2: Uncover Your Company's True Values
Many leaders maintain that their organizations are values-driven: they have a mission statement and perhaps a statement of corporate values. But writing things down does not make them so. A good litmus test is to stop a random employee in the hall and see if he can recite the mission statement, or even give a coherent answer when asked to identify the company's values.
Even in instances where the values are known, there is the question of whether they are practiced, and this is demonstrated in action: whether customers are loyal, whether employees are happy and productive. These problems are related to culture. And moreover, they reflect the real culture rather than the professed one. Employees intuit the unwritten rules of "how things really are" and follow them - they know what to say and how to behave in order to stay employed until they find a better opportunity. And so, the real test of values is not what is said, but what is done.
Of particular importance: you cannot begin to define ethics based on the assumption that you have a blank slate. There is a culture and values in existence that you have to work to change, and cannot simply replace by fiat or decree.
An aside, there was a trend some years ago in which companies put together a short slogan to represent their values - which may have been too short. A catchy statement can capture a general notion but does not provide much guidance. This was in response to the previous trend of elaborate mission statements that droned on for several paragraphs and were impossible to memorize. A happy middle-ground is to have a list of simple values, likely not more than five or seven, expressed in plain language. At high-performing companies, the mission and values are surprisingly straightforward and uncomplicated - they must be, if they are to be remembered and practiced.
A reminder that every organization is different, and its culture must be different. Values that work for one company will not automatically work for another, even if they are in the same industry and sector. A culture that resounds with the particular employees and market for a given firm is a source of competitive advantage over other firms whose culture does not.
And back to point: the first step in considering culture is to assess the culture you currently have, and whether it is working for you. This may be set aside, with the desire to think about culture without being burdened by the (bad) decisions of the past, much as you might look to a map to pick a destination. Eventually, you have to know where you are to determine how to get to where you want to be.
The Culture Gap: Measuring Your Current Culture
Assessing your current culture is one of the most challenging tasks of the process because it requires taking an objective position about a culture in which you are already immersed. If your happy with your culture, your natural tendency will be to portray it in a positive light; if you're dissatisfied, your evaluation will be pessimistic. And there is always the fear of reprisal when you mention anything negative because the leadership of a firm, even if they admit there are problems, are never cheery to hear bad news about the cultural defects for which they are to blame - and chances are they are in for quite a shock.
The author suggests, "culture cannot be interrogated directly" because people who are immersed in a culture seldom recognize it for what it is - culture seems normal and unremarkable, and what stands out is often not the culture, but an exception to it. It may even be worthwhile to engage a dispassionate outsider to assess your current culture.
The methods the author suggests is most reliable are existing data, surveys, interviews, and focus groups. These methods are not used to ask direct questions about the values and culture of a firm, but to ask about everyday interactions, typical behaviors, expected responses, and the like that will indirectly indicate the values that drive such things.
The author then suggests a five-step approach:
Action Step 1: Fanfare!
A survey of culture and values should not be done covertly - being absolutely transparent will facilitate conversations and establish a platform of honesty and trust, enabling people to respond in kind.
This is a good opportunity to talk about the importance of culture, the way in which it affects metrics like profitability and loyalty. You can provide actual examples of success that has been achieved due to the existing values, as well as some of the problems that exist that can be traced to values, in explaining the reason for the exercise.
A message from the leader of the organization, ideally in person, will underscore the importance - that this is not a meaningless exercise or a distraction from "real" work, but a critical step to improvement.
Don't go into too much detail: you may mention that input will be solicited through surveys, interviews, and the like. You may even find that some employees who are not selected for the assessment offer unsolicited opinions. Accept them, as this is valuable input.
Action Step 2: Nominate an Assessment Team
The team who performs the assessment should not consist entirely, or even primarily, of executives or HR, but drawn from all levels and parts of the organization.
The team will decide on the questions and methods of investigation, conduct the analysis, and present the results. While one department will likely direct the execution, it should be conducted by respected people, in whom their fellow employees place trust.
If you have no such people, then hire an outside research firm - people may more comfortable being frank and candid when they do not expect reprisals.
Action Step 3: Gather Existing Survey Data
Recent employee and customer surveys can tell you a lot about the existing culture of the organization Look for recurring themes, such as the top and bottom five scores, for evidence that certain failures and successes are mentioned repeatedly. Consider whether there is a difference between groups such as customers and employees, current employees and those who are leaving, managers and the rank-and-file, etc.
(EN: The qualification of "recent" might be a limitation - the most recent surveys are more likely to reflect the current culture than older ones, but an analysis of how values have changed over time may also be worthwhile.)
Action Step 4: Create an Anonymous Survey
The author suggests starting the effort with a survey (EN: I immediately disagree - without interviews, focus groups, or other input, you don't know what to investigate or what questions to ask. If you were able to analyse existing data in the previous step, then you are inheriting the flaws of those survey instruments - and given that the firm is still having culture issues, chances are those instruments have many flaws.)
Anonymity is important: especially in a sick culture, employees fear reprisal and will be reluctant to share bad news.
One type of survey quizzes employees about the current stated values, to determine whether they are aware of them, and consider whether they are being applied in daily business of the firm.
Some questions the author suggests are:
- Can you name the firm's values from memory?
- Are you rewarded for displaying those values?
- Are you treated with respect and dignity by others?
- How does your department assess quality of service?
- How do measurements of quality correspond to your work?
- What do customers really like about is?
- Can you remember someone violating your own values?
- Are you evaluated fairly as an employee?
Another type of question is suppositional:
- How would you respond to [a difficult situation]?
