Most of us spend the majority of our time at the office, actively working inside or as part of a human work system. Whether we are conscious to it or not, the corporate culture of an organization can make or break how we feel about the organization and our place in it.

While most aware leaders say they want a constructive corporate culture, many are uncertain of what it really takes to shape it. Consequently, these executives and managers unintentionally lead their people toward the fatal, destructive side of the culture coin. They do this by buying into five double-edged sword philosophies: Winning above all else, commanding and controlling, opposing others, pursuing perfection and keeping the peace. These philosophies will undermine your mission to craft a constructive corporate culture.

Winning above all else

Winning is an incredibly powerful motivator. The desire to win can move mountains and bring in profits. However, when the need to win overwrites better judgement, it fragments and erodes core values, runs over people and leads people to the brink of exhaustion. When values disintegrate attention must be called and new behaviors that promote and inspire must be reintegrated into the culture. The pursuit of results above all else can cost relationships, health and wellness, trust, quality and safety.

Inside competitive work cultures, members are often expected to operate in a “win-lose” framework, outperform peers and work against (rather than with) their coworkers. What begins with a healthy race often devolves into unproductive dog-eat-dog internal workplace behavior.

When the once healthy desire to “beat the competition” goes unchecked, very often it creates opportunities for unproductive behavior and ways of thinking that result in an organization eating itself alive. This shows up on the floor by people arguing in win/lose scenarios and fighting for power, control, rewards, promotions and resources. A focal shift from we to me must exist, where siloed and personalized thinking prevail.

Even though the intentions of leaders who want to “win” is well-meaning, a workplace culture that values winning above all else can be fertile ground for destructive behavior and employment erosion.

Commanding and controlling

In power-driven organizations, hierarchy reigns and members of the management team are expected to take charge, control subordinates and yield to the demands of superiors. Historically, this has been the ‘right’ way to lead and for many decades it actually worked. This model is flawed, and those managed under this model atrophy and stagnate. In workplace cultures where this type of behavior is rewarded, the powerful take over and the powerless surrender.

When leaders and team members are expected and even encouraged to power up over others, people in the organization often view themselves as pawns in the micromanagement chess game, or simply as cogs in the profit wheel. They lose motivation and initiative and give less of their discretionary time to make the organization better. Being commanding and controlling is a vicious cycle, and the only way out is to call it out and inspire a new way to lead and a new way to follow.

Opposing others

In oppositional workplace cultures there is often a root of overcoming obstacles that afforded the organization sustainability and success over years. But what often got us here will not get us there; and opposition is one of those elements of culture, much like winning at all costs, that turns the organization against itself. In work cultures where members are expected to be critical, oppose ideas of others and make ‘safe’ decisions, people drop into fear, and suppress their ideas and creativity. Opposition shows up in communication such as, “Yes, but,” “We already tried that and it failed,” “I have been here for years and I know it won’t work,” and “No, because…” While everyone ought to be singing from the same overall hymnal and work together in tolerance and engagement, members of this type of organization spend far too much time navigating personalities and conflict, than collaborating, innovating and solving problems.

Pursuing perfection

In other cases, there are leaders of quality-driven organizations who pride themselves with a commitment to excellence. While that intention may have been initially pure and congruent with the leader’s values, all too often the unconscious underlying behavior that is fostered with this value, is perfection. In a culture of perfection, people do not take risks, they do not try new things, and they almost certainly do not put themselves or their reputation on the line to color outside the lines.

Leaders of many modern organizations often stake their reputations on delivering excellence or superior service. There are not many CEOs who would stand behind sending out sloppy work or delivering code to customers littered with errors; but there is a subtle difference between standing for quality and being in pursuit of perfection.

