At a multimedia organisation where I once worked, we were assigned a group project. Three of us. A comfortable deadline. Enough time to do it well.
We met early, mapped out the structure, divided the sections, and agreed to review each other’s drafts. It felt organised. Professional. Predictable.
Two of us delivered. The third, let’s call him Remedius, did not.
At first, it felt minor. A reminder here. A gentle follow-up there. We assumed he was busy. We adjusted timelines slightly. We covered small gaps.
Then the reminders became daily. What started as cooperation turned into quiet supervision.
When asked about his unfinished section, he smiled. “I like it when you remind me,” he said lightly. “It makes me better.”
Weeks passed. The deadline loomed. Nothing changed. When I finally escalated the issue, our supervisor laughed.
“Ah, Remedius. He’s an annoyance. He never delivers on time, but he does good work. We just have to manage him.”
In that moment, the problem stopped being about an incomplete assignment. The behaviour was known. It was predictable. And it was tolerated.
Remedius was rarely idle. He walked briskly through corridors with his phone pressed to his ear.
He attended nearly every meeting. Sometimes he arrived just before closing, raised his hand, and spoke at length. He was visible.
And in that organisation, visibility carried weight. Presence signalled contribution. Output was harder to measure, and easier to excuse.
Human Resource Business Partner at People Brand Uganda, Fauzia Namutebi, says such patterns are common in workplaces where leaders hesitate to intervene early.
“Early signs of problematic behaviour feel uncomfortable to confront,” she says. “Leaders fear being perceived as harsh or petty. So they postpone the conversation until the behaviour becomes too big to ignore.”
The delay is rationalised. “They are a top performer. They are under pressure. That’s just their personality. We have bigger priorities.”
Research supports this reluctance. Studies by Chiou, Huang, and Lee (2005) and Manrique de Lara (2006) show that managers frequently avoid addressing minor misconduct despite its long-term impact.
Karl Weick’s work on small wins reminds us that large organisational failures often begin as small, uncorrected behaviours. The pattern is not limited to creative offices.
A friend of mine worked at a manufacturing plant where production targets were tied to strict supply contracts. Machines ran on schedules. Output was measurable. Delay was costly.
Her challenge was a manager who rarely stepped onto the production floor during peak hours. Instead, he called frequent review meetings that disrupted workflow.
When targets were missed, operators were blamed. When targets were achieved, he reported upward as strategic leadership success.
The workers carried the pressure. He carried the recognition. The emotional consequences mirrored what I had seen before.
Related
Ecobank Kenya Names Rebecca M. Mbithi New Managing Director as Anan-Ankomah Retains Regional Role“People feel fear, resignation, or learned helplessness,” Namutebi says. “They are constantly calculating risk. Silence is rarely agreement. It is self-protection.”
Over time, silence reshapes culture.
Paul’s 2002 research on dysfunctional organisations links ineffective leadership directly to failure in achieving collective goals. When leaders tolerate inconsistency, performance declines systemically.
Dr Shamim K. Matovu, a corporate culture and behavioural insights specialist, explains it simply: “Culture is not changed by declarations or value posters. It is shaped by what people repeatedly see leaders do, reward, tolerate, and ignore.”
In both workplaces, activity was rewarded. Delay was excused. Accountability was inconsistent.
When patterns go unaddressed, reliable employees absorb extra work. Frustration becomes routine. Expectations quietly lower.
Correcting this requires visible and predictable accountability.
“Accountability works when people can reliably predict what will happen after a behavior, good or bad,” Dr Matovu explains. “It is not necessarily about punishment. It is about a clear signal.”
That signal begins with real-time conversations. A missed deadline is addressed immediately. A pattern of interruption in meetings is acknowledged. Expectations are clarified before resentment builds.
And accountability must apply across hierarchies.
“People watch how power behaves,” Dr Matovu adds. “When senior leaders are exempt from standards, accountability collapses.”
Namutebi agrees. Early intervention protects organisations from long-term erosion.
“Clear expectations, timely conversations, honest feedback, manager coaching, and early HR involvement prevent culture decay before it takes hold,” she says.
Consequence does not always mean discipline. It may mean reduced influence, delayed progression, or a requirement to rebuild trust. What matters is consistency.
In the multimedia office, the culture adjusted around the least dependable person in the room.
In the manufacturing plant, skilled technicians eventually resigned. Neither organisation announced a cultural shift. It happened gradually, through repeated tolerance of behaviour that drained teams.
Incompetence does not always look like lack of skill. Sometimes it looks like urgency. Sometimes it looks like confidence. Sometimes it looks like busyness.
When visibility becomes a substitute for delivery, organisations reward performance over responsibility.
Leadership is tested in small, uncomfortable moments, in the decision to address behaviour early, and in the refusal to excuse patterns that quietly erode trust.
Being present is easy. Being accountable is deliberate. And culture is built on whichever one a leader consistently chooses to reward.
