Genes, DNA and Corporate Culture

Watson-Crick

 

I think that the formation of [DNA’s] structure by Watson and Crick may turn out to be the greatest development in the field of molecular genetics in recent years.
— Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize for Genetics

 

On April 25, 1953 Professors James Watson and Francis Crick proposed that DNA is composed of a double helix structure, which effectively solved the question of how DNA and chromosomes replicate and combine to form new individuals. It was a revolutionary proposal in modern science that would have profound ramifications for biology, genetics and modern medicine.

As a young graduate student in biology at Harvard University from 1970-1972, I had the fortune of meeting James Watson on several occasions and attending some of his lectures. He was arrogant, opinionated and self-centered, but his awkward personality did not detract from the fact that he and Francis Crick provided a fundamental platform for future molecular and genetic science.

DNA_helixBasically, DNA is the building block of life and contains within its double helix structure the code that not only differentiates one species from another, but also one individual from another. The exact sequence of the amino acids Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine forms the code that determines what we are, and in many cases who we are as well. And a new individual born from two parents contains one strand of DNA (and its genetic code) from each parent, making us unique individuals, and not clones.

If you like, you can think of DNA as the software code which runs the operating system of living things.

Since all DNA is made up of just these four amino acids, differentiation lies in the sequence and where they sit on the chromosomes. This basic building block similarity allows for the modern genetic engineering to take place, which basically is the process of manually adding new DNA to an organism in order to add one or more new traits that are not already found in that organism. For example, plants have been modified for insect protection, herbicide resistance, virus resistance, enhanced nutrition, tolerance to environmental pressures and the production of edible vaccines.

And the fact that human beings and chimpanzee DNA matches to 98.8% identical tells you that even as little as 1.2% difference contains enough genetic code (or about 35 million differences) to account for the many striking differences between the two species.

dna-similarities

Corporate Culture is Similar to DNA

There is no single corporate culture, but instead the culture of most organisations is a collection of subcultures which contain strong formal and informal ground rules which guide how people in that subgroup should behave. So, if you think about it, corporate culture is very much like the DNA strand that carries the genetic code for a particular organism or individual. Certain parts of the DNA molecule code for different genetic expressions, such as hair color, eye color, skin color, certain elements of personality and even the raw material for IQ and EQ.

In the case of a business or organisation, the corporate culture is composed of multiple subcultures. And within the same company, subcultures can be very different, just as on a strand of DNA the genetic code for hair color is different from the genetic code for shape of the ears. Each subculture has their own code of behaviour and acceptance / rejection mechanisms, which determine how people tend to behave.

Trying to describe the overall corporate culture is not nearly as useful, or interesting, as understanding the many subcultures and their behavioural norms.

And when it comes to M&A, the DNA analogy is particularly strong. A new individual is made from one strand of DNA from the mother and a complementary strand from the father. But in many cases one set of genes is stronger from one parent than another, creating a dominance situation. Male pattern baldness and eye color are the result of dominant genes overshadowing weaker, recessive genes and are inherited traits.

When two organisations merge, in many cases they have the same functions (HR, Engineering, Marketing, Finance, etc) but some are stronger than others, depending upon which organisation they come from. While one company may acquire the other and be considered the “dominant company”, reality is that some functions and their resulting best practices from the acquired company may be stronger and better fit for purpose in the merged entity. Ignoring these differences has led many an arrogant acquiring management team to totally discount the capabilities of the acquired firm, thus weakening the potential benefits of the merger.

And changing corporate culture is not as easy as simply conducting a “culture survey”, defining a few new “core values” and orchestrating top-down training. The core of the cultural DNA needs to change, and that means something akin to gene splicing and genetic engineering. Real culture change comes about by getting into the subcultural level and determining the actual internal policies and work practices that drive behaviour.

Next time someone around the Board table says “we need a culture change”, have everyone step back and reflect on just what that really means.

A poorly executed culture change programme does more harm than doing nothing. ~John R Childress

Written and Posted by: John R. Childress

Senior Executive Advisor on Leadership, Culture and Strategy Execution Issues,
Business Author and Advisor to CEOs
Visiting Professor, IE Business School, Madrid

e: john@johnrchildress.com
Twitter @bizjrchildress

Read John’s blog,  Business Books Website

On Amazon: LEVERAGE: The CEO’s Guide to Corporate Culture

Read  The Economist review of LEVERAGE
Also on Amazon:   FASTBREAK: The CEO’s Guide to Strategy Execution

John also writes thriller novels!

