 Image generated using ChatGPT Part 3: Decisions are not clean — they are messy, political, and human
You are in a leadership meeting. A proposal is on the table. On paper, it is strong, but the room tells a different story. One senior stakeholder is quiet. Another is supportive, but carefully so. No one challenges it directly, yet the room does not feel settled. The group starts moving towards consensus. Do you go with it? Or do you interrupt the moment? This is where decision-making gets less tidy. Real choices are rarely made in a vacuum. Decisions happen in social settings, where people are not only choosing between options but managing relationships, reputation, status, risk and politics. Politics is simply what happens when decisions have consequences and not everyone is affected in the same way. The science Karl Weick’s work on sensemaking is useful here because it reminds us that people do not always understand first and act later. Often, they act, interpret, and then make sense of what they have done. In that sense, decisions are not always the end point of thinking. Sometimes they are how people figure things out. That is important, because it means decision-making in organisations is rarely just about choosing the best option. It is about choosing something that can survive the social reality of the room. It is often iterative, negotiated, and incomplete. Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety adds another layer. When people believe they can speak up without embarrassment or punishment, they are more likely to raise concerns, ask questions, and contribute information that improves the quality of the decision. When they do not feel safe, silence becomes more likely. Silence is not neutral. It changes what the group can know. This is why agreement in the room does not always mean alignment in practice. People may nod along publicly while remaining unconvinced privately. They may stay quiet because they fear conflict, do not trust the process, or assume their contribution will not matter. Philip Tetlock’s work on forecasting and judgement is also relevant here. Better judgement is not built on certainty, but on the ability to hold multiple possibilities, update beliefs, and resist premature closure. That is an uncomfortable discipline, but it is a more realistic one. Key findings A few patterns show up consistently in real decision environments.
What this means in practice If decisions are political as well as practical, the goal is not to pretend they are clean. The goal is to navigate them more consciously. That starts with recognising what is really happening in the moment. A decision that looks like hesitation might be someone managing stakeholder reactions, creating space for alignment, or avoiding premature closure. A decision that looks like agreement might be compliance without commitment, silence driven by risk, or unresolved tension beneath the surface. This is where decision-making becomes less about choosing an option and more about reading the environment: what is safe to say, what is risky to challenge, and what the room is really rewarding. Ask:
Not just in terms of outcomes, but in terms of trust, relationships, and future behaviour. Because in organisations, the right decision on paper is not always the decision that can survive the room. A quote to reflect on The most important problems in organisations are not technical, they are adaptive. — Ronald Heifetz A question to reflect on Think about a decision that did not go the way you expected. What context made it feel right to the people involved? Further readings
0 Comments
 Image generated using ChatGPT Part 2: When to move fast and when to slow down
You get a message late in the day. A decision is needed before tomorrow morning. A partner organisation is waiting. Delays could cost the deal. You have partial information. The risks are not fully clear. Your instinct is to pause. The expectation is to move. This is where many organisations get decision-making wrong. They treat speed as a virtue in itself. Decisive gets confused with competent. Fast gets confused with effective. But speed only helps when it fits the kind of decision in front of you. The real question is not, “How quickly did we decide?” It is, “Did we move at the right pace for the decision we were actually facing?” The science Research into real-world decision-making paints a more nuanced picture. Gary Klein’s work with firefighters, military leaders, and emergency responders showed that fast decisions are not usually about rushing. They are often about pattern recognition. Experienced decision-makers move quickly because they recognise what is happening and can mentally test a response before acting. That is very different from haste. In familiar conditions, expertise can make speed a strength. In unfamiliar or ambiguous conditions, speed becomes much less reliable. The point is not that intuition is always superior. It is that fast judgement works best when the environment is stable and the decision-maker has deep experience in that setting. Gerd Gigerenzer’s work points in a similar direction. Simple rules can outperform complex analysis, but only when they fit the structure of the environment. A heuristic is not valuable because it is simple. It is valuable because it is well matched to the problem. John Sweller’s work on cognitive load also matters here. When cognitive load is high, complex reasoning becomes harder to sustain. That means speed may sometimes be a practical necessity. But necessity is not the same as quality. Moving quickly in familiar territory can be efficient. Moving quickly in ambiguity is often a route to avoidable error. Key findings A few distinctions matter more than speed alone.
