Introduction

Organisational culture is frequently identified as an influence on staff behaviour and service quality. Inquiries and reports into the abuse of people with intellectual disabilities routinely point to the culture in services to explain its occurrence. Often it is argued that by understanding culture then abuse in services can be better prevented and detected. The recommendations in these reports frequently include the type of culture a service ought to have, for example, a “culture of respect” or a “learning culture”, but in doing so the concept of culture is reduced to aspirational values and guidance lacking in how to create such a culture. The aim of this chapter is to explain what is culture, how it influences staff behaviour, the characteristics of culture in good and poor quality services, and how to change culture.

What Is Organisational Culture?

There are many definitions of organisational culture, but in essence it refers to shared beliefs, values, basic assumptions, norms and patterns of behaviour that influence how staff think, feel and act. Beliefs are consciously held views about truth and reality. For example, that people with intellectual disabilities can live full lives and be contributing members of society. Values are ideas about what is important, right and desirable, which serve as guiding principles. For instance, that it is right and desirable that people with intellectual disabilities make decisions about what happens in their lives. Basic assumptions are similar to beliefs and values, except they are preconsciously held (i.e., thoughts that are not presently in awareness but can be accessed). For example, staff believe that they share a common humanity with people with intellectual disabilities, but this belief has dropped out of their awareness. For such staff, to regard people with intellectual disabilities as fundamentally different from themselves would be inconceivable. Norms are expectations about how staff ought to behave in certain situations. For example, that staff arrive to work on time and call the service (e.g., group home) or their frontline supervisor if they are running late. Patterns of behaviour are regularly occurring ways of behaving, working and interacting with colleagues and people supported. For example, staff working in a group home eat dinner with the people supported and talk with them about their day.

Key to the definition of culture is that it is shared; there is consensus among staff in terms of the beliefs, values, basic assumptions, norms and patterns of behaviour. Culture can be shared throughout an organisation and among staff groups or teams. When it is shared throughout an organisation, there is consistency across staff. For example, staff in an organisation share the value of supporting people to live according to their preferences. Staff groups or teams can share aspects of culture that are distinct from other groups or teams. For example, senior managers in an organisation agree that research evidence be used to inform decisions about service delivery, which may be different to other staff in the organisation. Or in one accommodation service, staff agree that the completion of housework is a priority and no unfinished housework is to be left for the next shift. But in another service from the same organisation, staff agree that the involvement of the people they support in household tasks is a priority (i.e., Active Support) and not completing all tasks on shift is acceptable. Recognising that culture can be shared throughout an organisation and among staff groups is important for understanding culture and will be returned to later in the chapter.

How Culture Influences Staff Behaviour

Culture serves several functions for staff. It reduces uncertainty and provides guidance in appropriate ways to think, feel and act. For new staff working in a service, culture helps them to manage uncertainties about what to do and how to do it. New staff try to learn and decipher the culture so they can perform according to the accepted ways of doing things and to fit in. For other staff, working according to the patterns of behaviour in the service means they do not constantly have to think about what to do and how to do it; there is predictability. When required, staff draw on internalised values and norms to guide their decisions and behaviour.

Culture enables and constrains staff behaviour by signalling what is acceptable and desirable. For instance, the culture in a good service may enable staff to spend time with the people they support, to get to know them, find out their likes and interests, support them to pursue their interests and identify new opportunities that they may enjoy. That is, these would be considered acceptable ways of interacting with the people they support and appropriate use of staff time. In poor quality services where there has been abuse, physical assault may be enabled because it is accepted by staff as an appropriate response or it is not sanctioned by members of the group. In a study of a service where there had been alleged abuse, new staff were told by more experienced staff to “do the first hit” because the person “would respect you and do as they were told” (Cambridge, 1999, p. 296). Footage from a BBC documentary of abuse at Winterbourne View (Panorama, 2011), an accommodation service in the United Kingdom, shows several instances of a staff member physically abusing a person with other staff present who do not intervene, as well as other instances of multiple staff members working together to physically control or punish a person. In a good service, however, the culture would constrain staff from abusing residents because it would not be considered permissible and there would be sanctions from team members.

Culture is both consciously and preconsciously held by staff. This means that staff can easily identify and articulate some aspects of the culture, but other aspects have dropped out of awareness. Staff may become more aware of the preconscious aspects of culture when they are teaching a new staff member to work in the service, or when they work in another service and have to adapt to different priorities and ways of working.