Posted in leadership, corporate culture, strategy execution, consulting, Human Psychology, Organization Behavior | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Don’t Confuse Corporate Culture with Tradition

HSBC

We are connected to the past, but are not defined by it.

Many companies are proud of their heritage and company traditions.  HSBC is 150 years old this year and planning multiple celebrations focused on its long tradition of supporting economic growth and wealth creation.

ChevronChevron, the global oil company, was founded in 1879 and is proud of its history and traditions:

“Our company has a long, robust history, which began when a group of explorers and merchants established the Pacific Coast Oil Co. on Sept. 10, 1879. Since then, our company’s name has changed more than once, but we’ve always retained our founders’ spirit, grit, innovation and perseverance.” (Chevron website)

In many ways, nearly all companies use the legacy of the founders and their early values to help build pride, define who they are and to differentiate them from their peers. While start-ups have energy, passion and a future vision, established organisations have their history and legacy as well as a future vision.

But one of the many mistakes established and successful companies make is to confuse tradition and heritage with corporate culture. Many companies describe it something like this:

“Our heritage and long history of success are the foundations for our high performance culture today.”

More often than not that is just another example of corporate spin, otherwise known as BS!

Culture has very little to do with history and legacy and more to do with the day to day routine behaviours that management and employees use to solve problems and the current policies and procedures that everyone must adhere to.

Slide001In my book, LEVERAGE: The CEO’s Guide to Corporate Culture, I make the point that while founder values and leadership actions may be strong in the beginning, as a company grows the impact of leadership and history on corporate culture gives way to the peer pressure found in local subcultures  inside the company. And since there is no single corporate culture, but instead most large companies are a collection of strong subcultures, history, heritage, tradition and legacy values may have little to do with how the modern company actually behaves.

Banking is an excellent example.  The rise of strong trading and investment banking subcultures have completely overshadowed the values and legacy of the early founding fathers.

For companies such as HSBC to attempt to reshape their currently dysfunctional corporate culture by focusing on heritage and founding values is a design to fail.  They should use the millions of dollars spent on their 150-year celebration to take an honest look at what really drives their current culture and performance.

Written and Posted by: John R. Childress

Senior Executive Advisor on Leadership, Culture and Strategy Execution Issues,
Business Author and Advisor to CEOs
Visiting Professor, IE Business School, Madrid

e: john@johnrchildress.com
Twitter @bizjrchildress

Read John’s blog,  Business Books Website

On Amazon: LEVERAGE: The CEO’s Guide to Corporate Culture

Read  The Economist review of LEVERAGE
Also on Amazon:   FASTBREAK: The CEO’s Guide to Strategy Execution

John also writes thriller novels!

Posted in corporate culture, Human Psychology, leadership, Organization Behavior, strategy execution | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Shadow of the Leader: The Remake.

Shadow

 

One of the fundamental tenants of corporate culture is the principle of “shadow of the leader”.  In essence the behaviour of the leader and or leadership team casts a shadow over the entire organisation.  It is mostly understood by consultants of leadership and culture that the behaviour of the leaders is mimicked and magnified as you look down into the organisation.  Poor teamwork at the top tends to breed poor teamwork at all levels.

It’s not that leaders push their behavioural traits onto others so much as lower levels of managers tend to see the behaviour of their bosses as acceptable and what is required to get ahead. For example, the leader that focuses mainly on sales and financial numbers tends to see that same focus at all levels, often ignoring other drivers of business performance.

“Organisations are shadows of their leaders.  That’s the good news and the bad news!

But the principle of leadership shadows is not so simple.  Most consultants study leaders and the practice of leadership without really studying those who report to the leader or are one or two levels down.  For the past several months I have been studying the impact of leader behaviour on middle managers and the principle of shadow of the leader is much more complex, and interesting, than most consultants of corporate culture and leadership would have us believe.

bad boss cartoonFor example, let’s suppose we have a leader at the top of a large organisation that yells, pounds the table, swears at people in public, calls them weak and babies when they don’t meet their monthly or weekly figures, and threatens to fire them all.  This is the bosses normal behaviour when disappointed with business performance.

How do direct reports and next level managers respond? In most cases it is not a simple mirroring relationship.  Perhaps there would be a cascading set of behaviours if the actions of the leader were demonstrably positive, developmental and encouraging.  But I believe all middle and upper managers have an internal “professional moral compass” as to what is good and bad leadership behaviour.

