Organizational culture is built from more than just policies, procedures, and official positions or responsibilities. There is a softer side to organizational development and performance that includes core values and beliefs that gradually become embedded in the culture of an organization. Some companies adopt an entrepreneurial culture, some power-oriented culture, others collaboration, etc. and each approach has its benefits and drawbacks. Much of this cultural direction stems from the personalities of key influencers within the organization.
These influencers may hold formal positions of authority, or they may simply be unofficial social network figures who, despite not having high-ranking roles, significantly shape how others think, feel and act. Over time, these influences contribute to the formation of a culture that becomes an underlying set of assumptions about how the organization functions. This culture is just as important as formal policies and procedures, and one could even argue that it is more important.
Organizational culture can be measured, tested, and traced, allowing leaders to intentionally engage in organizational development efforts that support both long-term and short-term growth. This is why it is critical to hire executives and leaders whose core values align with the organization’s mission statement and who act primarily in support of that mission. When leaders demonstrate this alignment, they build trust, and trust fosters commitment. Commitment leads to engagement, and engagement ultimately drives performance (The social side of performance).
Culture forms the underlying assumptions behind that commitment and establishes the informal rules that guide motivated behavior. Therefore, it is vitally important for organizations to think about the cultures they are developing and how the formal and informal informational paths lead to tangible outcomes.
The Influence of Core Values and Organizational Culture on Employees’Productivity
The Story of the Clan: The Purpose of Core Values
This is a strong hypothetical, philosophical thought experiment illustrating what a complete failure of justice might look like. Such failures often emerge within insular social networks or cult-like groups that hold extreme views or misunderstand the broader environment. These conditions are reinforced when members socialize exclusively with one another and when effective checks and balances are absent or weak throughout the system. Organizations are influenced by actors and defaults can become domino oriented without commitment to essential shared values. They and their immunized clan court network want you to believe you are less than and rights that don't benefit them are not worth supporting. None of this was by accident.
In this scenario, certain individuals had a long history of bullying others and misusing official tax funded authority for in-group gain. Through employment ties and personal networks, they were able to warp local institutions to target people for financial benefit, personal vendettas, or simply because those individuals did not fit their narrow worldview. For many, their social identity remained frozen in the dynamics of high school, as well as underdeveloped perceptions of value, never maturing beyond it. They were bullies and bigots decades ago, and they remained so years later. Complaints were simply ignored by clan aligned officials therby creating a second class citizen status they won't correct. Illegal and criminal behavior normalized.
The courts knew that for years the victims were being persecuted at a level that not only indicated they didn't have our social contracts in high regard but struck directly against the core purpose of the nation. They knew and they incentivized it. Victim rights were openly discarded to shield hate groupos. If we consider the 5 years ago when the targeting started and the displays of court sponsored hate through back deals and false investigations we find it to be a precursor metric. Human and civil rights mocked and wave after wave of hate encouraged. Kids were damaged, community members harmed, elderly manipulated, and corruption further embedded. The group bragged about their crimes with a level of judicial collusion. They believed in a future where if they had their way the vast majority of society would not be welcome nor would they have basic rights. Trust declines by poor intent and performance.
The most important concern in this thought experiment is not the specific actors involved. They are the smallest part of the equation. Wherever extreme partisanship, racial or religious bias, and distorted notions of social worthiness (dehumanization), similar problems can arise. A clear indication of default. The beginning of collectivization apparent and this is why one of the victims is standing for generational trusts and oaths that protect fundamental rights and foster rights of recourse. They have no support but still persist. The deeper failure lies the root assumptions of the choices thereby putting the collusive network on trial. Protect and serve an in-group is not what the system was designed to do. They followed the same process we saw in third world justice systems.
As a thought experiment you can adjust the key points around and come to any conclusion you desire. What should be forthcoming is the root awareness of your own value system. Who is and who is not worth basic rights and is that by merit or some other factor like race, politics, friends, religion, or other?
No comments:
Post a Comment