When the culture slows the communication down
- trinimaturana
- Reflexiones y Opinión
Índice
What “Janteloven” reveals about strategic communication in Danish organisations.
Over the past months I have been observing how organisations in Denmark navigate communication, strategy and culture. Not from the outside, through interviews or surveys, but from closer in. Sitting with teams, watching how decisions move, noticing what gets said and what stays unspoken.
One pattern keeps appearing. And it took me a while to name it correctly.
A piece of content is ready. The message is clear, the timing is right, the need is obvious. And then it waits. It moves through two, sometimes three rounds of approval. Someone needs to confirm the image permissions. Someone else wants to review the wording. A third person has not responded yet and they have to wait for it.
By the time the communication goes out, the moment has sometimes passed. The uncertainty it was meant to address has already circulated informally. The decision it was meant to explain has already been interpreted, correctly or not, by the people it was supposed to reach.
This is not a failure of individual competence. Nobody in that process is acting in bad faith. What is happening is something more structural. And understanding it requires going back to a concept that shapes Danish organisational culture in ways that are rarely made explicit.
Where Janteloven comes from
The term comes from a 1933 novel by the Danish-Norwegian author Aksel Sandemose. In A Fugitive Crosses His Tracks, Sandemose describes the unwritten rules of a fictional small town called Jante. The rules, which became known as Janteloven, the Law of Jante, share a single underlying principle: you are not to think you are anything special. You are not to think you know more than others. You are not to think you are better, smarter, or more important than the people around you.
Sandemose wrote Janteloven as a critique, not a celebration. He was describing the social pressure of small-community conformity, the way collective norms can suppress individual expression and ambition.
But something interesting happened over the following decades. The values Sandemose criticised became, in many ways, genuinely embedded in Danish culture. Equality, humility, consensus, the idea that no single person’s perspective should dominate, these are not just social norms here. They are, in many contexts, professional virtues.
In Danish organisations, this translates into a specific way of making decisions. Consensus is not just a process. It is a value. Acting before consensus is reached is not seen as efficient or brave. It is seen as disrespectful of the collective.
What this produces, and why it matters
Before naming the tension, it is worth naming what this model genuinely produces. Because there is something valuable here that is easy to miss if you arrive from a different cultural context.
In organisations shaped by Janteloven, nobody is expected to have all the answers alone. The pressure to be the most brilliant person in the room, to stand out, to claim individual credit for collective work, is significantly lower than in more individualistic organisational cultures. That reduces a specific kind of professional anxiety that is remarkably common elsewhere.
For the organisation, decisions that go through genuine consensus tend to have stronger adhesion when they are implemented. Not because everyone agrees with everything, but because the process gave people a real voice. In environments where interpersonal trust is high, that produces cohesion that is difficult to manufacture through other means.
Danish workplaces consistently rank among the highest globally for employee wellbeing, psychological safety, and trust between colleagues and leadership. That is not accidental. It is, in significant part, a product of this same cultural logic.
And yet.
What this does to strategic communication?
Strategic communication, when it is functioning well, is inherently proactive. It needs to name what is happening before everyone has agreed that something is happening. It needs to make incoherence visible before the organisation has reached consensus that incoherence exists. It needs to take a position on how a decision will land before that decision has been fully processed by everyone who will be affected.
That is not arrogance. That is the work.
But in a cultural environment shaped by Janteloven, that kind of proactivity is structurally difficult. The communicator who moves before consensus is reached is not experienced as strategic. They are experienced as someone who did not wait for the process.
The result is a function that tends toward reaction by default. Not because the people in it lack ambition or capability. But because the organisational environment consistently rewards waiting and penalises visible initiative.
Content goes through multiple approvals not only for legal or brand reasons, but because having several people sign off distributes the responsibility. No single person is seen to have made the call. Permissions are requested carefully and explicitly, because assuming consent without asking would violate the implicit social contract. You do not act on behalf of others without their knowledge.
These are not bureaucratic habits. They are expressions of a deeply held cultural value. And that is precisely what makes them difficult to challenge from within.
Timing suffers as a consequence. The communication that needed to go out on Monday goes out on Thursday. The window where it would have shaped understanding has closed. What arrives instead is confirmation of something people have already concluded on their own.
When Danish organisations meet the rest of the world
This tension becomes sharper when Danish organisations operate globally, or when people from other communication cultures enter Danish teams.
In many Latin American, Southern European, or Anglo-Saxon organisational contexts, the default assumption runs closer to the opposite. Moving quickly, taking initiative, asking for forgiveness rather than permission, these are not signs of disrespect. They are signs of commitment and capability.
When someone from that cultural background joins a Danish team, or when a Danish company works with an international communication partner, the friction is rarely named directly. It surfaces instead as misunderstanding. The international colleague thinks the Danish team is slow or risk-averse. The Danish team thinks the international colleague is not respecting the process.
Both are right, within their own frame. Neither is describing a character flaw. They are describing two genuinely different answers to the same question: whose responsibility is it to act, and when?
What makes this particularly complex for strategic communication is that the function sits at exactly the intersection where those different answers collide. Communication has to move at the speed of the organisation’s needs. But in a consensus culture, the approval process is not an obstacle to the work. It is part of the work.
The question this raises
I do not think the answer is to import a different cultural model into Danish organisations. The values that shape Janteloven also produce something genuinely worth protecting: workplaces where people feel they belong to a collective, where decisions are not imposed from above, where the communicator does not have to fight for their perspective to be heard because the norm is that everyone’s perspective deserves consideration.
But it does raise a specific question for anyone working in strategic communication inside a Danish organisation.
If the function’s value lies in making incoherence visible before the organisation has agreed it exists, how does that work in a culture where acting before consensus is seen as overstepping?
The communicator who waits for full alignment before speaking will always be too late. The communicator who moves without it will be seen as not understanding how things work here.
Navigating that tension is not a technical problem. It is a cultural one. And it is one that almost nobody in Danish organisational life is naming directly.
I am still in the early stages of this observation. But I am increasingly convinced that the organisations which manage to hold both things at once, the psychological safety that consensus produces and the strategic speed that communication requires, are doing something worth understanding from the inside.
If your organisation lives this tension and you would be open to a conversation, I would genuinely like to hear how you navigate it.