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!)

Culture: The Elusive Lever

Whether we want it to be this way or not, leadership is directly linked to culture. Culture is influenced by leadership, and it is the leader(s) that actively take part in changing it.

Culture can drive behavior, change behavior, and even enable behavior. Whether we are reviewing the seminal work on culture (I will not bore you with that) or evaluating a modern-day company to assess culture, there are several notions most leadership experts, and researchers, can agree upon. My aim is to identify basic assumptions about culture, noted below. As a follow-up to this article, I will address several "culture styles." (If you do not know where you are, how will you know where you want to go?)

A culture does not live alone. It is created by shared behaviors and, my personal favorite, shared values. The culture is simply an amalgamation of norms and expectations. Dare I say: culture defines the unwritten rules. (Yet, I challenge leaders to write down the values that push culture forward.)

A culture lives on. Think of clients you have worked with, or customers to whom you have sold. Did they have a distinct culture? It is likely that culture has been in the works for some time. In fact, culture can attract people who are like-minded (see Benjamin Schneider’s model). It is the in-and-out group structuring of culture. The social pattern is present, attracts like-minded people, and the tracks becomes more engrained with each loop. Those who do not fit in tend to depart on their own free will, and the carousel goes ‘round.

A culture is a part of being human. Let us not forget our ancestors – they are our reason for being here, for surviving (yes, we can thank our ancestors for these wicked fight or flight responses – they kept us alive, albeit they are no longer needed in our lion-free cities!). Humans are meant to be with others – thus culture continuity makes all the more sense as discussed above. Just as homophily (birds of a feather flock together) is alive and well, behaviors have followed suit. [It is a bit more complex than I am making it out to be – see S. Schwartz and E.O. Wilson’s research for more detail.] Further, humans not only respond to culture, they are able to sense it. I know this much is for sure: I have been told by business professionals what their culture embodies, and have felt the opposite. But I have also been an active contributor to organizations where what they said was reality. It is in those moments I smile a smile of contentment.

Culture styles – they are up next week.

/Initially published via LinkedIn Articles/

Virtual Teams: Explained.

Virtual teams will soon simply be called “teams.” Yet, and unfortunately, the extent to which virtual teams are utilized in corporations has exceeded the research done on the topic. Virtual teams consist of an interconnected group – this interconnectivity comprises shared goals or expected outputs from organizations. Virtual teams are dispersed throughout the nation, or world, and this trend is increasing as globalization continues to prosper. RW CultureWizard (2016) completed a survey consisting of 1372 business respondents from 80 countries; 85 percent of the participants worked on virtual teams. 85 percent! The extent to which virtual teams are prevalent points to the necessity of continued support for managers, and employees alike, under this virtual framework.

I recently spoke with a peer who was promoted several months ago. She shared with me her new manager is unaccustomed to managing from afar. In fact, the notion of managing a virtual team member is as foreign to him as the German language is to me. This points to the reality that managers who are being asked to manage virtually need just as much advice and/or coaching as the team members who are virtual. 

There are a lot of benefits of virtual teams. Geographic variation can contribute to less time in transit for client travel (think of territory allocation), diversity in teams increases creativity and problem solving (interested in the literature?), and productivity can increase due to time zone variation.

But, I would be remiss if I did not mention the disadvantages. Team engagement can suffer as a result of less frequent communication, disjointed (non-media-rich) narratives, damaged trust due to miscommunication, confused staff responsibility, minimal empowerment, and managerial-staff conflict.

At the root of it all? Communication. If you have been managing a virtual team, take a moment to reflect with me. What cadences do you have in place to communicate with each team member? What is the frequency? What process ensures communication among team members (needed for camaraderie and collaboration)? Now, what is the intent of those meetings? Is each and every conversation goal-oriented and work-specific? Or do you work diligently to incorporate the development of “human stuff” -- AKA interpersonal relations?

Each and every team is different; thus, I cannot say the issues you face are going to have a similar resolution as another group. What I can say is this: even researchers are busy getting to the theoretical undertones of what makes a virtual team effective. Do not despair, there are plenty of tried and true ways to work in a virtual environment. A couple of my favorites include (a) leveraging technology wisely, (b) putting your people first, and (c) understanding the necessity of unifying your team.

The best approach to understand what challenges you face require gathering information – this is true for both virtual and non-virtual teams. Knowing where you are – comprehending challenges, opportunities, and perception — will give you significant insight into blind spots, areas for improvement, and empathy for the challenges virtual team members face.

An area research has identified to be relevant for virtual management is the behavioral profiles of those who lead virtual teams. Since these managers must counteract the absence of a face-to-face dynamic, his or her ability to be even more engaged (and engaging) becomes front and center. The ability to facilitate member engagement, appreciate cultural diversity, and build trust, are paramount. Remember, media-richness is not on your side. Utilize tools that are the next best thing e.g., video chat and group discussion forums. If this is all too new, let’s come up with a plan. If you are facing some challenges within your virtual team, we can tackle one at a time to verify team alignment and maintain accomplishment.