|
Ask senior decision makers in almost any organisation what their greatest asset is and chances are you'll be told it's their people. That's as it should be. But what's curious is that when you step down a notch in the corporate hierarchy, that same attitude is often not reflected back. In fact, some experts suggest that up to 70% of people don't enjoy going to work - so everyday, an extraordinarily large number of disengaged people clock in to do their daily toil.
Between us, we spend a significant amount of time talking to people at all levels of larger enterprises. And when you ask the people below the senior management team what they think of where they work, two interesting things happen. The first, is that many of them don't feel valued at all. Far from being treated as an asset, they often feel that they are little more than a resource. And secondly, when they talk about their culture, what never fails to amaze us is not so much what they say, but how often it is said - across organisations in different sectors, with different cultures and different strategies.
The same things - that's right, the very same things - seem to pop up in every culture that is not working to capacity, regardless of what management might be espousing to the contrary. And almost in every case, the organisation seems to be suffering financially and emotionally as a result. They're either not performing well, or at the very least, they are not doing their potential justice.
Here, in our experience, are 12 sure signs of a disillusioned culture, our observations on why they occur and some thought-starters on how to go about changing them:
- No vision - the rank and file have no sense of the organisation going anywhere. This is a real concern because it stymies innovation and reinforces status quo thinking.
It can happen for a whole range of reasons. Management don't have a vision or it's not a priority communication issue as far as they're concerned. Or perhaps head office is overseas, and they're not telling anyone locally what is going on. Whatever the reason, it's killing you because lack of vision is the #1 contributor to lack of interest. After all, if the organisation has no strong direction, what's the motivation for individuals to take the place anywhere? Result: a becalmed enterprise, and frustrated crew.
Instead of fixing their eyes on a purpose that inspires, and working together to achieve something significant, everyone's just 'getting on with it' without any real understanding of what 'it' actually is, or could be. Sometimes, there is a vision, but it is not being communicated clearly, and in ways that involve and inspire. Or it's being buried in a plethora of strategic slide decks and direction papers that are as confusing as all hell and as boring as batshit to anyone but their authors.
Most people's informational needs are relatively straightforward: a) where are we heading? b) how will we get there? c) what role shall I play? d) how will we know when we have got there? Visions, missions, manifestos, customer service doctrines, operational performance guidelines and so on are prepared, usually at great expense, to cover off these very issues. Problem is they don't. So, the questions remain ... and the company continues to amble.
- "What's the point?" - See above for why this happens, but don't underestimate the implications. When your people are saying this, it's more than an initiative issue. Their headspace is now one of occupying a physical space for a prescribed period of time, collecting a cheque, and then checking out. They're not working with you. They're working for themselves at your expense. And when self interest supercedes the collective purpose in a corporate structure, you're never far from trouble in our experience. Existentialism is not a powerful corporate value, because all it inspires is a demoralising and destructive sense of futility.
- Project overload - Yes it's a world of projects, yes there's a lot to do. But when the projects are multiplying faster than rabbits, it doesn't take long for everyone, including management, to start tripping over themselves. Soon, there are projects everywhere, often overlapping one another in terms of subject matter, resources, implications, timeframes and importance. If management get confused as to which project is contributing what and where each begins and ends, spare a thought for staff. There are promises coming in every direction in terms of what each is going to deliver. Often, this leads to a lack of focus for each project, and a cynicism amongst staff as to where all these projects are going and what they will end up contributing. The next big hope for the organisation to revolutionise its market approach is quickly relegated to "just another project".
- No consistency of approach - The lack of a consistent approach manifests itself in a highly individualised approach to process. Everyone does their own thing and interprets the rules their way, quite often without any level of consultation. When asked why they operate in this manner, they simply say they weren't told not to! In other words, there is both a lack of direction and of controls.
- Distrust - aka Executive Bathroom Syndrome. Management and workers have an "us and them" approach to one another that cuts across any true sense of team.
There can be a number of reasons for this. Even in today's flat management world, some people are still curiously hierarchical. Sometimes, it's because there's a strong tradition of regarding management as the enemy, or conversely, more traditional management who believe that leadership really is synonymous with enforcement. On other occasions, there are "one sided" performance incentives in place that feel inherently unfair to those charged with getting the work done.
A classic case of this recently occurred when a large US airline asked its staff to take a significant pay cut, but then management baulked when the union demanded they also cut decision makers performance incentives. Given how badly the airline was performing, it seemed a perfectly reasonable request! Whatever the reason, the feeling that senior management, or more often middle management, do not understand or relate to those who are in their care - whether justified or not - has a dangerous and far reaching effect on culture. It's hard to stay in touch across a chasm. It's even harder when that chasm continues to widen ...
