Workplace culture unfolds to be what it is due to interactions of several influences. Included among these affects are how leadership and managerial styles project specific decision-making approaches, the modes of communication present, and guidance behaviors displayed by management and mentors. In addition, organizations may attempt to adhere to mission statements or other codified value declarations to drive operations, policies, and procedures. Workspace design can also matter when assessing the safety, comfort, and efficiency of the workplace. Further, diversity and inclusion, learning and development, and work-life balance initiatives can make a difference in employee attitudes.
All of these factors are important, but I will argue that the quality of employee engagement internally within their workplace and especially among each other’s colleagues is chief among the impacts shaping workplace culture.
Workers in an organization or business typically make up the bulk of bodies at the workplace. For any establishment to be successful several conditions must be evident among the members of this cohort. We know that the type of work being performed must feel meaningful and purposeful; that there are prospects for career growth or advancement; that positive and productive behaviors are recognized and reinforced; that employees feel a significant degree of empowerment and autonomy to make their own decisions; and that workers feel transparency and fairness is always evident in how decisions are made and performance evaluated.
The collective psychology of employees plays a crucial role in whether organizational prosperity is achieved or not. But workers should not expect managers to be the sole kingpins of whether their progress is favorable or not. Sure, poor leadership can sink the ship. However, workers themselves are also critical to workplace positivity, or lack thereof.
Poor or even dysfunctional workplace culture results from a series of mishaps and inadequate calculations caused by management or workers or a combination of the two. But it is the workers I want to stay focused on at this time. In particular, I want to address the phenomenon of a workplace culture that is misguided psychologically with the cause originating from the employees themselves.
I will use an example from my own professional past to help make my point. I worked for many years in an environment that praised egalitarianism. Equity was baked into system. We bargained for contracts collectively. There was no compensation differential between men and women. Unionism was strong. To be clear, I think these are all great traits and would not trade any of them away. But this equity-based culture produced an unintended liability that to my knowledge has never been resolved.
Workers largely prided themselves on staying in their own work lane — working collaboratively at times, but mostly performing a solo function that required a lot of stamina. We were all pulling oars, which meant we needed to work mechanistically. To have someone stray off course because they wanted to be too creative, or too much of a leader, or too, well, different in the way that they wanted to handle their job, then the mainstream raised their shackles. Questions of, ‘Who-do-they-think-they-are?’ and ‘Looks-to-me-like-they’re-trying-to-suck-up-to-management?’ began to get buzzed about.
Homogeneity was culturally rewarded. Divergence and distinction were not. Inbred psychological unsafety and insecurity had too much of a hold on the group. There are many other scenarios that embody cultural breakdown. The journey to worker psychological unsafety can come a number of different ways.
So, once a consensus of stakeholders recognize there is a problem, how then best to remedy it? One suggestion is for the workforce to consider adoption of an agile mindset. Let me explain. About twenty years ago a group of software development engineers instituted an Agile Manifesto, which they believed would strengthen an organization’s ability to produce. Agility was their reaction against an overly bureaucratic and rigid process which they claimed slowed production and innovation. Being agile meant introducing flexibility and adaptability to the process, leading to greater invention and dynamism.
The agile movement has since found applications in many other areas of operations, including HR, sales, customer service, project management, employee management, and elsewhere. The changed frame of mind an agile approach ushers in has demonstrated value and it can as well in employee-to-employee relations.
Among the benefits an agile process brings is to address how to handle internal conflicts within the group so that each group member can function efficiently and securely. What is encouraged is open communication, give and take, question and answer, working the problem, and acting and reacting with respect for each participant and the process. What is discouraged is staying rooted in unchanging and low-production practices and in censoring one another. The anticipated outcome is a shift to a workplace of high psychological safety and greater production.
The scaffolding necessary to transition to a cultural change of this magnitude is beyond the scope of this essay. However, for many workplaces it can happen and needs to happen. A workplace saturated in creativity, managed risk, and mutual regard beats a workplace steeped in fear and survival any day of the week.