Perfection, by nature of its definition, leaves very little room for risk-taking and creativity in your organization. When curiosity is stifled and looking good is the primary focus, mistakes are hidden, learning is mitigated and growth is constrained. In an environment where perfection is celebrated and rewarded, conventionality emerges as a safe bet for staying out of the boss’ cross hairs. In a workplace that prioritizes perfectionism, members are expected to conform, follow the rules and make a good impression. However, the byproduct of making a good impression and following the rules is that creativity and risk-taking are thwarted and innovation becomes impossible. Resistance to change becomes a blocker to progress and complacency sets in. While certain roles demand perfection or someone could die, perfection as a culture, limits and constrains what is possible for the organization and the people in it.

Keeping the peace and getting along

Everyone who is anyone in business understands the need to cooperate with others in the workplace and the need for teamwork and collaboration. However, creating a work culture where everyone has to be liked and everyone has to get along with little to no emphasis on performance or results; most often leads to over-the-top consensus building, perceived favoritism, a loss of focus and ambition, inconsistent accountability and a very destructive fear of conflict.

In a work culture where needing approval is a core component of how the organization works, team members are expected to agree with, gain the approval of and be liked by others. In a workplace such as this, disagreements are frowned upon and people are encouraged to go along with the crowd — even when the crowd is prepared to drive off a cliff. When team members fear conflict, even constructive conflict, they are incapable of engaging in debates or openly voicing opinions. The team avoids conflicts, which involve speaking up against bad decisions thus leading to inferior organizational results.

It’s imperative to understand that “keeping the peace” workplace cultures can be an insidious thief of organizational and talent optimization. Keeping the peace has the potential to rob the organization and its people experiencing the highest levels of role fulfillment and satisfaction. When people and the system they operate in does not actively engage in productive ways of being including; constructive conflict, speaking their truth, giving new ideas, and sharing insights of what is not working; they can never really get to real engagement in the workplace.

The five double-edged sword philosophies can sweep the rug out from under your company’s overall mission and set you drastically off track. Shaping constructive culture is about intentionally causing the kind of corporate culture that exemplifies your brand promise. Intentional culture is all about monitoring what you are creating and making necessary shifts along the way to ensure you are accomplishing what you set out to by creating the intentional culture in the first place.

About the author: Magi Graziano is the CEO of KeenAlignment, a speaker, employee recruitment and engagement expert and author of “The Wealth of Talent.” www.KeenAlignment.com

“One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.” An idiom we have all heard many times in reference to a product or material unwanted by some but prized by others. In many cases, bark and other tree products fall in this category. The scope of this article (and series) is to provide an overview of some of the more well-known and perhaps lesser known uses of one of nature’s most valuable and abundant resources — bark. Special emphasis will be made on pine (Pinus sp.) bark, but other bark species will be highlighted, as well. The function, utility and reliance that the horticultural industry has on bark materials is pretty comprehensive. Let’s take a look at some valued aspects of bark and bark products including aesthetics (ornament), soilless substrates, synthetic turf infill, landscape applications, container mulching and fuel sources.

Ornament

Peely, flaky, blocky, ridged, furrowed, stringy, smooth, warty, on and on the adjectives could go to describe the uniqueness and beauty that tree bark can provide to a landscape, forest or specimen planting. Often the highlight of a winter landscape or the focal point of night up-lighting, the use of trees in landscapes specifically for their bark is a long-standing tradition. Highlighting various pine trees, the bark of P. sylvestris (Scots pine) and P. bungeana (lacebark pine) have stunningly colorful bark on mature trees (Fig. 1) and are used as specimens in landscapes across the globe. Not to be forgotten, the mature platy bark of our native P. tadea (loblolly), P. palustris (longleaf), and P. elliottii (slash pine) add incredible texture and boldness to mature landscapes. While other horticulturally prized genera may be more known for their extravagant bark displays, I argue that some members of the genus Pinus can rival any others.