When managers look up at leaders for guidance and direction, they are really looking at two aspects: the position and the person.

The Position: In most cases, middle and upper managers respect the position.  They respect the authority and responsibilities that come with a senior position. “I may not always agree, but she’s the boss so let’s see if we make it work!”  Respect for the position is often the element that keeps a company together and moving forward. Certainly in military situations where lives are at stake, respect for the position is vitally important. Senior officers have more knowledge and experience than junior officers and their position and authority are respected.

The Person:  The other aspect is respect for the person. And here is where the moral compass” and not the organisational compass” comes into play. When upper and middle managers respect the leader as a person, there is a willingness to try new things and a motivation based on that respect. On the other hand, when the leader is not respected as a person, usually due to multiple outbursts of bad behaviour, the motivation to “enthusiastically follow the leader’s suggestions or decisions” is lacking.

Respect for the position, but not for the person.

The resulting manager behaviour  is what I term compliance and blind obedience when what is really needed for business success is creative problems solving and fired up motivation to win.  For those faced with recurring bad behaviour from the boss, the daily motivation often becomes just to survive, not to win. To follow orders rather than innovate and improve. To do the minimum when the maximum is needed. To be “9 to 5″ rather than engaged and alive.

Most middle managers don’t mirror or replicate the behaviours of a bad leader. Many try to overcompensate to protect their own staff.  Others just go through the motions with compliance and survival as their focus.

Next time you see a company with good products and a strong marketplace that is under-performing, look at the real day-to-day behaviour of the leader. Analysts would do well to understand the behaviour of the leader as much as they try to understand the business metrics or market dynamics when evaluating a company for investment purposes.

One of the best performance improvement quotes I have heard is,

“Change the leader or change the leader”!

It is my observation that when a new leader comes into an organisation and creates a dramatic improvement in business performance, its is more a result of better leadership behaviours than a bigger brain or new ideas.

Written and Posted by: John R. Childress

Senior Executive Advisor on Leadership, Culture and Strategy Execution Issues,
Business Author and Advisor to CEOs
Visiting Professor, IE Business School, Madrid

e: john@johnrchildress.com
Twitter @bizjrchildress

Read John’s blog,  Business Books Website

On Amazon: LEVERAGE: The CEO’s Guide to Corporate Culture

Read  The Economist review of LEVERAGE
Also on Amazon:   FASTBREAK: The CEO’s Guide to Strategy Execution

John also writes thriller novels!

 

Posted in consulting, corporate culture, leadership, Organization Behavior, Personal Development, Self-improvement, strategy execution | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How Leaders Fail . . . part 1

bates-come-back

If you want to know whether or not you are a leader, turn around and see if anyone is following!

The role of “leader” in a business is never easy and for those in charge of a country, division, plant or other significant business unit, the responsibilities are many and the tools for positive impact are few.

One of my roles these days is to advise business leaders on how to focus on the things that have the most positive impact on people and performance, and I also get the privilege of supporting their development and learning as a leader.  Rather than point out the obvious, I tend to look for those few behaviours that unconsciously sabotage their leadership effectiveness.  And many of these “sabotage” behaviours are totally invisible to them; they don’t realize they are behaving this way and certainly don’t understand the negative impact of such behaviour.

You can’t solve a problem you don’t know exists!

Triangle Communications:

One of the biggest leadership self-sabotage behaviours is what I have termed “triangle communications”, which is a nice way of saying, talking about other people to a third person instead of talking directly to the person.

By way of illustration, let’s say that Al has a problem that involves Bob.  Bob either did or said something that upset Al. Instead of talking directly to Bob about the issue and patching it up, Al talks to Charlie about what Bob said or did. Then somehow Charlie goes and talks to Bob about what Al said, and now everyone is upset.  Communication stops and barriers between people build up. And more often than not the actual event gets more and more distorted and negative with each retelling.

Triangle comms

So, what’s this got to do with leadership?  Lots !!

If Al is in a leadership role, his habit of triangle communications sabotages his leadership effectiveness.  Let’s do a classic Ben Franklin +/- on this behaviour.

triangle ben franklin

Lots of negatives and very few positives as a result of this behaviour. And the sad truth is, many of those in leadership roles have multiple triangle communications daily, thus limiting their leadership effectiveness.

There is only one antidote to triangle communication behaviour. Courage.  The courage to sit down directly with the other person and deal with the issue head on.  And surprise, chances are the problem is more a misconception or misinterpretation than a reality. And once faced and openly talked about, the issue subsides, trust and respect is built and your leadership capabilities strengthened.

