What is growing in your organization's culture?

 

Organizational culture and what it looks like is a critical component of any for-profit or not-for-profit enterprise. And you can be sure that your culture is growing either health or dishealth that will impact your organization. In fact, Culture is never neutral. It either contributes to a healthy organization or creates dysfunction and frustration. With culture, there is no neutral ground. 

Everyone who has worked anywhere has stories about culture. Many of them are unhealthy. The question is, why does dysfunctional culture so often get ignored? Why do leaders not deal with unhealthy aspects of their organization's culture?

Because culture sits in the background as an invisible, silent backdrop, we can simply get used to what it is without asking why or noticing its lack of health. We say about difficult people, "They are just like that," rather than asking why we tolerate their behavior. We get used to and content with what is rather than asking what could be. 

We may even have a level of cynicism about people or situations that frustrate us but assume nothing will ever change. We learn to accept substandard behaviors or lack of excellence and follow through. We are not surprised or bothered by unproductive meetings or unkept promises. We are used to what is. 

This is why there are often deep pockets of dysfunction in organizations, sometimes around one unhealthy individual that doesn't get addressed, yet it infects the whole. These pockets of dysfunction are like a petri dish of bacteria that is growing ugly stuff, but we are so used to it that we hardly notice. 

Sometimes, an organization's dysfunctional culture is so obvious that all see it. In other cases, that dysfunction is like a quiet illness permeating the company. Those pockets of dysfunctional culture create dysfunctional organizations which impact every individual, every team, and everything they do. 

Try a small experiment. Ask your coworkers or staff these three questions:

• If you could change three things about your workplace, what would they be?
• If you were in charge, what would you do differently?
• How would you rate the health of our culture on a scale of one to ten, with one being the lowest and ten being the highest? Why did you pick that number? What would make your score higher?

These questions and their answers are all about the culture and practices of your workplace. Some would object that the questions ignore many good things. That is probably true, but it is not the good things that create issues in an organization. Rather, it is the problematic things! If you focus on dealing with dysfunction and dishealth, along with a set of agreed-upon behaviors and attitudes, the culture of your organization will improve significantly over time. The result will be a more engaged workplace. 

Inviting your board or staff to become disrupters rather than engage in group think

 

Organizations love to live in the comfortable because the uncomfortable creates anxiety and questions that are not easily answered. This is the major reason that board members, for instance, love smooth and friendly meetings. It is why they keep hard questions to a minimum, don't tend to ask them, and live with the hope that all is okay rather than dealing with known issues. 

It is also why many leadership groups do the same thing. They do not invite disruptive questions or observations, especially if it would make the senior leader uncomfortable. This is the nature of organizations and the pressure to keep people comfortable rather than challenging what is. Those who ask disruptive questions are often marginalized or put in their place by other group members. 

How, for instance, did the Willow Creek Church or Harvest Bible Church dysfunction go on for so long, and how did the boards and staff disregard what was so apparent to those on the outside looking in? In both cases (and in multiple other cases), the desire to live in the comfort zone precluded candid discussion about what was actually going on, and in both cases, a lot was going on. In retrospect, it seems incredible that no group member called the question. Still, it is testimony to the intense pressures to ignore what is inconvenient or potentially disruptive and the power of groupthink.

There is a much healthier alternative, but it takes leaders who possess self-confidence, courage, and nothing to prove, nothing to lose attitude. It is an open invitation to engage in robust dialogue where any issue (read that again) can be put on the table except for a hidden agenda or a personal attack. 

Robust dialogue is an invitation to explore new ideas, ask disruptive questions, speak candidly without reprisal, and do so for the organization's good. It is a rare commodity in most churches and organizations. The result is that issues don't get addressed in a timely manner, those who speak candidly are diminished, and the return on mission is compromised. Unfortunately, it is a rare organization that values disruptive questions, ideas, or observations.