Soilless substrates

The backbone of the horticulture container plant production industry, soilless substrates are one of the advancements that have allowed crop production to be as efficient, economical, and successful as it is today. Not exclusive to the nursery industry, bark materials are used in numerous garden soil or substrate products and applications. The nursery industry can however stake its claim as the originators of bark-based materials as the predominant, and in many cases, sole source of growing material. Dating back to the production of nursery plants in egg and coffee cans, the switch from mineral soil to bark-based substrates was a turning point in the container production world. Fast forward to today and bark substrates remain the dominant player in outdoor container production. On the west coast, Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) bark is utilized while the eastern half of the country rely on pine bark as the primary source of feedstock for substrate production. Large bark yards can be seen across the Southeast where pine trees are prevalent (Fig. 2A). These bark producers source their raw bark from lumber yards, paper mills and other forestry operations. Bark products undergo various processing, handling, aging and formulation steps to create the consistent and functional bark substrates that nursery growers rely on. Growers will often incorporate various additives to their substrates on site at the nursery (Fig. 2B) or rely on the supplier to make these additions prior to shipping. Substrates are often tested for chemical, physical and biological properties to ensure quality control (Fig. 2C). Recent advances in bark engineering (to be thoroughly discussed in future articles) allow substrate producers to create substrates of any air, water, or density parameters a grower could want for any container type or size, irrigation delivery method, production system, etc. (Fig. 2D).

Bark products are also heavily used in greenhouse substrates, as well as consumer soil and soilless products (Fig. 2E). Many professional substrates for floriculture production, vegetable production and more recently Cannabis and small fruit production (blueberries, strawberries, oranges, figs, etc.) are using bark as one of the main constituents with peat moss. The bark in these mixes provides additional airspace porosity and drainage, which is often desired to improve production management strategies and control plant growth. The aforementioned advances in bark engineering and formulation practices now allow specific bark products to be made with specific sizes and properties suitable for orchid production, woody cutting propagation or any other niche production need.

Cork products

Maybe one of the coolest and most versatile tree barks in the world, cork has many functions and attributes. The cork oak (Quercus suber) is a medium-sized evergreen tree native to Southwest Europe and Northwest Africa with 50% of the world’s production (cork plantations) coming from Portugal alone. Cork is produced by the cork cambium in the outer bark of the tree, and is considered a natural and renewable raw material. Beginning at around 25 years of age and for as long as 200 years, cork trees have their bark harvested every 8-10 years (Fig. 3A-D). The harvested cork, as witnessed during a visit to a production facility in Espinho, Portugal, is stored as large slabs outdoors before processing into wine bottle stoppers (Fig. 3E) flooring, cork boards, fishing bobbers or a thousand other products. Waste cork from these primary industries is further processed to make cork granulates (Fig. 3F). This granulated cork can be used to make filters, insulators, clothing materials (shoes, handbags, bowties, etc.). Horticulturally, these granulates have been used as an aggregate in peat-based greenhouse substrates and top-dressing materials (alternative to vermiculite) for seed germination in plug trays. There is also an organic infill product (Corkonut from GreenPlay) used in the synthetic turf industry that use cork granulate as a component in the infill.

Landscape usage

One of the most visible and traditional uses of bark is as landscape mulch materials. Mulch and bark producers make various grades or type of landscape bark-based mulches with the three most common being shredded (double or triple), mini-nuggets, and large nuggets (Fig. 4A). Available as bagged products or in bulk loads, bark mulches can be one of the most decorative options for landscaped areas in both the traditional/original brown color or dyed. Unlike some other mulch materials, bark products do not blow or wash away easily. Bark products degrade rather slowly and add organic matter to the soil once they do decompose (Fig. 4B). Some bark mulches can be applied to landscape planting beds in unique (very specific and strategic) ways as seen in Fig. 4C-D where large bark planks are fitted on the ground in single layers to provide both a patchwork aesthetic look as well as providing the reliable weed control and moisture retention that mulches are known for. It’s a common practice seen in Central America and Europe, but rarely here in the U.S., but one that could be considered and desirable in high-end or well-manicured landscapes and highly visual planting areas.

