The House of Culture

©
The “HOUSE OF CULTURE ”
And How to Make an Organizational “House” a “Home”
An eBook by
Kevin Weitz (Psy.D.)

Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Figures ..................................................................................................................... 8
Preface .................................................................................................................................. 9
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 9
Do we really need another definition? .................................................................................... 9
Culture is about people.......................................................................................................... 10
A “Memorable Metaphor” .................................................................................................... 11
Section 1: Organizational Culture .......................................................................................... 11
Section 2: Constructs within Organizational Culture ............................................................ 11
Section 3: The “House of Culture” ......................................................................................... 12
Section 4: Building a New House of Culture .......................................................................... 13
Section 5: Don’t Forget that People Live in the “House” ...................................................... 14
Postscript: A Tribute to Studs Terkel ..................................................................................... 15
Section 1: Organizational Culture ......................................................................................... 17
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 1: A Brief History.......................................................................................................... 18
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 18
Definitions of organizational culture ..................................................................................... 20
Kurt Lewin: An historical gap and debate? ............................................................................ 21
A Summarized Timeline of Organizational Culture ............................................................... 23
Reflections ............................................................................................................................. 23
References. ............................................................................................................................ 24
Chapter 2: Models of Organizational Culture ........................................................................... 25
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 25
Reflections ............................................................................................................................. 26
Section 2: Constructs within Organizational Culture ............................................................. 27
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 27
Page 2
Table of Contents
Chapter 3: Values, Beliefs, Attitudes and Behaviors ................................................................. 28

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 28
Definitions of terms and their inter-relationships ................................................................ 28
The relationship between Values, Beliefs, Attitudes and Behaviors .................................... 29
Important factors that impact behavior ................................................................................ 31
How beliefs, values and attitudes are influenced ................................................................. 33
Key factors in changing beliefs, attitudes and behaviors ...................................................... 35
Changing culture: Focus on changing beliefs and attitudes, or changing behaviors? .......... 40
Reflections ............................................................................................................................. 42
References ............................................................................................................................. 43
Chapter 4: Changing Behaviors in Organizations ...................................................................... 44
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 44
Specifying behaviors .............................................................................................................. 44
Mechanisms for changing behaviors ..................................................................................... 44
Personal motivation: Making the undesirable desirable ...................................................... 46
Personal ability: Surpassing personal limits .......................................................................... 48
Social motivation: Harness peer pressure ............................................................................. 49
Structural ability: Find strengths in numbers ........................................................................ 50
Structural motivation: Design rewards and demand accountability .................................... 50
Structural ability: Change the environment .......................................................................... 51
Corporate communications as a mechanism to change behavior ........................................ 52
A caveat in changing culture ................................................................................................. 54
References ............................................................................................................................. 56
Chapter 5: The Neuroscience of Organizational Culture .......................................................... 57
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 57
The Neuroscience of organizational culture ......................................................................... 57
Neuroplasticity in the workplace........................................................................................... 58
The power of cultural indoctrination .................................................................................... 59
Applying the “Neurons that fire together, wire together” principle .................................... 60
Page 3
Table of Contents
Neuroscientific Insights into Organizational Leadership ....................................................... 61

Reflections ............................................................................................................................. 69
References ............................................................................................................................. 70
Section 3: The House of Culture© ......................................................................................... 71
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 71
Chapter 6: Designing the “House of Culture©” ......................................................................... 72
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 72
The Building Blocks of “The House of Culture©” ................................................................... 72
Reflections ............................................................................................................................. 82
References ............................................................................................................................. 83
Section 4: Building a New House of Culture©........................................................................ 84
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 84
The five-phase “FACES©” process for changing culture ........................................................ 84
Chapter 7: Phase 1: Focus ......................................................................................................... 86
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 86
Factors to consider in Focus Phase........................................................................................ 86
Reflections ............................................................................................................................. 98
References ............................................................................................................................. 99
Chapter 8: Phase 2: Analyze .................................................................................................... 101
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 101
Factors to consider in Analyze Phase .................................................................................. 101
Reflections ........................................................................................................................... 109
Chapter 9: Phase 3: Construct ................................................................................................. 110
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 110
Factors to consider in Construct Phase ............................................................................... 110
Reflections ........................................................................................................................... 120
Chapter 10: Phase 4: Execute.................................................................................................. 121
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 121
Factors to consider in Execute Phase .................................................................................. 121
Page 4
Table of Contents
Reflections ........................................................................................................................... 124

Chapter 11: Phase 5: Sustain................................................................................................... 125
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 125
Factors to consider in Sustain Phase ................................................................................... 125
Reflections ........................................................................................................................... 126
References ........................................................................................................................... 127
Section 5: Don’t’ Forget that People Live in the House ....................................................... 128
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 128
The “How” of personal behavior change ............................................................................ 129
Chapter 12: Techniques for Personal Behavior Change ......................................................... 131
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 131
Techniques for developing new habits................................................................................ 131
Reflections ........................................................................................................................... 144
References ........................................................................................................................... 145
Chapter 13: Positivity (Happiness) in the Workplace ............................................................. 146
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 146
Positivity in the Workplace .................................................................................................. 147
Reflections ........................................................................................................................... 161
References ........................................................................................................................... 163
Chapter 14: Fear in the workplace .......................................................................................... 164
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 164
The Impacts of fear .............................................................................................................. 164
The causes of fear ................................................................................................................ 166
How to overcome fear ......................................................................................................... 169
Reflections ........................................................................................................................... 172
References ........................................................................................................................... 173
Chapter 15: Personality Disorders and Organizational Culture .............................................. 174
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 174
Personality disorders in the workplace ............................................................................... 174
Page 5
Table of Contents
Reflections ........................................................................................................................... 188

References ........................................................................................................................... 189
Chapter 16: The Future of Work: How the Workplace of the Future will Impact People’s Lives
................................................................................................................................................. 190
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 190
Factors Driving Changes in the Workplace .......................................................................... 191
Reflections ........................................................................................................................... 202
References ........................................................................................................................... 203
Chapter 17: Managing Talent with a Focus on the Individual ................................................ 204
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 204
Talent Management in Transition ....................................................................................... 205
The Definition and Scope of Talent Management .............................................................. 205
Reflections ........................................................................................................................... 215
References ........................................................................................................................... 217
Chapter 18: The Intersection of Corporate Culture and National Cultures ............................ 218
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 218
The value of pragmatism ..................................................................................................... 219
Frameworks for the intersection of national and organizational culture ........................... 219
Reflections ........................................................................................................................... 225
References ........................................................................................................................... 226
Postscript: Dedications and a Tribute to Studs Terkel ......................................................... 227
Happening upon Studs Terkel ............................................................................................. 227
Dedication ............................................................................................................................ 228
Appendix 1: Models of Organizational Culture ....................................................................... 230
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 230
Theoretical Models .............................................................................................................. 230
Typology and Measuring Models ........................................................................................ 235
Execution and Change Models ............................................................................................ 240
References ........................................................................................................................... 250
Appendix 2: A Culture Change Checklist ................................................................................. 253
Page 6
Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 253

References ........................................................................................................................... 262
About the Author .............................................................................................................. 263
Kevin Weitz .......................................................................................................................... 263
Page 7
Table of Contents
Table of Figures
FIGURE 1: THE HOUSE OF CULTURE 12
FIGURE 2: FACES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 13
FIGURE 3: A DIAGRAMMATIC TIMELINE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 23
FIGURE 4: GOOGLE BOOKS NGRAM VIEWER 26
FIGURE 5: FISHBEIN AND AJZEN'S RAA MODEL 29
FIGURE 6: FISHBEIN AND AJZEN'S RAA MODEL AMENDED 35
FIGURE 7: PATTERSON'S 3X2 MATRIX 45
FIGURE 8: CULTURE CHANGE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 55
©
FIGURE 9: THE HOUSE OF CULTURE 73
FIGURE 10: THE FACES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT MODEL 84
FIGURE 11: HESKETT'S CULTURE CYCLE 90
FIGURE 12: CULTURE TRANSFORMATION ASSESSMENT CHART 107
FIGURE 13: CULTURE TRANSFORMATION CHECKLIST 108
FIGURE 14: THE PROGRAM OFFICE STRUCTURE 112
FIGURE 15: AN EXAMPLE OF A FACES PROJECTS SEQUENCE 115
FIGURE 16: MANAGEMENT SKILLS ASSESSMENT (MSAI) 129
FIGURE 17: PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES WHO FEEL THEY HAVE BEEN BULLIED 158
FIGURE 18: FIVE GENERATIONS IN THE WORKPLACE 193
FIGURE 19: TALENT STRATEGY AND PLANNING 207
FIGURE 20: SCOPE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE: FREQUENCY OF INCLUSION 208
FIGURE 21: TALENT MANAGEMENT SCOPE MODEL 209
FIGURE 22: DAUBER'S CONFIGURATION MODEL 231
FIGURE 23: HATCH AND CUNLIFFE’S CULTURAL DYNAMICS MODEL 232
FIGURE 24: HESKETT'S CULTURE CYCLE 233
FIGURE 25: SCHEIN'S 3-LEVELS OF CULTURE 234
FIGURE 26: CAMERON AND QUINN'S COMPETING VALUES MODEL 235
FIGURE 27: THE DENISON MODEL 237
FIGURE 28: CONNORS AND SMITH'S BEST PRACTICES MAP 243
FIGURE 29: LEVIN AND GOTTLIEB'S MODEL 245
FIGURE 30: STRATEGY ALIGNED CULTURE CHANGE CYCLE 258
Page 8
Preface
Preface
Introduction
The conceptualization of organizational culture has been in development since the 1930’s
depending on which historical perspective one aligns with. Terminology has changed during
that time from terms such as organizational climate, to culture and corporate identity. More
recently, other terms have been used, such as organizational “personality” and “philosophy.”
By some counts, these terms have been embodied in over 150 definitions of organizational
culture and its variants. Indeed, as Edgar Schein notes in the Preface to Ashkanasy, Broadfoot,
and Falkus’ text. (2000), “… we academics … continue to argue about definitions”. As discussed
at some length in the subsequent section on the history of organizational culture, there are a
myriad of conceptual models, typologies and measurement formats for organizational culture.
However, what is less common, and a significant gap in the literature on this topic, is a focus on
two critical aspects of culture and culture change. The first is the focus on how to effectively
execute culture change, in other words the programmatic and practical approaches for
reshaping an organization’s culture. The second, and possibly more important, is the focus on
individuals; the employees and workers who are required by senior leaders to think and behave
differently as “the way we do things around here” during culture change initiatives, but have
limited support nor skills to change their own behaviors and entrenched ways of thinking. This
eBook focuses more on both of these important aspects of corporate culture.
Do we really need another definition?

In a recent project with a San Francisco Bay Area company, I had been meeting with a senior
leadership team and was discussing the model of organization culture attributed to Professor
Edgar Schein, possibly one of the most frequently quoted and respected theoreticians and
practitioners on the subject of organizational culture. One corporate executive in the group was
clearly struggling to justify being engaged in this “soft” discussion of culture and rather abruptly
said “Who cares about a definition and background on culture, when are we going to talk about
how this will actually help this organization”. In the face of this kind of challenge (and it is not
uncommon), an approach I use to diffuse these kinds of reactions is that I agree with this
sentiment, and I quickly move on to the more action oriented topics of the agenda about how
we should be structuring and leading the culture change project. Most often, we cycle back to
the topic, once leaders begin to see something more tangible and structured.
Smircich (1983) echoes the retort of this executive by saying that “When we question whether
or not "a cultural framework" is a useful one, we need to ask more precisely, "Useful for whom
Page 9
Preface
and for what purpose?". And the answer to this question is more often the answer needed for
the somewhat impatient corporate executive I mentioned earlier. There is no doubt that
culture change consultants and practitioners must be deeply grounded on an understanding of
the important foundational theories and history of organizational culture change. But in order
to gain credibility and traction with organizational leaders, these consultants and practitioners
should focus increasingly on the execution of culture change. However, there is a dearth of
literature on the topic of execution in comparison to the related subjects of theoretical models
and typologies. The topic of execution has received significantly less focus in the academic
research as well as in popular literature.
An example of this void is the comprehensive compendium “The Handbook of Organizational

Culture and Climate” (Ashkanasy et al, 2011), in which Edgar Schein writes in the preface in his
characteristic direct and succinct manner “I find myself increasingly avoiding the word culture
altogether … so, culture as a construct is only useful if it leads us to find some shared taken-for-
granted dimensions of behavior, thought or feeling that have some relevance to the conceptual
or practical problem we are trying to solve”. As Schein said to me with a degree of irritation;
“stop talking about culture! Talk about the business problem, and only then is culture possibly a
relevant topic”. Despite this admonition from Schein in the preface of the Handbook, the
remainder of this compendium places almost no attention to pragmatic approaches for
changing culture in an organization.
So, while this text focuses on key developments in the history of organizational culture, there is
a specific lens on execution – how to actually make a difference in organizations and in the lives
of employees.
Culture is about people

Arguably, the biggest omission in many culture change initiatives is that there is seldom a focus
on how individual employees can shift their own assumptions, mindsets and behaviors. There is
often a focus on what leaders need to do (and this is indeed critical) but far less on what
individuals can do. Individuals are expected to change, but there is seldom a focus on how!
Moreover, there is inevitably an element of fear and anxiety in companies going through
significant change, and employees generally are not skilled at managing their own fear and
anxiety. Nor do companies include support processes and training on how employees can
better manage anxiety, stress and fear in the workplace. This text provides a focus on this topic
without attempting to be a self-help book.
Page 10
Preface
A “Memorable Metaphor”
As noted earlier, there are numerous theoretical models and typologies for organizational
culture that exist in the historical literature on this subject, but many are complex and
impractical from a pragmatic application point of view. The model or the theme of my
perspective on organizational culture is the “House of Culture”. The purpose of this metaphor is
to make the idea of culture easier to think about than the more academic and complex models
that are outlined in the section of this eBook regarding the history of organizational culture.
The concept of a “house” is designed to not only reflect the structural elements of culture, but
also to describe how many of these elements interact interdependently.
Section 1: Organizational Culture

Section 1 provides a background for those readers who may require some grounding on the
topic of organizational culture. The difference in emphasis of this eBook from other texts on
organizational culture is the focus on executing a culture change initiative. I have often been
pressured by my clients to move more quickly through foundational theory and models and
help companies “get on with it”. So, while this dissertation focuses on key developments in the
history of organizational culture, there is a specific lens placed on execution and how to actually
make a difference in organizations and in the lives of employees.
Chapters in Section 1:
CHAPTER 1: A Brief History
CHAPTER 2: Models of Organizational Culture
Section 2: Constructs within Organizational Culture

In the same way that Section 1 provides a grounding for the reader on the history of
organizational culture, so it is valuable for the reader to have some background on the
elements of culture and how behavior, attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs (amongst other
constructs) are changed.
Chapters included in Section 2:

CHAPTER 3: Values, Beliefs, Attitudes and behaviors
CHAPTER 4: Changing Behaviors in Organizations
CHAPTER 5: The Neuroscience of Organizational Culture
Page 11
Preface
Section 3: The “House of Culture”

I have often found the subject of organizational culture to be a difficult one to discuss and with
clients. Leaders facing the need for culture change often struggle with the apparent vagueness
and scope of culture and what is required to shape it. However, the analogy of a “house” seems
to have resonated with clients and I have adopted this over time. Some clients have extended
this concept to include the notion of communities living and working together in an harmonious
way, reflecting the notion of functional business units or teams needing to partner or
collaborate effectively and efficiently to produce products and services that win in the markets.
Figure 1: The House of Culture
Building the “House of Culture”

Senior Leadership
Organizational Vision, Values and Behaviors

Business Strategy & Goals
Strategy Alignment Story Telling
Trusted
Middle Managers Workflow optimization Behavior experiences Influencers and
Change Agents
Reward and Recognition Employees Behavioral coaching
National Culture
Employee Engagement & Communications
Talent Management
The Physical and Virtual Workplace
Symbols, Focused Corporate

Learning and Performance Reward &
Icons and Initiatives to shift Processes
Development Management Recognition
Rituals culture Alignment
Culture Change Scoreboard
1 HRES PM Services Network
INTEL CONFIDENTIAL , FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
Similar to the many unique communities, homes and buildings that populate our county’s
landscape are all very different to create homes and workplaces for the diverse employees in
our country, so the House of Culture must be designed and built for the unique needs of the
organization and its inter-connection with its customers and ecosystem. Section 3 expands this
metaphor and describes how the various building blocks are inter-related.
Chapters included in Section 3:

CHAPTER 8: Designing the “House of Culture©”
Page 12
Preface
Section 4: Building a New House of Culture

With a lens on execution, this section defines and expands on the five phases of execution that I
have found to be necessary to be successful in an organizational culture change initiative. I have
applied these phases in an integrated way in various organizations. Section 1 identified that an
academic perspective has been important in identifying, defining and developing theories on
organizational culture and its various offshoots, but this perspective has not been as effective at
expanding on how to execute change in organizations needing to shift culture. Section 3
expands on the approach to culture change that I have developed over 25 years. This process
has been heavily influenced by a number of sound theoretical building blocks as well as my own
personal experience of what is successful under a variety of circumstances. The overarching
framework for this five-phase process, which I refer to as the FACES© approach, is underpinned
by a rigorous program management process, described in Section 3:
The “FACES” Execution Process (Focus, Analyze, Construct, Execute, Sustain)

An important requirement built into this process is that the focus is not only on culture in
isolation of other important business processes, such as strategic direction, business goals and
process alignment. When companies attempt to change with culture in isolation of other
important factors, the initiatives tend to have limited impact, largely because (as Edgar Schein
emphasized), culture must be focused on a business problem or strategic challenge. Section 3
illustrates this integrated five-phase process, underpinned by rigorous program management.
The subsequent topics are expanded under these five phases.
Figure 2: FACES Program Management
CHAPTER 7: Phase 1: Focus
CHAPTER 8: Phase 2: Analyze
Page 13
Preface
CHAPTER 9: Phase 3: Construct
CHAPTER 10: Phase 4: Execute
CHAPTER 11: Phase 5: Sustain
Section 5: Don’t Forget that People Live in the “House”

Companies tend to approach culture change in a mechanistic way – making changes to
performance management processes, human resources policies, compensation systems and
business processes. Section 5 reminds readers that culture change is not only about corporate
level changes, but also about people. Relatively little has been written about how individual
employees experience culture transformation in the workplace. When organizations undergo a
culture change initiative, employees are almost always exhorted to think and behave differently
to support a new strategic direction, but companies seldom provide guidance and skills that
help employees change mindsets and behaviors. Techniques such as mindfulness and
“brainspotting”, as well as techniques from the world of competitive sports, such as behavioral
imaging are explored for application in an organizational setting. These techniques are
described so that individuals can learn and apply these to changing behaviors, particularly when
the behavior change is radically different from what they may have experienced previously.
Section 5 also highlights a number of other factors that are often underemphasized in culture
research and writings and which can have a significant impact on individuals both positively and
negatively. Topics such as happiness, positivity and fear in the workplace are explored. These
are powerful drivers and can positively or negatively impact organizational culture.
Further, increasingly for organizations hiring and retaining top talent is becoming a major focus.
Too often employees are hired into an organization, particularly at senior levels in order to
somehow influence the culture, but they are unprepared, and receive little support and simply
become swallowed up by the culture.
For individuals working in a company in the 21st century the workplace is changing rapidly, but
not quickly enough for many. The model from the past century that required all employees to
be physically present in the workplace from the infamous “nine to five” is still present but is
changing. As organizations attempt to reduce cost, and become global, the virtual workplace is
becoming more common. Also, the new generation of worker, especially talented tech workers,
are demanding a different model and concept for work. This section also expands on how this
new thinking about the workplace is influencing the work environment and culture.
Global companies operating in countries around the world are challenged by the behavioral
values and norms of conduct in the various countries, and expatriate employees struggle to
Page 14
Preface
understand these norms and how to interact at a personal level. More complex is that reality
that there are often multiple individuals from different countries working together at one time.
How do groups like this find a way to interact in a respectful and courteous manner? This
section discussed a technique for this purpose.
Finally, a section on personality disorders describes the impact that a few problematic
individuals can have on the culture of an organization, particularity when these individuals are
influential leaders.
CHAPTER 12: Techniques for personal behavior change
CHAPTER 13: Positivity in the Workplace
CHAPTER 14: Fear in the workplace
CHAPTER 15: Personality Disorders and Organizational Culture
CHAPTER 16: The Future of Work - How the Workplace of the Future will Impact
people’s lives
CHAPTER 17: Managing Talent with a Focus on the Individual
CHAPTER 18: The Intersection of Corporate Culture and National Cultures
Postscript: A Tribute to Studs Terkel

The final section concludes with a personal reflection of Studs Terkel, writer, talk show host and
historian, who influenced me deeply decades ago when I first arrived in the United States in
1973 from my home country of South Africa. My first business course at the University of Ohio
included a reading of Studs Terkel’s seminal book “Working”. This book touched me deeply
because within the profiles of the many average American workers he interviewed, I saw my
father. My impression at that stage in my life, was that my father toiled long, hard hours in the
printing “sweat shops” in South Africa to make ends meet and largely hated his work
environment. As a young person growing up in Johannesburg, I often wondered why it had to
be that someone as dedicated and hardworking as my father had to endure such mundane and
unpleasant work conditions. I also wondered what could be done to change this situation. My
hope is that this eBook will make a contribution to readers so that they can make a difference
in their own work lives and the work lives of others.
Page 15
Preface
Topics in the Postscript

Dedication and a tribute to Studs Terkel and working people
Happening upon Studs Terkel
Dedications
How to read this eBook

This eBook was not designed to be read like a novel from beginning to end. While there is a
logical build of information from the historical background to the topic of organizational culture
and the elements described in the House of Culture to considering the needs of people in the
final section, the chapters are also standalone. A reader can use the Contents hyperlinks to
navigate to sections and chapter of interest. Whichever way you choose to read it, I hope you
will enjoy and get value from reading all of it or any sections you find interesting.
Page 16

Introduction
While this eBook focuses on execution of culture change as well as how individuals wrestle with
cultural issues, it is valuable to provide some historical background and context for this broad
topic. The following background summary highlights how much “thrash” has taken place on this
subject in the academic world with a myriad of definitions, models and typologies, but with less
focus on areas that leaders and individual employees can practically apply in the workplace.
There are also emerging themes in recent years that have received little focus in the academic
literature, but have significant implications to how we think about and implement changes to
organizational culture. For example, new research in the field of neuroscience and individual
behavior change provide insights into numerous practical aspects of culture change in
organizations. This section provides a brief grounding in these areas of organizational culture,
along with the pragmatic implications to leaders and the individual employee struggling with
change.
Page 17
Chapter 1: A Brief History
Introduction
The study of societal cultures has a long history in the sciences of anthropology and sociology,
while the study of organizational culture is comparatively recent. My first personal exposure to
the concept of corporate culture was in 1982 when I read the Peters and Waterman book “In
Search of Excellence”. While there was subsequently much criticism of their work, this book
was the most widely held business book of its time and undoubtedly popularized the notion of
culture being an important driver of excellence in companies. Indeed, Edgar Schein (Denison,
2012) comments that the concept of organizational culture only became “theoretically and
practically important in the 1980’s”. Schein continues to describe this historical evolution in the
following way:
“… the concept (of culture) began to appeal to entrepreneurs because they saw
themselves as creators of culture without always knowing what they meant by it. The
concept became important to leaders as a way of capturing all of the soft stuff they
realized they had to think about and as a way of articulating their values. The concept
played an increasing role in change theories, both as the biggest constraint and also as
an element that had to change if real change were to be accomplished. The concept also
caught the fancy of theoreticians, who created instant typologies of different kinds of
cultures. And the concept was immediately adopted by a number of social psychologists
who wanted to measure it – whatever “it” was”.
While Schein comments on organizational culture entering into the business mainstream during
the 1980’s, another popular and often quoted definition of the so-called “soft stuff” is from
Marvin Bower as early as 1966 in his book “The Will to Manage” in which he highlights the
importance of “developing a company philosophy and establishing the beliefs, values, attitudes
and unwritten guidelines that add up to … the way we do things around here”. This is a quote
that is often used but also frequently misattributed to other authors. I have personally used this
quote numerous times in various presentations and training sessions. Bower’s quote “the way
we do things around here” is possibly the most common quote on the topic of culture in its
relatively short history.
At a more academic, but less popular level, Jex and Britt (2008) indicate that “most”
researchers have traced the study of organizational culture back to the late 1970’s. However,
one could argue that the origins of various conceptions of culture have a much longer history.
For example, Pettigrew (1979) describes early insights into the origins of organizational culture,
Page 18
namely communicating amongst people and especially the unique languages used within these
different organizations being attributed to Berger and Luckman as far back as 1966:
“… what is supposed to be distinctive about man compared with other animals is his
capacity to invent and communicate determinants of his own behavior. Another aspect
of organizational culture is the system of vocal signs we call language. With its immense
variety and complexity, language can typify and stabilize experience and integrate those
experiences into a meaningful whole”.
What I find interesting in Pettigrew’s description of communications, specifically vocal signs and
language, is his use of the term “experiences” as key elements of learning the culture within a
company. I comment later in Chapter 3 about the more recent notion of “experiences” created
by leaders and other influential people being a powerful driver of culture in organizations.
Perhaps Pettigrew’s notion of “experiences” is a harbinger of this concept as well!
Pettigrew similarly comments on “symbols” as key aspects of culture, and references writings
on this topic back in the 1960’s.
“The offsprings of the concept of culture I have in mind are symbol, language, ideology,
belief, ritual, and myth. Of these, symbol is the most inclusive category, not only
because language, ritual, and myth are forms of symbolism but because symbolic
analysis is a frame of reference, a style of analysis in its own right”.
Another important construct of culture introduced by Pettigrew is that of “ideologies and

attitudes” as elements of organizational culture:
“Ideologies can play a significant role in the processes of organizational creation

because they have the potential to link attitude and action. Smelser (1963) describes
this as a process of social short circuiting”.
In this reference, Smelser writes on this important dimension of culture as early as the 1960’s,
some years earlier than even Marvin Bower.
Smircich (1983) also provides a historically rich overview of the emerging concepts of
organizational culture, and references an early publication discussing organizational “character”
(Harrison, 1972). Smircich’s analysis of the theory of organizational culture appears to emerge
out of a broader organizational theory, (as well as Pettigrew’s discussion of various elements of
culture). It is also apparent that Schein’s observation that there was an aggregation of theories
and concepts related to culture into a more cohesive theory of organizational culture during the
1980’s, is indeed true.
Page 19
Definitions of organizational culture

Reviewing the literature on the subject of organizational culture and what it is produces
numerous definitions and descriptions. While the popular literature includes over 150
definitions (Cameron and Quinn, 2011), below is a select list of only a few of the more
commonly quoted definitions:
“Organizational culture is the collective behavior of (people) that are part of an organization, it
is also formed by the organization values, norms, working language, and symbols, and it
includes beliefs and habits …the pattern of such collective behaviors and assumptions that are
taught to new organizational members as a way of perceiving, and even thinking and feeling”.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_culture)
“Culture refers to the taken-for-granted values, underlying assumptions, expectations and

definitions that characterize organizations and their members … culture is a socially constructed
attribute of organizations that serves as the social glue binding an organization together”.
Cameron and Quinn (2011)
“The way we do things around here (Marvin Bower) … the behaviors that reflect the
assumptions about people and how they think and act, as well as values and beliefs shared by
members of an organization”.
James Heskett (2012)
“A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of
external adaptation and internal integration that has worked well enough to be considered
valid and therefore to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and
feel in relation to those problems”.
Edgar Schein (2009)
What is evident from this sample of definitions, is that the emphasis is on individuals and their
collective assumptions, values, feelings and how they think and behave. It is also evident from
reading the research literature, that there is less focus on what individuals can do to personally
or collectively respond to or drive culture change than one would expect from these definitions.
Page 20
Kurt Lewin: An historical gap and debate?

It is interesting to note that historical reviews of organizational culture seldom reference Kurt
Lewin in the context of organizational culture. Marrow (1969) comments that Lewin is
described by his peers and students alongside Freud as follows:
“Freud the clinician and Lewin the experimentalist - these are the two men whose
names stand out before all others in this history of our psychological era. For it is in their
contrasting but complementary insights which first made psychology a science
applicable to real human beings and to real society”.
Marrow continues to note that “It may surprise some readers to know that Lewin was so highly
regarded. His name has never been well known to the general public. But psychologists have
known of the breathtaking sweep of his scientific endeavors. Many of his concepts have
become so widely adopted that they figure as intrinsic to the science itself and their origins are
not remembered. Often enough ideas and techniques Lewin originated are discussed without
any reference to him”.
Lewin is commonly recognized as the founder of group dynamics, action research, field theory,
and sensitivity training. He also coined the phrase “there is nothing as practical as a good
theory”. I am particularly fond of this quote given my commentary on the need for the thinking
about organizational culture to move from theorizing and developing new definitions and terms
to something that is more practical and useful to organizations, leaders and employees.
Wolf also comments on this phenomenon of Lewin’s invisibility back in 1973 as follows:
“… many students of management are completely unaware of Lewin and his

contributions. His name is seldom mentioned in texts dealing with management or
personnel relations”.
Indeed, this is possibly truer for the subject of organizational culture some forty years later.
Lewin pioneered the concepts of organizational “climates” and defined these as authoritarian,
democratic and laissez-faire work environments. Marrow (1969) quotes Lewin’s view on
engineering while at MIT in 1945 and its impact on people:
“The main purpose of engineering is the release of human energies and the
enhancement of man’s power of dealing with nature, a goal for which the development
of machines has provided the principal means. In the course of doing this, engineering
has not completely overlooked the human element, but it has had a tendency to
minimize it”.
Page 21
Marrow continues that, to Lewin, a factory was much more than a structure of production lines;
it was “the creation of a group with certain patterns of leadership, and any progressive factory
management had to consider the total culture which meant all aspects of group life”. So,
clearly, Lewin was conceptualizing the human element in factories and organizations in the late
1930’s and during the 1940’s until his death in 1947.
In Lewin’s more commonly quoted change theory of “unfreezing, moving to the new level and
freezing at the new level” (Marrow, 1969) he also described changing “mindsets” (or a set of
beliefs or a way of thinking), and this is very closely aligned with the more recent definitions of
organizational culture. Lewin’s work took place during the period after he arrived in the United
States in 1933 until his death in 1947. This seminal work must surely be considered the early
foundations of formal thinking on what is now commonly referred to as organizational culture.
In recent years, Lewin’s concept of “climate” has been used frequently to refer to transitional
and short term “mood” in an organization versus the more entrenched notion of organizational
culture defined by Schein as deeply rooted “tacit beliefs and assumptions”. Schein emphasizes
that these assumptions are largely unconscious to the average worker, and therefore virtually
impossible to assess through surveys. However, Lewin’s early thinking undoubtedly precedes
much of the literature that suggests the timeframe of the 1970’s to be the origins of culture.
But Lewin’s absence as a central figure in much of the writings on culture is, in my view,
reflective of the ongoing and excessive focus on continued theorizing and debate on definitions,
competing theories and research methods that lead Ashkanasy, Wilderom and Peterson (2011)
to comment that in their early attempts to produce a 2 nd edition of their extensive first volume
on organizational culture, a common “refrain” was that culture and climate were “old hat” and
that scholars have moved onto new and different topics such as “organizational identity”. So
while writers like Dauber et al (2012) are describing organizational culture as a relatively young
field of research, others are saying it is “old hat” and research needs to move on. In my opinion,
there is a need for the focus to move from this seemingly confused and often contradictory
theorizing to a Lewinian focus on pragmatism that makes a tangible difference in the workplace
and with individual employees.
Page 22
A Summarized Timeline of Organizational Culture

The following diagram is my perspective on the history of organizational culture and some of
the key contributors to thought leadership as well as pragmatic application of theory. This
summary includes my perspective of pragmatic execution:
Figure 3: A Diagrammatic Timeline of Organizational Culture
A Diagrammatic Summary Timeline of Organizational Culture
Key Thought Leaders Contributions

Time Period
Kurt Lewin Corporate “Climate”

- > 1940’s Unfreeze->Transition->Freeze change
sequence
Development
Theory
Marvin Bower A corporate ”Philosophy” about “The Way we

1960’s Neil Smelser do things around here”
Corporate Ideologies as “social short
circuiting”
Andrew Pettigrew Beginning to integrate concepts of sociology

1970’s Charles Handy and anthropology into organizational culture
Culture typologies
Measurement
Typologies &
Edgar Schein Three levels of Culture. The role of leaders

1980’s Peters and Waterman McKinsey 7 “S” model and shared values
Geert Hofstede National Cultures and Organization Culture
William Bergquist Four Culture topologies

1990’s Cameron and Quinn Competing Values Framework and
Execution &
Kotter and Heskett assessment

Change
Corporate Culture linked to Performance

Roger Connors and Tom Smith A focus on executing culture change
2000 -> Edgar Schein The role of leaders in creating experiences
Focus on business problems first not culture
It is evident from this schematic summary that the focus on executing cultural change is
relatively recent, and will therefore receive more attention in this section.
Reflections
Inquiry into the concept of organizational culture has a history much older than most authors
suggest. This history, in my view hails from the 1930’s with the early insights of Kurt Lewin and
has been developed by many theorists since that time. However, there has been a large
amount of non-value added argument by researchers and theoreticians alike on definitions and
constructs that make up organizational culture.
Page 23
References.
Ashkan, N.M., Wilderom, C.P.M., & Peterson, M. (2011). Handbook of organizational culture
and climate. 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks. Sage.
Bower, M. (1966). The Will to Manage: Corporate Success Through Programmed Management.
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Cameron, K. and Quinn, R. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. John Wiley
& Sons. San Francisco.
Dauber, D., Fink, G. and Yolles, M. (2012). A Configuration Model of Organizational Culture.
Sage Open Publishing.
Denison, D. Hooijberg, R. Lane, N. and Lief, C. (2012). Leading Culture Change in Global
Organizations. Jossey-Bass.
Harrison, R. (1972). Understanding your organization's character. Harvard Business Review.
Jex, S. and Britt, T. (2008). Organizational Psychology. A Scientist-Practitioner Approach. 2nd Ed.
John Wiley & Sons.
Marrow, A. (1969). The Practical Theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin. 2 nd Ed. Basic Books
Inc.
Pettigrew, A. (1979). On Studying Organizational Cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly.
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis. Administrative Science

Quarterly. Sage Publications, Inc.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_climate
wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_culture
Wolf, B. (1973). The Impact of Kurt Lewin on Management Thought. Cornell University.
Academy of Management Proceedings
Page 24
Chapter 2: Models of Organizational Culture
Introduction
Dauber et al (2012) identifies three primary categories of culture models developed historically,
namely the “Dimensions” models (for example Hofstede et al., 1990), the “Interrelated
Structure” models (for example, Schein, 1985), and the “Typology” models (for example,
Cartwright & Cooper, 1993; Handy, 1993). Dauber positions the Dimensions models as primarily
focused on measuring organizational culture empirically along scales that can be related to
other dependent variables of interest. The Interrelated Structure models concentrate on linking
the construct of culture to other characteristics of organizational theory. Typology models are
based on predefined key characteristics that cluster organizations into certain pre-determined
classifications, but do not necessarily define the relationships of these characteristics with each
other.
My review of the history of organizational culture similarly identifies three different types of
models. Two of them are similar to Dauber’s, but one that is entirely different and is most
commonly missing from the literature is the “Execution and Change” model. This section labels
these three categories of models as “Theoretical and Conceptual Models”, “Typology and
Measuring Models” and “Execution and Change Models”. The following is a description of this
categorization.
Theoretical Models
Theoretical models are models that describe the elements of organizational culture in an
abstract way. These models are foundational to our understanding of the nature of
organizational culture, how to think and talk about it, why the construct of culture is important
and how elements interact over time. These models are less useful for understanding how to
pragmatically manage and change culture in organizations.
Typology and Measuring Models

While Dauber postulates Typology and Dimensions as uniquely different, I believe from a
practical perspective they are similar in that both are generally aggregated based on survey or
other assessment data, and both are generally used for tracking change in culture over time.
These are models that primarily assess organizational culture and present the results in some
form of predetermined format. Typologies provide predetermined, abstract labels and
dimensions to the assessment data and are usually based on some kind of assessment tool,
most commonly surveys. These models are generally used to provide a set of descriptive values
with associated metrics that quantify a culture profile.
Page 25
Execution and Change Models

These are models focused on the more practical aspects of how to go about changing culture in
an effective manner in organizations. While most of these reference or build on either
theoretical or typological models, they usually have a program or project management theme
while leveraging the need to have a theoretical model as a foundation and a measurement and
tracking capability within the change/execution roadmap. As I describe earlier in this chapter,
this is an area that has received less attention in the history of organizational culture.
NOTE: For those readers interested in a more thorough discussion on the three types of
organizational culture models, Appendix 1 provides a summary.
Reflections
It was reported somewhat humorously in the popular news in early 2015, that the word
"culture" topped Merriam-Webster’s 2014 Words of the Year list. This was apparently
determined by analyzing the top annual increases on word look-ups on the dictionary
publisher’s website. But there is perhaps an aspect of seriousness to this statistic in that
organizational culture has become a common topic for discussion in business and is being seen
as a key competency alongside strategy formulation and leadership capability. In this context,
the need for greater focus and attention to executing culture change is a priority. From an
historical perspective, it is also interesting to note the frequency of use of some of these terms
over several decades. Google books Ngram search provides an interesting chronological
perspective of how often certain terms have been used over several decades by scanning over
five million books as shown below.
Figure 4: Google books Ngram Viewer
Page 26
Section 2: Constructs within

Organizational Culture
Introduction
In the same way that Section 1 provided a background history on organizational culture, and
identified the dearth of information on how to execute a change in culture, Section 2 provides a
grounding on the some key elements that make up culture, namely values, beliefs and
behaviors amongst other constructs.
In considering the sample of definitions of culture described in Section 1, it is evident that the
various researchers and authors commonly use many different and sometimes confusing terms
such as values, beliefs, attitudes, assumptions, perceptions and behaviors. Less common are
clear descriptions or definitions of what these terms actually mean, and how to influence or
change them. For example, if a company is attempting to change its culture, how does it go
about changing belief systems? Alternatively, is changing attitudes the right thing to do? Or
where is the right place to start? In particular, when cultural change is needed by a company in
our increasingly fast-paced economy, when there is usually an urgent need for rapid strategic
adaptability, is it reasonable to even consider culture change as a needed intervention? If one
considers some of the trends outlined in the chapter on the “Workplace of the Future”, where
the very notion of being an employee will likely be transient and flexible within the next decade
or so, where does a company place its focus when culture change is considered necessary?
Whatever the answers to these questions may be, organizational leaders need to recognize that
the process of culture change cannot be extended over years; indeed, companies under intense
competitive pressure may not have years. The competitive environment is too dynamic and fast
moving to prolong the process of change. The new business environment of constant change
requires that an organization be adaptable and agile, and this ability to shift culture in tandem
with changing strategy needs to become a core competence of the organization.
Page 27
Chapter 3: Values, Beliefs, Attitudes and Behaviors
Introduction
As noted earlier regarding the various definitions of culture, the terminology used by both
academics and practitioners is varied and can be confusing to practitioners. Some of the most
common terms used in these definitions are values, beliefs, assumptions, attitudes and
behaviors. This section outlines some of the terms that are better rooted in sound research,
versus some of the more anecdotal definitions, such as “the way things work around here”. The
importance of defining and understanding culture in a rigorous manner cannot be over-
emphasized. I have experienced companies investing substantial resources into culture change,
while the initiatives they invest in have little to do with actually shifting organizational culture.
For example, corporate communications programs focused on issues related to culture tend to
have very little impact on actually shifting culture. In addition, the terminology they use to
describe culture is often vague and confusing to many employees. The following summary
provides a foundation of key definitions from sound selected research sources.
Definitions of terms and their inter-relationships

Individual values: Rokeach (1979) defines an individual’s values as conceptions, either explicit
or implicit, which are not specific to any object or situation, representing a person’s beliefs
(cognitive and affective interpretations) about modes of conduct and ideal terminal goals.
Values guide an individual’s actions and judgments broadly across objects and situations. I
would add a nuance to this description to define organizational values as explicit, articulated
beliefs and norms about what is considered important to an organization’s operations and
execution of day-to-day work towards achievement of its vision, purpose and strategic
objectives.
Beliefs: Fishbein and Ajzen (2010) define beliefs as the cognitive acceptance that a statement is
true or that something exists. Aronson (2008) notes that beliefs develop gradually through
repeated interactions with people and the acquisition of information over extended periods of
time.
Opinions: Aronson (2008) defines opinions as what a person believes to be factually true.
Aronson postulates two different kinds of opinions. First is a cognitive opinion which he
describes as “being largely in the head versus in the gut”. This type of opinion is factual such as
the statistic of “seat belts reduce traffic accident fatalities by 50%”. This kind of opinion may be
relatively easily changed if an authoritative source was able to convince us with hard data that
the way seat belts are currently designed, they have not reduced fatalities. The second type
Page 28
carries not only a cognitive component but also an emotional dimension. Aronson points out
examples like “New York is a jungle”, or “Jews engage in dishonest business practices” or “the
United States is the greatest nation on earth”. These opinions carry powerful emotional as well
as cognitive dimensions, and are therefore much harder to change. Opinions with this
emotional dimension are considered “attitudes”.
Attitudes: Attitudes, as noted by Aronson, are a special type of belief that includes emotional
and evaluative components. An attitude is a specific orientation towards certain objects,
person or situation that emerges from the application of a value to concrete objects or
situations. Fishbein and Ajzen define attitudes as the latent disposition or tendency to respond
with some degree of favorableness or unfavorableness to a psychological object.
Behaviors: Fishbein and Ajzen define behaviors as observable manifestations of an individual’s

values, beliefs and attitudes. Behaviors are influenced, but not necessarily dependent, upon a
person’s values and attitudes. Fishbein and Ajzen note that a behavior has four elements,
namely an action, target, context and time.
The relationship between Values, Beliefs, Attitudes and Behaviors

Fishbein and Ajzen explain the complex dynamics of the attitude-behavior relationship in their
reasoned-action approach (RAA) developed in 1975 as a framework for the prediction of human
social behavior. This theory is as shown in the diagram below:
Figure 5: Fishbein and Ajzen's RAA Model
This model is not only a general model for predicting behavior, but has also been used for
predicting consumer purchasing behavior (Waite, 2014) as well as marketing purposes. Working
Page 29
left to right, the RAA model describes an individual being in any environment (Background
Factors), such as a corporate environment, in which they bring a range of background or
contextual factors with them that may potentially impact their behavior in a specific
circumstance. These include individual factors, social factors, and information factors as noted
in the model above. These are all considered “givens” at the time in any specific situation.
Within a specific environmental situation, Fishbein and Ajzen list three broad classes of beliefs
that may come into play as the individual navigates his or her environment:
Behavioral beliefs are cognitions that an individual has about acting out a given behavior
leading to positive or negative outcomes. A work-related example could be the belief that
working long hours is a good thing to do and is valued by the company for which I work. If I
behave in this way, I am more likely to progress in my career.
Normative beliefs contain an individual’s support or opposition to performing the behavior or

for some group performing the behavior. A work-related example could be that I personally do
not enjoy working long hours, despite the fact that I perceive that long hours are expected by
my company to be promoted and it appears that my peer groups all work long hours in order to
get noticed.
Control beliefs are those that hold that certain personal or situational factors that can facilitate
or hinder performance of the behavior are likely or unlikely to be present. A work-related
example could be my belief that I have limited time to work long hours because of the many
other family related responsibilities I have.
Attitudes: Attitudes are the sum of an individual’s beliefs about a particular behavior weighted
by evaluations of these beliefs. A work-related example could be that after evaluating all of my
three sets of beliefs about working long hours, and weighting each, I formulate the attitude that
working long hours is essential for success in my career and that work needs to take
precedence over my family life despite pressure that I may get from my family. In other words,
while my control beliefs suggest curtailing my working hours, I weight my normative and
behavioral beliefs more and develop the attitude that working long hours is essential for
success in my life overall.
Perceived (subjective) norms: These are the perceived influences that people in one's social
environment have on an individual’s behavioral intentions. In other words, one’s perception
about what is expected from others in a particular social setting. A work-related example may
be the influence that my peer group at work may have on my intention to work long hours.
Perceived behavioral control: An individual's conviction or sense of capability in performing a

particular behavior and perceived ease or difficulty of executing the behavior. A work-related
example could be my perception of my control over whether I can limit my work hours to a
Page 30
reasonable level, or if I will somehow be obligated to work long hours despite the fact that I
prefer not to.
Actual control: The objective control a person has in fact to execute the behavior. For example,
continuing the logic in example for “perceived behavioral control” described above, the fact
may be that I have great control over my work hours, despite my perception that I am limited in
my ability to control my actual behavior on working long hours.
Intentions: Intentions are the immediate antecedents of behavior, and are a function of both
attitudes toward a behavior and subjective norms toward that behavior, and the sum of
normative beliefs weighted by motivation to comply. Intentions have been found to more
accurately predict actual behavior. A work related example is that my intention is that I plan to
balance my work hours to meet my boss’s expectations, while not alienating my family, but this
intention could still be stifled by my actual control of the situation I find myself in.
Behavior: Behaviors are observable events. Fishbein and Ajzen define behaviors as having four
dimensions: the action performed, the target at which the action is directed, the context in
which it is conducted and the time at which it is performed. Continuing the work-related
example used above, a behavior might be that I actually decide to work long hours on a Sunday,
when it appears my peer groups are also doing so and my boss seems anxious as a deadline
looms on Monday, but I limit my time at work by doing some of this work at home because
there are pressures from family.
Important factors that impact behavior

Attribution error: Aronson describes an important insight that relates to the work example I
have used in the above descriptions of the RAA model. This is the notion that most people
overestimate the degree of influence attributable to personality and dispositional factors (i.e.
the individual “background factors” in Fishbein and Ajzen’s RAA model) when considering the
behavior of others. For example, in the previous work-related example, people may think that
the individual characterized has a strong work ethic verging on being a workaholic, whereas in
fact he has a strong family oriented personality and attitude and only works long hours because
of his beliefs and attitudes to work and the perceived pressures he feels. There has been a lot
of media attention in recent months focused on the working environment, largely initiated by
the new Yahoo CEO announcing that all employees must work in a Yahoo office versus from
home or other remote location. Attribution error may be at work here where senior leaders in
Yahoo attribute poor company performance to employees working from home and effectively
“slacking off”. This is also discussed in the chapter on the “Future of Work”.
Page 31
Cognitive dissonance: Aronson defines the theory of cognitive dissonance as a motivational

theory in that the discomfort caused by a threat to one’s self esteem or self-concept motivates
people to change their beliefs and or behaviors to reduce the discomfort. Cognitive dissonance
is the tension a person feels when they maintain two states of cognition that are in conflict with
each other. Continuing the work-related example I have used above, Aronson may likely
estimate that given that the difference between a person’s attitudes and beliefs and his actual
behavior is likely very great (in other words, working long hours, but really wanting to spend
more time with family), this individual may experience a high degree of cognitive dissonance.
He would then be motivated to find some kind of justification for this discrepancy. His external
justification may be that he is working long hours because his company culture and bosses are
pressuring him unduly, and thus his attitude about long working hours would likely not change.
Instead, he would continue the behavior of working long hours, but somewhat begrudgingly.
On the other hand, he may find internal justification that the long hours actually provide him a
benefit because he begins to consider the possibility that the long hours of work are on behalf
of his family for financial security. Alternatively, he may be receiving accolades from his bosses
and peer group about the great work he is producing and therefore begins to feel that long
hours are positive. In this case, his beliefs and attitudes about long hours at the office may
begin to change in support of working long hours, thus reducing dissonance and protecting his
self-esteem.
The inverse relationship between behaviors and attitudes: What is not apparent in the
reasoned-action approach is the reverse impact that a person’s behaviors can have on their
attitudes. Aronson identifies this phenomenon as follows:
“What social psychologists have long known, but have only recently begun to
understand, is that changes in behavior can affect changes in attitude”.
Using examples of prejudice in the United States and South Africa, Aronson describes the
situation in which a person’s behavior is encouraged or forced to change (for example by fiat,
legislation or other environmental factors) and the dissonance this causes (in other words, the
individual is forced or encouraged to behave in a manner that is not aligned with his or her
entrenched beliefs and attitudes) can have a reverse influence on one’s attitudes and beliefs.
Aronson refers to this as the “saying (and doing) is believing” principle. While this reverse effect
is not represented in Fishbein and Ajzen’s reasoned-action model, I have represented this effect
by the adding the blue call-out box noting this relationship in the model above. I believe this is
an important addition to the model, and forms a cornerstone of the logic for driving culture
change in organizations.
Page 32
How beliefs, values and attitudes are influenced

The mechanisms through which people shape their values, beliefs, and resulting behaviors are
called social influence (Aronson, 2008). Aronson describes three kinds of responses that people
have to social influence, namely compliance, identification and internalization.
Compliance: Aronson defines compliance as the behavior of a person who is motivated by a

desire to gain reward or avoid punishment. This type of behavior is very common in business
environments where a person’s behavior can be extremely different at work versus in other
non-work situations. When the reward or punishment environment is removed (for example,
the person goes home from work), the person’s behavior returns to some “normal” state. I
have experienced this in extreme measure with a large retail-banking group with a highly
militaristic culture; I personally found myself adopting certain behaviors that were not part of
my personality purely to comply. For example, I worked incredibly long hours and over
weekends simply because this organization expected complete ownership of an employee’s
time. Indeed, some twenty years prior to my tenure with this organization, employees were
required to obtain approval from their manager to get married; and if the employees’ financial
position was not good enough, managers would often not give approval. Strict compliance
under militaristic type rules and culture certainly drove some strange and extreme behaviors in
this organization, but there were obvious benefits from the organization’s perspective. By
leveraging enough reward for compliance and punishment for non-compliance, the company
promoted and entrenched people who complied, and sidelined those who did not conform.
Others who did not comply were either fired or left In terms of influencing beliefs and values, I
would argue that this example of compliance would impact “attitude” versus values and beliefs
given that Rokeach’s (1979) definition holds that values and entrenched beliefs are not specific
to any object or situation (for example, like working at a bank). This implies that a person would
not act differently at work versus at home if this militaristic behavior was fundamental to his or
her value system. Rather, Rokeach might argue that these situation-specific or “put on”
behaviors emerge from “attitudes” specific to objects (leaders in the banking office) and
“situations” (like a banking work environment). Compliance is extrinsically motivated
(pressured by the work environment) and once the pressure to comply is removed, the
behavior is likely to cease, such as not working long hours when the boss is away.
Identification: Identification is the mechanism of social influence in which the individual wants
to be like the influencer. Aronson notes that this form of social influence, as with compliance, is
generally not intrinsically satisfying, but rather motivated by the desire to place the individual in
a satisfying relationship (or to gain favor) with the influencer. Identification is different from
compliance in that these individuals do ultimately come to believe in the opinions and values
adopted from the influencer, but not very strongly. An example of identification in the retail
Page 33
bank example I used previously, is that one of my bosses was one of the best managers I have
ever known, but had a strong need to identify with one the organization’s senior leadership. He
specifically identified with a senior executive who wore brightly polished wingtip shoes, an
artifact of his military background. My manager adopted these style shoes as a dress item as
well as some of the leaders’ mannerisms clearly to gain favor with the senior executive.
However he did on occasion express some level of embarrassment about doing this simply to
identify and gain favor with the senior executive.
Internalization: Aronson construes the internalization of a value or belief as the most deeply
rooted and permanent response to social influence. Aronson continues that the motivation to
internalize a particular value or belief is based on the desire to be right, thus the reward for the
belief is intrinsically driven. If the people or person that create the influence are seen as highly
credible and successful, such as leaders in the banking example I used previously, the individual
is likely to accept these beliefs and values and integrate them into their own value systems.
Once it is part of a person’s value system it becomes independent of the source. Again, using
the banking example above, it was clear that many managers and employees had completely
adopted the values and beliefs of the organization, and in fact the bank had become their lives.
Clearly there were some significant career advantages to this, but also some significant
disadvantages. For example, the excessive work ethic in the organization was often taken to
extreme with one senior leader commenting with pride that he had never taken vacation in ten
years. Another common attitude and behavior was that smoking was “cool” and was common
amongst senior leaders of this organization, even while in the office. One of my bosses had a
stroke in the office at the age of 45 years. These negative experiences began to have an effect
on the banking group’s policies and practices and it was not long after this incident that
smoking was banned in the offices and some requirements were put in place on taking of
vacations and other work life balance issues.
One could argue that the social influence mechanisms described by Aronson could be depicted
on the RAA model in the following way:
Page 34
Figure 6: Fishbein and Ajzen's RAA Model Amended
The implications of these mechanisms of social influence for organizational culture change are
many. The most significant is that companies should focus their efforts on an approach that
utilizes all three mechanisms of influence, but with emphasis on internalization to maximize the
possibility that employees will adopt the beliefs, attitudes and behaviors as their own. In
contrast, a significant mistake companies can make is to approach culture change with the
development of communications and training programs. These are usually intended to change
the values, attitudes and beliefs of employees about how work should be conducted. Often
these campaigns will include high-level cultural themes such as becoming “a high performance
organization” or “a winning organization” and so on. In one organization I consulted with, this
included wall posters, screensavers and a website with language similar to these launched with
two-day training programs for management. Managers were thereafter expected to urge all
employees to become less complacent, and develop more of a winning attitude. During my
time with this organization, very little changed. As Aronson notes, “in general, it is difficult to
change important beliefs through direct communications”.
Key factors in changing beliefs, attitudes and behaviors

