Just “Culture” or “Just” Culture?

Is your company stuck in the 19th or early-20th century “find me a victim” scenario? Did you drink the Kool Aid and get sucked into the “no fault, gather around the camp fire, pound a drum and chant” syndrome? Did you eventually snap out of your delusion only to revert to finding victims? “Spare the rod, spoil the child,” is still valid but it has to done judiciously. Punishment for the sake of punishing is sadistic and counterproductive.

There need to be consequences for adverse actions — but just like Newton’s Law of Motion (which states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction), consequences need to be in line with the adverse action to be construed as fair. The severity or frequency of the action should dictate the commensurate consequence.

We all look at this in the negative light, and I started you out on that path with the first paragraph. Your employee’s behavior is not at a steady state. You want to discourage unfavorable behavior and encourage favorable behavior. So, for every unfavorable action, there is an equal and unfavorable reaction. For every favorable action there is an equal and favorable reaction. We often find it too easy to jump on adverse actions but are reluctant or oblivious to identify when things go well and dismiss them as, “that is their job.” Maybe it’s just doing their job, but it’s good practice to recognize that fact on occasion and reward employees when they go beyond “just their job.”

“Just” pretext

This might sound like the rudiments of a concept called just culture — and it is. It’s not just “culture,”  it’s “just” culture. (If you are interested in the former, stop reading and turn to another article.) When I refer to “just” in this context, I am referring to the derivative of justice and fairness. Culture is a set of shared values, attitudes and beliefs. So you have a shared belief that your value will be recognized and the attitude that you will be treated fairly. That’s it. It’s a psychological contract between the employees and management.

Just culture is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It’s not a “time out zone and go stand in the corner” solution. There must be consequences for certain actions. You can’t just look for a victim and call it progress. The system and management must also be viewed as a potentially culpable participant in any action, adverse or otherwise.

There is plenty of material out there to show you how to implement a just culture in your organization. The adage, “build a better mouse trap and the world will lead a path to your door” does not hold true here. Merely installing just culture isn’t enough. You can’t read a book or go to a seminar, return to your organization and plug in just culture and watch it work. I guarantee that it will be a failure and will be put on the shelf with the other “programs of the month.” Just culture is not a product you can buy, a technique you can learn or a system you can install. Just culture is a philosophy and requires a shared belief and attitude of mutual value that justice will prevail and be uniformly administered. There can be no sacred cows. It has to be cultivated, not merely planted. It takes work, tenacity and time, and many managers already have too much work, too little patience, and too little time.

Science and the quest

What scientific research has uncovered flies in the face of traditional managerial thinking. If you are a pilot, you know this process and the effects of vertigo. (Remember your instrument flight instructor saying “trust your instruments.” ) This requires faith on management’s part to trust in the science and fair warning that what I mention will have a strong foundation in social psychology. You will also have to have faith to step into uncomfortable territory, giving up some control, to reach the prize. Not to disillusion you further on down the road, but the prize you seek is illusive, so the quest never ends.

Three cs

Let me prep you by citing the three Cs of organizations: control, culture and climate. Control is the rules, regulations, instructions, policies and procedures that represent the ideal. This is the way we should do it. Culture — as we have mentioned — is the shared values, attitudes, and beliefs and represents reality. This is the way we actually do it. Climate is probably a new one to most. Although closely related to culture, it differentiates itself in one major characteristic. Culture is a shared activity of the collective and not owned by an individual, whereas climate is an individual activity that is aggregated into the collective. Climate is how one feels about or how accepting one is of the culture and control. Climate represents the consciousness. This is what we think about what we are doing and what is being done. Now that I have everyone confused, the distinction between culture and climate may seem subtle but it is profound in its impact.

If we follow the maintenance manual, it is the control — but when we deviate from the manual into a technique that is a normal practice, it is culture. How we feel about following the manual or the normative practice is the climate. The control sets our bounds but we live by the culture, and our thoughts about the situation formulate the climate.

