Subtle bad behaviours, deeply embedded inhuman ingenuity, are often responsible for the toxic shock capable of bringing down an organisation. Mark Goodridge explores four of the most common.
It’s not always the big business sins of theft, greed, envy and sloth, but those more subtle behaviours that infect gatherings of humans and can so easily create a toxic poison, which blunts strategy and blinds us to what seems later on as the inevitable.
For example, just recently I sat with the Executive Committee of a large quoted organisation observing the behaviour of their meeting. I had been asked to see whether there was any further progress they could make having been told that they were already a high performing team. Yet there seemed to be some discomfort at my presence. “We have already done the team bit, we now need to get on with some business,” one member volunteered.
What I observed over that half day was a wide range of behaviours, which in total delivered a negative outcome, though not negative on the day. Indeed, everyone said what a good meeting it was and having me there reminded them of how they should behave in a meeting – so that must have been a good thing. However, two months later, it emerged the meeting had resolved nothing; the real issues had been skirted around; and those that were aware of the impending problems didn’t share their knowledge.
In hindsight, it was obvious that the individuals around the table on that fateful day went away with different understandings of what had been agreed. The actions decided during that board meeting had been cascaded down the organisation, but now middle management is saying that the action is nonsense, so each department is doing its own thing and not working together. Worst of all, the customers were seeing the nonsense – one department saying one thing and another something quite different. In short, proof that those present at that initial meeting had misinterpreted what had been agreed.
Most organisations have developed their own ‘language’. As an advisor to organisations, I often feel the need to slip a new CD-Rom into my brain to give me the landscape and the lexicon of each organisation that I visit. It can be really hard to detect toxic behaviour. More often than not, toxic behaviour seems quite normal on the surface because the words sound reasonable. Toxic behaviour cannot always be detected by words alone, but only after meanings and actions have taken place. It takes time to judge the meanings and actions that follow, and those that are responsible for toxic behaviours.
It is a current practice for organisations to specify ‘values and behaviours’ as a mechanism for trying to change organisation behaviour. But rarely do such catalogues get into those subtle, toxic behaviours that so stultify organisational growth. So I’m going to expand on just four of the many toxic behaviours: politics and self, the real meaning of ‘yes’ and ‘no’, time and excuses.
1. Politics and self
Martin Luke’s strip in Thursday’s Financial Times is naked politics – that is why it is such fun. Politics is a word often used about how both individuals and organisations behave, yet alas it is rarely defined. In fact, it seems to have little common meaning, apart from conveying a series of ill-defined happenings that I don’t like. I’ve rarely heard anyone admit to ‘playing politics’; it is a word we tend to ascribe to others. I have been known to use the words ‘she’s political’ myself, so here’s an explanation of what I mean by it. Politics is the practice of power. Power is an inevitable facet of organisations; some people tend to be more powerful than others. Those with power make decisions, decisions that have wide-ranging consequences for the business and people’s lives. This is not what I mean when I use the term ‘organisational politics’. I’m referring to one less desirable facet of politics, the use of one’s power and influence in an organisation to promote one’s own personal agenda at the expense of the organisation’s goals and purposes, and at the expense of others. Is this surprising? Not really. We all have our own motives for being at work. And as much as we try to work in the best interest of the whole business, it is inevitable that our actions, in part, are driven by what we as individuals want – and that must feature somewhere on the scale. That negative use of the word ‘office politics’ for me is about balance – when the balance towards the individual becomes negative for the business, that is when the behaviour turns negative.
The promotion of self is not bad as long as it is interpreted as ambition. So there is no measurable benchmark of political behaviour, it’s all in the eye of the beholder. When I hear ‘organisational politics’, I don’t know whether I’m hearing that the object of the comment is doing something that is against my personal interest or is doing something against the business interest. I suspect we call both ‘politics’.
What can we do about it? We need to be more thoughtful in our challenge of others. Challenge should be open and direct rather than covert and behind people’s back. So we need to be on our guard for the naked pursuit of self that is so well illustrated in Martin Luke’s column in the FT, where a nonsense lexicon of corporate sounding words and ideas thinly mask a man making toxic politics.
2. The real meanings behind the words ‘yes’ and ‘no’
The Chief Executive is frustrated because we make all these decisions, yet they don’t get implemented. We don’t do what we say. ‘Yes’ is the highlight of the meeting. It signifies a result, but does it? When we say ‘yes’, what do we mean? I can think of a number of options. I may be saying: “This is quite right, a major opportunity, we must do it, even if other things must slip and I need to change my other priorities.” It may also mean, “I have reservations which I have expressed, but I will give my public support and make it happen.”
