Spent last Thursday mostly thinking about culture: in the morning in a meeting at the FRC, talking about a research project and hearing about their “culture coalition” and later at an AQF event "Whose culture is it anyway?"
On the bus on the way home I met a friend and told her I had spent the day talking about culture. "How interesting! What sort? Theatre? Art? “ (My day had included some of that: in the afternoon I went to the Alexander Calder exhibition at Tate Modern, highly recommended.) But her comment made me think about the connections between the meanings of the word.
If, like my friend, we automatically think of cultural activities as relating to the arts and humanities, rather than companies, what might corporate cultural activities be? Externally, many companies sponsor cultural activities such as major art exhibitions: is this a way of suggesting that these sponsoring organisations are "cultured" i.e. appreciative of culture and thus appealing to the like-minded? Does this link at all to internal activities supporting their corporate cultures?
The OED definition of culture begins with its roots in the notion of growing things. This idea of culture being a process, something dynamic, was largely missing from the AQF discussion, during which I jotted down the descriptions that the speakers used. Culture was variously characterised as:good/bad; strong/weak; positive/negative; productive; poor. We were told that changing culture was a long process - which made me wonder how you would know when you’d achieved it.
The idea of culture as “how we do things round here” captures some of the idea of culture as active and implies some reference to an underlying framework of norms. Could "the culture of our company" mean how we perform or describe some underlying notion? Is culture about making values visible through action?
UK corporate governance developed under the aegis of a group of people who can best be described as gentlemen. I talked to some of them when writing the history of the Cadbury Committee. Gentlemen whose behaviour was characterised by old-fashioned courtesy, gentlemen whose good manners and considerable charm overlay incisive minds and a very shrewd approach to business matters. Gentlemen who managed to combine a flair for business with an ideal of public service. Gentlemen of quiet influence, who conducted business in panelled boardrooms, the clubs of Carlton House Terrace and at City dinners.
We used to refer to them as captains of industry. Their shared culture was quintessentially British and they led companies which were also quintessentially British - and, indeed, could be described as part of our national culture, like Cadbury. Their individual aura of trustworthiness lent trustworthiness to the companies they led.
But global companies are now led by much more diverse groups who do not share a common culture in the same way. Establishing a common boardroom culture within increasingly diverse boards must be a great challenge. In a climate where "challenge" is seen as a solution to governance problems, how can a common culture be sustained?