Aronson uses compelling descriptions of racial integration and prejudice in the United States to
describe practical examples and evidence of how changes in behavior, rather than values,
beliefs or attitudes, should be the focal point in causing cultural change, in this case in a country
and society versus an organization. Aronson’s examples resonate powerfully with me given that
I am a born South African who grew up in the Apartheid political system and left South Africa to
come to the United States in 1973 when I was twenty one. My family soon followed. However, I
Page 35
returned to South Africa shortly before the African National Congress (ANC) political party was
unbanned and Nelson Mandela released. In April of 1994 I, along with millions of South Africans
of all ethnic backgrounds, stood in voting lines many miles long rejoicing the first democratically
held elections in South Africa’s history. The results of this election and its aftermath are an
historic and truly remarkable example of social, cultural change that is often used as a
benchmark by other counties and leaders around the world. On returning to South Africa
periodically since that time, I have marveled at the social and racial transformation that South
Africa has experienced in subsequent years. Indeed, to some degree this transformation has
been more profound and has occurred faster than the similar change experienced in the United
States over many more decades. In the following sections, I will leverage some of the principles
noted by Aronson and use some of my South African experiences to describe the foundational
principles for effective culture change in organizations.
The psychology of inevitability: Aronson expands on the early efforts to desegregate schools
and other institutions in the United States in the early 1950’s. Many politicians and
psychologists proposed a lengthy gradual period of integration to get people prepared for the
integration of ethnic groups. This elongated process allowed many dissenting leaders and
communities to think that racial integration was an arguable topic, and continued to argue and
debate it for years, if not decades. This elongated and vague process did not occur in South
Africa. Once the ANC was unbanned and Nelson Mandela released, there was little question,
although many tried to challenge it and failed, that South Africa would become fully integrated
in every respect. Although the four years prior to the elections was a difficult period in many
ways, the message from most leaders was clear and unambiguous: South Africa would become
fully integrated. It was even given a name that is used to this day, the “Rainbow Nation”. This
consistency was intended to create what Aronson refers to as a “psychology of inevitability”.
This absolute reality caused cognitive dissonance in the minds of many South Africans, but the
inevitability of the situation caused many to begin to (to some degree, subconsciously) convince
themselves that other races were not so bad after all. Some South Africans left the country
during this period because they had an alternative choice. To these individuals, the “psychology
of inevitability” did not have as great an effect because they had alternative options, and could
apply external justification to their feelings of dissonance. To those that did not have the option
of leaving, this inevitability seemed to cause an almost excessive sense of positivity and
commitment to South Africa’s future success.
Implications for organizational culture change: Companies launching culture change initiatives
should be unequivocal and specific in what the culture changes will include and what it will
mean to all employees. Creating this sense of inevitability is a critical leadership responsibility,
and it’s essential that all leaders speak with “one voice”. There must be no question in the
minds of employees that the expected changes must happen.
Page 36
Legislating morality: Aronson summarizes research on the attitudes of individuals in public

housing projects in 1951. White residents in the integrated projects reported a greater positive
change in attitudes towards black people than those in the segregated projects. Aronson notes
that through legislation, in which people are required to live close together in equal status, they
will tend to develop more positive attitudes towards each other. Aronson notes that indirectly
one can legislate attitude (morality) change, albeit indirectly. In other words, by requiring
people to interact on equal status, and where these interactions produce reasonably positive
outcomes, people’s attitudes will shift when they become familiar with each other. This
phenomenon likely had a large role to play in the progress South Africa has made in the past
two decades. During the Apartheid era, racial groups were forcefully separated and the unequal
status and lack of familiarity caused deep distrust. Subsequent to the democratic elections, the
various races could live and work wherever they liked. Legislation made acts of racist behavior
illegal, for example, making it illegal for white property owners not to rent apartments to other
racial groups. This process created equal status and caused people to overcome their cognitive
dissonance (holding historically racist beliefs, while interacting directly and equally with
numerous race groups). This interaction also created positive outcomes for many, and this
played a critical role in people’s positive attitudinal changes. These largely positive experiences,
repeated over time, caused people to begin to shift their beliefs and attitudes. In this sense,
legislated behavior caused a change in beliefs and attitudes when these behaviors and actions
created successful outcomes.
Implications for organizational culture change: I call this “hardwiring culture change” in the
companies with which I have worked. In order to change behavior and ultimately change
culture, I recommend to my clients that they identify as many opportunities as possible to
design new business processes, policies or new ways of working that require (“legislate”) the
kinds of behaviors needed for future business success. For example, with a private banking
group, I helped implement a new CRM technology (Customer Relationship Management) and
worked with process experts to design systems processes that “hard-wired” collaboration
between sales agents who previously had worked alone. Effectively, this “hard-wired” process
meant that sales agents could not engage in sales unless they collaborated together. There was
no other way to go about it. Ultimately, despite initial “kicking and screaming” from some
agents, this process was successful and produced better sales results, and this success
accelerated an attitude change towards proactive collaborative selling.
Applying cognitive dissonance to change beliefs and behaviors: A practical example of

cognitive dissonance Aronson provides is with individuals who smoke. While clearly knowing
that it is highly likely to cause some form of fatal disease, the individual still continues to
smoke. This causes cognitive conflict, which will likely encourage a person to struggle to find
some kind of justification for the behavior to reduce this cognitive conflict, such as projecting a
Page 37
“Marlboro cowboy” type attitude and behavior, or downplaying the research evidence and risks
of smoking, or possibly indicating that smoking is a necessary relaxant. As Aronson notes,
cognitive dissonance suggests that humans are not rational beings, but rather “rationalizing
beings”. We desperately try to find ways to justify our behavior, however dysfunctional these
behaviors may be, and reduce the anxiety of cognitive dissonance we feel.
Implications for organizational culture change: The practical application of cognitive

dissonance theory has significant relevance to organizational culture change. In organizations
undergoing a change in culture, some leaders inevitably may not be fully convinced of the need
for change and may avoid making commitments and remain “under the radar”. While this
behavior may be passive, it sends cues to their team members that it is acceptable to avoid
making the changes necessary and to simply keep on behaving in the manner they always have
in the past. Senior leaders can greatly overcome this problem by applying the principles of
cognitive dissonance. This may involve leaders being encouraged to broadly announce their
support and commitment to specific changes through doing strategy presentations, blogging,
placing short video clips of interviews on the company’s webpage or in various other forms of
open communications. By creating a situation in which these leaders are placed into a state of
cognitive dissonance (they openly talk about their support for change, while having non-
supportive beliefs and attitudes), these leaders will more likely change their beliefs and
attitudes towards being fully supportive of their public statements. Aronson labels this the
“saying is believing paradigm”; that is we begin to convince ourselves to believe in our “own
lies” to reduce the dissonance and anxiety we feel.
Irrecoverability: In companies undergoing major strategic changes, it’s not uncommon for
leaders and other employees to exhibit passive aggressive behaviors about the change if they
do not support the new direction. They may feel at risk by overtly arguing against the strategic
change, so they resist it, complain about it, undermine it or even conduct subtle sabotage in
some cases. I have observed some of these behaviors when consulting with a utility company
undergoing major changes to implement smart metering technologies and systems. This kind of
malicious-compliance behavior can be very damaging. Indeed, this was the cause of a major
public outcry and organized resistance to implementation in this utility company. The danger in
these situations is for senior leaders to project the impression that implementing the new
strategy is debatable or up for discussion. This allows the “doubters” to continue to resist and
undermine implementation. One of the key psychological mechanisms that senior leaders can
use is the principle of irrecoverability in which they communicate and demonstrate in absolute
terms that the change will be implemented. At a national level, in the case of South Africa going
through its transformational change, the leadership coalition began to dismantle the Apartheid
system and move towards democratic elections and projected a strong sense of irrecoverability
where there was clearly no turning back.
Page 38
Counter-intuitive reward theory: Aronson describes counter-intuitive research that

demonstrates how people who are provided large rewards for performing a behavior that they
do not entirely support or agree with are much less likely to change their attitudes to support
this behavior. The reason is that a large reward provides the individual adequate external
justification for this dissonant behavior, and therefore the individual does not need to change
his or her attitude to support the behavior. For example, if a senior executive does not support
the need for culture change, and is provided with a large bonus for doing presentations,
developing videos and writing blogs on his or her support for culture change, the external
justification of the bonus would likely prevent attitude change. However, if there was simply
some form of positive verbal acknowledgement for the task which builds the leader’s self-
esteem, it is much more likely that the individual would begin to change his or her attitude to
support the visible behavior change in order to overcome the dissonance the individual would
feel because there is no external justification.
Implications for organizational culture change: It is common for organizations undergoing a

culture change initiative to develop some form of reward and recognition program to support
the culture change. I strongly advise my clients not to include the “reward” aspects of such
programs, but rather provide simple recognition and praise for positive behaviors: however, as
Aronson states, this praise should not be excessive. In these cases, individuals who do not truly
support the change, but engage in the behavior because of some form of encouragement, are
more likely to seek intrinsic means of overcoming the discomfort of cognitive dissonance and
begin a change in attitude to justify their behaviors.
Recognition and praise for behavior change – caveats: Corporate reward and recognition
programs are sensitive topics in many companies. My experience with Human Resources
functions is that the default “R&R” programs tend to focus on financial or material rewards
versus simple recognition and praise. However, for behavior and attitude changes in culture
change initiatives, this can be a self-defeating approach. As noted above, large material rewards
for expected behaviors can be self-defeating. But recognition and praise can also have hidden
risks. Aronson references research with children in which praise can have negative results.
Praise can be beneficial only if given in moderation. If praise is presented in a way that the
individual who performed the task did so for purposes of receiving the praise versus the value
of the activity, or simply being competent, the intrinsic benefits are reduced. Similarly, if praise
is given in a manner that is competitive (i.e. the winner is the one who receives the most
praises or gold stars), then intrinsic value is defeated.
Implications for organizational culture change: Organizations should avoid providing

substantial material rewards for behavior change. Rather they should provide simple
recognition that focuses on the effort expended and the behaviors that provide successful work
Page 39
outcomes (a behavior-task focus) and encourages intrinsic satisfaction for the task at hand. This
recognition needs to be in moderation and should not be competitive. In other words, there
should no competition for employees who receive the most “gold stars” for behaving in the
right manner, as this is likely to reduce the intrinsic satisfaction of doing good work for its own
sake.
Justification of effort: Dissonance theory, as Aronson explains, leads to the prediction that
people who work hard for a goal will be more likely to support the goal than someone who
works far less to achieve the goal. For the hard workers, this difference is also more likely to
spur greater effort in future for similar, but more challenging goals. However, this effort needs
to be voluntary. Any kind of forced goal-oriented effort would provide external justification of
why the person endured the hard work and limit intrinsic value.
Implications for organizational culture change: One organization I worked with held a 3-day
program for management to become “initiated” into a culture change program with the
objective of becoming so-called “culture change champions”. This program was largely a failure
from what I observed after the program was over. The reason was that it was a requirement for
all managers above a certain grade level to attend. Those who did not fully agree with this
program harshly criticized it afterwards. In other words, they had extrinsic justification to
criticize because they attended under duress. However, if the organization had made it
voluntary, while the initial number of participants might have been lower, those who did not
fully agree with the program’s agenda, but still attended, would be far more likely to have
supported it afterwards given the large effort required to complete the program. They would
have experienced dissonance about why they dedicated so much effort to this program if they
did not support it in the first place, and would more likely to have changed their attitudes in
support of the program to reduce dissonance and re-establish self-esteem.
Changing culture: Focus on changing beliefs and attitudes, or changing

behaviors?
A challenge most companies face when they embark on culture change initiatives is where to
start and what to focus on. Edgar Schein (2009) proposes that cultures emerge from basically
three sources. The first is from the beliefs, values and assumptions of founders of the
organization; secondly, the learning experiences internalized by the members of the
organization as the organization evolves over time; and third, new beliefs, values and
assumptions introduced by new leaders and influencers. He emphasizes that original founders
have the greatest impact, and to the degree that the organization is successful over time, these
beliefs and assumptions can become deeply entrenched. This not only occurs in the attitudes,
Page 40
beliefs and behaviors of people, but also in work norms, processes and policies. This process
can take place over many years.
One could easily imagine that an obvious viewpoint and approach for changing culture could be
that the focus be based on changing values, assumptions, beliefs and attitudes. However, this
would be an incorrect argument. The reason is that values, beliefs and attitudes, as noted by
Aronson, become so deeply embedded that they are extremely difficult to change and can take
many years to change. In the modern business environment, most companies are under
tremendous competitive pressure, and new business strategies must be implemented quickly.
They don’t have years to change their culture. The approach many organizations adopt is to
change attitudes through communications campaigns and training. Aronson notes that these
approaches in isolation have little effect on the attitudes and beliefs of employees. Particularly
in the fast paced competitive business environment of today, an initial focus on changing
values, attitudes and beliefs simply takes too long. The more urgent and rapid change approach
is to focus on changing specific behaviors needed to execute strategy and the specific work
tasks required for business success. This is consistent with Schein’s viewpoint of focusing
culture change on solving business problems and the behaviors needed to overcome these
challenges versus high level constructs of values and beliefs.
Aronson describes the relationship between attitudes and beliefs, and how these dictate or
guide an individual’s behaviors. Aronson emphasizes research demonstrating clearly that the
link between attitudes and beliefs (such as the RAA model) is only true for simple situations. He
offers examples such as an individual’s preference for certain flavors of ice cream. Once the
preference is established, the individual will thereafter always buy that kind of ice cream rather
than an alternative flavor. More complex decisions or intentions are far less predictable or
related. While Aronson makes these observations, he does not specifically reference the RAA or
any other model. The examples Aronson provides in this case are related to America’s racially
divided history, where people may have held blatantly prejudiced beliefs but did not necessarily
act in a racially driven manner under certain circumstances. Aronson notes that taken as a
whole, the weight of research into the attitude-behavior relationship suggests that a person’s
attitudes are more likely to be unrelated, or only slightly related, to one’s overt behaviors.
Conversely, there is compelling counter–intuitive evidence that a change in behaviors,
encouraged or even “hard-wired”, is more likely to create a change in attitude, with the caveat
that the behavior produces reasonably successful outcomes and provides some level of
justification to the individual. The implication for organizational culture change initiatives is that
focusing on changing attitudes and beliefs is an ineffective approach. Given that it is difficult
and time consuming to focus culture change initiatives on beliefs and attitudes, I have found far
greater success with the companies that I have worked with when they focus on the critical
behaviors, or what Patterson et al (2008) call “vital behaviors”. These are the behaviors needed
Page 41
to specifically execute a new business strategy and to focus on overcoming business and
cultural obstacles to business success.
Reflections
Leaders embarking on a culture change initiative should place a high emphasis on the
mechanisms of how individuals change behavior and develop new habits (including
themselves). These mechanisms primarily relate to how leaders and influencers act and behave
day to day, and how employees mimic these behaviors and beliefs. The typical default approach
for most organizations is to introduce new processes, policies and rituals with the expectation
that employees will begin to think and act differently. This is seldom the case. These processes,
policies and rituals are important, but they are only enablers of a change in culture, they
generally do not foster new behaviors and beliefs.
Page 42
References
Aronson, E. (2008). The Social Animal. Tenth Edition. Worth Publishers.
Cameron, K. and Quinn, R. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. Third
Edition. Jossey-Bass.
Essawi, M. (2012). Changing Organizational Culture Through Constructive Confrontation of

Values. Journal of Organisation & Human Behaviour
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and Changing Behavior. The Reasoned Action
Approach. Psychology Press.
Heskett, J. (2012).The Culture Cycle. FT Press.
Patterson, K., Grenny, J., Maxfield, D., McMillan, R., and Switzler, A. (2008). Influencer: The
Power to Change Anything. McGraw-Hill.
Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding Human Values: Individual and Societal. The Free Press.
Schein, E. (2009). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey Bass.
Waite, D. (2014). A Different Approach to Reasoned Action.

http://www.talentzoo.com/beneath-the-brand/blog_news.php?articleID=18394
Page 43
Chapter 4: Changing Behaviors in Organizations
Introduction
My previous discussion on values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors provided a summary of these
cognitive constructs for purposes of understanding what they are and how they can be
influenced and changed. The implication of this discussion is that the focus of organizational
culture change efforts should be on changing specific behaviors and not initially attempting to
change values, beliefs or attitudes. This is because values, beliefs and attitudes are difficult to
change. The focus of this section is on some key concepts, approaches and mechanisms for
changing behaviors in organizations.
Specifying behaviors
Fishbein and Ajzen (2010) emphasize the importance of analyzing, identifying and describing
the specific behaviors that need to be changed. This is a challenge for many companies facing
culture change because they tend to describe their future desired cultures in high-level
conceptual terms, such as “high performance” or “customer focused” or “a winning culture”.
While this may be fine at the highest level, if the organization does not interpret these concepts
in clear behavioral terms at the level of specificity emphasized by Fishbein and Ajzen, the
likelihood is that employees will be confused and will not be able to take action. In cases like
this, effective culture change is unlikely. Fishbein and Ajzen define behaviors as having four
dimensions, namely the action performed, the target at which the action is directed, the
context in which it is conducted and the time at which it is performed. This is not suggesting
that senior leadership should define this level of detail for the entire organization, but certainly
lower level managers who are dealing with specific aspects of the work need to think more
specifically about this level of detail. This level of analysis is usually conducted by a deep
understanding of strategy being executed, analyzing the work that most directly impacts
strategic success and the behaviors most directly needed for effective operation of the work.
This allows for the definition of future culture to be designed from the work-level out – in other
words, rather than the high level top down approach that produces definitions such as “a
winning organization” as noted above, a more specific and relevant description is possible that
employees can relate to more easily.
Mechanisms for changing behaviors

Once these behaviors have been identified, and the “four dimensions” of behavior better
understood, the most effective approaches to changing behaviors can be defined. Fishbein and
Page 44
Ajzen describe a painstaking approach for determining the most effective approaches for
shifting behaviors. While this approach may be suitable for a social condition such as reducing
behavioral factors in the spread of AIDS or reducing smoking in a society, my view is that this
elongated approach would be difficult to apply in a fast paced and pressured business
environment. As a consultant, I find that it is difficult enough to persuade busy managers to
take the time to discuss behaviors, and even more difficult to get senior leadership to support
this level of detailed analysis. Fishbein and Ajzen also comment that their approach and
recommendations are more focused on predicting behaviors in people versus what actually
drives behavior change. Patterson et al (2008) provide a good summary of methods for
influencing behavior change in both societal situations as well as organizations. In the following
sections I will summarize these approaches and use this structure as the framework for
discussing behavior change in organizations. Patterson et al structure their approaches to
influencing behavior change in a 3X2 matrix as follows:
Figure 7: Patterson's 3X2 Matrix
In describing the six elements of their model, the authors comment on the need to make
change “inevitable”. While they do not reference social scientists such as Aronson, who
describes the power of the “psychology of inevitability”, they do define this phenomenon in a
similar manner. Patterson et al also note that applying one or two mechanisms to shift
behaviors is usually not enough to achieve a shift in behavior – a combination of strategies is
usually needed by targeting a few critical behaviors to overcome persistent problems. I agree
with this viewpoint as it relates to organizations. The six dimensions are a good way to
structure these possible combinations and are as follows:
Personal motivation: This deals with the techniques to leverage the power of intrinsic
motivation.
Page 45
Personal ability: This dimension describes techniques related to the skills an individual or group
has to exhibit a behavior or carry out an act.
Social motivation: Social motivation deals with peer pressure and the external influences that
those around us have on our behavior.
Social ability: This aspect of influence is the willingness of a social group to interact and
collaborate for the benefit of each other as a whole.
Structural motivation: This deals with the extrinsic motivators, incentives and reward systems
that are in play for a specific action or behavior.
Structural ability: Structural ability refers to the availability of tools, equipment, or a supportive
work environment in order for people to manifest a specific behavior or execute a task.
Personal motivation: Making the undesirable desirable

This is effectively the challenge of the “Tom Sawyer effect” describing how Tom Sawyer turned
his punishment into an opportunity. When he was ordered to whitewash Aunt Polly's front
fence, he convinced his friends that fence painting was so much fun that they paid him for the
privilege of doing it for him. This is what Aronson would likely refer to as the “internalization”
process which is that most powerful motivator of “wanting to be right” or feeling good about
ourselves – the behavior or activity is its own reward. In the organizational context, this
includes the critical focus on helping employees find joy and meaning in their work. Aronson
notes that these beliefs and behaviors are the most powerful and permanent and become
deeply embedded in who we are and how we think and act, and they are self-sustaining. In the
business context, once people have a deep sense that their work is meaningful and in some way
helps society, their beliefs become deeply embedded. Patterson et al describe the challenge of
creating meaning as the need to “find a way to change the feelings associated with a vital
behavior”. Fishbein and Ajzen define these feelings as “behavioral beliefs” which are cognitions
that an individual has about acting out a given behavior that leads to positive (or negative)
outcomes. The challenge Patterson et al emphasize is how to change these cognitions to be
intrinsically positive or “making pain pleasurable”. The authors note how organizations should
“create new experiences” for people to begin to learn that the experience of the behavior or
action is indeed positive and has good outcomes. This “doing is believing” approach explained
by Aronson supports my assertion in a previous chapter that a focus on positive behaviors
should be the initial focus in cultural change initiatives versus a focus on beliefs or attitudes.
People need to experience what the behavior feels like and what the outcomes are before they
will change their beliefs and attitudes.
Page 46
At the highest level (i.e. at a corporate or industry level) most companies I have consulted with
underestimate or ignore the power of what Patterson et al call “connecting to a person’s sense
of self” or what I would refer to as igniting one’s need to strive for a higher purpose. For
example, while consulting with a utility organization during their very challenging smart
metering implementation, there was an extremely high level of negative sentiment against this
technology by employees, largely out of ignorance of the technology, but also because of fear
about what this new technology would mean to their jobs. With leadership entrenched in the
technical “weeds” of this complex initiative, they missed the opportunity of truly engaging
employees in the higher purpose of their business, namely making modern, comfortable life in
California possible for millions of people, and delivering the capability of amazing technological
advances to customers. So-called “field’ operators are those workers who are out in their truck
working in neighborhoods across central California. Linemen and troublemen are those “field”
workers that get their “hands dirty” helping everyday citizens with power outages and other
serious problems during storms. Instead of connecting with this higher purpose of bringing
energy and modernization to people, many of these field workers were disgruntled and
ultimately, as rumor had it, leaked negative and false information to a customer who raised the
concern with local government, which ultimately led to investigations, delays and massive cost
overruns for the utility. A stark contrast to this example is a utility I consulted with in Canada,
that deeply connected the smartmetering and smartgrid technological change to a higher social
purpose of modernization. That utility not only had highly supportive and energized employees,
but also experienced far less resistance from communities.
Patterson et al define this as “helping individuals see their choices as moral quests or as
personally defining moments”; what they do at work makes a difference and gives their lives
deeper meaning. The authors quote the opposite of this phenomenon with Albert Bandura’s
work (1991) in which he describes four processes that allow individuals to behave amorally:
moral justification, dehumanization, minimizing and displacing responsibility. There are current
media reports that General Motors failed to recall vehicles that may have caused multiple
deaths due to a ten dollar part that certain employees knew was at risk. Patterson et al
comment on a similar situation with Ford Motor Company with the notorious Ford Pinto which
was at risk of bursting into flames in rear end collisions. This is not unlike the utility I referenced
earlier implementing smartgrid technology. This organization was responsible for the San Bruno
gas explosion which killed eight people in 2009 during the period I was working with their
smartgrid program. Evidence and media coverage suggested negligence and cost avoidance, as
are implications in both the GMC and Ford examples above, as the “amoral” quest over that of
people’s welfare and their lives.
Connecting behavior to higher corporate purpose. A process I have implemented in companies

is where leaders “create behavioral experiences” for employees. This involves leaders being
Page 47
very clear about the kinds of behaviors that are necessary for a company to deliver on its higher
purpose and execute its strategy. This involves five steps:
1. Leaders clearly define the behaviors in visual and emotional terms, and clarify these in
relation to delivering on corporate vision and purpose, strategy execution and the work
people perform.
2. Leaders develop experiences or look for opportunities that both role model and create
behavioral learning experiences for those around them.
3. The leader acts out the behavior and delivers the experience.
4. The leaders make people aware of the experience and stimulate dialogue to ensure
understanding and learning.
5. The leader asks for feedback on whether the experience was effective.
While a simple process, when many leaders apply this technique it allows large numbers of
employees to become engaged in conversations about how people should operate day-to-day,
and creates forums for debate and challenge. Implicit in this process, specifically step 5, is the
need to conversely challenge leaders about behaviors that are contrary to higher purpose and
strategy execution - to hold each other accountable to a higher standard and speak up when we
believe our standards are being compromised. This is similar to the “behavior modeling”
approach put forward by Levy (2006) in which he describes a training format developed by
Latham and Saari (1979). I would suggest that this process, broadly applied in a company like
GMC, would have helped mitigate the kind of amoral behavior that Patterson et al refer to
(related to Ford’s Pinto disasters) as a “moral framework that justified what others might call
manslaughter”.
As observed by Albert Bandura (2013) in the so-called Bobo Doll experiments, aggressive
behaviors are transmitted from adults to children by imitation. Similarly, leaders either transmit
positive or negative experiences for their employees, and employees either become
passionately energized about doing great work, or they become focused on lesser, often
dehumanizing work that destroys motivation and, in some cases, destroys lives.
Personal ability: Surpassing personal limits

Patterson et al quote researcher Carol Dweck’s reference to a “growth mindset” versus a “fixed
mindset”. A growth mindset is one in which a person believes they can learn and grow despite
setbacks, versus a “fixed mindset” where a person believes they cannot and does not even try.
The authors reference studies by Walter Mischel with young children in which the simple ability
to delay taking and eating a marshmallow, with the option of waiting for a few minutes and
then having two marshmallows, was a predictor of long-term success later in life in areas of
social competence as well as level of education achieved. Mischel and Bandura collaborated on
Page 48
these findings to demonstrate that the ability to delay gratification and its remarkable
predictability of long-term life success was in fact a “learned capability” – the simple, but not
always easy, techniques of training oneself to avoid short-term temptations. Essentially
developing the skills and techniques that are the foundation of discipline or will power are
simply that – learned skills. Organizations undergoing culture change can leverage this to their
advantage. For example, one organization I worked with used the concept of “possibility
thinking” where employees were encouraged and motivated to think about breakthrough ideas
and products. Engineers and scientists in this organization truly believed that they could, and
did, change the world.
Social motivation: Harness peer pressure

Patterson et al describe the Stanley Milgram studies regarding the circumstances required to
influence ordinary people to harm others. This research demonstrated how easily influenced
most people can be to perform potentially horrific acts. Obviously, in this case, they were not
actually harming the subjects. On the other hand, this profound ability to influence must have a
counter point for the positive influence. The authors comment that this positive influence
should come in the form of people being recognized and praised for enacting vital behaviors,
and discouraged or “socially sanctioned” when choosing unhealthy behaviors. I tend to disagree
with the latter approach outlined by the authors. I rather prefer a coaching approach that does
not socially sanction an individual.
The power of one: In describing the Milgram studies, Patterson et al note the influence that
only one additional person can exert by being observed to either willingly agree, or refuse to
apply, additional shock treatment. The percentage of people who gave the highest level of
shock increased from 67% to 90% if a prior individual was seen doing it. However, this number
plummeted to 10% if a prior person was seen to refuse application of additional shock
treatment. This is an example of Aronson’s description of “compliance” in which we have a
compulsion to conform to what others are doing. In the Milgram studies, if the additional
individual had been known and credible to the person pushing the shock button, the form of
influence would likely have been considered “identification”, however, given that this individual
was not known, it is more likely to have been “conformance”.
In companies I consult with on culture change, one of the most powerful behavioral influence
mechanisms I recommend is to mobilize a group of respected people in the business. These are
always credible people who are generally respected by peers, but do not necessarily have a
high level of seniority. These influencers are then trained in the skills of creating behavioral
experiences for those around them, as well in coaching where they observe negative behaviors.
This approach often has greater impact than the role of the most senior leaders in driving
Page 49
behavior change because there can potentially be more of them and they are closer to the
actual work being done.
Structural ability: Find strengths in numbers

Patterson et al describe the powerful story of Dr Muhamad Yunus who was educated with a
doctorate in economics from the United States. On returning to his home country of
Bangladesh, he was horrified at the abject poverty of his country. Yunus identified an
opportunity for stimulating a small business industry by providing small micro-loans to local
people. The Bangladeshi banks were not interested in this type of lending, considering it too
risky. Yunus therefore started his own bank providing small loans for local people. The
technique he used leveraged the social influence of peers. Dr. Yunus ensured that before
providing a loan, he required a small group of the applicant’s family and friends to join in the
effort of building a business plan and co-signing on the loan. He leveraged the power of a
network of people, all committed to the same goal and all with skin in the game. This approach
dramatically increased the success of these businesses and the rate of paying off the loans. He
was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for his work.
Several years ago I used the power of numbers to overcome decades of top down management
bureaucracy in a retail bank where front line branch employees felt powerless to implement
changes to processes to improve customer service. With the support of a senior executive, I
reported to, we gave all 1100 branches a requirement to provide time to allow all branch staff
to work through a 10-step process to both identify and solve customer satisfaction problems.
The executive leader and I, along with a team of facilitators, attended these one-hour sessions
throughout the country. Part of the process was to empower these employees to speak up
when a problem occurred and work with a self-selected team to develop and implement
solutions. This was so radically different and exciting to these employees that many would meet
on weekends on their own time to continue this work. Because many problems were not simply
in one function, say home loans, but across multiple functions, teams would collaborate across
these functions which had never occurred before. Most powerfully however, was the fact that
these groups developed the influence to overcome the top-down restrictions from bureaucratic
management.
Structural motivation: Design rewards and demand accountability

Patterson et al expand on the risks of providing material rewards to incentivize people to do
what is already intrinsically rewarding. Evidence is compelling that for intrinsically meaningful
work, material rewards have a negative impact on people repeating the behaviors, and
ultimately on performance. As Elliot Aronson describes, “when it comes to lasting change in
Page 50
attitude, the greater the reward the less likely any attitude change will occur”. My experience
with most companies I work with is that their default for rewards is to provide monetary or
material rewards for any positive behavior, action or result. Effectively what this does is take
responsibility away from leaders and managers to effectively lead people. It’s simpler to log
into a system and send the individual or team a Starbucks card or dinner coupon or add $100 or
more to the person’s gift card. Easy and simple. But often, it is exactly what is not needed.
Aronson provides compelling examples of research conducted into what happens when
subjects in experiments are asked to perform tasks that are either boring, or those that they
don’t really want to do. The results demonstrated clearly that people who are given significant
rewards for tasks they did not like or did not want to do, continued to hold these attitudes after
the exercise because they had external justification. Those that were provided little or no
reward began to change their attitudes because there was no external justification for
performing the act.
For organizations that are attempting to change culture and have identified the right behaviors,
it is preferable for leaders and influencers to provide praise and recognition for these
behaviors. While I understand the point of Patterson et al’s commentary on “punishing” bad
behavior, I do feel the language of the authors, namely the term “socially sanctioning” bad
behavior comes across as overly punitive versus the constructive coaching approach I advocate.
As Aronson notes, there are situations in which criticism might be more useful than praise in
terms of forming positive learning relationships and encouraging people to learn about what
appropriate behaviors look like. Bandura also comments that to get people to attempt
something they fear, it is important to provide rapid, immediate positive feedback that builds
self-confidence. If a manager identifies an employee behaving inappropriately, for example
avoiding taking responsibility for getting a job completed or delaying decision-making, a
manager who points out this behavior to the employee and explains why an alternative
approach would produce better outcomes, is more likely to be better liked by the employee
and receive a more positive response than someone who either ignored the bad behavior or
“socially sanctioned” the employee. The reason, as Aronson postulates, is because the manager
is critiquing the behavior, not the person, and is taking time to coach the individual thus
providing the person a positive role model and providing identification influencing mechanisms.
But, there is a trap in providing recognition and praise. As Aronson continues to describe,
counter-intuitive reward theory and praise should be modest and for the effort exerted, not
because they are “the smartest” or the “best”.
Structural ability: Change the environment

The chapter on the “The Future of Work” proposes that numerous aspects of the physical and
virtual workplace can and will likely change in the future. This section discusses strategies that
Page 51
organizations are exploring in their attempts to maximize efficiency, recruit and retain the best
talent and increase speed and flexibility in strategy execution. Patterson et al do not specifically
venture into many of these aspects of the future workplace, but do comment on how “things”
can be changed and manipulated to influence how people behave. One of the most impactful
“structural” aspects of the workplace that Patterson et al infer, but do not specifically describe,
is that of business processes or workflow. What I have previously defined as “hardwiring
culture or behavior change” is, in my experience, one of the most impactful structural
mechanisms to shift behavior.
Corporate communications as a mechanism to change behavior

One of the most used, and perhaps overused, techniques for influencing behavior and culture
change in organizations is corporate communications. It is interesting to note that Patterson et
al do not discuss communications specifically in their 3X2 matrix structure. Aronson on the
other hand emphasizes the role and impact of mass communications, and propaganda,
extensively. From a cultural change perspective, albeit societal, Aronson notes that deeply
embedded cultural beliefs are rarely questioned even in the face of communications and
evidence to the contrary. We are deeply motivated to defend deeply held beliefs. This is also
true with organizational beliefs based on years of organizational successes that have
entrenched these beliefs. For corporate communications to have an impact, a number of
factors have to be considered:
 Communications campaigns: Communication specialists often feel that a formal

campaign is needed for behavior and culture change. I do not believe that this is always
the case. Sometimes a formal campaign to change beliefs will have limited success
because it is overt and is viewed as a “campaign” attempting to influence employees’
deeply embedded beliefs and can be viewed as manipulative and superficial. On the
other hand, as Aronson notes, if repeated, vivid imagery that is subtle but constant can
shape opinions and attitudes. Fishbein and Ajzen also emphasize that, because beliefs
represent the information people have about a behavior, communicating new
information can change beliefs and thus can be an effective way of changing intentions
and actions. In this context, I do not recommend that my clients develop specific
campaigns talking about culture change, but rather develop vignettes of successful
business examples of where new behaviors helped with business successes. This
approach can leverage the influencing power of compliance, identification and
internalization. Poorly designed campaigns can appear as designed to manipulate
behavior and can be self-defeating.
 Scare tactics in culture change: Companies often use the “burning platform” concept to
motivate urgency for change. While this can be a useful technique to get employees’
Page 52
attention, overuse of this technique can be negative. As Aronson notes, any “warning” if
it is too vague can become ineffective. For corporations, if the “burning platform” is
used, it must be quickly followed by specific guidance on what employees need to do –
what action they need to take, otherwise anxiety and paranoia can emerge.
 Credibility of the messenger: Aronson highlights a number of factors involved in
influence from the source, such as senior leadership, based on the perception of
expertise and trustworthiness. I would argue that these factors are even more
important in organizations versus personal day-to-day life, where, for example, we are
constantly targeted by TV ads with athletes, movie stars and other celebrities who are
used as “credible” sources of information. Aronson describes a number of factors that
are important from a broad social perspective, and possibly more critical in
organizations:
o We are more influenced by people we like. For example, if a senior leader
provides employees with personal and positive interactions which suggest the
leader likes the individuals, the likelihood is that these employees will be more
responsive to communications messaging from him or her.
o A leader’s messaging will likely be more impactful if the leader argues a point of
view that is apparently not in his or her self-interest. For example, in one
organization I worked with, the senior leader was championing the need for
greater collaboration across business units, and admitted that he struggled with
collaborating himself, and that he would have to take extraordinary effort to
improve his own skills and natural tendencies. This made his message more
impactful.
o A senior leader’s credibility is enhanced if he or she does not appear to be trying
to influence our opinion. An example of this could be where a senior executive
holds an open-dialogue forum such as a “brown-bag” conversation and simply
answers questions as authentically as possible and does not attempt to overtly
push a point of view on the group.
 Intention versus actual behavior: As with Fishbein and Ajzen, Aronson specifies an
important difference between communications that are designed to target intention
versus that which focuses on the actual behavior. In corporate culture change, this is an
essential factor that requires careful planning. Fear-based communications (e.g. the
“burning platform” message) as well as emotional appeals are effective at influencing
employees’ intention to behave in a certain way. However, Aronson notes that it is only
the instructional, data oriented messaging that influences actual behavior, versus the
intention. The implications are clear. As I have noted previously, many companies
approach culture change with high-level, emotional appeals to change – often fear-
based, burning platform type messaging, but do not include adequate specifics on what
Page 53
behaviors are necessary, or what actions are required, as well as where and when. As
Fishbein and Ajzen note, a behavior has four elements, namely an action, target, context
and time. The more specific organizational leaders can be on what behaviors need to
change, and with detailed examples of these four elements, the more effective these
attempts to change behavior will be.
 A focus on behaviors not goals: Fishbein and Ajzen empathize, that, as a rule, the link
between behavioral intentions and behavior is stronger than the link between
intentions and goal attainment. As a result, they recommend targeting behaviors rather
than goals. This is a common mistake organizations make in culture change initiatives,
namely over-emphasizing end-goals versus the behaviors needed to drive and achieve
the goals. The importance of this insight from Fishbein and Ajzen focuses on the
organizational challenge of attempting to motivate individuals and teams to long-term,
and often lofty, corporate level goals. Few employees have a direct sense of
accountability for these kinds of high level corporate end-goals, versus the more
tangible behaviors related to the work that employees must execute effectively that
ultimately lead to corporate success. This more tactical focus tends to be more
meaningful to employees.
A caveat in changing culture

Much of the preceding discussion has dealt with specific behaviors in order that focus on
specific behaviors needed to execute business strategy or solve specific business challenges.
Practitioners of organizational change management are likely to identify close similarity
between the theory and practice of culture change proposed in this chapter and some of the
principles and practices of organizational change management in broad terms. This insight
would be correct in my view. The focus on “critical behaviors” that Patterson et al emphasize is
important for the more urgent, competitive environment in corporations operating in fast
moving, dynamic industries. In these competitive contexts, an organizational change
management approach is needed to drive focused and rapid behavioral change. But there is a
caveat. Figure 1 below depicts what I describe later in this text as the FACES model for
organizational transformation project approach (the blue arrowed sequence). This sequence is
organized and designed for focus, control and speed of execution. However, this is not the only
focus that is needed. A broader and deeper understanding of culture (Schein’s 3rd level of
culture) depicted by the “thought cloud” in the diagram below is almost certain to also be a
factor to consider. The examples of “tacit assumptions and beliefs” depicted in this schematic
are simple, but not uncommon in an organizational setting.
Page 54
Figure 8: Culture Change and Organizational Change
Culture Change and Organizational Change
“If I work long hours

I will succeed”
FOCUS ANALYZE CONSTRUCT EXECUTE SUSTAIN
4 4
HRES PM Services Network
This concept of culture is similar to what Fishbein and Ajzen illustrate as part of the four
dimensions that define behaviors, namely the action performed, the target at which the action
is directed, the context in which it is conducted, and the time at which it is performed. In this
case, these broader and deeper cultural beliefs and assumptions liken to Fishbein and Ajzen’s
notion of “context”. A focused change management approach does not typically delve into this
deeper level of “context”. Consider the retail banking example that I have used previously. In
this situation, while specific behaviors were needed to execute the more customer-focused
work in banking branches, there were significant cultural factors obstructing branch employees
from exhibiting these behaviors. In this example, this bank suffered from a culture of “fear”, in
which employees were nervous and anxious to behave in a manner that might be viewed by the
“old” management style as compromising risk. So, while the customer focused changes where
implemented, my team of consultants and I had to deal more deeply with the tacit assumptions
and beliefs related to this fear. Examples of how to deal with these deeper context aspects of
culture, using the example of a culture of fear, is provided in Section 4 of this eBook.
Page 55
References
Bandura, A. (2013). Psychological Classics: The Bobo Doll Experiment. Psychology Classics.
www.all-about-psychology.com. Kindle Book edition.
Bandura, A. (2013). Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory: An Introduction. Amazon.com Online

Video. Davidson Films.
Cameron, K. and Quinn, R. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. Third
Edition. Jossey-Bass.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and Changing Behavior. The Reasoned Action
Approach. Psychology Press.
Levy, P. (2006). Industrial/Organizational Psychology: Understanding the Workplace. Houghton

Mifflin.
Patterson, K., Grenny, J., Maxfield, D., McMillan, R., and Switzler, A. (2008). Influencer: The
Power to Change Anything. McGraw-Hill.
Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding Human Values: Individual and Societal. The Free Press.
Rokeach, M. (1980). Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. A Theory of Organization and Change. Jossey
Bass Publishers.
Waite, D. (2014). A Different Approach to Reasoned Action.

http://www.talentzoo.com/beneath-the-brand/blog_news.php?articleID=18394
Page 56
Chapter 5: The Neuroscience of Organizational Culture
Introduction
As discussed in Chapters five and six, a lot is known about the process of how people develop
attitudes, beliefs and assumptions but less is known about what actually takes place in the
brain during the process. The field of neuroscience is relatively new, and is providing interesting
insights into the physical changes in the brain and how we can leverage this knowledge to more
effectively shape how we think and act as individuals and within organizations.
Some time ago I delivered a presentation to an online audience of human resources

professionals totaling about 1300 people across different geographic regions including Asia,
Europe and North America. The topic I was invited to speak on was the neuroscience of fear in
the workplace. Initially I wondered whether this topic would be of interest to this diverse
group, but to my surprise it was the most watched of the five topics during this five hour long
program. What was also interesting was the large number of questions that were posed during
this virtual presentation. The essence of this is the discovery that many people experience
anxiety and fear often during their day-to-day work. They also want to know how these
negative behaviors and cultures develop in the first place, and more importantly what can be
done to change a company’s culture in order to avoid the results of fear and anxiety.
The Neuroscience of organizational culture

Very little research has been conducted on the neuroscience of organizational culture. Robert
Doidge (2007), the psychiatrist and author of “The Brain that Changes Itself” describes the
relationship between national or societal culture and the brain. He notes that conventional
science suggests that the brain – from which all thoughts and actions emanate – produces what
we understand as culture in societies. He comments further that thorough neuroscientific
research in recent years regarding this perspective is limited:
“Culture is not just produced by the brain; it is also by definition a series of activities
(experiences) that shape the mind … we become “cultured” through training in
activities, such as customs, arts, ways of interacting with people and the use of
technologies and the learning of beliefs and shared philosophies and religion.”
Doidge continues his description by saying that research into neuroplasticity shows that every
sustained activity ever mapped, including physical activities, sensory activities, learning,
thinking and imagining, changes the brain and the mind in some way. Cultural ideas, rituals, and
customs are no exception. As culture evolves over time and these rituals and customs are
Page 57
continued and practiced for long enough, physical changes occur in the brain. The neural
connections and networks, as well as the strength of those networks, become more extensive.
In societies, this process may take decades and centuries to occur and in companies, this
process may take years or even decades. Doidge’s perspective suggests that over time
employees’ brains become more sensitized and likely to expect danger in every interaction. As
Robert Sapolski (2004), the Stanford Neuroscientist, humorously comments, they are “seeing
lions attacking around every bush on the African savanna” or in this case, in our workplaces.
Doidge provides a few fascinating examples of brain “rewiring” that occurs in societal as well as
in business/industry situations. He notes that brain scans of London taxi drivers show that the
more years the cabbies spend navigating the streets of London, the larger the volume of the
hippocampus, the location of the brain that processes spatial information. Similarly, musicians
have several areas of the brain that are larger than non-musicians, for example the structures
connecting the two hemispheres. A remarkable societal example that Doidge describes about
how brains change in response to cultural activities, are the Sea Gypsies located in the tropical
islands of the Burmese archipelago. What differentiates this group is their ability to see
underwater at great depths as they search for clams and sea cucumbers. These individuals
“learn” to constrict their pupils to see underwater, which is an example of how the nervous
systems adapts to experience and training.
Neuroplasticity in the workplace

But Doidge notes that there is a negative or “dark side” to brain plasticity. He comments that
“cultural activities change brain structure” and this can be either good or bad. In the context of
corporate culture, this can be bad if companies are unaware of how corporate values, rituals
and ways of thinking and behaving create plastic changes in the brains of employees over time.
The rewiring of neurons and networks can become difficult to “rewire” when corporate culture
needs to change in response to strategic and competitive pressure. In the case of the
organization I referenced in the introduction to this chapter, the danger with this “hardwiring”
of a fear response in organizations suggests that over many years employee’s brains have
become acutely trained to be fearful and cautious. These behaviors, as Doidge comments,
become “deeply wired into our brains”. He continues to quote Canadian neuroscientist Merlin
Donald who argued that “culture changes our functional cognitive architecture, meaning that,
as with learning to read and write, mental functions are reorganized”. This observation suggests
a much deeper and neurologically significant implication of deeply entrenched corporate
cultures which are therefore much more difficult to change, particularly when these cultural
behaviors need to change quickly in response to competitive pressures. Beliefs and ways of
thinking and behaving which made a company successful in previous years and decades can
become barriers to a new competitive environment. Doidge quotes research by mid-twentieth
Page 58
century European psychologist Jean Piaget in which he experimentally demonstrated how

children from different social cultures learned to perceive the world in different ways, but
scientists believed, until recently, that these differences were interpretation and perception
differences, versus microscopic differences in their perceptual brain structures and physiology.
The power of cultural indoctrination

Doidge describes how some totalitarian regimes like North Korea recognize the power of
cultural indoctrination very early in life. North Korea, he notes, places children as young as two
to four years old in schools for purposes of indoctrination in a cult of adoration for their
leaders. The high level of plasticity of these young brains creates deep changes in their
“perceptual emotional networks that do not merely lead to differences of opinion, but to
plasticity-based anatomical differences which are harder to bridge or overcome with ordinary
persuasion” or learning later in life. So, while it would be unfair to make comparisons between
large corporations and totalitarian regimes, one proposed correlation is that cultural
immersion, for example in “New Employee” type programs and the ritualistic programs and
experiences that follow, are not simply learned and unlearned easily, but can similarly form
physiological changes in the very structure of the brains of employees over many years. The
implication again is that these are therefore much more difficult to change.
Wexler (2006) in his text “Brain and Culture: Neurobiology, Ideology and Social Change”
supports this viewpoint by stating: “Learning and action are in an inverse relationship
throughout our lifespans: We learn the most when we are unable to act (i.e. as infants). By the
time we are able to act on the world, our ability to learn has dramatically diminished”. This is
because, as the author notes, the human brain shapes itself to its environment, and the
particular form of the environment (for example, different culture characteristics) is
unimportant – differences in the environment are not a factor in the human brain’s adaptation.
In other words, the brain, especially an immature brain, is remarkably responsive to responding
physiologically to diverse cultural stimuli. Also, incongruences between the environment and
the developed brain, for example, changes to the environment, like having to learn a new
language, produce significant distress, anxiety and dysfunction (aligned with Aronson’s
discussion of cognitive dissonance). While Wexler is referring to societal culture, the same can
be said for corporate culture. More importantly these learned cultural beliefs and behaviors are
not simply learned cognitive constructs. Rather they are deeper changes in brain structure and
neuronal interconnectedness, and therefore much more difficult to change. This implies that
corporate culture change initiatives that focus primarily on short term retraining will likely be
ineffective, however, retraining can be effective at creating new brain function. For example
memory training in elderly subjects in the age range of sixty to eighty seven (Doidge, 2007) can
increase auditory memory to function in the range of forty to sixty year olds. This kind of
Page 59
training needs to be extensive and prolonged and in this example was in the range of forty to
fifty hours of practice over many weeks. Moreover, this example refers to specific memory skills
versus the kinds of learned emotional, fear-based responses noted in the introduction of this
chapter. Overcoming these kinds of negative emotional-behavioral responses seldom emerge
as a priority in companies needing to change culture in response to a change in the competitive
environment. Most often organizations change organizational processes, structures and other
structural factors, and rely on high-level communications and training (akin to re-stacking deck
chairs on the Titanic). But these efforts seldom reach the kind of neural changes needed to
rewire the way employees think and act.
Applying the “Neurons that fire together, wire together” principle

In the Introduction to this chapter, I provided an example of a company that I consulted with in
which a large number of employees expressed the experience of fear in the workplace. In most
cases, the source of this fear appeared to be concerning some form of retribution from senior
leaders resulting from speaking out or appearing challenging in some manner. While
recognizing the potential for this possibility, when questioned, many of these individuals
recognized that the potential for retribution is low, and the tangible evidence of retribution is
scarce. Even in cases where there may have been some form of retribution by a leader, the fear
response to the potential retribution is also unlikely to have benefited the situation, indeed is
more likely to have worsened the individuals performance on the job.
As Robert Sapolski, the Stanford University neurobiologist, comments in his wonderfully

informative and humorous book “Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers”, most beasts on earth have
adapted to short bursts of stress (being chased by a lion) and they either survive it and forget it
(they don’t experience long lasting anxiety once the lion has given up the chase) or it’s all over
(they get eaten). For most humans in the workplace, many or most of our anxieties are “in our
heads” and our responses to these threats are ongoing. In other words, we don’t simply shrug
off that the lion has given up chasing us and go back to a resting state (and therefore don’t get
ulcers). We maintain a high level of anxiety, ruminating on the experience, and thus create a
“neural highway” that is difficult to get off. In Doidge’s words, the “neurons that fire together,
wire together” are building a neural “highway”. The objective is to create a ramp off the neural
highway and build another neural highway that is healthier and more productive.
Sapolski notes that this takes daily work – it’s not something that can be practiced, as he says,
“waiting on hold on the telephone” once in a while. It has to be practiced daily just like any
other disciplined exercise program (indeed, as a number of neuroscientists has noted, aerobic
exercise appears to enhance neuroplasticity). Sapoloski provides the description of the anxiety
experienced by novice parachutists where stress levels are “through the roof” before, during
Page 60
and after the jump. Whereas after practicing a “gazillion times”, they still have high stress levels
at the moment of the jump, but this stress declines rapidly once the chute opens (similar to
zebras after the lion has given up the chase), and they start thinking about “what’s for lunch”.
This ability only comes from practice. In the workplace, the key is to determine what “practice”
looks like and how to make it fit into a work environment, similar to the safety example I
provided earlier in this chapter.
Neuroscientific Insights into Organizational Leadership

Pillay (2011), a Harvard Medical School psychiatrist, executive coach and business consultant to
numerous companies, provides compelling insights into the implications of neuroscience for
leader effectiveness in organizations and for coaching of leaders. Pillay references important
aspects of business that can be influenced by a better understanding of how the brain operates
and responds. I summarize a number of these below:
Optimism and Positive Thinking

Pillay notes that positive psychology focuses on the positive aspects of thinking and feeling and
promotes a strength-based growth approach to worklife and dealing with day-to-day
challenges. A positive outlook on worklife and its challenges improves the brain’s ability to learn
and solve problems. This may seem obvious and perhaps trivial to some readers, but some
organizations have cultures that do not support being happy! Indeed, in Chapter 13 on
happiness in the workplace, I describe a retail bank example where leaders specifically frowned
(pun intended) upon people smiling and laughing!
In terms of how the brain learns, Pillay notes that there is a process in the brain of listening,
retention of information, consolidation of information, and storage and retrieval of information
at the time that it is needed. Neurological research has indicated that a positive mental state
enhances each phase of this learning process. As I note later in this eBook in the chapter on
“Happiness in the Workplace”, many executives “roll their eyes” at the notion of happiness
being an important trait in business, but more recent research clearly demonstrates the
powerful benefits of leaders and managers placing a significant focus on developing a positive
“happy” culture. Pillay emphasizes that positive psychology is not about “cheerleading in the
face of adversity”, it is rather about being solution-focused rather than problem focused.
The importance of this positive mood cannot be overstated in my view. I have worked with
companies in survival mode, where fear and anxiety ruled and where senior executes under
pressure fell back to their primal behaviors of finger-pointing and blame. This culture was toxic
and damaged any attempt to improve performance. When the brain is in survival mode, says
Pillay, it tends to diminish a positive mental state (and the behaviors that are associated with it)
Page 61
and narrows focus on the threat at hand. However, with training and practice, a positive
mindset and the benefits of this kind of thinking is possible in the face of threat and striving for
survival. As Sapolsky notes (2004), in the modern world we are not being attacked by lions in a
business situation, although it may feel like it from time to time. However, our neuronal wiring
places fear and threat as a very high priority for processing in the brain, and this must be dealt
with first to overcome the “fight or flight” response even when this is inappropriate in a work
setting. Avoiding or diminishing this natural tendency is a function of the orbitofrontal cortex,
says Pillay, which allows for cognitive flexibility and shifts in attention despite the sense of
immediate threat. But again, as Pillay comments, this requires technique and practice.
The chapter on Happiness in the Workplace in this eBook also provides comments on the
damaging impact of negativity in the workplace. When fear and anxiety are common emotions,
the unconscious brain can become overtaxed and chronically fatigued. Pillay notes that this
chronic fear and anxiety uses excessive mental resources that should be used for developing
creative solutions, but are rather being applied to “outrunning the lions”. Responding to fear is
the role of the amygdala – its role is to detect emotions and these emotions are powerful
drivers of urgent action and survival behaviors. It is important for people working in toxic, fear-
based organizational cultures to recognize that the amygdala is able to identify threats (or
perceived threats) unconsciously – below our levels of awareness. Threats do not have to be
overt and obvious, like an angry and aggressive boss. Research shows that the brain identifies
threat signals without conscious awareness, such as a certain expression on a colleague’s face,
or small sound bites of a conversation overheard, or a fleeting observation of headlines on the
company website. Our unconscious receptors aggregate these signals and create a chronic state
of anxiety and stress that can dramatically impact an individual’s ability to solve problems, be
innovative and collaborative with others.
The amygdala is not the only part of the brain that is impacted by fear and anxiety. Because the
amygdala has strong neuronal connections with other parts of the brain, these areas, such as
the frontal lobe’s prefrontal cortex where decision-making is largely made, are also impacted.
Fear stimulation of the amygdala stunts our ability to make sound business decisions and
greatly reduces creativity. The importance of understanding this in a work situation is for
people to recognize that fear and anxiety do not have to dominate our emotions, and with
awareness, training and practice, more productive emotions and thinking patterns can be
achieved. This topic is expanded in the chapter on “Techniques for Personal Behavior Change”.
Relationship Building and Collaboration

Because most business competitive environments are increasingly pressured to deliver
products and services faster than the competition, while simultaneously reducing costs, leaders
and managers are under constant pressure and stress. The responses of the brain to this
Page 62
chronic stress, as noted previously, is to narrow its thinking, be less creative (in other words,
who needs to be creative when being attacked by a lion Sapolsky would likely say), and not
worry about others, but rather focus on one’s own survival. This innate stress response is
exactly the opposite of what is typically needed in a competitive business environment. People
under threat tend to work in isolation versus developing relationships and collaborating.
According to Pillay, the neural basis that is a cornerstone of developing strong business
relationships and collaborating effectively is the emotion of empathy. This emotion and its
related behaviors are not possible in a self-serving survival context of threat, but require a
culture of positivity, community and helping others to succeed. Empathy cannot emerge in a
culture of fear.
Scientists believe that the capacity for empathy is located in “mirror” neurons which are
clusters of neurons in various areas of the brain. These mirror neurons give us the ability to
recognize, appreciate and imitate the actions and intentions of individuals we observe. This
mirroring capability is conducted largely unconsciously in most people. When it comes to
collaborating with others to create business solutions, our mirror neurons are rapidly able to
assess the intentions of others, and we tend to respond in kind to what we perceive from
people around us. But unless we are aware of this capability and system, it is more difficult to
override our natural responses when negative or defensive signals are perceived, and there is
therefore a greater potential for us to respond in kind, and perhaps inappropriately.
As Pillay comments …
“By understanding that mirror neurons exist, (executive) coaches can help leaders start
to contemplate the factors that could bring people into more effective alignment.
Without this understanding, the idea of emotional sensitivity and fairness may seem like
idealistic emotional variables irrelevant to the workplace”.
I fully concur with this observation. Too often senior leaders dismiss emotional factors as
“warm and fuzzy” and not suitable in the data driven, logically oriented workplace. As Pillay
suggests, neuroscience is now indicating that this is far from the truth.
Fairness and equity

Pillay explains that neuroimaging studies have demonstrated that humans are extremely
sensitive to the notion of fairness. Fair reward offerings lead to higher happiness ratings and
increased activity in several reward centers of the brain compared with unfair offers of equal
monetary value. Also, cooperation and fair treatment are viewed as being more important than
material outcomes. It is fascinating to consider that the brain strongly activates when rewards
that are considered fair and appropriate are offered, but does not activate in response to
rewards that are considered unfair and lacking equity. Other research demonstrates that the
Page 63
higher the preference of certain individuals for social dominance, the lower the brain activation
levels in regions that respond to pain recognition in others, indicating that there is less feeling
for other’s misfortune in people with the need for social dominance. Many of us, I am sure,
have experienced this lack of empathy from narcissistic-type leaders who thrive on dominance
at the expense of others.
Interestingly, Pillay notes that research suggests that when people are averse to inequity in a
group, the insula section of the brain is activated in the face of inequitable treatment. People
will tend to respond by rejecting material rewards if they are considered unfair relative to the
rewards offered to others. On the other hand, if unfair offers are accepted or tolerated, this
requires a high degree of control of the “thinking brain” to mediate the “emotional brain” and
this can be mentally exhausting if inequity continues or is a deeply entrenched element of an
organization’s culture, for example.
Reciprocity is also associated with activation of regions of the insula versus lack of reciprocity
which activates different regions of the brain. As Pillay suggests, business leaders may consider
fairness and compassion as “soft skills”, but rather they are instinctive within our brains and
people respond to fairness and equity – or lack of it – in very predictable and measurable ways.
People can sense, largely unconsciously, when lack of fairness exists in an organization and
while this “gut” response is largely “feeling”, it can be mediated by what Kahneman (2011) calls
“System 2”, but this takes energy and effort and is not sustainable. Our “mirror neurons are
likely to activate in response to unfair intentions in leaders”. Thus, Pillay suggests, it is
extremely difficult for leaders to “pull the wool over the eyes” of employees. Employees sense
this unconsciously and lack of fairness and equity is toxic to teamwork and collaboration in
organizations.
Trust
As with fear, trust (and loss of trust) has a dramatic impact on the way the brain activates given
that, as Pillay describes, trust and fear are inversely related in terms of brain response. When
there is a breach of trust, the brain’s conflict detecting regions turn on the brain’s “alarm
system” (the amygdala) which then activates the reward centers of the brain to indicate that
“no reward is coming” (or there is no benefit in this situation). These regions ultimately activate
the motor-planning regions of the brain to initiate actions and behaviors – generally these
behaviors are more likely to be related to defensiveness, lack of cooperation and collaboration.
Distrust places high demands on the brain and are fatiguing. Most of us have experienced that
it is tiring to work in a culture of distrust.
Developing a culture of trust frees the brain to be able to focus on constructive activities versus
using neurological resources for defensive and protective functions. High trust also activates
Page 64
the reward centers of the brain, and trust is experienced by the brain as its own reward. The
reward centers of the brain in turn activate the motor activation centers to respond positively
and constructively, whereas lack of trust inhibits motor action and induces fear. It is this fear
inducing activation that is mentally exhausting for employees and is highly disruptive for
employees’ work by inhibiting productive and creative aspects of thought processes.
In organizations where agility, responsiveness and fast action are important, a culture of trust is
essential. As Pillay describes, lack of trust activates the fear response systems and specifically
limits creativity, collaboration and rapid action (other than “running away”). Pillay identifies a
number of ways that leaders can put in place the cornerstones of a trusting work environment.
These include:
 Leaders should respond rapidly to breaches of trust and attempt to rebuild trust quickly
 “Active listening” engages mirror neurons in the brain and is an unconscious indicator of
interest, empathy and trust
 Open and regular communications with employees fosters trust
 Complete candor and openness fosters trust
 Leaders that admit fault when this is justified
 “Going to bat” for fellow employees (“having each other’s backs”)
 Recognizing performance of others in a fair manner
Ambiguity
Pillay notes that humans are more averse to ambiguity and uncertainty than to risk taking – in
other words, heightened uncertainty is less appealing than calculated risk-taking. Uncertainty is
closely associated with fear and distrust in terms of how the brain (amygdala) responds.
Excessive and chronic ambiguity also taxes the brain’s resources in trying to clarify potential
risks and unknowns. Brain imaging shows that ambiguity creates more anxiety than calculated
risk taking. Similar to lack of trust and fear, high levels of ambiguity are highly taxing on the
brain as the “accountant” centers of the brain (to assess risk) and “reward” centers (to assess
reward opportunities) attempt to reconcile this imbalance, and this process is taxing
particularly if ambiguity is chronic. A large amount of energy is used by the brain when it is
having to update and process information in an attempt to clarify ambiguous situations.
Moreover, when the brain is trying to deal with ambiguity and clarify risk-reward, the brain
remains in a “stuck” or “no-decision” state and cannot effectively activate the decision-making
centers. Interventions to alleviate ambiguity and improve decision-making include:
 Leaders can reduce amygdala activation by holding dialogues on the ambiguity and
framing it in a manner that involves people in its clarification. Simply involving people in
dialogue provides them with a sense of control which reduces amygdala activation.
Page 65
 Working to clarify roles in solving problems and developing solutions reduces ambiguity.
 Building trust allows people to tolerate greater levels of ambiguity.
 Leaders that project optimism in the face of ambiguity and uncertainty reduce anxiety
amongst employees.
 When faced with the ambiguity of risk-reward decisions, the brain tends to emphasize
risks and underemphasize reward opportunities. Leaders should balance the ambiguity
of change by under-emphasizing the risk associated with business decision-making and
build on the reward aspects so that employees do not excessively focus on risk aversion.
 When ambiguity is high, leaders should avoid vague terms and abstract language to
describe future strategies and plans, and rather utilize concrete mental images and
language. Concrete images like graphs, numbers, timelines and other data provide a
sense of structure to ambiguous situations. When trust levels are low, vague
terminology and language can exacerbate this situation.
Innovation
Pillay references neuroscientific research that suggests that creativity is said to involve four
processes: preparation, incubation, illumination and verification. The author comments that
fostering these capabilities requires an understanding of divergent thinking, novelty seeking,
and suppression of latent inhibition (because we sometimes inhibit our most creative thoughts
because we cannot immediately justify them). I would also add to Pillay’s observations that
amygdala activation, when responding to fear and anxiety, must be reduced in order for an
individual to be creative. The frontal cortex needs to be freed from the constraints of the
amygdala signaling to allow the flow of creative thoughts and problem solving. Creative people
also have a high degree of neuronal connectivity, according to Pillay. He notes that this
connectivity links disparate regions of the brain and therefore allows for numerous brain
functions to become engaged. Interestingly, Pillay quotes Chakravarty (2009) to emphasize that
while disinhibition of the amygdala is needed, some inhibition may be necessary for effective
creativity and innovation. In other words, divergent thinking is essential, but with the caveat
that limiting the “mania” or “madness” of extreme and impractical ideas is important. Pillay
also comments on well-known historical cases where certain highly creative artists have
committed suicide. These case studies suggest that it is the frontal cortex that is engaged to
mediate the potential for moving beyond these boundaries.
An aspect of creativity that brain science has identified is that practice helps to build this skill. In
other words, the divergent capabilities of broadly connected neural networks that promote
creativity include the ability to make associations between seemingly disparate concepts and
constructs, and can be developed through training and practice. Leaders can be trained to tap
into the unconscious and “dream more” says Pillay, “be less afraid of losing control in the
Page 66
creative process, and enhance metaphor use and make associations, knowing that this will
stimulate the specific regions of the brain necessary for enhancing creativity”.
Adaptability to change
While change is both common and essential in business today, it continues to be difficult for
many leaders and employees. While change is almost always uncomfortable, under the right
circumstances change can be a positive experience for employees. But, it is getting these
circumstances all in place that is challenging. Possibly the most difficult aspect of organizational
change is the fact that it almost always requires leaders and employees to change their
behavior. And generally, these behavior changes need to be initiated and modelled by leaders.
Pillay notes correctly that for change to occur, people need to think about – contemplate - what
the change entails. This contemplation includes both logical and emotional dimensions – the
rational engages the prefrontal cortex and the emotional engages the amygdala – both are
necessary for people to make sound decisions and to determine to change or not. But most
corporate change programs use messaging that is rational and factual, and tends to ignore
emotional aspects important for people to understand the change and make decisions about it.
Pillay describes this interplay of prefrontal cortex and amygdala as follows:
“When you are trying to change, your brain has to assess the pros and cons of your
decision. Before you act, the accountant in your brain does a quick calculation, but it
relies on more than just rational thinking to do this. It also relies on emotions. How
would you feel if you make this change?”
Often, in large-scale organizational changes, information is produced through formal

communications channels as well as through informal mechanisms, for example through the
creation of “around the coffee machine” rumors. The brain must first process this information –
as Pillay postulates that “most people recognize that to change they have to think about the
situation”, and this can take a lot of processing. Excessive information can disrupt rather than
enhance decision-making by overloading the brain’s processing capabilities. So, to move from
notification of change, to processing information, both rational and emotional, the brain can
become overwhelmed. Interestingly he explains that the emotional aspects of the change are
often left unprocessed, and without this processing effect, good decision-making is less likely.
People need to ponder how they will “feel” about the change, not only what the practical
ramifications might be. This point is highlighted in a white paper by Boyatzis (2012) where he
quotes Jack Dawson, and colleagues as follows:
The authors “examined the relationship between analytic and socio-emotional thought
processes. They found that when a person engages in an analytic task, such as financial analysis,
engineering an information system, or problem solving, they activate the task positive network
Page 67
(TPN); however, when a person is paying attention to other people, their emotions, considering
whether actions are fair, or being open to new ideas, they activate a subset of the default mode
network (DMN). These two networks have little overlap and suppress each other. These
findings suggest that when we repeatedly ask people to focus on analytics, we suppress their
openness to new ideas.
This is insightful in the sense that this situation is played out often in organizations undergoing
transformations. In particular I have found engineering and scientifically oriented organizations
unconsciously downplay (or in one case of a retail bank, specifically prohibit) the importance of
human emotions in decision-making and change, often creating neural conflict and poor
decision-making. There are a number of ways supported by neuroscience that leaders can
improve their own and their employees’ decision-making for effective change . These include:
 Limiting the kinds and amounts of information provided.