What this means in practice If the goal is better decisions, speed becomes something to manage rather than maximise. Move fast when the situation is familiar, the cost of reversal is low, and expertise is high. Slow down when the stakes are high, the information is incomplete, or the issue is contested. That sounds obvious, but many workplaces make it difficult in practice. If the culture rewards quick answers, penalises hesitation, or equates decisiveness with certainty, then slowing down can feel risky even when it is the wiser move. That is where decision-making often breaks down. Not because people do not know they should pause, but because the system makes pausing feel like weakness. A quote to reflect on A confident decision is not always the right one. – My own reflections A question to reflect on Think about a recent decision you made quickly. Was it fast because the situation called for it, or because slowing down felt uncomfortable? Further readings
 Image generated using ChatGPT Part 1: You are not deciding alone - the system is deciding with you
A few weeks ago, Oracle laid off thousands of employees via email. Recently, Meta announced restructuring and job cuts. Decisions like these make headlines because they expose something uncomfortable: organisational choices are rarely just about individual judgement. They are shaped by hierarchy, incentives, timing, and what people think can be said in the room. That is why the better question is not simply, “What did they decide?” It is, “What made that decision more likely than the others?” There is usually a person making the call, but there is also a wider system shaping what they see, what they value, and what they feel able to say. In practice, the decision is never made in isolation. Imagine you are in a budget meeting. Two options are on the table. One protects a high-performing team that consistently delivers results. The other redirects resources to a struggling team that has been underfunded for years. The data supports one choice. The politics of the room support another. Someone says, “We need to be fair.” Another adds, “We cannot afford to lose momentum.” You know what the numbers say. You also know what the decision will signal. That is the tension at the heart of organisational decision-making. It is not only about choosing between options. It is about how systems shape the choice before it even reaches the table. Before we get into the theory, it is worth pausing here. Most decision advice focuses on the person making the call. That matters, but it is only half the story. The other half is the system they are making the decision in, because the environment often shapes the choice before the choice is even conscious. The science Decision-making is often framed as a cognitive act, but decades of research suggest something more constrained and more contextual. Herbert Simon’s work on bounded rationality is a useful starting point. His argument was not that people are incapable of good judgement, but that real decisions are made with limited information, limited time, and limited cognitive capacity. Under those conditions, people do not optimise in the abstract. They satisfice: they choose an option that is good enough for the constraints they are facing. That matters, because it changes the question. Instead of asking whether people are always rational, we should ask what makes rational judgement possible in the first place. Daniel Kahneman’s work helps here too. Under pressure, people have less capacity for slow, deliberate reasoning, and are more likely to rely on faster, more intuitive processes. That does not mean intuition is wrong. It means the mind adapts to constraint. When the load is heavy, we simplify. John Sweller’s cognitive load theory strengthens this point. As cognitive load increases, our ability to process information, weigh alternatives, and challenge assumptions declines. In other words, pressure does not just make decisions harder in a general sense. It changes the quality of thinking available in the moment. But this is only part of the picture. Decisions do not happen in isolation. They are shaped by what is rewarded, who has power, how much time is available, and what information is visible enough to matter. In that sense, the system is never neutral. It shapes what feels safe to say, safe to defend, and safe to repeat. A decision may look irrational from the outside and still make sense to the people inside it, because they are responding to pressures the outcome alone cannot show. Key findings A few patterns show up consistently. 1. Decisions are constrained before they are made. The options on the table are already shaped by hierarchy, incentives, time pressure, and available information. 2. Under pressure, people default to what is easiest to defend. Not necessarily what is best, but what can be justified quickly and publicly. 3. Fairness and legitimacy matter, not just efficiency. People judge decisions by outcomes, but also by whether the process feels credible and equitable. 4. Silence is information. When people do not speak up, it is often because the environment has signalled that speaking may not help. What this means in practice If decisions are shaped by systems, then improving judgement is not just about improving individuals. It also means redesigning the environment in which decisions are made. What signals does this environment send about what matters? Who is able to challenge, and who is not? What is rewarded here: speed, certainty, conformity, or sound judgement? Where might people be choosing what is defensible over what is right? This also reframes how we think about bad decisions. Sometimes they are not mistakes in the usual sense. Sometimes they are adaptations. They are responses to an environment that rewards certain behaviours and penalises others. Because in that meeting, you are not simply choosing between two options. You are responding to fairness, performance pressure, reputation, and future consequences. The system is deciding with you. That is why the more useful question is not, “Why did they make that decision?” but, “What does this system make easiest to decide, and hardest to question?” A quote to reflect on We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are. - Anaïs Nin A question to reflect on What in your environment is shaping your decisions before you make them? Further readings
