Sandeep, thanks for sharing. Your presentation is excellent. The CEO's role is most critical as it can influence and shape the other two, ASA and Socialization.
I agree with you, Panikos. I do, however, worry about putting the CEO's role above others because often when we attribute so much power and influence to the leader, we give away the power and influence within the other parts of the organization. The CEO absolutely sets the tone and expectations for the rest of the organization but over-reliance on this already-overwhelmed role can threaten the attention and action that others in the organization can take to create change. In an ideal world, the change efforts are multi-directional--top-down from the CEO, laterally amongst middle management and bottom-up from staff to the executives.
Sandeep, thank you for your insights and guidance on how to create change in the culture of an organization. Your explanations and examples so clearly bring to life the three approaches you share.
Hi Sandeep, I am a big believer in co-created cultures. People instinctively know the mindsets, actions and behaviours that create environments where individuals and teams can be successful. Providing them with an opportunity to identify the elements of their current culture to keep and let go of, and new ones to add (stop, continue, start) produces a co-created cultural framework to build over time. People are more likely to own and support a new culture they have defined.
Who drives organizational culture? Is it the founders? How do they define culture? What happens when more and more people join the company? People bring their own good and toxic culture, and others learn from them, be it mutual respect, honesty or even nepotism. I have seen huge organizations with such toxic culture that an upright and honest person wouldn’t last very long. I am not sure good culture is driven by top Management. Maybe I am wrong, so please correct me.
Thank you for your thoughtful question, Sheshadri. Culture is the cumulative result of the values and behaviours (explicit and implicit) of all its people. But some people exert more power than others--maybe because of their positions (founders, C-suites, etc.), or because of their personalities (assertive and strength of conviction). The final outcome of the expected or tolerated behaviours is a function of the cumulative personalities and environment. Those with more power shape the environment more strongly, resulting in shaping the culture (more than others). And the new people that join the organization are then assimilated into that environment. Good culture can be driven by anyone but the pushback would be so much greater if the people wanting/upholding the good culture don't have positional power and/or are not assertive. It may feel like rolling a boulder uphill, which is why so many good people quit toxic work cultures--prioritizing their own well-being!
Yes, that would impact the organizational culture in multiple ways. Suppose the underperformers get fired without an opportunity to improve (coaching, training, mentoring, shadowing, etc.). In that case, it may create a culture where people fear making mistakes or not delivering on the organizational objectives. Suppose the underperformance is determined without considering the situation or context. In that case, you may lose talent going through some external situation that may be negatively but temporarily impacting someone's performance. That could result in an organizational culture with low compassion and commitment. These two examples demonstrate that simply firing underperformers is not the obvious or the optimal solution unless the organization deploys appropriate strategies to understand the presenting problem and devise solutions that address the root cause of the problem rather than a quick fix of the apparent symptoms.
![เขามัทรี - เอ็กซ์ ศุภกฤต - จอนนี่มิวสิค [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AS9ufKuQIVs/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you very much for your knowledge sharing about OC . I used those points to My MBA research
I'm glad to hear that. Thanks for sharing!
Sandeep, thanks for sharing. Your presentation is excellent. The CEO's role is most critical as it can influence and shape the other two, ASA and Socialization.
I agree with you, Panikos. I do, however, worry about putting the CEO's role above others because often when we attribute so much power and influence to the leader, we give away the power and influence within the other parts of the organization. The CEO absolutely sets the tone and expectations for the rest of the organization but over-reliance on this already-overwhelmed role can threaten the attention and action that others in the organization can take to create change. In an ideal world, the change efforts are multi-directional--top-down from the CEO, laterally amongst middle management and bottom-up from staff to the executives.
I find your video very interesting for my assessment in leadership and change management. Thank you so much, great way of explaining this topic. 👌👌👌
Glad it was helpful!
your content and way of delivering the information is just amazing! Thank you for this useful video.
Thanks Shadi; that's very kind of you.
Sandeep, thank you for your insights and guidance on how to create change in the culture of an organization. Your explanations and examples so clearly bring to life the three approaches you share.
Thanks, Phil! Given your extensive experience in change management, I'm curious to learn if there is another approach that you'd add to this list.
Hi Sandeep, I am a big believer in co-created cultures. People instinctively know the mindsets, actions and behaviours that create environments where individuals and teams can be successful. Providing them with an opportunity to identify the elements of their current culture to keep and let go of, and new ones to add (stop, continue, start) produces a co-created cultural framework to build over time. People are more likely to own and support a new culture they have defined.
That's an excellent reminder to incorporate in the very first step when determining the ideal culture. Thanks, Phil!
Great examples Sandeep !! Thanks for sharing !!
Thanks G; I'm glad you found value in it :)
Thanks for the video 😁
Thanks for sharing. Nice insight.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I just looked at this and I'm very interested in engaging further with you. I am an organizational psychologist in Africa
Happy to chat, Tsembayena. Let's connect on LinkedIn.
Who drives organizational culture? Is it the founders? How do they define culture? What happens when more and more people join the company? People bring their own good and toxic culture, and others learn from them, be it mutual respect, honesty or even nepotism.
I have seen huge organizations with such toxic culture that an upright and honest person wouldn’t last very long. I am not sure good culture is driven by top Management. Maybe I am wrong, so please correct me.
Thank you for your thoughtful question, Sheshadri.
Culture is the cumulative result of the values and behaviours (explicit and implicit) of all its people. But some people exert more power than others--maybe because of their positions (founders, C-suites, etc.), or because of their personalities (assertive and strength of conviction). The final outcome of the expected or tolerated behaviours is a function of the cumulative personalities and environment. Those with more power shape the environment more strongly, resulting in shaping the culture (more than others). And the new people that join the organization are then assimilated into that environment.
Good culture can be driven by anyone but the pushback would be so much greater if the people wanting/upholding the good culture don't have positional power and/or are not assertive. It may feel like rolling a boulder uphill, which is why so many good people quit toxic work cultures--prioritizing their own well-being!
thank you very much
Excellent presentation, you are very pretty. I love you
Thank you 🙏
Very clear
Glad you think so!
Are you an Indian Sandeep??
Yes
If you fire under performers organizational culture will be changed
Yes, that would impact the organizational culture in multiple ways. Suppose the underperformers get fired without an opportunity to improve (coaching, training, mentoring, shadowing, etc.). In that case, it may create a culture where people fear making mistakes or not delivering on the organizational objectives. Suppose the underperformance is determined without considering the situation or context. In that case, you may lose talent going through some external situation that may be negatively but temporarily impacting someone's performance. That could result in an organizational culture with low compassion and commitment. These two examples demonstrate that simply firing underperformers is not the obvious or the optimal solution unless the organization deploys appropriate strategies to understand the presenting problem and devise solutions that address the root cause of the problem rather than a quick fix of the apparent symptoms.