 Including emotional considerations for the change in the explanations and discussions
with employees and allowing employees to process these emotional aspects
 Recognize that research demonstrates that people tend to more greatly value their
decisions once they are made. There is therefore value in quickly moving to decision-
making by making smaller decisions for the change (and thereby activating the brain’s
reward center), versus fewer big decisions and changes.
 People only move to action when the brain’s assessment of reward is greater than the
brain’s assessment of potential loss. And the brain weighs loss significantly more than
reward. Therefore the benefits of the change must be emphasized significantly more
than the sense of loss.
 Legacy habitual behaviors embedded in organizational culture, particularly if they have
been successful over many years, are extremely difficult to change. Significant neuronal
development takes place when behaviors are carried out repeatedly over long periods.
Specific techniques need to be applied (discussed in section 4) that provide people the
tools to change these habitual behaviors.
Persuasion and influence

Pillay describes research that used participants from two different societal cultures and with
different languages and found that text-based and video recorded messages of persuasion were
associated with increased activity in a part of the “mirror neuronal” systems of the brain. The
implication in this is that persuasion may have to do with “sharing a viewpoint” or “facilitating
consensus”. To improve persuasive power, leaders should activate mirror neurons in the
listener’s brain by sharing emotional viewpoints, versus by simply using facts and data, or by
imposing some form of positional leverage, such as seniority. Research also shows that people
are better influenced by perceived “expert” knowledge (“expert power”), but only in
Page 68
circumstances of trust and fairness in which the amygdala is not in high activation. High
expertise appears to have little effect where trust is low.
Vicarious rewards
Pillay notes that (most) humans feel personally rewarded when others are rewarded, as long as
the circumstances are right. In these circumstances, people are more likely to support each
other and help others to be successful. We feel a vicarious sense of accomplishment and
reward ourselves when others are successful. But some of the other factors discussed
previously in this chapter need to first be in place, such as trust and the perception of fairness
and equity. Leaders should leverage this phenomenon by practicing techniques that engage
employees in their own success so that employees feel connected with the leader, feel part of
the leader’s success and can vicariously enjoy rewards even when not accomplished in person.
Reflections
Neuroscience is a relatively new area of research, particularly in its application in organizations.
This is one area of organizational culture transformation that justifies significant future research
and attention. The next chapter delves into a more pragmatic aspect of neuroscience, namely
techniques that individuals can apply for themselves and for teams to shift behavior when
needed.
Page 69
References
Boyatzis, R. (2012). Neuroscience and the link between inspirational leadership and resonant
relationships. http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/leadership/neuroscience-and-the-
link-between-inspirational-leadership-and-resonant-relationships-2#.VGukpB_Tn4g
Doidge, N. (2007). The Brain that Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers
of Brain Science. Penguin Books.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Pillay, S. (2011). Your Brain and Business: The Neuroscience of Great Leaders. FT Press.
Sapolski, R. (2004). Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers, Third Edition. Henry Holt & Company.
Wexler, B. (2006). Brain and Culture: Neurobiology, Ideology and Social Change. A Bradford
Book. The MIT Press.
Page 70
Section 3: The House of Culture©

Introduction
In my consultations with clients, I have often found the subject of organizational culture to be a
difficult one for them to initially understand and adopt. Leaders facing the need for culture
change often struggle with the apparent vagueness and scope of culture and what is required
to change it. However, when I first used the metaphor of a “house” for describing the scope of
organizational culture “lights” (pun intended) seemed to turn on, and I have successfully used
this metaphor since that time. Some time ago however, one insightful person made the very
good point that houses are often rigid structures which do not easily handle pressures, for
example an earthquake or harsh weather. This was an important observation, because
increasingly, organizations need to be much more adaptable, flexible and nimble in response to
competitive threats. In debating this concept further, we landed on the reality that in recent
years, construction of houses, indeed buildings and bridges in general along with other
structures, are being engineered to withstand remarkably harsh environmental pressures such
as large earthquakes and tornadoes. I live in the San Francisco Bay area and this is a very
important issue for anyone living in this region. So, while many organizations historically were
not very adaptable to external pressures, the twenty first century has ushered in an
environment in which flexibility, agility and the ability to rapidly introduce new and innovative
products and services and respond quickly to competitive threats is becoming a key to success
and survival. Similarly, organizational cultures must be adaptable. The house of culture must be
designed to quickly and effectively respond to competitive pressures, uncertainty as well as
opportunities. This section describes many of the key “building blocks” that need to be used
and applied to intentionally design and build a “house of culture” that nurtures, supports and
motivates workers to do their best work. Applying these building blocks, leaders can ensure
that workers will feel that they are achieving more than simply making a living, but are also
inspired by contributing to something greater than themselves. This can only be achieved if the
“house of culture” becomes a “home”.
Page 71
Chapter 6: Designing the “House of Culture©”
Introduction
Shifting organizational culture is possibly the most challenging kind of change any organization
can undertake. Most organizations are better at changing the “hard stuff” like work processes,
structures and systems, and less effective at changing people’s hearts, minds and behaviors.
This is truer in cases where organizations have a long history of success, where business
processes have been deeply entrenched and where culture and behaviors have become deeply
ingrained over decades. In these cases historic success becomes the biggest obstacle to future
success when business strategy needs to dramatically change. Often organizations facing
transformational change requiring a significant shift in culture, adopt a fragmented approach.
The organization focuses on a few elements it feels are necessary to shift culture, but don’t
necessarily fully assess the link between the culture it has, its desired future culture needed to
support and drive strategy execution, and all of the primary “building blocks” of the
organization’s culture. This chapter introduces the concept of the “House of Culture”. The
critical elements that influence organizational culture are identified. These elements are either
enablers or obstacles to achieve strategy-culture alignment.
The Building Blocks of “The House of Culture©”

No single intervention can shift a large, especially a global, organization’s culture (Hammerich
and Lewis, 2013) and it can take years for strategy to cascade down to work practices and
behaviors in the workplace. In the competitive environment of the 21st century where speed
and agility are critical to strategic success, this process needs to be accelerated, and focusing on
only a few elements that influence culture is usually not enough to make the shift. Senior
leaders need to deeply understand the alignment, or misalignment, between strategy and
culture, and decide which building blocks of culture will have the most impact in making the
shift and creating alignment.
Page 72
Figure 9: The House of Culture©
The “House of Culture©”

Senior Leadership

Strategy Alignment Story Telling
Trusted
Middle Managers
Creating experiences Behavioral experiences Influencers and
& Supervisors
Change Agents
Reward and Recognition Employees Behavioral coaching
National Culture
Talent Management

In a larger more complex organization, particularly if it is global, there is never simply a single
culture. While there might be certain dominant cultural characteristics, the organization will
reflect multiple sub-cultures. To continue the metaphor of the House of Culture, there will be
“rooms” and “attics” and possibly a “basement” with their unique sub-cultures that have
emerged from the leaders and influencers that have formed and managed these rooms and the
unique work that takes place in them. So for example, in a large energy production company,
the drilling operations group (let’s call this the Living Room of the House) will have a unique
culture that is heavily influenced by national culture, primarily because most of the drilling
operations are located in foreign territories. On the other hand, the refineries (let’s call these
the Dining Room) will have its unique culture based on safety and attention to environmental
quality, while the marketing and sale of oil and gas (I’ll call this the Attic) will have its own
subculture and so on. If an organization is unionized, perhaps the union could be the Basement.
To continue the metaphor, for the House to be a home; a place where people are able to gather
and work together in a harmonious and productive manner, each one of the “rooms” must
have its unique culture that contributes to the whole to make a house a home. Moreover, the
structure of the house, including the foundations, the walls and roof and so on, must be
engineered effectively to allow people to work and live. These structural elements are the
Page 73
business processes, systems, policies and infrastructure that constitutes the rest of the House
and enable people to perform the best they can and be productive and happy.
What is important for organizational leaders to recognize (leaders are typically the architects of
the House) is that while it is often a requirement to shift culture at the macro level of the
House, it is more important to understand the unique strategies and business problems that
operate in each of the rooms, attic and basement and so on. It is important to focus on shifting
culture at the micro level in a way that supports the execution of their unique business
strategies and plans, and overcome their unique business problems and obstacles.
The following section describes the various areas and aspects of the House of Culture.
Senior Leadership
Conners and Smith (2011) state that, “either you manage your culture or it will manage you.” I
agree. Many corporate leaders are aware of their organization’s culture and its importance, but
less aware of how to manage it. Too often it is considered the domain of human resources, and
not that of the core business. This is a fatal mistake. Leaders and managers should understand
organizational culture as it relates to required behaviors across the corporation or in their
business functions as much as they understand other key performance issues, such as their
workflow and financial planning. Leaders, and in particular founding leaders, have more impact
on corporate culture than any other single factor. In the culture change readiness assessment
that I use with my clients, I refer to the assessment of leadership capability as the critical
capability because it affects all other elements in the house. For example in a large retail
banking group I worked with some years ago, smiling and appearing to be having fun was
considered a career limiting behavior. Upon joining the organization, this was so evident that I
investigated it more deeply as part of an effort to implement a customer-focused strategy. I
found that this was largely based on the story—told and retold—that the legendary chairman
had once told a photographer chartered to take his photograph for the annual report, “Banking
is a serious business and we do not smile around here.” So no one smiled there ever again. My
interaction many months later with this individual indicated a very different personality; he was
deeply interested and concerned about employees and customers. Without deep
understanding of the impact senior leaders have on organization culture and day-to-day
behavior, the misalignment of strategy execution and culture can be fatal to strategy execution
and business success. Leaders need to develop specific skills for techniques such as storytelling
and creating behavioral learning to shift behavior.
Organizational vision, values and behaviors

It is fascinating how many organizations that I have worked with have powerful vision and
values statements, but do not leverage them effectively to shift or entrench culture and
Page 74
promote specific behaviors. In one utility company I worked with, I was initially impressed with
the visibility of vision and values statements in every conference or meeting room. But it was
also interesting how seldom leaders and managers ever talked about these values. During my
time on this project, this lack of attention to values had a noticeable impact in how this
company engaged its customers at many levels. In contrast, leaders and managers in an energy
company I worked with, that had a very strong safety focus described within its vision and
values, spoke about safety at every opportunity including every presentation that the CEO gave
and at every single meeting. Short discussions on safety were held at every meeting held
anywhere in the world and I personally experienced this as far away as Kazakhstan. There was
no question in this organization that the safety of employees was paramount. Many
organizations also have a poor alignment between their articulation of organizational values
and expected behaviors. Even when expected behaviors are clearly articulated, the alignment
to organizational values is often vague which can result in employees being confused or simply
dismissing these values as meaningless.
Business strategy and goals

Peter Drucker commented “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” The most common
interpretation of his quote refers to the misalignment between culture and strategy—if a
company’s culture does not align with its strategy, culture will win and strategy execution will
struggle. While this may be true, there is also the opposite opportunity under certain
circumstances—leveraging a new and compelling strategy to motivate a change in behavior and
culture. For example, in the energy corporation I mentioned previously, top leadership
developed an aggressive new strategy to beat the competition, but needed a major shift in
culture from being overly collegiate, good to work with but slow moving, to being more decisive
and much more responsive. Because this organization had outstanding engagement and
commitment from employees around the world, this lack of alignment between current culture
and behavior was not a barrier—employees willingly responded to senior leadership’s call to
action because the new strategy was compelling and exciting. Although the new behaviors
were a significant shift in culture, the initial signs that I experienced showed strong support
from employees.
The influence of aspirational and challenging strategic goals is also a potent driver of culture
and behavior change. In a retail banking initiative for which I was project manager some years
ago, the challenge was to shift from an operationally-based culture to a customer-focused one.
One approach we used was to develop organizational level, as well as branch specific, goals to
create a powerfully motivational driver for employees to change their mindsets, behaviors and
workplace processes to become more customer-focused. This bank moved from the worst
performing bank on a set of customer service metrics to the best within a period of six years.
Page 75
My primary point is that senior leaders must be very clear about not only the alignment, or
misalignment, between strategy and culture, but also look for opportunities to use compelling
strategies and goals as motivators to change behavior and shift culture.
Middle management
In many respects, middle managers can have a greater impact on organizational culture than
senior leaders. They are “where the rubber meets the road” so to speak. Managers interact and
influence employees more directly than anyone else. They have the ability, whether they are
aware of it or not, to create their own sub-cultures and drive new behaviors. A close
relationship between senior leaders and middle managers will ensure that there is alignment
between corporate level values and behaviors that may be cornerstones of overall corporate
culture irrespective of local business unit needs and the work these units perform. Without
close interaction with senior leaders, front-line managers may interpret local needs in a
personal way that may be completely out of alignment with what the rest of the organization
requires. For example, senior leaders in a large banking group may place ethical practices and
behaviors at the center of their organizational culture, however a branch manager in a local
branch of a third world country office may interpret ethics very differently based on local
common practice and what he or she interprets as necessary to transact business at a local
level. Culture change initiatives should place significant emphasis on the role that middle
managers perform, especially in global organizations.
A network of influencers and change agents

In large global organizations with thousands of employees, leaders can be limited in their
impact on behavior and culture change simply because there are sometimes not enough of
them. An “army” of influencers or change agents who are passionate about company success
and change can have a powerful impact on behavior change, often more so than managers and
senior leaders largely because they are “one of us”. They are co-workers who are often trusted
by their colleagues and can influence behavior moment by moment more effectively than
anyone else. The role of trusted influencer is not grade or seniority specific, but rather passion
and capability related. Leaders and managers should look for and solicit team members of any
grade level and prepare them for a broader role in helping, coaching and nurturing behavior
change with colleagues at all levels at every opportunity. It is important however that these
influencers have a very specific role and are provided with training and coaching to perform this
role.
National culture with organizational culture

Hammerich and Lewis (2013) use a humorous metaphor for describing how culture, and
specifically national culture, is invisible to most business leaders and managers—they call this
Page 76
myopia “Fish Can’t See Water”. The authors note how little research has been done on the
intersection of corporate and national cultures, and yet how profound this intersection can be if
ignored and poorly managed. While Gert Hofstede’s work (2010) utilizing research of IBM’s
international operations is most often quoted, Hammerich and Lewis provide an insightful and
compelling discussion of how to manage this intersection and the risks involved in ignoring it.
My own personal experience with a project in Kazakhstan, working alongside Kazaks, Russians,
Australians, Americans and other contractors from various European countries, showed clearly
that companies that are aware of and manage these intersections achieve significant benefits,
and those that do not can struggle in their change efforts. Being born South African, and
working in a large retail banking group during the transition South Africa made under the
leadership of Nelson Mandela, I had the privilege of experiencing firsthand how national ethnic
cultures can clash, or synergize, with organizational cultures under various conditions. There is
little doubt in my mind that this is an area of organizational culture change that will become
increasingly important in future years.
Employee engagement and communications

A lot has been researched and written about employee engagement in recent years. The
Corporate Leadership Council research (2004) indicates that employee engagement is at its
lowest levels in decades. A key aspect of employee engagement that plays a critical role in
forming culture is employee’s commitment to the purpose, vision and values of the
organization—that employees must feel that the company does important work and makes a
positive contribution to the world. If this emotional dimension of culture is strong, then the
organization is much more capable of getting employees to shift strategic direction and change
behavior, because they are committed to the future direction and purpose of the organization. I
personally experienced the negative impact of low engagement in a utility company where low
engagement caused resistance to a new strategic initiative and where behaviors verged on
sabotage to undermine its success.
I often experience corporate communication efforts as being disconnected from employee

engagement efforts, for example not attempting to engage employees emotionally and not
performing a role in influencing culture. Employee communications potentially have a large role
to play in communicating leader’s expectations, new strategic direction, and the critical role
that employees can and should have in helping the organization change strategic direction, shift
behavior and forge a new culture. Rather than a top-down communications approach, the
bigger impact that corporate communications can have is to showcase employees exhibiting
new behaviors. For example, employee blogging is a powerful influencer because it’s the voice
of the employee, versus corporate speak that can often be ignored or discounted by its
intended audiences.
Page 77
Managing talent
Intuitively there is a connection between organizational culture and the management of talent.
Given the relative newness of talent management as a formal discipline, the impact of effective
talent management based on the literature, is still somewhat vague. Cooke (2011) references
the following source to provide some insight into the connection:
The assessment of an organization’s culture is a must-do activity prior to launching a set of

talent initiatives; a strong talent culture sets the foundation for improving talent practices.
(Linda Sharkey, 2011)
Berger and Berger (2011) describe the connection between talent management and
organizational culture in the following manner:
“A talent management creed is composed of a widely publicized set of core principles,

values, and mutual expectations that guide the behavior of an institution and its people.
Collectively, the stated principles depict the type of culture an organization strives to
create to achieve its unique portrait of success. The principles of the creed are
embedded into both its talent management strategy and in its talent management
system by incorporating its doctrines into selection criteria, competency definitions,
performance criteria, and internal selection and development processes.”
While these quotes may not demonstrate a consistent and clear linkage between talent
management and culture, my previously outlined model for the “House of Culture” suggests
that a well-developed talent management strategy and process can be a major driver of an
organization’s culture, while a poorly constructed talent management strategy and system
would conversely negatively impact an organization’s culture.
But managing talent is not a cure-all to organizational culture change as some may think. Strong
cultures in large companies can easily “suck the life” out of new hires, even at the senior
leadership level. If shifting culture is a priority, talent management must be coordinated
carefully to have impact on cultural change. For example if the recruitment and hiring process
does not clearly look for and identify individuals with the characteristics of the “to be” culture,
like simply hiring for the best skills, then this approach will have little impact. Also, particularly
with senior talent, if these new hires are not provided with a clear picture of why they are being
hired, for personality that aligns with the “to be” culture as well as skills and experience, and
given a lot of support and coaching to act and behave in line with the new culture, the old
culture will simply swallow them up.
Page 78
The physical and virtual workplace

Tapscott and Williams (2006) comment that, “The old notion that you have to attract and retain
the best and brightest inside your corporate boundaries is becoming null. With the costs of
collaboration falling precipitously, companies can increasingly source ideas, innovations and
uniquely qualified minds from a vast global pool of talent.” This description has huge
implications with regard to the notion of corporate culture. In one large technology company I
was working with recently, I was participating in a working session on a future strategy to
manage talent. One of the ideas I proposed to the group was the notion of flexible sourcing—
instead of only considering talent management in the context of permanent employment,
rather consider more flexible and agile talent sourcing in key areas of the business, in this case
for major projects that require speed and agility. The group simply could not wrap their heads
around the concept. As Tapscott and Williams describe, these ideas are “often received with
coolness, or worse—mockery or hostility”. In this case my ideas were met with blank stares and
a simple closed-door response. This thinking is unlikely to be the case in the future of work.
Indeed, for some fast moving companies, new workplace practices are already being
introduced. Access to knowledge and the ability of people to collaborate on projects with the
use of collaboration technologies is changing how we think about corporate culture. For
knowledge work in particular, the notion that work takes place in a specified physical office
environment on a fixed 8:00 to 5:00-type timeframe will be redundant. Future thinking about
the future of the workplace, because it impacts individual workers so significantly, is expanded
in Section 4 of this eBook.
Symbols, rituals and icons should include elements of future vision

Walking into one of America’s major technology company facilities recently provided me with a
wonderful reminder of this company’s historical accomplishments and enduring successes.
Quotes from iconic leaders from their past, framed artwork of iconic technologies that adorn
the walls are a vivid reminder to all who visit and work there that their mission is to change the
world and make it a better place. On the other hand, when working with one of America’s
iconic brand apparel companies, I was surprised at the few reminders of the company’s vision
and future strategic direction inside the organization. To any employee, they could have well
been working in the dull and boring utility company’s offices across the city. Various symbols
can play an important part in focusing employees’ minds on what is important from a corporate
performance and culture perspective. If organizations want to shift culture and the way
employees feel, think and behave, they will need to remind employees constantly of what
these mindset and behaviors are. For example, Google is well known for its slogans of wanting
employees to have fun at work in the belief that they will be more productive. In this context,
their workplace has physical symbols that are fun and playful. Its slogan of “happy at work”
Page 79
(Hierling et al, 2007) is supported by free messages, haircuts, free food and other well
publicized benefits. Chevron for example, has an intensely focused process for safety in all
aspects of work, and has a ritual followed globally called a “safety moment” in which all
employees talk about and adopt new ideas for improving safety.
To remind employees and entrench cultural attributes, leaders should more clearly link their
cultural attributes within visible symbols, rituals and icons that remind employees of what is
expected and what the company culture is all about every moment of every day.
Focused initiatives to shift culture

It is not enough to simply describe the culture and set of behaviors that a company desires in
the future, it is also necessary to have a deep understanding of the current culture and its
potential obstacles to moving forward strategically. These deeper and often hidden cultural
“tacit assumptions and beliefs” (Schein, 2009) are often not obvious on the surface; they
require a deeper level of ethnographic type analysis to uncover. Surveys and formal interviews
often do not identify these tacit beliefs. For example, in one international corporation I was
working with, I was very surprised to identify an aspect of fear that was the basis for people to
avoid accountability, being proactive and risk-taking. In another case, working with a utility
company, it became evident that a lack of trust between front line employees and senior
leadership was so profound that it verged on a willingness to engage in sabotage of a particular
project. In these cases, it was essential that the company mobilize resources to specifically
target and resolve these unique obstacles.
Learning and development

In the retail banking example of culture change I referenced previously, it emerged that existing
training programs were a significant barrier to becoming more customer-focused. It became
evident that training programs on a variety of branch banking skills, such as home loan
processing and others, were heavily allied to the legacy culture of being operationally focused
and risk averse. We had to conduct a comprehensive review of all training and development
programs and determine opportunities to inject customer-focused examples. This is just one
example of how learning and development can either be a significant enabler or barrier to
culture change.
Performance management
Performance management processes and systems are often hated as well as revered, and
considered sacred cows never to be changed. Despite common dissatisfaction and even fear of
performance management appraisal processes, many companies are wary of changing. The
Management Innovation Exchange (Stein, 2011) provides an excellent example of a company
Page 80
that championed a change in their performance management system in order to develop and
entrench their desired corporate culture. Stein describes how performance management
processes impact culture by saying, “The Gilt Group’s VP, Engineering, John Quinn, despised
traditional performance reviews. Not only did he find them intrusive, time-consuming, and
ineffective, he believed strongly that they actually detracted from the culture of continuous,
ongoing feedback and coaching he wanted to establish with his team.” For companies
undergoing culture change to support a new strategic direction, it is essential to ensure that
performance management systems support the culture and the behaviors the company is
attempting to foster.
Business processes and workflow

Hammerich and Lewis (2013) suggest that new approaches to work can create breakthrough
business opportunities and require very different cultures. The opposite is also true—
entrenched business processes can undermine attempts to execute new strategies and build
new cultures. While corporate processes such as my previous description of performance
management are also relevant here, other core business processes need to be realigned and
optimized. For example, a recent client of mine was attempting to develop a culture that was
more agile with much quicker decision-making. While engineers were very supportive of these
changes, processes such as supply chain and procurement were incredibly cumbersome,
undermining efforts to move faster and be more responsive to customers. Because these
business processes are often developed and customized over years, if not decades, they can be
very difficult to change. However, it is essential for these processes to be optimized if strategy
execution and culture change are to be successful.
Reward and recognition

Daniel Pink’s book (2009) “Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us”, provides an
excellent description of how attempts to motivate employees and create a culture of high
performance are so often off-target. In many cases, these reward and recognition programs can
be de-motivators. Cantrell and Smith (2010) comment on the need to customize reward
programs to the needs and interests of individual workers in order to maximize the value and
impact, and to influence corporate culture and behaviors. For organizations intending to shift
culture and behavior, reward and recognition programs must be scrutinized and revised to
ensure they are motivating the kinds of behaviors intended within the desired corporate
culture.
Strategy-culture measurement
“What gets measured gets managed” is a common phrase used in business, and it is also true
for culture change. Connors and Smith (2011) describe the need to focus culture change efforts
Page 81
squarely on business results. I fundamentally agree with their emphasis, but there is a risk in
thinking that only business results need to be measured. Measurements that track a shift in
culture are excellent leading indicators of business results. A culture scorecard should include
all three levels of culture (Schein 2009) and include quantitative as well as qualitative measures.
As with a broader scorecard, visible progress towards new behaviors and a new culture can
become self-fulfilling.
Reflections
Changing corporate culture is complex and exponentially so when the organization is multi-
national and diversified in its types of businesses. There is no single factor or even a select few
elements that can be leveraged to change the collective behaviors of employees and ultimately
the entire corporate culture. Many leaders struggle with the notion of sub-cultures with their
own unique sets of assumptions, beliefs and behaviors. The “House of Culture” provides a
framework for organizational leaders to use when determining what elements may need to be
leveraged to change the culture of their organizations in a more comprehensive manner.
Page 82
References
Berger L., Berger, D. (2011). The Talent Management Handbook: Creating a Sustainable
Competitive Advantage by Selecting, Developing, and Promoting the Best People. Publisher:
McGraw-Hill
Cantrell, S. and Smith, D. (2010). Workforce of One. Harvard Business Press.
Connors R. and Smith T. (2011). Change the Culture, Change the Game. Penguin Books.
Cooke, R. A. (2011). Levers Proven to Drive Constructive Cultures and Effective Talent
Management. Human Synergistics International.
http://www.humansynergistics.com/Files/LeversProventoDriveConstCult.pdf
Corporate Leadership Council (2004). Employee Engagement Survey. Corporate Executive

Board.
Hammerich, K. and Lewis, R. (2013). Fish can’ See Water. How National Culture Can Make or
Break Your Corporate Strategy. Wiley.
Hierling, M., Yeh, Y., Tai, C., Lang Yu, J. (2007). Organizational Culture and the case of Google.
Seminar Paper. GRIN Verlag. Faculty of Economics and Business. The University of Sydney
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations. Software of the
Mind. McGraw Hill
Lockwood, N. (2006). Talent Management: Driver for Organizational Success. SHRM Research
Quarterly
Merchant, N. (2011). http://blogs.hbr.org/2011/03/culture-trumps-strategy-every/
Pink, D. (2009). Drive. The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us. Riverhead Books.
Schein, E. (2009). Corporate Culture Survival Guide. John Wiley & Sons. San Francisco.
Stein, N. (2011). Blowing Up Performance Management From the Inside: How One Manager
Transformed His Company's Approach to the Dreaded Performance Review. The Management
Innovation Exchange(MIX): http://www.managementexchange.com/story/blowing-
performance-management-10-inside-how-manager-gilt-groupe-transformed-his-companys-
appr
Tapscott, D. and Williams, A. (2008). Wikinomics. How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything.
Penguin Books.
Page 83
Section 4: Building a New House of Culture©
Section 4: Building a New House of

©
Culture
Introduction
This eBook places greater focus on the pragmatic aspects of organizational culture change and
execution, and this section specifically expands on the five phases of execution that I have
found necessary to be successful in organizational change initiatives. I have applied these
phases in an integrated way in various organizations. Section 1 noted that most academic
perspectives have not adequately expanded on how to execute culture change in organizations.
This section expands on this important topic and draws not only on numerous researchers and
practitioners, but also the approach to culture change that I have developed and applied over
the past 20 years. Despite being pragmatic, this process has been significantly influenced by a
number of sound theoretical building blocks, such as those of Edgar Schein.
The five-phase “FACES©” process for changing culture

The overarching framework for this five-phase FACES process is underpinned by a rigorous
program management process as shown in Diagram 1 below:
Figure 10: The FACES Program Management Model
An important requirement built into this process is that the focus of the FACES approach is not
on culture in isolation of other important business imperatives such as strategic direction,
business goals and process alignment, amongst others. When companies attempt to change
their culture in isolation of other important business factors, the culture change initiatives tend
Page 84
to have limited impact, largely because they are too high level or disconnected from business
needs. As Edgar Schein has emphasized, culture change efforts must be focused on solving
business problems to be successful. The following chapters in this section describe the five-
phase process shown in the diagram above.
Page 85
Chapter 7: Phase 1: Focus
Introduction
The focus phase is all about making sure that leaders clearly understand what culture is and
why it is important to business success and whether a culture change initiative is needed. This
can only be determined by clarifying strategy, and defining the kind of culture that is needed to
support and enable strategy execution.
Factors to consider in Focus Phase
A compelling business strategy

Nilofer Merchant (2011) comments in her blog piece entitled “Culture Trumps Strategy, Every
Time” as follows:
“After working on strategy for 20 years, I can say this: culture will trump strategy, every
time. The best strategic idea means nothing in isolation. If the strategy conflicts with
how a group of people already believe, behave or make decisions it will fail. Conversely,
a culturally robust team can turn a so-so strategy into a winner.”
While I agree with her statement, this occurs when an organization significantly shifts its
business strategy and is unable to shift its culture or it under-emphasizes culture in this
strategic shift and finds that this lack of alignment is a fatal flaw. Culture cannot be defined
without a sound understanding of what strategy is being executed and a clear definition of the
kind of cultural characteristics needed to execute it effectively. The more major changes to a
company’s strategic direction, the more likely it will be that some shifts in culture will be
needed. In companies with positive and supportive cultures, often all it takes is for senior
leaders to introduce a new compelling strategy with challenging goals, and employees will leap
at the opportunity to be part of driving the strategy and its success. The problem often is that
companies do not articulate their strategies with clarity in a way that employees can
understand it. Changing culture requires a well-defined, compelling and effectively
communicated business strategy that employees understand and can align to—otherwise even
discussing culture is out of context. In a research study by Slater, Olson and Finnegan (2010),
they concluded:
“The results of this study show that a match between the culture of the … organization
and the firm’s business strategy is associated with superior performance. Our results
also show that, depending on the business’s strategy, the values associated with any of
the four culture types may be associated with superior performance. This is because
Page 86
each strategy type requires different types of organizational and individual behavior for
its successful execution, and culture provides the norms for those behaviors.”
I have also previously described a large retail-banking group I worked with for a number of
years in the 1990s, and the culture change we designed to support a major strategic shift from
being risk averse and operationally-driven to being customer-focused and significantly more
market savvy. The senior leadership agreed to change their mission statement to include the
phrase, “To become the best bank with the most satisfied customers”. Given this organization’s
poor track record in customer service, and the negative experiences branch employees had
with customers, they enthusiastically responded to the new strategic direction and embraced
it. A core element of this customer-focused strategy was the challenge embodied in the mission
statement, namely to become the “best bank with the most satisfied customers”. It was
remarkable to see how branch bankers rallied toward this challenge. My team was responsible
for measuring customer satisfaction internally among more than 1,000 banking branches as
well as between the five major banks. Initially the Standard Bank was the poorest amongst this
group. Within a six year period, this bank achieved the best bank status among the five major
banks measured.
On the contrary Schein (2009) highlights the growing misalignment between Digital Equipment
Corporation’s (DEC) culture and the new business strategy that was needed to compete during
the early 1990s, and the ultimate demise of the company. The legacy engineer-empowered
culture that provided large scope from engineering managers to influence overall strategic
direction limited DEC’s ability to move quickly in a new strategic direction and radically improve
time to market. Schein notes, “Not only were (empowered engineers) not able to agree
amongst themselves, but they also ignored or overruled Ken Olsen’s (founder and CEO) efforts
to focus because they felt more powerful than their founder.” While the organization
attempted to move to a different strategic business model, Schein continues that DEC’s
“leadership could not give up the tacit assumptions of individual empowerment and debate
that was the basis of their success as innovators”. Ultimately, as Schein describes, in the early
1990s DEC had a major change in leadership and moved to a more hierarchical structure and
culture that would provide the focus and efficiency the competitive market needed. As this
happened DEC “olds timers” left the organization and, as is now history, DEC as an organization
was sold off and no longer exists. The key point that Schein makes is that the “right” culture is a
“function of the degree to which shared tacit assumptions create the kind of strategy that is
functional in the organization’s environment.” Obviously in the early years of DEC, this
alignment existed, but as the competitive landscape changed, and leadership was unable to
shift culture to new assumptions, the strategy could not be executed and DEC disappeared as a
company.
Page 87
In research conducted by Ahmadi, S. Salamzadeh, Y. Daraei, M. and Akbari, J. (2012), they

present findings that suggest a positive link between strategy formulation and culture:
“Findings…suggest a positive link between organization’s culture and strategy

implementation. This is in line with previous studies which had considered relationships
between organizational culture and organization’s performance indicators (Fey and
Denison, 2003; Pirayeh et.al., 2011; Ouchi, 1981; Lee and Tseng, 2005; Abdul Rashid
et.al, 2004; Carnall, 1990; Naranjo- Valencia, 2011; Lopez et.al, 2004; Davenport and
Prusak, 1997). According to obtained results, clan and adhocracy cultures considerably
favor strategy implementation. Results also show market and hierarchy cultures
encourage the implementation.”
Dawson (2010) provides compelling examples of organizations struggling with clear and
compelling strategy and alignment of culture. Clearly both have to be, as Dawson emphasizes,
the top priority of the CEO and the senior leadership team.
Getting leaders aligned on changing culture

Edgar Schein (2009) proposes that cultures emerge from basically three sources. The first is
from the beliefs, values and assumptions of founders of the organization. Second are the
learning experiences of the members of the organization as it evolves, and third, new beliefs,
values and assumptions brought in by new members and leaders. He emphasizes that original
founders initially have the greatest impact, and to the degree that the organization is successful
over time, their beliefs and assumptions can become deeply entrenched and long-term. If early
founders and leaders are aware and thoughtful, these early assumptions and beliefs can be
carefully crafted, although this is not often the case—founders and early leaders are typically
more focused on business results. The more successful the business is, the more these founding
values, assumptions and beliefs become embedded, whether they are supportive of long-term
success or not. Schein comments that, as the organization grows, the connection between
culture and leadership becomes clearest in the organizational micro cultures or subcultures
where the impact is concentrated.
What is referred to as a “culture” in organizations, is usually the result of the embedding of

what the founder or leader has imposed on the group that has been repeatedly adequately
successful. Like nervous passengers on a bumpy flight watching for cues from flight attendants,
employees pay close attention to how leaders behave for queues of what is the right way to
behave or what is unacceptable. Visco continues that employees pay close attention to, and
internalize the values, beliefs and behaviors of leaders who define the unwritten rules,
mindsets, behaviors and culture of the organization by making decisions, demonstrating
Page 88
behaviors and taking actions on a moment by moment basis. This process of internalization is
described by Aronson (2008) where he notes that:
“A value or belief is the most permanent, most deeply rooted response to social
influence. The motivation to internalize a particular belief is the desire to be right (in the
context of the social group that we are operating within). Thus the reward for the belief
is intrinsic. If the person who provides the influence is perceived to be trustworthy and
to have good judgment, we accept the belief he or she advocates, and we integrate it
into our system of values. Once it is part of our own system, it becomes independent of
its source, and will become extremely resistant to change.”
This commentary underpins the difficulty that leaders face when a corporate culture has been
fashioned over decades of success, and then at some point that success wanes in the face of
competition, while the culture, with its deeply entrenched assumptions and beliefs, stubbornly
maintains the status quo.
Fish can’t see water

This “fish can’t see water” heading is the title of a wonderful book by Kai Hammerich and
Richard Lewis (2013). While their book focuses on national or country culture, the key point of
the phrase is that founders and early leaders often have a limited perspective into how their
assumptions, beliefs and behaviors impact people in their organizations and the emerging
cultures—they are tacit. Founders and leaders are often unaware how their assumptions,
beliefs and behaviors play out and are observed and interpreted by others. Often these stories
get nuanced and changed as they cascade through the organization, often, not for the better. It
is essential that leaders become aware of these beliefs, assumptions and behaviors they project
to employees, and deeply understand the impact that this has on employees. As Connors and
Smith (2011) note:
“Whether you realize it or not, you create experiences for everyone around you
everyday. Each interaction you have with others in your organization creates an
experience that either fosters or undermines your desired beliefs.”
What leaders must do to shift culture

Reading the literature on what leaders do to change culture can leave one with the perception
that leaders, and especially CEO’s, need to do everything. Many CEOs reading some of this
material must shake their heads in desperation and are likely to simply ignore the advice
because it’s overwhelming. Schein (2010) describes a number of key ways in which leaders
create and embed culture. These include:
Page 89
 The role of founders in the early days of an organization

 The “mysterious” ability and impact of charisma that captures the subordinates’
attention and communicates major assumptions and values in a vivid manner
 Through primary embedding mechanisms such as:
o What leaders pay attention to, measure and control on a regular basis
o How leaders react to critical incidents and organizational crises
o How leaders allocate resources
o Deliberate role-modeling, teaching and coaching
o How leaders allocate rewards and status
o How leaders recruit, select, promote and excommunicate
 Through secondary articulation and reinforcement mechanisms
o Organizational design and structure
o Organizational systems and procedures
o Rites and rituals
o Design of space, facades and buildings
o Stories about important events and people
o Formal statements of organizational philosophy, creeds and charters
Heskett (2012) outlines the role of leadership in his “culture cycle” in the following model:
Figure 11: Heskett's Culture Cycle

Insure alignment
Track non-financial Perceive the need between culture,
as well as financial for change in strategy and method
results mission and values of execution
Insure that employees

Measure and reward expectations are
organizational learning established that can be
met
Encourage and
Identify and establish recognize behaviors
priorities for policies and that meet employee
practices and behaviors expectations
Measure and track trust,

engagement and
ownership 2
In my view, in his model, Heskett is describing a number of overall key issues related to shifting
culture versus what leaders specifically need to do.
Page 90
Cameron and Quinn (2011) identify nine steps needed to design and execute a culture change
initiative. These steps are:
1. Reach consensus regarding the current organizational culture

2. Reach consensus on the preferred future organizational culture
3. Determine what the changes will and will not mean
4. Identify stories illustrating the future desired culture
5. Identify a strategic action agenda
6. Identify immediate small wins
7. Identify leadership implications
8. Identify metrics, measures and milestones to maintain accountability
9. Identify a common strategy
The authors seem to position the design of the culture change approach as initially emerging
from outside the top leadership team, perhaps by a project team that is commissioned by
leaders. For example, their Step 2 on “reaching consensus on the preferred future culture” does
not seem to imply senior leaders being involved in driving this definition. In Step 4 the authors
emphasize the importance of identifying and using “illustrative stories”, typically about leaders
and how they operate and what they believe, which can vividly demonstrate the future culture.
The level of leader engagement that is highlighted in Step 7, “Identify the leadership
implications”, also reads like a separate team is asking leaders to act in a certain way, rather
than being driven by leaders from the outset. The authors also note these leader implications
as having a “leader development” plan to ensure that leaders have the right competencies
required of the future culture. Another requirement is that of having leaders identify their
personal commitments and responsibilities. One example of demonstrating these commitments
is holding a “symbolic funeral” for the old culture. In my reading, Cameron and Quinn’s
approach talks more to having leaders act in a certain way versus the entire approach being
driven by senior leadership. In my experience, this approach of being driven from the outside
into the inner leadership circle is challenging.
in their white paper entitled Culture and the Chief Executive, Katzenberg and Aguirre (2013)
identify a dominant role for senior leadership and the CEO in particular. The authors emphasize
the importance of the CEO creating a positive sense of urgency, versus the potentially anxiety
producing “burning platform”, which taps into the intrinsic pride that many employees have for
the company and the work they do. I fully agree with this approach particularly in companies
that have a demonstrable value to society, such as Chevron with its notion of “human energy”
or Intel with its vision of “connecting all people on earth”. The authors specifically comment on
the importance of the CEO and senior leaders defining and focusing on the “critical few
behaviors” that matter most in forming a new culture. Interestingly Sartain and Daily (2013)
Page 91
challenge this notion of such a dominant role of the CEO in shaping culture, particularly in large,
diversified companies:
“…culture is created by the interactions and on-the-job relationships one has with co-
workers. Those interactions tend to be localized to a specific team, department or
geography but they rarely extend beyond the 150 people you interact with most
regularly. So, when thinking of an organizational structure thousands or even tens of
thousands deep, organizations end up with a tiny fraction of individuals who have
physical access to the CEO. Cultural norms, therefore, are created on a localized level.”
I support this viewpoint. While CEOs and other senior leaders can communicate far beyond
their immediate circle of direct contacts through various media types and forums, the role of
local leaders, managers and other influential people have a much greater impact on the beliefs,
assumptions people have and the behaviors and actions they manifest. This is the etiology of
subcultures and it is understanding this that shines a strong light on how culture is formed and
how to change it. Senior leaders have an important, but limited role in forging a new culture,
particular in large, global and diverse companies.
In his book called Leading Culture Change: What every CEO Needs to Know, Dawson (2010) lists
five critical success factors that the CEO should consider. These are:
1. Defining the level of urgency and reason for culture change

2. Defining the “new” and “legacy” cultures
3. Building a culture change roadmap
4. Translating the vision culture into behavioral competencies and measurable events
5. Modeling executive authenticity
In my experience, Dawson’s critical success factors numbers 1, 2 and 5 come closest to those
key things that only senior leaders can and must do if culture change is to be successful. For
example, numbers 3 and 4 are important aspects of change that ultimately need to be done,
but the CEO will not directly be involved at this level. These are more typically the responsibility
of a specialized team commissioned to manage the overall change program.
Connors and Smith (2011) also ascribe a more focused and programmatic role for senior
leadership. They comment on always starting a culture change initiative at the “relative” top of
the organization. In terms of the notion of “relative” they correctly note that it may be that
culture change is needed at various sub-culture levels in a large global organization. However,
they also comment that these initiatives must be “leader-led” and cannot be driven from the
middle out.
Page 92
The critical leadership responsibilities

Many of the examples noted above certainly make sense. As a consultant I need to be
pragmatic in my approach to working with leaders and what they personally need to do to
change culture, and most leaders that I have worked with would be overwhelmed by this. The
way I describe the impact that leaders have on changing culture is by the way they consistently
behave and the decisions they make. When I emphasize their roles in this way they seem to get
it. However, while they understand it, this does not mean they know how to do it—they need
specific, simple techniques and tools to be able to execute on this understanding. There are
nine responsibilities that I find most important and most impactful for senior leaders to
personally be accountable for. These are:
1. Developing a clear, compelling business strategy that all employees understand

2. Creating and communicating the urgency and reason for culture change
3. Defining the new culture that supports the new strategy
4. Defining organization-wide leadership accountabilities
5. Ensuring a programmatic approach to culture change and allocating resources
6. Leadership self-awareness relative to how leaders behave
7. Role-modeling specific behaviors
8. Creating behavioral learning experiences
9. Recognizing the right behaviors
10. Ensuring that culture change is measured, tracked and reviewed
Developing a clear, compelling business strategy that all employees understand

In Section 1 describing the organizational “House of Culture”, I noted that while according to
Peter Drucker “culture eats strategy for breakfast”, the influence of aspirational and challenging
strategic goals is also a potent driver of culture and behavior change. The punchline is that
senior leaders must be very clear about not only the alignment, or misalignment between
strategy and culture, but should also look for opportunities to use compelling strategies and
goals as motivators to change behavior and shift culture.
Creating and communicating the urgency and reason for culture change
Culture change, depending on its scope and urgency, can be immensely disruptive to an
organization. Undertaking a culture change initiative requires a compelling reason, and only top
leadership is in a position to emphasize this level of urgency and to communicate it. However,
leaders must find the right balance between creating a sense of urgency in terms of a “burning
platform” that can produce anxiety and narrow thinking, versus the “authentic sense of
urgency” that Katzenberg and Aguirre suggest can rally employees to take positive action and
Page 93
energize the organization. Keller and Aiken (2013) describe this balancing act in their white
paper, The Inconvenient Truth about Change Management. The authors comment as follows:
“Research has shown that a relentless focus on “what’s wrong” is not sustainable,
invokes blame and creates fatigue and resistance, doing little to engage people’s
passion and experience, and highlight their success. This has led to the rise of what
many refer to as the constructionist-based approach to change. In this approach the
change process is based on discovery (discovering the best of what is), dreaming
(imagining what might be), designing (talking about what should be) and destiny
(creating what will be).”
I agree with their sentiment. I have experienced the “barbarians at the gate” message
backfiring on leaders. While I do feel that the need to change must be grounded on an urgent
need to change, the key message needs to be one of opportunity and purpose. Finding the right
balance is key, as well as the right timing. It’s important that leaders first create the case for
urgent change, and do it in a way that does not foster anxiety and panic. Once the case for
change is clear, leaders need to begin to sketch the picture of future possibilities that suggests,
“with the right amount of urgency, passion and hard work we can do this”.
Defining the new culture that supports the new strategy

The need to clearly describe the new culture in unambiguous terms may seem obvious, but it is
not as simple as it may sound. The biggest mistake I have seen with companies is where the
future culture is expressed at such a high level that employees, even if they understand the
description, don’t know how to translate it into their day-to-day work. Connors and Smith note
that “confusion is the great defender of the status quo” and I would add “vagueness” to that
comment. If the change in culture is to be clearly understood by all employees, it must be
explicit. This is one reason why I struggle with Cameron and Quinn’s (2010) culture change
model—neither leaders nor employees clearly know what it means and what they need to do
to change. Although the authors outline a series of actions recommended for shifting the
“quadrants”, these are not specific enough for employees to know how to behave and act. I
support the more explicit approach recommended by Connors and Smith, who emphasize the
combination of “beliefs and actions”. The notion of “beliefs” is firmly grounded on Schein’s
three-level model of culture, which describes “tacit assumptions and beliefs” as the third and
deepest level of understanding and defining culture. I have encouraged my clients to adopt the
following example approach and structure for initially describing the existing culture and
ultimately describing the future culture:
Page 94
Assumption and Belief (Example) Behaviors or Actions (Example)
I must be perfect in all my work otherwise my Painstaking detail orientation to ensure there
career will be compromised if I make mistakes are no mistakes
Instituting extreme checks and balances
Never admitting mistakes. Covering up

mistakes if they occur
Blaming others and pointing fingers
This approach creates a higher degree of clarity in how people currently think, behave and act
at work and how this must change in future. This level of clarity also ensures that leaders know
exactly what behaviors to role model.
Defining organization-wide leadership accountabilities

Every leader at every level must be made accountable for culture change. My experience,
especially in large, global organizations, is that unless the senior executive requires some form
of measurable assessment for the need and scope of cultural change in all business units, it
either does not get done, or it is done in such a fragmented manner that it has no impact at all.
In these kinds of companies, I typically ask senior leaders of the major business units two
questions:
1. Do you know if your business unit’s culture is aligned and supportive of your business
strategy and your ability to execute on this strategy?
2. If there is a lack of alignment between strategy execution and culture (in other words,
there are significant cultural obstacles) do you have a plan to make this cultural change,
and if so, how rigorous is this plan?
Most often leaders either cannot answer these questions, or their answers and insights are
vague. This is a recipe for poor strategy execution. The senior executive, typically the CEO,
should ensure that business unit leaders can clearly and factually answer these two questions.
Dawson (2010) outlines a simple but effective checklist of questions with which a CEO could
test his leadership team in a way that allows the team to determine the level of urgency
required, and the level of rigor required, for the change. Similarly, the checklist I show later in
this section is another technique that provides a more structured and effective way for leaders
to answer the two questions above.
Page 95
Ensuring a programmatic approach to culture change and allocating resources

In the chapter on “An execution approach to culture change”, I summarized a number of
models proposed by various authors and consultants on how to execute culture change. In my
experience, failing to ensure some level of project management or program management to
the culture change effort is one of the major reasons why culture change initiatives fail.
Ensuring that an appropriate level of rigor is applied is a key responsibility of the senior
executive in charge.
Leadership self-awareness relative to how leaders behave

Keller and Aiken (2013) describe a reality about leaders with which I strongly concur:
“Most senior executives understand and generally buy into Gandhi’s famous aphorism, “Be the
change you want to see in the world.” They, often prompted by HR professionals or
consultants, commit themselves to “being the change” by personally role modeling the desired
behaviors. And then, in practice, nothing significant changes. The reason for this is that most
executives don’t see themselves as “part of the problem,” and therefore deep down do not
believe that it is they who need to change, even though in principle they agree that leaders
must role model the desired changes….however, most people also have an unwarranted
optimism in relation to their own behavior.”
Indeed, Daniel Kahneman (2011) references the phenomenon of the leadership “hubris
hypothesis”. He notes that, “Psychologists have confirmed that people (and I would argue
senior leaders most acutely) genuinely believe that they are superior to most others on most
desirable (leadership) traits.” When I have described this phenomenon to my colleagues and
clients, most laugh or chuckle, probably because it strikes a chord of truth. Most of us know this
deep down. But while this is somewhat humorous, at its core it is serious. It is a huge stumbling
block to effective culture change. It is essential that senior leaders undergo some form of self-
assessment, 360 degree feedback or personal coaching related to the behavior change needed
in order to clearly understand how aligned, or not aligned, they are with the culture needed to
support strategy execution.
Role modelling specific behaviors and creating behavioral learning experiences

The notion of role-modeling is noted frequently in leadership literature. What is noted less
frequently is what role-modeling is, how it works and what leaders specifically need to do. The
result of this vagueness, and the fact that the “hubris hypothesis” is often in full effect, results
in most leaders either doing nothing different (i.e. simply doing what they normally do because
they already think they are good leaders), or role-modeling the wrong behaviors because these
behaviors are vague. Alternatively they try to role-model but don’t really know how to do it
Page 96
effectively so that it goes unnoticed or understood by people around them. People need to see
the behaviors modeled, understand its context and be able to mimic these behaviors
themselves and receive feedback.
Connors and Smith (2011) outline what I believe to be one of the most effective and impactful
techniques for role-modeling, namely creating “experiences that instill the right
beliefs…experiences create beliefs”. This is a simple technique, but requires careful thought and
self –awareness. An important point the authors make, is that leaders create experiences for
the employees in their organizations all the time, whether they are aware they are doing so or
not. The importance with accelerated culture change is that leaders must now become highly
aware of the new beliefs and behaviors needed and the kinds of experiences that will reshape
the beliefs and behaviors of employees. For these experiences to have the greatest impact, the
authors note that leaders must go through a series of four steps (I have added a fifth step that I
have found to be critical):
Step 1: Plan the experience – this step involves designing what kind of event or action will best
demonstrate the beliefs or behaviors that leaders feel are important. These experiences can be
as simple as a demonstrated behavior in the moment, for example, during a meeting, a
manager might comment on an issue of safety and then facilitate a discussion in the
importance of safety in the workplace. Alternatively it may be a more elaborately developed
exercise or event. In my experience the more natural the experience, the better. More
elaborate events can tend to lack the authenticity of everyday occurrences.
Step 2: Provide the experience – This step is self-explanatory.
Step 3: Ask about it – the authors propose that this step is crucial—and I agree. It is essential
that the leaders do not simply create the experience and then move on. The reason is that not
everyone will notice or interpret it the same way (i.e. selective interpretation). In this step the
leader must briefly pause and ask the group what they heard and what they saw and then
foster dialogue about the experience. It is important to request feedback from the group.
Step 4: Interpret it – this step involves telling people what belief the leader was intending to
encourage, and how the experience was supposed to reinforce that belief. Interpretation and
discussion should provide insight into whether the group interpreted the experience in the right
way, and that the experience correctly reinforced the belief.
The fifth step I referred to earlier is actually step 0 – it should, in my opinion, be conducted
prior to step 1. This is the process of self-introspection. Using the techniques noted previously
(e.g. 360 degree feedback etc.). When designing the experience needed, leaders must honestly
test their own belief systems for alignment and ask themselves if they hold these beliefs and if
Page 97
they tend to behave in a manner that supports these beliefs. Lack of alignment will likely be
seen by others and will be dismissed as lacking authenticity and believability.
Recognizing the right behaviors

In order to reinforce the beliefs and related behaviors, it is important for leaders to actively
look for and recognize positive beliefs that support the new culture, but also observe and
comment on negative beliefs and behaviors. It is essential that employees learn about both. For
example, using the safety example described previously, if a leader later observes an employee
acting or behaving in accordance with the safety experience previously provided, then it is
essential to make specific note of this and recognize the positive impact this belief and behavior
has for the organization as a whole. The notion of “recognition” does not imply a reward, but is
rather simply providing positive reinforcement to the individual and the group in the moment.
Similarly if the leader observes someone acting in contradiction to this experience, this must
also be noted and brought to the individuals’ attention.
Ensuring that culture change is measured, tracked and reviewed

Peter Drucker is credited with the quote, “What get measured gets managed”, and my
experience suggests this is especially true and important with culture change which can be
considered fairly “warm and fuzzy” to some companies and leaders. From a leadership
standpoint, making sure that a senior leader is accountable for measuring, tracking and
reporting progress on culture change is essential.
Reflections
While senior leaders, in particular the CEO, play a critical role in leading culture change, their
tangible impact on the entire organization is limited. The reason for this, as Schein has
commented, is that culture is forged through the day-to-day interactions that people have with
leaders and co-workers moment by moment. When these interactions are generally successful,
then these beliefs and assumptions about how to operate and behave in the workplace are
fostered and embedded as culture. In larger, mature organizations, senior leaders, and in
particular the CEO, only rarely have the level of visibility and interaction needed to directly
nurture day-to-day assumptions, beliefs and behaviors. However, on balance, it is lower level
leaders, managers and other influential people that carry the greatest impact on the
organization at large. It is at this level that culture change initiatives should focus greater effort.
Page 98
References
Ahmadi, S. Salamzadeh, Y. Daraei, M. and Akbari, J. (2012). Relationship between
Organizational Culture and Strategy Implementation: Typologies and Dimensions. Global
Business and Management Research Journal.
Aronson, E. (2008). The Social Animal. 10th Edition. Worth Publishers.
& Sons.
Connors, R. and Smith, T. (2011). Change the Culture Change the Game. Penguin Group.
Dawson, C. (2010). Leading Culture Change: What Every CEO Needs to Know. Stanford
University Press.
Hammerich, K. and Lewis, R. (2013). Fish Can’t See Water: How National Culture Can Make or
Break your Corporate Strategy. John Wiley & Sons.
Kahneman, Daniel (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. New York.
Katzenberg, J. and Aguirre, D. (2013). Culture and the Chief Executive. Strategy+Business.
Reprint Booz&co.
Keller, S. and Aiken, C. (2013). The Inconvenient Truth About Change Management. McKinsey &
Company.
Merchant, N. (2011) Culture Trumps Strategy, Every Time.