Don’t Do Triangles!

Written and Posted by: John R. Childress

Senior Executive Advisor on Leadership, Culture and Strategy Execution Issues,
Business Author and Advisor to CEOs
Visiting Professor, IE Business School, Madrid

e: john@johnrchildress.com
Twitter @bizjrchildress

Read John’s blog,  Business Books Website

On Amazon: LEVERAGE: The CEO’s Guide to Corporate Culture

Read  The Economist review of LEVERAGE
Also on Amazon:   FASTBREAK: The CEO’s Guide to Strategy Execution

John also writes thriller novels!

Posted in consulting, corporate culture, Human Psychology, leadership, Organization Behavior, strategy execution | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Why Customer Insight is So Elusive

service21

The holy grail of many organisations is to be so close to the customer that they truly understand the “world of the customer” (not just the “voice of the customer” – VoC) and all the ways the customer uses their products and services, what they appreciate, what frustrates them, and what they need.  Having such customer insight would allow an organisation to design, produce and deliver their products and services to fulfil those hoy grailneeds better than their competitors.

And I say Holy Grail because very few companies achieve anything close to understanding the world of the customer. One of the biggest mistakes many companies make is the belief that they need a large amount of data that can be retrieved easily and used for customer service purposes as well as analysis for trends, etc.

Enter the world of CRM, short for Customer Relationship Management.  In my mind, trying to understand your customers using a computer and data points is akin to trying to understand your girlfriend (or boyfriend) based on your cumulative experience and data from previous romantic relationships. A certain recipe for relationship disaster!

There is much more to understanding the customer than large amounts of survey data. This week I am sitting in an executive meeting for a heavy equipment manufacturing and sales company in Lugano, Switzerland (okay, not a bad place to be in June) where the response to the leader’s questions of “tell me about your 10 best customers” goes something like, “we need to do more market research”.  At this point the leader explodes in a tirade about knowing the customer vs having data on the customer!

Here are two good examples:

To help design their mini-van and other family focused vehicles, Toyota sent individuals into the homes of families to live with them, 24/7 for a week at a time. They observed the hectic morning dash to school, the frantic grocery shopping trips, the difficulties getting baby buggies in and out.  Real life, not survey questions and data points. Their new designs added in these real life customer insights and created very popular vehicles which sold well, mostly by one family telling another.

I go to a certain restaurant regularly.  I like the food and the owners.  They know where I like to sit, how I like to be served, whether I want coffee with desert or after.  How I like my salad dressing, the type of wines I prefer. I am fully satisfied with my dining experience every time.  They have hundreds of customers like me, and don’t have a CRM system!  They have something better; owners and managers who really care about servicing their customers as people, not data points.

For any business to win with customers, they have to really care! All the rest is added value, but without executives and managers and employees who really care about their customers, nothing else will work.

My experience is that CRM systems do two negative things when overly relied upon. One, they distance executives and managers from real customers (people) and mostly give aggregated, average trends, and I have never met an average customer!

Second, they are an easy excuse for lazy leadership and weak management skills. “We don’t have enough data in the system yet to give you an answer! IT bought a lousy CRM system and it’s too complicated to use! All the functionality isn’t up and running yet!  The average customer prefers . . .. “

As my client screams at his team, “Get out from behind your desk and computer and get into the field to talk to customers. And I mean everyone.  Finance should be meeting customers regularly. HR should go out on customer calls. Engineers should be with customers regularly.”

That’s how you gain real customer insight, not through a mass of ones and zeros.  A handshake is more important than a log-in!

Written and Posted by: John R. Childress

Senior Executive Advisor on Leadership, Culture and Strategy Execution Issues,
Business Author and Advisor to CEOs
Visiting Professor, IE Business School, Madrid

e: john@johnrchildress.com
Twitter @bizjrchildress

Read John’s blog,  Business Books Website

On Amazon: LEVERAGE: The CEO’s Guide to Corporate Culture

Read  The Economist review of LEVERAGE
Also on Amazon:   FASTBREAK: The CEO’s Guide to Strategy Execution

John also writes thriller novels!

Posted in corporate culture, Human Psychology, John's views on the world, leadership, Organization Behavior, strategy execution | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Gauntlet of Corporate Culture

JamesSmith1

As a form of punishment, running the gauntlet has its origins in Roman times, and probably before.  A thief or coward was forced to run between two long lines of soldiers armed with clubs and spears. As the criminal ran down the line each soldier got one blow at the convicted.  The theory was, if the soldier reached the end alive, his crimes were wiped clean and he was allowed to rejoin his regiment.