 Image generated using ChatGPT Part 5: Culture as Infrastructure, Not Intervention We often treat culture as a lever we can pull to make performance move. Across this series, the evidence has suggested something more modest – and, in practice, more useful. This final part is for leaders, HR, and OD practitioners who want to stop treating culture as a magic answer and start working with it as part of the organisational system. The aim here is to help you see culture as infrastructure: the conditions under which your strategy, structures, and people either struggle or thrive – and to offer a simple way to work with that. Introduction Across this series, we have examined:
The Science The CIPD evidence review concludes that while culture correlates with performance, the association is moderate to low and often weaker when objective measures are used. It also finds no strong, consistent evidence demonstrating that culture change interventions, in isolation, causally improve performance. These findings challenge a common assumption: that culture can be directly engineered to produce performance gains. If the predictive strength is modest and the intervention evidence thin, perhaps culture does not function as an independent performance engine. Perhaps it functions as something else. Key Insight: Culture as Infrastructure Infrastructure does not generate movement on its own. But it determines:
What Does This Mean in Practice? If we treat culture as infrastructure rather than intervention, several implications follow. First, culture becomes less about slogans and more about system design. Instead of asking: “How do we change our culture?” We ask:
Second, culture becomes less about stand-alone programmes and more about coherence. If leadership messaging, incentives, performance management, and promotion criteria pull in different directions, culture will stabilise around the strongest signal – not the stated value. Third, culture becomes less mystical. It is not an invisible force. It is the patterned outcome of repeated decisions, structural signals, and behavioural reinforcement. Fourth, culture may matter most in interaction with other predictors. A modest independent correlation does not mean culture is irrelevant. It may mean:
It is the road surface. And roads matter. If You’re a Leader or HR Practitioner, Try This Week To work with culture as infrastructure, you can use it as a lens on your system rather than a project of its own:
Where We May Need More Research The evidence base calls for humility. We need:
What I’m Not Saying I am not saying culture is irrelevant. I am not saying values work has no place. I am not saying you should stop listening to employees. I am saying:
A simple way to work with Culture Bringing the series together, you can treat culture as infrastructure using five practical steps:
A Quote to Reflect On “There is little evidence consistently linking organisational culture to performance, but if such a link should exist, it is very weak and too small to be practically meaningful.” — Organisational Culture and Performance: An Evidence Review This does not invalidate culture. It challenges how confidently we use it. A Question to Reflect On If culture is infrastructure rather than intervention, what elements of your organisational system are currently shaping it – intentionally or not? And if you changed those elements first, how might your culture follow? Further Reading
  Part 4: How Strong Is the Culture–Performance Link, Really?
We rarely question the line “culture drives performance” – it feels intuitively true. This series asks how strongly that claim is supported by evidence. It is for leaders, HR, and OD practitioners who are making decisions about where to invest scarce time, money, and leadership attention. In this part, the aim is to help you calibrate just how powerful culture appears to be compared with other predictors of performance – and what that means for your priorities. Introduction We rarely question the statement, 'culture drives performance'. It is repeated in boardrooms, strategy documents, and leadership offsites. It feels intuitively correct. But intuition is not evidence. If culture is one of the most powerful drivers of organisational success, we should expect to see a strong and consistent empirical relationship between culture and performance. So what does the research actually show? The Science The CIPD rapid evidence assessment reviewed meta-analyses and controlled studies examining the link between organisational culture and performance. The findings are clear:
That comparison is uncomfortable, because it challenges where we place our attention. Key Findings The evidence suggests several important conclusions:
It also highlights a methodological issue. Much culture research relies on cross-sectional survey data. That makes it difficult to establish:
What Does This Mean in Practice? If culture’s predictive power is modest, several possibilities emerge for practice. First, culture may be a contextual amplifier rather than a primary engine. It shapes how other levers – strategy, structure, leadership, talent – play out day to day. Second, culture may interact with other predictors rather than operate independently. For example, good leadership might have more impact in enabling conditions of psychological safety and trust. Third, we may have under-invested in other organisational-level predictors of performance. The wider research literature suggests paying close attention to:
If You’re a Leader or HR Practitioner, Try This Week To translate this into action, you can reassess where you focus effort:
A Quote to Reflect On “The association between organisational culture and performance is moderate to low.” — Organisational Culture and Performance: An Evidence Review A Question to Reflect On If culture is not the strongest predictor of performance: What other variables in your organisation might deserve equal – or greater – scrutiny? If you can name them, your next strategic decision may be to rebalance where you invest effort: treating culture as important context, not the only story. Further Reading
 Part 3: Can we measure culture – or are we measuring something else?