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/03/culture_trumps_strategy_every.html
Read, I. (2014). Shape Your Culture, Shape Your Company’s Future.

http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140402135914-322581966-shape-your-culture-
shape-your-company-s-future
Sartain, L. and Daily, B. (2013). Cracking the Culture Code. RoundPegg.
Schein, E. (2009). The Corporate Culture Survival Guide. Jossey Bass.
Slater, S., Olson, E., and Finnegan, C. (2010). Business strategy, marketing organization culture,
and performance. Published online: Springer Science+Business Media.
Page 99
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/225581550_Business_strategy_marketing_organizati
on_culture_and_performance
Visco, D. (2010). Changing Mindset and Behavior for 5S Sustainment.

http://5sbestpractices.ning.com/forum/topics/changing-mindset-and-behavior
Page 100
Chapter 8: Phase 2: Analyze
Introduction
The Analyze Phase is primarily about understanding culture and identifying the kinds of
obstacles and changes that may be needed to craft a new culture that is supportive of the new
business strategy.
Factors to consider in Analyze Phase
Assessing and understanding culture

I often find that companies confuse two different needs and methods—one is for deeply
understanding culture and the other is for measuring and tracking culture change. These are
different and they are conducted in different ways. A variety of surveys are available and are
often used in an attempt to assess and understand organizational cultures. I have seldom found
these to be useful in gaining an insight into whether an organization’s culture is supportive of
strategy implementation or not. These surveys can be useful in measuring and tracking culture
change, but they should not be confused with understanding culture. Schein (2010) is quite
emphatic of the point that surveys “do not and cannot measure culture”. Most importantly
Schein comments that surveys simply cannot determine the deeper tacit assumptions of
employees. Ethnographic type methods are required for this level of understanding and insight,
but the drawback of these methods is that, in a formal sense, they can require experts to
conduct the ethnographic process, and this process can be lengthy and to some degree invasive
and disruptive in a work environment.
In his wonderfully insightful and penetrating book, Working, Studs Terkel (1972) interviews
hundreds of everyday American workers about their work lives. He describes the interview
techniques for inquiry deep beneath the surface, beyond what is possible with survey or
interview questions:
“I realized quite early in this adventure that interviews conventionally conducted were
meaningless. The interview and answer technique may be of some value in determining
favored detergents, toothpaste and deodorants, but not in the discovery of men and
women. There were questions of course, but they were casual in nature – at the
beginning: the kind you ask while having a drink with someone. The talk was idiomatic
rather than academic. In short, it was a conversation. In time, the sluice gates of
dammed up hurts and dreams were opened.”
Page 101
What Studs Terkel was doing, without describing it as such, was ethnographic observation and
conversation, and the results were more penetrating than most formal surveys or interviews
could ever produce.
Schein does outline a process that I have applied very successfully. In-house human resources
professionals can be trained in these techniques and the process can be implemented fairly
quickly and relatively inexpensively. The processes described here are useful when there is a
need for a rapid assessment of business unit culture that is not dependent on external experts
and does not require surveys. These ethnographic processes focus on aspects of culture that
surveys cannot assess effectively, namely the artifacts, espoused values and shared tacit
assumptions of employees within a business unit, region or country. The processes do require
that we train and support a select number of HR individuals who deeply understand their
business units, and provide them with a standardized set of skills and some support to think
about culture and identify the primary characteristics or themes of culture within their business
units. It is important to implement these skills of analysis with a clear scope or focus, for
example clarifying the specific organization and business challenge that is being targeted,
whether that be a team, business unit, geographical region or an entire organization. Before
proceeding with this analysis, it is important for the person or team tasked with understanding
culture to challenge business unit leadership to clearly answer the question “What problem are
you trying to solve that suggests the need for deeper understanding of our culture?” The
importance in having this dialogue is to ensure clear understanding of what the change agenda
is. For example there may be a new business strategy that requires new ways of thinking and
behaving, or there may be a merger or acquisition about to take place that requires a “new way
of thinking and working”.
Selective ethnographic analysis

Selective ethnographic analysis (SEA) is a subset of techniques within the broader discipline of
ethnography that applies primarily in organizational settings. More importantly SEA focuses on
specific business challenges and problems. With a focus on culture transformation, these skills
are focused on answering the following question:
 In the context of a business unit attempting to execute its business strategy and achieve
its business goals, what are the cultural characteristics (tacit assumptions, beliefs and
behaviors) that enable or support execution, and what inhibits execution?
In many cases, people may not be able to answer this question if they are simply asked,
because these assumptions and beliefs are tacit. The phrase “fish can’t see water” is often
applied to this phenomenon because when people have been working in an environment for
many years, it is difficult to be objective.
Page 102
The following are a set of techniques that can be applied to understanding business unit culture
at a deeper level than surveys can typically assess:
Focus Groups
The following steps assume that you have defined the scope of analysis, and have assembled a
representative group:
Step 1: Select members: This step involves identifying representative groups for the
assessment. This should be based on the scope of the business you are trying to assess. It is
preferable to identify individuals that understand the organization at a tactical working level.
Often the most senior leaders do not understand what is going on at a grassroots level. Smaller
groups of about 10 or fewer are preferable. It is also preferable not to include people of greatly
differing seniority in the same groups.
Step 2: Introduce members to the discussion: It is useful to have an experienced facilitator run
the meeting. The meeting should be introduced with a specific objective, namely the business
objective or problem noted earlier. The facilitator should lead a discussion on the business
objective or problem to ensure that the context is understood by the members.
Step 3: Present a short overview of culture: Provide an overview of culture and how to discuss
it. Schein’s 3-Level model with a brief overview of each level provides a foundation for this
discussion and is relatively simple.
Step 4: Facilitate the discussion on culture: While Schein proposes working through each of the
three levels of culture separately, I have found that this is unnecessary. In order to quickly delve
into cultural issues which either enable, or are obstacles to achieving the stated business
results, the following are examples of questions that can be posed:
1. How would you describe how work is done here? I also emphasize that the telling of
specific stories are helpful in understanding the context and culture.
2. What do you think is going on in people’s minds (what are their assumptions and beliefs
about work) that make them behave the way they do? Where do you think these
beliefs and assumptions come from?
3. What are the strongest aspects of your culture that you think will help your business
achieve its goals and objectives? Where do you think these beliefs and assumptions
come from?
4. What do you think are the weaker aspects to your culture that may inhibit your
business in achieving its goals and objectives? Where do you think these beliefs and
assumptions come from?
Page 103
5. Consider an example of when you and your team (or some other group you know of)
achieved a major goal or objective that was remarkable and surprising. What do you
think were the underlying mindset factors that led to this success? How did leaders and
managers react to this success?
6. Consider an example when you and your team (or some other group you know of)
failed to achieve a major goal or objective. What were the mindset factors that led to
this shortcoming? How did leaders and managers react to this shortcoming?
7. Overall, what do you think are the most important beliefs and assumptions that all
employees should have in order to achieve your business goals and objectives?
Qualifying people’s responses

During this dialogue it is important for the facilitator to inquire about WHY the participants feel
that these cultural factors either enable or hinder business results. This is important because,
people often raise issues simply because they personally find these characteristics appealing or
unpleasant in the workplace, rather than because the characteristics are effective from a
performance standpoint. For example, in some work situations, the need for teams to
collaborate is essential, but in other situations collaborating may be unnecessary and could be a
huge waste of people’s time. What is important in this analysis is whether these cultural
characteristics support or impede business results. It may be valuable to frequently ask, “How
do you think that characteristic or behavior helps or hinders people being successful or
achieving business results?” An example of this is an “overbearing” leader who constantly
pushes people to deliver more, faster. People may relate stories of how unpleasant this person
is, but the important issue is whether this leader’s beliefs and behavioral characteristics
produce high performance on a consistent basis, not simply whether people find the individual
pleasant or not.
Other important Considerations:

 Take many notes during your observations. It is the aggregation of data from these
notes that allow you to “connect the dots” and determine common themes.
 Stay focused on what the purpose of your observations is—namely to determine the
cultural characteristics (tacit assumptions, beliefs and behaviors) that enable or support
execution, and what inhibits execution.
 Observe what leaders say during formal presentations versus how they operate and
what they say in less formal settings—are they consistent in their dialogue and
interaction?
 Listen to how people interact and converse during meetings and in less formal
situations, like during break times or at lunch. Does the dialogue provide you with any
clues to people’s tacit assumptions and beliefs about work?
Page 104
 Observe how employees interact with senior leaders or managers versus when they are
working among themselves. Does their behavior change or stay the same?
 How are decisions made during meetings? Does the entire team get involved and
brainstorm or does everyone wait for the managers to speak first?
 How are problems handled?
 Observe the physical work environment—the physical workspace, equipment, desks and
other resources people have to perform their work. Do comments made, or beliefs
emerging, relate to the physical work environment?
 Observe events or rituals such as the recognition of people and teams for successes, or
simply to enhance mood and create a better work environment. Investigate whether
these rituals are promoted by leadership or someone else. Consider what these rituals
might imply to other themes that have emerged.
Focused interviews and discussions:

Focused interviews can either be formal or informal. Informal discussions are often more
effective given that people are more likely to be relaxed. If you have identified a behavioral or
belief trend, there is often value in digging more deeply into the topic by identifying someone
who may understand this theme and who may be willing to share their thoughts and
understanding of the topic.
Take every opportunity you can to engage with people in conversation. In your normal course
of interacting with people, ask them for their insights on how they think work could be more
effective and efficient and what they feel are the obstacles to their team achieving its goals.
Coding and aggregating data

It is likely that you will be gathering data from a variety of sources including linking and
referring to other qualitative data, such as employee engagement surveys. You will also have
your ethnographic data from longer-term observations and discussions, formal and informal
interviews and focus groups. It is important that the researcher/facilitator aggregates various
sources of data to ensure that information gleaned from one person or a small group is not
assumed to be a broadly held opinion.
While there is sophisticated software for aggregating and coding qualitative data, it is quite
effective to simply capture your notes into a Microsoft Word or Excel document. Developing
the disciple of capturing your insights at the end of every day is valuable so that your
observations don’t get lost over time. As you are capturing your notes highlight key words or
phrases that you think are pertinent. At regular periods go back through your notes and begin
to aggregate themes that have emerged from you highlights. Themes may emerge from
Page 105
frequency of occurrence as well as importance based on where you made the observation, or
who provided the information. Once these trends emerge, give them a title or name and
possibly a brief description.
Ethical and confidentiality considerations

Acting in your ethnography role, you are almost always collecting some kind of data. In formal
focus groups and interviews it is important to follow the client’s confidentiality rules, however
it is not possible to apply these rules to ongoing, day-to-day unofficial observations and
conversations. In these informal situations the one requirement is that data must be captured
with no relationship to the informant.
Determining the scope of culture change

I noted previously that shifting organizational culture is possibly the most challenging kind of
change any organization can undertake. The reason is that most organizations are better at
changing the “hard stuff”, work processes, structures and systems, and less effective at
changing people’s hearts, minds and behaviors. Senior leaders should therefore be cautious
and considerate about embarking on a culture change initiative. There are scenarios in which
companies are struggling to execute strategy and subjectively feel that their culture is holding
them back. However, this may not be the case. I have experienced situations in companies
where the real problem was a bad strategy that most employees disagreed with and therefore
resisted. Leaders should give some thought into whether culture change is actually needed.
A simple process for applying the culture change checklist

I have effectively developed and applied a simple checklist that provides a conversational
framework for leaders to understand the key elements of driving culture change, and having a
facilitated dialogue about where they may be in the journey of strategy execution and culture
change. This dialogue and subsequent greater understanding provides an initial understanding
of what may be required, where they currently stand in the process of strategy execution, and
what they may need to do further to progress on culture change. The way I introduce the value
of this facilitated process is to pose the question to leaders on what they think “transformation
looks like”; in other words, what approach are they taking, if any, and how are they progressing
in each of the phases of transformation. I emphasize to them that there is no right or wrong
answer, but that this is simply a valuable starting point to get everyone on the same page and
talking the same language. Most often they are unable to answer this question. At the least
they, as a leadership team, usually do not agree on their approach to transformation and differ
significantly in their opinions on how they are progressing. When the leaders recognize this
level of fragmentation, this acknowledgement is a successful outcome in itself. As Kahneman
notes, senior executives tend toward overconfidence and will dismiss topics they consider
Page 106
trivial or below them. Posing the question, “What does transformation look like?” upfront tends
to reduce this hubris. This also sets the stage to move to the more detailed phase in use of the
checklist, namely talking through each of the questions or statements and fostering debate and
discussion. During these deeper discussions I push for some level of consensus amongst the
group on the rating (1 to 5) of each question or statement. This is important, not because the
rating needs to be exact, but because the rating produces rich dialogue and greater mutual
understanding of culture transformation. It also produces a chart (see example below) that is a
simple and highly visual picture of where they think they are on the overall transformation
process, even if they are only starting. This creates a baseline to assess progress over time.
Figure 12: Culture Transformation Assessment Chart
While not based on any statistical validation, my guidance to leaders is that they consider at
least a four, out of a possible five, to be the required score in each dimension to the target for a
successful culture transformation effort. Because the dimensions are so interdependent, any
dimension rating of less than three compromises the entire culture change program. An
extreme example of this interdependency is a poor rating in “Mobilizing a strong leadership
coalition”. I call the leadership dimension the “fatal flaw”—in other words, if this dimension is
weak, the entire process will likely fail because strong leadership is essential for all other
elements to work effectively.
The power of this simple visual and the dialogue around it, is similar to Kahneman’s “close your
eyes” approach with experts and professionals—it invites them to take an objective step back
from the checklist and ask themselves a question that leverages their deep knowledge and
experience: “Does this chart reflect the scope of our culture change challenge and does it
Page 107
reflect our current state of performance?” In other words they are invited to weigh in with their
“expert” experience on the final result. I have found that the preceding conversation to this
question almost always produces a “yes” answer and a recognition that they need to do more
in key areas of culture transformation. This conversation not only develops greater insight into
what Kahneman calls the “illusion of skill” that many senior executives have, but also maximizes
the acceptance and ownership that these leaders must have to move this process forward and
make it succeed. They are then able to develop transformation plans in a more systematic way,
mobilize project teams to drive this work, and periodically check back in to assess progress.
From assessment and prediction to implementation

Often, out of these conversations, these leaders emerge more focused and aligned. They are
more inclined to mobilize the people and other resources needed to develop culture
transformation plans and to begin to execute and track those plans.
The Culture Change Checklist

(NOTE: The assessment checklist displayed is an example developed for purposes of
explanation, and would need to be customized for use by different client companies)
Figure 13: Culture Transformation Checklist
Page 108
NOTE: An expansion of this discussion on the use of checklists can be found in Appendix 2 of
this eBook.
Reflections
A brief checklist that is used to facilitate a discussion with senior leaders is a simple but
effective way to get a leadership team thinking and understanding what is involved in shifting
culture and where they currently stand as a company or a division in their strategy-culture-
leadership alignment. It is often interesting (if not surprising) for the team to find how disparate
they are in their views on the various categories. Understanding these differences is part of the
alignment process. This process can also be used as a tracking mechanism over the duration of
the effort.
Finally, many companies rely on surveys to understand culture, and these are seldom insightful.
However, once culture is better understood through ethnographic techniques, surveys are
more useful in tracking culture change over time.
Page 109
Chapter 9: Phase 3: Construct
Introduction
The FACES approach and diagram shown at the beginning of this section depicts an approach to
culture change that focuses first on articulating business strategy and plans, mobilizing the
work and the projects designed to execute and operate effective and efficient work, and
subsequently identifying the behavioral and cultural factors that may be obstacles facing
leaders, managers and teams. The approach requires a disciplined project-managed structure
largely because there will most likely be multiple corporate functions, business units, leaders
and managers involved. This involvement requires extensive organization and planning.
The “Construct” phase is focused on constructing an integrated project plan for all of the
elements of the House of Culture that are considered to be important for shifting an
organization’s culture and mobilizing the necessary resources required to drive the initiative
forward in a structured and disciplined manner.
NOTE: Given that this eBook is not intended to explain the elements of project and program
management per se, I do not expand on the project management specific aspects in detail.
Factors to consider in Construct Phase
The Program Management Office (PMO)

In a large multi-business organization, especially if it is global, there are likely to be multiple
initiatives needed to shift culture. If one considers the scope of elements described in the
House of Culture, there are likely to be numerous projects implemented over time. The model
for the “House of Culture” provides the program management office with the scope of the
kinds of initiatives that may be needed to shift culture. It also provides an indication of the
resources and skills that may be needed to orchestrate and manage the culture change
initiative. Most of these projects will likely require sequencing and coordination to be effective.
For example, there is little value in engaging large numbers of employees early on in culture
change unless senior executives are fully aware of what their roles are for influencing change,
and are prepared to execute this role in advance. Given this complexity, a program
management office is often needed. A Project Management Office, abbreviated to PMO, is
defined in Wikipedia as:
“A group or department within a business, agency or enterprise that defines and

maintains standards for project management within the organization. The PMO strives
to standardize and introduce economies of repetition in the execution of projects. The
Page 110
PMO is the source of documentation, guidance and metrics on the practice of project
management and execution … and relates to governing the management of several
related projects”.
However, there is a cautionary reminder with setting up a PMO, and this is to keep its structure
lean and streamlined. PMO’s can often become bureaucratic, cumbersome and top heavy.
However, they can provide a benefit in providing the coordination of activities, particularly as it
relates to timing and sequencing of projects. As depicted in the diagram below, the PMO is
usually headed by a Program Director, and is supported by a project manager (or project
managers, depending on the size and scope of the initiative) amongst others. These members
would be considered the core program management team. Other members of the PMO are
described in more detail below.
While the PMO may provide consulting and guidance to business units and geographic regions,
I would also caution about the PMO adopting an approach that dictates to the business units
and geographic regions about what they should be doing and when. While there is an
important benefit to having a standardized approach to culture change that is recommended
for business units to follow, how this standardized approach is interpreted and customized for
each business unit will likely be quite different, depending on the uniqueness of these business
units. A dictatorial PMO can result in business units adopting an attitude that ensures that the
PMO fails.
Page 111
Figure 14: The Program Office Structure
Business and Regional

Executive Sponsors
Leaders
Program Management Office

• Program Director
• Project management
• Communications manager
• “House of Culture” functional
leads
Projects teams for The House of Culture Projects
Building Block of the “House of Culture”
Senior Leadership
All projects considered important in the scope of the House of Culture should
Strategy Alignment
Story Telling
be represented in the PMO. Some of these initiatives may be pertinent at a Business &
Trusted
Middle Managers
& Supervisors
Workflow optimization
Reward and Recognition Employees

National Culture
Behavioral experiences
Behavioral coaching
Influencers and
Change Agents
corporate level (such as performance management) while others may be Regional
Talent Management
specific to the needs of a business unit (for example, talent or skills Representatives
development)
The Business
Intel Internal Only 1

Executive Sponsorship (and it’s not Human Resources)
While senior leadership should sponsor culture change and perform specific roles, a number of
functional units within the organization are likely to be involved to ensure that there is broad
business ownership and accountability for culture change. What I have found to be problematic
is when the senior executive team nominates human resources leadership to be in charge of
culture change. This almost always creates the impression that the culture change initiative is
an HR function and the businesses themselves don’t have to be involved. Indeed, culture
change is all about the business and how day-to-day work takes place. If HR is made
accountable, business often abdicate their ownership roles and this is likely to result in failure.
This is not to say that HR’s role is unimportant, clearly they have an important supportive role,
as is indicated by the key elements described in the House of Culture with initiatives for
leadership development, management capability and processes such as recruitment and
performance management.
Business and Regional Leaders

It is essential that the senior leaders of the various businesses and geographic regions be
accountable for the culture change. This accountability implies that they need to determine
whether their business unit’s culture aligns and supports the execution of their business
strategies in the same way that they are held accountable for strategy execution and business
Page 112
results. If a particular business unit’s or region’s leadership team does not feel that their culture
requires a shift, they should not be forced or required to implement changes. They should
however be subsequently tested on this decision later depending on their ability to execute
strategy and produce business results. They should be asked to justify their decision based on
culture assessment data typically developed in the Assessment phase of the FACES sequence. If
leaders decide they do not require culture change, they should be held accountability for lack of
strategic performance if ultimately their “culture trumps strategy”.
Project Teams for the House of Culture Projects

Once scoping of the initiative is complete, the program management team will be in a position
to determine which corporate functional groups (based on elements considered important in
the House of Culture) might need to be involved. As described under the Section describing the
“House of Culture”, representatives and teams from corporate functions that have a role in
shaping culture should be linked with the PMO. It is through these relationships that the
building blocks of the “House of Culture” become aligned. For example, culture change always
requires that leaders identify and begin to role-model new behaviors, but if the executive
leadership development and training functions are not involved in the culture change effort,
these important aspects will be missing from the change process. In situations like this, leaders
could unknowingly undermine the culture change initiative by role modeling the wrong
behaviors. Similarly middle managers may be undergoing training that is in direct contrast to
the new culture being developed. It is essential that all of these groups work together and are
in alignment on the approach to, and the goals for, culture change. In most cases I have found
that it is initially better to cast the net wider and invite more corporate functions to be involved
versus ignoring certain groups and later finding that there has been a gap in planning, or worse,
during execution. By including these groups upfront, they will have an opportunity to
understand and recommend the degree to which they have an impact on shifting the culture.
An example of this is where representatives from core business processes (for example
performance management processes and talent management processes) may not be
represented only to find that as culture and behavior begin to change, so legacy processes
inhibit change and frustrate the efforts of managers and employees to adopt new behaviors.
Business and regional representatives

One of the mistakes that a corporate-driven culture change initiative can make is to focus on
changes at a corporate level only and ignore the fact that culture and behavior change is really
needed where the “real” work takes place, in other words in the business units and
geographical regions. Developing some form of structural relationship to involve the various
businesses is essential. Not all businesses or geographic regions may need to be involved in
advance, but the executive sponsors should provide some guidance on which businesses should
Page 113
be involved based on need or urgency. Further, representatives from these business units or
geographic regions must be relatively senior decision-makers. A warning sign is where business
leaders assign junior level managers or people with little authority and influence simply as an
appeasement to the request.
Developing a plan for execution

The PMO team is responsible for developing the overall plan for shifting culture and this plan
needs to be developed for the unique circumstances of the organization. But while no single
approach can be applied to every organization, there are some fundamental principles and
sequencing issues that are important to consider, and these are discussed below. Most of the
key elements of the example plan described below are compiled based on the outcome of the
Analyze phase in which the elements of the House of Culture are assessed. The projects
constructed and sequenced are based on the strengths and weaknesses identified during that
analysis process. For example, if the senior leadership team is well aligned on strategy, working
well as a team and supportive of the culture change initiative and their specific roles, then this
aspect of the project plan would not require as much attention and resources. In most
companies however, this is usually an area of weakness and many of resources are allocated to
get leaders on board and understand their roles in shifting culture. This need may require that
other aspects of the overall plan get pushed out, for example engaging all employees in the
change or engaging influencers or mid managers.
The culture change program and its sequenced project plans explained below is an example
that explains the kinds of initiatives that are likely to be needed in a culture change process.
The descriptions also provide some insight into the sequencing and inter-dependencies
amongst initiatives:
Page 114
Figure 15: An Example of a FACES Projects Sequence
“FACES” PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

FOCUS ANALYZE CONSTRUCT EXECUTE SUSTAIN
Clarify business strategy (and Leaders regularly dialogue with employees on strategic direction and how specific cultural
define critical cultural attributes) attributes drive strategy execution
Leaders aligned and

Leaders are engaged on their roles in creating behavioral experiences that forge culture
trained/coached on roles
Identify House of Culture The PMO team work with leaders to determine which House of Culture elements
enablers and obstacles to leverage and identify obstacles to over come.
House of Culture projects Projects would be sequenced in a way that makes sense for the
mobilized and executed organization including high-impact business processes and policies
Leaders role model, create Leaders perform the critical role of initially acting out
behavioral experiences & the new behaviors in a highly visible manner to
recognize behaviors in others ensure employees get-it
Influencer Group
This group of “change champions” are identified and
mobilized and
trained throughout the organization
trained
All employees are engaged
Processes and systems are implemented to
in understanding the new
engage all employees
culture
Key aspects of the House of Culture are critical to ongoing
Sustainability Processes
sustainability of the new culture. These are designed and
Implemented
implemented
Project Tracking and The PMO develops a culture change scorecard and tracks and reports progress to the leadership
Measurement team
Clarify business strategy and define critical cultural attributes: As noted previously, strategy
and culture are two sides of the same coin. Project activities here include employee
engagement programs in which business strategy is explained and debated. This should not be
a one-way communications exercise from the top down, but rather the opportunity to engage
in a debate with employees on the logic of the business strategy and how their roles are critical
to execution. In some companies this is all that is needed for employees to become motivated
to change behavior because they are deeply committed to the company and they want to be
successful. In other words, they implicitly know and feel that when the company is successful,
they are successful. In other companies with low trust cultures and an “us and them” mindset,
much more is usually needed to engage employees.
Leaders aligned and trained on their roles: In my experience, this is the most important but the
most difficult aspect of culture change. Business leaders are generally so focused on their core
business issues, culture is seen as less important, frustrating and uncomfortable. If sponsors of
the culture change are fully committed, they will need to place a priority on the role of the
leadership teams of the various businesses that require change. This work is often led by the
firm’s executive development group and often executive coaches are involved. Despite the
emphasis that organizations committed to leadership development make, I find that they still
Page 115
emphasize what they know. What they know is generally more focused on executive training
and development programs and the development of basic leadership skills. They tend to ignore
the need for leaders to know how to role-model new behaviors and most specifically, to create
behavioral experiences that foster culture change day by day and moment by moment. My
recommendations for this initiative are to focus on providing leaders with specific training and
coaching on the techniques of role modeling and creating behavioral experiences.
House of Culture enablers and obstacles identified and projects mobilized: This is where
experience and a bit of “artwork” is useful. During the Analyze phase of the FACES process, the
key elements of culture are assessed and the strengths and deficits of each of these elements
are determined. This assessment is then compared with the culture characteristics profile that
leaders believe is necessary to execute business strategy. These may be factors such as the
need to become more agile and nimble in identifying new business opportunities or executing
plans faster with quicker decision-making. There are likely to be many different permutations of
these in different companies. Mergers or acquisitions can be particularly challenging. The
challenges are seldom simple or easy to identify. For example, considering the need to become
more agile and nimble in identifying new business opportunities, the PMO team may have
identified during their culture Analysis phase that managers tend to avoid taking accountability
because the firm does not tolerate failures, rather they have a culture of punishing mistakes.
The result is that managers may subtly avoid making decisions and taking accountability thus
slowing everything down. On the other hand, cumbersome business processes may also slow
down execution of plans. With these examples, it is clear that it is not just a cultural problem,
it’s also a business process problem and the PMO must consider and plan to overcome the
intersection of both behavior (managers avoiding taking accountability) and process
(cumbersome business processes). Identifying these intersections, and creating plans to
overcome them is part of the “art” of this phase. The experience aspect of planning will be to
decide how much change to plan for. In other words, how many change initiatives can business
leaders and their teams deal with at any one time. It is up to the PMO to understand this and
create a plan that it uniquely designed for the needs and circumstances of the company.
Leaders role model behaviors, create behavioral experiences and recognize behaviors in
others: As I have noted previously, it is almost sure that for a culture shift to take place, one
aspect of the House of Culture that is almost always needed is for leaders to deeply understand
what their organizational culture currently is, the specific behaviors needed to shift culture and
their roles in role modeling and creating behavioral experiences that employees understand
and are able to mimic. Planning for this usually includes an assessment of the capabilities of
leaders, in other words which leaders are likely to need a lot of support and help, and which
leaders are likely to handle this well. In some cases this review may determine that certain
leaders are simply not the right fit for the new strategy-culture alignment and must be moved.
Page 116
Influencer group is identified, mobilized and trained: As explained in the section on the House
of Culture, developing a network of change champions is almost always a critical aspect of a
culture change effort. Particularly in large global organizations, senior leaders are simply too
few and too high level to be visibly seen role modeling new behaviors and creating experiences
needed to shift culture. This influencer network should include mid-level managers and other
respected and influential people. The planning for this would include developing a profile of an
influencer, defining their roles very clearly, identifying and contacting these individuals,
motivating them to volunteer and then providing them with some training and coaching on
their roles. Other important aspects of planning would include creating collaboration forums
(virtual meetings and communities) in which these individuals can interact, ask questions,
receive answers about best practices and generally feel part of a larger community
championing change across the organization. In most cases, for this group to be effective, a
small dedicated team would be needed to plan, execute and facilitate the activities of this
group.
As mentioned earlier, mid-managers are a critical group of leaders because they are much
closer to where hands-on work takes place and influence behavior every hour of every day.
With this in mind, they are a unique group of influencers, and warrant special attention.
Managers and frontline supervisors are where “the rubber meets the road” when it comes to
fostering new behaviors and shifting culture. While senior leaders have a major impact on
overall strategic direction and organization wide cultural characteristics, it is mid-managers who
have the greatest impact on day-to-day work. While much of the influencer network is likely to
be mid-management level, they are usually a smaller group. In a large multi-national company
there may well be thousands of mid-level managers, and it is essential to engage these
individuals in order that they understand the importance of culture and their roles in changing
it. The following are some key things that managers should be able to understand and apply:
 How to understand the culture of their work teams.

 Be able to describe and articulate the kinds of tacit assumptions and behaviors that are
needed to be successful.
 Understand whether the tacit assumptions and behaviors are supportive or obstacles to
executing company strategy.
 Have some level of self-awareness of how their own personal assumptions and
behaviors are supportive or obstructive to change in their areas of responsibility.
Sometimes this requirement may need personalized coaching and guidance.
 Know how to role model and create behavioral experiences for the right kinds of
behaviors needed to perform their work in a way that supports the new business
strategy.
Page 117
All employees are engaged in understanding the new culture: Because culture change is about
changing how employees think and act, it is implicit that employees need to be part of the
change. But many companies are reluctant to engage employees. In most cases their reasons
have to do with not wanting to disrupt or overwhelm employees and force them to “take their
eyes off the ball”. But the reality is that for culture to change, employees are the ones that
need to change how they think and act. They need to be engaged in some manner if this
change is to take place. However, there are ways that this can be achieved with limited
negative impact. Here are a few suggestions:
 For large employee audiences, today’s sophisticated social collaboration technologies

provide powerful processes and forums that encourage and allow employees to become
engaged in a way that does not take people out of work for long periods and remove
them from the workplace. The “Facebook”–type social or collaborative forum allows
employees to collaborate dynamically all throughout the day when it is convenient and
when they have time and with limited impact on work.
 Do not target all employees at one time. These kinds of company-wide, broad initiatives
are generally too high level to be meaningful to employees. They will tend to ignore
them because they cannot personalize behavior change messaging to themselves and
their work circumstances. Rather prioritize groups or teams that need to change with
unique messaging tailored to their circumstances.
 Focus on specific business challenges and the behaviors needed to solve them.
Employees often are energized about having the opportunity to be empowered and get
involved in challenges that are meaningful to them. In my experience, when this is done,
teams will even get together over weekends or their own free time in order to have
more time to be innovative and solve problems. It is most impactful to be very specific
on what employees should focus on. Get employees to focus on two key factors, namely
the key business problems or obstacles hindering execution of business strategy and
plans, and the behaviors that are needed for this kind of execution.
 Ensure that leaders and influencers are deeply involved in these problem-solving
engagement forums. Most often, employees will energetically identify and propose
improvements, but if leaders are not involved, these proposals may be ignored or
employees simply may not have the decision-making capability to get things done. If this
happens, the engagement process will quickly fade.
Sustainability processes are implemented: Some organizations run the risk of declaring victory
too soon. Because culture change is difficult, many leaders will push to declare victory as soon
as some minor improvements are demonstrated and will want to move on. This is often a big
mistake. If cultural changes are not entrenched, new processes and systems that encourage
new behaviors are not in place, and new behavioral habits created, it is likely that the
Page 118
improvements will not stick. The PMO team should review all elements of the House of Culture
and their plans, and ask the questions “what aspect of this component (for example, helping
mid-managers role model new behaviors) should continue in order to cultivate culture change
in the long-term, and what would tend to allow the culture to slide back to the past if it is
abandoned”?
Sustainability plans could include:
 Enhancements to Human Resources processes to ensure that they support and foster
the new culture. Some of these could include:
o Performance management processes that encourage discussions on new
behaviors
o Talent management processes that hire, develop and promote people that both
fit the new culture and let go people that do not.
o Employee collaboration forums are institutionalized to maintain a focus on
solving business problems and fostering new behaviors that improve how work
gets done.
o Recognition programs that do not simply focus on business outcomes, but also
recognize the enabling behaviors that produce these results.
o Leader development and coaching programs are enhanced to include behavioral
role techniques and methods. In other words, this activity is not simply for
culture change “program”, but is an ongoing process.
 Rituals can be developed that maintain a focus on the new culture. These could include
visible celebrations and reward programs to place a lens in ongoing cultural change.
 The corporate group that manages office space and buildings can ensure that
workspaces reflect and support the new culture with new ways of working.
 Business processes that hinder new behaviors are assessed and optimized continuously.
Also, when business process optimization experts review core business processes, one
of their assessment criteria should be the degree to which the processes enable or
inhibit the new culture.
Program and progress tracking:

Organizations are increasingly data-rich and information driven. A culture change initiative
should be no different. The PMO needs to develop a rich scorecard that allows it to report to
the senior leaders sponsors and demonstrate the progress being made, where gaps may exist
and provide indicators that point to solutions for these gaps. Given the tendency for culture
change initiatives to be considered “warm and fuzzy”, it is essential that the PMO develop a
robust scorecard. This scorecard is a vital tool for making decisions on corrective action, or for
Page 119
deciding when one of the House of Culture initiatives is producing results and can be de-
escalated or transformed into a sustainable process.
Reflections
As noted above, this is where the “art” of culture transformation takes place. But there is a risk
of taking the “artistic license” too far and developing a program and project plan that looks
great on paper, but touches on too many aspects of the “House of Culture” and overwhelms
the business. This risk is greatest when the business itself is not leading the culture change
initiative and especially when external consultants are involved trying to justify their presence.
Sometimes “less is more” and this is again where the “art” and experience plays a big role.
Page 120
Chapter 10: Phase 4: Execute
Introduction
As described earlier in the Construct Phase, there will likely be numerous sequenced projects
and initiatives that need to be executed to shift culture. The Execute phase is really where the
“rubber meets the road” so to speak. There are a number of important factors to consider in
preparing for this phase:
Factors to consider in Execute Phase

Are business leaders really on board and supportive?: More often than not, most leaders do
not spend their time and energy thinking about culture. They will more likely think a lot about
business strategy, its execution and schedules amongst other factors, but don’t usually
emphasize the “other side of the coin” which is culture. There will be a tendency for leaders to
become embroiled in day-to-day business problems, and while this is predictable, this can
seriously derail a culture change initiative. Below are some of the ways that leaders can be kept
on board and motivated to perform their roles in shifting and nurturing culture:
 The PMO team must be cautious about thinking that the culture change initiative is the
most important thing leaders should be thinking about – it’s usually not! Leaders have
businesses to lead and operate and the PMO must respect and acknowledge this fact
and make sure that leaders are aware of this understanding.
 Do not treat all business units and all regions the same. Some business units may not
require a culture change at all and may require more effort and some less. Leaders can
justifiably become frustrated at having to become engaged in culture change activities
simply because the CEO has endorsed it and they feel pressured to commit resources.
The culture change checklist described earlier in this Section is one way to help leaders
understand whether their organizations justify a transformation effort and the size and
scope of that effort. It needs to be their decision and they need to be accountable for
that decision.
 Provide as much support and coaching for senior leaders as possible. For example, if
self-awareness and changing their own behaviors is challenging or even intimidating to
certain individuals, then personal coaching can be a big help. This is essential for leaders
to be able to role model new behaviors and create learning experiences for those
around them.
 Limit the number of PMO meetings leaders have to attend.
Page 121
 As Professor Emeritus Edgar Schein told me emphatically, “stop talking about culture”.
Especially when it comes to interacting with leaders, focus initially on what the core
business challenges are, and only then talk about how culture and behavior changes can
help in executing their strategy and business plans more effectively.
Being careful not to overwhelm the businesses: PMO’s are important, but they can overdo
programs and projects that swamp the businesses and employees. Below are a few ideas on
how to manage this impact:
 Develop an impact map (sometimes called a “heat” map) of initiatives which analyzes
the degree to which these initiatives will impact the business and the capabilities of
these groups to absorb change. In areas of the business where “heat” is high and
readiness for change is low, find ways to limit the change, for example, limit or extend
project timing, or provide more support during times of high impact.
 Be cautious about developing employee engagement programs or communications
programs that require employees to be away from work for long periods unless
business leaders promote this kind of program.
 Find creative ways to inject culture related dialogue into existing work forums versus
creating unique forums just for culture dialogue. For example, the technique described
earlier for leaders role modeling and creating behavioral experiences can be (and
should be) applied organically during day-to-day work versus some kind of artificially
created forum.
Do you have A-teams leading and executing the various projects (and being careful of key
PMO leaders being moved out)?: It’s not uncommon for leaders to assign the B-team to join a
culture initiative. This may simply be because these leaders don’t quite understand the
importance of culture, or they simply may not have available resources. This can be somewhat
alleviated by limiting and sequencing the project more efficiently. In other words simply don’t
do as much all at once. Also, bringing on expert consultants to assist can be very beneficial
rather than drawing on internal resources, although this can be costly. Moreover, I have also
found that if leaders do place an A-team member to join, they will tend to remove the person
too quickly because they are needed elsewhere, and this can be extremely disruptive to
continuity. There is not necessarily an easy solution for this, other than emphasizing to leaders
upfront that this is something to avoid if at all possible. However, there are some benefits to
moving good A-team people onto the PMO projects and at the right time rolling them off into
the business as this can add to the group of committed influencers out in the business.
Getting interdependence between projects and sequencing right: I have experienced a strange
catch-22 situation when certain leaders have great passion and interest in culture change.
Initially this may seem wonderful, and often it is, but there is a potential problem to be aware
Page 122
of. These leaders may consider themselves culture experts, and because they are strong,
passionate leaders, they can tend to dictate how the culture change initiative is structured and
sequenced. As I have emphasized previously, the Construct phase must carefully sequence the
initiatives in a way that logically builds culture and behavior change over time. For example, a
leader may be really passionate about engaging all employees, but if there is lack of clarity on
business strategy, and no real understanding of the kind of culture needed to support strategy
execution, then engaging employees is a total waste of time and can damage your ability to
engage employees later.
Keeping the PMO and its key players motivated and onboard: Culture change initiatives are
almost always difficult, and to some degree PMO leaders and their project teams can feel like
they are swimming uphill if they are not receiving the right kind of support from leaders. As a
result, motivation can decline. Below are some ways I have applied, or seen applied, that have
worked well to keep motivation positive:
 Ensure that all projects constructed by the PMO understand how they are inter-
connected. This fosters a strong sense of interdependence. In other words, they feel like
they are a team that must work together to be successful. This is achieved by making
sure that all House of Culture initiatives are analyzed and constructed and sequenced as
a joint team. If the senior PMO members get together in isolation and decide what the
sequencing will be, there is the risk that the project owners and experts will feel ignored
and not aligned. Collective participation allows for a deeper understanding of, and
ownership for, the total integrated and sequenced program of House of Culture projects
by all members of the PMO.
 Compiling the culture change scorecard is an important PMO responsibility. Other than
the factors listed under the Construction Phase, the scorecard has another peripheral
benefit, that of motivating and keeping the PMO team motivated. The scorecard shows
progress, and all of us want to know when we are making progress and winning. The
scorecard provides this. The scorecard can also be used to recognize and reward
particular teams, as well as the entire PMO collectively for measurable progress.
 Have some fun. Culture change can be tough work and getting to know each other as
individuals, even outside of work in social settings, can add greatly to team synergy and
emotional connectedness.
Not declaring victory too soon: As noted earlier, this is a big risk. Given that culture change is
seldom viewed by senior leaders as the “other side of the business strategy coin”, senior
leaders can tend to want to declare victory and move on at the first sign of progress. But often
this is way too soon to entrench new behaviors and a new culture. In these cases, making sure
that the culture change scorecard includes metrics that demonstrate when culture is likely to
Page 123
be entrenched in the form of new habits can be a measurable indicator of when sustainable
progress has been made. This could be achieved by including questions in a culture survey (or
employee engagement survey) that asks employees the degree to which they observe the key
behaviors being exhibited in the normal course of business by leaders, managers and other
employees. If the survey scoring is on a 1 equals “never” and a 5 equals “all the time”
continuum, a result that suggests that culture is embedded is a collective rating of 4 or above.
My opinion on this “4 and above” indicator is not supported by statistical validation, but is
rather is my “gut” experience that this is about right.
Sun-setting the PMO with no continuity and poor transitioning to sustainability: While it is not
recommended that a PMO be maintained longer than needed, two factors have to be in place
before it can be safely dismantled. First, the issues noted above for “not declaring victory too
soon” should be in place. The second is that functions assembled within the PMO to lead and
execute House of Culture projects must continue to own their elements of culture change. So,
for example, the leadership development function should continue to include behavioral role
modeling and creating experiences in the leadership development programs. Also, the function
that owns employee engagement should continue to engage employees and so on. Some kind
of group, perhaps labeled the “Culture Change Collaborative” or some similar title, should be
created to maintain alignment between House of Culture initiatives. This group would also
maintain a focus specifically on the culture scorecard. This group should be sponsored by the
senior leadership and should be expected to continue to monitor culture through the scorecard
and report to the leadership team on progress.
Reflections
If there is one factor that I have frequently found to be the weak link in execution, it’s getting
leaders to perform their roles of understanding and role-modeling new behaviors. It’s not that
they don’t know that it is their role (although this is sometimes the case), it is mainly that they
think they are role modeling; the problem is that they do it in a vague and isolated fashion (in
large organizations, few people have direct interaction with senior leaders) and few employees
actually learn from it. It is essential that leaders throughout the organization learn the simple 5-
step technique for creating experiences and do it regularly.
Page 124
Chapter 11: Phase 5: Sustain
Introduction
The key to sustaining cultural change is to ensure that a number of the House of Culture
elements that foster the new culture are enhanced and embedded. If most of the House of
Culture projects have progressed well, but a few projects have struggled, then an assessment
should be done. Not all projects are equal in their impact on overall culture and sustainability.
Of all of the initiatives in the House of Culture, I would argue that there are a number of critical
elements that drive long-term sustainability. These are outlined below.
Factors to consider in Sustain Phase

Leaders’ role modeling and creating behavioral experiences: In my experience this is most
important. If you have achieved real momentum with leaders role-modeling and ultimately
developing new behavioral habits, you are unlikely to have long-term sustainability. If not your
initiative is likely on thin ice.
Core HR processes that impact behavior: These must be fundamentally changed to support the
new culture. For example, if the performance management system is not aligned to support
new cultural attributes, this will be a significant drag on progress. Also, if recruitment and
development processes and programs are not revamped to enable the new culture, the culture
change initiative will likely not be sustainable.
Engaging all employees in culture and behavior: Employees being engaged in culture change is
as essential as being informed on strategy and its execution and on their specific roles and
accountabilities for success. Culture change is unlikely to be successful unless all employees are
engaged in the process of change. The notion that culture transformations are one-offs events
is incorrect in the same way that strategy formulation is a one-off event.
Measuring and tracking culture change: Metrics that track changes in culture are leading
indicators of business results. Visible progress toward new behaviors and a new culture can
become motivating and self-fulfilling. The approach I recommend is to use the information that
is identified on the ethnographic work in the Analyze phase. From this information, define
descriptions of the tacit assumptions that need to be let go, and articulate the beliefs and
behaviors that should be adopted in the future in order for the organization to succeed. Using
this information, a survey can be compiled to assess if change is perceived to be occurring from
a representative sample of employees. Many companies already have employee satisfaction or
Page 125
engagement surveys and it may be feasible to inject the culture-specific questions into these
existing survey tools versus devising new and different vehicles.
Recognizing employees for behavior change: Recognition for shifting behavior can be
somewhat of a minefield. As I have noted previously, Daniel Pink’s book, Drive: The Surprising
Truth about What Motivates Us, provides an excellent description of how attempts to motivate
employees are so often off target. In many cases, these reward and recognition programs can
be de-motivators. Cantrell and Smith (2010) comment on the need to customize reward
programs to the needs and interests of individual workers in order to maximize the value and
impact, and to influence corporate culture and behaviors. For organizations intending to shift
culture and behavior, reward and recognition programs must be scrutinized and revised to
ensure they are motivating the kinds of behaviors intended within the desired corporate
culture. My recommendations are to avoid financial or material rewards for employees
exhibiting new behaviors and use both private and broadly communicated recognition for
people or teams who exhibit the right behaviors. This kind of recognition can take the form of a
simple verbal recognition to the individual privately or in a group setting. Alternatively, it can be
more elaborate with people being recognized in company-wide forums. I recommend that
leaders always comment on two aspects of the success, namely the behavior being exhibited
and the associated successful business outcome.
Communicating progress: I recommend to my clients that communications be focused around

business unit and sub-culture progress versus broad based company wide communications.
Communicating progress to all employees should be designed to ensure that expected mindsets
and behaviors that impact business goals are clearly associated in the minds of employees. This
association is clearer for employees when it is focused more specifically at individual business
group. Culture change is all about achieving successful business outcomes, and communications
messaging must maintain that connection to be meaningful to all employees.
Reflections
There is one element of ensuring sustainability that is key; leaders need to understand that
their own leadership capabilities, along with formulation of business strategy and nurturing an
enabling culture are “3-sides of the same coin”. These need to be developed and enhanced in
an ongoing manner.
Page 126
References
Cantrell, S. and Smith, D. (2010). Workforce of One. Harvard Business Press.
IBM (2003). http://www.ibmemployee.com/PDFs/IBM-Our_Values_at_Work.pdf
Pink, D. (2009). Drive. The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us. Riverhead Books.
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_office
Page 127
Section 5: Don’t’ Forget that People Live in the House
Section 5: Don’t’ Forget that People

Live in the House
Introduction
I described in Section 1 of this eBook that many companies tend to approach culture change in
mechanistic ways, or in ways framed on a standard typology or cultural framework. They tend
to focus on changes to performance management processes, human resources policies,
compensation systems and business processes. This section reminds us that culture change is
not only about corporate-level structural, process and policy changes. It is mostly about people.
Relatively little has been written about how individuals personally experience and adapt to
culture in the workplace. When organizations undergo a culture change initiative, leaders,
managers and general employees are almost always called upon to think and behave differently
in order to execute a new strategic direction, but companies seldom provide guidance and skills
that help employees change mindsets and behaviors. One rare example of where attention to
individual change is discussed is Cameron and Quinn’s work (2011) on the competing values
framework. The authors dedicate an entire chapter to individual change. The authors include
the importance of tools, such as the Management Skills Assessment Instrument (MSAI), that
provides feedback insights to mid and senior level leaders on the competencies and skills that
may be needed for a culture change initiative. The management skills profile shown below
provides a clear description of what the manager should focus on for improvement.
Page 128
Figure 16: Management Skills Assessment (MSAI)
While this profile is highly descriptive and no doubt useful, my experience is that there is still a
fundamental gap in getting leaders, managers and particularly rank and file employees to
change—because they don’t know how. Tools such as the MSAI and 360 degree feedback
surveys provide rich feedback and insight on what people should change, but not how. So, for
example, the profile from Cameron & Quinn’s work suggests that managing innovation and
acculturation may need to be improved. While a personal coach or mentor could provide advice
and council on what each of these mean and what to do, many individuals need to know “how”
to change their behaviors. In the same way, someone might be convinced they should stop
smoking and take up an exercise program but they may not know how to make these
behavioral changes and make these behaviors stick. This section focuses more on how
individuals change behaviors.
The “How” of personal behavior change

Techniques such as mindfulness, guidelines for developing new habits, and techniques from the
world of competitive sports such as behavioral visualization are explored in this section for use
by individual employees that may have struggled with changing entrenched behaviors and
habits. These techniques are described so that individuals can learn and apply these to
changing their own behaviors, particularly when the behavior change is radically different from
Page 129
what they may have experienced previously. This section also highlights a number of other
factors that are often underemphasized in culture research and writings, which can have a
significant impact on individuals both positively and negatively. Topics such as happiness or
positivity and fear in the workplace are explored. These are powerful drivers (or inhibitors) of
effective behaviors and can positively or negatively impact organizational culture,
organizational performance as well as an individual’s own sense of personal growth and
achievement. Finally, a chapter on personality disorders describes the profound impact that a
few individuals can have on the culture of an organization, particularity when these individuals
are senior influential leaders.
Page 130
Chapter 12: Techniques for Personal Behavior Change
Introduction
When organizations embark on a culture change initiative, most often the focus tends to be on
corporate level changes such as values statements, performance management processes,
changes to financial incentives and recognition programs, among others. It is less often that this
change focuses on engaging all employees and even more seldom that they provide employees
with skills and techniques to change their own behaviors to support a new business strategy
and become more successful at a personal level. Where organizations provide several of these
techniques, it is usually in the context of reducing stress and wellness. An important insight
from the previous chapter on neuroscience and neuroplasticity is that it is possible for people
to change behaviors and, with practice, these changes can become structural changes in the
brain. Like building muscle by lifting weights in the gym, these changes require regular practice
versus simply expecting employees to “get with the program” as I heard one executive
comment. In the same way that it is necessary to specifically train the body to run a 10k race, it
is necessary to train the brain to change the way we think and behave, particularly when old
behaviors have become entrenched habits over many years. This chapter summarizes some of
these techniques.
NOTE: This chapter is not intended to be a self-help guide; rather it is an overview of selected
techniques and methods that may be useful for individuals and companies to help them
navigate organizational culture change and lead change in a way that focuses more on change
at the individual level. Also, certain of the techniques may require specific clinical or coaching
guidance and support if they are used, and this support is beyond the scope of this chapter.
Techniques for developing new habits
Personal “keystone” habits

One of the most compelling examples of developing new behavioral habits was in an energy
company with which I consulted. In this global organization, injuries and even deaths of
employees had become a very serious problem. The issue appeared to be that employees,
many of whom were external contractors around the world, applied their own standards and
methods for performing various job tasks, such as welding or repairs and maintenance in
refineries and oil drilling operations, and apparently these methods were unsafe in many
instances. The senior leadership team needed to take urgent action: They needed to develop a
culture of safety. This experience is very similar to the challenge of Alcoa Inc. in 1987 described
by Duhigg (2012). Alcoa similarly had a safety challenge as well as a profitability challenge. The
Page 131
new CEO, Paul O’Neill announced the need for major cultural transformation focused on safety,
and in particular, a set of “keystone” behavioral habits that focused on safety. In the
subsequent decade of O’Neill’s tenure as CEO, not only did safety improve dramatically, but
Alcoa’s share price rose over 200 percent and profits increased significantly.
Keystone habits have two important characteristics in my view and experience. First, the
keystone habit must make sense for that particular company. For example, the keystone habit
of safety as applied in Alcoa and the energy company I referred to may not make as much sense
in a bank. Second the keystone habit must have some personal connection and meaning to
each individual employee. While safety had meaning and pertinence for Alcoa, the large retail-
banking group that I have referred to previously adopted “customer focus” as their keystone.
For example when we initially began to implement this “customer-focused quality” system,
various branch teams found that it was the credit function that was the cause of significant
delays in processing customer applications. The various branches were unable to improve
customer service because the credit function was its own “beast” and did not think about the
customer at all—they only focused on managing risk. Once the senior leadership team agreed
to adopt the “customer-focused” keystone, and the notion that all employees and functions
impact the customer at some point in the value chain, the credit function, initially begrudgingly
and later proactively, eventually realized their impact on service levels and significantly
improved process cycle times. As Duhigg comments, “The right keystone habits have a ripple
effect through the organization.”
Making keystone habits personal

In the chapter on neuroscience and neuroplasticity, I use the term “hardwiring” in the brain to
describe how the brain physically changes in response to new learning. Shapiro (2013) provides
a simple but powerful example of why “hardwired” habits are so important and powerful. She
poses this simple challenge to complete the following sentence:
“Roses are red…”
Predictably most of us, probably unthinkingly, continued those three words with “violets are
blue” in our minds. This is an automatic response because many of us have heard, read and said
that phrase many times in our lives. The phrase “Roses are red” is a trigger phrase. The rhyme
has become hardwired into our memories and is retrieved automatically with no conscious
thought. This is, in Daniel Kahneman’s (2011) terminology, a “System 1” function. These kinds
of automated responses can be either very good or very bad depending on the context. For
example on a more fundamental level, a person may have an image hardwired in their brains
based on being labeled as “lazy” by their parents in their early growing up years. As an adult
any “trigger” that this person perceives as implying that he or she is “lazy” may elicit an angry
Page 132
response that is immediate and automated. On the positive side of that equation, an individual
may have developed the automated habit of making lists to ensure they remember things; they
simply are compelled to write things down as a habit to remember things. All of us develop
behavioral habits of various kinds and they are critically important because they allow our
brains to operate on “autopilot” much of the time. For example, can you imagine how
exhausted we would become if our conscious minds, or System 2 in Daniel Kahneman’s
terminology, had to be fully engaged all the time to remember how to drive a car and operate
every function of the vehicle at a conscious level while also being consciously aware and
responding to other cars on the road? Even how to navigate to our workplace or make a pot of
coffee would be difficult. Our brains would become overtaxed very quickly. Our System 1 allows
us to automate much of this kind of routine behavior, otherwise we would become too
exhausted to simply make it through the day. This concept is critically important in a corporate
environment and is called developing “keystone” habits or behaviors. In organizations these
keystone habits, if planned carefully, allow an organization to hardwire behaviors that are
essential for success in that particular company to the point that most employees don’t have to
consciously think of enacting them.
In the energy company I consulted with, as with Alcoa, the leadership team’s core keystone
habits focused on safety. Duhigg describes the three components of a habit, whether conscious
or unconscious: A cue, a routine and a reward. The cue is the stimulus; in a very common work
situation, the stimulus could be something that stimulates anxiety or stress in one’s work
setting. The routine is how one responds to the cue, consciously or unconsciously. For one
person the routine may be to respond defensively or angrily, or have a cigarette or cup of
coffee, and to another it may be to become quiet or more controlled, or to go for a walk or do
some exercise. The reward is the positive sensation that comes from the routine such as the
nicotine rush from the cigarette or caffeine rush from the coffee. Similarly the reward may be
the positive relaxing feeling of taking a brisk walk in the fresh air or from engaging in exercise of
some sort. With the cue that stimulates anxiety, the routine exhibited may be one that provides
a sense of safety or protection for the individual. For most of us, the development of many of
our day-to-day habits is unconscious. In the case of developing new positive habits however,
these efforts need to be thoughtfully planned. In the case of the energy company I mentioned,
the keystone habit was remarkably simple but effective. The automated habit was called a
“safety moment”. The concept of safety moments was initiated and practiced from corporate
board level, to senior leaders and subsequently to all employees in the organization. The notion
of the term “safety moment” was the cue. This cue was applied during any meeting held, any
telephone conversation and any presentation or interaction of any type anywhere in the world.
Duhigg’s three-step process was as follows: The cue was a meeting, phone call etc. as described
above. The routine was for the meeting arranger to either describe a safety example or
observation, or ask for a volunteer to do so. During the many meetings I attended in this
Page 133
organization, this could be as simple as discussing escape routes in case of fire or earthquake,
or observing that there were obstacles in the walkways that people could easily trip over and
asking participants to move these items to create safe walkways. The reward was the positive
feedback from the group thanking the person for a great example of safe work practices and on
occasion a person being identified for formal recognition regarding an innovative safety
recommendation. Certainly I always felt a positive mood after these safety moments were held
because they were all about employees being protected and remaining safe and healthy. This
simple process however was only the “keystone” that ensured that safety was in mind all the
time worldwide. There was also a significant ripple effect. The keystone habit subconsciously
promoted attention to detail in many other aspects of work. This attention to detail cascaded
into improvements to many other business processes and routines in all aspects of work,
particularly those that were of high risk. But it was the keystone “safety moment” habit that
was most visible to everyone every day and drove the creation of a safety culture.
Duhigg describes the power of keystone habits with the example of IBM in their focus on selling
routines and with McKinsey Consulting with keystones habits and routines for continuous
improvement. These keystone habits have created ripple effects throughout these
organizations. Once these disciplines are in place, they stimulate positive behavioral habits in
many other aspects of work life. They appear to stimulate other behaviors that are beneficial.
For example, research has shown that people who are able to develop the keystone habit of
regular exercise also begin to eat healthier foods and focus on getting adequate sleep. In a
corporate setting, for the retail-banking group I worked with, the keystone habit we developed,
as part of the “Customer-Focused Quality” program that I developed and managed over a five-
year period, was a “focus on the customer”. I developed a five-step process for customer-
focused improvement of work processes, which 1,100 bank branches began to implement. The
important introduction of this process to the branches was regular practice; at the minimum,
branches implemented this process every Wednesday morning for one hour. While this effort
was initially focused on the service functions of branches, the success of this routine quickly
spread to the sales functions. The focus on process improvement also impacted the credit
function as they became involved in improving cycle times in response to customer’s needs for
faster turn-around times. Applying Duhigg’s three-step sequence to this banking example, the
“cue” was customer-related stimulus such as long lines in branches, survey data or a customer
complaint; the “routine” was the five-step process to analyze the processes and behaviors
involved in engaging with the customers; and the “reward” was a satisfied customer or
improvement in customer satisfaction scores for the branch. Other higher level rewards were
developed for the best performing branches and individuals who developed innovative
customer improvement ideas. This bank improved from being the worst performer among all
competitive retail branches, to the best within a five-year period, and significantly improved its
market share.
Page 134
The brain (Un-) locking approach