In reality, the very few who came out the other end alive were in no shape to soldier for a long time, if ever.

The same running the gauntlet punishment shows up around the world and I remember watching a 1950s Western movie where a soldier captured by the Iroquois Indians was forced to run the gauntlet instead of being killed out right.  It was a Hollywood movie, so he made it through by grabbing one of the indians and using him as a shield.  He then ran off through the woods and escaped. Somehow the hero always escapes!

But in real life, very few emerge alive from the gauntlet.

The Gauntlet of Corporate Culture

Corporate culture is either an enabler or a killer of new initiatives

When any change initiative is introduced, it has to pass through “the gauntlet of corporate culture”, and this is one of the reasons so few change initiatives succeed.  In most organisations the culture is not a change enabler, but a change killer. It might not be a single blow that kills the initiative, it’s more like death by a thousand cuts.

Imagine a change initiative for “more open and honest communications”. The CEO does a town hall meeting about openness and more transparency so that problems can be surfaced and solved quicker.  Logical and definitely a positive set of behaviours in any organisation these days of rapid changes and increased competition. Posters are printed, there are even training classes on communication skills.

And now it’s time for implementation. To survive and become a part of the DNA of the company, this change initiative, like all others, must pass through the “gauntlet of corporate culture”.  Here are some of the many body blows it receives in the first few weeks after the kick-off fanfare:

  • I’m not bringing up a problem, last guy who did got blackballed.
  • Management doesn’t want to hear about problems
  • Every time we try to have honest communications in our staff meeting the boss gets defensive and angry.
  • Those who bring up bad news or expose problems are branded as complainers and not team players
  • If someone points out a problem area, the whole team gets in trouble
  • My boss never gives me any feedback so why should I give him any?
  • . . . . .  (You can probably add a dozen or more cultural body blows from your own experience)

In many companies the corporate culture, established and habitual ways of behaving and thinking,  is a blocker of change initiatives, not an enabler and many well-intentioned improvement initiatives get battered down before they have a chance to take root. In other companies the culture supports innovation, risk taking, “do it, try it, fix it”, trial and error, learning from mistakes, encouraging ideas and pointing out problems early.

Walmart and F. W. Woolworths were once the same size and in the same industry, now one is the worlds largest corporation by revenue and the largest private employer with 2.2 million employees globally, and the other has long since disappeared. Two very different cultures, one agile, empowering and adaptable, the other hierarchical, rigid and “corporate”.

F.W. Woolworth was the retail phenomenon of the twentieth century. The mass-market shop sold factory-made goods at rock bottom prices. It was the first brand to go global, building to more than 3,000 near-identical stores across the world.

woolworth

Its shares were the gold standard of the New York and London markets, paying dividends that others could only dream of. To become a supplier was considered a licence to print money.

Part of its magic was an ability to adapt to fit into different local communities and to ‘go native’, without sacrificing its identity (same strategy as Walmart).

But, having risen like a meteor, all the way to the top, it faded into oblivion in the USA and Canada in the 1990s. The British chain went from normal trading in 800 stores to complete shutdown in just 41 days.

The question on everyone’s mind today is:  Will Walmart succumb to the rise of Amazon and Alibaba?  Culture will play a big role in their futures.

If you want to be excellent at strategy execution or business improvement, first take a look at your corporate culture.  Is it an enabler for change, or the gauntlet of death?

And if you don’t know, it’s time to find out before you waste more time, energy, money and management credibility on failed change initiatives.

 

Written and Posted by: John R. Childress

Senior Executive Advisor on Leadership, Culture and Strategy Execution Issues,
Business Author and Advisor to CEOs
Visiting Professor, IE Business School, Madrid

e: john@johnrchildress.com
Twitter @bizjrchildress

Read John’s blog,  Business Books Website

On Amazon: LEVERAGE: The CEO’s Guide to Corporate Culture

Read  The Economist review of LEVERAGE
Also on Amazon:   FASTBREAK: The CEO’s Guide to Strategy Execution

John also writes thriller novels!