Characteristics of Culture in Good and Poor Quality Services

Much of the research into culture in disability organisations has occurred in supported accommodation services, such as group homes, and this chapter focuses on those settings. We know from this research about the characteristics of culture in poor quality and abusive services (Bigby et al., 2012; Cambridge, 1999), and some of the characteristics in good quality services (Bigby & Beadle-Brown, 2016; Bigby et al., 2015; Humphreys, Bigby, & Iacono, 2020). Culture has been researched more in abusive and poor quality services, with the intention to prevent and detect abuse, rather than good services, which might inform services and staff about the characteristics of culture they should aim to develop.

Culture in Poor Quality Services

In poor quality services, there can be a group of staff who hold the power and have a strong influence on what happens in the service. These staff may form a core group or faction who support each other and also have influence on new or inexperienced staff. They may use colluding, manipulation or even bullying to influence other staff. A key characteristic of this culture is that the values of the staff group are at odds with the organisation’s core values. Instead of valuing, for example, rights and people achieving their goals, staff in poor quality services value order, cleanliness and appearances.

Related to these values are the patterns of behaviour in the home which follow staff agendas. For example, staff cook and clean while the people they support are expected to amuse themselves, which often results in them being disengaged. There is a separation between staff and the people they support. When house tasks are done, then staff may attempt to spend time with the people they support, such as going for a drive to get out of the house and pass the time.

Norms may include the use of excessive physical force to respond to behaviours of concern or simply to move a person. Another norm in the service may be the expectation among staff who work the evening shift that they can finish early when tasks are completed and it is quiet. This expectation encourages staff to finish chores quickly and put people in bed early, and also discourages afternoon and evening activities.

A conscious or preconscious belief of staff working in poor quality services is that people with intellectual disabilities are fundamentally different from themselves and “not like us”. They may be viewed as incapable, odd, unusual and even a source of amusement. But not someone that staff would want to get to know and associate with. Staff may talk and interact with the people they support as though they are children, such as singing nursery rhymes with them and using soft toys. When talking about the people they support, staff do so in derogatory ways, focusing on what people cannot do, their impairments or aspects they find amusing. Such staff may mimic the residents or the sounds they make.

Another characteristic of culture commonly found in abusive and poor quality services is that the leadership is poor and ineffectual. The frontline supervisor may have little influence on the core group of staff and be unable to change what happens in the service, or be a member of the core group and part of the problem. Senior managers fail to appropriately manage poor-performing staff or ignore the signs that there are issues in the service. Such services are often isolated within the organisation, resulting in a lack of scrutiny and expertise from people external to the service. Relatedly, staff try to limit visitors to the service, cancel appointments and meetings, and resist suggestions to change and improve the service. Because some staff have been socialised into the service and are isolated, they are unaware of the extent of the problem with the way things are done and how they could be different. More progressive staff who work in such services without sufficient support from their frontline supervisor and managers are likely to leave for another service or organisation that is a better fit.

Culture in Better Services

In good services, there may also be a core group of staff who have influence on what happens in the service. However, a key difference compared to poor services is that staff members’ values and priorities are aligned with those of the organisation and disability policy. For example, staff agree that enhancing the quality of life of each person they support is important and desirable. The frontline supervisor leads the staff team and has a positive influence on the culture: by, for example, explaining service aims and priorities, modelling good support, acknowledging when staff work well and providing feedback to improve their practice. The frontline supervisor and staff work as a team to ensure support is delivered according to the preferences of each person supported and there is consistency across staff. When on shift, staff plan together, regularly update each other as the shift progresses, ask each other for help if needed, and notify each other if something needs doing. That is, the culture enables staff to delegate to each other, share information and provide suggestions to improve each other’s practice.

In good services, staff believe that the people they support, first and foremost, are people like themselves who have preferences, interests and personalities. This belief manifests in staff behaviour where they spend time with each person, know them, and value the relationships they have with them. Furthermore, interactions are respectful, include moments of fun and a friendly atmosphere. Staff have shared experiences and identify common interests with the people they support, which contributes to the establishment of warm relationships. Staff acknowledge and celebrate when something important happens in the life of a person they support. They feel concerned when a person experiences a setback.