Acceptance

We make acceptance decisions in every situation. In my example above, do we follow the manual or the norm? We fall into one of three acceptance zones: acceptance, indifference or rejection. These are all situation based. In other words, we are not consistently open or closed to everything. In an organizational setting, we are willing to accept some things, reject others and could care less about another. Acceptance theory explains how we view the group which we are hired into and work with, and whether or not it’s a good fit.

We remain within the work group if we accept it and it fits with our moral self, or it is not objectionable, and we are therefore indifferent. If, on the other hand, we reject the control and culture of the work group, we either stay and become disengaged or disruptive or we leave.

Management must build a rapport with the employees. This is easy with those that are in the zone of acceptance. This zone displays a sense of orientation where control, culture and climate are aligned and the employees are engaged. Acceptance theory suggests that management’s authority flows down but is dependent on employee acceptance. As one progresses up in an organization, he or she gains authority but loses power, as the ultimate power resides with the collective employee base. The CEO has the ultimate authority to act, but if those below him or her refuse to respond to that act, the CEO is powerless.

In the zone

Where does this fit in with just culture? Management must recognize what zone their employees are in to act appropriately. Those in the zone of acceptance need to be supported to sustain that modality. Those that are in the zone of indifference need to be nurtured and influenced. Those in the zone of indifference may not be engaged or aligned, but they are also not disengaged or opposed to being aligned. It just doesn’t matter to them. Management must be attuned to this fact and not alienate this group. In order to do so, management must abide by four imperatives: provide clear, unambiguous guidelines; the guidelines provide challenging but attainable goals; the guidelines are compliant to organizational objectives; and they are not contrary to personal goals. The last imperative is going to be the hardest to attain.

Individuals in the zone of rejection are the most difficult group as they may object even when management lives up to the four imperatives. In keeping with the Pareto Principle, 80 percent of your problems are going to come from 20 percent of your employees — and they will most likely come from the zone of rejection.

This may sound like I have targeted certain individuals as being dues-paying members of the Zone of Rejection Club. Remember, the theory of acceptance is situationally based. Generally individuals are fluid in their membership of different zones, depending on the situation. Targeting individuals is not the appropriate action; rather, management needs to target the behavior instead and approach it as a shared accountability. Just culture implies justice for all, without exclusion.

Moving in the right direction

Patrick Hudson, a professor at Delft University in the Netherlands, has proposed a flowchart of the new outline for just culture. It clearly points in the right direction. This model focuses on the individual in applying justice for what went wrong and praise for what went right. It also alludes to the culpability of the organization when it asks, “Does this happen a lot?” This would take this investigation in another direction. When this direction is taken, the individual focus is locked and does not escalate.

Some organizations, and I will not name them, will administer disciplinary action to an individual and then do the investigation, like spanking your kids in case they might be involved as a participant. We recognize this as poor parenting but we don’t see the other as poor managing. You want to open communication channels, not shut them down. You don’t want to push those that are in the zone of indifference into the zone of rejection.

The worst-case scenario would be thinking like Charlie Chaplin’s character in “The Great Dictator.” He says, “Have all the dissenters in the factory shot. I don’t want our employees to be dissatisfied.”

Patrick Kinane joined the Air Force after high school and has worked in aviation since 1964. Kinane is a certified A&P with Inspection Authorization and also holds an FAA license and commercial pilot certificate with instrument rating. He earned a B.S. in aviation maintenance management, MBA in quantitative methods, M.S. in education and Ph.D. in organizational psychology. The majority of his aviation career has been involved with 121 carriers where he has held positions from aircraft mechanic to director of maintenance. Kinane currently works as Senior Quality Systems Auditor for AAR Corp. and adjunct professor for DeVry University instructing in Organizational Behavior, Total Quality Management (TQM) and Critical Thinking. PlaneQA is his consulting company that specializes in quality and safety system audits and training. Speaking engagements are available with subjects in Critical Thinking, Quality Systems and Organizational Behavior. For more information, visit www.PlaneQA.com.