Another disturbing manifestation of this phenomenon is when staff are treated as second class citizens. I heard an amusing case recently of a company that was so stringent about its policy that all staff, no exceptions, and no matter what the nature of the request, had to wait behind the interests of customers that their own CEO had to deal with another company in order to get something done. A classic case of process as the magician's apprentice! This is in deep contrast to the approach taken by staff-loving companies like Southwest Airlines who have a "customers come second" philosophy. Their reason? You can always replace a customer - but loyal, skilled employees are much more difficult to find.
- The "pop up" strategy - Things just turn up with directions for them to be done, without explanation and often in complete contradiction of what was being said last week. This is destructive because it's haphazard. Those asked to implement these strategies soon learn to live each day as it comes, and not to take any one strategy too seriously. Getting buy-in within such a regime is almost impossible, because "it's all going to change next week".
Nobody wants to work in an environment where the whole workplace is told to slavishly follow a stupid idea to its end point, but equally no-one is going to take any strategy seriously when it is just the flavour of the week. Like the shepherd who cried "Wolf", such strategies soon fall on deaf ears, cynical hearts and stooped shoulders - the standard symptoms of the "whatever" mindset. If you have a clear vision, then all initiatives need to clearly link back and be communicated back to that context. Don't expect staff to do that. Most people have no idea how to make implication jumps - that's a management role.
- No permission - People are told to be creative and to make things work to benefit the organisation, but then the company cuts them no slack at all if they do something wrong, no matter how trivial. So of course they don't even try. If you want to compete meaningfully, then you need to be prepared to let people initiate. So often, the issue appears to be management not trusting their people enough to let them get on with what they know needs doing. They may say they want to delegate, or they want staff to lead initiatives, but look a little deeper, and one discovers control freaks who are either too afraid to let go, or simply will not countenance a "permission system" that lets staff learn through success or mistakes.
- The silo mentality - We are such collective animals in many ways, so the fact this is the single most frequent cultural phenomenon is both ironical and disappointing. It really is the corporate equivalent of "my little corner of the world", where teams or sections of an organisation, particularly if they are in separate geographies, subscribe firmly to the belief that "our" section's doing just great, "it's everyone else that lets us down" and/or "we've never understood what they do anyway".
Politics, resentment, lack of co-operation, patch protection and intransigence are just some of the results.
Process is always a good place to start fixing this problem. It requires integrating not just the deliverables, but also the mindsets - fusing the immediate task to the higher goals. Secondly, developing a purposeful culture will devolve many of the barriers. It's human nature to devise purpose and a sense of identity. Where the enterprise lacks a powerful emotional engagement with its people, inevitably groups will splinter and establish their own society and culture in which to work, relate and function. Prising them away from that requires a wider cultural idea that everyone really wants to be part of.
Finding ways for people to mix in project teams or socially helps them develop relationships and accountability to each other. Allowing work experience in different parts of the business is a winning strategy too - 'walk a mile in my shoes' initiatives can make a big difference to inter-departmental communication and teamwork.
Finally, it takes meaningful communication - not just newsletters, a fully engaged dialogue that celebrates the achievements of people across the enterprise and alerts everyone to the contributions being made by others. It's amazing how many organisations believe they have fully exercised their moral need to consult with their own people when they have drowned recipients in paperwork. Time and time again, staff complain to us that they receive a mountain and yet they feel they are completely in the dark. That's because the information they're actually interested in isn't there, is hard to find or is buried at the end of a link on the intranet.
There's no single way to strategise this, because the culture of every organisation is different. But one place to start might be a rethink on the intranet itself. Consider developing an interactive and engaging electronic forum for your people, from which they can source the facts and ideas they need to feel like part of something. Most intranets are nothing of the sort.
- Powerful grapevine - When internal communication is not engaging, when people are starved for the information they crave, then head for the smokers' corner. Nature abhors a vacuum and where there is no information, or that information is deemed insufficient or ineffectual, people will make it up. Chances are, in this environment, gossip is the most powerful and credible internal communication. The "unofficial" word is the one everyone's listening for. Why? Because they don't believe what they're being told, or they're not being told, or they want to get the 'inside' story on what the official story actually means.
No-one's underplaying our natural instinct to tattle - it's human nature to talk about others - but when the 10am break has been transformed into the 10am briefing, then you have issues on your hands. The only way to control it is to address it, and the way to do that, is to recognise it, understand why it's happening and change your communications systems and strategies internally to allay concerns and build trust.