Insights for behavioral change at the neurological level are provided by the process identified
by Doidge (2007) in which he describes techniques used with patients suffering from Obsessive
Compulsive Disorder (OCD) where psychotherapist Jeffrey Schwartz attempts to shift the
obsessive focus of OCD patients who get immobilizing “brain lock”. He achieves this by training
these patients to actively focus on something else as a distraction, specifically a pleasurable
experience, to counter the obsessive worry. Doidge notes that this makes sense from a
neuroplasticity perspective because this kind of focus, when practiced and repeated,
measurably grows new brain circuits that provide the pleasure sensation. This is stimulated by
triggering a pleasurable dopamine release, which in turn rewards the new thinking process and
consolidates and grows new neuronal connections. These new neuronal circuits can eventually
become a more dominant connection than the previous negative one, and the old neuronal
connections weaken. Doidge indicates that in this way, “We don’t so much ‘break’ bad habits as
replace bad behaviors with better ones.”
To provide a high level understanding of what some of these behavior change processes
involve, Doidge describes three simple steps. These can either be carried out individually or
with a working team (although there is an additional step for teams):
 The first step is to re-label what is happening. In the case of an OCD patient, this may
involve beginning to recognize that the negative thought is not actually happening, say
being invaded by massive swarms of toxic germs, as some OCD patients report
experiencing, but rather recognizing it as a faulty connection in the brain that can be
corrected. This is similar to the “mindfulness” technique of creating distance from the
thinking process and contemplating the “thought from a distance” or to “thinking about
our thinking”. In this manner the patient can be contemplative about the sensation
versus simply reacting to it.
 Once the patient acknowledges that the anxiety is not real, instead, “it’s my bad neural
wiring, not actually germs attacking me”, the patient refocuses on a pleasurable
thought; something that is unique to that individual, like gardening, walking on beach,
or hiking in the forest. In this step it is important for the patient to initially have a
“trigger” that quickly “shifts gears” and refocuses the brain. This step requires practice.
Doidge explains that by refocusing, “The patient is learning not to get sucked in by the
content (i.e. the germs) of an obsession but to work around it.” By doing this the “use it
or lose it” principle kicks-in, but in reverse. By diverting the thinking process the
previous neuronal connections atrophy and new connections strengthen. The patient is
actually taught to think about and imagine neural circuits being changed in this process,
similar to the visualization techniques discussed later in this chapter.
Page 135
 Doidge comments that this technique will not give immediate relief because, like
exercising a muscle in the gym, changes in neuroplasticity take time, but it does lay the
groundwork for change by exercising the brain in a new way. For the OCD patient, at
first, they will continue to feel the urge to react to the compulsion, and the anxiety and
effort needed to resist it, but with practice this becomes easier. Doidge describes this
process as “neurons that fire together, wire together” or grow stronger, and “neurons
that fire apart, wire apart” or atrophy.
Implications for the workplace
While this technique is applied for severe cases of OCD, the approach has practical application
in organizations for learning new behaviors, given that it is simple and can be learned by
anyone. Obviously in the case of an organization, one is not dealing with severe behavioral
pathologies, but certainly organizational leaders have to deal with deeply entrenched mindsets,
assumptions and behaviors about work developed over many years. For an individual in a work
environment, the process operates as follows:
1. Re-label: Clarify the behavioral stimuli that produce negative behaviors. An example of a
negative behavior may be a leader being resistant to collaborating with other internal
teams and behaving in a competitive and political manner when solving business
problems. This is a common problem in hierarchical companies where a win-lose culture
exists. Perhaps this problem has been raised in the individual’s performance appraisal
and the person feels pressure to change his or her behavior, but does not know how.
This step is for the individual to enter the “re-label” phase that Doidge describes. The
stimulus may be a request to collaborate from a team in another business unit or
country where trust is low. It’s important for the individual to write these stimuli down
or document them in some concise manner so that they are clearly defined and the
individual is fully aware of them. This step is similar to Doidge’s description of the OCD
patient acknowledging that anxiety to “germs attacking” is incorrect and unproductive. I
typically encourage employees to write down this negative imagined response succinctly
and vividly, including the emotional content of what this new response would feel like.
The individual should picture it and imagine it vividly in their minds and rewrite what
they see and what they feel as it becomes increasingly vivid and clear. The employee
may write down something like “requests for partnerships are not attempts to gain
advantage, and my colleagues are not out to get me, rather these requests are positive
and rewarding: One plus one equals three”!
2. Refocus: This is the “re-focus” phase that Doidge describes. The employee mentally
reframes a more suitable response. This step sometimes requires coaching or facilitation
by a third party. The refocus is also aided by writing down the refocused response. For
Page 136
example, the individual may write “requests for partnerships are win-win opportunities
to be more innovative and enjoy work with other people. I love the notion that my
colleagues reach out because it means they value my contributions”. I encourage people
to think about and write down some of the positive emotional aspects of this new
response and thinking. This may include comments such as “I smile, and feel a deep
sense of pleasure in working with others – I feel energized and excited”.
3. Practice: The third phase is the “going to the gym” phase. This process is the same as
the mental “rehearsing” that Doidge describes, often used by musicians, chess players
and athletes. I personally have used this technique effectively in various athletic
endeavors by imagining the specific movements and the sensations of these
performances. Repetition is critical and needs to be daily if possible. Most practitioners
of mindfulness and mental rehearsing suggest 15 to 30 minutes per day. I have
personally found that once an individual has successfully developed the technique, and
the new images are vivid, as little as a few minutes daily is adequate.
While this process is designed to be used by individuals, as Wexler (2006) notes,

interconnections between and among neuron assemblies best occurs with the specific kinds of
stimulation that occurs within groups, or teams. The nature of the interconnections depends on
the nature of the stimulation, and the most impactful stimulation comes in the form of
interaction with other people. Behavioral problems can be more effectively solved through this
interactive process with others. For an intact work team, or even between two individuals
working together, the process would operate as follows:
1. Re-label: As with individuals described above, a team needs to clarify the behavioral
stimuli that produce negative behaviors and poor performance. This is obviously a more
challenging task in the workplace than privately by oneself or with a coach or therapist,
and there needs to be a collective understanding and acceptance of this process. Often
a coach or expert facilitator helps this process greatly, particularly in the early stages.
Again, there is a need to be specific about the stimuli or trigger, for example, a
particular behavior that solicits a negative response. It’s important that the team
documents these stimuli.
2. Refocus: The team then discusses a more suitable response in this “re-framing” step. In
this case, both the stimulus behavior, for example how a manager might behave, and
the response behavior, how employees respond to the manager’s behavior, needs to be
reframed in a more productive manner. This discussion should be coached in a positive
and mutually beneficial way because it is easy for this dialogue to devolve into a “blame
game” scenario.
3. Practice: This reframing must then be practiced like a sports team would practice drills.
The most effective example I have witnessed of this was with a safety-focused ritual.
Page 137
Role playing is a useful technique to use in practicing these behaviors. The introduction
of these activities or drills can be more difficult with a team because there can be a
sense of awkwardness, particularly at first. But if the team handles this process in a
constructive manner, they can positively hold each other accountable to be successful
and mutually reinforcing. A facilitator or coach is very useful in these exercises.
4. Dialogue: For a group, there is a fourth step, namely to discuss and debate if the
practicing is actually working and to review step two above if members feel they are not
making progress. This dialogue step is exactly the same as that described in Chapter 4
where leaders role model new behaviors and ask for feedback on its effectiveness. The
dialogue process is the learning process.
For intact work teams, in the same way that sports teams practice drills, overtly practicing
stimulus-response behavior or role playing “drills” is necessary to develop new neural
pathways. Sapolski (2004) describes an important aspect of stress reduction that can be related
to this process, namely that of personal control. When individuals in a team feel that they have
some control over how people behave and interact, stress and anxiety levels are significantly
reduced. When groups or teams understand and adopt this process, they simultaneously feel
they have more control and influence and anxiety is reduced.
“Rewiring” processes
O’Conner (2014) indicates that, “There are powerful forces within us that resist change, even
when we can clearly see what would be good for us. Bad habits die hard.” Indeed, while the
author is referring primarily to bad personal habits like excessive drinking, smoking, over-eating
or other destructive behaviors, this is true in corporate settings as well. As with Shapiro’s
“Roses are red” example, O’Connor notes that often our “unconscious scripts lead us to say or
do exactly the wrong things”. This also applies, (using the example described previously), if a
company has developed an internal competitive culture between various business units, sales
teams from different product groups often may compete for prizes and bonuses. It is extremely
difficult to change that mindset to one of greater collaboration when a collaborative sales
process is implemented. This is often required in CRM systems implementations where
different product teams must collaborate to provide a client with an integrated offering. With
these sales teams, competitive behaviors have become hardwired; they are not enacted at a
conscious level and they are largely out of their conscious control. Specific techniques are
needed to change these behaviors. While O’Conner describes techniques that are applied for
individuals in therapy sessions, these are also powerful techniques that can be applied by
individuals in a work setting. For example, I have referred to situations in companies that I have
consulted with where a “fear” culture exists, and where people are fearful of retribution,
punishment by senior leaders or of losing their jobs. The conundrum in this kind of culture is
Page 138
that the fear itself inhibits discussion of the problem (the dialogue process described
previously) and therefore the problem is never dealt with or resolved. I have spoken with
numerous employees in companies who are frustrated and even embarrassed about this deep-
seated fear and anxiety, and want help with how to address it at a personal level. O’Connor
provides some simple but powerful techniques for dealing with these kinds of fear-based
beliefs. For example, he describes the importance of practicing the following self-introspective
process: First the individual should think about and write down their assumptions about the
workplace. In this case it may be something like, “The work environment is innately risky, and I
need to keep my head down and stay out of trouble to survive.” Prior to writing this down, the
individual may be only vaguely aware of this assumption because it has become hardwired over
many years. This step of thinking about assumptions and writing them down brings the
unconscious and automated assumption from, as Kahneman would likely say, a System 1 level
of awareness to a System 2 level of conscious thought. It’s important to recall that our System 1
unconscious mind does not differentiate between reality and fantasy. This is why trigger events,
such as meeting someone who reminds us of a horrible school teacher back in high school days,
or a situation at work that conjures up unconscious memories of failing a course at college, can
elicit immediate anxiety for many people. O’Connor describes the importance of this step as
“becoming familiar with your fear and examining it mindfully and deliberately”. As Pulos (1994)
notes, “Our subconscious cannot tell the difference between a real event and an imagined
event.”
The next step is to think about and write down the specifics of why you think this assumption
may be true or untrue. In other words, explore whether tangible evidence exists that you
consider justifying being fearful. This step can often be a personal revelation in the sense that it
allows the individual to consciously test their unconscious assumptions for validity. I would add
to this step that there is often value in conducting this kind of exercise in a work group setting
to encourage debate and objectivity. A third step is to write down the implications of acting on
this assumption. For example, the person may write down that they feel they have little
influence in the organization; they are overlooked for promotions, and may even feel ashamed
that they are so weak and incapable in the face of this fear. This step is designed to
acknowledge that there are very real and important personal ramifications of holding onto
these false assumptions. The next step is to write down a new assumption that is powerful and
energizing. This could be something like, “I am powerful and capable and interact confidently
when dealing with senior executives at work.” The final step may include writing down several
situations or scenarios in which the individual might act this assumption out. For example, he or
she may write down, “I am sitting in a team meeting and I am feeling confident and strong. My
boss makes a comment on my work and I respond with conviction and confidence.” The
individual should write down as many of the feelings and emotions related to this scenario as
possible and spend time mentally imagining it and replaying it in their mind. This is the
Page 139
“practice” aspect of the process that develops new neuronal pathways and the behaviors they
produce.
Visualization techniques
The processes that O’Conner (2014) describes overcoming destructive or negative habits, are
very similar to those used in athletic performance situations. Using an example or metaphor
from sports when discussing behavior change techniques in a business setting, (visualization in
particular), is often useful in my experience. This is because many of us have some affinity or
connection with sports and can understand how these techniques can work more easily in a
sports situation. This is not always as well accepted in a work setting. I first came to the United
States with a sports scholarship in 1973. This had been my dream from the age of 16 in 1968
when I watched Tommy Smith win the 200 meters at the Mexico Olympic Games. In my early
years of track and field, I looked for any magazine, typically Track & Field News, to see
photographs of my hero and I would imagine myself running like him. I would spend time
before every training session or event vividly picturing his running form and imagining myself
running as effortlessly as he appeared to run. Little did I know at that stage that the technique I
was applying was a powerful technique used in sports psychology and used with many
professional athletes. More and more these techniques are also applied in business.
Lee Pulos (referenced earlier) is a sports psychologist, and describes the use of visualization in
sports, business and medicine, and provides examples of how visualization techniques are
commonly used in the treatment of cancer patients. As Pulos defines it, visualization is the
“conscious creation of desired outcomes in our lives”. It is important for all of us to realize that
we all visualize in one form or another whether we are aware of it or not. In the same manner
that various behavioral change techniques require that we pay attention to our “self-talk” to
determine what we say to ourselves (constructive or destructive self-talk), so becoming aware
of our existing mental images provides insight into our unconscious assumptions and beliefs
about ourselves and the world that either enable us to be successful or become obstacles to
our success. As Pulos notes, by removing ineffective or negative images from our minds and
intentionally replacing them with positive and constructive imagery, the “visual imagery
becomes part of the brain’s mental software which, if repeated and programmed, creates a
self-fulfilling prophecy of our dreams.”
In summary, the visualization process is as follows:
 First find a quiet location (although this is not essential) to be able to concentrate
without interruption. Select an end-goal image of something that you would like to
change in your life. In a business setting, an example might be the ability to perform
better during presentations, or being calmer under pressure or changing a specific
Page 140
behavior like listening more effectively or collaborating more effectively in a team

environment.
 The second step is to close your eyes and focus on your breathing; inhaling deeply from
your abdomen, relaxing and exhaling slowly but with a certain amount of effort (but not
forcing it). This is the preparation phase.
 Now, you would bring up the current mental image that you want to change. For
example, this may be feeling anxious just before a big presentation. Picture it, but Pulos
suggests not putting too much effort or clarity on the image.
 Pulos describes this next step as, “in two seconds or less whoosh that image away” and
replace it with the positive image you want. While looking at the positive image, rest on
it for a while and use as many senses as possible to see it, feel it and hear the sounds
associated with it. Make it as vivid and real as you possibly can.
 In this step, go back to the previous (negative) image, picture it again, but with less
energy and intensity and once again “whoosh” it away and bring back the positive, new
image with “gusto”. Make sure all of the senses are re-injected and spend some time
enriching it with clarity.
 Go through this bringing-up-the-old or negative, spend two seconds or less on it,
“whoosh” it away and bring up the new. This is done five or six times during a single
visualization session.
This simple process should be done at least daily, if not more often than that. In my personal
application, this can take 10 minutes or less each day. I prefer to do this very early in the
morning when I am uninterrupted and rested. Like training for a 10k run, developing new
behaviors and habits requires effort and commitment. The benefit of this process compared to
training for a 10k event is that you can sit quietly in a chair and not break a sweat. Pulos makes
an important observation: Visualization imagery is not only about visual senses. We also have
powerful auditory images, for example, hearing ourselves making a business presentation,
kinesthetic images, such as touching something, taste images such as a delicious steak or a
wonderful glass of wine. While these images are from our senses, they reside in the brain. And
to leverage them or to change them requires us to utilize the neuroplastic factors that we
discussed previously to “rewire” these images if they are no longer useful to us. Continuing the
discussion on neuroplasticity, Pulos comments as follows:
“There is an increasing body of evidence from brain scientists that the more senses you
engage, the more of your brain you use, the denser the wirings of your brain. Your brain
cells develop thicker stems, or act zones, and more complex connections between the
cells or synapses.”
Page 141
The process of visualization takes place whether we are aware of it or not. If we are not aware
of it, we can unintentionally visualize images that negatively impact our performance. Aronson
(2008) describes a fascinating experiment regarding “priming” student participants with words
that represent old age. The students were unaware of the objective of the study, and were
primed with words such as “Florida, retirement, senile” and so forth. The primed students were
then observed as they left the research facility and the primed subjects consistently walked
more slowly than the non-primed individuals, suggesting that the subtle imagery of old age
made them “dodder” down the hallway. One can imagine that if this subtle priming can have
this kind of impact, so positive and intentional priming can have a much greater impact on an
individual’s performance in athletic endeavors as well as in the workplace.
Finally, Pulos notes that there are numerous techniques that can be applied to make
visualization more effective, but once again, practice is the key to making this process more
effective in helping us change behavior, improve performance or overcome negative habits.
Mindfulness
The techniques discussed thus far can be effective in helping individuals and organizations shift
specific behaviors. However as discussed previously, some companies have a “fear” dimension
in their culture, and this can be very stressful to many employees who struggle with pressure
and anxiety during times of change and uncertainty. Mindfulness is a technique used by
individuals and even companies such as Google (Allen, 2014) to help employees cope with
stress and anxiety. Aikens et al (2014) describe the process of mindfulness conducted in a
research study in a corporate environment using a web-based tool. The researchers describe
the following as a series of steps included in the online program:
1. Seated, focused exercises on breathing, physical sensations, sound and thought.

2. A short mental “body scan” with progressive focus on physical sensation throughout the
body.
3. Walking meditation with focus on physical sensations and sight.
4. Movement exercises with focus on various stretching postures and awareness of
sensation inherent to body movement.
5. Three-minute breathing pauses with focus on the breath, physical sensation and
thought, designed to allow intentional connection with the present moment.
6. Additional exercises include performance-oriented skills such as successful handling of
stressful situations, recognition of autopilot and automatic mind scripts, mindful
communication, presentation preparedness and mindful problem solving.
The results of this research study demonstrate that mindfulness is a useful technique for
managing anxiety and stress in the workplace:
Page 142
“Mindfulness training is more than just an effective stress management solution, but an
efficacious intervention for the development of positive organizational behaviors, which can be
used throughout the employee base.”
Mindfulness techniques are useful when an employee struggles with stressors such as an
intimidating encounter with a leader, and possibly feeling paralyzed and unable to respond
effectively. The mindfulness process includes non self-judgmental consideration this fearful
experience. It’s important to note that with this technique, the focus is on the experience itself
and applying the technique of “distancing” oneself somewhat from the experience and being
objective and non-judgmental about it. What this phase does not include is the step of changing
one’s response and behavior to the stimuli. Muesse (2014) provides a graphic example of this
“distancing” in practice, in which, while conducting a wedding ceremony, a bee landed on his
face and proceeded to crawl between his glasses and onto his eye lid. Instead of the instinctual
response of screaming and flailing around that most of us would have exhibited, and most likely
being stung in the process, Muesse describes utilizing the mindfulness technique of being
objective and inquisitive of the event, demonstrating significant control over the typical limbic
“fight or flight” response.
One of the significant barriers to implementing mindfulness in the workplace as a process for
driving culture change in organizations is that of leaders expecting results quickly. Much of the
mindfulness literature describes a process similar to what Smith (2014) offers:
“Going into a meditation and mindfulness practice you want to have the least amount of
expectations as possible, but after some weeks or even months of practice you may find
yourself expecting some sort of revelation and peace in your everyday life. When this
doesn’t happen you will probably give up on the practice all together because it ‘doesn’t
work’.”
Clearly while practicing mindfulness is not a “quick fix” to anxiety and stress as well as other
behavior change needs, it is a powerful practice that companies such as Google and others have
implemented to good effect.
Page 143
Reflections
 Most organizational culture change initiatives focus on broad, high-level behavior
change at a corporate level, but provide little support for individual employees who
require help to change their own behavior.
 A number of techniques are available for individuals to apply that can be integrated into
an overall change program or for individuals to use independently.
 All techniques require practice in the same way that physical exercise requires practice
to be effective.
 Regular practice of these techniques leverages the power of neuroplasticity to physically
change the structure of the brain to develop new neural pathways and networks.
Page 144
References
Aikens, K. et al (2014). Mindfulness Goes to Work: Impact of an Online Workplace Intervention.
http://journals.lww.com/joem/Fulltext/2014/07000/Mindfulness_Goes_to_Work__Impact_of_
an_Online.7.aspx#
Doidge, N. (2007). The Brain that Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers
of Brain Science. Penguin Books.
Duhigg, C. (2012). The Power of Habits: Why we do what we do in life and business. Random
House.
Kahenman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
Muesse, M. (2014). Practicing Mindfulness: An Introduction to Meditation. The Great Courses,

Course no. 1933.
O’Connor, R. (2014). Rewire: Change Your Brain to Break Bad Habits, Overcome Addictions,
Conquer Self-Destructive Behavior. Hudson Street Press.
Pulos, L. (1994). The Power of Visualization. Nightingale-Conant Corporation.
Smith C. (2014). Lifehack Presents: The Mindfulness Meditation Mini Guide.

http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifestyle/lifehack-presents-the-mindfulness-meditation-mini-
guide.html.
Sapolski, R. (2004). Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers, Third Edition. Henry Holt & Company.
Shapiro, F. (2013). Getting Past Your Past. Take Control of Your Life with Self Help Techniques
From EMDR Therapy. Rodale Books.
Wexler, B. (2006). Brain and Culture: Neurobiology, Ideology and Social Change. A Bradford
Book. The MIT Press.
Page 145
Chapter 13: Positivity (Happiness) in the Workplace
Introduction
A story that I have told previously is again pertinent here. In 1987 I joined a large banking group
in South Africa as the customer communications and training manager of their new electronic
banking division. I knew I was in trouble when during the first week on the job I was told of a
photo-shoot with the then CEO. Apparently as the photographer was about to take the
photograph and said, “smile”, the CEO stood up and with a serious face and said, “Young man,
banking is a serious business, we do not smile around here.” Whether this story was true or not
is unimportant. What is important is that it was told and re-told many times and ultimately
became part of the culture of the company. The corporate culture was harsh and militaristic,
indeed a number of senior executives were former military officers. Some months into my new
role, I was asked to do a presentation to a group of senior managers. After my presentation,
one member of the audience approached me and pulled me aside. He said, “I know you are
new here, so I’d like to offer some advice, and that is to remove the emotional words from your
vocabulary. Emotional language does not go down well in this organization.” He was certainly
correct—it was perhaps the most emotionally barren organization I have ever worked with.
While there were pockets of passion and energy, these were exceptions and primarily the result
of specific individuals, including my immediate boss, a remarkable individual who was the only
reason I continued to work in that environment.
My first exposure to large-scale organizational culture change came from a brief dialogue with
the then deputy managing director of Standard Bank of South Africa (SBSA), who was a
personal mentor and role-model to me. He was responsible for the retail bank and had been
very concerned with the lack of improvement in customer service despite several efforts to
improve. Along with the poorest service levels of any major bank, SBSA was also losing market
share. But it was no wonder to me that this organization had the poorest customer satisfaction
scores of all the major banking groups—great customer service requires passion and a high
degree of positive energy and interest in people. “Smiling” and “emotional language” are basic
requirements. He had called me to his office to discuss this dilemma, and I expressed my
concerns to him. Instead of the emotionally stunted response I had received from other
executives, he listened intently. What ensued was one of the largest culture change strategies I
have been involved with. Under the leadership of this remarkable executive, he and I jointly,
and eventually with the efforts of many others in the retail bank, developed and implemented a
process that engaged 22,000 employees in improving business processes and the work culture.
SBSA eventually went from being the worst performing bank in customer service and losing
market share, to the best customer service and improving market share over a six-year period.
Page 146
This organizational culture change could not have been achieved without the positive work
environment and energy that this leader fostered for this immense effort from these many
thousands of employees. While this effort required a comprehensive program of process
changes and extensive employee engagement, the most important was creating positive energy
through developing keystone habits and positivity in all aspects of work for delivering the best
possible customer service.
Positivity in the Workplace

Throughout my career, indeed my life, I have been struck by the observation that most work
environments tend towards the punitive rather than the positive. From my early years,
observing my father being unhappy at work to my years in the banking industry, as well as more
than a decade consulting in the energy, utilities, technology and apparel, my experience has
been consistent—most working environments tend to focus on the negative. For example,
making mistakes in many organizations can be viewed as a career-destroying event, and as with
my opening example, even laughter and smiling can be frowned upon. From a cultural point of
view, these assumptions have a powerful influence on how culture develops over time. My
experience with positive work environments suggests that these were always due to a specific
manager or leader, who despite the milieu, created positive energy, positivity and happiness in
his or her scope of influence. Even my 12 months of military service in the South African Air
Force demonstrated this fact; where there is a positive work environment, people are happier,
more energetic and they flourish and excel. Where there is a negative work environment,
people tend to be more anxious, fearful and lack an energetic and positive mindset. They tend
to flounder and under-perform.
In his book The Happiness Advantage, Shawn Achor (2010) cites meta-research of over 200
scientific studies on nearly 275,000 people. He comments:
“(The research) found that happiness leads to success in nearly every domain of our
lives, including marriage, health, friendship, community involvement creativity and in
particular our jobs, careers and businesses.”
Achor goes on to quote that happy CEOs are more likely to lead teams of employees that are
both happy and healthy, and find their work climate conducive to high performance.
I have found though, that one has to be cautious about proposing investments in “happiness” in
companies. The eye rolling “here we go again” response to this topic is common. The data
supporting investments in developing happiness at work, like culture itself, is somewhat
controversial. Leaders, managers and consultants urging “happiness” need to be cautious about
positioning happiness at work purely on the feel good benefits and focus more on the practical,
Page 147
work-specific performance benefits. As one banking executive commented some years ago,
being “happy” in certain work settings, for example, credit risk management or in the law
profession, may not be a constructive cultural characteristic, whereas in work requiring highly
innovative thinking, such as engineering design or in the service industry, it may be more
impactful. Indeed, I comment later in this chapter on the value on some degree of negativity in
certain work situations. But most research supports the notion that happiness and positivity are
positive traits, versus the other extreme of anxiety and fear. If this is so, then why is it that so
many are not happy in their work and why is it that so few companies focus on developing a
positive work environment? Indeed according to The Conference Board, only 45 percent of
Americans said they were satisfied with their jobs. This is a huge drop from the more than 61
percent who said they were satisfied in 1987, the first year the survey was conducted
What is Positivity and Happiness?

Achor’s definition of happiness (2010), for me personally, strikes a balance between the notion
of happiness being an emotion of simply feeling good and a more constructive and meaningful
concept:
“…the experience of positive emotions; pleasure combined with deeper feelings of

meaning and purpose. Happiness implies a positive mood in the present and a positive
outlook for the future… For me, happiness is the joy we feel striving after our potential.”
I would imagine that the banking CEO I referred to in the introduction to this chapter would
have been more supportive of Achor’s definition of happiness than what appeared to be his
perspective that required no smiling.
Happiness as a general construct has also been described as Subjective Well Being (SWB), a
term coined by Ed Diener (2008). He used the scientific term “Subjective Well Being” to avoid
the ambiguous meaning of the term happiness. Diener described SWB as having three
elements, namely life satisfaction, positive affect and negative affect. The implication being that
an individual with high life satisfaction, high positive affect and low negative affect has high
SWB.
Fredrickson (2009) prefers the use of the term “positivity” versus “happiness” because she also
considers happiness too vague and overused a term for scientific purposes. She defines
positivity as, “A range of positive emotions, from appreciation to love, from amusement to joy,
from hope to gratitude and then some.” Fredrickson further comments that the term positivity
is purposefully broad, including the long-term impact that positive emotions have on one’s
character, relationships, communities and environment. She outlines 10 emotions that make up
her definition of positivity, namely joy, gratitude, serenity, interest, hope, pride, amusement,
inspiration, awe and love. These are scientific terms, she says, that can be defined and
Page 148
measured with precision. The importance of measurement in this case is that Fredrickson and
her colleagues have identified a key ratio of at least 3:1 of positive emotions to negative as
being the tipping point that predicts whether people spiral into negativity or flourish with
positivity. While other emotions obviously exist, scientific research suggests that these ten are
the major ones that form the foundation of positivity. Fredrickson further details a range of
tools and techniques that can be used in one’s daily life to enhance positivity.
Clearly, as implied by these definitions, happiness, positivity or subjective well-being cannot be

attained through a permanently easy life, lacking struggle and challenge. The notion of striving
towards life and career goals implies that a sense of well-being requires some level of struggle.
The very notion of the joy of goal attainment and success requires an aspect of effort and
struggle. However success can also not come from purely punitive and harsh struggle. For the
notion of happiness or positivity in the workplace to become practical and useful, we need to
reframe our notion of happiness in the workplace to make it more aligned with the joy of
struggle and achieving work and life goals, versus primarily the mental imagery of a life of
leisure and sipping mint julips on the beach at sunset.
The Happiness “Challenge”

I titled this part of the chapter “The Happiness Challenge” because happiness, or positivity,
does not manifest easily, particularly in the workplace—certainly not without effort for most of
us. It is particularly challenging in most work environments where deadlines, budgets and
performance issues can compromise most people’s sense of happiness. Indeed, as Frederickson
comments, in the United States, despite “the pursuit of happiness” being guaranteed in the
Declaration of Independence, the U.S. was rather forged under the influence of a harsh
Protestant work ethic; a philosophy that holds that enjoyment, pleasure and leisure are bad
and that people can only show their worth through hard work and toil. Happiness and fun
should be shunned in favor of long, hard work hours and deprivation. Without doubt, this ethic
was alive and well in the banking group example I described at the beginning of this chapter.
The U.S. and many other societies have entrenched harshness into the very essence of who we
are as a working nation. It is not surprising that even using the term “happiness” in the
workplace, as I have personally experienced, can elicit dismissive eye-rolling and even a degree
of contempt. As I comment later in this section, the change management consulting
methodology known as “Appreciative Inquiry”, in my experience, faces challenges simply based
on its title (“Appreciative”) and its focus on the positive. It is common, I find, that business
leaders focus on finding solutions to “problems” as their default lens of attention; seeking out
the positive and appreciating what is good in an organization is dismissed or ignored as
irrelevant, or even worse, a diversion from what is important and urgent.
Page 149
The focus on negativity in the workplace can create a culture of anxiety, fear and distrust over
time. How often do we experience co-workers arriving to work with a full-blown dose of flu or
other illnesses because they feel guilty about staying at home? Or the half-joking comments
about co-workers who arrive at work late or leave work early with the implication that they are
lazy? Or colleagues who have difficulty taking vacations out of fear that they may fall behind at
work. A former boss of mine frequently observed how he had never fully completed a planned
vacation because he felt compelled to get back to work; this is an individual who had a minor
stroke at the age of 42 in the office next to mine, and is a perfect example of what Achor (2010)
calls the “workaholic’s curse”. Despite writing this chapter in 2015, the workplace is still an
environment more commonly characterized by harshness and negativity rather than positivity
and upliftment. Indeed, as Fredrickson comments, happiness in the workplace may even be
considered “Un-American”:
“The United States—and much of the capitalist world—was forged under the influence
of the Protestant work ethic, a philosophy that holds that enjoyment and leisure are
sinful, and that only through austere work activities can people prove their true worth.
This worldview produces characters who shun all pleasant impulses and activities … in
favor of long work hours and personal thrift. It produces a culture that celebrates
intensity, competitiveness and doggedness.”
Positivity and Organizational Culture Change

It has become almost trite to note that “organizational change is the only constant” and many
of us re-live this experience every working day. Often these transformations require significant
changes in the way people think and behave. Whether the competitive demands require
greater levels of innovation or greater speed and agility from employees, or whether these
changes are more sweeping cultural changes, organizations are undergoing disruptive change
on a constant basis (Weitz, 2011). Most often these changes are driven through large-scale
projects that are time and resource pressured and place great stress on those driving the
projects, and more so on those groups undergoing the change. In my 20 years of organizational
culture change consulting, I have seldom been exposed to a large-scale change initiative in
which employee behaviors and emotions were not key success factors for the change.
Unfortunately most transformation efforts seldom consider the mindsets of employees in
contrast to the need for rapid implementation, cost reduction and efficiencies. These focus
areas in isolation tend to create high levels of anxiety, which can create exactly the opposite of
what is needed for successful change and transformation, namely positive and energized
employees working toward challenging goals.
By default, negative emotions of fear and anxiety are far more common in intense, costly and
time-pressured change initiatives, particularly where there are implications of job
Page 150
redundancies. These are natural emotional outcomes emerging from uncertainty and urgency
focused on cost-cutting, rather than keeping people energized and positive so that they are
able to perform at their best under pressure. What I have personally observed in these
situations of intensive change is that people are more likely to fear change, hide from it,
sabotage it and generally resist it with negative talk and destructive collaboration. Little or no
consideration in these projects is given to emotions that elicit behaviors of receptivity, open
mindedness, appreciation and a positive, high-performance work environment.
Hammond (1998) comments that, “The traditional approach to change is to look for the
problem, do a diagnosis and find a solution. The primary focus is on what is wrong or broken;
since we look for the problems, we find them. By paying attention to problems, we emphasize
and amplify them.” The focus on what is positive or effective is less common.
Klimosky and Kanfer (2002) comment:
“The important point…is that many work behaviors may have strong and consistent
linkages to negative emotions. In such cases, attempts to change behavioral patterns
without first changing associated emotions are likely to be unsuccessful. Positive
emotions have garnered less attention than negative emotions for several reasons: They
are less differentiated, they are not associated with specific problems needing solutions,
and they are not associated with specific action tendencies thought to be necessary for
survival.”
Klimosky and Kanfer continue by observing that negative emotions have received far greater
attention because they have typically been associated with “problems needing solutions” which
tends to be a dominant focus in many, if not most, organizations.
The challenges of organizational change, and culture change specifically, require more
expansive and innovative thinking from employees than was required, say, a century ago.
Change in a post-modern economy requires the support and engagement of all impacted
employees versus a few executives at the top of the hierarchy leading the way. Recent research
in the field of neuroscience (discussed in depth in Chapter 5) demonstrates that positive
emotions broaden people’s minds and awareness to new opportunities that change provides
and thus stimulates a positive response and greater adaptability to change. Fredrickson (2009)
writes about the notion of the “heliotropic” effect in the plant world, where plants stretch and
turn towards the light, which similarly happens in humans in the “light” of positivity; people
turn towards positivity and turn away from the “darkness” of negativity. Positivity expands
people’s interest in new opportunities and change and the notion of what is possible, whereas
negativity narrows a person’s outlook. I experienced this very phenomenon in a recent project
in Vancouver, Canada. The pressures in this $1 billion project were mounting, and numerous
Page 151
leaders were increasingly feeling this pressure. One in particular was responding by becoming
punitive and harsh, while another maintained an energetic and positive demeanor, providing
encouraging support, regularly smiling and providing positive feedback—her common phrase of
encouragement was, “We can do this together.” Where performance was low, the former
applied harsh words and frustration, the latter provided support and encouragement. Team
members avoided the former, while they rallied with the latter and showed significant
progress. The former team became fearful, resistant and struggled, while the other flourished.
This is a practical example of how positivity broadens the mind and cultivates a “can do”
attitude, while negativity fosters angst, fear, resistance, and narrows the mind.
Organizational change projects are almost always urgent and time-constrained. Cost
limitations, competiveness, for example, getting new products to market, the need for positive
results and increases in share price all contribute to this pressure. Fredrickson (2009) notes that
positivity is especially important when the work environment requires creative solutions fast—
indeed, this is precisely what is needed in the real world example I outlines above. Fredrickson
describes studies conducted with students who were taught simple positivity techniques, for
example simply having self-generated a positive mental image, prior to taking stressful
standardized tests, while a control group was not. The positive students performed better than
the control group. A further remarkable study conducted with medical doctors showed that
simply providing the research group of physicians with a small gift (a small bag of candy) prior
to making a diagnosis improved their performance over a control group that did not receive the
gift. Interestingly my wife as a senior director of nursing in a large hospital group, uses this
simple technique often—she frequently provides small gifts of chocolate or other small items to
people she manages or collaborates with, including doctors. It is a simple gesture that says, “I
am aware of you as an individual, and I care.” It is remarkable how positively people respond to
such seemingly minor positive gesture of kindness.
Positivity as an Organizational Change Methodology—Appreciative Inquiry

Fredrickson (2009) identifies positive questioning as the “launching point” for Appreciative
Inquiry (AI), an approach to organizational change that has “spread like wildfire through
business consulting circles”. She references Cooperrider and Whitney (2008), co-founders of
the AI methodology, who define AI as “a philosophy that incorporates an approach, a process
(4-D Cycle of Discovery, Dream, Design and Destiny) for engaging people at any or all levels to
produce effective, positive change…its assumption is simple”:
“Every organization has something that works right – things that give life when it is most
alive and effective, successful and connected in healthy ways to its stakeholders and
communities. AI begins by identifying what is positive and connecting to it in ways that
heighten energy, vision and action for change.”
Page 152
AI leverages the powerful benefits of positivity, namely that of expanding people’s creative
capabilities and stimulating energetic collaboration between people in the workplace. Most
initiatives are fraught with pressure, anxiety and angst and not only do people going through
change feel this, managers can often bully and intimidate employees during these times of
stress and pressure. AI turns this upside down. Cooperrider and Whitney express that the
traditional and historical approach to organizational change as based on the principle of
problem-solving. By its very nature, problem solving implies there is a problem that inhibits
change and once that problem has a solution, then effective change can take place. This focus
on problems has by implication a negative perspective—something must be broken and must
be fixed, versus what is positive and meaningful and can be leveraged for future change and
innovation (2008):
“Appreciative Inquiry is the cooperative co-evolutionary search for the best in people,
their organizations and the world around them…In its most practical construction, AI is a
form of organizational study that selectively seeks to locate, highlight and illuminate
what are referred to as the life-giving forces of the organization’s existence, its positive
core … What makes AI different from other OD methodologies at this phase is that every
question is positive.”
AI includes techniques of asking positive, powerful and provocative questions that uncover the
positive, versus the notion of seeking “THE problem”. This approach is similar to that
popularized in the book “Leading with Questions”, by Michael Marquardt (2005).
Is Too Much Positivity Negative?

I must admit to being somewhat skeptical about what can be viewed as an excessive focus on
happiness and positivity in the Appreciative Inquiry change model, possibly to the point of
ignoring the negative. Dealing with problems, for example in the form of managing risk, is not
only essential for navigating a challenging business landscape, but the need to focus on these
problems is enshrined in the fiduciary responsibilities of corporate board members. While being
emphatically supportive of the need for positivity as a dominant focus in organizational, change
and culture change specifically, ignoring negatives or problems seems somewhat naïve. For
example, while I was impressed with the text, Strengths-Based Leadership (Rath and Conchie,
2008), I innately felt that ignoring weaknesses is a fundamental mistake; unbalanced in a sense.
Zenger and Folkman (2002) in their research of over 22,000 leaders worldwide, report in detail
the need to develop the core strengths that form the foundation of extraordinary leadership,
and provide unique insights on the multiplying impact of powerful combinations of strengths.
But they do not ignore or underemphasize weaknesses and the risks of not overcoming what
they refer to as “Fatal Flaws”. Indeed, Fredrickson (2009) identifies a “tipping point” where too
much positivity may be dangerous; ignoring negatives can be damaging. Fredrickson however
Page 153
espouses the need for balance, and refers to this balance as “appropriate negativity”.
Negativity that is appropriate is important to focus on for purposes of identifying real problems
and overcoming them to avoid real risk. A key question in my perspective is the manner in
which we view these problems or challenges. In other words, do leaders become anxious, harsh
and punitive, and create a negative focus on problem solving, versus an energetic, innovative
and collaborative environment to solve these problems? The former approach is destructive;
the latter is optimistic and constructive despite the focus being on a problem or risk issue. The
excessive focus on the positive to the exclusion of negative challenges is risky. Gareth Cook
(2011), a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, in an article entitled “The Darker Side of Happiness”
comments:
“…there is gathering evidence that happiness is not what it may appear. A string of new
studies suggests that the modern chase after happiness--and even happiness itself--can
hurt us. Happy, it turns out, is not always the way you want to be. To be happy is to be
more gullible. Happy people tend to think less concretely and systematically; they are
less persuasive. A happy person is less likely to discern looming threats”.
“We have put happiness under the microscope just like we do with every other mental state,”
says June Gruber, an assistant professor of psychology at Yale University, who coauthored a
recent review of happiness research: And “we see that there is this dark side”. There is strong
argument that a focus on negative aspects of life and work is important for survival—it’s the
balance between the positive and the negative that is important. As Fredrickson aptly
comments:
“Without negativity you become Pollyanna with a forced clown smile painted on your
face. You lose touch with reality. You are not genuine. Unchecked, levity leaves you
flighty, ungrounded and unreal. Appropriate negativity grounds you in reality.”
My initial exposure to Appreciative Inquiry supports this view: AI can be perceived as

“Pollyanna-ish”. I have personally received my share of dismissive responses to what is viewed
as an impractically positive approach to my consulting style. In my view, the language used in
some of the writings on AI could be construed as somewhat naïve and does the process a
disservice.
Positivity and the Changing Nature of the Modern Workplace

The workplace of today is very different from the workplace in the first half of the 20th century.
The notion of the work and employment “contract” has changed significantly in the last few
decades (Marciano, 2010). It is a fairly recent phenomenon that people work for more than just
a paycheck. The collective body of research and experience in the past half century has shown
convincingly that people are more motivated by the intrinsic value of the work itself, as well as
Page 154
the pride realized from working for a company with a positive reputation, than from just
receiving a paycheck. It is remarkable however that still in 2015, so many organizations and
managers continue to rely on fiat on the one hand and material rewards on the other (the
proverbial “carrot and stick”), as the primary mechanisms for employees to change behavior,
and evidence shows that neither work effectively.
The notion that employees who are happy in their work, or as Achor (2009) postulates, are
motivated by the fact they are able to pursue their life goals and reach for their potential
through their work, is a recent and primarily Western phenomenon. Prior to the mid-20th
century, work served primarily as a way of “paying the bills” and economic survival, not to
suggest that this is not an aspect of work for many people today. However in the past 60 years
or so, there has been a significant shift in the degree to which people place importance on
gaining life meaning and purpose from work, versus simply making a living. In Merit’s Engage-
to-Change (Weitz, 2010) research referenced earlier, a remarkable 34 percent of respondents
indicate that, given the opportunity, they would work for less money for another company that
cared about and engaged its employees more effectively. A remarkable 66 percent of
respondents either plan to look for opportunities elsewhere in their companies (29.8 percent)
or plan to actively seek employment with other companies (36.5 percent). Overall this was not
a good vote of confidence for employee happiness and motivation for many of the companies
represented in this study.
Reward and recognition drives happiness

Despite a large body of research, as well as experiential evidence, that reward and recognition
programs do not work in the long-term to motivate organizational change and performance,
companies today still use them extensively (Marciano, 2010). While there are some situations,
like motivating short-term changes in behavior, that may be suitable for the use of reward and
recognition programs, most that I have experienced have failed to achieve their intended
results, namely enhanced employee performance, commitment and motivation. The primary
reason for this, as identified by Marciano, is that, “Programs don’t fundamentally change
employees’ beliefs or commitment to their jobs; they just change their behavior during the
course of the program.” Based on this statement, one could argue … simply don’t make it a
program that ends, keep it going forever. Unfortunately research and experience suggest that
this does not work either. This is because of the adaptation or adjustment effect noted by
Aronson (2008). For example, most companies that I have worked with have had some form of
ongoing, annual performance salary increase and bonus system. Seldom have I felt directly
motivated by these programs and my anecdotal experience is that other employees have not
either. Indeed, incentive and reward programs often create greater negativity. The reason is
that employees are either disconnected from the program, in other words they do not have the
Page 155
notion that they really impact the outcome, and secondly, they begin to view the program as
simply an annual event that becomes part of the company’s compensation system, versus a
motivator. Marciano comments that these kinds of programs are viewed as de-motivators and
negative when employees do not get a good enough increase or bonus. These approaches are
barriers to positivity and inhibit change and innovation.
Positivity Techniques—Reversing the Negative Spiral

As I noted previously section, change is the only constant in companies in the new millennium.
With change that is driven by the need to be competitive or to reduce costs or be more
efficient and productive, organizational change can create a pressurized and stressful work
environment. This stressful work environment can create exactly the opposite of what is
needed to be adaptable to the change all around us. Leaders and managers can apply harsh
tactics to produce the results they need to meet their obligations. Toxic leaders can abuse and
intimidate their team members and co-workers. Employees can become fearful, distrustful and
negative and an organizational downward spiral can occur. Fearful employees narrow their
outlooks rather than open their thinking to innovative ideas. They are less creative instead of
actively seeking greater opportunities to meet company goals. An increased amount of time is
spent discussing negative rumors versus brainstorming ideas. Time-off and sick days increase,
safety in the workplace deteriorates and the overall reduction in performance accelerates. How
do many leaders respond? They apply more pressure, harshness and negativity. The result is
exactly the opposite of what is intended, but is predictable. Fredrickson (2009) affirms this
spiral:
“Negative emotions—like fear and anger—can also spawn negative thinking. This
reciprocal dynamic is in fact why downward spirals are so slippery. Negative thoughts
and emotions feed on each other. And as they do, they pull you down their abyss.”
It is important to note that the techniques outlined below, however simple, can apparently
have a lasting impact on organizational culture and individual employees. Lyubmirsky, Boehm
and Sheldon (2011) comment that engaging in happiness-increasing activities such as
committing to important goals, meditating, acting kindly towards others, thinking optimistically
or expressing gratitude, has the potential to improve levels of happiness for significant periods
of time.
“Spiral Up” to Constructive Change

The negative spiral can be stopped and reversed. And for organizational change to be effective
and efficient I believe this negative spiral must be reversed. While I firmly believe negative
issues must be addressed (“risk” in project parlance), for effective organizational change, our
challenge is dealing with risks and problems positively and constructively. However they can
Page 156
only be as effective as the broader organization and project will permit and support, and they
need to become a core competence of the organization to truly be effective. The following
techniques summarize a sample of the methods to achieve this outcome.
Technique 1: Decrease negativity

Negativity is more powerful than positivity; it has a greater impact on the brain and one’s
perception of the world. Frederickson (2009) construes the scientifically confirmed “negativity
bias” as “bad is stronger than good”. The effects of positivity are more subtle and therefore
have to be more frequent in comparison to negativity. When employees are faced with a
negative experience alongside something positive, they will tend to focus more attention on
the negative. This is the same kind of reaction most of us have when there is danger present, in
other words our “fight or flight” response is activated. Frederickson emphasizes the
“positivity/negativity ratio” that has been independently demonstrated by numerous scientific
research studies. A required minimum of at least three positive experiences to one negative is
needed to maintain a positive outlook. The “positivity offset” principle suggests that while most
people experience more positive emotions on average than negative, unless the positive
outweigh the negative by a 3:1 ratio, there is little or no difference in their levels of happiness
or success or, as Fredrickson calls it, “flourishing”. The negative denominator is more powerful,
so companies need to focus more on this dimension to make progress.
Technique 2: Eliminate “Toxic” Leadership

In a recent research study the Merit Resource Group and I launched in the San Francisco Bay
Area, a staggering 37 percent of respondents indicated being personally bullied, intimidated or
seeing others being exposed to this kind of behavior at least monthly, weekly or daily. What is
even more remarkable is that a high percentage of respondents were management and
executive level leaders (2011):
Page 157
Figure 17: Percentage of employees who feel they have been bullied
In the past two years, to what extent have you or others around you
been bullied, intimidated or harassed by a person of authority in your
company?
In the subsequent chapter in this eBook on personality disorders, I comment on how just one
individual, particularly at a senior executive level, can create mayhem in an organization and
influence the culture to the levels of what was seen in the Enron example in 2001 as well as the
Bernie Madoff scandal. While it would be important to understand how these respondents to
the Merit research study interpreted “bullying or intimidation”, it is apparent from numerous
other research studies, as well as anecdotal and personal experience, that management and
leadership in many companies do not stimulate positivity in the workplace, but rather try to get
results through fiat and intimidation. It is essential to ensure that leaders and managers have a
“positivity bias”, understand the techniques and have the necessary skills for reducing
negativity and increasing positivity. At its essence, I believe this is at the core of the ability to
lead organizational change, culture and behavior change specifically.
Technique 3: Modify the situation:

Fredrickson (2009) outlines a technique for changing one’s interpretations of events that may
cause negativity in one’s life. An example in the workplace could be an extremely negative work
colleague who fosters negativity and angst. Hearing constantly negative dialogue is not only
exhausting but can be contagious to others. A powerful technique is to view these situations as
a challenge, and to appreciate the opportunity to test your capabilities to modify the situation
with subtle modification techniques. People often use negative comments to get attention, and
in other cases negativity can be a call for help. In these cases being mindful of these drivers, the
use of listening skills and reframing techniques may be all that is needed to reduce the
negativity. If this does not alter the negativity, asking questions about the logic behind their
negative views can begin to alter the nature of negative dialogue. This is similar to the “re-
framing” process discussed elsewhere in this section. Pointing out alternatives to their negative
viewpoints can move the conversation in a positive direction.
Page 158
Technique 4: Break the negativity cycle:

For leaders and managers, a valuable technique when faced with a negative employee is to
point out a positive aspect of what he or she may be ranting about. For example, when an
employee is bemoaning the poorly implemented technology system, break the negative cycle
by describing the benefits when it is ultimately implemented. One can even reframe the
context of a difficult system in that you would not have had the opportunity to learn the system
as thoroughly if the implementation had been seamless. In other words, the very fact that it
was challenging demanded the need to roll-up your sleeves and really learn the system which
produces long-lasting benefits.
Technique 5: Increase Positivity

While reducing negativity gets the biggest “bang for the buck” in terms of Fredrickson’s 3:1
ratio, ultimately it is the positive experiences and emotions that move people to the tipping
point (Fredrickson, 2009). Reducing negativity negates the potential for a negative spiral, but
it’s positivity that moves people forward and allows individuals to flourish. In the business
world when experiencing large amounts of change, reducing negativity limits resistance and the
potential for unethical behavior and possibly even sabotage. But it’s positivity that opens
people’s minds to the opportunity that change brings and stimulates the creativity that
identifies the opportunities presented by change.
Technique 6: The “Big Picture” at work—find positive meaning

This is more a personal perspective than one based on scientific research and readings. It is
primarily based on my own almost 40 years of working experience. While Achor and
Fredrickson, among others, list a variety of tactical tools and techniques for developing
positivity in life and the workplace, finding positive meaning in life for me is the most
important. It provides the big picture context that makes all of the “life is difficult” experiences
(a Scott M. Peck quote) meaningful. The tactical tools and techniques are magnified in strength
when a person has purpose in their work. My personal mission is to help companies and people
navigate difficult transformation and change in a manner that not only brings business benefits,
but enriches people’s lives and allows them to deal with changing life circumstances in a more
constructive and positive manner. With this end in mind, I tend to explore every difficult project
that I am on with a lens of what I can learn so that I have a richer set of experiences from which
to draw in my consulting work. The more challenging the project, the more valuable it is. For
people who work simply to earn a living and pay the bills, this “big picture” can be lacking.
Page 159
Technique 7: Apply Strengths in the Workplace

As mentioned previously, I am a strong proponent of the “strengths-based leadership”
philosophy of Tom Rath and Barrie Conchie (2008) as well as Zenger and Folkman (2002).
People that have the opportunity to do what they do best are far more likely to flourish
(Fredrickson, 2008). While this is part of Technique 1 above from a career perspective, it can
also be a tactical approach day-by-day. For example, my wife is a nurse executive at a large
hospital group in California, and has almost 100 nurses reporting to her. Although her job
requires many rather mundane tasks, she specifically focuses on the opportunity to apply her
strengths for coaching and developing her nurse reports and dealing directly with patients. It is
in these areas that she finds her greatest meaning and purpose when the drudgery of many
mundane or negative tasks has the potential to become overwhelming.
Technique 8: Connect with Others

Edward Hallowell (2011) asserts the notion that doing things with other people, particularly
when that work is valuable and contributes to something important, is maximized when
performed with others. The ability to share successes and positive experiences is a multiplier
versus simply having a positive experience in isolation. And as I outlined in Technique 1 above,
this is multiplied when the work effort is done with a long-term purpose with the “big picture’
in mind. Research on Employee Engagement in the workplace, conducted by the Gallup
organization (Crabtree, 2004), shows that highly engaged employees are much more likely than
others to say that their organization "encourages close friendships at work”:
“Eighty-two percent of engaged employees showed agreement by rating the statement

‘my organization encourages close friendships at work’ a 4 or 5 (on a 1-5 scale where 5
is ‘Strongly Agree’), compared to 53 percent of those who are not engaged and just 17
percent in the actively disengaged group.”
Positivity in the workplace is contagious. Hallowell (2011) suggests that the spread of happiness
in the workplace is spread exponentially when people in the workplace form social networks.
This is a powerful tool for managers who can create opportunities for employees to get
together inside and outside of work to get to know one another and develop trusting
relationships.
Technique 9: Find Ways to Develop New Skills

Managers and leaders have a unique opportunity to remind team members that change is an
opportunity, and learning new skills is an even greater opportunity. Achor (2010) recalls an
experience he had in Soweto, South Africa, a city I lived within 10 miles of most of my life.
Achor notes his sadness while teaching at Harvard Business School, witnessing smart students
Page 160
bemoaning the hard work and stress of being at one of the leading universities in the world,
while on the other side of the world in Soweto, thousands of disadvantaged children
enthusiastically attend. These are schools largely provided for them after the Apartheid system
was abolished. When he personally asked a group of Soweto children the question, “Who likes
schoolwork”, the great majority smiled and enthusiastically put up their hands; they viewed
schoolwork as a privilege, something most of their parents did not have the opportunity to
experience. However, in the United States, this question, says Achor, is more often met with
little positive response. Managers need to create an environment in which employees view
work as a wonderful privilege and opportunity, in which learning new skills provides the
opportunity to grow and add greater value to customers, work colleagues and the world.
Technique 10: Expectancy Theory Applied in the Workplace

Problems and challenges in the workplace can either be presented as issues of great concern,
with serious negative implications, or they can be positioned as challenges that are exciting and
can produce learning and growth. In other words, the same issue, but a different lens can
create a completely different expectation from employees. Achor describes a remarkable study
performed in Japan: Researchers blindfolded a group of students and told them their right arms
were being rubbed with a poison ivy plant. After this, all 13 of the students reacted with the
typical symptoms of poison ivy despite that they had not actually been rubbed with the plant at
all. Achor suggests that this is explained by “Expectancy Theory”, in which our expectations
create brain patterns that cause reactions as if they were real. I have applied aspects of this in
my project work. One example was with a project team that I inherited some years ago that
had done a rather poor job of creating and managing their project documentation. A project
audit resulted in a negative rating and could have created a negativity spiral, given the intense
pressure members of the project team were under. I presented the need for an enhanced
document management system with a highly positive and fun approach—that of a game or
puzzle to try and find and move documents, with a prize at the end. The expectation was that
this would be fun, and with this expectation, it was (this is also referred to as the Tom Sawyer
effect).
Reflections
It is abundantly clear that being happy at work is a lot more important than simply coming
home from work with a smile on one’s face; it is a cornerstone of individual, team and
organizational performance. In retrospect over my career and years of research and study, it is
remarkable to me that the subject of happiness has been virtually absent until recently. While
in recent years, the notions of employee satisfaction and employee engagement have become
a more significant focus, less has been discussed on the topic and benefits of individual
Page 161
happiness or positivity. Indeed, as previously noted, in my personal experience these concepts

were more often scoffed at than taken seriously in the workplace. More recently, positivity and
happiness are becoming better understood, and companies like Google, SAS, Whole Foods
Markets and Cisco Systems (Hallowell, 2011) are applying techniques that promote happiness,
along with the benefits that emerge from happy and engaged employees. But I believe that we
are a long way from having positivity as a basic cornerstone of business practice. The methods
and tools that many of my contemporaries learned in previous decades do not become “un-
learned” easily, and organizational cultures do not change rapidly either. Much more progress
is needed, and methods such as Appreciative Inquiry, as a positivity-oriented change
management approach, generate measurable business results, and as successful companies
such as Google and others lend legitimacy to these methods and approaches, headway will
undoubtedly be accelerated.
Page 162
References
Achor, S. (2010). The Happiness Advantage. Crown Business Books.
Cook, G. (2011). The Darker Side of Happiness. Boston Globe (October 16th Ed.).
Cooperrider, D., Whitney, W. and Stavros, J. (2008). Appreciative Inquiry Handbook for Leaders
of Change 2nd Edition. Crown Custom Publishers and Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Crabtree, S. (2004). Getting Personal in the Workplace. The Gallup Management Journal.
(http://govleaders.org/gallup_article_getting_personal.htm).
Diener, E., Biswar-Diener, R. (2008). Happiness. Unlocking the Mysteries of Psychological

Wealth. Blackwell Publishing.
Duenwald, M. (2003). More Americans Seeking Help for Depression.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/18/us/more-americans-seeking-help-for-
depression.html?pagewanted=3&src=pm.
Fredrickson, B. (2009). Positivity. Three Rivers Press.
Hallowell, E. (2011). Shine; Using Brain Science to Get the Best from Your People. Harvard
Business School Publishing.
Hammond, S. (1998). The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry. Thin Book Publishing.
Klimosky, L., Kanfer, R. (2002). Emotions in the Workplace. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lyubmirsky, S., Boehm, R., Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Becoming Happier Takes Both a Will and a
Proper Way: An Experimental Longitudinal Intervention To Boost Well-Being. American
Psychological Association, Vol. 11. No. 2, 391-402.
Marciano, P. L. (2010). Carrots and Sticks Don’t Work. McGraw Hill.
Marquardt, M. (2005). Leading with Questions. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Peck, Scott M. (1978). The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values
and Spiritual Growth. Simon & Schuster.
Rath, T. and Conchie, X. (2008). Strengths-Based Leadership. Gallup Press.
Weitz, K. (2011). Engage-to-Change Research Study. Merit Resource Group.
Zenger, J.H., Folkman, J. (2002). The Extraordinary Leader: Turning Good Managers into Great
Leaders. MCGraw Hill.
Page 163
Chapter 14: Fear in the workplace
Introduction
A few years ago, I was conducting a series of interviews with mid and upper level managers as
part of a process to assess a client company’s culture. A surprising finding initially puzzled me in
this highly successful, leading-edge company. The manifestation of nervousness and fear
surprised me. On a number of occasions, interviewees would hesitate in answering and would
want to confirm that the interviews were confidential, commenting in one fashion or another
that they were fearful of negative career impacts if their bosses were to hear of what they were
disclosing. For an organization facing unprecedented competition and struggling to shift its
strategic direction, this was troubling. Both research and personal experience suggests that fear
causes people to seek safety; they will tend to avoid stepping out of line, avoid risk-taking and
standing out, speaking out even when they are concerned about company success. People
narrow their thinking when fearful and under threat, which is the antithesis of innovation and
risk taking. In the case of this company, it was precisely innovation
The workplace is becoming increasingly demanding as competiveness, product cycle times and
speed-to-market become increasingly essential for companies to survive. This global
organization’s rallying cry in the past year has been one of “survival” if they are not able to
leapfrog their competitors more quickly. They had been complacent about their dominant
position in their product space and were slow to react to the earlier market trends. The
pressure was on, and it could be seen on the faces of employees and it was a commonly
discussed subject “around the coffee machine”. Once a new CEO was appointed, restructuring
was almost immediate and a few key senior executives were sidelined. Rumors of job cuts were
rife. At the same time senior leaders were championing new behaviors of being bold, moving
faster and being more innovative and productive. I would argue that in that environment, the
urging was falling on deaf ears, indeed, it was frustrating many employees who felt that in the
culture at that time the behaviors were simply not possible. The new culture being championed
was too risky. People were scared.
NOTE: Fear of physical violence is not within the scope of this topic; rather it is fear of potential
damage to one’s career potential, reputation, financial security or simple perceived fear based
on terms of status and material terms that is discussed in this section.
The Impacts of fear

