More on "Questions to Ask To Figure Out Who Owns Your Culture"....

Yesterday, I posted on How to Figure Out Which Managers Are Net Positive to Your Culture in 1 Question...

Pretty good challenge or food for thought came in from David in the comments of that one.  Check it out:

"Kris - Won't the answers to this be dependent on the existing culture? If the organization is filled with "slackers", aren't they going to pick someone who they perceive will allow that to continue?

And also somewhat subject to the halo effect? Human nature attributes positive factors to successful performers, whether they actually have those attributes or not. I think this bias would enter into the results."

My take - bias is always at play, but in my experience using this question, employees will tell you what they aren't getting enough of with their answers, and it almost always centers around things you and I consider to be critical in building a strong organizational culture - items like the manager taking the time to deliver feedback, spending time on the development of the employee, standing up when necessary for the employee/department, shooting straight and being honest with the employee, limited political game playing on the part of the manager, etc.

You know - things that show leadership and empathy, all with an employee-centric approach.  The employee is really saying what they don't get enough of with their current manager with this question.

I thought David's question was good, but I've always seen it go the other way - the employees tell you who's doing things very, very well.  People talk, people know.  If you have more than 15-20 managers in your unit, ask the question - you'll almost always get some surprises....

 

.  

Comments

[scott]

There are two movies that kind of touch on this subject. "12 OClock High," which is an old WWII movie about bomber pilots, and Clint Eastwood's "Heartbreak Ridge." They kind of have the same plot -- under-performing group is perceived to be of lesser quality than another group. Demanding manager moves in. Temporary chaos and disgruntlement is replaced by sense of pride in ones work.

I think even among slacker business units people want to be successful. They aspire to more. In my experience people are more interested in "fair" than "nice." Though you don't have to be mean to be fair. You may see slacker's vote for perceived slackers in unskilled jobs (I'm guessing 16 year old movie theatre ushers aren't as interested in being driven to excellence as someone with a mortgage and a family may be), but I'm thinking you will consistently see the interactive managers who expect and deliver favorable results from and to their teams getting the winning votes once you get beyond that level.

[Joshua Westbrook]

Slackers don't want additional work and may shirk when it comes to that, but the net positive manager isn't clutch just because he gives people more work. The net positive manager cares, listens and is hard on the issues, and soft on the people. Even the slacker appreciates that...

[TexasTwittHR]

In my opinion, all of us would prefer to have rules and parameters in place, even the slackers. Most of us want to know where we stand in the eyes of our managers and leaders. As with so much of what we do as HR pros, it's an art and not a science. Answers to this kind of question (that Kris alludes to in his original post) should provide enough "directional" data to be relevant and worthwhile when evaluating the culture of an organization.

[Herman Zinkler]

I have to agree with the thinking of "most people want to do well, even the slackers."

Though I do get the point of the original comment.

I think slackers would define quite well who they would "ante up" for. Perhaps modify the question to include a reference to "doing better/your best."

We're raising this in our company now.