The patterns of behaviour in good services are in essence person centred, which contrasts with the staff-centred patterns of behaviour in poor services. This means when and how things are done is in accordance with each person’s preferences. For example, what happens in the afternoon, the activities that people participate in, what they eat for dinner and when, what they do after dinner and the time they retire to bed. In addition, staff frequently provide assistance throughout the day that enables the people they support to participate in meaningful activities and social interactions, rather than waiting until tasks are completed. People are supported to participate and be included in the community—attending places they prefer, seeing or meeting up with familiar people, participating in activities they enjoy—instead of simply being present in the community. Norms include introducing visitors to the people who live in the home and not discussing a person’s private information in front of other people. They also include, with consent, sharing information with family members, such as events, appointments and their outcomes, any changes and incidences.

Another characteristic of the culture in good services is that there is collaboration between staff and the organisation’s senior managers. This means senior managers understand what it is like to work in the service and know what is happening. They are in regular contact with the service and help staff find solutions to problems. Furthermore, they involve staff in decision-making that affects them. Instead of staff feeling isolated, the service is connected within the organisation and welcomes input from managers, family members and external professionals that will improve service delivery and the lives of the people supported.

Culture and Quality of Life

Identifying the characteristics of culture in good accommodation services is an area of research that is still developing, as is examining the relationship between culture and quality of life outcomes. In the only study that has statistically examined this relationship in group homes, Humphreys, Bigby and Iacono (2020) found that in services where there was more effective team leadership from frontline supervisors, and staff members’ shared norms and patterns of behaviour were directed towards supporting the well-being of each person, the people supported had higher levels of engagement in meaningful activities and social interactions. Similarly, they found that when staff norms and patterns of behaviour were directed towards supporting well-being, the people supported had greater community participation.

Their findings suggest that to enhance quality of life outcomes, services should aim for frontline supervisors to be skilled in team leadership. For frontline supervisors, this means that they transmit and embed a positive culture in the service. Some of the ways they can do this have been mentioned previously. In addition, it involves frontline supervisors recognising that they are in a position to shape the service and staff team. Staff are constantly watching, listening and learning from them appropriate ways to think, feel and act. Therefore, frontline supervisors need to model good support and interactions. They need to explain to staff the priorities and expectations in the service, because without doing so, it will be determined by the staff group. They need to regularly teach staff new skills and ways to develop their practice. They also need to use opportunities to help staff to learn from their experiences and their mistakes, by identifying how staff have worked well and providing guidance on how staff can do it better next time. In essence, they need to shape the staff team’s beliefs, values, basic assumptions, norms and patterns of behaviour.

Humphreys and colleagues’ (2020) findings suggest that staff members’ shared ways of working should be directed towards supporting well-being. These ways of working reflect Active Support (see Chap. 7), supporting social participation (see Chap. 4) and self-determination (see Chap. 11). That is, each person is supported to participate in household and leisure activities they enjoy, to participate in their community, to meet people and make friends, and to make decisions about what happens each day and the important things in their life. By working in these ways, people can be supported to experience well-being (i.e., a good quality of life). These ways of working need to be embedded in services as the norms and patterns of behaviour. If they are part of the culture, then it will enable desirable staff behaviours and constrain undesirable behaviours.

Understanding an Organisation’s Culture

Before an organisation attempts to change its culture, it is important that its culture is understood. The organisation needs to know:

  • What is the existing culture?

  • Why the culture needs to change?

  • What should the culture be changed to?

One way of learning the culture in an organisation is to spend time in services observing and speaking with staff and the people supported. That is, observing staff work, their interactions with each other and the people they support. As well as observing the people who live in the home: what they are doing, the activities they participate in and their interactions with others. The culture can be ascertained by asking staff about the priorities in the service, what they do on shift and why, about the people they support, how the team functions, the leadership of the frontline supervisor and the support from senior managers. Culture can also be learned by observing what new staff are taught when starting at the service, how staff talk about the people supported and the stories they tell.

This process of observing and speaking with staff and the people supported can be used to gather rich information about the culture in an organisation. The aim is to decipher staff members’ shared beliefs, values, basic assumptions, norms and patterns of behaviour. However, this process is intensive and requires time as well as a skilled observer and interviewer knowledgeable on culture. Furthermore, it may not be feasible to learn the culture throughout the whole organisation using this approach if there are numerous services.

Another approach to understanding an organisation’s culture is to administer a questionnaire to staff to elicit their perceptions of the culture. There are many generic instruments available which typically assess culture in terms of interactions among staff and work conditions. However, generic instruments by design do not measure aspects of culture specific to disability services, such as the interactions between staff and the people supported.