Some years ago, while working on a smartmetering implementation project with a utility
company, it became obvious to my team that there was a high degree of distrust and
Page 164
antagonism between corporate management and “the field”. The “field” employees are the
people that do the work in the neighborhoods and suburbs and other geographic areas where
power is delivered to customers. My interaction with certain members of senior leadership
showed a high degree of harshness and derision toward lower level employees. A toxic
combination of factors converged with this antagonism. At the time, there was a lot of concern
among customers and communities about the smartmeter technology being unsafe from a
health perspective as well as questions about privacy and security. As the story was told, on a
particular day in a local suburb, a utility field operator was having a lunch break in his truck. A
local resident approached him, having read about smartmeters in the local newspaper, and she
asked the utility company employee what he thought about the technology. The employee
apparently pulled no punches in his criticism of the technology. The local resident used this
negative feedback as justification to contact her local newspaper, and ultimately local
government, to complain. Ultimately this escalated to the point that the utility company
incurred millions of dollars in extra costs by having to justify implementation of the system. This
is an example of how a climate of fear in the workplace creates distrust between leaders and
workers and this fear and distrust can result in poor performance as well as destructive
behaviors and even sabotage.
Gardner (2012) illustrate a common fear-producing example of highly pressurized project

deadlines and deliverables. It is also an example of how leaders can unknowingly create poor
performance in an attempt to meet increasingly tough deliverables and deadlines by creating
too much urgency. This can result in team members becoming demoralized and fearful. This is a
common phenomenon in large scale projects that I have worked on, partnering with various so-
called “big four” consulting groups. Consulting firms are often under pressure to bid low on
project proposals in order to win the project, but often underestimate the risks and the
potential for changes to the project once in flight. If these risks are realized there is often
intense pressure from the client company to meet the originally stated timeline and costs. This
was indeed the case with the utility company smartmeter project. Instead of cultivating a
project team environment of greater energy, innovation and challenge, the consulting company
became harsh and belligerent, intimidating and alienating team members. In one case a senior
leader banged her fist on the table in anger because a team member had to leave to pick up her
young children—even though it was 7 p.m. This was a good example of what Babiak and Hare
(2006) refer to as a “Boss from Hell”. This team member eventually resigned from the project
and took up a “safer” assignment. Toxic leaders can create immense fear and anxiety and
wreak huge damage on team morale and performance.
Ryan (1998) conducted research into the cost of fear, and while she was unable to develop a
direct financial impact assessment, she notes that it is easy to extrapolate the following
implications into the potential for losses in productivity and output:
Page 165
 Negative feelings about the organization, in the worst case resulting in sabotage
 Lack of innovation (limited new ideas turned into profitable products)
 Not speaking-up when employees witness fraud or theft
 Loss of top talent
 Employees unwilling to give extra effort
 Making and hiding mistakes
 Lack of initiative
 Lack of considered risk-taking.
 Taking inappropriate risks that could harm the company
 Slow decision-making
 Lack of willingness to take accountability
 Political behaviors and finger pointing
Ryan continues to observe how companies can respond to this kind of behavior in the wrong
fashion, potentially worsening fear and exacerbating the problem. As employees invariably
respond negatively to fear and performance subsequently suffers, companies can tend to layer
in additional management oversight and controls along with a more harsh management style.
This then sends the message that senior management do not trust employees and the fear
cycle continues and worsens.
In hierarchical organizations senior leaders have far greater power. In a banking group where I
worked for some years, senior leaders had almost total military-like power. One remarkable
example was in earlier years, thankfully before I worked for them, an employee would have to
receive approval from their managers to get married. This policy was based on the bizarre logic
that the financial viability of every employee was the bank’s concern. My own experience in this
company was fraught with cases of me speaking-up to senior leadership and being severely
reprimanded, and in one case coming to the verge of being fired for speaking directly to the
CEO and chairman. The result of these kinds of experiences for many employees is to become
cautious, avoid standing out and take the “safe” route.
The causes of fear

Rieger (2011) outlines the findings of his research into organizational fear and determines that
the primary source is a “fear of perceived loss”—loss of status, pay, image or reputation, career
progression and other work-related opportunities. He postulates bureaucracy as a major
component of protection against fear of loss; leaders often create and use bureaucratic
structures and rules to maintain control and protect their turf in order to protect from loss.
“Rules”, says Rieger, “are in a sense walls that provide protection against what leaders feel is
theirs—they fear the loss of power, influence and control.” Slawek (2013) observes how the
Page 166
personal fear of failure, loss of credibility or loss of prestige, can cause a high level of anxiety for
employees. In an organizational culture in which risk-taking and the possibility of mistakes are
not tolerated, the fear of failure can be a huge barrier to innovation and high performance.
Rieger continues to emphasize the tug-of-war that can arise when individuals experience fear.
This can stimulate a tradeoff between what is best for them, self-protection, and what is
morally correct for the company. He argues that a person will often interpret or justify behavior
that favors their self-interest versus protecting the best interests of the company if fear is
present. People will tend to protect themselves first and quite easily justify their behavior and a
win-lose competitive culture can emerge. In a culture of fear these kinds of protective
behaviors may include taking away the freedoms from others, limiting empowerment and
reducing the opportunities others have to gain knowledge or new skills. It can also involve
restricting the flow of information, withholding support, and avoiding being accountable if risks
are high. In all of these cases the behavior is one of self-protection.
Similar to Gilbert’s (2006) perspective, from an interview with Harvard Business School
professor Amy Edmondson, Rieger notes that this sense of potential loss is often perceived
versus real. She references Kahneman and Tverskey’s “Prospect Theory” which suggests that
once someone feels entitled to something, the pain of having to give up that entitlement is
much more intense than the pleasure that would come from an incremental gain of the same
size. These entitlements could include job stability, salary increases, periodic promotions,
bonuses, vacation time and so on. One could argue that in the current unpredictable and
somewhat unstable economy, expectations of constantly improving benefits are unjustified. As
a long-time individual consultant, constantly having to market myself for “the next project”, the
expectation of career stability is only that which I create for myself—independent consultants
and other individual business owners create their own opportunities. In companies where
employees have had years, and even decades of stable employment, it is easy to see how fear
can emerge when the future begins to look different from the past, and how fear of loss can
begin to emerge.
Another source of fear, whether perceived or real, can manifest from co-workers or senior
leaders who have greater influence and power to damage an individual’s career. Senior leaders,
who have come to take positional power for granted, are potentially able to create or destroy
careers instantly. I experienced this some years ago with a group of leaders discussing various
candidates to lead a prestigious project. In one case a name was proposed, and one of the more
influential leaders simply rolled his eyes—there were no words exchanged, but the individual,
who I knew personally, had his career irrevocably damaged in that instant. Of course more
blatant forms of damage are not uncommon in the form of bullying and other forms of
psychological abuse. Goldsmith (2008) observes how fear in the workplace has greatly
Page 167
escalated since the Great Recession of 2008, which resulted in large-scale lay-offs and the
highest levels of unemployment since the Great Depression of the 1930s. In many reported
cases, the incidence of bullying and abuse escalated because of employees feeling at risk, and
being vulnerable. With escalating pressure on companies during that time, many managers
were able to take advantage of employee vulnerability. My personal experience with an apparel
company during this period was a dramatic example of employees “running for cover” and
placing personal security and wellbeing ahead of both the company as it was conducting large
scale lay-offs, and their co-workers. It was an ugly win-lose environment in which fear was
tangible and damaging. Indeed, co-workers began to assess each other in a defensive manner
as the company decided who would get laid-off and who would remain. Colleagues who
previously worked collaboratively together began to consider each other with suspicion.
Samnami (2013) quotes research which indicates that that U.S.-based estimates suggest that up
to 97 percent of employees have experienced some form of bullying or intimidation in the
workplace over the five years prior to the research, specifically during the period of the Great
Recession.
Porath and Pearson (2012) conducted a study into civility in the workplace and identified those
individuals who reported greater incivility also reported greater levels of anger, fear and
sadness. Anger was associated with more direct aggression against the instigators while fear
was associated with indirect aggression, absenteeism and exit. Sadness was associated largely
with absenteeism. These results underscore the need for organizations to manage civility so
that they and their employees can avoid substantial direct and indirect costs associated with
workplace incivility.
I have had, as I am sure many readers have also had, experiences with a “Boss from Hell”.
Babiak and Hare (2006) point out the rather startling incidence of psychopathy in business. The
title of their book, “Snakes in Suits” is very pertinent to the kind of anxiety and fear these kinds
of individuals can cause. The authors note that about 1 percent of the total U.S. population
manifests psychopathic traits to the level they can be labeled psychopaths. An additional 10
percent fall into a “gray zone” where they exhibit traits to a level that make them borderline
and problematic to co-workers. They comment that there is anecdotal evidence that the
incidence of these traits may be greater in the business environment where certain of these
traits are considered to be positive and being associated with high performance. If this is added
to simply bad or toxic managers and leaders, the potential is clearly very high for these kinds of
individuals to be a major cause of fear and anxiety in the workplace.
Given the impact that co-workers and specifically leaders with these kinds of personalities can
have on the culture and work environment of a company, I have included a expansion of this
topic in Chapter 15.
Page 168
How to overcome fear

Gilbert (2006) quotes Edmondson on two key conditions that need to be in place for employees
to feel free to express their opinions to leaders and rise above fear. First employees must
believe that they are not placing themselves at risk of embarrassment, career damage, or loss
of material resources. Secondly, that one is not wasting one’s time, in other words, the risk of
speaking up is worthwhile. The author continues by commenting that an environment in which
employees are more willing to speak up is one in which risk-taking is championed and
rewarded. I would add to this observation that even if this risk-taking is unsuccessful, when
leaders have good interpersonal skills, “psychological distance” between bosses and
subordinates is minimized. Examples of large “psychological distance” include factors such as
highly visible seniority grading differences between lower level employees, managers and
senior leaders. In more extreme cases, large psychological distance might include prestigious
benefits for senior executives from special parking spaces to private office spaces and higher
quality office equipment and so on. These authors do seem to place the primary responsibility
on the organization to create this kind of cultural environment. While I agree with this, the
primary responsibility must be placed on the individual to develop the skills, habits and
confidence to be bold, to speak up and take responsibility for personal change, These are
learned skills. This responsibility is discussed in greater detail in Chapters 12 and 13.
Edmondson (2006) notes that cultural issues, especially important for multi-national
companies, also must be considered. In one company’s case, it was highly evident that leaders
in Asian countries, for example, tend not to challenge leaders. Simply speaking directly to a
leader can be considered disrespectful. In my birth country of South Africa, certain cultures
believe that speaking directly to a more senior, or older, person and looking at them directly in
the eyes is disrespectful. These deeply embedded cultural beliefs are difficult to overcome.
Often these personal and cultural issues can be more effectively dealt with at the individual
manager-employee level. Although this places greater emphasis on managers themselves
understanding the importance of open dialogue with employees and being proactive about
cultivating candid conversations. Manager development is essential for this to take place.
In situations where a fear-infused culture stifles agility and innovation, Gilbert (2006) quotes
Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson about the importance of “speaking-up” or
what she calls “upward voice”. When there are factors at play that place an organization at risk,
even if the risk is relatively minor, it is important that all employees have the opportunity to
speak up, voice their concerns and make suggestions. At one company I consulted with, one
manager described a “concrete barrier” between senior leaders and all other employees which
made it almost impossible for employees to safely voice concerns or raise issues with senior
leadership. Edmondson outlines several factors that appear to create a situation in which
Page 169
individual employees may not feel comfortable to speak up: Personality type, level of
extroversion, one’s skill at communicating difficult issues without evoking defensiveness and
personal concerns and fears about possible reprisals and negative impacts to their jobs and
careers. Gilbert (2006) articulates Edmondson’s views on why so many employees are reticent
to take the risk of speaking up:
“…from an evolutionary point of view, it seems we’re all hard-wired to overestimate

rather than underestimate certain types of risks—it was better (for survival) to flee
more often from threats that were not really there than to NOT flee the one time there
was a significant risk. So, we’ve inherited emotional and cognitive mechanisms that
motivate us to avoid perceived risks to our psychological and material well-being.”
Structural Factors
Ryan (1998) discusses cultural and personal behavioral issues that foster or inhibit fear. She
postulates on “establishing group norms” or standards for how leaders should interact with
employees and providing leaders with feedback on their interactive behavior, for example, in
360 degree-type surveys. Personal coaching can also be provided to leaders that have poor
survey feedback results as well as developing a culture that values constructive criticism. Ryan
refers to conflict management experts Roger Fisher and Scott Brown’s approach of
“unconditionally constructive” dialogue with others. Clearly this is not a behavior that emerges
by itself; it requires a conscious decision by senior leaders to promote these norms and develop
these skills. As noted by Lesley (2009), a number of countries including Canada and Australia
have instituted legislation that is aimed at reducing the incidence of workplace bullying and
intimidation with clear and significant consequences.
Eliminating toxic leaders and improving management capability

Cavaiola and Lavender (2000) outline their research on stress in the workplace, in which they
identified that over 80 percent of their sample worked with at least one person whose behavior
was a significant source of stress and anxiety. Their analysis showed that the behaviors of these
troublesome bosses, co-workers or subordinates exhibited the kinds of behaviors consistent
with severe behavioral disorders versus simply the kind of “head-butting” that sometimes
happens in the workplace. The authors outline behavioral disorders such as narcissism,
histrionic personality disorder, antisocial personalities, obsessive compulsive disorder,
dependent personality disorder, passive aggressive personality, the avoidant personality, the
schizoid personality and the paranoid personality—certainly making for troubling reading. The
anxiety and fear that can be orchestrated by these personality types can be damaging and very
difficult to overcome. The topic of toxic co-workers is discussed in detail in chapter 15.
Page 170
A different model for work

Malone (2004) proposes the notion of the “Paradox of Power” where power is not abused, but
rather it is given away, for example to employees in order to create a more empowered and
dynamic or democratic organization. He says, “Sometimes the best way to gain power (I would
prefer to use the term “influence”) is to give it away.” Malone quotes Jim Collins’ book, Good to
Great, in describing how every one of the great performing companies he tracked had CEOs
that were humble and self-effacing; the antithesis of a harsh and fearful work environment.
Malone outlines the concept of “distributed leadership”, or leadership competencies that can
be exercised from anywhere in the organization, not simply from the top down. The
implications of this form of leadership suggests that anyone can be empowered and motivated
to influence an organization in a productive manner, and thus the top down form of
organizational power and abuse of power that causes fear is reduced.
Resource agility
Another approach for reducing fear in the workplace is to create a work model in which
employees are not “owned” by the organization or by individual managers. This approach
involves the free movement of talent to areas where they have the greatest value to the
organization as well as to the individual. This approach allows talented individuals far greater
capability of moving to areas of an organization where they feel they can do their best work,
and the assumption is they would choose areas where the incidence of fear is less. This free
movement of talent has significant mechanisms to reduce fear. People would begin to develop
the understanding that they personally control their work destinies. The notion of
“expectation” noted earlier by Rieger, where the organization “will take care of me”, declines.
Workers begin to take greater control and accountability for their careers and place less
emphasis on the role and influence of the organization they work for. In the agile resourcing
model, if fear begins to emerge for any of the reasons discussed previously, workers have much
greater opportunity and control to change or influence the drivers of fear. Speaking up or
pushing back is much easier if one’s manager knows that the worker is quite capable of simply
moving to another project inside or outside the company if they become uncomfortable
enough—managers no longer “own” the work lives of employees. This topic is discussed at
greater length in chapter 17 on the subject of Talent Management.
Programmatic approaches
Grant (2013) postulates that “giver and taker” cultures are those where people are either
proactive givers of support and information to co-workers, or they are takers. Of course there
are gradients between these two extremes. He notes that “taker” cultures tend to be inherently
more fearful and anxious and people are on their guard and protecting their own positions and
Page 171
knowledge. He continues to outline a technique developed by Michigan professor Wayne Baker

and his wife, Cheryl Baker, called the "reciprocity ring". This exercise assembles employees in
groups of about 10 to about 20 people. Each employee makes a request, and group members
use their knowledge, resources and connections to grant it. The Bakers typically run the
exercise in two 60-90-minute rounds; the first for personal requests, so that people begin to
open up, and the second for professional requests. Since everyone is asking for help, people
rarely feel uncomfortable.
Caroselli (2003) describes a range of facilitated activities and workshops in which employees
and managers can explore issues that cause fear and anxiety. These are simple yet practical
ways, similar to what Ryan (1998) refers to as “undiscussables”, and techniques for placing
these issues on the table for open discussion and the development of solutions.
Reflections
Fear stimulates a “fight or fight” response which dramatically changes the way workers think
and act. As discussed in more detail in Chapter 5, repeated experiences that produce fear
change how the brain is “wired” and fear can become ingrained in an organization’s culture.
“Fear destroys companies. More specifically, fear leads companies to destroy themselves.” This
quote by Rieger (2011) aptly notes the destructive capability of a fear-based culture. A
challenge is that many companies’ senior leaders either ignore or refute the existence of fear,
making it difficult to discuss. It is “undiscussable” and therefore unsolvable. This fact will almost
always stifle a positive and energetic transformation effort.
Page 172
References
Babiak, P. and Hare, R. (2006). Snakes in Suits. Harper Collins.
Caroselli, M. (2003). The Business Ethics Activity Book. Amacom.
Cavaiola, A. and Lavender, N. (2000). Toxic Coworkers. New Harbinger Publications.
Cure, L. (2009). Fear within the workplace: A phenomenological investigation of the experience
of female leaders. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. http://udini.proquest.com/view/fear-
within-the-workplace-a-pqid:1890402321/
Gardner, H. (2012) Coming Through When It Matters Most. Harvard Business Review
Gilbert, S. (2006). Do I say something? HBS Working Knowledge.

Http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5261.html
Goldsmith, B. (2008). Dealing with Fear in the Workplace. Cost Engineering, Vol.50/No. 12.
Grant, A. (2013). Givers take all: The hidden dimension of corporate culture. McKinsey
Quarterly.
Lessack, S. and Hamilton, P. (2011). If fear is a factor, fire threatening employees. HR Specialist:
Pennsylvania Employment Law.
Malone, T. (2004). The Future of Work. Harvard Business School Press.
Metcalf T. (No Date). How Does Fear in the Workplace Inhibit Learning? Demand Media.
http://work.chron.com/fear-workplace-inhibit-learning-20934.html
Porath, C. and Pearson, C. (2012). Courtesy in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology.
Rieger, T. (2011). Beaking the Fear Barrier. Gallup Press, New York.
Ryan, K. (1998). Driving Fear out of the Workplace 2nd Edition. Jossey-Bass Inc. San Francisco.
Slawek, J. (2013). Face your fears. Smart Business Chicago.
Samnami, A. (2013) The Early Stages of Workplace Bullying and How It Becomes Prolonged: The
Role of Culture in Predicting Target Responses. Journal of Business Ethics.
Page 173
Chapter 15: Personality Disorders and Organizational Culture
Introduction
A phenomenon that I have always been aware of in the high-level context of organizational
culture is how certain individuals, particularly in senior leadership positons, can have such a
profound impact on a company’s culture, and the day-to-day lives of employees. This Chapter
focuses on a negative aspect of individual behavior, namely personality disorders.
In Chapter 16 on “organizational fear”, I referenced Babiak and Hare’s (2006) book, Snakes in
Suits, and noted how appropriate this title is, in my view, given a number of experiences I have
had over the years with senior leaders in a variety of organizations. Cavaiola and Lavender
(2000) similarly comment on the tremendous damage that employees with various kinds of
personality disorders can have on an organization’s culture:
“…this problem is like a hidden cancer slowly and persistently sucking the life out of
productive and viable organizations by creating inefficient management, sexual
harassment, excessive litigation, escalating expenses and job related stress. The
magnitude of the problems these people cause for their organizational settings are of
such as astounding proportions that they may be immeasurable.”
I don’t think this can be overstated. Cavaiola and Lavender note that 80 percent of people they
surveyed reported having to deal with someone in the workplace that created huge amounts of
disruption and stress. Complicating factors around personality disorders are rarely, if ever,
discussed in the context of organizational culture, but the impact of strong personalities with
personality disorders can be huge, particularly when these people are in positions of power. So
while all of the 10 personality disorders summarized below do not provide the same risk to an
organization’s culture, it is valuable to bring the awareness of this impact into the discussion of
what impacts organizational culture.
Personality disorders in the workplace

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM-5) defines a
personality disorder as an “enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates
markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an
onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time and leads to distress or
impairment.” Cavaiola and Lavender (2000) define personality disorders as a “special group of
psychological disorders of which the general public and most workplaces are generally
unaware.” These are potentially more destructive, they say, because they are generally difficult
Page 174
for the layperson to identify, and undoubtedly even more difficult to deal with in the work
environment. The authors emphasize how these behaviorally affected individuals manifest in
the workplace with repetitive patterns of dysfunctional behaviors that are disturbing and often
destructive. The DSM-5 describes 11 types of personality disorders plus a category of “other”:
1. Paranoid
2. Schizoid
3. Schizotypal
4. Antisocial
5. Borderline
6. Histrionic
7. Narcissistic
8. Avoidant
9. Dependent
10. Obsessive compulsive
11. Personality change due to another medical condition
12. Other and unspecified
NOTE: This section will focus on disorders 1 through 10 but will not discuss 11 and 12 given that
these disorders have medical implications that are not within the scope of this eBook.
The DSM-5 sets guidelines for diagnosing mental disorders. This “bible” of abnormal psychology
provides a common reference for all professionals in the field to utilize standard definitions and
vocabulary. While others may exist, professionals note that there is not enough definitive
research on these outliers in order to include them in the DSM at this time. The DSM-5 clusters
these disorders into three categories, but does indicate that these categories have “serious
limitations and have not been consistently validated”. Cavaiola and Lavender (2000) are quick
to comment that there is no one “pure” type, but these individuals can have various intensities
of their disorder and can manifest traits of several of them, thus making it quite difficult to
diagnose, even for clinical professionals.
A Cluster – This cluster includes the paranoid personality disorder, which is characterized by
being overly suspicious and distrusting of others. The schizoid personality disorder is aloof and
avoids social interactions. The schizotypal personality disorder displays bizarre behaviors and
comes across as odd and weird. Some professionals note that this cluster is related to the more
severe psychotic disorder of schizophrenia, but in a milder form.
B Cluster – The B Cluster includes the narcissistic personality disorder, which is characterized by
a sense of excessive self-esteem and entitlement. Their constant need to be admired often
draws them to positions of leadership and power. The histrionic personality disorder includes
Page 175
behaviors of being overly emotional, shallow in relationships and an excessive need for
attention. Individuals with antisocial personality disorder lack a sense of morality and empathy
for the wellbeing of others and the borderline personality tends to be excessively moody and
angry, sometimes to the point of suicide. They also tend to have disruptive and emotionally
intense relationships and lack a sense of identity.
C Cluster – The C Cluster includes people who tend to be excessively anxious. The dependent
personality also referred to as co-dependent, is overly reliant on others for a sense of security
and self–esteem. The obsessive compulsive personality disorder is overly moralistic, a
perfectionist and highly critical of others.
NOTE: The following descriptions of personality disorders are taken primarily from the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Where other sources are
included, these are referenced. Descriptions on how these personality disorders may manifest
in the workplace are either my own interpretations or those of other sources.
Paranoid personality disorder

This disorder is manifest as a pattern of pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others and
their motives and intent. They assume that others are out to exploit, harm or deceive them
even if there is little or no evidence to this. They often express feelings about being deeply
injured by others even though they cannot substantiate this viewpoint. These people are
preoccupied with scrutinizing the intentions of others for evidence that they are plotting
against them. They find it difficult to believe that others actually demonstrate loyalty or trust.
They struggle to confide in others, making it difficult to develop close relationships. They will
tend to avoid answering personal questions, thinking that this information could be used
against them. Casual remarks made by others are often interpreted as demeaning or
threatening. They tend to hold long-term grudges and are unwilling to forgive perceived insults
or slights made by others. They tend to respond aggressively to any perceived slight or insult
from others making it difficult to maintain constructive relationships for long periods as are
often needed in a work environment.
How the paranoid personality disorder may manifest in the workplace

Organizational success is almost always based on some element of trust. It is not difficult to
imagine how someone with this disorder would not only struggle personally, but would
potentially be destructive to, for example, a team’s morale and effectiveness, particularly if an
individual with the disorder was in a leadership role. With the workplace of the future based
more on agile teams forming and moving from one project to another, the need to innately
trust others, at least initially, is essential and thereafter to base trust on factual evidence. These
individuals struggle to do this. Moreover, in this “hustle and bustle” of working together under
Page 176
time and cost pressures, tension is inevitable and a degree of team competitiveness is not
uncommon—this disorder would tend to misinterpret common competition and minor
frustrations among team members as plots to make the individual fail or as targeted
“backstabbing”. The holding of grudges and aggressive responses to other team members
would quickly alienate this type of personality from the team. A greater challenge would be
when this personality type has emerged as a team leader and has greater leverage across all
members of the team. This could occur, for example, in industries, such as science, medical and
engineering where intelligent people progress by simply being outstanding technical experts,
and get promoted to positions of leadership.
Cavaiola and Lavender (2000) outline the likely behaviors of an individual with paranoid
personality disorder in a management position. This person is likely to be extremely distrustful
and suspicious of subordinates, often thinking that their reports are scheming to undermine
their effectiveness and will tend to be defensive against good ideas posed by team members.
They may likely misinterpret high levels of motivation of team members as an attempt to show
them up or get their jobs. Developing the skills and careers of others is not likely a function that
these individuals will be good at. They are likely to be micromanagers given that they will be
suspicious and distrustful of what subordinates are doing.
Schizoid personality disorder

DSM-5 describes this disorder as a pervasive pattern of detachment from social relationships
and a restricted range of expression of emotions in interpersonal settings. These individuals
appear to be indifferent to any opportunities to develop close relationships and do not seem to
obtain any satisfaction from being part of a family or other social group. They seem unaffected
by the criticism or compliments from others and do not appear to care what others think about
them. They are oblivious to the normal subtleties of social interaction and tend not to respond
to subtle social cues, so they appear as inept or socially “bland”. For example they will tend not
to reciprocate socially expected smiles or nods that acknowledge social connectedness. They
tend to rarely experience emotions of joy or anger and can appear cold and aloof. The schizoid
personality disorder is indicated by the manifestation of four or more of the following:
1. Neither desires nor enjoys close relationships, including family interaction

2. Prefers solitary activities
3. Has little interest in sexual experiences with another person
4. Takes pleasure in few activities, if any
5. Lacks close friends other than first-degree relatives
6. Appears indifferent to praise or criticism from others
7. Demonstrates emotional coldness and detachment
Page 177
How the schizoid personality disorder may manifest in the workplace

In most organizations today, social interaction during daily work is common, even in virtual
settings. Companies invest huge amounts of time and money in how to energize and inspire
their employees for the best possible performance. From minor “pats on the back” for a job
well done or a more formal recognition for performance, the schizoid personality will likely fail
to be inspired and will also be unlikely to display any form of positive reaction or pleasure.
Similarly the poor performing individual being coached or managed will also tend to be
unaffected by strong criticism from their bosses. This appearance of lack of caring could be
interpreted as lack of commitment to or interest in their work and to the company’s goals and
aspirations. Given that these individuals appear directionless and tend to “drift” in their goals,
the likelihood of them being strongly-focused high performers is low. DSM-5 notes that these
individuals will likely operate best in work conditions of isolation. One can imagine that the
workplace of the future, allowing work to be conducted remotely via the virtual technologies
over the internet, with little need for direct interactions with others, provides opportunities for
this personality type. Cavaiola and Lavender (2000) comment that the field of engineering
appears to attract people with schizoid personality disorder. They can be very successful in this
field and as a result of this technical success, be promoted to managerial levels. As the authors
say, “This is where the problems begin”. Precisely the kind of factors that make these
individuals good engineers, thinking ability, logic and analytical capabilities, tend to manifest at
the expense of the interpersonal skills required of a management role. These individuals will
tend to be entirely focused on the technical task at hand and will have little or no emotional
quotient needed to lead and manage people effectively.
Schizotypal personality disorder

The schizotypal personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of social and
interpersonal limitations, a reduced capacity for close relationships, cognitive and perceptual
distortions and eccentric behaviors. These individuals often have ideas of reference, but not
delusions of reference, namely incorrect or distorted interpretations of casual experiences or
incidences and external events by placing unusual meanings to them. They are likely to be
highly superstitious or preoccupied with paranormal phenomena that are outside their normal
social context or culture. They may believe they have special powers to sense future events,
read the thoughts of others, have special controls over others or influence over events. They
may exhibit perceptual alternations such as hearing voices or sensing that someone is present
when they are not. Their speech may appear unusual or incoherent and include idiosyncratic
phraseology.
Page 178
How the schizotypal personality disorder may manifest in the workplace

Because these individuals often have an odd appearance, for example in the way they dress,
unusual speech patterns and strange perceptual experiences, they will tend to find it difficult to
fit in the typical workplace. They are likely to be suspicious of co-workers, thinking that
colleagues may be plotting against them. They are uncomfortable around other people,
especially if these individuals are unknown to them. They prefer to be by themselves, and
therefore struggle in a team environment. Exacerbating this is their predisposition to be
suspicious of others. Given their predisposition to present as being odd or eccentric, co-workers
will likely be uncomfortable in their presence and avoid being associated with them. This is
likely to advance the perception that others are talking about them behind their backs and
possibly plotting to undermine them.
Antisocial personality disorder

DSM-5 notes that antisocial personality disorder (APD) is also referred to as psychopathy,
sociopathy or dissocial personality disorder. Interestingly Babiak and Hare (2006) differentiate
the psychopath from antisocial personality disorder, which they describe as a broad diagnostic
category and may include the psychopath but also may not. They indicate that psychopathy
specifically includes personality traits like a lack of empathy, grandiosity and shallow emotions
that are not necessary for the diagnosis of APD. Deceit and manipulation are the major
characteristics of this disorder and behaviors in which the basic rights and other societal norms
are repeatedly violated. This conduct falls into four categories; aggression toward people and
animals, destruction of property, deceitfulness, theft or other kinds of violations of rules or
laws. Someone with this disorder may repeatedly perform acts that are grounds for arrest, such
as threatening others, destroying property and violence. They also tend to display a reckless
disregard for their own safety. They can display extreme lack of responsibility. They also
demonstrate little remorse for their acts and for damage they have caused. They tend to be
callous, cynical and contemptuous of the feelings, rights and suffering of others. Exacerbating
the damage that can be caused by these individuals is the likelihood for them to appear self-
assured, cocky and overly opinionated. They can also display a high level of charm, which will
tend to appear superficial.
How the antisocial personality disorder may manifest in the workplace

These individuals display an extreme lack of responsibility in the workplace. They will manifest
this by, for example, having long absences from work with no excuse. They tend to have long
periods of unemployment with no plan for obtaining an income. They frequently default on
debts, and may go as far as to embezzle funds or steal from their employers. Their potential to
be charming creates the opportunity for them to appear initially as the “wunderkind” in the
Page 179
workplace, however this superficiality can become evident quite quickly because of a disregard
for company rules and boundaries.
Babiak and Hare (2006) note that some corporate cultures may actually attract the
psychopathic personality. Cultures characterized by aggressiveness and success at all costs
might find the psychopathic personality appealing, especially in early stages of interviews
where the psychopath is at his or her charming best. Cavaiola and Lavender (2000) comment
that there are many instances where ruthlessness, cunning, manipulation, deceit and unbridled
ambition are viewed as essential characteristics in order to advance in some organizations. No
wonder anecdotally, it appears that so many senior executives exhibit these kinds of behaviors.
Borderline personality disorder

The borderline personality disorder manifests as a pervasive pattern of instability of
interpersonal relationships and self-image with marked impulsivity. These individuals usually
have a self-image based on being evil, and at times have feelings that they don’t exist at all.
They make frantic efforts to avoid real or perceived abandonment, rejection, separation or the
loss of external structure. They are intensely impacted by external environmental
circumstances. They may experience inappropriate levels of fear and anger at even temporary
periods of separations, for example, when a therapist or caregiver may end a session earlier
than expected or may arrive a few minutes late. They have an intolerance of being alone and
need to have others with them to feel comfortable.
These individuals have long-term patterns of unstable relationships. They may initially idealize
caregivers or partners, demand an extraordinary amount of their time and share highly
personal and intimate details about themselves very early in the relationship. This idealization
may quickly turn to devaluing them when they perceive that the caregiver or partner is not
caring enough or not providing enough personal time or attention. These shifts in attitude
towards others can be quick and dramatic. They may display extreme sarcasm, enduring
bitterness and abusive verbal outbursts.
There is the likelihood of marked and persistent instability in self-image and sense of self. These
shifts may manifest as sudden changes in personal goals, values, career aspirations and/or life
goals and objectives. These individuals demonstrate worse performance in less structured
educational or work environments. They may display high levels of impulsivity in the form of
gambling, spending money irresponsibly, binge eating, substance abuse, reckless driving and
physical violence. They may also display recurrent suicidal behaviors or threats, or self-
mutilation. They display instability of mood, manifest as intense dysphoria, irritability or
anxiety. They easily become bored and express chronic feelings of emptiness.
Page 180
How the borderline personality disorder may manifest in the workplace

These individuals are likely to be attracted to highly structured work environments in which
they are working closely with other people. They will likely attempt to develop close
relationships with both co-workers and supervisors. They are likely to idealize these individuals
initially. Problems may occur when these relationships do not provide the nurturing they
desperately need and expect. For example if a supervisor that is under work stress appears
dismissive or is non-attentive during a meeting, these individuals are prone to react rapidly and
dramatically with sarcasm and anger, thus damaging these relationships. As these co-workers
or managers then pull back from the relationship with the person, so their borderline
personality makes them likely to interpret this as abandonment and may cause them to react
with angry outbursts or panic and anxiety. These real or perceived losses of relationships can
then result in these individuals suddenly changing career goals or direction. They are also prone
to giving up just before they are about to potentially achieve a significant work or educational
goal, making it difficult to progress in their careers. Cavaiola and Lavender (2000) comment that
people with this disorder probably present the greatest challenge to the organizational
structure because they have an inability to develop ongoing, stable and sane relationships. They
have a profound ability to disrupt the lives of workers around them. Often this disruption
emerges from their tendency to have wild swings in their relationships, from one extreme of,
for example, thinking and saying that their boss is the best ever, lavishing praise and soon
thereafter, perhaps after some perception of being rejected, swing into hatred and verbal
outrage. Subsequently a borderline personality can cause an individual to decline into
depression and a deep sense of worthlessness.
Histrionic personality disorder

This disorder manifests as a pervasive, excessively emotional and attention-seeking behavior.
These individuals are overly dramatic in behavior with the purpose of attempting to gain
attention and constantly be “the life of the party”. If they feel they are not the center of
attention, they will often do something dramatic to bring attention back to themselves in the
form of making up dramatic stories or making a scene. This excessive emotionality which can
initially present as being charming and flattering, but excessively so, but can quickly evolve into
inappropriate flirtatiousness, and sexually provocative or seductive behavior. These behaviors
are not only directed at people to whom the person is romantically attracted, but also occur in
a wide variety of contexts including occupational and professional, which can be highly
inappropriate.
These individuals often use their physical appearance to gain attention. They expend excessive
effort and money on clothing and grooming. They will often “fish” for compliments regarding
Page 181
how they look and can become easily and excessively upset by critical comments about their
appearance or by a photograph that they regard as unflattering.
People with this disorder have a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic or lacking in
substance. For example strong opinions are expressed with emotionality, suggesting a deep
connection with the topic, but they are often unable to provide detail when questioned by
others. Individuals with this disorder are easily influenced by the opinions of others or by
current fads. They may be overly trusting and gullible, especially with people in positions of
power that they see as being able to solve their problems and provide them with some sense of
attention and importance. They often consider relationships stronger than they really are, and
can present themselves as being overly familiar to people that they barely know.
How the histrionic personality disorder may manifest in the workplace

These individuals will tend to visibly pay more attention to themselves versus the work they are
accountable for. They are likely to be dramatic and attention getting in what they say they can
do, versus what they actually produce in the long run. Their initial, but superficial, charm can
become irritating to managers and supervisors when their need for attention is excessive and
with their lack of delivery on goals. These individuals may be inappropriately flirtatious to the
point of overstepping company policy. Co-workers may feel uncomfortable and may lodge
formal complaints about inappropriate comments about their appearance. Someone with this
disorder will tend to demand excessive attention from managers and constantly seek approval
and public comments that make them look good. They may also easily latch onto and be easily
influenced by senior leaders who are able to manipulate them by providing the attention they
crave. These are the personalities that are overly dramatic and attention-seeking in meetings
and other group work settings, but have little meaningful contribution.
Cavaiola and Lavender (2000) note that it would seem unlikely that someone suffering from
histrionic personality disorder would rise to a position of leadership given their lack of
emotional control, however it is can happen as a result of their assertive, outgoing personality
and high energy levels, especially in careers involving sales, marketing or politics. The authors
comment that when these individuals do rise to leadership positions, it can spell “disaster” for
those working for them.
The narcissistic personality disorder

The narcissistic personality disorder is a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, extreme need for
admiration, and a lack of empathy for the feelings and needs of others. These individuals
overestimate their own abilities and overstate their accomplishments often appearing boastful
and pretentious. They are likely to simply assume that others also view them and their
accomplishments similarly and may be stunned or angry when they find that others do not
Page 182
provide the praise that they feel is justified. They firmly believe that they are superior or unique
and expect others to view and treat them as such. They are likely to harshly devalue the
contributions of others. They will often express that they can only be understood and
appreciated by other gifted or high status people. They believe their needs are above and more
important than those of “normal” people. They will tend to want to only be associated with
“the best” in whatever field they are involved with, be that academic, career or simply their
personal associations, such as a doctor or hairdresser.
These individuals require constant, excessive admiration and their self-esteem can be very
fragile if they do not receive it. They are often charming, but this is almost always self-serving
and they will tend to fish for compliments. They have a grandiose sense of entitlement, for
example, not feeling like they should have to stand in a queue at an airport like “normal”
people. When they are not catered to or receive the kind of praise they expect and demand,
they can become puzzled or furious.
Those with narcissistic personalities display a lack of empathy for others and have difficulty
recognizing the needs and feelings of others. They assume that others are consumed with their
welfare. They tend to discuss their own needs in great and lengthy detail, but become
impatient and dismissive when others want to discuss their own feelings. They may be oblivious
of their insensitivity and hurt they give to others. They project a sense of emotional coldness,
arrogance, patronization and snobbishness toward others. They also tend to be oblivious to the
injury their callous remarks can have on others. For example, in workplace they may dismiss or
diminish the accomplishments of others but will expect others to constantly express
amazement at how remarkable their accomplishments are. However, this personality type is
extremely vulnerable to injury to their self-esteem (DSM-5). If their self-esteem is injured, they
are prone to respond with extreme anger, rage and defiance. When convincing evidence
“knocks them off their pedestals” particularly in a public way, they can become withdrawn, and
may even lead to self-criticism and persistent depression.
How the narcissistic personality disorder may manifest in the workplace

These individuals are likely to expect or demand special treatment and be “hailed” for their
profound successes, power, brilliance or beauty way beyond their real capabilities or
characteristics. In the workplace where tangible performance is expected, these individuals will
likely either struggle and possibly express anger and astonishment at their bosses and
coworkers that do not place them on a perpetual pedestal. More destructive is the likelihood
that they will be calculating and devious in their work relationships to get what they want at
the expense of others. They are likely to display disdain for “lesser” people they consider weak
and abuse the willingness of others to assist them. For example, if someone with a narcissistic
personality is in a leadership role, they may expect total loyalty from and overwork their team
Page 183
members, yet do little of the actual work themselves. Simultaneously, they will attribute all of
the successful outcomes to their own superior capabilities and none to the team members who
may have worked over weekends or overnight to produce these successful results.
Quoted by Cavaiola and Lavender (2000), Levinson (1994) offers the term “organizational
narcissism” to describe how corporate and political leaders often rise up in organizational
power structures. The higher an individual rises up, the greater their self-esteem becomes, and
the less candid supervision and feedback they receive. The combination of these two, says
Levinson, can give rise to narcissistic “inflation” that fosters overconfidence, a sense of
entitlement, inflated self-image beyond one’s real capabilities and contempt for other
individuals and organizations. This combination at the most senior leadership levels can create
an organizational culture that is toxic and sometimes dangerous as has been seen in some high
visibility corporate scandals.
Avoidant personality disorder

Individuals with avoidant personality disorder demonstrate a pervasive pattern of inhibition,
feelings of inadequacy and excessive sensitivity to any form of criticism. These individuals will
avoid activities in which there is significant interpersonal contact, for fear of criticism,
disapproval or rejection by others. They will avoid or reject new opportunities for fear that they
will fail or be criticized. In social situations their initial assumption is that people will be critical
and disapproving. They will tend to project as shy and acting with restraint, and will likely avoid
talking about themselves to protect them from appearing inadequate.
These individuals have a very low threshold for detecting criticism. The slightest hint of
disapproval will result in extreme hurt and perceived injury. They will tend to be shy to the
extreme, inhibited and will try to be “invisible” in social settings to avoid putting their fragile
wellbeing in the hands of others. These individuals believe they are inferior, socially inept and
personally unappealing to others. They will therefore tend to have a very restricted and insular
lifestyle.
How the avoidant personality disorder may manifest in the workplace

Individuals with avoidant personality disorder are likely to struggle in the typical workplace with
anything other than the most nurturing and supportive atmosphere. Cavaiola and Lavender
(2000) note that it is uncommon to find an individual with this disorder in a management role,
unless they have been promoted because of technical expertise versus people-management
skills. This manager will likely be vague, provide little guidance or direction and will not provide
support or “have the backs” of their team. They are also likely to have multiple excuses for why
things don’t get done.
Page 184
The Internet has likely been a significant boon to these individuals that may be more likely to
work remotely in the “safety” of their homes without having to brave the social hustle and
bustle of the normal workplace. In typical work environments they are likely to be seen as weak
and ineffectual, unwilling to take any form of risk or challenge that may prove as embarrassing
or where they may be shown as inadequate. Their fearful and anxious demeanor may elicit
ridicule from others who perceive them as pathetic underachievers, and in turn this ridicule will
confirm their worst fears and doubts about themselves.
Dependent Personality Disorder

The dependent personality disorder is manifest by a pervasive and excessive need to be taken
care of, which leads to submissive, clinging behavior and intense fears of separation. These
submissive behaviors are designed to elicit caregiving and develop out of the self-perception
that they are unable to take care of themselves without the help of others. These individuals
have great difficulty making simple decisions for themselves, such as what clothes to wear or to
take an umbrella in case of rain. They present themselves as extremely passive and submissive
to others, allowing others to take responsibility for all major aspects of their lives, for example
what course of study to take, what kind of work to pursue and what friends to have.
Through fear of losing the support or approval of others, individuals with this disorder have
great difficulty expressing disagreement with others, especially with those on whom they are
dependent. They will feel so unable to function alone, that they will often agree with things
that they know are wrong, but are unable to express resistance. They will tend to submit to the
demands of others even if these demands are unreasonable.
These individuals have great difficulty taking the initiative to begin anything, such as a project
or doing anything independently. They lack basic self-confidence to complete tasks and believe
they need help to finish what they started. They basically believe that others are better than
they are despite evidence to the contrary. They visibly present themselves as being inept and
requiring constant care and support. They are more likely to function if there is constant
assurance from another that they are being supervised.
Individuals with this disorder will tend to volunteer or agree to do tasks that are unpleasant or
disagreeable to them simply in order to maintain approval and support from others. This makes
them easily manipulated or taken advantage of. They will tend to urgently and indiscriminately
seek other dependent relationships when one ends.
How the dependent personality disorder may manifest in the workplace

An individual with dependent personality disorder will predictably struggle in a normal work
environment in which employees are expected to take initiative and complete tasks without
Page 185
much supervision. It is likely that these individuals would struggle even in the initial hiring
process of a career search, given that they present themselves as helpless and incapable. They
are only likely to function in work situations in which they have clear, ongoing nurturing and
support. They are also likely to need work that is more predictable and repetitive versus any
projects that require initiative and risk. It is likely that unscrupulous bosses could take
advantage of these individuals in the workplace, by gaining their confidences and then requiring
them to do work that is unpleasant, even dangerous or unethical.
Cavaiola and Lavender (2000) note that it is unlikely that these individuals will reach leadership
or managerial positions, but if they do it is more likely that they moved into these positions
because they have pleased their bosses rather than demonstrating basic managerial
competence. They make better followers than leaders. If they do rise to these positions, they
are likely to strive to create harmonious work environments in which there is no confrontation
with anyone. They are likely to be consensus builders to the extreme, avoiding making difficult
decisions.
Obsessive compulsive personality disorder

The primary feature of this disorder is a preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism and
interpersonal control at the expense of openness and efficiency. These individuals attempt to
maintain a sense of control through painstaking attention to rules, trivial details, procedures,
lists, schedules or format to the degree that their primary objective of whatever exercise they
are involved in is lost or forgotten. They are excessively careful and prone to repeatedly
checking for possible mistakes and rechecking that everything they are doing is correct or
perfect, without adequate focus on the intended outcome and timelines. Their allocation to
tasks is poor, and they will tend to invest time on trivial detail versus keeping the point of the
exercise or project in mind. Deadlines will tend to be missed and important aspects of the
individuals life that are not the current focus can fall into disarray.
These individuals have trouble relaxing and allocating time to leisure. They display excessive
devotion to work productivity, to the exclusion of relaxation and developing friendships. When
they do take a vacation they are likely to take work along with them so they can feel
productive. If they do engage in sports or hobbies they will approach them as serious tasks that
require hard work and great attention to detail. Their emphasis will be on perfect performance
versus fun and enjoyment. They are likely to be harsh with others and will tend to enforce rigid
rules and follow inflexible moral standards and standards of performance. They can be
ruthlessly critical of their own mistakes and those of others. They are also likely to be rigidly
deferential to authority and rules and insist on exact compliance with no opportunity for
contextual flexibility or extenuating circumstances.
Page 186
These individuals are very reluctant to delegate responsibility to others. They feel everything
must be perfect and that only they can do this. If responsibility is delegated, they will insist that
it be done their way with no flexibility. They will become irritated with others who suggest
alternative ways of doing things, even if these alternatives are clearly more efficient. They are
so concerned about doing things the one correct way, they struggle to go along with the ideas
of others. They struggle to deal with changes in the way work might need to get done to meet
changing requirements. Co-workers are likely to become frustrated by this rigidity. Someone
with obsessive compulsive disorder will often argue that “it is the principle of the thing”, that it
has to be done a certain way. This disorder is also manifest by being unable to discard worn out
or worthless objects. They can become hoarders of useless items.
How the obsessive compulsive personality disorder may manifest in the

workplace
The summary above (sourced from the DSM-5) provides a vivid picture of this type of
personality disorder in the workplace. Given my many years of work in a highly-regulated
banking environment, it is interesting to look back on how this personality disorder would likely
be highly recognized as a high performer in some situations. However, in the rapidly changing
work environment of today, at least in many industries, these individuals would likely struggle. I
can imagine these individuals operating comfortably in aspects of the military, but not in the
creative, rapidly-changing work environment of “knowledge work”, for example, in software
engineering and design, and particularly where there is intense pressure to “break the rules” to
beat the competition and find innovative ways to shorten processes and procedures. Given
their struggle to delegate responsibility, or to give recognition to others who may have
succeeded by “breaking the rules”, they are likely to struggle in a dynamic team environment.
These individuals tend to project themselves as overly serious, highly controlled or stilted, and
may appear uncomfortable in the presence of others, particularly in a work environment of
“organized chaos” with people being innovative and in brainstorming forums. Given their
tendency to be stubborn, they are unlikely to be easily accepted into these kinds of team
environments. As the workplace is undergoing increasing levels of change that the average
individual is likely to find challenging, individuals with obsessive compulsive disorder are likely
to look for other work environments and opportunities.
Cavaiola and Lavender (2000) note that the characteristics of one with obsessive compulsive
disorder lead to them advancing to leadership positions in organizations emphasizing rules and
structure. Yet these strengths are often their failure points as leaders and managers. They are
likely to be task masters, lacking in emotional expression, nitpicky on trivial detail versus with a
view to achieving good results, and will place productivity and efficiency above all else. They are
unlikely to provide encouragement or praise for a job well done, because this will simply be
Page 187
their expectation. For reward and recognition they are likely to be the manager who responds,
“Your reward is that you have a job.”
Reflections
I am sure that many readers will be able to identify aspects of the various personalities
discussed above with people they have worked with in the past. Most of us can recognize the
dramatic impact some of these types of individuals can have on the work environment, and in
some cases on the entire work culture of the organization. Understanding these disorders
better can be useful in being able to deal with these individuals more effectively and minimize
the negative effects on a company or a group’s culture and performance.
Page 188
References
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Fifth Edition. DSM-5. American Psychiatric Publishing
Babiak, P. and Hare, R. (2006). Snakes in Suits. Harper Collins.
Cavaiola, A. and Lavender, N. (2000). Toxic Coworkers. New Harbinger Publications.
Page 189
Chapter 16: How the Workplace of the Future will Impact

People’s Lives
Introduction
My entry to the Unites States in 1973 was through a sports scholarship to Ohio University. A
few months after joining the track and field team, the coach went on a recruiting trip and I was
surprised to find that once he had left, I was one of only three athletes that showed up for
training at the university track. When I inquired about why, my teammate who was an Olympic
javelin thrower, mentioned that most team members were on some form of scholarship and
did not really care about the hard training required to perform well. When the coach was away,
they took the opportunity to slack off. I was stunned at this reality in contrast to my previous
experience in South Africa of training and competing because of the thrill of competition. Many
years later, while working with a banking group, I was amazed to find the general manager
standing outside the main doors at 5:00 p.m. to make sure no one left the building early; the
level of distrust was remarkable. These are just two examples of the work and sports
environments of some years ago that still exist today in many organizations. While big changes
in work environments have taken place in recent years, even bigger changes are likely in future
years as companies face new generations moving into the workplace. Moreover with
companies competing for top talent, cost pressures escalating and the increasing need for
workplace agility and flexibility, the very notion of a “workplace” and a workplace culture is
changing.
Tapscott and Williams (2006) comment on the topic of workplace flexibility and agility in their
book, Wikinomics, noting that evidence continues to support the likelihood of the modern
corporation undergoing one of the biggest changes in its history. For example they note
situations where business innovation breakthroughs are being created and produced by
internet-powered mass-collaboration groups with little formal organization. An example of such
a group is in the development of the often quoted Linux operating system which “was
developed by the largest and most sophisticated software development community in the
world. Linux has no employees, no stock options, corporate campuses or free haircuts”, say the
authors. Since the publishing of Wikinomics in 2006 this revolution of mass collaboration has
accelerated. The drivers of these changes to the workplace are emphasized by Khanna and New
(2008). The authors also comment that some of the factors driving this transformation are in
the changing nature of work. For example, the growth of knowledge work, demographics, such
as a younger generation of worker demanding far greater flexibility and work-life balance,
technology advancements such as internet, mobile devices, videoconferencing, social media
and collaboration technologies that allow work to be done from virtually any location. Other
Page 190
factors driving these changes include cost pressures (for example, the cost of physical
workspaces and equipment and support services) and the need for flexibility and agility to
survive in a highly competitive environment. Add to this list a growing resistance among local
residents in some large cities, like in Silicon Valley and San Francisco, against young, wealthy
employees from high tech companies forcing local property prices up as well as corporate bus
services taking advantage of public bus stops and clogging local traffic at the inconvenience of
local residents (Oreskovic, 2013). If this “gentrification” trend escalates, the cost and
inconvenience of having large numbers of employees being transported to and from locations
in central corporate centers will be exacerbated. Moreover the notion of having large numbers
of employees work in a “one size fits all” office environment for a specific time period is
increasingly inefficient.
Factors Driving Changes in the Workplace

In an insightful white paper published by Intel Corporation, (Hanson, 2012), the author outlines
five megatrends in the workplace of the future:
1. The definition of an employee is on the cusp of a transformation.

