A team can say that careful preparation matters while giving most attention to last-minute rescues. It can ask people to raise concerns while treating questions as delays. New participants learn from these ordinary interactions as well as from the written procedure, and the two lessons may point in different directions.
In Atomic Habits, James Clear examines the influence of close peers, groups and people with status on the behaviour we find attractive. He also discusses accountability as a way to make commitments more immediate. Applied to a small business, these ideas invite a practical review of what the team demonstrates, recognises and follows up, rather than another statement about the culture it hopes to have.
Distinguish a stated standard from a working norm
A team norm is an informal expectation about how people usually behave in a group. It can concern how meetings begin, whether incomplete work is handed over or how someone responds to a mistake. Norms may be influential even when nobody has explicitly agreed to them.
A standard is an expressed requirement for the work. It might specify the information required before production or the review needed before release. A norm can support that standard, undermine it or leave people unsure which one governs a real decision.
Examine what happens under ordinary pressure. If an experienced person routinely bypasses a check and is praised for speed, others may reasonably infer that the check is optional. Repeating the written rule will have limited value unless the visible pattern is addressed.
Begin with a particular behaviour rather than a broad judgement that the culture is good or bad. A concrete pattern can be observed and changed. A sweeping description can obscure differences between tasks, people and situations.
Notice whose behaviour becomes the example
Clear describes the influence of people close to us, the wider group and those with prestige or authority. In a small business, those categories may overlap. A founder may be a close working partner, the decision-maker and the most experienced person in the room.
That makes ordinary conduct consequential. The way the founder records a decision, acknowledges uncertainty or handles an error can provide a more visible example than a separate training session. People see what is actually possible and what receives a favourable response.
Influence is not limited to formal leaders. A respected colleague may establish how a difficult task is approached. Someone who regularly helps others may shape the preferred method simply because people ask them for guidance.
Identify these examples without assuming that the most visible method is the best one. A successful person may also have workarounds that depend on private knowledge or unusual authority. Make the useful practice explicit before encouraging others to copy it.
Choose a behaviour that supports the work
Select one recurring action whose value is clear. It might be recording a decision before a meeting closes, identifying a missing input before accepting a task or checking the current version before using a document. Define the action in terms the team can recognise.
Explain what the behaviour protects. A handover note is useful because the next person needs to continue without guessing. A review is useful because an unchecked assumption may affect a later decision. The purpose helps distinguish meaningful use from mechanical compliance.
Invite the people doing the work to examine the requirement. They may identify a practical obstacle or a simpler expression of the same standard. A norm is easier to make useful when the action fits the actual sequence of work.
Keep the scope limited. A team trying to change every interaction at once may struggle to recognise progress. Choose a pattern that matters, establish how it should work and review it before adding another demand.
Make good examples visible and repeatable
A working example shows the behaviour in the context where it is needed. It might be a completed handover with enough information to act, or a meeting close that confirms decisions and owners. The example should demonstrate the standard without requiring people to infer hidden steps.
Use ordinary cases as well as exceptional successes. A polished showcase can suggest that the practice requires more effort than everyday work can support. A clear, modest example can make the expected level of detail easier to understand.
Explain the reasoning behind important choices. Why was this issue escalated? Why was that detail included? The explanation helps people apply the principle when the next case differs from the example.
Keep examples current. If the process changes but the team still points newcomers to an old record, the outdated method can remain the practical norm. Assign responsibility for maintaining the examples people actually use.
Align recognition with the intended behaviour
Recognition is the attention or acknowledgement given to a contribution. It communicates what the group values, even when no formal reward is involved. Examine which actions receive notice and which remain invisible.
Recognise prevention as well as recovery. Finding a missing assumption early may produce no dramatic event, but it can protect later work. Explain that contribution in concrete terms so that the team understands what was useful.
Be specific rather than praising a fixed identity. Acknowledging that someone clarified a requirement before committing to a date gives others a repeatable example. Calling them the team’s hero can encourage dependence on one person without explaining the method.