One instrument developed to measure culture specifically in disability accommodation services is the Group Home Culture Scale (GHCS; Humphreys, Bigby, Iacono, et al., 2020). The GHCS was developed from in-depth qualitative research on culture in group homes which characterised culture in better services as cohesive, respectful, enabling and motivating (Bigby & Beadle-Brown, 2016). The GHCS measures staff members and frontline supervisors’ perceptions of culture according to seven dimensions. Five of the dimensions reflect good characteristics of culture:

  • Alignment of Staff with Organisational Values: staff members’ values align with the organisation’s core values

  • Effective Team Leadership: the frontline supervisor transmits and embeds a positive culture

  • Valuing Residents and Relationships: staff value the residents and the relationships they have with them

  • Supporting Well-Being: shared ways of working that enhance well-being

  • Collaboration within the Organisation: support from senior managers

Two dimensions reflect poor characteristics of culture:

  • Factional: divisions within the staff team

  • Social Distance from Residents: staff regard the residents as fundamentally different from themselves

The GHCS can be used to understand an organisation’s culture, which can inform decisions about where and how to change it. Examining where culture is shared reveals patterns within an organisation. Culture can be shared throughout an organisation and among staff groups.

Integrated and Differentiated Culture

When culture is shared throughout an organisation, there is consistency across staff teams working in group homes. Organisation-wide consistency is referred to as an integrated culture. In a study examining patterns of culture in eight organisations using the GHCS, Humphreys et al. (2022) found evidence of integrated culture in three organisations. In one organisation, for example, there was consistency across their five group homes for the dimension alignment of staff with organisational values. If we were to visit these group homes, we would find that the values of staff in one group home are similar to staff working in another group home.

For staff working across multiple group homes in an organisation with an integrated culture, they would not have to learn and adapt to a completely different culture at each service. Their knowledge of the culture in one group home is transferable to another group home. An integrated culture can develop because of common staff experiences and through aligning staff teams to a common set of beliefs, values, norms and patterns of behaviour.

Identifying where culture is integrated can inform strategies about how to manage culture. For instance, if there is a consistent lack of collaboration within the organisation, then it suggests there is a whole-of-organisation problem, and organisation-wide strategies should be implemented to change the culture.

When culture is shared among staff working in a group home and it is different from other group homes in the organisation, it is referred to as a differentiated culture. In their study, Humphreys et al. (2022) found evidence of differentiated culture in six organisations. In one organisation, for example, there was differentiation across seven group homes for three dimensions of culture. Staff in one group home perceived there were divisions within the team, but in another group home staff did not perceive there were divisions. There was effective team leadership and collaboration with senior managers in one group home, but in another group home, these aspects of culture were lacking.

That culture can be differentiated is probably unsurprising to managers and staff who work across multiple accommodation services. Many managers can identify a service that has a good team where staff work well together, their practices are person centred, and there are very few concerns. But in another service, there are often disagreements among staff, practices are staff centred, and there are many concerns. For staff who work across multiple services (e.g., casual staff), they can work in a proactive and person-centred way in one service, but in another service feel like a domestic worker responding to crises.

Differentiated culture can develop because staff working in one accommodation service interact more with each other than with staff working in other services, staff have shared work experiences, they perform interdependent tasks and have similar personal characteristics (Trice & Beyer, 1993). It can develop because of geographical distances between services, and staff report to and are influenced by different supervisors and managers. Except when an organisation is very small, some differentiation of culture is expected (Trice & Beyer, 1993).

If culture is differentiated in an organisation, then strategies to change and maintain culture can be targeted to specific services. For instance, in the group home where there were perceived problems with staff factions, team leadership and collaboration within the organisation, strategies should be targeted to this service to change and improve these aspects of culture. An organisation-wide approach may be unwarranted in this instance because in another group home these aspects of culture were not perceived as problematic, and therefore there is no need to change them. Rather, in that group home, strategies should be implemented to maintain and enhance these aspects of culture. However, even in these types of situations, organisation-wide strategies should be considered that might prevent the development of significant differentiation between services. These are discussed later in the chapter.

Culture can be simultaneously integrated and differentiated in organisations. Humphreys et al. (2022) found in one organisation, for example, there was consistency across five group homes in terms of staff valuing the residents and their relationships with them, but there were also differences in terms of collaboration within the organisation and the influence of staff factions. Both organisation-wide and targeted interventions are needed in this organisation to change and maintain culture.

Recognising that culture can be shared throughout an organisation (integrated) and among staff teams (differentiated) provides a more complete understanding of culture. Identifying where and how it is integrated and differentiated can inform decisions about whether strategies should be implemented to change or maintain culture, and whether they should be organisation wide or targeted to specific services.