2. Dynamic and agile team structures will become the norm, and the default mode of
employment will look more like a “gun for hire” (contractor) than employment
structures of the past.
3. The location of work will vary widely. Offices will serve as temporary anchor points for
human interaction rather than daily travel destinations.
4. Smart systems will emerge and collaborate with humans, changing the nature of work,
and driving a re-imagination of work content and work spaces.
5. A second wave of consumerism via services, “Servicification”, will usher in change to
corporate IT organizations in a way more impactful than the first. The magnitude and
speed of disruption from increasingly short software development cycle times and
simplicity in wide and quick deployment of services and apps.
The author further comments that the way people work will change, and so will the
characteristics of what we mean by employment.
Competitive pressures to increase speed of execution, reduce costs, identify, acquire and retain
top talent and the nature of the work itself are all forces pressuring companies to focus
intensely on changing how, why and where people work. Hanson suggests that the increasing
demand for highly-skilled, knowledge talent will be one of the major drivers forcing companies
to re-think their employment, workplace practices and policies. Khanna and New (2008) also
note that the rise of knowledge work in the global economy over the past decade has had a
dramatic impact on the workplace and organizational culture. The “one size fits all” traditional
Page 191
office environment, and the open floor plan or cube-type office structure does not suit the
dynamic nature of knowledge work. The authors note that “the workplace must now support
concentrated thinking time while enabling collaboration. Neither the long corridors of private
offices nor the simple open plans of the past can meet these needs.” I would further add that a
global company working with multinational teams in varying time zones simply cannot operate
out of a single format office environment.
The expectations of top talent

Other drivers of changes in the workplace are the expectations and needs of top talent in
knowledge work. Experienced people, often Millennials, are being increasingly selective of the
companies they work for. The work environment and flexibility around workplace and
worktime is playing an ever increasing role in the choices these individuals make. With greater
demand for talent, knowledge workers will be able to negotiate hard for their needs and
expectations. Some of these expectations appear to revolve around a growing need for
flexibility in career opportunities and work, versus purely what a company expects or imposes
on them. As Hanson notes, an individual may want to invigorate their career by working for
more than one company at one time in order to hedge their bets, be held on retainers by
others, and become a start-up entrepreneur or participate in open innovation opportunities.
While in the current corporate mind-set of “I pay you, I own you”, this level of flexibility seems
far-fetched, however I personally interact with knowledge workers who are pushing for this
kind of flexibility. Given increasing competitiveness for top talent, particularly in knowledge
work, leverage for greater flexibility is moving to the worker.
Five Generations Working Together

Hanson identifies another megatrend forcing a change to company culture and the workplace,
namely that of several generations being in the work place during one period of time. Workers
on both ends of the age spectrum will be active in the workplace at the same time. Not only will
the generation born after 1997 (known as Generation 2020 or Gen 2020) begin to enter the
workforce around 2015, but Baby Boomers and Traditionalists (see Table below) will continue
to work well into the future. This generational overlap is unprecedented. One can only
speculate on how this will impact organizational culture and day-to-day work dynamics. Meister
and Willyerd (2009) describe the implications of the table below. The authors discuss findings
from the “Generations @Work Survey”:
Page 192
Figure 18: Five generations in the workplace
1. Traditionalists and Boomers are as likely to be Web contributors as Millennials are;

however, Traditionalists and Boomers are likely to be active participants and active
contributors to existing content, while Millennials will tend to focus on creating and
publishing new content. Although the authors are somewhat vague about the workplace
implications, my interpretation suggests that Traditionalists and Boomers will tend to
interact with these technologies more for purposes of keeping up their skills current in
the workplace, while Millennials will tend to see these technologies as extensions of
who they are and use them to create new work and business opportunities. The
interesting finding in this research, however is that all generations are adept at using the
Internet and social networking; there will be limited differences in capability on the use
of technologies.
2. Boomers and Gen Xers look for work-life balance while Millennials see work as part of
day-to-day life. Boomers and Gen Xers separate work and home life, and desire to find
balance between these two, while Millennials do not make this separation quite as
distinctly and their connectedness via mobile technologies in particular allows them to
work at any time and from anywhere. What Millennials will not tolerate is being forced
to work in a certain location, at a certain time and in a certain way.
3. Millennials and Gen Xers place a high importance on working for a company that
develops both their career and life skills. What is interesting about this finding,
consistent with the finding in item two above, is that Millennials and Gen Xers consider
training in life skills to be very important.
Page 193
4. Meister and Willyerd describe Gen 2020ers as having grown up in a hyper-connected

world. This generation will be graduating from college and entering the workforce
around 2020. They will bring a heightened set of requirements and digital expectations
as well as a wish list of what they expect from their employers, say the authors.
The concept of an “employee”

In one global apparel company I consulted with some years ago, the newly established internal
consulting function that I was hired to help set up was disbanded in the first few weeks of my
arrival. There had been a major ERP implementation crisis and all peripheral projects and
programs were put on hold or cancelled. For the full-time employees that were part of this
internal consulting unit, it was a devastating experience because some of them had nowhere
else to go. They had the idea that the organization would be taking care of their futures and
providing them with a plan for their careers, but unfortunately many of them were laid-off. As
one senior individual said to me as he was being laid off, the notion of corporate loyalty seems
to have disappeared. Most of these individuals had been employees for many years and the
notion of being laid off was devastating. Not only was it difficult for the individuals, but also it
was time consuming and costly for the company to make these changes. It took months of work
on the part of the human resources function to either find other positions for these individuals
or let them go and negotiate packages. While the disbandment of this function was surprising
to me, I was not destabilized like many of my colleagues. I had worked in the project consulting
industry for many years and I always had to keep one eye on my next project, and recognized
that there is no such thing as “permanent employment”. I moved from project to project within
one company for several years, for example with Chevron, or I partnered with various
consulting groups, like Capgemini and Accenture on various projects. This agility to develop a
network and move from project to project became normal for me. One’s mindset in this kind of
consulting environment is one of constant fluidity, agility and change. The organizations I
worked with in this manner were able to acquire talent and launch projects quickly, as well as
sunset projects and move or let go talent quickly and relatively inexpensively.
Hanson (2012) supports my experience noted above. The author comments that the limited
supply of knowledge workers will likely be one of the major causes of this change in
employment models and contracts. What he calls “dynamic employee staffing” will escalate in a
talent sourcing model where companies will mobilize projects and programs for specific
purposes and skilled resources will be acquired from a variety of sources, including within the
corporation or externally based on availability and need. In many of today’s organizations,
business units “own” their employees and these people cannot freely move to areas of greatest
value. Often skilled employees are held back from growth opportunities by managers who are
not willing to allow their employees to work elsewhere. Increasingly talent will no longer even
Page 194
be employed by companies, but will be externally sourced from trusted consulting groups,
“guilds” and networks in a much more flexible and dynamic manner. The notion of the
“permanent employee” will become far less common. This will have a huge impact on
companies that will no longer need to “carry” employees when they are not needed for specific
work. While being a benefit on one hand, there will be a downside, and that is that critical
talent may be less willing to enter into “permanent” employment contracts, and prefer the
more dynamic contract and project work environment. These individuals will enter what
Hanson calls “talent marketplaces” that will provide mechanisms to match skilled employees to
projects. However while Hanson refers to these marketplaces as being internal to
organizations, my projection is that these will form in the external market and will ultimately
dominate how talent is matched with work opportunities. While somewhat less formal, these
marketplaces exist today. One could argue for example, that LinkedIn is one such marketplace
that is growing exponentially.
The need for a work environment that is adaptable and agile

Tapscott and Williams comment, “The old notion that you have to attract and retain the best
and brightest inside your corporate boundaries is becoming null. With the costs of collaboration
falling precipitously, companies can increasingly source ideas, innovations and uniquely
qualified minds from a vast global pool of talent.”
In one company with which I consulted, I was participating in a working session on a future
strategy to manage talent. One of the ideas I threw out to the group was the notion of flexible
sourcing instead of only considering talent management in the context of permanent
employment. Rather consider more flexible and agile talent sourcing in key areas of the
business, in this case for major projects that require speed and flexibility. The group simply
could not get their heads around the concept. Tapscott and Williams observe that these ideas
are “often received with coolness, or worse, mockery or hostility.” In this case my ideas were
met with blank stares and a simple closed-door response. Subsequently many months later, the
results of this talent management group had only started to take shape, never mind actually
manage talent. The plodding slowness was incredible, while projects that required talent had to
wait through the elongated recruiting process. In another large company I worked with, a small
acquisition had taken three years to complete, but was held up at the last moment for months
because the corporate buildings and facilities management company refused to finalize the
acquisition because physical offices, desks and equipment were not available. The senior
executive of the acquired company could not understand why these specialists even needed to
occupy an office, never mind move to a physical location owned by the acquiring company. But
this is the old mindset. If you are an employee, the company dictates where, when and how
you work. A couple of years ago. the Yahoo CEO, Merissa Meyer, ended the telecommuting
Page 195
policy, requiring employees to work in a Yahoo office in order to better collaborate. Other tech
giants have followed suit backtracking the trend of employees being able to work anywhere,
anytime. While this may have been needed for Yahoo, this is counter to the agile workplace of
the future. The implication from Yahoo was that productivity and performance was low and
urgently needed to be ratcheted up. However this is premised on the notion that the great
majority of Yahoo employees are full-time, permanent and are largely being paid without
previous consideration to productivity or performance. In contrast in the agile company of the
future, people will be paid for specific work outputs versus simply their time, and if productivity
and performance is poor, then the company simply does not incur the cost—they only pay for
output. They are also able to quickly move responsibility for production to other flexible work
teams, versus having to deal with the poor performance issues of internal employees.
The dimensions of the future workplace that enable agility and flexibility
The Management Innovation eXchange (MIX) program describes itself as “an open innovation
project aimed at reinventing management for the 21st century. The premise: while "modern"
management is one of humankind's most important inventions, it is now a mature technology
that must be reinvented for a new age.” The mission of the MIX is outlined in the following
question; “…what law decrees that our organizations have to be bureaucratic, inertial and
politicized, or that life within them has to be disempowering, dispiriting and often downright
boring? No law we know of. So why not build organizations that are as resilient, inventive,
inspiring and socially responsible as the people who work within them?” Tapscott and Williams
quote Jeff Pfeffer of Stanford’s Graduate School of Business saying, “For 50 years various
people have speculated about how the advent of computers was going to change the
workplace—the distribution of information would delayer and decentralize organizations and
management. Except for relatively few organizations, this has not occurred… Bosses still expect
to be bosses. Command and control is alive and well.” Indeed this is my experience in a number
of large organizations. Pfeffer continues that this is likely the reason why dissatisfaction in the
workplace still exists at a high level. My experience with a number of leading companies
supports these views.
The Impact of Technology

The increasing impact of technology will have a major influence on how and where work takes
place. Hansen (2012) observes how computing power is evolving to technologies becoming so
small that they will be stitched into the fabric of our clothes and our lives—the “Internet of
everything” will allow us to interact, collaborate and communicate anywhere, anytime and with
anyone and everything. For example, Intel Corporation recently announced partnerships with
the Council of Fashion Designers of America and other fashion organizations to increase
cooperation on smart wearable technology. Cloud computing and “big data” capabilities will
Page 196
allow us to access and use information seamlessly. This concept of always being connected
provides the foundation of why the Millennial generation of workers do not make a separation
between work life and personal life, as the two are deeply intertwined and their connectedness
to information, work and co-workers via mobile technologies allows them to work at anytime
and anywhere.
Hansen continues to comment how “smart machines will enter offices, factories and the home
in numbers we have never seen before. They will become integral to production, teaching,
combat, medicine, security, and virtually every domain of our lives … their very presence will
force us to confront important questions about what humans are uniquely good at relative to
the role that machines can play…The new partnership between humans and machines will open
opportunities for people to focus on uniquely human strengths…This trend will also necessitate
workforce training and transition plans for those workers impacted by the automation shift.”
Clearly technology will not only replace some of the work that humans perform, but how
people in the workplace use enabling technologies to access and use information, where they
access this information from and how they collaborate together. This is already having a huge
impact on work in the future.
Other trends in a changing workplace

Meister and Willyerd (2010) offer a number of predictions for a changing workplace by 2020.
Here is a selection of these predictions that I believe will be most impactful on corporate
culture:
Your mobile device will become your office, your classroom and your concierge.
The authors contend that by 2020 the mobile phone will become our office, our classroom and
our real-time concierge helping people manage both personal and professional time. With the
explosion of cellphones and other mobile devices, along with the ease and need for domestic
and international travel, employees will no longer work in a specific office. Rather they will
work anywhere including client locations, hotel rooms, airports, at home or even vacation
destinations. Moreover mobile devices will be access devices into workplaces, travel through
international borders, expense reporting and project accounting. Much of this is already
functional, while not necessarily broadly used.
Web Commuters will force corporate offices to reinvent themselves
This is currently a somewhat controversial topic with the media coverage given to Yahoo’s new
CEO, Marissa Meyer, mandating that employees have more face time in corporate offices. It is
interesting to note, that other tech companies, including one I am working with, have followed
Page 197
suit. Meister and Willyerd however predict that “with the growth of corporate technology, it
will be irrelevant where employees work as long as they deliver results to the team.” I agree
with this prediction, although it is being tested in the current industry environment. An aspect
of this controversy may be that in many organizations, especially engineering, good technical
specialists tend to be promoted to being managers often with little hands-on people
management skills and experience. This can cause a situation where employee output and
performance is poorly managed, resulting in the perception that employees need to be
managed even more closely and the perception that flexible and remote work exacerbate this.
It is interesting that largely Baby Boomer leaders and managers appear to default to their
historical Theory X experience that people are generally lazy and left to their own devices will
slack-off. In reality, Malone (2004) observes that “when people make their own decisions about
how to do their work and allocate their time, they often put more energy, effort and creativity
into their jobs.” Interestingly in a television news interview Malcolm Gladwell, the author of
The Tipping Point and Blink, comments that he does not have an office—his workplaces are
libraries where he does a lot of his research, coffee shops and cafés where he holds meetings
and does interviews, and his kitchen table—yet he is a prolific writer and presenter. My
personal experience working in large organizations is exactly this: The great majority of people
who have the opportunity to do interesting and valuable work are overwhelmingly committed,
productive and innovative. Many organizational leaders will need to undergo a significant shift
in their mindsets if they are to capture this energy and innovation.
Companies will hire entire teams
As teamwork and collaboration on global transformation projects escalates in the future,

Meister and Willyerd postulate that companies will increasingly hire entire teams to solve
business problems. I would argue that this trend has slowly gathered momentum over the past
decade or longer as organizations attempt to mobilize for change, innovate and adapt quickly.
One could also argue that acquisitions of small start-ups is essentially hiring or buying intact
teams versus attempting to build these capabilities from scratch. The authors suggest the
formation of “guilds” (a throwback to medieval times) that have unique skills sets and move
from company to company based on project opportunities. I personally was part of a small
team of five CRM and change consultants who negotiated a contract with one of South Africa’s
leading technology companies who wanted to ramp up their CRM capabilities. I have also
partnered with large consulting groups such as Capgemini for projects in Smartmetering
installations for utility companies where an intact team was needed to complement their
systems integration skills. I agree with the authors that this trend will escalate to increase agility
and speed to respond to market opportunities. Subsequently the impact on corporate culture
will likely be significant. As corporations are increasingly under pressure to deliver new
solutions quickly, companies will need to place a much higher focus on delivery of results, and
Page 198
will expect intact teams to deliver contracted results. If these teams do not deliver, it will
become easier to jettison an intact team and bring on another. The very notion of corporate
culture may change to a simpler one of accountability and producing results fast. How the team
does it, where they do it and how they do it will become less of a consideration than it is in
many corporations today.
The corporate curriculum will include video games, simulations and alternate reality games as
key delivery modes
Meister and Willyerd describe a 2020 world in which learning and development becomes
increasingly like online gaming with complex simulated business environments similar to
“World of Warcraft” and “World Without Oil”. Given what I have experienced with at least two
global companies attempting to develop a culture, including greater speed of decision-making, I
can imagine these companies in the future utilizing complex simulations to train executives to
make quicker decisions in a complex and rapidly changing environment. It is not far-fetched to
see sophisticated predictive data modeling technologies such as agent based modeling (ABM)
being incorporated into these simulation games to create realistic outcomes based on
behavioral modeling. The impact on culture could be significant as these simulations become
used to recruit and promote leaders that produce better business outcomes based on realistic
behavioral modelling and complex game simulations.
A 2020 mind-set will be required to thrive in a networked world
Meister and Willyerd theorize about a new mindset that will be based on escalating demands of
the workplace. Among these is the importance of:
 Gaining learning, problem solving and expertise advantages from social networks within
and outside the organizations people work for
 Ubiquitous learning and development of new skills—an openness to new ideas and the
ability to apply new knowledge quickly
 Thinking globally and having a much greater sense for how world affairs impact
business opportunities and how to operate within national cultures
 A mindset of thinking big, acting fast and constantly improving
I would add to this list the need to develop a mindset of greater accountability for results and
delivering outcomes that companies require to be competitive. The notion of permanent
employment will decrease and people will be hired for specific deliverables; people will need to
be much more focused on delivering value and maintaining some mental awareness available
for the next project. Conversely, companies will have to be more vigilant about keeping top
Page 199
talent engaged because the movement of talent between companies will be much greater. The
notion of loyalty to a single company will change.
Human resources’ focus will move from outsourcing to crowdsourcing
Meister and Willyerd reference Jeff Howe, a contributing editor for Wired Magazine who
authored an article entitled “Crowdsourcing: Why the power of the Crowd is driving the future
of Business”. This article, along with others presented in Wired (for example, Randy Burge’s
article on “Using Crowd Power for R&D”) notes the dramatic impact that crowdsourcing could
have on work in the future—indeed, it’s happening in many companies now. Teresa Meek
(2013) in a Forbes article entitled “Crowdsourcing: Great For Your Business - A Handy Primer”
defines crowdsourcing as “…a flexible form of managing labor, which allows you to get a large
number of workers, only when you need them. You decide which skills you want, and workers
supply them—sometimes from nearby, sometimes from another continent”. She continues to
outline that crowdsourcing has four main categories:
 Microtasking is assigning short tasks—for example, bits of translation, handwriting

recognition, or identifying the nature of webpages—that require just a little human
expertise. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk is the behemoth in this category.
 Macrotasking involves using short-term help for more complex tasks, including coding.
It’s often done through sites like Odesk, Elance, or Topcoder—they’re like an online
market for freelancers.
 Crowd Contests are created to find an individual who can best solve a problem for you.
They’re often used for data analysis or graphic arts. Say you need a label designed: You
can specify your requirements, hold a design contest, and only pay the winner for the
result you’ll actually use.
 Ideation—idea generation—is used chiefly by enterprises to find possible solutions to a
complex problem. For example, Netflix gave a million-dollar prize in 2009 to a team that
found a way to improve its algorithm for recommending movies. Companies can use an
ideation firm like Spigit to seek, post, or collaborate on an idea for a product or solution.
The U.S. Navy has an online ideation game, MMOWGLI, intended to crowdsource some
of its most “wicked” problems.
The potential impact crowdsourcing could have on organizational employment, work and
culture is profound. The possibility that crowdsourcing could expand to other aspects of work
beyond what is listed above is a certainty.
Page 200
Corporate social networks will flourish and grow inside companies
Meister and Willyerd emphasize the increasing importance of social networks; I would choose
the term business networks, for companies searching for top talent. Networks such as LinkedIn
are already becoming powerful forums for searching for top talent and this is likely to grow
exponentially. LinkedIn also provides forums in which collaborative groups form and share
ideas on a wide range of topics. For example on the topic of corporate culture, numerous
groups exist with thousands of members that share experience, expertise and network on
projects.
Workers will elect their leaders
In my early career in the banking industry, people escalated the leadership hierarchy often
based on the so-called “old boys club”; indeed it was an all-male dominated work environment
where who you knew was more important than what you knew or one’s level of expertise.
These managers could act with impunity and the level of bullying and intimidation was intense.
Meister and Willyerd comment on moves by companies such as W.L. Gore & Associates where
managers and leaders are not elected by senior leaders but by associates. Remarkably the
current CEO, Terri Keller, was voted in based on a poll of employees versus being appointed by
the board. The implication is also that they can be deselected in the same manner. Zappos,
although being a much smaller company as part of Amazon, recently indicated that they were
eliminating the role of managers (McGregor, 2014). McGregor describes this move in the
following way:
“The unusual approach is called a “holacracy.” Developed by a former software

entrepreneur, the idea is to replace the traditional corporate chain of command with a
series of overlapping, self-governing “circles”. In theory, this gives employees more of a
voice in the way the company is run. According to Zappos executives, the move is an
effort to keep the 1,500-person company from becoming too rigid, too unwieldy and
too bureaucratic as it grows.”
Although the Zappos example is radical by most company standards, the focus on keeping
bureaucracy at bay is something that is certain to accelerate as large, slow-moving
organizations attempt to become more agile and nimble.
Work life flexibility will replace work life balance
Meister and Willyerd reference the example of Best Buy with its ROWE program (Results-Only
Work Environment). Numerous researchers, writers and bloggers have showcased Best Buy as
an example of how the workplace will change in the future. Workplace flexibility, which is
essentially the flexibility to work anywhere, anytime as long as the individual or team produces
Page 201
desired results, makes sense particularly in a global context. In a multinational organization I

have worked with, I am frequently holding teleconference meetings with people in China, India,
Israel, Ireland and Germany to name a few countries. Many of these meetings are either early
morning or late at night based on time differences, and many of the attendees of these
meetings are in home offices—it is simply not reasonable to be in an office at these varying
times—people simply build their home lives around these schedules as needed. To
accommodate these international collaborative efforts, a flexible work environment is essential
and will undoubtedly escalate.
Reflections
In the future, knowledge workers in particular will not think of work as many of us have in the
past; as a place to go to get a paycheck and pay the bills. They will go with more of a mission
and purpose and will work with companies that support and satisfy this purpose. They will also
work in a much more flexible and dynamic manner. They will work when they want, on topics
that they are passionate about and have more influence over, from wherever they are most
creative and productive. The constraints of the workplace of the past will lessen greatly.
Page 202
References
Challenger, J. (2013). http://www.marketwatch.com/story/yahoos-telecommuting-ban-shows-
mayer-is-working-2013-03-04
Hanson, T. (2012). The Future of Knowledge Work: An outlook at the changing nature of the
work environment. Intel Corporation. Intel Labs.
http://download.Intel.com/newsroom/kits/research/2012/pdfs/The_Future_of_Knowledge_W
ork-intel_WhitePaper.pdf
Khanna and New (2008). Revolutionizing the workplace: A case study of the future of work
program at Capital One. Human Resources Management. Winter 2008. Wiley Periodicals.
http://blogs.hbr.org/2009/10/are-you-ready-to-manage-five-g/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_culture
Intel. http://newsroom.Intel.com/community/Intel_newsroom/blog/2014/01/06/barneys-new-
york-council-of-fashion-designers-of-america-Intel-and-opening-ceremony-announce-wearable-
tech-collaborations
Malone, T., Laubacher,R., and Johns, T. (2011). The Big Idea: The Age of Hyperspecialization.
http://hbr.org/2011/07/the-big-idea-the-age-of-hyperspecialization/ar/1
McGregor, J. (2014). Zappos says goodbye to bosses.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2014/01/03/zappos-gets-rid-of-all-
managers/#
Meek, T. (2013). “Crowdsourcing: Great For Your Business - A Handy Primer”.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/netapp/2013/06/06/crowdsourcing-for-business/
Meister, J. and Willyerd, K. (2010). The 2020 Workplace. Harper Collins.
Meister, J. and Willyerd, K. (2009). Are You Ready to Manage Five Generations of Workers?
MIX. http://www.managementexchange.com/about-the-mix
Oreskovic, A. (2013). Protesters block Apple, Google buses in San Francisco area.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/21/us-techbus-protest-sanfrancisco-
idUSBRE9BJ1BC20131221
Tapscott, D. and Williams, A. (2008). Wikinomics. How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything.
Penguin Books.
Page 203
Chapter 17: Managing Talent with a Focus on the Individual
Introduction
Chapter 16 postulated how the workplace may change in coming years and on how these
changes are likely to be driven by the needs and the expectations of new generations. It also
outlined how these new ways of working will affect people’s lives. An important element of this
new workplace is the competitive environment for top talent, and how organizations will have
to customize the workplace to make it more conducive to these new generations of workers. It
is the responsibility of human resources or talent management functions in organizations to
understand these future trends and prepare for them. The competition for the best talent is,
and will continue to be the cutting edge of corporate success in the future, particularly for
knowledge work. Companies that deeply understand and appreciate these dynamics will be the
winners in the future.
Companies in highly competitive global markets are having to work harder and focus more
intently on recruiting, retaining and developing the smartest and brightest people and provide a
working environment and culture in which they can do their best and most innovative work.
Seeking out, recruiting, retaining and developing this talent is critical to these companies’
future success. In high tech companies, the competition for high-level talent is intense, with
companies such as Google, Apple, Facebook, Qualcomm, Samsung and Microsoft among others
competing for this talent across the globe. Investing in the best and the brightest talent is a
knowledge company’s biggest investment, and loss of this talent to competing organizations
can be a huge competitive threat. The role that effective talent management has on an
organization’s culture is immense, and requires a careful balancing act, particularly at the most
senior levels. Mistakes made in dealing with top talent; without thinking about “talent” as
individuals versus purely investments, can have huge impacts on an organization’s culture,
either positively or negatively. This Chapter describes some of these dynamics in a field of work
that is relatively new in the broader scope of human resources management. There are
numerous and varying views on managing talent as a developing discipline. For example, Capelli
(2008) define the future of talent management in the following way:
“What I am proposing is something akin to just-in-time manufacturing for the

development realm: a talent-on-demand framework.”
His approach deals more with managing risk and assuring return on investments, which are no
doubt important but tend to ignore the notion of “talent” being people. Cantrell and Smith
(2010) on the other hand, in their text, Workforce of One, comment:
Page 204
“…we found that the extensive implementation of what are widely regarded to be “best
practice” processes was not what mattered most to business performance. Rather the
single most important factor contributing to superior business results was how
supported employees felt by their organization’s people practices.”
The authors’ title “Workforce of One” speaks directly to dealing with employees as individuals
with unique needs. I fully support their argument that this philosophy is the talent management
differentiator for the future of company culture and performance.
Talent Management in Transition

Reviewing the literature for the practice of managing talent demonstrates clearly that there are
many varying opinions on what talent management is and its scope. Larry Israelite (2010) notes
that, “The practice of talent management is in a state of flux and uncertainty…few approaches
fit well with the uncertainty of today’s work environment.” He continues to suggest that most
large organizations have processes that might be labeled “talent management”, but the
practices are rarely integrated or linked to overall business strategies, and it is apparent that in
many organizations he has researched, no one leader is accountable for talent management
from end to end.
The Definition and Scope of Talent Management

The formalization of talent management as a discipline within human resources is relatively
recent. Wikipedia (wikipedia.org/wiki/Talent_management) notes that the term was coined by
McKinsey & Company following a 1997 study. Since that time there has been an evolution in
the definition and scope of talent management. The following are a number of definitions from
the literature:
 An holistic approach to optimizing an organization to drive short and long-term

results by building culture, engagement, capability and capacity through
integrated talent acquisition, development and deployment processes that are
aligned to business goals (Larry Israelite).
 Talent management is an organization's commitments to recruit, retain, and
develop the most talented and superior employees available in the job market… it
is a useful term when it emphasizes an organization's commitment to hire, manage
and retain talented employees. It comprises all of the work processes and systems
that are related to retaining and developing a superior workforce (Susan M.
Heathfield).
Page 205
 An organizational approach to leading people, building culture, engagement,

capability and capacity through integrated talent acquisition, development and
deployment processes that are aligned to business goals (The American Society for
Training and Development).
 Human capital management of the entire employee lifecycle. Companies that are
engaged in talent management are strategic and deliberate in how they source,
attract, select, train, develop, promote, and move employees through the
organization. This term also incorporates how companies drive performance at the
individual and team levels.
(http://www.definitions.net/definition/talent%20management).
Israelite’s text (2009) includes a chapter by Josh Bersin in which he notes that, historically,
talent management primarily referred to the management of a company’s most senior or high-
level people and the development and succession planning for those senior leaders. He
continues by identifying a more recent theme of “integrated talent management” which
includes all aspects of an organization that have to do with people. I would question this very
wide scope given that it has the potential of simply being another term for human resources
management. Bersin provides a model that includes employee groups beyond top management
that should be included within the definition and scope of talent management, namely high
potentials, functional specialists, middle management, first-line managers, front-line employees
and back-office, operational and contingent employees; effectively all employees. Bersin’s
model is shown in his Figure 26 below:
Page 206
Figure 19: Talent strategy and planning
Israelite (2006) cites a research study that showed greatly diverging views on the key elements
of talent management. Only three elements were rated by 60 percent or more of respondents
as being included, namely performance management, learning/training and leadership
development. Other elements such as recruitment, succession planning and career planning
were noted far less often. The “Relative Frequency” diagram below shows a summary of
elements that I created, aggregated from various literatures accessed for the purpose of this
topic.
Page 207
Figure 20: Scope: Review of literature: Frequency of inclusion
Berger and Berger (2011) comment on the variety of approaches that companies apply to
managing talent: “Although there are a variety of approaches to talent management, our
experience and research indicates that the underlying model used by high-performing
organizations consists of three linked elements: a creed, a strategy and a system.” The authors
continue to expand on the talent management system they support which includes assessment
tools, a multi-rater assessment, diagnostic tools and monitoring processes. Clearly this is a
much narrower perspective on talent management than the other authors I referenced earlier,
for example, the model created by the ASTD below provides a more comprehensive scope for
the elements of talent management.
Page 208
Figure 21: Talent management scope model
Conaty and Charan (2010) on the other hand appear to adopt a different scope and place a far
greater priority on the development of senior talent. They describe General Electric’s intensive
focus on top leadership development and the hands-on approach taken by the former CEO,
Jack Welch, in identifying and nurturing the most senior leaders. They provide similar insights
into the talent management strategies and tactics of leading companies such as Unilever,
Agilent, P&G and Novartis. For the most part the emphasis is on senior leadership. Schiemann
(2009) on the other hand uses the terms talent management, people equity and human factors
interchangeably despite the title of his text being Reinventing Talent Management. Sheimann
identifies the three key pieces of the talent management puzzle as alignment, capabilities and
engagement. Based on these references and descriptions, it is apparent that the scope of talent
management is a developing subject with both researchers and practitioners differing
significantly. Moreover there is no consistent focus on how managing talent impacts corporate
culture.
Talent Management and Organizational Culture

While intuitively there is a connection between organizational culture and the management of
talent, a review of the talent management literature raises questions about the clarity of this
connection, and on how culture influences talent and vice versa. Given the relative newness of
talent management as a formal discipline, the answers to these questions are still somewhat
vague. The following are some references that provide insight into these questions:
Page 209
“Talent Management involves individual and organizational development in response to

a changing and complex operating environment. It includes the creation and
maintenance of a supportive, people oriented culture”. (Derek Stockley, 2005)
“(Talent Management) is a mindset that goes beyond the rhetoric towards a holistic and
integrated approach to leveraging the greatest competitive advantage from people.
Talent management is about those thoughts and actions that consistently over time
become organizational culture”. (Rhea Duttagupta, 2005)
“The assessment of an organization’s culture is a must-do activity prior to launching a

set of talent initiatives; a strong talent culture sets the foundation for improving talent
practices”. (Robert Cooke, 2011)
“An important component of managing an organization’s talent is developing strategies

to improve elements of the organizational culture and the work environment”.
(Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2008)
“Organizational culture needs to be respected for what it is, a valuable asset and a key
driver for effective employee engagement, recruitment and retention programs”.
(Helbling, 2012)
Conaty and Charan (2010) comment on culture frequently, but do not identify a specific
interaction between organizational culture and talent management, while they do provide a
chapter on setting the “Right Values and Behaviors” which are implicit in any dialogue of
organizational culture.
Berger and Berger (2011) observe the connection between talent management and
organizational culture in the following manner:
“A talent management creed is composed of a widely publicized set of core principles,

values, and mutual expectations that guide the behavior of an institution and its people.
Collectively, the stated principles depict the type of culture an organization strives to
create to achieve its unique portrait of success. The principles of the creed are
embedded into both its talent management strategy and in its talent management
system by incorporating its doctrines into selection criteria, competency definitions,
performance criteria, and internal selection and development processes.”
While these quotes may not describe a consistent and clear linkage between talent
management and culture, my model of the “House of Culture” suggests that a well-developed
talent management strategy and system can be a major driver of an organization’s culture,
while a poorly constructed talent management strategy and system would conversely
Page 210
negatively impact an organization’s culture. Indeed a well-constructed and managed culture

can have a powerful impact in the reverse direction, in terms of influencing the talent
management strategy. For example, the targeted recruitment of highly innovative software
engineers for purposes of greatly enhancing new product offerings could be negated by an
existing culture that inhibits creativity and blunts innovation. Conversely it can also be imagined
that the hiring of a senior executive, especially a CEO, can greatly impact organizational culture
as employees begin to read into his or her every word during webcasts and interviews to
determine what their values are, what their behaviors and intentions are and how he or she
acts and operates. One of my former colleagues noted that the newly appointed CEO was a
very casual dresser, commonly wearing rather baggy jeans, T-shirts and rather old running
shoes while carrying a backpack to the office. My colleague went on to note that he was soon
noticing other employees beginning to feel that is now acceptable to come to work in “sloppy”
clothing. This is just one example of how top talent can impact culture.
Measuring Talent Management

Schiemann (2009) refers to managing talent as managing “people equity”. In his chapter on
“Measuring People Equity”, he postulates measuring talent as “Measuring intangibles: It is one
of today’s biggest challenges, both in organizations and our personal lives. In organizations,
much has been written about the critical value of intangibles such as brand, intellectual capital,
innovation, agility and of course, human capital.”
In the same way that the scope of talent management appears vague, so the descriptions of
measuring it are even more fragmented. Scheimann continues to argue that he considers
surveys to be the most effective tools for measuring people equity, while also commenting on
the shortfalls of these tools.
Neal (Chapter 3 of Israelite’s 2010 text, describing talent management at Cisco) comments that
talent management programs have looked for validation in measurements that are hard, if not
impossible, to correlate with business impact. She illustrates this view with an example of
attempting to correlate the metric of the “percentage of executives attending a particular
educational program” that provides no insight into the readiness of talent to face tomorrow’s
business challenges. As a personal assessment of this comment, I tend to disagree with this
being a valid example of an attempt to link talent management to business performance, given
that this is a much more traditional metric for correlation with business performance. Most
descriptions of talent management appear to, at least, adopt a more strategic perspective than
Neal’s example of leaders attending training courses. Neal observes the non-traditional
approach taken by Cisco in measuring talent management as focusing on “alignment,
accountability and impact”. She continues to provide the equation of “business strategy + the
highest quality assessment and development planning + tailored people and organizational
Page 211
consulting solutions = guaranteed business impact” However, she does not indicate how these
factors are actually measured. Indeed she continues to suggest that “specific successes can be
impossible to measure”.
Extending the boundaries of Talent Management—examples of “best practices”

from leading companies
It is apparent that talent management is a developing subject and the definition, scope,
implementation and measurement differs greatly from company to company. Given this “all
over the map” situation, it is interesting to gain a perspective of some of the principles,
methods and interventions that are referred to as advanced or are considered best practices in
the literature.
Selected examples from General Electric, Cisco and 3M:

 Defining talent management more broadly than narrowly. This appears to be the
growing trend in the literature despite some authors describing a very narrow scope.
 Intensive, robust discussions with senior leaders about leader performance and
succession. This is in contrast to an overly weighted dependence on leadership
assessments, typically conducted by external consulting organizations.
 Open dialogue with all employees on leadership values and competencies and
transparency about what is expected with examples of current leaders.
 A management coaching and mentoring program extending to highly personalized
leadership coaching as an entrenched and formalized continuum throughout a
leader’s career. In some cases senior leaders are required to act as mentors/coaches
and in other cases coaches are highly experienced professional coaches.
 Contracts with leading business schools and universities for world class executive
leadership development and training.
 A senior leadership role that has strategic oversight over all talent processes from
recruitment to retirement, and in some cases, after retirement. The role of “chief
talent officer” is becoming more common.
 Having talent management as a standing corporate board agenda item.
 Development of “Communities of Practice” as a key talent development process on
key strategic subjects that are critical to the company’s success. Examples are for
highly specialized engineering subjects.
 Leverage social networking and blogging (around key strategic themes) to engage
employees and continuously develop their knowledge and skills.
Page 212
 Place a high behavioral emphasis on “listening” especially at senior executive levels

to encourage dialogue between senior leaders and rank and file employees to
improve employee engagement and knowledge sharing.
 Creating a culture and the supportive processes in which talent is dynamic and
flexible and where managers do not “own” the resources. Talent must be able to
move to where it is most needed and valued. This is a cornerstone of organizational
agility.
 Talent management ERP systems are becoming increasingly sophisticated making
true talent planning possible. The next evolutionary phase and these ERP systems
will allow scenario planning, for example predicting future talent needs based on
industry trends.
“Session C” – The heart of GE’s Talent Management Process

 A leadership dialogue forum in which each leader’s overall performance and
capability is reviewed
 Included leaders at multiple levels
 Decisions on development, deployment, retention and exit are made
 Data intensive
 Jack Welch put “angst” (brutal honesty) into the system
 Session C was dispersed to each of the business units and geographic Regions
 Leadership capabilities and business results were integrated in the discussions
 Subjects covered include:
o Business results and external context
o Overall performance ratings
o Succession plans for each
o Hi Performance (HiPo) leaders
o Diversity
o Survey results
GE’s Workout – A Process for ensuring “brutally” honest dialogues with

developing leaders
 GE’s approach for engaging talent from the “bottom-up” together with senior
leaders to solve problems and bring candor into dialogues.
 Workout breaks down typical, hierarchical communications barriers and silo
mentalities and the tendency of leaders to “pull rank” instead of engaging in
open and candid debate.
Page 213
Talent dialogue sessions to develop talent and ensure performance

In talent dialogues, modeled on customer-facing market research strategies, an employer
establishes a systematic, ongoing dialogue with employees to better understand their views
and expectations about the employment experience and culture. Through a variety of channels,
the employer explores topics such as employees’ satisfaction with specific talent and HR
programs, career goals, current and future life situation, salary and benefits expectations,
effectively anything that can help guide the employer’s talent management efforts.
Rewards transformation
Rewards transformation involves tailoring the design of a company’s total rewards program to
align with its employees’ needs and expectations as uncovered through talent dialogue. By
understanding employees’ views on a broad range of work-related factors, including not just
compensation and benefits but any aspect of the work environment that can affect employee
behavior. This allows employers to design total rewards programs that shape employee
behavior more effectively than simply making changes to compensation and benefits alone.
Workforce intelligence/analytics
Just as companies collect, mine and analyze customer data to better understand their markets,
workforce intelligence applies advanced analytics to the huge amounts of workforce-related
data typically found in ERP systems, HR information systems, and other repositories to help
employers better understand their employees. Workforce intelligence allows employers to go
beyond the lagging-indicators offered by a simple view of HR data (which tells companies what
problems they already have) to identify leading-indicators or predictors, based on a broader
range of workforce related data, that can help companies predict and develop solutions to
issues that they might experience in the future. For example, a predictive model built from a
variety of data elements, including anything from an employee’s amount of overtime to the
length of his or her daily commute to work, to the turnover rate for similar jobs in the region,
can quantify the likelihood of, and predict reasons for, an employee taking a particular action,
such as leaving the company. An employer can then use these insights to proactively address
impending talent issues.
Mass Career Customization.

In Mass Career Customization, an organization trades the traditional corporate ladder model of
career advancement for a more dynamic “corporate lattice” that allows for planned descents
and lateral moves as well as upward climbs. Using the corporate lattice model, employer and
employee collaborate to align employees’ work responsibilities with their life circumstances in a
range of ways that satisfies both parties’ changing needs.
Page 214
Employer Brand Management

An employer brand, analogous to a product brand, seeks to encapsulate the total value that
employees gain from their relationship with an employer. By articulating and promoting an
employer brand, a company can communicate the value of an integrated portfolio of benefits,
helping employees appreciate the full scope of what the employer offers and enhancing the
attractiveness of the employee-employer relationship.
Grounding Talent Management in Business Planning & Operations

Given the dynamic nature of business strategy today, talent strategies and solutions need to be
grounded in business planning and operations more than ever. This is where a systematic
approach to aligning talent strategy with business strategy can offer valuable guidance. Such
alignment begins with articulating the company’s business objectives and determining, as
specifically as possible, the nature of the talent needed to achieve each of those objectives.
Once executives clearly understand an organization’s talent needs, they can examine internal
and external patterns of talent supply and demand, identify current and likely future talent
gaps, and develop specific approaches for filling those gaps based on an understanding of
critical talent needs and the company’s own appetite for cost, risk and change.
Critical Workforce Segments

Several concepts and techniques can be especially helpful in translating a broad understanding
of talent requirements into specific talent solutions. Perhaps foremost is the concept of “critical
workforce segments”; in other words, employee populations that drive a disproportionate
amount of business value, that are difficult or expensive to replace, and whose skills are in high
demand. An example would be a highly skilled team of engineers in a high tech company.
Identifying critical workforce segments is the first step in setting priorities and talent
investments. Focusing on critical workforce segments allows executives to allocate resources to
various employee groups based on the value they generate for the business.
Reflections
While the developing concepts and practices of managing talent is an important dimension of
developing a positive organizational culture, there is limited discussion on the key links
between these two important topics. Most important in my view, is making sure that the
recruitment process within the broader scope of talent management considers the personality
profiles that are needed to support the required culture of the organization. This is essential for
ensuring that candidates, especially new senior leaders, reinforce the required culture of the
organization versus take it backward. There is little discussion on these and related topics in the
emerging talent management literature. Further, my view is that the future need will be to
Page 215
consider employees as individuals with unique needs and expectations, and provide
remuneration and development opportunities that are customized to the interests and needs
of the individual versus “cookie cutter” offerings. This concept is also discussed from a
workplace perspective in the chapter 15 on “the future of work”.
Page 216
References
Berger L. A., Berger, D. R. (2011). The Talent Management Handbook: Creating a Sustainable
Competitive Advantage by Selecting, Developing, and Promoting the Best People. Publisher:
McGraw-Hill
Cantrell, M. and Smith, D. (2010). Workforce of One: Revolutionizing Talent Management
Through Customization. Harvard Business Press.
Capelli, P. (2008). Talent Management for the Twenty-First Century. Harvard Business Review.
Conaty, B. Charan, R. (2010). The Talent Masters: Why Smart Leaders Put People Before
Numbers. Crown Business. New York.
Cooke, R. A. (2011). Levers Proven to Drive Constructive Cultures and Effective Talent
Management. Human Synergistics International.
http://www.humansynergistics.com/Files/LeversProventoDriveConstCult.pdf
Duttagupta, R. (2005): Identifying and managing your assets: talent management.
http://www.buildingipvalue.com/05_SF/374_378.htm
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (2008). Developing an Integrated Talent
Management Program: A Human Resource Management Framework.
http://www.exec.gov.nl.ca/exec/hrs/publications/developing_an_integrated_talent_managem
ent_program.pdf
Heathfield, S. M. (date not shown). What Is Talent Management - Really? About.com Guide.
http://humanresources.about.com/od/successionplanning/g/talent-management.htm
Helbling & Associates Inc. (2012). Organizational Culture & Its Impact on Recruitment &
Retention. http://blog.helblingsearch.com/index.php/2012/11/15/organizational-culture-its-
impact-on-recruitment-retention/
Israelite, L. Ed. (2010). Talent Management: Strategies for success from Six Leading Companies.
The American Society for Training & Development Press.
Lockwood, N. R. (2006). Talent Management: Driver for Organizational Success. SHRM®
Research Quarterly.
Schiemann, W.A. (2009). Reinventing Talent Management: How to Maximize Performance in
the New Marketplace. SHRM. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Schwartz, J & Liakopoulos, A. (2009). Talent AND work: Playing to your strengths.
http://dupress.com/articles/talent-and-work-playing-to-your-strengths/
Page 217
Chapter 18: The Intersection of Corporate Culture and

National Cultures
Introduction
I previously emphasized that changing corporate culture is one of the toughest business
challenges a leadership team can embark on. However, there is one dimension of culture that
adds a more complex layer of complexity, and that is when an organization is changing a
business culture across multiple countries. This is particularly difficult for individual employees
having to operate in different countries with vastly different social and work norms. Hammerich
and Lewis (2013) describe this complexity as “invisible”, having varying and different impacts on
business success. For example, what accelerates business growth in one region may derail
success in another. However, as the authors also note, understanding these dynamics can be a
source of sustainable competitive advantage. The authors also suggest that most global
companies have a single national culture at the heart of their corporate culture. For example, a
company founded in the United States by American founders is likely to develop a U.S. centric
culture based on a reasonable track record of success despite ultimately having global reach.
The authors note that there are few successful dual-country companies. Hammerich and Lewis
do observe that truly international organizations such as the U.N. and the Red Cross are rare
organizations that do not have a unifying culture at their core, but rather have created a
common culture based on rules, policies and procedures that have been adopted as
organizational “etiquette” agnostic of any single country’s culture. In my experience with global
companies, this is an important observation, in that a focus on how work gets done can be a
unifying and country-independent toolset for an organization attempting to achieve high
performance across country boundaries.
Hammerich and Lewis also observe how infrequently authors on the topic of corporate culture
mention the critical interaction with national culture. I concur with this observation. For
example, often quoted references from leaders in the field of culture, such as Cameron and
Quinn (2011), Conners and Smith (2011), and Kotter and Heskitt (1992) all have little or no
comment on national culture. Schein (2009) does comment on aspects of “multi-culturalism”
but it receives a limited perspective. Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (2010) do however
provide an in-depth and dedicated focus on “intercultural cooperation” from a corporate
perspective. Molinsky (2013) provides a pragmatic and readily implementable set of guidelines
for interacting with country culture.
Page 218
The value of pragmatism

Some months ago a colleague of mine had accepted an assignment in Beijing and approached
me for some direction on where to read up on enhancing his understanding of Chinese culture,
its cultural norms, and more importantly, how to go about figuring out how to interact on a
day-to-day basis. Among the information I provided, I included Hofstede’s text (2010) as well as
Molinsky’s work (2013). After perusing the materials, his response was that if he could not
complete a review the materials during the flight to Beijing, it would not fit his needs, and
therefore Hofstede was out and Molinsky was in. This challenge is common in a global business
situation—time is limited, and while there are wonderfully rich materials available, it often does
not easily support a pragmatic and time urgent need for the busy, time-stressed executive. This
eBook, once again, adopts a more pragmatic versus academic perspective to national cultures
in the execution of new business strategies and does not focus on specifically describing
national cultures per se, but rather focuses on what companies need to do in order to manage
culture change with a global perspective.
Frameworks for the intersection of national and organizational

culture
Geert Hofstede’s Framework

Undoubtedly, the most quoted and widely referenced framework for understanding global
culture is Hofstede’s 558-page text, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. I refer
below to the most concise summary of the text I have read, namely Mindtools, Understanding
Workplace Values Around the World. In particular from a practical standpoint, Mindtools
provides some excellent, but simple tips on what to look for and apply in various global
contexts. Mindtools summarizes the five dimensions (with one additional dimension noted in
Hofstede’s text) as follows:
Power/Distance (PD)
This refers to the degree of inequality that exists—and is accepted—among people with and
without power. A high PD score indicates that society accepts an unequal distribution of power,
and that people understand "their place" in the system. Low PD means that power is shared
and well dispersed. It also means that society members view themselves as equals.
Individualism (IDV)
This refers to the strength of the ties people have to others within the community. A high IDV
score indicates loose connections. In countries with a high IDV score there is a lack of
Page 219
interpersonal connection, and little sharing of responsibility beyond family and perhaps a few
close friends. A society with a low IDV score would have strong group cohesion, and there
would be a large amount of loyalty and respect for members of the group. The group itself is
also larger and people take more responsibility for each other's wellbeing.
Masculinity (MAS)
This refers to how much a society sticks with and values traditional male and female roles. High
MAS scores are found in countries where men are expected to be "tough," to be the provider
and to be assertive. If women work outside the home, they tend to have separate professions
from men. Low MAS scores do not reverse the gender roles. In a low MAS society, the roles are
simply blurred. You see women and men working together equally across many professions.
Men are allowed to be sensitive, and women can work hard for professional success.
Uncertainty/Avoidance Index (UAI)
This relates to the degree of anxiety that society members feel when in uncertain or unknown
situations. High UAI-scoring nations try to avoid ambiguous situations whenever possible. They
are governed by rules and order and they seek a collective "truth." Low UAI scores indicate that
the society enjoys novel events and values differences. There are very few rules, and people are
encouraged to discover their own truth.
Long-Term Orientation (LTO)
This refers to how much society values long-standing—as opposed to short-term—traditions

and values. This is the fifth dimension that Hofstede added in the 1990s, after finding that Asian
countries with a strong link to Confucian philosophy acted differently from Western cultures. In
countries with a high LTO score, delivering on social obligations and avoiding "loss of face" is
considered very important.
Indulgence versus Restraint (IVR is a more recently added dimension)
IVR refers to the tendency for societies to allow relatively free gratification of basic and natural
human desires related to enjoying life and having fun. Hofstede observes the opposite pole of
indulgence as restraint in which society feels that these indulgences must be curbed and
constrained by strict social norms.
The pragmatism of “Global Dexterity”

Molinsky (2013) provides a useful diagnostic to understand global cultures. What is appealing
about Molinsky’s approach is that it is practical and can be applied with little academic
background and understanding of various country cultures. His “diagnosis” of cultural values is
Page 220
framed in six dimensions and is not analyzed and defined specifically to any country or region.
Rather it is a framework that can be applied to any country setting. The six dimensions are as
follows:
 Directness: How straightforwardly I am expected to communicate in a situation?

 Enthusiasm: How much positive emotion and energy am I expected to show to others in
this situation?
 Formality: How much deference and respect am I expected to demonstrate in this
situation?
 Assertiveness: How strongly am I expected to express my voice in this situation?
 Self-promotion: How positively am I expected to speak about my skills and
accomplishments in this situation?
 Personal disclosure: How much can I reveal about myself in this situation?
As noted above, I find Molinsky’s dimensions useful because they do not “simply” apply to
cultures. For example he comments that it is a mistake to assume that it is possible to learn and
adopt a set of behaviors suitable to a work environment in a specific country and think that
these can be generally applied in that country. His assertion is correct in my view, as I found out
working on a project in Kazakhstan where there were Kazaks, Russians, Chinese, Australians,
British and Americans, amongst others, all working together in various campus sites. No single
country culture was dominant despite being in Kazakhstan. Molinsky comments as follows:
“People often mistakenly assume that there is an American or Chinese or Indian code
for behavior, and that once you understand this country code you are set to interact
successfully in any situation you encounter in that country. But this is simply not true.
Rather, these codes depend a great deal on so many factors other than country-level
differences.”
Molinsky continues to comment on the large variation in behavioral norms, for example, in the
Unites States, with East coast, West coast and Southern norms being so different. Even within
the same state, behavioral norms for large cities and small rural towns can vary widely. Indeed,
I found this a reality on returning to South Africa in the late 1980s just prior to Nelson
Mandela’s release, about seven years prior to the first democratic elections. I found myself
immersed in a working environment with different ethnicities and cultures, some of whom had
returned from exile and had lived and been educated in various countries around the world. No
generic set of behavioral norms for this work environment in South Africa would have been
much help in navigating the working engagements in this banking environment.
Molinsky applies a flexible tool that provides a “zone of appropriateness” to situations as well
as recognizes individual differences. For example, a “zone that feels natural and comfortable for
Page 221
you: somewhere in your personal comfort zone”. The author notes that there is an important
balance of “being yourself” while adapting aspects of your behavior for a given situation, in
other words one has to maintain authenticity.
How to deal with a multi-nation work environment?

Much of the research literature deals with the understanding and differences between various
states and regions. But with accelerating globalization, it’s not that simple. For example my
experience in Kazakhstan on a project with Chevron demonstrated the reality that global
countries are not always dealing with the interaction between two countries and their specific
differences in cultural norms. More often than not, there are multiple countries represented. In
my Kazak experience, there were six or seven countries involved and in any collective meeting,
about five interpreters. How does one understand the complexities of interaction at this
intersection? My pragmatic experience is to talk about it and decide with the group; simply
have a discussion, acknowledge the importance of mutual understanding and appreciation of
differences and agree on a set of behavioral norms and conduct. There are two key aspects of
this dialogue: First, discuss and agree on what work needs to get done and what the outputs
must be, and second, discuss and agree on a set of behavioral norms and values that the group
can coalesce around.
Cultural values and behaviors focused on getting work done

A perspective that is not dealt with in the research or popular media is the impact of specific
work being done in the context of corporate and country culture. As Schein (2010) has noted,
culture or behavior needs to be defined in terms of the business problem or need. More and
more, as business becomes global and competition between corporations becomes more
intense, my experience is that appropriate behavior is increasingly defined by what it will take
to get the work done and to be successful in the competitive market. For example Samsung, the
South Korean technology giant, is known for its top down directional leadership style; senior
leaders indicate clearly what needs to be done and in what direction, and managers and
employees simply focus on execution. This allows for little questioning and debate and rapid
execution. Schein notes exactly the opposite with DEC’s culture in the 1990s where lower-level
engineers had the ability to constantly contest and debate strategic decisions made by senior
leaders; ultimately DEC could not respond to a rapidly changing marketplace and was acquired.
Similarly, in the South African banking experience I have illustrated previously, the legacy risk-
averse culture of the bank entrenched the behavior of telling customers what they could have,
or not have, with a high degree of arrogance. This arrogance was tested with the integration of
South Africa into a democracy with many cultures merging into a democratic nation. New
cultures created new and varied customer segments with varied expectations. With the need to
Page 222
be competitive and improve customer service and market share, behaviors and assumptions
needed to change. It was more about how to achieve business objectives and challenges and
less about the cultural norms of the various cultures working together.
Chevron’s approach to standardization of core business process and methodologies also

provided a good example of how a focus on work practices and expectations creates common
ground for multiple country cultures to interact and conduct work. Chevron’s “Capital
Stewardship and Organizational Capability” (CSOC) principles, standards and methods provide a
very effective, standardized language and approach for doing work and interacting between
people and countries that eliminate many of the country cultural differences.
Agreeing on acceptable cultural behaviors and norms that apply to getting work
done
As multiple international cultures converge and integrate in the workplace, one of the simplest,
but most powerful techniques I have used, was to have a structured dialogue with the team
early in the “forming” phase of the project team formation. The steps I applied with the new
team were as follows:
 I first introduce the importance of different cultures (and personalities) working

together and how this can be so powerful when it is effective, but also difficult when it’s
not. I propose that this 60-minute exercise will allow the team to understand both their
colleagues’ cultural characteristics and their personal working styles.
 I ask everyone on the team to take 10 to 15 minutes to think about their unique cultural
and personal characteristics as they pertain to the workplace, and write these down. I
also ask them to write down what each person would like their peers to take into
consideration when interacting together as a team. I ask them to be candid about what
they prefer and what they struggle with in terms of team interaction. I ask that no one
judges these characteristics, but rather that the team members ask questions for clarity
and listen to the answers.
 I facilitate this discussion and write summarized notes from the subsequent discussion
on a flip chart or white board.
 Once this step is complete I usually have the group take a short break, while I
summarize what has been notated into more succinct statements of behavioral intent.
An example might be: “We are respectful of our individual and national differences in
culture and behavior and adhere to the following working values and behaviors.” I
subsequently write down statements that have been made during the session.
 Once the full team has completed their discussion, I ask the team to take colored flip
chart markers or sticky notes and post them against the statements that they feel are
most important.
Page 223
 Once prioritized, we discuss and agree on this ranking.

 Once ranking is agreed upon, we have a dialogue about how these will be used and
applied during day-to-day working situations. What I emphasize is the need for these
values and behaviors to be visibly displayed, particularly in the early stages of the
project. I also ask the team to agree on a respectful way of reminding people if or when
they forget or ignore one of the values during day-to-day interaction. What is most
important is to create a constructive forum in which cultural and personality factors can
be made visible and discussed, and where cultural conflicts can be dealt with efficiently
and effectively.
This simple process has not only proved to be very effective, but has made learning about
cultural values interesting and practical to the workplace. I have had a couple of team members
approach me after these sessions and comment that they had read books on cultural values
and behaviors in advance of their international assignments, but still did not understand how to
practically apply the information they had read. Whereas, with this interactive process, they
received interesting, practical and insightful techniques that could be applied with team
members every day.
Examples making country and ethnic culture a practical dialogue for efficient
work
In one South African banking experience, while working with a McKinsey consulting group, a
team learned that it was inappropriate to recognize one individual above others in the group
given South Africa’s “Ubuntu” culture; a culture that respects community over individuality. The
American-driven McKinsey team was surprised and respectful of this new understanding.
In the same banking environment, team members from a Zulu culture were able to talk about
their cultural differences with the Xhosa tribal culture and reach agreements on behavior.
In a Chevron team setting, a large team from various countries learned that the American and
German tendency to speak-out strongly, often speaking over their less forceful Asian
colleagues, was not only culturally insensitive, but stifled innovative ideas from those
individuals. These individuals learned techniques to listen more effectively.
In an organizational effectiveness project in Kazakhstan at a Chevron facility, individuals from

many countries, several requiring interpreters to converse, learned culturally respectful
techniques for making sure everyone understood one another. One remarkable lesson for me
personally, as I have noted previously, was the benefit of having a standardized methodology
and “language” across all Chevron’s operations for managing projects, organizational change
Page 224
and organizational effectiveness. While there were multiple languages being spoken among this
diverse group, everyone spoke and understood the “Chevron language”.
Reflections
It is always fascinating to me how effective something as simple (but not always easy) and
practical as dialogue is. There is a lot of research, white papers and books on the topic of
country cultures and their differences. And, while much of this is useful to know, when it comes
to working with a team comprised of multiple nationalities, what I have found most practically
useful is to get people to discuss their national as well as personal styles, and agree on a set of
behavioral principles that are respectful and practical for working together.
Page 225
References
Hammerich, K. and Lewis, R. (2013). Fish Can’t See Water. How National Culture Can Make or
Break Your Corporate Strategy. Wiley.
Hostede, G., Hofstede, G. N. and Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of
the Mind. McGraw-Hill.
Mindtools “Understanding Workplace Values Around the World”.