Avoid recognising volume while ignoring quality. If the group celebrates the number of tasks closed, it may give little attention to whether the recipient can use the output. Pair visible progress with the work standard the progress is meant to represent.
Define accountability as a clear working agreement
Accountability means being answerable for an agreed commitment and providing an honest account of progress, results and obstacles. It is most useful when the commitment is clear and the person has the authority, information and capacity needed to carry it out.
Clear’s book includes personal habit contracts with penalties. A workplace adaptation needs a different emphasis: explicit responsibilities, timely feedback and a fair way to resolve missed commitments. Public embarrassment or arbitrary fines are not necessary ingredients of useful accountability.
Agree on the action, its completion condition, the review point and what happens if the plan becomes unrealistic. The response may involve assistance, reprioritisation or a revised method. It should not depend on guessing what a manager will consider acceptable after the event.
Where peers choose an accountability arrangement, keep its purpose and boundaries explicit. A colleague can help review a practice without becoming responsible for policing someone’s entire working day. Share only the information needed for the agreed work.
Worked example: changing how handovers are handled
This is an illustration. A three-person Australian product team frequently passes partly completed work between design, preparation and testing. The stated expectation is to include the current file, the unresolved questions and the next action. In practice, experienced members often rely on short verbal updates.
Newer participants copy that approach and then need to ask for missing context. The team initially describes the problem as poor documentation, but a review shows that the visible norm is to move quickly and reconstruct details later.
The group holds a 45-minute session to examine recent handovers and agree on a usable example. With three people attending, that uses 135 person-minutes, or two hours and 15 minutes of combined time. The team treats this as a real investment and limits the discussion to the recurring gap.
| Existing pattern | Agreed change | Evidence to review |
|---|---|---|
| Verbal updates treated as sufficient | Use a brief shared handover record | The recipient can locate the current work |
| Missing questions discovered later | Mark unresolved issues before transfer | Important uncertainty is visible |
| Fast transfer receives most attention | Recognise a handover that avoids reconstruction | The useful behaviour is named |
| Responsibility for gaps is unclear | Sender and recipient confirm the next action | Ownership is understood |
The founder uses the new record in their own handovers and explains a case where an unresolved question needs to remain open. This demonstrates that the standard is an accurate transfer of context, not a requirement to make every task appear finished.
At a later review, the team examines whether recipients still need avoidable clarification. If the records are complete but difficult to interpret, the example needs revision. If the founder continues to bypass the method, the group must address that visible exception rather than merely remind everyone else to comply.
The illustrative change combines a clearer standard, a credible example and follow-up. It does not establish that a meeting alone changes culture. The norm becomes different only if ordinary behaviour and the response to exceptions change over time.
Make it possible to report a missed commitment
An accountability system depends on accurate information. If people expect every delay to trigger ridicule or blame, the record may become less useful. Ask for early notice of a problem and respond by clarifying its cause and effect.
Distinguish an unclear commitment, a missing resource, an unexpected event and a decision not to follow an agreed process. These situations may require different responses. A single category of failure conceals information needed to improve the work.
Keep consequences proportionate and within the appropriate management process. An informal habit arrangement should not invent employment rules or replace established procedures. Where a formal issue arises, use current guidance and suitable advice for the situation.
Close the loop after an issue is raised. Explain what has been decided and who will act. If reporting a constraint produces no response, people may learn that the request for early notice has little practical value.
Preserve disagreement within a shared norm
A useful team norm should support questioning when the facts warrant it. Agreement about a standard does not mean every existing method is correct. People need a way to challenge a practice without being treated as outside the group.
Ask for evidence and alternatives. Someone who believes a check has become redundant should be able to explain why and propose a review. The group can then decide whether the purpose is still being served.