Generating and Reinforcing Positive Culture or Changing Poor Culture

A triggering or critical event can spark a change in culture (Fine, 2012; Trice & Beyer, 1993). For example, a serious incident, a complaint, a change in leadership, the results of a study of the organisation’s culture or a significant accomplishment. Such events can provide the catalyst and motivation for culture change to be accepted swiftly. Change processes are often led from the top of an organisation. It needs to be acknowledged that culture change is usually a gradual and long-term project that may involve changing organisational structures and managerial processes, as well as changing behaviours and attitudes of frontline managers and staff, and the “way things are done” in services.

Learning from Cultural Characteristics and Practice

The type of culture in services where abuse occurs is the very opposite of that found in services where people have a good quality of life. Understanding the features of culture associated with abuse is useful in identifying not only what needs to change but also how this might be done. These services are characterised by poor organisational practices, such as a lack of support for staff, negative relationships between staff and senior management, limited staff training, and lack of team meetings or reflective practice (Collins & Murphy, 2022). It is these characteristics that require attention and need to change if culture is to change, and all of these can be influenced by the senior management of an organisation.

Conversely, features of culture in services where there are good quality of life outcomes point to the factors that should be in place to create the conditions for this type of culture. For example, positive cultures are cohesive (effective teamwork), enabling (supporting people to have the life they want), respectful (valuing the people you support and relationships with them) and motivating (staff aligned with organisational values and mission). Although research has not been conducted in how to implement and embed positive culture, strategies for developing good staff practice and embedding it across services learned from research on Active Support and Frontline Practice Leadership (Bigby et al., 2020) provide insight into creating conditions for culture that supports a good quality of life. For example, if staff are trained in Active Support they will prioritise practices that improve meaningful engagement of the people they support, and thus the culture will reflect the dimension of supporting well-being. Similarly, if supervisors are skilled in the five tasks of Frontline Practice Leadership they are more likely to regularly observe staff and give feedback, and chair team meetings that enable staff to share information and work together as a team, which reflect the dimension of effective team leadership.

Influencing culture requires proactive and reactive approaches, which can operate in parallel. First, proactive strategies contribute to creating a positive culture or assisting it to flourish. These are executed by senior managers through, for example, strategic investment in training, new human resources (HR) practices, or redesign of structures for frontline management. They aim to influence who is employed and the way staff in all services work. Second, reactive strategies are used for changing existing poor culture in services. These are executed by senior managers and frontline supervisors through, for example, awareness raising or team development. They aim to directly influence the staff team and their behaviours, beliefs and attitudes.

There is very little research on changing culture in disability organisations, and the following suggestions are based on limited evidence as well as theory and practice wisdom. To change culture, it may be better to identify a few realistic goals that will have an impact. This will help ensure the culture change is followed through and staff maintain focus, rather than trying to do too much all at once. Sharing success stories during the process can help demonstrate the benefits of the change and keep staff motivated. Furthermore, stories are effective for conveying cultural meanings (Trice & Beyer, 1993). Staff working in services frequently share stories about their work experiences; they remember and repeat them.

Organisational Structures and Processes that Influence Culture

A range of proactive strategies are available to senior managers for creating the conditions that generate a positive culture or help it flourish. It is not sufficient to articulate organisational values and mission in clear statements on a website. The values and mission have to be communicated to all staff who need to understand how they apply to them and the people they support.

Value of a Practice Framework

For staff, organisational values must be translated into behavioural expectations that are meaningful to them and their work in a service. One approach is to create a coherent model or framework of practice so there are common ways of working across the organisation. A practice framework sets out not only what is expected of staff and frontline supervisors from the moment they enter the organisation, but also how to do it. It guides staff in a shared direction, with a shared language and skills. Without a practice framework, the right way to work is often informed by organisational policy and procedures, such as medication administration, client confidentiality, work health and safety and so forth. Although important, policies and procedures lack guidance in how to provide support and interact with the people supported, and they are insufficient for achieving goals of enhancing quality of life.

Human Resource Practices: Hiring, Firing and Training

Culture can be influenced by HR management and their proactive and reactive practices. Recruitment is essential to ensuring new staff fit the type of culture an organisation wants to create and maintain. Time invested in this part of the employment cycle to screen people from entering an organisation is preferable to protracted industrial processes of removing unsuitable workers. Interviews are useful for testing verbal competence and whether a person knows about expected values and practice. But they are less effective for judging whether a person can put these into practice. Some organisations use creative methods to overcome these limitations, such as group interviews where applicants are observed and expected to interact with each other and perhaps also some of the people supported in the organisation.