Posted in consulting, corporate culture, Life Skills, Organization Behavior, strategy execution | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Culture Change Programs Don’t Deliver . . . Another Viewpoint

st_thompson_statistics_f

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. ~ Mark Twain

Richard-DawsonThere is a very popular TV game show in American culture called  Family Feud which features two competing families must name the most popular responses to a survey question posed to 100 people in order to win cash and prizes. Not only are the survey questions funny and entertaining, but so are is the composition of some of the families as contestants.  And of course the long running host, Richard Dawkins, adds to the merriment and laughter. TV Guide named Family Feud one of the 60 most popular television shows of all time. The most iconic phrase of the show, which has been used by many of us in our lives, is . . . “Survey Says . . “

Survey Says . . .

No matter which “expert” group you read or speak with; academics, Big 4 Consulting, McKinsey, HR professionals and corporate culture gurus, the same statistic is heard. “Most culture change programs fail”. In actuality, they are right.  Most culture change programs, whether designed and led by consultants and other outsiders, or organised internally, fail to deliver on what is really desired, a culture (how things get done) that better matches and supports the delivery of the business strategy and at the same time increases employee engagement and overall accountability for performance.

That in itself is a tall order, but the moniker, “culture change” really is a proxy for a better way of ensuring the company wins in the marketplace.  After all, the goal is not just to have employees feel better about themselves, each other or management (that may be a valuable by-product), the real objective is better competitive performance.

And if you look at it that way, through the lens of those with P&L responsibility, it’s no wonder most fail to deliver, they aren’t really designed around the realities of the business.  And interestingly enough, many if not most performance improvement activities have a difficult time delivering sustainable results because the current culture can be a significant barrier to change.

It’s complicated!

So, most everyone agrees that “most culture change programs fail”. But what they don’t really understand is WHY?

WHY and HOW?

taking apart toasterWhen I was a young boy I got into a heap of trouble for taking apart the toaster. The automatic pop-up feature was broken and it was “Johnny to the rescue”. I was smart enough to unplug it, and I knew the outcome I wanted, but the whole thing was a disaster, and I can still recall the angry lecture from my Dad.  The fact was, I knew the end result, but didn’t understand the mechanics of how a toaster worked!

And I believe the same is true of those who attempt to “change culture”!

You can change culture, or better yet reshape it to better fit your business and people requirements, if you know the principles that build, shape and sustain corporate culture.

While there are many things that help a company culture develop and become “real”, if you want to reshape your culture there are three critical elements of “how culture works” that need to be thoroughly researched and understood.

These three elements, or what I call Major Levers for Culture Change,  are Leadership Alignment, Informal Social Network, and Internal Work Policies/Processes.

3 Levers

Too often culture change programs focus on one of these levers, usually it’s around leadership alignment.  Since “organisations are shadows of their leaders”, that is indeed am important change lever, but it is not sufficient to bring about real sustainable change.

And most “culture change experts completely miss the fact that informal social networks, peer pressure to conform, and the human need for belonging to a group or “tribe” are powerful drivers of corporate culture. The reality is, there is no such thing as a single corporate culture.  Instead an organisation is composed of many different subcultures which may or may not be aligned with the overall business strategy and company values.

And the sad fact is, most senior executives have no clue where the subcultures are and whether or not they are an asset or a liability.

The third lever, internal work proceses and policies is usually where most culture change programs fall short.  It’s hard work looking at policies and processes and determining whether or not they promote the behaviours we need, or drive the wrong kind of behaviour. And few senior executives have the courage to change such ingrained policies.  For example, the culture of banking would be entirely different if the bonus and compensation systems were revised and hiring profiles were changed.  But in most companies, changing policies, even ones driving the wrong behaviours, is taboo!

For a sustainable culture shift, all three levers must be thoroughly understood, researched, and focused on when designing a culture change program.

I am reminded of my favourite Meatloaf song, “Two out of three ain’t bad!”  A great song, but not a winning formula for culture change. All three change levers must work together, synergistically, to bring about a sustainable culture shift.

 Written and Posted by: John R. Childress

Senior Executive Advisor on Leadership, Culture and Strategy Execution Issues,
Business Author and Advisor to CEOs
Visiting Professor, IE Business School, Madrid

e: john@johnrchildress.com
Twitter @bizjrchildress

Read John’s blog,  Business Books Website

On Amazon: LEVERAGE: The CEO’s Guide to Corporate Culture

Read  The Economist review of LEVERAGE
Also on Amazon:   FASTBREAK: The CEO’s Guide to Strategy Execution

John also writes thriller novels!

Posted in consulting, corporate culture, leadership, Organization Behavior, strategy execution | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment