In every organisation, the real culture lives in the moments between the meetings. It lives in the pauses, the sideways glances, the silences before we vote, and the jokes made after decisions have already been taken.
From an anthropological perspective, culture is not a static thing. It is created, maintained and changed through interaction. And most visibly so in how we make decisions. So don’t think that culture is ‘an HR function’. It’s created by all people living and working in the organisation, the community, the world.
You can have all the right posters on the wall, but if people feel unsafe to speak, if decisions are made without consultation, or if there’s no clarity on how input is gathered, the people will feel it. It creates unrest in the system.
Decision-making is culture-making
In my fieldwork as a corporate anthropologist, I often ask:
Where and how are decisions made around here?
It’s a deceptively simple question. Because the answer reveals the deeper layers of hierarchy, inclusion, trust and power. Are decisions made openly or behind closed doors? Do people feel heard, even if they don’t get their way? Is there room for disagreement without fear?
Culture is formed in the rituals we create for dialogue and decision-making. That’s why I use the metaphor of the campfire: a space to speak, listen, explore different perspectives, and to decide. Interaction and decision-making are at the heart of culture.
Sabotage is not the problem. It’s a signal
When people don’t feel safe enough to speak up, for whatever reason, they often don’t raise their voice. Instead, they sabotage. Not out of malice, but because speaking up feels too risky. They might fear losing face, being seen as difficult, harming their position, or offending their boss. So they hold back. But the tension doesn’t go away, it leaks out in other ways. Through silence, sarcasm, resistance, or late-stage objections.
Sabotage isn’t the root problem. It’s a signal. A symptom of deeper discomfort. A sign that something important was missed earlier in the process.
Sabotage is what people do when they feel they have no other way to influence the outcome.
If you want to change a culture, don’t punish the sabotage. Listen to what it’s pointing to. Go back to the campfire. Rebuild the trust.
Strong cultures deal with differences well
We build organisations, cultures and communities through interaction. We shape them through the way we decide. Especially during times of change, familiar ways of doing things are questioned. What we once considered normal, good, or true is suddenly up for debate. New behaviours become the new norm. Budgets are redirected. Priorities shift.
And all of this, every shift and every change, is carried out by people. In interaction. Through decision-making.
So if you want to change your organisation, don’t just look at the strategy. Look at how decisions are made. Because every culture becomes the stories it tells, and the way it chooses what happens next.
Leadership style matters deeply
How leaders act, and what the group expects from them, shapes how decisions are made and received. In some organisations, cultures or countries, people expect leaders to decide on their own. Autocratic leadership is accepted, even expected, because that’s “what they’re paid for.” In other contexts, people value open dialogue, expect to be consulted, and see democratic processes as the path to better decisions.
The tension arises when leadership style and group expectation don’t match. When people expect participation but experience control, valuable insights can get lost. And when people feel unheard, they are less likely to share openly — and more likely to sabotage.
This is the danger of autocratic leadership. It may speed things up in the short term, but it often leads to hidden resistance, lower decision quality, and rising frustration. You can see this dynamic illustrated in the short video clip. I’ve learned a great deal about sabotage and its deeper causes from Myrna Lewis, founder of the Lewis method of Deep Democracy.
The global cost of excluding voices
If we take this lens beyond the workplace and into the world, we see similar dynamics playing out on a global scale. We are witnessing the rise of autocratic leaders, often men portrayed as “strong” figures who push through their will, disregarding dissent. In many places, democracy is under threat.
People take to the streets. Artists and activists respond with protest and resistance. And why? Because not listening to diverse voices comes at a high cost. It leads to poor decisions. Decisions that often serve only a few, typically those in power.
And the consequences are real: unrest, protest, violence, and even war. When we ignore the power of interaction and inclusive decision-making, we don’t just weaken our cultures and organisations. We weaken our democracies.
Let me know: What’s the decision-making proces like in your team, your organisation? Do you have a campfire, or a battlefield?
Share this post