When I led a large international organization, I only put someone on the senior leadership team who I thought would be willing to challenge, disagree with, or take issue with me. I wanted an organization that didn't settle for comfort at the expense of being everything we could be. It made a big difference. 

Any leadership group: a board or executive team is wise to ask the question: Do we value disrupters, or do we love comfort? Have a candid conversation around that issue and see what you learn together. 

See also

What leaders and board members don't know and why

Curiosity and hard questions create discomfort but are the path to becoming better

In many organizations, those who ask the best questions become the object of criticism while the questions remain unanswered

What leaders and board members don't know and why

 

If you are in a leadership position, or a board member I have a question for you. How much do you really know about what is happening in your organization?

Studies show that leaders know far less than they think they do about what is really happening in their organization and that ignorance poses a danger to their leadership. It has been suggested that executives see 4% of the problems, Team Managers see 9% of the problems, Team Leaders see 74% of the problems and staff see 100%of the problems.

Anyone who consults, as I do, understands that this dynamic creates all kinds of issues that are dangerous to the organization. These include disgruntled staff, strategies that are no longer working, leaders who are creating more harm than good, and broken systems that eat up time and energy, and cost. 

Why does this "iceberg of ignorance" exist? Here are some reasons.

First, senior leaders (and board members) don't ask people in the organization the kinds of questions that would provide them with real knowledge. In fact, many in leadership don't ask questions at all. Rather, they assume that because they are in leadership that they understand and know the facts. That is a very dangerous and erroneous assumption. Leaders are often the last to know the actual state of affairs because unless asked, staff will not take the risk of being the bearer of bad news. 

Second, many leaders want to hear what makes them comfortable, not the real issues. Thus, they not only don't ask hard questions but they resist information that they find inconvenient. Staff quickly discern what it is that leaders want to hear and tailor their messages accordingly. It is simple self-preservation.

Peter Drucker is considered a management guru. He knew a ton about what was going on in industry and business. How did he know what he knew? Every morning for many years he would call "line operators" in various businesses and ask probing questions. He didn't call the presidents, vice presidents, or leadership team but those who actually did the work. And then he listened and asked follow up questions. 

One of the most strategic things any leader can do is to invest time, real time, in talking to staff at all levels. And in those conversations, ask good questions, listen carefully, and follow the trails that appear.

Here are some basic questions that will create meaningful dialogue and provide the leader with real information.

• On a scale of one to ten, what is your happiness factor in your work?
• What would make it higher?
• Do you have the necessary tools to do your work well?
• Are you being used to your fullest potential?
• What issues do you see from your vantage point that keep our organization from being as successful as it could be?
• Are there any people you work with who you think is in the wrong position?
• If you could change three things about our culture what would they be and why?
• If you were the president, what would you do differently in our organization?
• How can I and our management support you better?

The only way to truly understand what is going on outside of the rooms and meetings of power is to engage and listen to those who work at different levels of the organization. Never assume that you are getting the straight scoop from senior management. They often don't know because they don't ask the questions. But if you want to lead well, you will!

Ask the questions, listen carefully, and follow the trails and you will learn a great deal about the organization you lead. Ignore that discipline and you will be leading from ignorance. Many leaders do! Don't be one of them!

Curiosity and hard questions create discomfort but are the path to becoming better

 

In my recent blog on asking the right questions, I make this statement: Those who ask the best questions are often the target of criticism for asking irritating questions. In contrast, the answers to those questions often go unaddressed. Rather than focusing on the question, the organization often focuses on the one who asked it.

This raises a related question: Why are we not more curious about what is happening in our organizations? In fact, we often resist good questions and target those who ask them because it makes us uncomfortable.

In her excellent book Atlas of the Heart, Brene Brown suggests, "Choosing to be curious is choosing to be vulnerable because it requires us to surrender to uncertainty. We have to ask questions, admit to not knowing, risk being told that we shouldn't be asking, and, sometimes, make discoveries that lead to discomfort."

That is a profound statement. The truth is that those discoveries lead to discomfort that causes us to learn, grow, and get better. Comfort is not what drives us to get better. Discomfort is. 