- How are new ideas from employees handled by supervisors?
- What would happen if you questioned a superior's decision?
- Do you feel comfortable questioning a superior?
- Would you recommend the firm to a friend or family member?
- How do you believe management assesses the performance of your department?
- What is the most important thing that can be done to improve [morale, financial performance, customer experience, etc.]?
(EN: It's notable that these are open-ended questions rather than multiple choice, and its likely some of the answers could be very long ones. Thus considered, perhaps my initial hesitation to leap to a survey is mitigated by the type of survey - this is really a paper interview.)
In general, surveys should be no longer than 25 questions, and considering the thought that a person might put into answering some of these questions, it might be better to have a few different versions, each of which asks a few questions, sent to different people.
It's suggested that some demographic information may be useful in sorting the responses: a person's general rank, their tenure with the firm, department, etc. but nothing that is personally identifiable.
The author adds a specific note of caution about cultural and religious sensitivities. (EN: Not enough detail to get the gist, but I sense she had a serious problem at some point.)
Action Step 5: Evaluate Current Values and Behaviors with Interviews and Focus Groups
Interviews and focus groups can reveal problems you would never have discovered otherwise by enabling people to speak freely, unconstrained by a list of specific questions. They also give you the ability to "peel back the onion" to discover some of the more granular details and the reasons people respond as they do. Surveys can give you a starting point for these conversations, identifying issues for concern - but they just a starting point, and the conversations will be more fluid and dynamic.
One-on-one interviews may be best for busy employees or those who are geographically dispersed, as it may be difficult to get a group of them together at a specific place and time.
(EN: There is no mention of the specific reasons for focus groups, and recent experience has led me to be doubtful - it's more convenient for the interviewer, but focus groups are often interviews with one or two participants with the others sitting in silence or going along with what someone else said. They don't seem to be very effective in getting people to inspire one another to talk, which is their alleged strength.)
As for whom to include, be as comprehensive as possible. Ensure that all departments, all job functions, all levels, all locations, all ages, all races, all levels of tenure, etc. are represented by a cross-section of employees. Of particular concern is to make sure that you don't skew the results by seeking efficiency (interviewing accountants at one office and receptionists at another - get input from both groups at both locations).
Do not allow managers to stack the deck with employees who have positive things to say - some of your most valuable insight comes from people who are negative or disgruntled.
Do not ambush participants, but give them advance notice they will be included. This enables them to think in advance and gather information from their colleagues, both of which are valuable. At the same time, reiterate the confidentiality of the interview to give them a "sense of psychological safety."
Keep an open mind. It's especially important to get the interviewee to do all the talking, rather than guiding or coaching based on what you want to hear or expect to hear.
Keep management separated. When employees are in a group discussion with their superiors, they are especially cautions or reprisal, and may withhold information they expect could result in reprisal.
"You might even want customers to participate," the author suggests. (EN: I don't think this is a "might even" but a critical component - ultimately the values of the firm as experienced by the customer are what you are aiming for in terms of corporate performance - customer satisfaction and loyalty are responses to culture.)
The author goes on to suggest some starter questions for these conversations, and they are similar to the ones above (EN: I consolidated the ones here into the lists in step four.)
As to how much time and effort to devote to the process, the author suggests that 10% of the workforce must be included to be statistically valid (EN: which is arbitrary - a 20-person department is not represented well by two people, nor would it be feasible to interview 5,000 employees of a 50,000 employee company). Qualitatively, when you find you are getting the same responses over and over and nobody is saying anything new, chances are you have squeezed out as much as you're going to get.
Understanding the As-Is State
The research, surveys, and focus groups give you the raw material to analyse the current state of culture and values of your organization - not merely its professed values, but the ones that are actually in practice. The analysis should focus on common themes - in her experience, the author has found that she often hears the same complaint, even the very same words, from multiple people. At the same time, there may be issues that only a few people mentioned that seem significant, so it's not strictly a tally.
A suggested approach is to have the interviewers summarize their notes daily, then assign one or two people to pick through them, identifying trends and themes as well as one-off issues that seem compelling. These can be separated into positive and negative categories.
In accordance with the principle of transparency, the results should be shared throughout the organization, rather than kept in secret and shared only with management. It's mentioned that when results are shared, some managers will spring immediately into action. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but some caution should be given as to the difference between being proactive and premature.
The Role Of Leaders In Changing Culture
The author suggests that, if you ask someone to name companies that stand out as consistent examples of high-performing organizations, most people will be able to identify less than ten. She also suggests that what those firms have in common are leaders who place great importance on the culture and value of their organizations.
Study a great leader, and you will find an individual of strong values, who uses values to drive behavior, and the behavior defines the culture. That is, leaders cannot create a culture directly, but encourage people in a given direction based on values.
Leaders who attempt to dictate culture often fail - it happens so often that it is practically guaranteed. Values must be considered and accepted by the masses in order to be put into action. (EN: It occurs to me that some of the weakest leaders, particularly in the political sphere, tend to follow the opposite path, and accept the values of the masses while providing no guidance or direction.)
Organizations reject leaders who attempt to drag them in the wrong direction. The author provides an example of a client she walked away from - a CEO who was abusive to employees, and who in spite of several coaching sessions continued to be so, and stubbornly declared that "I'm going to do what I want." At that point, she gave up on him and left. So did many of the best employees. It took a while for the damage to be recognized and for the board to replace him.
But back to the topic: a thorough assessment of the current state of values makes the process of cultural change easier - it's the starting point on a journey, just as important as the destination in plotting a course.