At work, we behave as if “culture” is something we can capture in a dashboard. We run surveys, plot index scores, and compare ourselves to benchmarks. This series asks what those numbers are actually telling us. In this part, the aim is to help leaders, HR, and OD practitioners distinguish between measuring “culture” in the abstract and measuring concrete constructs such as fairness, trust, or role clarity that you can genuinely act on. Introduction If culture matters, we should be able to measure it. That seems reasonable. Across organisations, we run:
But a more uncomfortable question sits beneath all of this: Are we measuring culture or are we measuring something adjacent to it? The Science The CIPD evidence review examined how organisational culture is assessed across the research literature. Several issues stand out:
In some cases, prominent tools such as OCAI and DOCS were originally designed to measure organisational effectiveness. They were later positioned as culture instruments. This creates a circular problem. If a tool measures effectiveness-related variables and then correlates with performance, are we observing: Culture → Performance Or simply: Effectiveness indicators → Performance The distinction is not academic nit-picking. It goes to the heart of what we believe we are managing. The CIPD review also notes that many studies rely on cross-sectional surveys and self-report data, often completed by senior managers. That introduces further concerns:
Key Findings From the evidence:
It is possible that culture surveys are measuring:
What Does This Mean in Practice? This is where it becomes practical. When you run a culture survey, ask: What constructs are actually being assessed? If employees respond to items about:
If low scores reflect poor role clarity, the intervention is structural. If low scores reflect pay inequity, the intervention is economic. If low scores reflect leadership inconsistency, the intervention is behavioural. If everything is labelled culture, solutions become vague. Measurement clarity forces intervention precision. This does not mean stop surveying. It means: be explicit about what your instrument captures and resist the temptation to let the word culture absorb multiple system variables without differentiation. If You’re a Leader or HR Practitioner, Try This Week To turn this into action, you can take a more forensic look at your “culture” data:
A Quote to Reflect On “Although these instruments have often provided good predictive validity… there is no evidence of construct validity, meaning that it is unclear what exactly is being measured.” Organisational Culture and Performance: An Evidence Review A Question to Reflect On When your organisation receives its next culture report: Do you know which underlying constructs are being measured? And do your interventions match those constructs? If the answer is “not really”, your most impactful next step may be to tighten the link between what you measure, what you call it, and what you actually do. Further Reading
 Part 2: If Culture Improves Performance, How Exactly?
