No Image Available

Derek Irvine

Read more about Derek Irvine

Blog: how fiefdoms destroy company cultures

This morning I had breakfast with a friend, Martha. As friends do over coffee and pastry, we filled each other in on the latest happenings in our work and personal lives. I was particularly concerned about Martha’s work experiences as her company has gone through some “right sizing” in recent months. As part of the restructuring, the groups in her building have officially divided into two formal divisions within the larger organisation.
The outcome, while beneficial in some ways, was detrimental in others. One division, I’ll call them Alpha, in particular believes they deserve to be entirely separate and have no need to participate with the Bravo people (the other division) at all. Keep in mind, these divisions share the same building and facilities.
Why is this so bad? Here’s just one example. Martha heads up the employee recognition team for the Bravo division. She coordinates pizza lunches, bagel breakfasts, holiday events and the like. (While I will argue this isn’t real recognition, the example still highlights the dysfunction.) She was informed last week that the Alpha group doesn’t want to participate in the “thing” Bravo does and will create their own. Of course, this generated ill will, not the least of which is a result of Alpha not stepping up to create their own recognition solution.
The problems run much more deeply, however. Martha’s company offers a glimpse into why multiple disparate recognition programmes cause problems.
Fiefdoms Destroy Culture
The senior leader of the Alpha group was a driving force behind the decision to split the group into two formal divisions. There’s a reason team members call him “Napoleon.” Indeed, Napoleon has effectively built himself his own little fiefdom within the larger company. He runs things his way, without concern for the larger needs or desires of the entire organisation. (A fiefdom is very different from an organisational division or business unit. Business units exist for valid business-based reasons. Fiefdoms exist for the glorification of the local leader.)
The company itself has a strong culture. These fiefdoms are rapidly eroding that culture. Employees within Alpha do not feel part of the larger group, many see themselves as distinctly different and separately entitled. Are Alpha employees as committed to the overall company goals and mission? I wonder.
Localised Employee Recognition & Satisfaction Programmes Prop Up Fiefdoms
By choosing to “go their own way” with employee recognition, Alpha further distances themselves from the rest of the organisation. This is why we strongly advocate as best practice a single strategic, social recognition programme for the entire organisation as this is the most efficient, positive (and cost effective) way to create one culture across the entire organisation. When done right, strategic recognition reinforces the company’s overall core values and strategic objectives, uniting all employees in a common vision and mission.
Executives Must Take Control of the Culture (and Recognition)
Executives must stop propping up fiefdoms in their organisation. They must take control of their culture, which is most easily done through strategic recognition. Again, when done right, strategic, social recognition generates the big data necessary to see your culture in action, everywhere, in all divisions, across all employees. That’s simply not possible when fiefdoms are allowed to create their own approaches.
If a company decides to pursue one culture of appreciation through a single, universal (or global) strategic recognition programme for all employees, then executives must step up and clearly, firmly inform divisional leaders (especially fiefdom lords) that local recognition programmes will no longer be funded or encouraged. The expectation is for all units to join into a One Company culture and engage with each other through the single recognition solution.
Does your company have fiefdoms? How do they affect your overall culture?