…a culture is defined by what it allows
Most organisations do not set out to become dysfunctional. None set out to descend into corruption. Unless they were corrupt to begin with.
Indeed, if one were to survey the Board, the Executive Team, the Partners, the Managers and the People & Culture department, one suspects virtually all would express enthusiastic support for integrity, accountability, professionalism and ethical conduct.
Corporate values, after all, are remarkably popular. And similar. At least in the beginning…
The difficulty lies elsewhere. Organisations rarely become what they proclaim. Instead, they become what they tolerate.
This distinction is not merely academic. It is a simple observation of reality.
Consider the process: a minor act of dishonesty occurs. Nothing dramatic. Nothing worthy of immediate alarm. A small misrepresentation. A selective omission. A convenient distortion.
Someone notices. Nobody acts.
The organisation has just learned something. Not from its policies. Not from its values. Not from its annual compliance training. But from inaction.
It has learned that dishonesty is permissible. Provided it is sufficiently useful.
The next incident arrives. Slightly larger. Slightly bolder.
Again, no meaningful consequence follows.
The organisation learns a second lesson: the boundaries were not merely flexible, they were imaginary.
And so the process continues.
Not through conspiracy.
Not through malice.
Not even through deliberate intent.
Through tolerance.
The quiet tolerance of conduct that should never have been tolerated in the first place. Soon enough, individuals begin adapting themselves accordingly. The honest employee learns that honesty attracts inconvenience. The conscientious employee learns that principles attract scrutiny. The ambitious employee learns that results matter more than methods or morals.
And the Charlotte Kok – there is at least one in every organisation – learns she has correctly understood the system from the beginning.
At this point, readers often ask an important question: Where were the leaders?
The answer is simple. Precisely where they always are. Watching. Explaining. Rationalising.
Reassuring themselves that this particular incident is isolated. That this particular concern is exaggerated. That this particular individual deserves one more opportunity.
After all, difficult personalities often produce results.
Until eventually an organisation discovers that it has spent years making exceptions. And exceptions, repeated often enough, become culture.
Leave a comment