Other uses

Bark as a container mulch (Fig. 5) is a practice that has gained attention and popularity in the past several years — container surface mulching in both plant production systems as well as post-production retail (consumer) use has increased substantially. In nursery production systems, mulching containers is used as a method of weed control as well as moisture retention. In addition to bark other materials including wood chips, rice hulls, and processed low-value trees have been used for this purpose. A lot of research has been published (and available) outlining the benefits of mulching containers as a weed control practice as well as instructions/guidelines on application methods (timing, depth, etc.). More recent and current research is aimed at quantifying the benefits of these container mulching applications on water retention (decreased substrate evaporative losses) during production and reduction of water stress (drying out) in post-production retail settings. There are wood and bark products specifically made and marketed for sale for these purposes, something I first witnessed in Europe where this practice has been common for many years. Lastly, use of bark nuggets as decorative container mulching is becoming more common (Fig. 5) and a practice adopted by many garden centers to enhance the aesthetic appearance of container shrubs, trees, and indoor plants in containers.

Bark as a fuel source has been common for many decades across the county (and world). While bark can’t compete with fossil fuels for burning efficiency, it has been incinerated on a large scale since the 1970s. When burned pine bark consists of 55-66% volatile matter, 30-50% fixed carbon and 0.25-4.0% ash (depending on bark species, age, etc.). The bark ash (often referred to as bottom ash) from incinerators has been used as additives to garden soils, farmlands and potting soils for decades. Most recently, biomass subsides authorized by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill) threatened to increase the price of raw bark and other forestry resources. The resulting Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) was a result of the need to meet alternative fuel usage goals that were outlined in the 2005 Renewable Fuel Standard legislation. The BCAP had the original intent of creating incentives for new clean energy biomass fuel sources including pine bark used to make mulch and substrate/soil products. The proposed $45 subsidy per ton of woody biomass would have more than tripled the price of bark going to the horticultural market at that time. Other biomass materials also mentioned within this program included bamboo, miscanthus, switchgrass, wood sawdusts and fibers, among other forestry and agricultural biomass materials. Fortunately, due to lobbying efforts by many in the horticultural industry bark supply streams intended for horticultural use were exempted from this subsidy program.

Research on bark usage and products (substrates and many others) continues feverishly today around the globe. The reliance that many in the horticultural industry have on bark materials continues to increase as the offerings and value of the materials increase. Our usage of bark products provides an end-use or value-added use to raw materials that may otherwise have little or no purpose in the overall biomass utilization stream associated with the sustainable use of our forest resources, often referred to as cradle-to-cradle. So, while bark may be trash to some it sure does provide benefit and livelihood to many others now and well into the future.

Dr. Brian Jackson is an associate professor and director of the Horticultural Substrates Laboratory at North Carolina State University. Brian_Jackson@ncsu.edu

We caught up with Todd Baker, owner of Baker’s Nursery in Bayfield, Ontario, Canada, to find out which parts of his nursery are automated. Baker’s Nursery grows young plants for growers in eastern North America. Plants are propagated by cuttings and divisions, as well as tissue culture. Baker and his team grow tree liners in containers; grass plugs and perennials in plugs up to quarts; and woody cuttings in plugs and quarts. Field production for grass and perennials totals 15 acres along with half an acre of greenhouse space and a quarter of an acres of outdoor production space. The nursery is active about 10 months a year with a staff of four to 10 people, depending on the time of year.

Nursery Management: At what point did you realize automation was needed? Was it due to a labor shortage or an efficiency problem?

Todd Baker: It had more to do with the fact that we are very hands-on in our business and prefer to work smart vs. hard. We have been fortunate to have always had a reliable local labor pool. In the past, we had 30 staff at peak. Now we are usually less than 10. And looking at systems has been a sideline hobby for years. I have always sought ‘flow’ in the work processes.

NM: What did you finally decide to implement?

TB: The investments we have made are designed to eliminate pinch points or quality traps. The vacuum trimmer, which we began using three years ago, allows us to quickly process many plants with almost perfect consistency. Last season we installed a pot/flat-filling machine. This year’s investment has been in RFID cloud-based inventory and sales management.

