Recently I challenged a post by Sally, whose work I admire. She wrote: “Leadership will make or break your culture. On this there is no middle ground.” I asked a simple question: If culture fails, must we blame the leaders? More importantly, does assigning blame actually fix anything? The familiar response from most management consultants to a failing culture is more leadership and team training, better role modelling, clearer expectations and stronger managerial accountability. These may help. But they keep returning us to the same assumption: better leaders are the answer.
Objections Before Complaints: Get It Wrong and Maybe We’re Screwed
We encourage people to speak up at work. But what happens when the person they're speaking to responds unfairly? Imagine you raise a concern about a faulty screw during a team meeting. Your manager dismisses you rudely or simply ignores your concerns. The screw may or may not be faulty. That's one issue. Your manager's behaviour is another. So, you complain anonymously about her to HR. But consider what happens next.
It’s the Review Process, Stupid!
Organizations need to hear this, in my opinion; No more being mister nice guy. It is time for the team and manager to be held to account for any misbehavior. But what fundamentally makes a behavioural accountability system work? Is it the rules? The leadership? The consequences? I think the answer lies in something often overlooked: the review process. SpatzAI is built around a simple principle: Accountability Before Authority.
The Real Cost of Accountability — And Where to Buy It
Accountability is often treated as something heavy. An issue involving objectionable behaviour arises. A manager steps in. Someone is called to account. There may be a reprimand, a formal conversation, an investigation or, eventually, an HR grievance. But accountability does not have to start there. Sometimes we use a costly sledgehammer to crack a nut when a simple nutcracker would do. At its smallest, accountability can be almost costless. Sue: “Caution! That came across as rude.” Jim: “Fair point.” Done.....
Designed Personality vs Designed System
I think there are two very different ways to approach workplace culture. The first is the familiar leadership-modelling solution. Leaders are expected to model respectful behaviour, set the tone, reinforce values, correct poor behaviour, resolve disputes and somehow embody the culture everyone else is expected to follow. At its best, this can work remarkably well. A strong leader can create a strong culture.
The Empress’s New Safety
Psychological safety has become one of the workplace’s most fashionable promises, with all sorts of management consultants making these unfounded promoises. We are told that psychologically safe teams speak up more, learn faster, innovate better and make fewer mistakes. I have little argument with the destination. My problem is with the vehicle. Ironically when one speaks up and asks where is the test data from the operating system? Cue the crickets.
The “Gift” of Feedback
We often hear that feedback is a gift. I think that idea can become dangerous when it quietly turns into: “If someone gives you feedback, you should accept it, however they choose to deliver it.” That is where I think psychological safety can begin to unravel. Feedback contains at least two separate things: Content — what the person is actually saying Delivery — how they choose to say it.
Does Leadership Need to Create or Model Workplace Culture?
A standard definition of workplace culture is: Workplace culture is the shared assumptions, values, norms, beliefs, practices and patterns of behaviour that shape how people in an organisation think, interact and make decisions. Most culture frameworks then place leadership at the centre. Leaders are expected to model the desired behaviour, set the tone, correct others and somehow embody the culture. I’m increasingly unconvinced by that model, particularly the weakness of a system that relies so heavily on a relatively small number of individuals.
I Disagree With Conflating “Conflict”: Why disagreement and conflict are not the same thing
I recently came across a useful distinction between a hypothesis and a theory. A hypothesis is a testable proposition. A theory is a developed explanation supported by substantial evidence. That got me thinking about two other words I use a lot: framework and paradigm. A framework is the structure we use to organise concepts, assumptions and questions. A paradigm is broader again: the established way a field tends to understand a subject. Which raises an interesting question for workplace conflict.
Better Safe Than Sorry
“Better safe than sorry” is one of those everyday sayings we rarely question. Wear the seatbelt. Check the lock. Back up the file. Test the smoke alarm. The logic is simple: a small precaution now may prevent a much bigger problem later. So why do we so often abandon that logic when it comes to workplace misbehaviour?
