{"id":1577,"date":"2020-06-29T13:05:34","date_gmt":"2020-06-29T12:05:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.workstars.com\/recognition-and-engagement-blog\/?p=1577"},"modified":"2023-08-31T15:25:45","modified_gmt":"2023-08-31T14:25:45","slug":"can-you-scientifically-measure-company-culture","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.workstars.com\/recognition-and-engagement-blog\/2020\/06\/29\/can-you-scientifically-measure-company-culture\/","title":{"rendered":"Can you scientifically measure company culture?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Many out-of-touch business leaders are quick to dismiss things like \u2018company culture\u2019 as modern-age fluff. But there has been significant work over the last few years that has helped us to more objectively understand, and measure, company culture.\u202f<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While there is still a way to go, I believe this work is significant. Not only in its ability to help you enlighten business leaders about the importance of culture, but also in its ability to help you focus your HR strategy in the areas that matter.\u202f<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So I\u2019d like to show you what the London School of Economics has discovered about defining and measuring culture. But first, let\u2019s talk a bit about why the definition of culture is so strongly linked to its measurement.\u202f<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You cannot measure something that you cannot define<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Until you can properly define something, it is pretty much impossible to measure. At least, impossible to measure with any degree of scientific credibility. Therefore, if you\u2019re trying to measure and improve high-level HR concepts like culture or engagement, you\u2019ll find it difficult. Why? Because people define such concepts in hundreds of different ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One expert who explains this better than I do is Rob Briner, Professor of Organizational Psychology at the School of Business and Management. In his thought piece collection \u2018The Future of Engagement\u2019 (2015), he writes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe one thing everyone knows about engagement is that nobody agrees what it is\u2026 This mess should profoundly trouble all of us. Without a clear and agreed definition of engagement we literally do not know or understand what we\u2019re talking about or what we\u2019re doing.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While Professor Briner is talking here about employee engagement<\/a>, his message applies to any high-level HR concept that is often ill-defined. Experts like Professor Briner are keen to promote a more evidence-based approach to HR. But ill-defined concepts are difficult to measure, thus leading to a lack of evidence.\u202f<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And actually, that\u2019s why I was fascinated to read the work carried out by The London School of Economics. Not because they quite provide a textbook definition of culture\u2026 but because they certainly go a long way towards offering an approach that could standardise measurement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Changing how we measure corporate culture<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Traditionally, measuring corporate culture is something that varies hugely from company to company.\u202f<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, Company A might assume culture to be a complex calculation, such as:\u202f<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Staff Happiness + Productivity)
Divided by<\/em>
(Number of Team-Building Exercises Every Month)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026whereas Company B might simply define culture as \u201cjust something we feel in our hearts\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This in itself is problematic. But the other huge problem with measuring corporate culture, is that it relies so heavily on self-reporting methods. For example, asking employees to rate how the feel on a scale of 1 to 10.\u202f<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All of the above can produce wildly inaccurate results. And so, since May 2016, The London School of Economics (LSE) has led an academic research project which aims to measure corporate culture more effectively.\u202f<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What makes the LSE research so unique<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The research project has been dubbed the \u201cUnobtrusive Corporate Culture Analysis Tool\u201d (UCCAT). And while the name is a bit of a mouthful, it certainly seems to remove a lot of the uncertainty surrounding the way we define and measure corporate culture – and indeed the way we can use these results to improve our organizations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One big thing that makes the UCCAT so unique, is that instead of using employee interviews and questionnaires, it actually analyses publicly available data. For example:\u202f<\/p>\n\n\n\n