TB: Our nursery is a small, boutique young-plant operation. The annual investment is usually $20,000 to $40,000. Payback? Well, it starts with ‘Will this improve the quality of life of me and my staff?’ Less bending, lifting etc. Every business has jobs nobody wants to do. I don’t want to do them, either. Payoff can be measured two ways: costing you less for the same task finished or, my preference, more money coming in from the same task/investment/space etc. Don’t forget about being able to take advantage of timing. If the perfect window for an operation is one day long and you take a week, you are diminishing the potential value of your crop.

NM: How has automation changed production?

TB: Each piece has its own story related to changed production, but the common denominator is that they make the work faster and easier. Happy people do better work.

NM: What are the pros and cons?

TB: Pro: machinery allows repeatable consistency. You can develop written protocols for the tasks which eliminates uncertainty. Cons: Sometimes the noise interferes with pleasant conversation. Setup time can be variable depending on how familiar staff are with the changeovers .

NM: What is your expected return on investment (ROI) of these investments?

TB: The trimmer was a $20,000 acquisition cost. We compared how long it took to hand-trim 1,000 quarts vs. the trimmer. We found it saved $10 per 1,000 plants compared to the manual version we had set up, including trimming by an experienced staff person and cleanup of trimmings from the walkways. With the trimmer we pick up the plants, trim and set down. The $10 per 1,000 didn’t include the extra jobs completed. We removed any culls or dead plants. Now we’re able to set down full trays and have a more accurate inventory count. The space recovery, inventory accuracy and simplicity are worth more than the savings. Not to mention the skill requirement is lower and the output is 100% consistent. So, if I estimate the savings of $10 per 1,000 plus another $15 for the consolidation/inventory accuracy, the trimmer is paid after 800,000 plants have been trimmed. Our woody plants get trimmed twice, and now that we have it, we also trim our 72 trays out of propagation as well.

For more: www.bakersnursery.ca

The American Rose Trials for Sustainability (A.R.T.S.) is here to help the industry and consumers identify the strongest performing roses for their region through our independent scientific trials held at botanical gardens, parks systems and universities. How often have you seen a national ad for a beautiful new rose and asked yourself, “Can we grow that here?” Questions naturally progress to: Will this plant be cold hardy; Does it demand too much water for our arid climate; Can it take our intense summer heat; or Can it take our wet springs? Growers recognize and appreciate that not all plants grow well in all places. The challenge with a nationally loved and distributed plant like the rose is finding varieties that do well in your region. It’s important to find a trustworthy and independent voice that has grown those cultivars in your region to help guide you.

The A.R.T.S. team is made up of scientists, public horticulturists, nursery growers and extension professionals. Our goal is to identify which roses are the most pest resistant, drought tolerant, low maintenance, vigorous and beautiful for each unique U.S. climate region through our regional tests, which are done with high scientific standards. We grow the roses under low input conditions without pesticides and evaluate them monthly during two growing seasons. They are rewarded for parameters related to their health, flower power and plant form. Test roses must perform equal or better than the industry standards planted with them to earn an A.R.T.S. Local Artist award and be recommended for a particular region.

Instead of using the USDA Hardiness Zone Map to delineate regions, we use the Köppen climate system as it accounts for both temperature and precipitation levels and the timing of each. This system has been the go-to resource for ecologists studying communities of plants and the overall ecosystem. The USDA cold hardiness zones, although helpful, only take into account the lowest minimum winter temperature. The Köppen climate system is a more comprehensive tool to help us better answer the question, “Can we grow that rose here?”

In this industry, we know better than anyone that temperature and precipitation directly impact not only plant growth, but also disease and insect pressure.

In deciding which new roses to offer your customers, we encourage you to try some of your regional 2021 and previous year A.R.T.S. Local Artist winners. With our years of data on these roses growing in your region, we can help you confidently answer the question, “Can we grow that here?” We are proud to serve you as an independent and trusted voice sharing which roses have passed our tests as you navigate through the roses that will not only look good in retail, but be successful for your customers and keep them coming back to you as their trusted source.

To find out more about the A.R.T.S. program and all the winners for your region, please visit www.trustedroses.com