What is Organizational Culture?

Organizational Culture: What Is It and What Is It Good For?

There are some work places that seem happy and cheerful and those in them appear motivated and receptive. And then there are other kinds of organizations where you sense tensions and an attitude that says, ‘it is not my responsibility; I am doing a job.’ With some organizations, collaborations seem easy to nurture, and with others they become too dependent upon individuals, and, thus, transitory. An organization has an internal and external personality that is reflected in the people who work there and affects all those who come in contact with it.

We know that these patterns of behavior and relationships are reflective of the culture of the organization. New persons getting into the organization are drawn into this and they either imbibe or adapt to these patterns of behavior or they have to leave. Other structures and people coming into contact with the organization also sense the kind of relationship they can build and can expect from the organization.

The challenges of setting up and building an organization and of ensuring mindfulness in a large existing structure are related, but manifest in different ways. The environment or the culture of the organization may be euphemistically called its DNA. Anyone joining it, starts assimilating and reflecting it.

This culture is the essence of how people in an organization feel about their work, the way they relate to each other and how they function in their day-to-day routines. It is the sensibility that can make team members ask each other questions fearlessly, relate to each other as working collaborators, individuals to be respected, listen to (and not only ‘hear’) each other and to be alive to gestures and emotions of colleagues.

Organizational culture can entail a sense of friendship and a genuine relationship of appreciation, criticism, trust and support that in turn fosters a spirit of a collective and cooperative enterprise. On the other hand, it could be an environment of suspicion, mistrust, competition, hierarchy, and extremely differential behavior.

Why Are Organizations the Way They Are?

The question is how do organizations come to be on different positions on these axes. Is it because of their goodness and commitment to goals or it is the quality and clarity of purpose? Is it to do with the leadership’s style of functioning? Is it to do with the people who are chosen and added to the organization? Is it to do with the world outside, the situation where the organization is and the practices in that environment? Is it to do with the decision-making structures of the organization and the way new members are assimilated so as to give a sense of ownership and self-confidence? Actually, it is all and none of these.

Leadership matters and a charismatic leader can make colleagues feel happy and motivated besides feeling convinced about the organization’s purpose. Similarly, an organization could have been set up by a group of like-minded close friends who share a dream and have had many conversations around it before coming together. It may be careful in the selection of new members/ workers/employees.

In order to convey a spirit of participation, it may develop multiple levels of structures for decision making. A small organization may decide that all decisions would be taken collectively and everyone in the organization would participate. We may avoid the use of terms like hiring and use ‘on-boarding’ and create other such forms. There may be organizations who are in areas of work that are in vogue and in demand, and are not under the stress of competition.

But none of this is sufficient for ensuring that individuals do not feel stressed. Collective decision-making processes can degenerate into factional or relationship mobilizations and acrimony.

The purpose of the organization can become just maintaining form and process, rather than pursuing the goals it set out to do. Simple decisions can take a whole lot of energy of the organization, leading to impatience and suppressed anger among the team.

This does not happen starkly, all at once. But slowly the dissatisfaction and unhappiness vortex draw people in and terms like coworkers, team members, on-boarding etc., become just labels and do not reflect what they were intended to mean anymore.

Clearly organizational culture is a complex manifestation of the interplay of all the factors mentioned above and of some others as well. Culture of an organization is not only a function of the kind of people who form it or who are recruited into it. People and their motivations are important ingredients of organizational culture. But they have to be scaffolded by systems and processes that are transparent and a working environment that is not very stressful or insecure for any individual.

Does Organizational Size Matter?

It requires efforts to ensure alignment to the organization’s values to the best extent possible. A motivated young person joining a large system may become frustrated and demotivated very soon. In a small organization she may come in conflict with equally motivated and dedicated individuals. There is a need for adjustments within competing and ‘apparently’ conflicting motivations.

“Leadership matters and a charismatic leader can make colleagues feel happy and motivated.”

The organizational structure has to accommodate and provide spaces for the urge of each member to contribute in a significant manner, to feel valued and respected or even revered, and find an expression for the spirit of doing something new and different, something that is not a legacy of the history of the organization but something that is innovative.

In smaller organizations keeping such balances have challenges that are very different from the concerns in a larger organization. For a small organization, there are fewer avenues for expression and an intense competition for this. Besides, small organizations are more flexible and can take many roads. There is often no clear criterion for choosing other than the ability of the person who argues the case for a particular future direction. Personalities of individuals and the chemistry between them become critical constraints.

“The balancing of organizational goals and efficiency with individual desires and aspirations become crucial factors that determine the atmosphere.”

Larger and older organizations on the other hand have the baggage of history and slots already cut out for people to fit into. More spaces for expression might exist, but that is limited by the slots and the direction and manner of work already taken. There is less space for flexible participation and contributions to multiple strands of work.

The Same Size Does Not Fit All

Apart from the size of the organization, aspects like its nature, such as being a for-profit or a not-for-profit institution, its revenues sources, clarity of purpose, its public interfaces, its motto or its theory of change, the ground conditions of its work etc. can affect the working atmosphere. The balancing of organizational goals and efficiency with individual desires and aspirations become crucial factors that determine the atmosphere. Organizations need a culture that ensures that each member feels contributive and has real access to open forums that are ‘hearing’ and responding to what is being felt. They also need to create possibilities and support systems for people to change roles, and to ensure that norms apply equitably.

The markers of hierarchy and status in the organization need to be subdued to the extent possible and an awareness needs to exist preventing it. These are easier said than put into reality of functioning beyond the skin-deep form. Even though the form is also useful in reminding people of the underlying intention. Human relationships, aspirations, desires and belief systems are complex. They are all in the cauldron of the functioning. Structures and processes have to consciously avoid becoming feudal or worshipful.

My experience suggests that maybe no magic formulas exist. A healthy organizational climate has to be constructed and scaffolded each moment. As a new organization you can start with being fully aware and checking alignment with the goals and the roles. You can mark territories for each of the persons in the team. But as the work and the organization grows, and grow it must, for that is what people have come together for, new negotiations and adjustments are needed.

Sometimes, expectations that all decisions have to be participative and context-based make for confusions and tensions. The sooner a transparent structure of decision making is set up, it becomes easier to have a good working atmosphere. The structure should be aligned to the roles and responsibilities of people. It must be universally applicable to all and should not be open to case-bycase adjustments. This does not mean being bound by unfeeling rules and traditions but having a core set of values and norms that everyone follows.

It is not the benevolence or the magnanimity of the founding team, the experts or the seniors that makes them listen to voices with concern and attention but a necessity assigned by the role they occupy. The moment the role is handed over, and there must be systems in the organizations to ensure this, they need to step away from functioning the way they did. Organizational culture is built from ground up and top down – both working in alignment recognizing the importance of each role and being uncompromising in confronting transgressions of core values, structural processes and assigned roles.