Corporate Culture - What's the Basis for Yours?

As someone who loves to talk about maximizing the effective use of Human Capital, one of the things that is a key component of attracting and retaining the right talent is having a corporate culture that is worthy of embracing and furthering. After all, culture is what defines people groups in different parts of the world from other people groups. Skin tone has very little to do with it; in fact, in a country like India where there are thousands of people groups and yet, for the most part, everyone looks the same, it's this element of culture that rallies people together at the start and keeps them together for the long haul.

So...what defines your corporate culture? Maybe your culture has elements of trusting one another, taking risks, embracing change, or continual improvement. Those are all good things, but you have to ask the question, why are those elements of your culture? Profitability? Perhaps, but those things (and really any things) will not alone drive profitability, especially sustained profitability. At the heart of it I think it comes down to one thing.

Conscience.

Now, before I keep going, I have to admit that my inspiration for this blog post came from a message I heard today from Andy Stanley. He was talking about conscience as it influences culture, and that's why we have so many different cultures - we have many different consciences (is that a word?). That's why things like polygamy are very much OK in one part of the world while we Americans only talk about it with disgust.

So how does this apply to corporate culture? Does a corporation have a conscience? You betcha. Its conscience likely developed during its founding, and has also likely evolved as it has experienced more and has had its corporate conscience tested by the world.

But if a conscience can evolve and grow, how do you know whether to trust it as you form a corporate culture?

I think it depends on what formed the corporation's conscience in the first place. Was it an informed decision about what the corporate culture would be and why, or was it more of a "well, this feels right, so it must be right". I'd venture to say that feelings have little to do with having a well-grounded conscience. Instead, it is conviction and passion and truth, not feelings, that truly inform and sustain conscience, and a grounded conscience can then form a culture that is defendable and sustainable and enduring.

So are feelings unimportant? Absolutely not. Feelings can help to validate conviction and passion and truth, and are an important part of providing motivation and assurance. But trusting feelings to be the source of our conscience is, well, as silly as a screen door on a submarine.

Yellow, that is.

Why Feelings Shouldn't Be Trusted

I was speaking with a very dear couple (count them among our closest friends) last night in our group that has a mom who has gotten completely delusional. She has begun to accuse her husband of 50+ years of various crimes against their marriage. Now, none of the crimes are true, but the “trueness” of the feelings in her head make it absolutely true to her, and, depending on who she talks to and to what degree they have complete context, she is very convincing that these crimes actually occurred. Her feelings and self-rationalization have created a reality that is nothing close to actual reality, but without being willing to research and accept truth (her mind isn’t able to do so and will require medical intervention), her alternate view of the world will never be changed.

The mind is a very funny thing. It has the power to convince us of things that have no basis in reality, but it really doesn’t matter. We can put ourselves in the position of finding comfort in our own internal discourse and simply deciding that we don’t need anyone else (or anything else) to challenge us. However, if we do allow others and other sources to at least challenge us, it only adds 1)defense to the position we have embraced, or 2)evidence of the fallacies we have accepted.

I remember how troubled I felt after seeing the movie "A Beautiful Mind". I couldn't believe that John Nash could be so convinced in his mind of a reality that wasn't based on truth that it eventually caused him to go completely insane - not knowing what was real and what was fake. And I've talked to a few men over the past few years that have been involved in divorces where their spouses created alternate realities that, in one case, completely destroyed one man's career, community, and rocked his faith. However, in this one case, not only did he know the truth about his marriage relationship and the false accusations that came from his spouse who "felt" strongly about those accusations, but he also knew the Truth about his Savior and chose to cling there and find redemption over time. Now when I see him, there's a peace that emanates - but it's not a false peace. He is a scarred person - scarred by feelings not based in truth - but he also knows that his only philosophy/faith/world view or whatever you want to call it cannot be based on what he feels at the moment or what others feel about him, but it can only be based in truth. In his case, that truth is from the collection of books in the Bible, and the accounts of countless people who walked with or in some other way experienced the story of Jesus Christ.

I have nothing against anyone who is on a journey of struggling with faith - in fact, I am more encouraged by them than those that blindly accept Christ without searching for themselves. There are countless examples - the disciples themselves - that struggled with faith all during Jesus’ life with them and even AFTER the resurrection. And they were there! But a struggle implies two or more forces, and one of those forces must be something other than our minds and feelings. Otherwise, it’s not much of a fight, is it….

AM

Thankful for the Rain

I heard on the news today that the drought in metro Atlanta is finally over.

Hooray!

Now I can leave.

Assuming It's Someone Else's Fault

Now, I know I probably do this as well, especially if I'm trying to cover up the fact that I in fact know it's my fault, but I was struck on this late night after work about how often we just assume someone else, well, screwed up.

I had an email exchange with an insurance agent, who has been helpful in getting me some quotes. They were supposed to send me an updated one Tuesday morning, per their email to me Monday evening. So, I checked my email again this morning, and I still hadn't received it, so I sent a friendly email off asking if perhaps I had missed it (I always find that a better response than, "where's my freakin stuff, loser?"). Their response back to me was "I did send it to you, but you didn't get it".

Now, how would that kind of response help? Perhaps I am being a little overly sensitive, but I was pretty peeved at this. But a slight tweak of the response would have made it go over a LOT easier. For example, "Oh, I am so sorry. I am positive I emailed it to you yesterday, but something must have happened. I will send it again right away. Please let me know if you don't receive it."

Too verbose? Maybe. Unnecessarily apologetic? Perhaps. But, would it have worked and eliminated this late night blog post? Absolutely.

So, look. If you aren't sure whose fault it is, and it's a minor thing, just assume that something (not someone) went wrong and apologize for the situation (not for doing something wrong) and move on. Heck, even if you know it's someone else's fault, there are nicer ways to call it to their attention rather than calling them out. Kindness and consideration are powerful things that aren't used very much anymore.

Try them out...you might be surprised.