Separate respect for colleagues from agreement with their conclusions. A highly regarded person can be wrong about a particular task. Make it normal to examine the reasoning regardless of who presents it.
Be especially careful when the founder has a strong preference. State what remains open and invite contrary information before the decision is final. Otherwise, an apparently unanimous discussion may simply reflect uncertainty about whether disagreement is welcome.
Onboard people into the actual method
Onboarding is the process of helping someone understand and begin their work in a new setting. Include the recurring practices that make coordination possible, rather than relying on the person to infer them from observation alone.
Show a real example, explain its purpose and let the new participant try the task with feedback. Ask what was unclear. Their questions can reveal assumptions that established members no longer notice.
Explain exceptions as well as the ordinary path. Who can approve a deviation? Where is an unresolved issue recorded? What should happen when a dependency is missing? These details help the person act sensibly without copying every informal workaround.
Check whether actual leader behaviour matches the explanation. A newcomer who sees a different practice may not know which one to trust. Resolve the inconsistency in the work rather than expecting them to navigate it silently.
Apply the approach across locations and schedules
Small Australian businesses may coordinate people who rarely share the same room. Visible norms then emerge through messages, records, response expectations and handovers. Make the useful examples accessible where the work happens.
Do not equate participation with constant online presence. A person working different hours can still provide a clear update and a dependable handover. Agree on timing and availability in terms that fit the actual arrangement.
Review whose contributions are easiest to notice. Work performed away from the main group may be less visible even when it is essential. Use the shared record to understand contributions rather than relying only on who speaks most often.
For a solo founder, a voluntary peer review can provide an external point of reference. Choose a specific practice and a bounded check-in. The purpose is useful reflection, not comparison with someone whose resources and obligations differ substantially.
Review whether the norm improves the work
Look at both behaviour and consequences. Are people using the agreed practice? Does it reduce the problem it was intended to address? A widely adopted routine can still need improvement if it produces little value.
Inspect exceptions without assuming that every exception is bad. A changed situation may justify a different response. Record the reason so the team can distinguish appropriate judgement from an unnoticed drift away from the standard.
Ask whether the arrangement encourages accuracy. A perfect-looking completion record is not useful if people feel unable to acknowledge uncertainty. The aim is dependable work and honest information, not a display of flawless compliance.
The discussion in Involving the people who will deliver your strategy offers a broader planning process. Team norms determine much of what happens after that planning session, when participants encounter everyday choices and competing demands.
Common mistakes when shaping team habits
One mistake is announcing a value while rewarding a contradictory pattern. Examine visible conduct and recognition together. People need a consistent basis for deciding what the group actually expects.
Another is relying on one impressive person rather than a transferable method. Explain the steps and conditions that make the example useful. Otherwise, the team may imitate style while missing the substance.
A third is treating accountability as pressure without support. A clear commitment needs capacity, authority and a way to raise obstacles. Increasing scrutiny cannot supply those conditions by itself.
Finally, avoid using belonging to suppress disagreement or personal differences. Agree on the work standard while leaving room for questions and suitable variation. A useful norm helps people coordinate without requiring them to become alike.
Questions to ask
- What behaviour does the team currently treat as normal?
- Do leaders and respected colleagues demonstrate the stated standard?
- Which useful contributions receive recognition, and which are overlooked?
- Are commitments clear and supported by realistic resources?
- Can people report a problem or challenge a method without concealment?
- What evidence shows that the shared practice improves the work?
Bringing it together
Team habits are shaped by visible examples, shared expectations and the way commitments are followed up. Clear’s account of social influence provides a reason to examine those ordinary signals carefully.
Choose a useful practice, demonstrate it consistently and make accountability specific and fair. Keep the group open to evidence so that belonging supports good work rather than protecting an unhelpful routine.
Source: James Clear, Atomic Habits (2018), primarily chapters 9 and 17. Workplace methods and examples are practical adaptations. Figures in this article are illustrations, not data. This article is general information, not legal advice.
