I’d like to use this post to bring attention to an important piece authored by Eileen Hoenigman Meyer based on thought leadership by James Bernthal.
What strikes me is that the article not only addresses the fundamental, yet mostly overlooked, difference between organizational culture and its climate, where the latter denotes a snapshot of the current state of “an organization’s prevailing atmosphere, mood, and psychological environment” (Bernthal) versus its mission, values, and history-based long-term foundation and identity.
What is most compelling about this piece is that it embeds this construct within the higher education context and addresses the central and pivotal role of leaders in both influencing and being influenced by prevailing cultural norms and, thereby, the current climate at an institution.
There is, however, a missing piece that I would like to add to this argument:
Yes, “organizational culture refers to the underlying values, beliefs, norms, and shared assumptions that shape an organization’s collective behaviors and practices over time” (Bernthal). But what ultimately matters is how these publicly espoused pillars of institutional culture are truly lived, valued, and actively reinforced versus to what extent negative (i.e., toxic or dysfunctional) attitudes, dispositions, and behaviors are tolerated.
As many of my higher education colleagues will agree, there is often a stark and unsettling gap between what an institution’s website touts and what employees experience on a daily basis. The reality of how culture shows up far supersedes how it is described in glossy brochures and presidents’ speeches.
This brings me to leadership. Citing organization culture guru Dr. Larry Senn, Hoenigman Meyer rightfully points out that leaders have a tremendous impact on how culture shows up in everyday work and interactions. This can have a greatly positive effect, but “organizations tend to become shadows of their leaders” (Senn) – for better or for worse.
And nowhere is this truer than in three areas:
- What behaviors leaders tolerate – versus actively counteract – in themselves and others sets the tone for the overall employee experience, whether academic or nonacademic staff. Even a short series of missed interventions where leaders shrug off questionable behavior by their peers or subordinates can have a massive detrimental effect. After all, employees tend to emulate a leader’s behavioral patterns when they feel it aligns with their personal style and default impulses or offers them the opportunity to advance in their careers.
- This is important because once toxic leaders have been allowed to establish themselves, they are not only hard to remove but tend to bring people like themselves on board to bolster their tenuous claim to power and shield them from the prying eyes of employees (like myself) who can smell bullshit from a mile away. The key is to nip toxic behavior by leaders in the bud and either coach or remove them, as Timothy R. Clark recently proposed.
- And finally, let’s talk about the proverbial elephant in the room: the ubiquitous and oft-dreaded campus climate survey. Many leaders still treat these surveys as an HR- and publicity-driven box to check while lacking the will to face head-on any hard and unpleasant truths the research may bring to light. As long as leaders fail to act on these findings, they signal to the entire community that employees (i.e., their needs, expectations, and aspirations) don’t really matter and that they are more interested in maintaining the status quo of lived culture and current climate rather than actively improve them.
There are so many layers of this proverbial onion to peel back, so I thoroughly appreciate Hoenigman Meyer taking a sharp knife and making an initial cut into this (at times stinky) topic.
Let’s keep the conversation going. There is much to uncover and change for the benefit of higher education employees everywhere!