Long probation periods are another strategy for screening out unsuitable staff before they negatively influence culture in a service. Ensuring all staff receive regular supervision can help to identify unsatisfactory staff performance. Performance management can be used to manage staff behaviour that is contrary to the values of the organisation and potentially disruptive to positive culture. The dismissal of staff whose behaviour is unacceptable communicates messages about what the organisation will not tolerate.

Staff inductions should focus on the main knowledge and competencies staff need to know to perform their roles as well as core organisational beliefs, values, norms, and patterns of behaviour. The organisation will need to identify the aspects of culture they want services and staff teams to have, such as those identified as being characteristic of good services. Much of a new staff member’s socialisation into an organisation will occur when working in services and learning from other staff. Senior managers can influence this process by determining in which services new staff are first socialised and who they learn from. One approach is to have new staff work in good services and learn from exemplary staff, so they learn desirable ways of working. Once new workers have learnt these ways of working, they can be transferred to another service and receive support from the frontline supervisor and service manager to transition.

Investment in quality and evidence informed training for all staff and frontline supervisors is another strategy that contributes to a consistent organisational approach and shared language. Training introduces new skills or updates existing skills. It should include the practices of supporting well-being, such as Active Support, supporting social participation, and self-determination. Hands-on training for staff led by an experienced trainer and regular coaching from a frontline supervisor can help to embed new knowledge and try out new skills. Frontline supervisors need training in team leadership and Practice Leadership, and senior managers need training in how to effectively collaborate with and support staff teams.

Structures that Support Effective Leadership

There is a growing body of knowledge about the influence of frontline supervisors on service culture and the quality of services. Yet, too often good staff move into these roles without the training they need to be effective leaders. Furthermore, expectations of their role are often too broad, and organisational structures give too little time for the tasks associated with Practice Leadership to be accomplished. For instance, their time is disproportionately allocated to filling vacant shifts, attending meetings and completing administrative tasks. Senior managers must create the structures for effective leadership; they need to give frontline supervisors the time to be present in services to perform the tasks of Practice Leadership and equip them with the skills and support to do these. Some strategies to facilitate this are providing frontline supervisors with training in Practice Leadership, regular support from their managers, communities of practice, and access to an administration support team.

Service-Level Change

Change at the service level involves the staff team, the frontline supervisor and their immediate manager. For interventions at this level to be successful, staff need to have a shared understanding of the existing culture and the aspects that need to be changed and maintained (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). Frontline supervisors and immediate managers can influence this by explaining the need for change and what it will look like. Rather than challenging staff, it is more effective to bring them along by helping them to understand the reasons for the change and its benefits. For some staff, hearing the proposed changes will be sufficient to influence their beliefs and behaviour. But for others, they will need to “see it to believe it”. For example, they will need to be shown Active Support being used to support a person and then try it themselves before changing their beliefs and behaviour.

The process of helping staff understand the need for change can be facilitated through reviewing findings from analysis of service culture, or candid discussion to make visible and bring into the open the usually hidden or preconscious aspects of culture. Gaining an explicit awareness of the culture in their service can help staff to think about what a desired culture might look like, based, for example, on the organisation’s core values and mission. It will also assist staff in identifying the positive aspects of culture that need to be maintained and reinforced.

Take Home Messages

  • Organisational culture means staff members’ shared beliefs, values, basic assumptions, norms and patterns of behaviour that influence how they think, feel and act.

  • For staff, culture reduces uncertainty and provides predictability; it enables and constrains their behaviour by signalling acceptable ways of working.

  • There are contrasting characteristics of culture in good and poor quality group homes, including: whether the values of staff are aligned or misaligned with the organisation’s core values, the frontline supervisor is effective at leading the staff team or not, staff believe the people they support are like themselves or fundamentally different, staff practices are person or staff centred, norms encourage respectful or disrespectful behaviour, staff are connected with the senior managers and the broader organisation or isolated.

  • In disability organisations, there can be similarities in culture across the group homes (integrated culture) it operates and there can be differences (differentiated culture). Integrated and differentiated culture helps to explain why group homes in an organisation can be similar to and different from each other.

  • To change an organisation’s culture, organisational-level interventions include translating values into practice by developing a coherent practice framework; practices to hire, fire and train staff; and implementing structural changes to enable effective frontline leadership. Service-level interventions include team members developing a shared understanding of the existing culture and how it needs to change.