Beyond Blame?
Why culture isn’t a scapegoat or a saviour.
When failure strikes, it’s tempting to point at “the culture” or a few “bad apples.” Real shifts arrive when we work on people, patterns, and the systems that reward them.
When a story of organisational failure breaks, the chorus is familiar. Commentators cite a broken culture, the public nods, and leaders commission a review. It has become a habit to explain almost anything through culture. There is truth in this. Culture shapes what feels normal, what gets airtime, and what passes without question. Yet stopping the inquiry at culture leaves us short of the shift we need.
I think of Margaret Heffernan’s reminder that small choices shape big outcomes.
Culture is the day job.
The rhythms and rituals of a team accumulate into consequence. Still, when we examine serious failures, we also have to look for the design beneath the behaviour. The systems that incentivise speed over scrutiny. The habits that prize harmony over healthy challenge. The metrics that reward activity rather than outcomes. If we only rebuke the culture, we miss the machinery that keeps producing the same result.
A few years ago I spent time with a bank after a public conduct issue. The press framed it as a cultural collapse. Internally, leaders felt that sting of shame and moved quickly to reset values, rewrite posters, update the intranet home page and launch a listening program. None of that is wrong. It just was not enough. The case work revealed something more stubborn. Individual decisions were made under a set of targets that made short-term revenue the hero. The deals that raised flags were celebrated for speed. The rules for escalation were technically sound but socially discouraged. People had learned where the friction lived, and they worked around it because the system signalled that this was “winning”.
The problem didn’t begin with character. Rather, it began with what the organisation made easy, what it made hard and ultimately, what it rewarded.
I rarely rant.
One phrase comes close to provoking one: “A few bad apples.”
Swift action on misconduct matters.
People are responsible for their choices, and consequences create clarity. Removing harmful actors may be necessary. It is not sufficient. If the orchard’s irrigation is tainted, new apples will follow the same path. We need to dismantle or adjust the structures that allowed the behaviour to flourish. That includes incentives, approvals, data visibility, and how leaders respond when speed and scrutiny collide.
This is where a both/and approach serves boards and executives. Address the individuals and the culture, then address the system that binds them.
I often use a simple lens with leaders because it keeps us grounded. Start with what people are seeing, saying, and sensing day to day. That tells you how the norms are experienced. Pair that with what the system is counting, funding, and celebrating. That tells you what will continue. The gap between those two stories explains most of what we later label as failure.
In practice, the work looks unglamorous. You reset a target so it doesn’t outpace the risk appetite. You shorten an approval path so the right escalation is not punished by delay. You make a monthly forum where dissent is expected, not exceptional. You ensure the first question after a near miss is not “Who?” but “What made this the most reasonable path?” These are small moves that create capacity through culture and leadership. They reduce noise and free attention for judgment. They are the moves that change the odds.
Deliberate over default is a useful mantra here.
Defaults lead us to broad labels and quick fixes. Deliberate practice asks us to stay with the specifics. Which behaviours caused harm. Which signals were missed. Which reward structures nudged people towards the edge. This level of attention is not about blame. It is about designing a workplace where good judgment is supported by how the place runs.
There is a final piece that matters.
When we speak only about culture, we risk making accountability abstract.
When we speak only about individuals, we risk making it personal and portable. Someone leaves, and we believe the problem has left with them.
Real accountability is shared. People own their choices. Leaders own the conditions. Boards own the system design. Each layer has work to do, and the work connects and reinforces each other.
Yes, I am frustrated by the headlines about toxic cultures and a few bad apples but I remain optimistic because I see teams choosing the better path.
They resist the seduction of a single cause. They address conduct issues fairly and swiftly, then sit with the less dramatic questions about structure and signal. Over time, the headlines fade, and the organisation’s habits grow stronger. Customers notice. So do regulators and communities. Most importantly, the people doing the work feel the difference. The place runs in a way that makes the right thing easier.
Culture may be to blame…
But to do something about it, we need more. We need the courage to examine the system, the patience to tune it, and the steadiness to hold people to standards while building the conditions that support them.
That is how culture shifts stick.
Thank you for exploring with me.
Meredith.
Outstanding content .. on point