Stakeholder trust, positive corporate reputation and engaging organizational culture are increasingly relevant competitive advantages, especially in these disruptive times. O Reputation Feed interviewed Betania Tanure with the aim of evaluating the effects of behavioral transformations in the corporate environment and shedding light on the challenges facing leaders in 2024.
A reference in organizational culture, the founding partner of Betania Tanure Associados – BTA makes important reflections on the role of leadership in driving change. It also analyzes the challenges of new work formats and lists the main risks for maintaining the company's culture and its impact on the organization's reputation.
Read below the main excerpts from the interview, with the consultant, professor, member of boards of directors and people management committees and author of a dozen books in the areas in which she works, Betania Tanure:
What are the main changes you notice in companies in relation to organizational culture?
We are experiencing a crisis that has changed the way people work, live and consume, during and after the pandemic. For the first time, and this is a source of our research, people are putting their individual needs ahead of their business needs. This generates an important conflict from an organizational point of view and a question of how (the change) is embraced by the organization's culture.
“What are the two main roles of the leader? The first of these is to change or accelerate the natural flow. If the natural flow is not good, it changes. If it's good, speed up. This is the culture change process, either you change the flow or you accelerate it. You don’t need a leader if you’re going to let the process happen naturally.”
Does this situation occur at all layers of organizations?
In all. It is clear that the way of expressing the C-Level layer is different from that of supervisors. Organizational culture is strongly impacted by leadership and national culture. From the point of view of national culture, we have three main axes in Brazil: the axis of how power is dealt with, that of relationships and that of flexibility. These axes are also undergoing change. Not infrequently, people say they want decentralization of power, but they don't know how to do it. So, in addition to the desire to do things, it is necessary to learn how to do things differently in the organizational culture.
“Reputation has an absolutely strong and inseparable relationship with organizational culture. The more articulate the speech and the further from practice, the more negatively the reputation is affected.”
In this transformation scenario, how does corporate reputation impact organizational culture and vice versa?
In my view, reputation is a result of a set of things and has an absolutely strong and inseparable relationship with organizational culture. Culture will allow, not alone, for articulated, institutional discourse to be true or not; because, the more articulate the speech and the further from practice, the more negatively the reputation is affected. Often, the disconnect between speech and practice is not even known by the C-Level, senior management, or the board. Not because they don't want to know, but sometimes people are unaware of the organization because their window of observation is that of power.
Is this place of power also undergoing a transformation simultaneously with changes in society, which is beginning to prioritize individual needs more?
Yes, it is changing. The question that needs to be asked in every organization is whether this “is changing” naturally meets the vision of organizational performance. Ultimately, this challenges and impacts the bottom line, performance, the result. It is possible to do this in a natural way, but it may take 15 years. What are the two main roles of the leader? The first of these is to change or accelerate the natural flow. If the natural flow is not good, it changes. If it's good, speed up. This is the culture change process, either you change the flow or you accelerate it. You don't need a leader if you're going to let the process happen naturally.
“The leader has to help reduce or increase the organization’s anxiety, because this impacts performance.”
In other words, change needs a method and process to happen.
That's method and process and it needs to have rhythm. Leadership also has a role in regulating organizational anxiety. In other words, it is up to the leader to help reduce it if the organization has a very strong level of anxiety, because this impacts performance. People work, work and don't move, they make wrong decisions, they go back and forth, they don't take risks. And, when the organization is exaggeratedly calm, considers itself a star, evaluates competitors as bad, it is up to the leader to increase organizational anxiety to guarantee the change process.
Should new work formats, such as hybrid and remote models, remain? What is its impact on organizational culture and company reputation?
The impact depends on a few factors. We Brazilians are mega-relational, relationships first, business second. In individualistic cultures, like the United States, remote work has a different impact. Furthermore, we have already had a significant return to face-to-face activities, and the trend is towards accommodation. In relation to culture and reputation, the first challenge for organizations is to consider consistency with the business model, fundamental values and the way in which the organization is structured to be managed. It can't be a fashion choice.
New work formats and their challenges
- Choice of format must be consistent with the business model;
- Use lessons learned during the Covid-19 pandemic, that is, evaluate what worked and what didn’t;
- Articulate all elements before implementation.
The second challenge is to guarantee learning during the pandemic. For example: what has been learned regarding decentralization and the types of activities that need to be in-person and those for which remote work is better? The answer is neither unique nor simple; These different elements need to be articulated.
How can the reputation of leaders help strengthen company culture or, in some cases, even detract from it? Is this a concern today on executive boards and committees?
Increasingly, the reputation of people and the company are mixed. The company lends its reputation to people and people to companies. There is a discussion about the ethical limit of how much a company can or should influence each person's choices, but, on the other hand, people need to have their individual values connected with the organization's culture for this to make sense. Otherwise, it's like a plastic ball in the pool: as long as you hold it, it stays under the water, if you stop holding it, it rises. If individual values are very different from organizational values, the individual or their leadership or the context have to force the ball to stay under water and, then, there is a loss of productive energy.
What are the biggest risks to maintaining organizational culture and how can they impact reputation?
The disconnect between organizational culture and what the company considers to be what it wants to have brings a huge reputational risk. It also represents a reputational risk not understanding the nature of the social changes underway. Evil, like fake news, for example, is also a risk. How do you deal with evil, which is bolder than good and has deadly strategies? It's not simple.
Risks to culture and impact on reputation
- Decoupling between the desired and practiced reputational culture;
- Lack of understanding of the nature of social changes;
- Malicious practices such as the phenomenon of disinformation and the dissemination of fake news.
Christianne Schmitt is editor of Reputation Feed
Christianne.schmitt@reputationfeed.com.br