- "We don't advertise enough" - If you hear this, you should be pleased in some ways. It shows your people care, which is critical, it shows they want to perform, which is great, that they want respect, which is motivating, and they have a very real sense of who they are and what will do them justice. What you have to do is ensure you are achieving synergy between the way the culture sees or feels about itself, and the way the organisation is portrayed publicly.
When staff say that your advertising doesn't reflect who "we" are, there are several things to consider. One is to shoot the messenger. Does your ad agency understand you? Have they really got a handle on what you're about? When you do advertise, do your people feel it does them justice as a brand, do they think it reflects who they truly are collectively? Are they right? Is the agency just playing cutsy at your expense? If that's not the problem, then cast an eye in the direction of the competition. Have they done something to spook your people? Perhaps they've just publicised a great deal, or they have a new ad campaign that looks great, or they've been in the news a lot lately.
Another option - how much did your people know about the campaign before it went to air? No-one likes surprises, and the first reaction is almost always negative. After that, it just snowballs. I never fail to be astounded at how often, having committed millions of dollars in advertising revenue, marketing departments within companies have not taken the time to explain what's going on and why to their people. So frontline staff often find themselves being asked questions about promotions they know little or nothing about.
Here's a classic example of the left hand and the right hand being out of synch. A friend of mine was considering buying a house. Hearing a commercial on the radio advertising a free copy of "hot tips for residential property investors" at his nearest bank branch, he headed in and looked around. Nothing! After a few minutes, he headed to the Customer Enquiries desk and asked for a copy of this much publicised book. The verbatim response was "Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about". Further enquiries to all other staff in the branch also drew a blank. The irony of all of this was that the bank's ad had proudly proclaimed "Knowledge Makes the Difference." As my friend pointed out, "I don't doubt it!"
There is one more option, and this is the most serious. If your staff don't believe that decision makers understand the "real" brand, then things are out of synch on a number of levels. See above for most of the reasons as to why this happens. No management team wants to believe that it is out of touch. But in most businesses, as in life, perception is reality. If staff feel that the advertising lets the company down because management don't understand who the company really is, why it works and what it's about, then some involved dialogue needs to take place - and urgently.
- "We don't know the senior management" - We once did work for an organisation where the CEO worked past the receptionist every day for three years, and never once smiled, acknowledged her or said "hello". Three years! But except in extreme case such as this, the real issue here is not physical, it has nothing to do with whether people have manners or not, or whether they are in a place or not, or what their name is. This is a leadership issue. And it's a connection issue.
When people don't feel they have a grip on the senior management team as individuals, when those people are just ghosts in the decision-making machine, then the CEO and the rest of that level of management might as well be photos, because to the rank and file, they are not flesh and blood.
The reason is simple. You just can't have a successful culture without the hands-on involvement of the CEO and the senior management team. So much depends on a CEO getting it. No wonder, leadership is such a hot topic right now. Cultures only truly work and synchronise when leaders feel a responsibility for developing legacy rather than just short term financial success.
It takes time, money, resources, commitment and a powerful and visionary leader to develop the right culture. But unfortunately, that's the price of being competitive! And the alternative - no matter how you look at it - is a lot more costly.
- "The middle management are to blame" - When in doubt, find a scapegoat, and often this is it. It's true, middle managers and line managers can be the most intransigent, in our experience, and yes, they can be positively colonial in their approach to people and past practices. But if they are behaving this way, it's often because they're not getting enough guidance and/or vision from above - or worse still, they are simply copying the way they themselves are treated.
In too many companies, delegation to the tier below is the opt-out for senior managers, who agree with something in theory, but prefer not to take responsibility for it themselves - for reasons of time, priority, interest, face or personality. If middle management is the "Hadrian's wall" of your culture, see 10. for reasons as to why they're being cut too much slack or not being inspired to motivate their teams in a positive manner.
Sadly, if you found yourself nodding to any of the above, you are not alone. Perhaps it's human nature to behave like this in a corporate environment. We can't speculate on that. But what we can say from experience, is that every one of these symptoms is curable - if it is approached with sincerity, motivation and a willingness to build faith.
The brutal truth of the matter is this: if you nodded to any of the above, your organisation is not as competitive as it could be, and no amount of re-engineering, restructuring or internal drum-beating is going to change that. What your people need is a climate change.
One final thought: A company that conforms to the wishes of its leaders is compliant and consistent, but little more. A company inspired by and united behind its leaders, on the other hand, is a place where people look forward to contributing and is a force to be reckoned with.
|