It follows that the best leaders are not those who choose comfort but those who are willing to be uncomfortable and, in that discomfort, discover and dialogue about things they would not otherwise dialogue about.

Here is the truth about organizations. They always gravitate toward comfort. They just do! The best leaders create discomfort. They make waves without sinking the ship to discover new answers and confront the uncomfortable. 

This is also why organizations move from being missional to being institutional. In the former, there is discomfort, but in the latter, the rule becomes, "Don't rock the boat." Those who do rock the boat are often labeled as troublemakers when, in fact, they are one of your most valuable assets. They are usually long gone when you discover that truth because their curiosity and questions were unwelcome.

Church and non-profit boards are notorious for not asking the right questions and guarding the status quo rather than choosing the vulnerability of curiosity and the attending discomfort. A great exercise is a whiteboard session where everyone is invited to ask the most challenging questions about their organization. Not to criticize but to challenge the status quo, create discomfort, and see if we are satisfied with our answers. 

I recently worked with a non-profit where the interviews with constituents raised significant questions around common themes. The discomfort of the senior leader and board caused the results to be put on ice, and the conversation stopped. There was no curiosity or honest conversation. Just defensiveness and a desire to keep the status quo. And the organization will pay the price for that response. 

In choosing to be curious, Brene Brown says, we make discoveries that lead to discomfort. And it is there that we can get better. But you must be open to curiosity and hard questions to get there.

In many organizations, those who ask the best questions become the object of criticism while the questions remain unanswered

 

Here is something I have observed on numerous occasions with organizations I have worked with. 

Those who ask the best questions are often the target of criticism for asking what are considered irritating questions, while the answers often go unaddressed. Rather than focusing on the question, the organization often focuses on the one who asked it.

Why would this be? Organizations can be very protective of the status quo because the status quo is comfortable. It is what we are used to, and challenging the status quo with a hard question is often an unwelcome intrusion to the group's comfort. 

There is another phenomenon at work. Many of the paradigms of the organization were decided on by senior leaders, and they may feel that questioning the paradigm is a criticism of them. The resulting defensiveness can be a powerful message not to question their decisions.

In both instances, it is often the one who asks the questions who becomes the target of criticism while the issues they asked about are left undiscussed.

Here is the thing. Organizations that ask the best questions become the best organizations. No organization gets better without the probing questions of good people who want the best for the organization. Yet, in many instances, the pride of the group or the leader shut down the questions because they are considered irritating. This is especially true in religious institutions where we can claim "God's direction" in our actions. 

Great questions are a means of getting to the truth and better practices. I once consulted with a church board where 15 staff had left over a five-year period. I asked the obvious question as to whether exit interviews had been conducted. The answer was no. I asked why not, and the board members hung their heads. So I interviewed the fifteen and discovered similar stories of why these staff had left. In every case, it revolved around their senior leader. Why had no one asked this question? Because it would have been inconvenient and made some uncomfortable. Yet, in not asking the question, dysfunction was allowed to continue for years. 

Good questions should not be seen as threats but as a means of honing strategies, practices, and assumptions that may need reconsidering. This does not mean the current practices are ineffective, but there may be more effective ways. You get there with questions. In fact, good questions are disruptive to the organization in a great way.

So, going back to my prior observation. We ought to celebrate those who ask the best and most prescient questions rather than see those individuals as troublemakers and irritants. Your culture will either celebrate great questions or shut them down. The result will either be a better organization or one that resists true progress. 

My one caveat would be this. Any question should be invited, with the exception of a hidden agenda or a personal attack. With those two exceptions, any question should be welcomed.

Does your organization invite and encourage hard questions, or does it seek to shut those questions down? In fact, here is a question you might consider asking: What questions do we resist asking because we are not sure we want to know the answer? Start with those.

Proud organizations and leaders with egos resist good questions. Humble organizations and humble leaders welcome them because it is not about them but about the mission.