Now, this week the gods of the Internet and electricity have gifted us with a few technical issues, so please forgive some of our clumsiness there. We managed to get the recording done in only … 5 takes I think?
Here are the top parts of culture we each picked:
Anna’s:
Psychological safety:
defined internally as: ‘we want to feel safe to take risks, speak up and admit mistakes.’
Amy Edmondson, who originally coined this term defines it as: “a belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes, and that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking”
reason: I see this as the cornerstone of a good group culture. Feeling like I am able to voice my opinions, admit what I have done badly or when I need help is the foundation for growth.
Growth mindset:
defined internally as: ‘we believe that we can always learn, improve and overcome any challenge.’
reason: Believing I can improve facilitates good performance and ambition. I do have some reservations about how literally true it is but on the whole it seems a good way to view the world.
Stakeholder centricity:
defined internally as: ‘we act with the goal of delivering the greatest perceived net benefit to all stakeholders.’
reason: Customer-centricity is the more common cousin of stakeholder centricity. That one I think can create unhealthy effects on employees and create a non-ideal working environments. Focusing on all stakeholders - and attempting to balance them as best as possible is the better version I would say.
High standards:
defined internally as: ‘we hold ourselves and others to excellent performance and celebrate its achievement.’
reason: This one is self-explanatory. Having high standards leads to better performance across the board, is an enable for learning and improving and I find is a more satisfying culture to work in. When a lot is expected of you, it gives you motivation to achieve and reach your potential.
Bias for action:
defined internally as: ‘we proactively make and execute decisions rather than asking for permission.’
reason: I’ve seen this too often with employees who sit on their hands and wait for their supervisor to sanction action. Working in a culture where you have a bias for action is so refreshing and leads to better performance and is a great enabler of growth for the employees and the organisation. There is a balance that needs to be struck with not
Andy’s:
Continuous improvement
defined internally as: Continuous improvement is an ongoing, deliberate effort to get better at anything over time.
reason: The reason why I chose continuous improvement is really that whoever improves the fastest, whether as an individual or company, will be the one that wins long-term. You can think of it like compound interest, but honestly I think that is over complicating it. The logic is as simple that the faster you improve, the better you become at delivery.
Think big
defined internally as: Think big is really about ambition, taking on large challenges, it requires a belief that you can overcome large challenges.
reason: The reason I chose it is because firstly setting audacious goals helps to build fellowship — a culture where people are bound by a journey to achieve a common goal. Second, because if you value trying to make an impact in the world, then you need to think big, take on problems that seem intractable.
Humility
defined internally as: Humility for me is not being full of yourself and it comes from a belief that you are not more important or better than others.
reason: The reason why I chose it is because the opposite, arrogance, is so toxic in a company to connectedness. Especially arrogant leaders. They create environments where they aren’t challenged, where they can’t backdown from decisions that are wrong, where they don’t admit mistakes.
Outcome-driven
defined internally as: Outcome driven is as it sounds, focusing on the outcomes, not outputs. An output is what you produce. An outcome is the result that is derived from that output. So for example, a team can build a new feature in the app, that is an output. The outcome is the change in customer experience that results from that feature.
reason: An output focused team will celebrate delivery of the feature, an outcome focused team will celebrate an improvement in the customer experience. This matters, because output focus leads to a lot of meaningless work. Busy work. Doing things that really doesn’t need to be done, because everyone is measuring how many things they’ve done rather than the results they have delivered.
Focused on what you control
defined internally: The last norm I had in my list was outcome-driven — focused on measuring results. This is the second side of that coin, which is focusing on what you control, the controllable inputs.
reason: The issue with outcomes is they are out of your control. It is part luck whether or not you achieve certain outcomes. So what matters more to evaluate is are you focusing on the right things in your control that are likely to lead to the outcomes of interest.
Share this post