Many leaders we work with have a hard time believing that a healthy working culture is the key to improving performance, productivity and creativity in their teams. Their focus naturally zeros in on what needs to get done, not the context in which it takes place. ["We're all here to do a job so let's just get on with it."] Not surprisingly, culture is readily overlooked; it is an intangible variable we don't know how to measure directly, and certainly not during the day-to-day work flow.
Most of us, however, have experience with both extremes: highly productive cultures where individuals are enthusiastic, motivated by their work and supportive to others: customers, colleagues, vendors; and unproductive cultures, where just getting up in the morning to face working beside negative, unsupportive colleagues can be stressful.
This begs the question: What creates the difference between a toxic and a productive culture?
In his book, The Speed of Trust, Stephen Covey isolates trust as the fundamental element that creates a healthy culture which in turns leads to greater performance. Other studies around employee satisfaction and engagement also support the fact that, if trust were new machinery, no CEO would hesitate to make the investment because it would be one of the investment options with the highest returns available to the organization.
So what holds trust back? The main reason is that the principal influencer of culture is the leader's style, and many leaders are not prepared to take the time, or risk, to consider how their words and actions impact the culture around them. Leaders we approach around this point often believe that to do so would be a sign of weakness on their part.
The consequence of this situation, however, is that in cultures that do not foster trust, there is a sense of fear in the group. Fear comes from feeling a lack of control in one's life, from unpleasant interactions and perceived put-downs to threats of losing one's job. It is all linked to a gnawing feeling that people are not dealing with truth. Many fundamental questions are unspoken: Can I trust my boss? Do I know what he or she thinks? Do I have a good sense that what he says is what he means? If I make a mistake will I be reprimanded and berated? Or will I be understood and helped? Are there things that cannot be discussed?
The more unclear the answers to these questions, the less staffers feel they know their leader, and the more distant they remain. This is not just an inconvenience; it is a major drain on the organization. The leader's style has far reaching consequences. Whether the leader helps with mistakes or gets angry and disapproving will decide whether people are willing to admit to mistakes and ask for help when they are overwhelmed or do not know how to proceed. The more the leader gets impatient and frustrated, the bigger the risks are to that leader that problems are kept from her.
Nothing is more quietly destructive than when issues are not addressed openly. People hold back information, avoid taking initiative, and wait for the boss to speak first. In extreme versions, the leader ends up surrounded by "yes-men", an environment that encourages taking credit when things have gone well and pointing fingers when mistakes are made, not acknowledging the work of colleagues, and eventually back-stabbing.
Leaders often miss the opportunity to improve overall performance by adapting their management style and the culture of the group to ensure that trust is present. Yet in practice, it is the one lever that is directly under their control, and has the greatest impact in the shortest period of time.
Alain Bolea