At work, we often say “culture drives performance” as if the pathway is obvious. This series explores what the evidence actually shows about that claim. It is for leaders, HR, and OD practitioners who are under pressure to “use culture” as a performance lever and want more clarity before investing time and money. The aim of this part is to help you move from culture as a slogan to culture as a clearer cause-and-effect story you can scrutinise and, where appropriate, act on. Introduction We often hear that culture drives performance. It is said with confidence:
How, exactly, is culture supposed to improve performance? What is the mechanism? Not the slogan, the mechanism The Science The CIPD evidence review explicitly examined the assumed logic model linking organisational culture to performance. Their conclusion is striking. It is unclear how organisational culture enhances performance. The claim that culture affects performance rests on three assumptions:
But when researchers look for a coherent, unified theory explaining how culture produces performance gains, they do not find one. Instead, what exists is a collection of loosely related hypotheses. For example:
These are plausible stories. But plausibility is not the same as causal clarity. There is no single, integrated model explaining:
Key Findings The evidence on culture and performance shows:
When something works, we attribute it to culture. When something fails, we diagnose a culture problem. But that may be post hoc reasoning. What Does This Mean in Practice? In HR and leadership conversations, culture is often treated as a performance lever. The implicit model looks like this: Define desired values → Communicate them clearly → Align behaviours → Improve performance But if the mechanism is unclear, the intervention pathway becomes fragile. So before launching a culture initiative, it may be worth asking:
If You’re a Leader or HR Practitioner, Try This Week To move from slogans to mechanisms, you can run a few focused experiments:
These steps will not produce a perfect logic model. But they will force you to be clearer about how you believe culture connects to performance - and where you might be relying on story rather than evidence. A Quote to Reflect On “The logic model for the culture–performance link is not based on a single coherent theory, but rather a number of separate, loosely related hypotheses.” — Organisational Culture and Performance: An Evidence Review A Question to Reflect On When you say culture drives performance in your organisation: Can you clearly articulate the mechanism? or are you inferring cause from correlation? If your answer is closer to the second, your next step may be to pause the next broad “culture” initiative and first map the specific pathways you are actually trying to change. Further Reading
 Part 1: What Do We Actually Mean by Culture?
At work, we talk about culture as if it is obvious, powerful, and always worth investing in. This series takes a more evidence-based look at those assumptions. It is for leaders, HR, and OD practitioners who are being asked to “fix the culture” or “build a high-performance culture” and want to be more precise. Across the series, the aim is to help you make better decisions about when to work on “culture”, when to work on systems and structures, and how to connect the two in practice. Introduction I have written about culture before. I have facilitated culture conversations. I have believed culture was a primary lever of organisational success. But reading the evidence more closely has unsettled me. We talk about culture as if it is obvious. As if everyone knows what it is. As if it can be strengthened, shifted, or engineered with enough intention. Yet when you step into the research, certainty fades. Before we ask whether culture improves performance, perhaps we need to ask a more basic question: What exactly do we mean by culture? And if you are a leader, HR, or OD practitioner, an equally practical question follows: When you say “culture” at work, what specific behaviours and system signals are you actually pointing at? The Science The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) conducted a rapid evidence assessment examining the link between organisational culture and performance. Their findings are sobering:
1. Schein’s model Culture is a pattern of shared underlying assumptions, values, and beliefs that guide behaviour. It is deep, embedded, and difficult to change. 2. Traits–strength models Culture is a profile of measurable characteristics (for example clan, market, hierarchy, adhocracy) assessed via surveys such as Competing Values Framework (OCAI), Denison Organisational Culture Survey (DOCS), Organisational Culture Inventory (OCI) or Organisational Culture Profile (OCP). The problem is not that these models exist. The problem is that they are conceptually different. If scholars cannot agree what culture is, measurement becomes unstable. And when measurement is unstable, management becomes uncertain. Key Findings The CIPD review highlights several important issues:
This does not mean culture is imaginary. It does mean it is conceptually fragmented. And that fragmentation matters. What Does This Mean in Practice? In HR, we routinely:
When we say: “We have a high-performance culture.” What are we actually referring to?
