and Japan fall under the masculine identity. Femininity, however, places high importance upon personal relationships: from concern for others to high quality of life. (You guessed it! Some examples include Sweden, Denmark, and Norway.)

Time Orientation

There are two forms of time orientation: long-term and short-term. Long-term is characterized by a long perspective – you’re focused on the future. You value persistence, perseverance, saving, and being able to adapt. Conversely, short-term is when you are focused on the present or past and consider them more important than the future. Short-term is also characterized by seeing value in immediate gratification - yet importance in tradition and fulfilling social obligations.  

The examples included hereto are to demonstrate the stark differences from nation to nation. While a macro perspective, these nuances and variance among us can be just as distinct, even if two people grow up down the street from one another. Think of someone you work with whom you find yourself at odds with often. Now take these dimensions into account. What did you discover? Understanding how our counterparts view view the world is a just a piece of the communicative puzzle, but it’s a great place to start.

Concepts and terms gathered by Peter G. Northouse: Leadership Theory and Practice.