Both of these seem pretty transparent and positive outcomes. However, ‘yes’ may also mean: “This is probably right, I’ll fit it in when I can.” This is the clash of priorities; the proposer of the idea imagines each party will treat the matter with the same priority and becomes frustrated when it becomes apparent that little progress has been made. Finally, ‘yes’ may also mean: “I’ll go along with it, but will do nothing to make it happen.” This is toxic. We are acting ‘as if’ we are making decisions, but have not had the courage or confidence to confront the issue. It is easier and more convenient just to nod the proposal through.
If we have this wide spectrum of meaning over the word ‘yes’ then we can rightly imagine a similar confusion over the word ‘no’. ‘No’ may mean: “I disagree and have an alternative proposition.” Or: “This is quite wrong, a serious mistake I cannot go along with, and I’m prepared to say so.” Both of these meanings are positive negatives. They are clear and assertive and demonstrate that a gap still exists that needs to be bridged. On the other hand, we deploy the passive or the silent ‘no’ that actually means: “This won’t work, not worth making a fuss about. Given all the other pressures upon us they’ll soon forget it.” This is a quite unhelpful outcome. It is playing a game of superficial acceptance without the intention to enact it. Even more negative is the ‘no’ that means: “I can sabotage this.” And then there is the silent, assumptive ‘yes’. We assume that the silence in the room is the go ahead we’ve been looking for. Beware the brooding silence! Never take a ‘yes’ on face value, as there are often hidden dangers lurking beneath.
3. Time
Time is a wonderfully strong dimension to manipulate action. I recall a Chief Executive of a major Corporation who asked me to undertake a piece of work that involved his HR Director. The Director was so charming, so supportive of the project and protested his belief that the project’s successful outcome would have a positive impact on the company’s major change programme. Yet phone calls were never returned, meeting dates could never quite be fitted in, and a new crisis meant that now wasn’t quite the right time to act. The end result - massive delay. The project hit the sand of time and nothing happened. “It was just events,” I was told. This example illustrates how time manipulation can be toxic. So many actions can be driven into the sand by delay. It also highlights the fact that issues change with time, and so are perishable, i.e. have a sell-by-date. And those that want to make mischief can use this to their advantage.
4. Excuses and ‘busyness’
I want to write a book of excuses. Human ingenuity is often at its best when we seek to justify why we have not delivered what we have committed to delivering. Some organisational cultures are particularly tolerant of excuses. Transport, health and family are easy and familiar themes to blame. All are presented as entirely outside one’s control and therefore legitimate. ‘Busyness’ the signature excuse of all executives is more difficult. Even if one is not busy, one’s self-esteem seems dependent upon playing the busy card.
As I sit and write this article, I know that it is two weeks late. I’m conscious of playing the ‘busyness’ card to myself. So what is important? How do I spend my time? I can justify most of what I do rather well (to myself, that is). I work with colleagues who have run out of bandwidth. The demands upon them are greater than they can humanly process, so the entire organisation starts to react. It goes into shock and becomes paralysed. It is all very well intentioned and there’s no malice, but the challenge here is to recognise what is possible.
In conclusion
There are helpful and unhelpful behaviours in every organisation. The more subtle behaviours are those that can become toxic, as they are hard to pin down and are deeply embedded in human ingenuity. To overcome this toxic behaviour, we need to firstly recognise when we deploy these behaviours. Secondly, we need to understand the impact they have on others. Only then, are we in a better position to challenge and change the environment in which these toxic behaviours can flourish.
Overcoming toxic behaviours: Hints and tips
Politics: If you are suspicious that games are being played, then challenge the behaviour but not head-on. Accusing anyone of being selfish most often results in denial. But remember just because you think that someone is acting in his or her own interest, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is against the interest of the company. After all, isn’t that what incentives are all about?
The real meanings behind ‘yes’ and ‘no’: Check understanding constantly – do they mean what I mean? Be explicit, particularly about decisions; pin down delivery times and resources. Always follow through with the performance feedback; How is it going? What are we doing to get back on track?
Time: Challenge the priorities, reflect back how it seems from your perspective; make sure you don’t fall into the same trap of using delay to counter delay.
Excuses: Most excuses are genuine, but that is not the point. The point is that it is outcomes that matter. I’m interested in explanations, but I’m more interested in the result. People need to know this. They need to understand that you hold them accountable for overcoming obstacles not pointing them out.