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_66.htm
Molinsky, A. (2013). Global Dexterity. Harvard University Press.
Schein, E. (2009). The Corporate Culture Survival Guide. Jossey Bass.
Page 226
Postscript: Dedications and a Tribute to Studs Terkel
Postscript: Dedications and a Tribute

to Studs Terkel
Growing up in South Africa, first in Cape Town and later in Johannesburg, I developed the
perception quite early in my young life that my father, who worked incredibly long hours in the
printing industry, hated his work. To make ends meet, he had to work every hour of overtime
that he could get. I remember thinking how terrible it must be to spend one’s life toiling in a job
that was thankless. My guess is that he felt lucky he even had a job, having grown up without a
father, in a boarding school and experiencing the Great Depression and World War II. This is my
first recollection of being aware, if not interested, in the notion of work being something to be
endured or enjoyed, loved or hated.
I started working in my first paid job at 16 at a small men’s clothing store on Kerk Street in
downtown Johannesburg. I wanted the pocket money. The clientele were mainly black South
Africans who worked in the various local businesses, and I was a sales clerk on Friday
afternoons after school and on Saturdays. This was my first experience—both good and bad—
with having a manager. Mr. Pierce and his wife, I guess Mrs. Pierce, but I don’t recall her name,
were opposites. Mr. Pierce was a kind, considerate man and Mrs. Pierce was a tyrant. I recall
being so amazed at the customers who would come in and buy the most expensive shoes I had
ever seen, never mind personally worn. I was also impressed at how these individuals, usually
elderly, explained to me that they bought these shoes because of the high quality, not how they
looked. One gentleman told me that the shoes that he was buying would last him for the rest of
his life. I remember telling Mrs. Pierce about the gentleman and she replied angrily, “I don’t
care, just sell him the most expensive shoes,” and I thought what a sad point of view that was.
Mr. Pierce on the other hand would explain to me about the construction of the shoes and the
kinds of leather. It was interesting, and I was later able to describe this detail to other
customers. Selling became fun, as long as Mrs. Pierce wasn’t around. I remember being amazed
at how one person, particularly a boss, could either make your life fun, and an interesting
learning experience, while another in exactly the same work situation, could make work feel
like purgatory. This, I’m sure is where my fascination for work and its importance in our lives
was further developed.
Happening upon Studs Terkel

In April of 1973 I had the wonderful opportunity of receiving a track and field scholarship to
attend Ohio University, and because I could only get my passport and student visa to enter the
Page 227
U.S. a couple of weeks after the semester had started, I was registered for several classes not of
my own choosing. But one of these classes was a business course in which Terkel’s text,
Working, was one of the required readings. In those first pages I read about people like my dad.
It was this now famous quote that galvanized my attention and energized me to read this 589-
page book in a few days: “…Work is about a search for daily meaning as well as daily bread, for
recognition as well as cash, for astonishment rather than torpor; in short, for a sort of life
rather than a Monday through Friday sort of dying.” From that point on I knew that in some
way, my life’s work was to contribute to making the workplace a little more conducive to
“astonishment rather than torpor”. I was captivated by the numerous stories like Tom McCoy, a
23-year-old proofreader in a printing facility who emphasized the joy he experienced with
working at night because he could work as he wanted without a boss looking over his shoulder
and how, during the day shift, he complained that if the boss “sees you reading a newspaper or
something, it grates him and he’ll find you something to do. That’s the part of the job I dislike
most, having to look busy”. Tom also observed how amazed he was that the “older guys” were
all afraid of the boss, because they had a lot to lose. In stories like this I saw my father, who was
a proofreader and editor in the printing trade. Terkel documents interviews with people like
Nora Watson, a 28-year-old staff writer for a publishing house, who had great aspirations of
having the kind of passion her dad had for his preaching job, but found that the job was small
and limited. In her organization, going the extra mile or even doing a good job was “the road to
ruin” and paradoxically taking it easy was expected and rewarded. She is quoted as saying,
“This is the first comfortable job I ever had in my life and it’s absolutely despicable.” Not being
tested and challenged had made everyone sit back and become lazy and most despicable was
the fact that it was accepted and become the norm.
In all of these stories I read about what my father must have experienced working, and at least
in my impression, receiving little recognition and reward for his toils. I often wondered why this
had to be so, and what I could do about it to make it different.
Dedication
I dedicate the many hours that I spent researching and writing this eBook to firstly my dad and
mom who both toiled so hard and long to give their family the kind of life that has allowed all of
us to live lives better than theirs, at least in terms of education, work and financial stability. And
I also dedicate this book to Studs Terkel for the penetrating interest and passion for working
people he portrayed in his book. Without his book, I am sure that my life and career would not
have quite the interest and passion that was ingrained in me.
I thank my editors who patiently provided guidance on my transcripts and helped me greatly
with my rambling sentences and constant use of passive voice! Thanks to Gwendolyn Corner for
Page 228
being willing to assist at the last minute and for her journalistic perspective, and to my brother
Michael for his wonderfully deep insight into how businesses work, and for his remarkably
organized mind and attention to detail and consistency. This is something I have been amazed
at from our early years growing up when I recall you completing your homework in the time
that I could barely find an open spot on my messy desk. And keeping it in the family, to my
brother Anthony who created the plein air paintings that represent the dysfunctional versus the
positive and effective “house of culture” on the cover of this eBook. I have always been amazed
at not only your artistic genius, but also your remarkable understanding of business. Thanks
Mike and Tony for our lifelong friendship.
Remarkable leaders and managers that I have known throughout the years have had a huge
impact on how I think about work and organizations. These are a few that (most unknowingly)
were so powerfully influential in my life, and I am forever grateful:
Denzil Busse
Glen Jackson
Gus Warwick
Frank Baltich
David Gallimore
And finally, this eBook is a dedication to all working people who may struggle to find meaning
and passion, but never give up, as well as those who have battled and found their passion, and
work to make the lives of others more meaningful. And one of those people is my amazing and
lovely wife, Jennifer Hershon, who by simply being who she is, as a leader and manager in the
medical world, makes the lives of the nurses that report to her and the patients she serves, a
little better and brighter every single day she is there. Like reading Studs Terkel’ s Working, I
learn something from you every day. Thank you for being so loving and supportive.
Page 229
Appendix 1: Models of Organizational Culture
Appendix 1: Models of Organizational

Culture
Introduction
This Appendix is a continuation and expansion of Section 1 of this eBook that provides a brief
history of organizational culture, and demonstrates that there is extensive theoretical research
work available on organizational culture, but a dearth of information available on executing
culture change within organizations.
Theoretical Models
The following summary of models is outlined in alphabetical order versus a chronological
sequence used in the historical overview section:
Dauber’s Configuration Model
Dauber et al (2012) note that organizational culture is a relatively young field of research, and
that most theoretical models have not yet been able to map culture change over time in a
dynamic, interactive manner with other elements of the model. Rather, organizational culture
is often treated as a variable with a linear relationship with other variables from a “static and
functionalistic point of view”. The authors contend that theoretical models should be able to
explain how and when certain variables change over time to produce business outcomes.
Dauber et al propose the Configuration Model which is based on theoretical considerations of
Schein as well as Hatch and Cunliffe, but contributes a dynamic interactive dimension to these
static models.
Page 230
Figure 22: Dauber's Configuration Model
While the authors identify the interaction of various elements of organizational culture and
emphasize change over time, the notion of change is not specifically called out in the model. A
key added value aspect of the “configuation model” is the influence of dynamic changes in the
external environment labelled as “Task Environment” and “Legitimization Environment”. Task
Environment is essentially the influence of market forces and Legitimization Environment refers
to all organizational stakeholders both internal and external. My view is that the author’s
review of existing models of origanizational culture, for example Edgar Schein’s, does not
include external influences is incorrect, at least implicitly. For example, Schein’s use of the term
“Values” in his three-levels of culture model includes business strategy, which by implication
includes an external market forces component.
Hatch and Cunliffe Model
Hatch (1993) notes that while some researchers have criticized conceptual models of
organizational culture as “oversimplifications” and ambiguous, others have argued that they
are important in terms of “guiding empirical research and generating theory”. Hatch continues
that some models only outline elements of culture but suggests that these have limited value.
What is needed are theoretical models that also illuminate the dynamic interaction between
elements. This observation is interestingly similar to Dauber et al, but almost twenty years
earlier. Clearly, from this viewpoint, not much progress has been made.
Despite Hatch’s criticism of some theoretical models, Dauber et al suggest that the Hatch and
Cunliffe model is too vague in the sense that the interactions between dimensions are not well
identified. I would add to their critique that there are elements that are either inadequately
represented, (for example, the powerful role of leaders in shaping culture), or are not noted at
all.
Page 231
Built off Schein’s 3-levels model, Hatch and Cunliffe add four processes, namely “manifestation,
realization, symbolism and interpretation”. The authors identify the notion of “dynamism” as
not only answering the question that Scheins’s model poses, namely “what is culture?”, but
also answers the question “how is culture constituted by assumptions, values, artifacts,
symbols and the processes that link them?”.
Figure 23: Hatch and Cunliffe’s Cultural Dynamics Model
The “Manifestation” process constitutes culture by translating assumptions into recognizable

values. An example might be that senior leaders believe that innovation is the essential key to
corporate success, and the translation is that leaders emphasize the need for all employees to
be innovative beyond their narrow work requirements. In other words, what organizational
members think to be true shapes what they value. ”Realization” processes interpet values into
visible artifacts, such as rituals, stories, humor and physical objects. An example might be that
employees are given dedicated time off to explore innovative ideas beyond their job
descriptions. The “Symbolism” process combines an artifact with meaning – people interpret
the artifact with meaning beyond its narrow form. An example might be that an award for
successful completion of a project may be a physical yet simple desktop plaque, but its meaning
may create images of “Hannibal crossing the Alps”, as one senior leader at a client company
metaphorically described it. “Interpretation” processes take a symbolic experience and
combine it with existing knowledge to generate meaning. An example might be that, while the
symbolic intent of an award might be an heroic achievement, like Hannibal crossing the Alps,
relating this experience to existing knowledge may be interpreted as team members on the
Page 232
successful team being worked excessively, being exhausted and disillusioned, versus being
motivated to “climb the Alps” once again.
Heskett’s Culture Cycle
James Heskett (2012) outlines his model as having seven dimensions as shown in the model
below:
Figure 24: Heskett's Culture Cycle
Heskett builds his model off Edgar Schein’s three-level model with a number of variations. The
most significant addition to Schein’s model is the notion of measurements, actions and
behaviors. The process of ensuring that stated values and associated behaviors are measured
and entrenched throughout the organization is important, and those (especially leaders) who
do not align with these behaviors should be moved out of the organization. In this sense
measurement, actions and behaviors are integrated into a performance management process.
Heskett also postulates that the elements at the top of the model are more easily observed, for
example artifacts and behaviors. At the lower levels they are more difficult to understand and
change, for example values and assumptions, which is Schein’s contention.
Kurt Lewin’s Theory
As noted in the section on the history of organizational culture, Lewin commented more on
leadership “climates” than organizational culture per se. He described organizational
management styles and cultures in terms of leadership climates defined by ”authoritarian,
democratic and laissez-faire work environments” (Wikipedia). Wolf (1973) summarizes Lewin’s
impact in the following way: “Lewin's contributions to management thought are intimately
related to his other work. He was "a practical theorist and his interest was the world of reality
Page 233
and applying the science of his psychology to real problems of society”. In this context, Lewin
not only developed the notion of organizational climate being forged by leaders, but also had a
pragmatic perspective regarding these elements of “climate”. Lewin also wrote about related
aspects, notably ideas on “work satisfaction” (Gold, 1999) as follows: “As applied psychology
has known for a long time, work satisfaction is in turn a very essential factor in the profitability
of work”. Lewin also spoke about the need for the workplace to move to having greater levels
of worker participation (Gold, 1999): “… fruitful investigation of the work process needs the
support, even direct cooperation, of the workers”. Lewin’s theories and writings were
undoubtedly precursors to the concept of culture and its associated theories emerging decades
later.
Edgar Schein’s Model
Schein’s three-level culture model is possibly the most quoted and utlized as a foundational
model in the literature. Schein describes artifacts as the superficial phenomena that are
experienced when first encountering a new group with an unfamiliar culture. Artifacts include
visible “products of the group such as the architecture, its language, its technology and product,
its artistic creations, style as embodied in clothing, manners of address and emotional displays,
its myths and stories told about the organization, its published lists of values and observable
rituals and ceremonies”.
Figure 25: Schein's 3-Levels of Culture
Espoused Beliefs and Values emerge from a group’s attempt to solve problems or execute
tasks. The solutions applied to these tasks and problems, which have reasonably successful
outcomes, emerge as what the group considers right and wrong and what they think will work
and not work. Schein theorizes that the solutions that become successful and begin to be
Page 234
applied and shared by the group are those that are usually adopted by the group as the way
things should be done in order to continue to be successful. Schein notes that “only those
beliefs and values that can be empirically tested and that continue to work reliably in solving
the group’s problems will become transformed into basic assumptions”. Over time, the
solutions that are repeatedly successful are eventually taken for granted and become
entrenched as the unconcious, basic underlying assumptions of the group. These assumptions
are difficult for researchers and consultants to uncover and are very resistant to change
particularly if they have produced successful outcomes over long periods.
Typology and Measuring Models

In Schein’s Introduction to Denison’s text (2012) he comments on various categories of
organizational theorists, practitioners, entrepreneurs and “measurers” (in Denison’s case).
Cameron and Quinn’s Competing Values Model
Edgar Schein (see Denison) would likely label Cameron and Quinn’s (2011) model a “measurers”
model as it is based on a survey assessment of a client company.
Figure 26: Cameron and Quinn's Competing Values Model
(Source:
http://www.bing.com/images/results.aspx?q=cameron+and+quinn+organizational+culture&for
m=MSNH14&pc=BDT5&refig=51bb2a55a76d4e408aeb36c0991e8994&qs=AS&sk=AS1&pq=cam
eron+and+quinn&sc=8-)
The Hierarchy (Control) Culture
Page 235
The Hierarchy Culture is characterized by a formalized and structured place to work. Processes
and procedures govern how employees operate. Leaders tend to be good coordinators and
organizers. Maintaining efficiency and consistent operations are primary considerations. The
long-term objectives tend to focus on stability, predictability and efficiency. Formal rules,
policies and procedures bind the organization and dictate operations.
Historically, most large organizations were dominant bureaucracies. Even in the twenty first
century, most government organizations and large corporations fall into this quadrant.
Examples listed by Cameron and Quinn are McDonalds, Ford Motor Corp, and many
government agencies.
The Market (Compete) Culture
As competition became increasingly intense during and after the 1960’s, a market orientation
became more important. The term market is not synonymous with a marketing function or with
consumers in the marketplace; rather it is focused on external constituencies such as suppliers,
contractors, customers, licensees, unions and regulators. The core values of a market-oriented
organization are competitiveness and productivity. It is a results focused workplace. Leaders
are hard driving producers, and competitors are tough and demanding. The “glue” that holds
the organization together is an emphasis on achieving stretch goals and winning. Success is
defined in terms of market share and market penetration. Cameron and Quinn list Philips
Electronics and Xerox as example of Market oriented organizations.
The Clan (Collaborative) Culture
The shared values of a Clan Culture are cohesion, participation and a sense of “we-ness”. These
values were manifest by semiautonomous teams that were rewarded as teams not on an
individual basis. These teams have authority to hire and fire their own members, operate
autonomous quality circles, implement work improvements and empower new co-workers.
Customers are considered partners, and these businesses try to develop a humane workplace
with high commitment and loyalty. Japanese firms were first noted to be Clan dominant
cultures in the 1960’s and given their success over the subsequent decades, many US firms
have attempted to adopt similar cultures.
The Adhocracy (Create) Culture
Cameron and Quinn note that the term Adhocracy is rooted in the term “ad hoc” or temporary
and impermanent. Companies have evolved as Adhocracies in the competitive need to be agile
and responsive to a rapidly changing competitive environment. Adhocracies are
entrepreneurial, innovative, dynamic and creative, with a focus on developing new and exciting
products and services. People take risks. There is a commitment and passion for creating
Page 236
leading edge products and services. Leadership style is visionary, innovative and risk oriented.
Adhocracies are commonly found in software and technology companies, aerospace, think-tank
consulting and filmmaking. Examples include Apple Corp, Google, IDEO and Genentech.
The Denison Model
As noted previously, Schein refers to Denison as one of the (social psychology) “measurers” in
the foreword to Denison’s text “Leading Culture Change in Global Organizations” (Denison,
2012). The model is an outcome of a survey and Denison and his team use the instrument to
measure and track dimensions of culture over time. The model is structured on two broad
dimensions, namely Internal versus External Focus and Flexible versus Stable. Thereafter, the
model includes four general dimensions, namely Adaptability, Mission, Involvement and
Consistency and subsequently each of these four having three sub-dimensions. As a so-called
“measuring” device, the model is built from a sixty-question survey deployed in a company.
Denison characterizes the model as “tracking the progress of the firm as their story unfolded”
as well as an “intervention” where the strengths and challenges defined by the survey results
were used to drive the transformation process.
Figure 27: The Denison Model
It is interesting to note that Schein seemingly endorses the Denison survey model in his
foreword of the Denison text, while in personal conversations with Professor Schein in 2013 he
commented on his lack of support for survey-based versus ethnographic-based analysis of
culture. His lack of support is because surveys are pre-structured and do not assess his notion
of the “third-level” of culture, namely tacit assumptions and beliefs. Surveys do not penetrate
this level of tacit perceptions.
Page 237
Charles Handy Model
Handy (1993) identifies four typologies, namely the “Power” culture, the “Role” culture, the
“Task” culture and the “Person” culture. Handy defines a Power culture as “frequently found in
small entrepreneurial organizations, traditionally in the robber-baron companies of nineteenth-
century America, occasionally in today’s trade unions, and in some property, trading and
finance companies. Its structure is best pictured as a web:”
Handy refers to the Role culture as “often stereotyped as bureaucracy ... structure to a role
culture can be pictured as a Greek temple. The role organization rests its strength in its pillars
or its functions. These pillars are strong in their own right; the finance department, the
purchasing department; the production facility may be internationally renowned for their
efficiency.”
The Task culture is construed as “job or project orientated. Its accompanying structure can be
best represented as a net, with some of the strands of the net thicker and stronger than the
others. Much of the power and influence lies at the interstices of the net, at the knots. The so-
called ‘matrix organization’ is one structural form of the task culture. The culture seeks to bring
together the appropriate resources, the right people at the right level of the organization, and
to let them get on with it. Influence is based more on expert power than on position or
personal power, although these sources have their effect”.
Page 238
Handy comments that the fourth culture typology is an unusual one: “It will not be found
pervading many organizations, yet many individuals will cling to some of its values. In this
culture, the individual is the central point. If there is a structure or an organization, it exists only
to serve and assist the individuals within it. If a group of individuals decide that it is in their own
interests to band together in order the better to follow their own bents, to do their own thing,
and that an office, a space, some equipment or even clerical and secretarial assistance would
help, then the resulting organization would have a person culture”.
Geert Hofstede Typology
Hofstede (1980) implemented the first extensive research study linking organizational culture
and country culture. Using data from 160,000 IBM employees across 50 countries, he
attempted to identify country cultural factors that impacted organizational culture and
behavior. He posited that country and regional and cultural norms form "mental programs",
which is a term Hofstede uses for predictable behavior. Hofstede proposes that in order to
change “mental programs”, there is a need to focus on changing behaviors which in turn leads
to a change in values. Hofstede proposed that there are national and regional groupings that
impact behavior in organizations, and identified five dimensions, which are scored. These
dimensions refer to how national cultures influence organizations and management. These
dimensions are summarized below:
 Power distance: As in societies, the organizations that originate in these societies reflect
the “boss-subordinate” relationships of these societies. Subordinates try to reduce the
power discrepancies between them and their superiors, while superiors attempt to
maintain it. Hofstede also notes that some societies expect there to be larger power-
distance gaps than others.
 Uncertainty avoidance: This characteristic concerns how people cope with uncertainty
about the future. Societies deal with uncertainty with law and religion, and to some
degree with technology in Hofstede’s view. Organizations deal with this with planning,
systems, policies and rituals.
 Individualism-collectivism: Individualistic societies place a high degree of importance in
individuals’ performance, and recognition, while collectivist societies achieve results and
Page 239
recognition based on interdependence amongst peoples. These values are also reflected
in organizations that emerge in these societies.
 Masculinity-femininity: This characteristic deals with the degree to which a society
emphasizes performance and achievement over nurturing and care. Masculinity in
Hofstede’s view emphasizes ambition, wealth and achievement, while femininity is a
culture that emphasizes caring and nurturing, gender equality and more flexible role
descriptions.
 Long- Versus Short-Term Orientation: Long -term societies emphasize pragmatic virtues
related to future rewards and persistence in adaptation to ongoing change. Short-term
societies emphasize history, national pride and respect for tradition, ritual, and “face-
saving” along with social obligations.
O’Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell Profile
This profile approach is referred to as the Organizational Culture Profile or OCP. The premise
behind this model is that cultures can be distinguished based on the predominant values that
are reinforced within a particular organization, and the OCP includes seven such values. The
architects of this model indicate that what makes an organization’s culture unique is the profile
of where each organization falls within these seven value dimensions. These seven values are
“Innovation, Stability, Respect for People, Outcome Orientation, Attention to Detail, Team
Orientation and Aggressiveness”. Ashkanasy, Broadfoot and Falkus (2011) argue that the OCP is
one of the few assessment instruments that has been tested and validated. They further
comment that the OCP is an exception to other assessment devices which don’t assess culture
as much as they assess “climate” which is a different construct. However, Schneider, Ehrhart
and Macey (Ashkanasy, Broadfoot and Falkus, 2011) comment that “the biggest challenge may
be to translate findings (of the OCP) to practitioners to ensure that climate is not only a variable
of conceptual interest to researchers, but also one that offers insights and practical competitive
advantage to organizations”. I completely agree with this sentiment. In addition, on the
strength of their point about the need for practical application, I now segue to the more
pragmatic aspect of culture namely how to execute change.
Execution and Change Models

This is an area of study that has lagged behind the development of theoretical and conceptual
models and measuring and tracking models. While the origins and history of organizational
culture can be traced back to the 1930’s, the focus on how to execute change is much more
recent. This review of the literature finds significant research on the history and background to
culture, how culture is defined and how to assess and measure it, but less about how to
practically execute a culture change initiative. For example, a literature review by Cui Xiaoping
Page 240
(2012) supports the need for greater attention to execution. The author notes that since the
1980’s there has been a growing number of studies on organizational culture, but much of this
research paid attention to defining culture. Later, more attention was given to assessing
culture, and more recently to determining the link between culture and organizational
performance. In contrast, Edgar Schein (2013, 2010, 2009) has emphasized a practical approach
to developing new organizational cultures. Schein (2010) comments that supportive cultures
are developed out of the successful implementation of business solutions. When a group of
employees are relatively and consistently successful at whatever they undertake, the kinds of
behaviors and activities that are supportive of this success become repeated, and over time
become embedded in culture. Kotter and Heskett (1992) support this notion in their
description: “behavioral patterns will likely become part of the firm’s corporate culture”. Schein
(2013), in personal conversations, has urged me to “stop using the word culture”, with his
emphasis being more on solving business problems with a supportive culture evolving as a
result. This pragmatic business solutions approach is less prominent in the work of others. For
example, authors like Cameron and Quinn (2011) provide nine steps for initiating culture
change (detailed below), and the dominant focus is arguably on culture itself and its
assessment, and less about executing for business results. Ronald Recaro (2011) notes that all
too often, academic publications can leave the reader with a view of the topic being overly
academic or “touchy feely” and therefore impractical to implement. Indeed, as I have found to
some degree, one has to look outside of mainstream research on organizational culture to
identify more operational and pragmatic research and examples of culture change and
execution.
Clarifying execution
It became evident during my background research on this topic that my notion of execution is
more specific and pragmatic than what is commonly described in research and writings on
organizational culture. Many authors have analyzed the elements that are essential for culture
change, those that drive and maintain culture change including elements such as leadership
behavior, performance management systems, compensations practices, reward and recognition
and business processes, and the role of middle management, amongst other factors. What is
less evident is research and experience on the business-driven solutions approach and how to
execute these changes, for example how to get leaders to change their behavior, how to make
fundamental changes to performance management systems, how to solicit support and action
from middle managers and how to make sure that employees are engaged. This section on
execution focuses primarily on the “how” of changing culture.
The following overview lists the literature by author in alphabetical order.
Page 241
The “How” of executing culture change

Raisa Arvinen-Muondo and Steven Perkins (2013) do not specifically speak to execution of a
new culture, but refer to a concept of culture that is related to execution, and is rarely
discussed. This is the notion largely championed by Schein, namely to focus first on
understanding the work (workflow or business processes) required to be successful in the
business, and thereafter identify the specific behaviors needed to drive successful workflow
outcomes. A new culture will emerge from the work outwards. The authors note that “the
managerial viewpoint has shifted emphasis toward a more interpretive stance. The manager is
encouraged to understand the cultural nuances in the organization with a view to gaining a
more rounded understanding of the consequences of any managerial actions, rather than
attempting to manipulate the culture”. The interpretation of this comment appears close to an
execution model which implies that culture – or more specifically behavior – must be defined
and executed at the level of the work.
Larry Bossidy and Ram Charran (2002) note that while the leader has to drive the development
of an execution culture, everyone in the organization must understand and practice the
discipline of execution. In other words, culture does not change in the right direction with
specific attention on execution change. They comment further that creating a new culture
requires the Catch-22 of disciplined execution, and developing competence in execution
requires a culture focused on execution.
Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn (1999 and 2011) outline nine steps for an organizational
culture change process. These are:
1. Reach consensus regarding the current organizational culture

2. Reach consensus on the preferred organizational culture
3. Determine what the change will and will not mean
4. Identify stories illustrating the desired future culture
5. Identify a strategic action agenda
6. Identify immediate small wins
7. Identify leadership implications
8. Identify metrics, measures and milestones to maintain accountability
9. Identify a communications strategy
Cameron and Quinn’s step five – Identify a Strategic Action Agenda – comes closest to
describing the detail of ensuring execution. This step includes the following sub-steps:
1. Create readiness
2. Explain why
3. Focus on process
Page 242
4. Generate social support

5. Provide information
What this approach does not include is the pragmatic business solutions approach urged by
Schein, and supported by a program steering committee to oversee progress.
Roger Connors and Tom Smith (2011) note that you cannot accomplish a successful cultural
transition without some form of targeted, directed and focused change effort. The authors
further note that the single most important change in actions that needs to occur during
cultural transition is the shift to greater accountability. They detail a programmatic approach
for achieving culture change by making everyone accountable.
Figure 28: Connors and Smith's Best Practices Map
A number of important aspects of the Connors and Smith programmatic approach are as
follows:
1. Focus culture change on business results (leveraging Schein)

2. Clearly define beliefs/behaviors that drive results (focus and specificity)
3. Leaders must create “experiences” that role model beliefs/behaviors
4. Recognition of behaviors (not only business results)
5. Programmatic approach (process controls)
6. Enrolling all employees
Page 243
In particular, leveraging Schein’s description of the specific role of leaders in role modeling
behaviors, Connors and Smith discuss a four-step process for creating behavioral experiences
that is very powerful.
Daniel Denison, Robert Hooijberg, Nancy Lane and Colleen Lief (2012). The authors provide an
explanation how Domino’s Pizza became Bain Capital’s leading venture capital investment. The
example provides a description of CEO David Brandon’s implementation of four guiding
principles in a very tactical, work-focused manner. These principles are “People First, Build the
Brand, Maintain High Standards and Execute Flawlessly”. The approach applied by Brandon was
at the workforce – he worked directly with franchise owners to ensure that they had the skills
and business processes to be able to execute flawlessly.
James Heskett (2012) notes that culture is a reflection of the organization’s purpose which he
describes as “its know why”. Culture on the other hand is “know how”. He provides detailed
explanations of the link between strategy and culture, but less tangible detail about how
companies plan and drive a change in culture – there is less detail about the “how”. Heskett
does provide a high level overview of culture change and execution and notes that culture and
strategy (execution) are linked by policies, processes, organization (structures, business units
etc.), controls, support systems measurement, talent management (referred to as “aligning
people with jobs”) and action – elements he refers to as “execution”. Misalignment of these
elements can create barriers to successful strategy execution. These resonate directly with the
challenge I experience at various organizations, however I would add to this list a number of
critical elements. These are:
 Performance management
 Corporate communications
 Employee engagement, (with a broader definition than is defined within the context of
the Gallup survey)
 Informal influencers (respected individuals who may not have line managerial
responsibility, but influence people’s behavior simply through the trust and respect
they garner).
Heskett provides a broad model for Culture’s role in organizational performance and references
a number of elements that enable “Execution”. Heskett’s execution practices include:
 Organization
 Compensation
 Controls
 Policies
 Practices
Page 244
Heskett observes that “strong cultures contribute to superior performance - until they don’t”.
His central point is that while organizational strategy is consistent and successful, given market
and competitive forces, and culture is enabling of strategy, there is a strong contribution. The
problem is when the competitive and economic environment changes and significant strategic
changes are necessary. In these cases, existing culture becomes a huge negative.
Ira Levin and Jonathan Gottlieb (2009) provide a more robust execution model and set of
principles and practices. Their execution practices are most specific and practical. These
practices include:
1. Sponsorship, Leadership and Communications

2. Establish Infrastructure and oversight
3. Define the preferred culture
4. Conduct culture gap audit
5. Ensure leadership modeling
6. Manage priority realignment levers (the authors refer to these as “instrumental levers”
– similar to the “House of Culture”)
7. Promote grassroots efforts
8. Integrate into priority strategic initiatives
9. Assess progress
Figure 29: Levin and Gottlieb's Model
An important differentiator of Levin and Gottlieb’s approach from others is that it provides a
robust project/program management approach (positioned within the element of
“Infrastructure and Oversight”) to culture change which is essential in their view. They
Page 245
comment: “This requires detailed planning, realistic estimates of resource requirements,

commitments to meeting those requirements and the orchestration of coordinated and
integrated actions. Effective culture realignment plans should be comprised of sequenced
actions, defined milestones, key deliverables expected to be produced and the timelines for
producing them. Managing with rigor and discipline also includes establishing a clear set of
governance, management and accountability structures to oversee, steward, control and
monitor the established plan of action”. In my personal experience, it is this pragmatic aspect of
disciplined execution that is sometimes implied in some of the culture research, but is lacking in
detail. Yet, in my experience, the lack of this aspect of culture change can be a failure point.
Mitchell Marks and Philip Miris (2010) focus on the challenging task of mergers and
acquisitions (M&A). In this context, the authors comment that corporate cultures often clash,
and emphasize the importance of a “Transition Structure” to drive the M&A, including forging a
consistent culture. The authors outline the following components of the Transition Structure:
 An Integration Steering Committee (ISC) overseeing the transition

 Integration teams conducting analysis and gathering data
 Integration team sponsors who are liaisons of the ISC with the integration teams
 Integration team leaders
 Team facilitators advise and support teams
 Team advisors are subject matter experts (for example, in culture change)
 Transition managers perform project management roles for the transition
The authors highlight the merger of Pfizer with SmithKline Beecham’s worldwide animal health
operations to demonstrate the importance of this operational execution model.
Mary Parker (2011) quotes Edgar Schein in saying that an organization should never start with
the idea of culture change. Instead, it should start with the real business challenges it needs to
shift in the strategic direction in which it intends to go, and overcome the challenges that are in
the way. Thereafter the organization should ask itself whether the current culture would help
or hinder it in overcoming these problems. Subsequent to this, the organizational values and
mission can be defined to support this future direction.
Ronald Recaro (2011) explains the approach adopted by the Loyalty1 group, a $2BB global
company to change its culture in a way that supports its new strategy. Recaro notes that all too
often, academic publications can leave the reader with a view of the topic being overly
academic or “touchy feely” and therefore impractical to implement. The pragmatic approach he
outlines includes the following tenets:
Page 246
 Strategy drives culture (not the other way around). This step ensures that the business
strategy was used as the anchor to drive culture change.
 Building a business case. Collecting data from various sources to quantify and map the
current and future desired culture.
 Don’t boil the ocean. Success is greatly reduced when the company attempts to change
all aspects of culture. He recommends only focusing on those aspects of culture
absolutely essential to drive strategy success.
 Culture Change is NOT owned by Human Resources. Recaro places importance on
having a broad based business ownership for culture change.
 The secret sauce is in the gap analysis. Using data collected to encourage spirited
debate in the organization to identify key levers for culture change.
Recaro notes the culture change framework adopted by the Loyalty1 group as the TOPS model
which references “Technology levers”, “Organizational factors” and “Process factors” which
need to be leveraged in order to drive behavioral change. Recaro also describes a project-
driven approach underpinning the TOPS model to execute change.
Edgar Schein (2013) emphasizes the importance of focusing first on identifying business
challenges and execution of business strategy and not on culture in isolation of business
success. His approach is a pragmatic one of overcoming the day-to-day obstacles to strategy
execution, while nurturing behavioral change. This change needs to focus more on solving
tangible business problems while nurturing enabling behaviors needed to achieve success.
Schein (2009) emphasizes the need for executing culture change through the creation of a
parallel structure that will include key insiders who then may consult with expert outsiders or
consultants to decipher the culture and plan the change program. The group that functions as
the parallel structure, says Schein, may not actually lead the change program. Rather a
“steering committee” with accountability and oversight for the overall culture initiative will lead
and approve the design formulated by the parallel group and monitor progress. Schein
references a five-step model developed by Beckhard and Harris (1987) that includes the
following:
1. Determine why change is needed

2. Define the ideal future state
3. Assess the present state
4. Plan the change
5. Manage the transition
Stanley Slater, Eric Olson and Carol Finnegan (2011) quote Larry Bossidy, former CEO of
Honeywell in support of this pragmatic approach to execution. Bossidy stated that most
strategies fail because they are not executed well, not because they are poor strategies. Slater
Page 247
et al comment further that poor execution is largely a result of not ensuring that behavior - a
product of culture – is aligned with strategy. They indicate, “a strong culture facilitates
understanding of the business’s strategy by employees and motivates supportive behaviors by
socializing members through mentoring, storytelling and by example. Consequently if the
success of business strategy is dependent on appropriate behavior, then it is essential for the
organization to have a supportive culture”.
Denny Strigl and Frank Swiatek (2011). Strigl was president and chief executive officer of
Verizon Wireless and documents in practical terms his philosophy and approach to getting
business results. One of his primary areas of attention is organizational culture and he explores
this in some depth in his chapter on “Building a Culture of Performance”. Strigl highlights an
interesting and somewhat humorous approach to developing the culture of Verizon: “I didn’t
assemble a task force to write our company credo, I didn’t hire a consultant, nor did I assemble
a focus group to test out what concepts would fly”. Strigl’s hard hitting approach places primary
responsibility on the senior leader – indeed, he took culture change as one of his top priorities –
as well as did other senior leaders throughout the organization. Based on his development of
the “credo”, he executed culture change through leaders and managers throughout the
organization. His approach is idealistically appealing – and rare. His approach to execution is
not to assemble a program office and delegate responsibility, but rather to build change
execution into the job descriptions of every manager in the organization.
Tracy Thurkow, James Hillgren and Ned Morse (2013) also outline four stages for culture
change:
1. Make it clear
2. Make it real
3. Make it happen
4. Make it last
Despite the title of “Strategy Execution and Culture Change”, the authors provide little detail of
an execution approach. Concepts and ideas are proposed, but specific execution details are
somewhat vague. For example, the section of “make it happen” is most closely aligned with the
process of executing change, but only provides high-level detail like “leadership means
changing one’s behavior to conform to values”. There is little argument with this, but the
section does not explain how to make it happen in practical terms. Their section on “make it
real” does include a list of five aspects that need to be “cascaded into the organization”. In this
section Thurkow et al comment that “the guidepost for deciding what behaviors are
appropriate or not appropriate originate in the company’s values statement and system”.
Within the context of their description, I agree that these are guideposts, but disagree in the
overall brevity of their description. As Schein has noted, behavior needs to be dictated by the
Page 248
nature of the work being performed. For example, if teams require a high degree of
collaboration amongst each other to be successful, then it is this work that calls for the
behavior. Morton Hansen (2009) in his book “Collaboration” explores the behaviors, methods
and techniques for effective collaboration, and notes that while collaboration is an extremely
powerful behavior, it can have negative effects when promoted as an overarching and general
behavior. Collaboration of its own sake can be negative – for example, a time waster. He calls
this notion “disciplined collaboration”. Similarly for other behaviors, like innovation, to be
impactful, they need to be specific to the needs of the work being executed otherwise they can
have negative effects.
Cui Xiaoming (2012) provides a broad literature review of organizational culture and corporate
performance. This review indicates that there is extensive research and literature on the
definition of culture, assessing culture and the degree to which strong cultures influence or
correlate with corporate performance; however, there is a dearth of research literature on
what is required to execute a culture shift. The author notes that “these arguments (that link
culture to organizational performance) have been primarily anecdotal or have been case
studies without formal measurement of either performance or culture”. Xiaoming comments
that the literature is ambiguous about measurement of corporate performance and the specific
(primarily financial) variables used in analysis of the impact of culture on performance. In
contrast, a study I conducted in 1995 (Weitz, 1995) used five financial metrics to identify links
between the implementation of a total quality management system and the key elements of
such a system with financial performance over a five year period. Using factor analysis, this
study identified a positive link between how people are led, managed and engaged within the
context of a TQM system (possibly a contributor to organizational culture) and financial
performance. While Xiaoming does not specifically refer to execution, one can make the
inference that a positive correlation between culture and organizational performance could
provide insight into the drivers of performance success.
Page 249
References
Arvinen-Muondo, R. and Perkins, S. (2013). Organizational Behavior. Kagan Page.
Ashkanasy, N.M., Wilderom, C.P.M., & Peterson, M. (2011). Handbook of
organizational culture and climate. 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks. Sage.
Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. T. (1987). Organizational Transitions. (2nd ed.) MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bergquist, W. (1992). The four cultures of the academy. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bossidy, L. and Charran, R. (2002). Execution; The discipline of getting things done. Crown
Business, New York.
Bower, M. (1966). The Will to Manage: Corporate Success Through Programmed Management.
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Caldwell, C. (2002). Performance Management. Amacom.
& Sons. San Francisco.
Connors, R. and Smith, T. (2011). Change the Culture, Change the Game. The Penguin Group.
New York.
Dauber, D., Fink, G. and Yolles, M. (2012). A Configuration Model of Organizational Culture.
Sage Open Publishing.
Denison, D. Hooijberg, R. Lane, N. and Lief, C. (2012). Leading Culture Change in Global
Organizations. Jossey-Bass.
Gold, M. (1999). A Kurt Lewin Reader” The Complete Social Scientist. American Psychological
Association.
Handy, Charles (2007). Understanding Organizations.4th Ed. Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.
Hansen, M. (2009). Collaboration. Harvard Business School Publishing. Boston.
Harrison, R. (1972). Understanding your organization's character. Harvard Business Review.
Heskett, J. (2012). The Culture Cycle. FT Press. New Jersey.
Hofstede, G. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill Books.
Page 250
Jex, S. and Britt, T. (2008). Organizational Psychology. A Scientist-Practitioner Approach. 2nd Ed.
John Wiley & Sons.
Kotter, J. and Heskett J. (1992). Corporate Culture and Performance. The Free Press. New York.
Levin, I. and Gottlieb, J. (2009). Realigning Organization Culture for Optimal Performance: Six
principles & Eight practices. Organization Development Journal Vol. 27 No. 4 Winter 2009.
Marks, M. L. and Miris, P. H. (2010). Joining Forces: Making One Plus One Equal Three in
Mergers, Acquisitions and Alliances. Jossey-Bass.
Marrow, A. (1969). The Practical Theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin. 2 nd Ed. Basic Books
Inc.
Moss, S. (2009). http://www.psych-it.com.au/Psychlopedia/article.asp?id=253
Nelson, P. Cohen, E. (2010). Riding the Tiger. Leading Through Learning in Turbulent Times.
American Society for Training & Development.
O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J. A., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A
profile comparison approach to person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34,
487-516.
Parker, M. (2011). The Culture Connection. McGraw-Hill.
Peters, T. and Waterman, R. (1982). In Search of Excellence. Harper & Row.
Pettigrew, A. (1979). On Studying Organizational Cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly.
Ravisi and Schultz (2006). Responding to Organizational Identity Threats: Exploring the Role of
Organizational Culture. Academy of Management Journal.
Recaro, R. (2011). Making a Case for Fast Cycle Culture Change. OD Practitioner, vol. 43. No.2.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. Jossey Bass.
Schein, E. (2009). Corporate Culture Survival Guide. John Wiley & Sons. San Francisco.
Schein, E. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. John Wiley & Sons. San Francisco.
Schein, E. (2013). Personal interviews during February to April 2013. Palo Alto.
Slater, S. Olson, E. and Finnegan, C. (2011). Business Strategy, marketing organization culture
and performance. Springer Science+Business, LLC 2010.
Page 251
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis. Administrative Science

Quarterly. Sage Publications, Inc.
Thurkow, Tracy, Hillgren, Jim and Morse, Ned (2013). Strategy Execution and Culture Change.
http://www.clg.com/Files/PDF/CLG%20WP-STRAT%20CULT%20CHG-06-08-5525.pdf
Walls, M. (2013). Building a DevOps Culture. O’Rielly Media Inc.
Ward, D. Tripp, R. and Maki, B. (2013). Positioned: Strategic Workforce Planning. Amacom.
Xiaoming, C. (2012). International Journal of Business Administration, vol 3, No. 2, March 2012
Weitz, K. (1994). The Scope and Impact of TQM in Leading South African Companies. M.Comm.
Dissertation. UNISA. South Africa.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Lewin
wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_climate
wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_culture
Wolf, B. (1973). The Impact of Kurt Lewin on Management Thought. Cornell University.
Academy of Management Proceedings
Page 252
Appendix 2: A Culture Change Checklist
Appendix 2: A Culture Change

Checklist
Introduction
This Appendix is an expansion of the section in Chapter 8 that provides a brief introduction to
the use of the culture change checklist. This expansion provides the psychological context of
why this can be valuable.
Determining if transformation is required

My introduction to Chapter 6 noted that “shifting organizational culture is possibly the most
challenging kind of change any organization can undertake”. The reason is that most
organizations are better at changing the “hard stuff” (work processes, structures and systems)
and less effective changing people’s hearts, minds and behaviors. Senior leaders should
therefore be cautious and considerate about embarking on a culture change initiative. I would
further argue that assessing, predicting and tracking organizational culture transformations is
also more difficult than most other kinds of organizational transformations precisely because
culture can appear “fuzzy” and vague to many business leaders. However, even when other
transformational efforts (i.e. not specifically focused on culture) are less “fuzzy”, (such as
technology implementations, global business processes and systems implementations amongst
other types), large scale transformational changes are always complex. This complexity is often
a huge challenge for senior organizational leaders to all understand the transformation in the
same way and to engage in conversations about the transformation using a similar language.
There is also the challenge of measuring and tracking progress and success of the
transformation in a standardized way that everyone understands. I have participated in many
transformation project meetings with highly experienced leaders from various disciplines
completely talking past each other, often becoming frustrated and angry because there was no
standardized and simple language and framework that everyone can agree on about what
transformation looks like. It does not have to be this way. Companies like Chevron and others
have learned this lesson and have standardized their project management and organizational
transformation methods globally resulting in huge benefits and speed of project execution. In
one example, I was commissioned by Chevron to conduct an organizational effectiveness
analysis in their Kazakhstan operations. I was initially concerned because I was kicking off this
project with a large meeting of division heads and most did not speak English and hailed from a
variety of countries beyond Kazakhstan. The reality however was completely unexpected.
Page 253
Whilst there was a need for a number of interpreters in the room, this was one of the most
constructive project scoping conversations I’ve ever participated in, primarily because all of
these senior leaders had a single language for organizational change and transformation. Most
organizations I have consulted with over the years have not introduced these kinds of
approaches, and in some cases actively resisted efforts to do so from the standpoint that
standardization implies some form of top heavy “strait-jacket” approach.
A case for standardized checklists, algorithms and simple rules to reduce

complexity
Daniel Kahneman (2011), the psychologist and Nobel Prize winner in economics, quotes Paul
Meehl, (who Kahneman rates as “one of the most versatile psychologists of the twentieth
century”), as saying that one reason experts are almost always outperformed in predictive
capabilities by simple algorithms, is that they think they are quite capable of dealing with
massive amounts of data and information – and they are almost always wrong. They know that
they are very smart people – but they “try to be (too) clever, think outside the box and consider
complex combinations of features in making predictions - Complexity (most often) reduces
validity”. Many studies have shown that human decision-makers are inferior to relatively simple
formulae, statistics and checklists when assessing and making decisions about the success of
complex scenarios such as mergers and acquisitions amongst others. In research studies, even
when smart people are given the result provided by formulae, these same people tend to
overrule it and ignore it because they feel that they have more knowledge and information
than that produced by the formulae. Kahneman notes that “they are most often wrong”.
Standardized approaches, simple algorithms and checklists can be very powerful tools. Atul
Gawande, (2013), a general surgeon in Boston and assistant professor at Harvard Medical
School, defines the power of checklists in this way:
“We (humans) have accumulated stupendous know-how. We have put it in the hands of some
of the most highly skilled and hardworking people in our society. And with it they have
accomplished extraordinary things. Nonetheless, that know-how is often unmanageable.
Avoidable failures are common and persistent, not to mention demoralizing and frustrating
across many fields – from finance, business to government. And the reason is increasingly
evident: the volume and complexity of what we know has exceeded our individual ability to
deliver its benefits correctly, safely and reliably. Knowledge has both saved us and burdened
us” … but there is such a strategy (to solve this problem) – though it is almost ridiculous in its
simplicity, maybe even crazy to those who have spent years carefully developing ever more
advanced skills and technologies (and indeed is resisted in many companies for this reason). It
is a checklist!
Page 254
Kahneman puts forward his own personal judgment and predictive capabilities (or lack of) as a
young military psychologist charged with assessing the leadership capabilities of aspiring
officers; he was initially dismal at this task. He also highlights examples of poor capabilities of
highly trained counselors predicting the success levels of college freshmen based on several
aptitude tests and other extensive data compared to the predictive accuracy of a simple
statistical algorithm using a fraction of the information available – the algorithm was more
successful than the trained counselors by far. Kahneman continues to reference cases of
experienced medical doctors predicting the longevity of cancer patients, the prediction of the
susceptibility of babies to sudden death syndrome, predictions of new business success and
evaluations of credit risk, all the way to marital stability and the ability to predict the future
value of fine Bordeaux wines. In all these cases, the accuracy of highly trained experts was most
often exceeded by simple algorithms, much to the consternation, occasional anger and derision
of the experts concerned.
Jonah Lehrer (2009) similarly reference studies conducted at MIT in which students given
access to large amounts of data performed poorly in predicting stock prices when compared
with a control group of students with access to far less information. He notes that the
prefrontal cortex of the brain has great difficulty NOT paying attention to large amounts of
information which can overwhelm the ability of the brain to estimate and predict. Access to
excessive quantities of information can have “diminishing returns” when conducting
assessments and predicting future outcomes, he says. Lehrer comments that corporations, in
particular, often fall into the “excessive information” trap and invest huge amounts of
resources in collecting data that can then overwhelm and confuse the human brain, versus the
intent of informing decision-making. Lehrer describes the remarkable situation of medical
doctors diagnosing back pain several decades ago. With the introduction of MRI in the 1980’s
and with far greater detail available, medical practitioners hoped that increasingly better
predictions of the sources of back pain would be made. The converse happened. Massive
amounts of detail produced by the MRI actually worsened their assessment and predictive
capabilities - poorer assessments were made. Kahneman refers to scenarios that contain a high
level of complexity, uncertainty and unpredictability as “low-validity environments”. Without
doubt, assessing and predicting the outcome of cultural change initiatives falls into this
category.
Experts are “less competent than they think they are”

Kahneman explains the state of our deep knowledge and experience in so many fields in the
following way: “Psychologists have confirmed that most people genuinely believe they are
superior to most others on most desirable traits…. (for example) Leaders of large businesses
sometimes make huge bets on expensive mergers and acquisitions acting on the mistaken
Page 255
belief they can manage the assets of another company better than its current owners … (in
many cases) they are simply less competent than they think they are”. Kahneman rather
humorously notes that humans are “incorrigibly inconsistent” in making judgments about
complex situations. While his description of this is humorous, the reality can be serious. He
continues to describe situations where experienced expert radiologists evaluating the same
chest X-Rays as being “normal” versus “abnormal” contradict each other 20% of the time.
Sometimes they even contradict their own evaluations on a second assessment. Similarly, my
personal experience driving culture change in large corporations, is that many executive leaders
(usually with very strong and dominant personalities) often have strong opinions about the
future success of their culture change initiatives. With differing background and experience,
and often relying on culture research studies that produce large quantities of research statistics
(which, in my view, can distract focus), their views of what needs to be done and predicting
future outcomes is often all “over the map”. This inconsistency amongst leaders is “destructive
of any predictive validity”, Kahneman says. He labels this sense of over competence the “hubris
hypothesis”. These executives are most often “less competent than they think they are”, he
says, and I agree.
Algorithms, statistics, checklists and simple rules

The power of something as simple as a checklist is has been shown by Kahneman to have
“saved hundreds of thousands of infants”. He gives the example of new born infants a few
decades ago, where obstetricians had always known that an infant that is not breathing
normally within a few minutes of birth is a high risk of brain damage or death. Physicians and
midwives through the 1950’s typically used their varying levels of medical judgment to
determine whether a baby was in distress. Different practitioners used their own experience
and different signs and symptoms to determine the level and extent of this distress. Looking at
these different symptoms meant that danger signs were often overlooked or missed and many
newborn babies died. When Virginia Apgar, an American obstetrical anesthesiologist, was asked
somewhat casually by a student how to make a systematic assessment of a newborn, Apgar
responded “that’s easy” and jotted down five variables (heart rate, respiration, reflex, muscle
tone and color) and three scores (0, 1 or 2 depending on the robustness of each variable).
Apgar herself began to use this rating scale in her own work. She began applying this
assessment about sixty seconds after birth of the all infants she handled. A baby of eight or
greater was likely to be in excellent condition. A baby with a score of four or less was in trouble
and needed immediate attention. What is now called the “Apgar Test” is used in every delivery
room every day and is credited for saving thousands of infant lives. Indeed, a report on
CNN.com as recently as March 2014 (Hudson, 2014) indicated that about one in twenty five
patients that seek treatment in US hospitals contracts an infection from the hospital, and that
patients acquired some 721,800 infections in 2011. This statistic is however significantly better
Page 256
than previous years, about 44% from 2008 to 2012. This result came from “requiring hospitals
to follow a simple checklist of best practices”. Simple checklists focused on complex situations
work!
Resistance to assessment, prediction and tracking methods

Kahneman writes in detail of the level of resistance, even hostility, that he and other
researchers have met with when presenting the results of his research on this topic. From
medical professionals, to psychologists and wine producers, these experts either rejected or
ignored the results, and in some cases responded with derision. Perhaps this is predictable,
because these results challenge the assessment and predictive capabilities of these same
experts who have developed their skills over many years and have rightly developed high
opinions of their capabilities.
Kahneman quotes Gawande who writes in his book “The Checklist Manifesto”:
“We don’t like checklists. They can be painstaking. They’re not much fun. But I don’t
think the issue (people resistance) here is mere laziness. There’s something deeper,
more visceral going on when people walk away, not only from saving lives, but from
making money. It somehow feels beneath us to use a checklist, it’s an embarrassment. It
runs counter to deeply held beliefs about how the truly great among us – those heroes
we aspire to be – handle situations of high stakes and complexity. The truly great are
daring. They improvise. They do not need protocols and checklists. Maybe our idea of
heroism needs updating.”
I agree with this sentiment. I have experienced this kind of response, verging on disdain when
presenting various checklists related to change and transformation. Somehow a checklist,
algorithm or computation trivializes their personal sense of the expertise, making them feel less
expert.
But, I believe a key element of introducing assessments and checklists is missed in Kahneman’s
dialogue. These tools should be developed – as best as possible - together with the experts that
will ultimately use them. This is a basic “behavioral change” principle, designed to overcome
the “not invented here syndrome”. This principle has helped me introduce checklists into
organizational culture change initiatives where many executives feel they “know it all”.
Kahneman’s “close your eyes” rule is also valuable in these situations (see section below on “A
Simple Process for Implementation”).
Page 257
The Efficacy of Checklists for Assessing and Predicting the Success of

Organizational Culture Change Initiatives
Organizational culture transformation is complex. The more diverse and geographically
dispersed the organization is, the more complex the transformation becomes, and the more
difficult it is to have some form of standardized approach and language for transformation with
business leaders accountable for driving strategy execution and culture change. An approach I
have used (with varying levels of success) in some of these transformation initiatives is based
on the process for transformation I outline in a previous chapter (see model below).
The structure of the Culture Change checklist is developed from a model for transformation
that (in my experience) initially seems to make sense to most leaders. Once the model is
accepted, it becomes the standardized mental model for what culture transformation looks like
and ultimately becomes the framework for planning, executing and tracking the culture
transformation program. It also becomes the model on which the transformation “checklist” is
based. An example of such a model is shown below:
Figure 30: Strategy Aligned Culture Change Cycle
To gain acceptance with business leaders, it is important that the model do two things
effectively. First, it must make business sense to leaders who are typically more focused on
strategy execution and planning versus culture change, and second, it must be translatable into
a set of questions or statements that both define each element of the model, and can also be
Page 258
used as a framework for having conversations on culture change with business leaders. Ideally,
during these conversations, leaders should be able to provide a rating (say, on a 1 to 5 scale) to
each one of the questions or statements in the checklist (an example is shown in Chapter 8).
Checklists and simple assessments

As noted above, the second part of this process is to build out the model into a simple set of
questions or statements that summarize each element of the model. What I have found
essential in developing these assessment and prediction tools and checklists is to avoid the
resistance that many experts have for “simple” tools, particularly when these tools can
somehow be viewed as questioning their knowledge and expertise. I initially engage with a
group of “friendly” business leaders, or leaders who are somewhat receptive to help and
support. I hold working sessions to frame and build the checklist, and focus on developing the
key factors that, in their opinion, define success. I always start these working sessions with a
baseline set of questions or statements from which the group can add or subtract – this
approach tends to results in a “halo effect” (Kahneman) in which initial positive experiences
with early statements and questions allow remaining questions to be more easily accepted.
Usually a maximum of four or five statements or questions per element is adequate (an
example of a checklist is shown at the end of this Appendix).
What I have found to be one of the biggest benefits of the model and the associated checklist
framework is getting the leadership team to begin to have a robust conversation on the overall
approach to culture transformation and its scope. I emphasize that this is not about the
checklist, it is about the conversation and the resulting mutual understanding and decision-
making that flows from it. Often, it is the first time that these leaders have got together to talk
through their approach to culture change in any structured manner. More often than not, prior
to these dialogues, these leaders have either not known where to start, or have been pursuing
a number of fragmented culture change initiatives that they think will drive culture change. But
there is seldom an integrated and structured approach. These conversations usually unearth a
couple of realities:
 Leaders do not understand or agree on what culture transformation includes and how
the important elements of culture change are inter-related.
 They have a vague understanding of how well they are progressing on each element of
culture transformation.
A simple process for applying the culture change checklist

The way I introduce the value of the model and checklist conversation is to pose the question to
leaders on what they think “transformation looks like” – in other words, what approach are
they taking (if any), and how are they progressing in each of the phases of transformation. I
Page 259
emphasize that there is no right or wrong answer, but that this is simply a valuable starting
point to get everyone on the same page and talking the same language. Most often they are
unable to answer this question. At the least, they – as a leadership team - usually do not agree
on their approach to transformation and differ significantly in their opinions on how they are
progressing – when the leaders recognize this level of fragmentation, this acknowledgement is
a successful outcome in itself. As Kahneman notes, senior executives tend towards
overconfidence and will dismiss topics they consider trivial or below them. Posing the question
“what does transformation looks like” upfront tends to reduce this hubris. This also sets the
stage to move to the more detailed phase in use of the checklist, namely talking through each
of the questions or statements and fostering debate and discussion. During these deeper
discussions I push for some level of consensus amongst the group on the rating (1 to 5) of each
question or statement. This is important, not because the rating needs to be exact, but because
the rating produces rich dialogue and greater mutual understanding of culture transformation.
It also produces a chart (see example in Chapter 8) that is a simple and highly visual picture of
where they think they are on the overall transformation process, even if they are only starting.
This creates a baseline to assess progress over time.
While not based on any statistical validation, my guidance to leaders is that they consider at
least a four (out of a possible five) to be the required score in each dimension of the target for a
successful culture transformation effort. Because the dimensions are so interdependent, any
dimension rating of less than three compromises the entire culture change program. An
extreme example of this interdependency is a poor rating in “Mobilizing a strong leadership
coalition”. I call the leadership dimension the “fatal flaw”, in other words, if this dimension is
weak, the entire process will likely fail because strong leadership is essential for all other
elements to work effectively.
The power of this simple visual and the dialogue around it, is similar to Kahneman’s “Close your
Eyes” approach with experts and professionals; it invites them to take an objective step back
from the checklist and ask themselves a question that leverages their deep knowledge and
experience: “does this chart reflect the scope of our culture change challenge and does it
reflect our current state of performance”. In other words, they are invited to weigh in with their
“expert” experience on the final result. I have found that the preceding conversation to this
question almost always produces a “yes” answer – and a recognition that they need to do more
in key areas of culture transformation. This conversation not only develops greater insight into
what Kahneman calls the “illusion of skill” that many senior executives have, but also maximizes
the acceptance and ownership that these leaders must have to move this process forward and
make it succeed. They are then able to develop transformation plans in a more systematic way,
mobilize project teams to drive this work, and periodically check back in to assess progress.
Page 260
From assessment and prediction to implementation

Often, out of these conversations, these leaders emerge more focused and aligned. They are
more inclined to mobilize the people and other resources needed to develop culture
transformation plans and to begin to execute and track those plans.
Page 261
References
Cameron, K. and Quinn, R. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on
the competing values framework. 3rd Edition. John Wiley & Sons.
Gawanda, A. (2009). The Checklist Manifesto: How to get things done. Metropolitan Books.
Hudson, W. (2014). CNN.com. 1 in 25 patients gets infection in hospital.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/26/health/hospital-infections/index.html?hpt=he_c2
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. New York.
Lehrer, J. (2009). How we decide. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co.
Page 262
About the Author
About the Author

Kevin Weitz
Kevin is Principle Organizational Consultant with Intel Corporation working with leaders to
optimize Intel’s culture to support its business strategy into new markets. For over 25 years
Kevin has consulted with organizations like Chevron, Levi Strauss & Co, Wells Fargo Bank,
Pacific Gas & Electric, British Columbia Hydro and Standard Bank of South Africa on large
scale organizational transformational projects. These transformational initiatives are almost
always extremely challenging for these organizations, especially for employees and other
stakeholders. Kevin’s transformation work focuses on engaging leader’s, employees and
stakeholders on becoming more adaptable and resilient to constant and disruptive change.
Kevin holds a Doctor of Psychology degree (Psy.D.) from the Professional School of
Psychology in Sacramento California.
www.linkedin.com/in/kevinweitz/en
Page 263

The House of Culture

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The House of Culture

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

©

The “HOUSE OF CULTURE ”

And How to Make an Organizational “House” a “Home”

Kevin Weitz (Psy.D.)

Chapter 3: Values, Beliefs, Attitudes and Behaviors ................................................................. 28

Neuroscientific Insights into Organizational Leadership ....................................................... 61

Reflections ........................................................................................................................... 124

Reflections ........................................................................................................................... 188

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 253

Do we really need another definition?

An example of this void is the comprehensive compendium “The Handbook of Organizational

Culture is about people

Section 1: Organizational Culture

CHAPTER 2: Models of Organizational Culture

Section 2: Constructs within Organizational Culture

Chapters included in Section 2:

CHAPTER 4: Changing Behaviors in Organizations

CHAPTER 5: The Neuroscience of Organizational Culture

Section 3: The “House of Culture”

Figure 1: The House of Culture

Building the “House of Culture”

Organizational Vision, Values and Behaviors

Symbols, Focused Corporate

Chapters included in Section 3:

Section 4: Building a New House of Culture

The “FACES” Execution Process (Focus, Analyze, Construct, Execute, Sustain)

Figure 2: FACES Program Management

CHAPTER 8: Phase 2: Analyze

CHAPTER 9: Phase 3: Construct

CHAPTER 10: Phase 4: Execute

CHAPTER 11: Phase 5: Sustain

Section 5: Don’t Forget that People Live in the “House”

CHAPTER 13: Positivity in the Workplace

CHAPTER 14: Fear in the workplace

CHAPTER 15: Personality Disorders and Organizational Culture

CHAPTER 17: Managing Talent with a Focus on the Individual

CHAPTER 18: The Intersection of Corporate Culture and National Cultures

Postscript: A Tribute to Studs Terkel

Topics in the Postscript

Happening upon Studs Terkel

How to read this eBook

Section 1: Organizational Culture

Chapter 1: A Brief History

Another important construct of culture introduced by Pettigrew is that of “ideologies and

“Ideologies can play a significant role in the processes of organizational creation

Definitions of organizational culture

“Culture refers to the taken-for-granted values, underlying assumptions, expectations and

Cameron and Quinn (2011)

James Heskett (2012)

Edgar Schein (2009)

Kurt Lewin: An historical gap and debate?

“… many students of management are completely unaware of Lewin and his

A Summarized Timeline of Organizational Culture

Figure 3: A Diagrammatic Timeline of Organizational Culture

A Diagrammatic Summary Timeline of Organizational Culture

Key Thought Leaders Contributions

Kurt Lewin Corporate “Climate”

Marvin Bower A corporate ”Philosophy” about “The Way we

Andrew Pettigrew Beginning to integrate concepts of sociology

Edgar Schein Three levels of Culture. The role of leaders

William Bergquist Four Culture topologies

Kotter and Heskett assessment

Corporate Culture linked to Performance

Harrison, R. (1972). Understanding your organization's character. Harvard Business Review.