Insights
About us
Contact
Français English
My account

Insight Organizational culture

Several cultures within one organization

How far can teams and sites differ before the organization loses its consistency? The question is never whether differences exist, but where the line runs.

Mosaïca ConseilsAugust 17, 20267 min read

One common axis, five variations, one break A continuous horizontal axis runs the full width: it stands for the shared identity. Five branches leave it, each with its own curve and its own group of practices. Four branches stay connected to the axis and carry the same square marker: their variations remain coherent. The fifth is separated from the axis by a gap flagged with a ring marker and carries no shared marker: a fundamental commitment has been broken.
  • Coherent variation, shared marker retained
  • A fundamental commitment broken
Marjorie Michel flanked by two Mosaïca representatives at the close of a Roundtable.
With Marjorie Michel, the first speaker at Mosaïca's Roundtables, on the challenges of passing on Quebec culture in a multicultural environment — the same question an organization asks itself across its own settings.

A DIFFERENCE IS NOT A DRIFT

Four branches carry the same marker. The fifth has lost the link.

A night shift with its own way of handing over information, a remote site that has built its own rituals, a trade that speaks its own technical language: none of that threatens an organization. Those differences most often signal that a common practice has been translated into a particular reality.

The line is crossed elsewhere. The same fault leading to a conversation here and a sanction there is no longer variation: it is inequality, and it always becomes known in the end. A safety instruction applied in one shop and worked around in the other is not a local adaptation: it is a broken commitment.

Separating what translates from what breaks cannot be improvised case by case.

THREE DECISIONS, ONE SHORT LIST

The hard work is not understanding the three categories: it is filling them in.

What has to stay common

Five to seven genuinely non-negotiable commitments are worth more than a framework of thirty behaviours whose content no one knows.

What can adapt

Everything that lets a common practice work in a particular reality: language, rituals, rhythms, ways of explaining.

What has to change

A decision still centralized, a control that has become pointless, an exception that has become the rule: what served yesterday without serving the next stage.

A useful list is written in terms of situations, not qualities: “any error with a safety consequence is reported the same day, with no consequence for the person reporting it” can be verified; “rigour” cannot.

Finally, it is built backwards: starting from the real situations where sites decided differently, then deciding, case by case, whether that difference was acceptable. A list written in advance in the boardroom produces a document; a list built from real trade-offs produces a rule managers recognize.

THE BEST REVEALER

How disagreement is handled can be read immediately.

When a difficult behaviour or a misunderstanding appears, avoidance becomes a management practice in its own right. What is never dealt with eventually becomes an implicit norm, and that norm does not travel from one site to another: it settles locally, in silence.

Rituals can vary from one site to the next. The right to name a problem cannot.

A tension avoided and a tension named At the top, two paths meet then set off again as dotted lines, drifting further apart: the tension was not named and the gap settles in. At the bottom, the same two paths meet, cross a solid vertical mark that halts them for a moment, then set off again in parallel as continuous lines: the tension was named and dealt with.
At the top, the tension was not named: the paths set off again as dotted lines, drifting further apart. At the bottom, it was named: they pause for a moment, then set off again in parallel.

IN A MULTI-SITE GROUP

Head office confuses consistency with standardization. Sites hear a failure to understand their reality.

The two reflexes feed each other, and no further arbitration comes out of it. The way out is to make the list of common commitments explicit, to leave the rest publicly open, and to give site leadership the means to explain the difference between the two.

A manager who can say “this is not negotiable, that is yours to decide” stops escalating every situation upward.

Large and multi-site organizations

Can you name, without a document, what none of your sites can change?

That is often the first thing we work on with a group's leadership.