Comments on Bits or pieces?: Culture eats strategy ... where's the data?

@Brian, @andyjpb : first and foremost, culture doe...

2011-10-03T22:27:01.844+01:00

@Brian, @andyjpb : first and foremost, culture doesn't have to be random but can be altered, developed, created and changed.

Inertia (which I've covered in many previous talks) can come in many forms (including institutional and organisational) and is both beneficial and disadvantageous depending upon the economic cycle that an activity is in i.e. in the peace phase (where focus is on margin) then inertia to change an activity is beneficial whereas in the war phases (where focus is on disruption) then inertia to change can have highly negative consequences.

Now as with all activities and practices, your present strategy influences your future strategy i.e. it can open or limit opportunities. Hence your business strategy today can influence the types of product strategy you may implement tomorrow.

These feedback loops exists between culture, structure, business, product, marketing etc. Hence your strategy for culture will impact your future business strategy etc.

When it comes to culture, your choice is simply have a plan of action, aim and direction (i.e. strategy) or don't (leave it to chance).

The normal excuse given to failed strategies is often the culture wasn't able to adapt etc. However, this is often simply to disguise poor strategy and in particular strategy which doesn't cover culture and how it needs to change.

When a culture is pre-existing, obviously you need to consider how to adapt unless adaption is not possible in which case the strategy often involves creation of a new team / business unit / bringing in people from outside etc.

The idea that change requires a certain culture is perfectly reasonable when used in planning to change a culture but it is not a blanket excuse for blaming culture for every failed strategy.

Culture is like any other resource, it can be managed and it should be.

How do you think an organisations ingrained cultur...

2011-10-03T17:13:33.447+01:00

How do you think an organisations ingrained cultures and existing strategies affect it's ability to "pivot" and adapt itself when necessary?

In order to change, a certain culture is required. If the whole idea is to change and see what sticks then that's a strategy.

I think part of Chris' point is that you can a...

2011-10-03T04:42:23.052+01:00

I think part of Chris' point is that you can also have a culture of inertia which can make it hard to implement strategy.

Let's say I partially agree with you, culture doesn't always eat strategy for breakfast but some cultures do. The difference is sometimes we fit the strategy to the culture and sometimes we strategically build that culture to further our strategy. But it can be easier to prevent a culture from eating a strategy than vice versa

Inertia is something which I've talked about a...

2011-10-01T19:40:59.321+01:00

Inertia is something which I've talked about at considerable length. It can be both a benefit (in particular economic phases) and a significant hindrance in others.

I cover this a bit more in various blog posts, see Is Microsoft's biggest enemy Microsoft?) however for a general overview my Strata talk provides some of the background.

While we don't have data on whether culture ea...

2011-10-01T19:31:18.937+01:00

While we don't have data on whether culture eats strategy for breakfast or not, there do seem to be organizational "immune systems" - those parts of an organization that are resistant to outside agens that want to "infect" it with something new and, dare I say it, "Strategic".

We can all come up with anecdotes, I am sure. So I won't dwell on any specific companies - it's just that the resistance to change (inertia), and the active destruction of change agents - immune system reaction can slow things down dramatically. As Shaw said in The Doctor's Dilemma, "Stimulate the phagocytes". That seems to be what is happening in many organizations!