Is Culture more important? Or is Structure?
If you’re interested in developing high-performing teams, then you may have given thought to the differences – and similarities – between ‘performance culture’ and ‘performance structure’.
Is there a difference? And does it even matter?
Well – sort of. For both questions.
Performance structure is usually thought about as tangible things. Job descriptions. Performance reviews. Org charts. Governance practices. It can be designed.
Performance culture is usually described as the informal environment. It isn’t designed, it emerges.
𝗜’𝗺 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝘂𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. It’s too superficial and doesn’t align with what I typically see.
Problems that look like structure (e.g., execs allowed to participate in self-dealing – how did the structure allow that?) may, in fact, be cultural (the structure was there, but the culture didn’t support junior officers raising concerns about executive ethics).
This is simply to say that the distinction between structure and culture is razor thin. And this distinction (if it exists) isn’t useful for design or problem-solving. They need to be designed together. They need to support each other. Not stand separate from each other.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 – 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼 𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝘁𝗼𝗴𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿?
Both are about assuring that ethics and values are tangible and firm.
The 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 represents the practices that embed these ethics and values into the normal, foreseeable activities. It’s about efficiency.
The 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 represents the mental approach that embeds these ethics and values into the activities that 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯’𝘵 foreseeable. When something totally unexpected happens, how do we still live the values? It’s about consistency.
Both matter. Both are worthy of conspicuous design. And they need to support each other. If one’s weak, the other won’t work (think about the example above).
So, I choose to reject the idea that culture and structure need to be treated differently. I believe that they’re so interconnected that they must be considered in tandem.