If different leaders are imagining different things, culture becomes a container word. And container words can obscure more than they clarify. Perhaps the more useful move is not to abandon culture, but to disaggregate it. Instead of asking: “How do we strengthen our culture?” Ask:
If You’re a Leader or HR Practitioner, Try This Week To make this concrete, here are a few small experiments you can run:
But they make your use of the word “culture” more precise, and your levers more visible. A Quote to Reflect On “There is no consensus of what ‘organisational culture’ entails.” — Organisational Culture and Performance: An Evidence Review A Question to Reflect On When you talk about culture in your organisation, are you describing shared assumptions, measurable traits, or simply patterns of behaviour? If your honest answer is “I’m not sure”, your next step may not be another culture initiative. It may be a clearer shared definition. Further Reading
 Part 2: The myth of inevitable decline – and the HR policies that quietly reinforce it
One of the most enduring assumptions about cognitive decline is that it is inevitable: ageing equals decline, decline equals limitation, limitation equals withdrawal. Yet both Ellen Langer’s work and the Lancet Commission’s life course model suggest a different story: decline is neither uniform nor fixed, and context matters. If culture shapes behaviour, policy shapes expectation. Many organisational systems are quietly built on assumptions about fragility and diminishing capability that the science does not support. The science, briefly recapped The Lancet Commission highlights that cognitive risk factors accumulate through everyday exposure to stress, inactivity, isolation, and limited learning, many of which are influenced by working conditions. At the same time, risk trajectories remain changeable throughout life, undermining the idea that decline is a one-way path. Langer’s research adds the psychological dimension: when people are treated as capable, choiceful, and engaged, outcomes improve; when systems signal fragility, limitation, or passivity, outcomes deteriorate. Workplaces operationalise these signals not only through culture, but through HR policy. So what myths about cognition are embedded in the way work is formalised? Myth one: cognitive decline is an age issue This myth appears when development investment drops after a certain career stage, or when mid-career roles become narrower rather than richer. Organisational research shows that training and development investment often peaks early in careers and declines sharply after mid-career, based more on assumptions about return on investment than on evidence of learning capacity. Policy shifts could include:
Myth two: predictability is always protective This belief is often embedded in rigid role profiles, static job families, and promotion systems that reward replication over learning. Static roles are easier to design, benchmark, and control, yet job design research shows that when predictability dominates, roles can drift into “passive jobs” (low demand and low control), whereas “active jobs”, which combine structure with discretion, better sustain learning and cognitive health over time. Policy shifts could include:
Myth three: wellbeing sits outside core people processes This myth appears when health, workload, and learning are treated as separate from performance, reward, and progression. A substantial body of research shows that organisations frequently incentivise overwork, speed, and constant availability, even while promoting wellbeing rhetorically. When performance ratings and promotion decisions favour those who tolerate unsustainable load, wellbeing becomes performative rather than genuinely protective. Policy shifts could include:
From myth to design choice If organisations took cognitive health seriously as a long-term outcome, some HR policy choices might look different. For example:
None of these require radical reinvention; they require a shift in what organisations see as legitimate people risks and a willingness to see cognition as an organisational outcome, not just an individual trait. A quote to reflect on “Much of what we call decline is simply the result of how situations are framed.” Ellen Langer. A question to reflect on What assumptions about capability, ageing, and limitation are embedded in your HR policies, not just your culture? Further reading
 Part 1: How everyday work shapes long-term cognitive health
Lasting cognitive decline does not begin at retirement; it is shaped quietly across decades of working life by the environments, expectations, and practices people inhabit every day. Last year, joining the Dementia Compass Advisory Board has widened curiosity about cognitive health not only in later life, but across the working years. One of the most striking convergences comes from the 2024 Lancet Commission on dementia prevention, intervention, and care and Ellen Langer’s The Mindful Body. Read together, they challenge three assumptions: that cognitive health is fixed, purely medical, and solely individual. The science The 2024 Lancet Commission estimates that nearly 45 percent of dementia cases worldwide could be prevented or delayed by addressing modifiable risk factors across the life course. Many of these are not abstract lifestyle choices but conditions intertwined with work: physical inactivity, social isolation, depression, hypertension, hearing and vision loss, and limited ongoing education. The Commission argues for a life course approach: risk accumulates across early life, midlife, and later life, yet remains malleable throughout adulthood. Langer’s work adds that expectation, attention, and choice shape both cognitive and physical outcomes, reframing mindfulness as an environmental property: do people have opportunities to notice, distinguish, decide, and engage? Seen through this lens, cognitive health becomes responsive to context, including workplace context. Three workplace insights When this science is viewed through a workplace lens, three insights stand out.
Policy as a cognitive lever Culture is often described as “the way we do things around here”, but culture is sustained through policy choices, not intentions. Policies silently encode what an organisation believes about attention, energy, and capability. Some examples:
A quote to reflect on “When we are mindful, we are actively making new distinctions. When we are mindless, we rely on old categories.” Ellen Langer. A question to reflect on What aspects of your organisation’s work design quietly support cognitive engagement, and which may be eroding it over time? Further reading
|
AuthorJust me, 
a HR professional listening, learning and working towards an enhanced people experience at work
Archives
May 2025
Categories |
RSS Feed
