Organizational culture, an anthropological metaphor used to inform research and consultancy and to explain organizational environments change, is frequently cited as a strategic imperative, yet empirical evidence suggests that achieving successful cultural transformations is notably challenging.
To be sure, there is no shortage of catchy stories on successful culture change, from Microsoft’s celebrated pivot under Satya Nadella—from a know-it-all to a learn-it-all mindset—to Uber’s strategic rebranding after replacing Travis Kalanick with Dara Khosrowshahi in an effort to detoxify a hyper-aggressive, “bro” culture and signal a new era of empathy and ethics. CVS made headlines by banning tobacco sales as part of a broader shift toward being a healthcare company rather than a convenience chain. And even Goldman Sachs has tried loosening its necktie and softening its image to attract younger, more socially conscious talent.
As always, stories sell, but data tell…
Indeed, these and similar stories dominate headlines, keynotes, and TED talks precisely because they’re so rare—and so appealing. But behind the sanitized narratives of oversimplified reinvention lies a messier, more sobering reality: most culture change efforts fail, or at best, underdeliver. The problem isn’t a lack of ambition—it’s that culture is stubbornly resistant to change, especially when it’s embedded in the routines, incentives, and identities of the people who keep the organization running.
Despite decades of rhetoric about “transformation”, we still lack robust proof that organizations can systematically engineer meaningful cultural shifts at scale—especially in ways that stick. Most interventions amount to symbolic gestures, short-lived campaigns, or well-meaning leadership slogans that struggle to outlast the next reorg or quarterly review. Importantly, there is a big difference between marketing campaigns aimed at persuading clients and consumers that an organization has changed (rebranding), and actually transforming the company’s culture (a culture reset).
Fifteen years ago, a comprehensive and widely-cited review assessing the effectiveness of strategies to change organizational culture within healthcare settings, concluded that no studies met the rigorous methodological criteria required to draw definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of culture change interventions. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, of course—but it does raise uncomfortable questions about the empirical foundation of one of the most evangelized ideas in management. If culture really does eat strategy for breakfast, it seems we’re still guessing at the recipe.
Two years ago, a systematic review by Dong (2023) synthesizes key findings from organizational culture research to identify critical success and failure factors in culture change initiatives. The study highlights that leadership support, effective communication, adaptable organizational structures, and well-designed incentive and reward mechanisms are crucial for successfully changing culture. Conversely, it identifies insufficient resource investment, underestimating risks, and resistance to change as major contributors to the failure of culture change efforts. The review emphasizes the importance of tailoring culture change initiatives to an organization’s specific needs and context while incorporating insights from previous research and best practices. It also notes the necessity of addressing both success factors and potential obstacles to enhance the likelihood of successful organizational culture change.
These and other findings underscore the complexity of culture change and the necessity for well-planned, resource-supported, and inclusive approaches to increase the likelihood of successful transformation.
So, if you’re planning to upgrade your company culture—and particularly if that upgrade is seen as a precondition for broader strategic transformation or reaching a significantly higher level of organizational performance—here are a few uncomfortable but useful points to keep in mind:
1) Culture change takes years—so don’t expect to see results by Q3.
Cultures are not static, but their change is glacial. They evolve incrementally, shaped by repeated behaviors, rituals, and norms—rarely by declaration. Think of it like aging: you don’t notice the difference day-to-day, but ten years later a photo reminds you of how much you’ve changed. The same applies to culture. It resists quick wins and isn’t compatible with typical corporate timelines. So if you’re serious about culture change as a strategic imperative, you’ll need to sustain interest, investment, and leadership alignment for the long haul. Sadly, most culture-change champions operate under short-term KPIs or political survival instincts that contradict this very need for patience. CEOs and CFOs, understandably, want results this fiscal year—not a promise of psychological climate shifts in 2029.
2) The ROI of culture change may be lower than you think—at least directly.
Culture is often defined as “how we do things around here”—a broad and seductive explanation that, unfortunately, predicts very little on its own. Scientific evidence shows that individual differences (personality, values, cognitive styles) account for over 50% of the variance in work outcomes like collaboration, innovation, and performance. Meanwhile, organizational culture and employee engagement—often used as proxies for culture quality—explain less than 10% of the variance in outcomes like productivity or retention. So, if your goal is to improve performance, innovation, or inclusion, it might be more efficient to focus on things like talent selection, leadership development, and incentive structures. Changing the culture for the sake of results can be like trying to change the weather to improve your commute—when what you really need is a better car.
3) Formal systems and incentives are easier to change—and more immediate in impact.
Even if you accept that culture is slow to move, you’re not powerless. Much like national governments that govern populations with deeply embedded traditions and identities, organizations can still influence behavior without overhauling their cultural DNA. How? Through formal processes, structural nudges, and well-calibrated incentives. You don’t need to wait for your culture to “evolve” to improve collaboration, accountability, or decision-making—you can create systems that reward and reinforce the behaviors you want. As the Norwegians say: “There’s no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothing.” Likewise, there’s no such thing as a totally dysfunctional culture—only bad management decisions that fail to adapt to it.
4) Culture changes one leader at a time—so maybe stop trying to fix the wrong ones.
Max Planck famously said that science progresses “one funeral at a time”—not because scientists change their minds, but because they eventually disappear. Culture, too, often progresses not by persuading incumbent leaders to behave differently, but by replacing them. Leadership has a disproportionate impact on team norms and organizational culture, with studies estimating that leaders account for 30–40% of group-level performance outcomes. So if you want to change a toxic or stagnant culture, don’t start with a values workshop—start with succession planning. Some leaders will thrive despite a bad culture; others will fail despite a good one. Focus your effort on selecting, promoting, and rewarding the right leaders, rather than trying to reprogram the wrong ones. As INSEAD’s Gianpiero Petriglieri notes, “leadership is always an argument with tradition”. In other words, nobody is truly a leader if they are in their role to keep things as they are. There is an important implication here, namely that leaders are a fundamental vessel or conduit for change; the bridge between a past and present that are not future-ready, and a better potential future they embrace with their vision.
5) You probably don’t know what your culture actually is.
Most companies have a vague or inflated sense of their own culture. Aspirational statements on corporate websites are nearly indistinguishable: every organization claims to value innovation, purpose, collaboration, integrity, agility, and (until recently) diversity. But culture is what people do—not what leaders say or posters declare. If you haven’t conducted a serious diagnostic of your organization’s real behaviors, norms, and narratives—including contradictions, sacred cows, and informal rules—you’re likely working off a flattering illusion. And as management guru Peter Drucker might say (if he hadn’t already): you can’t manage what you don’t understand. Knowing your real culture—warts and all—is a prerequisite to changing anything meaningfully. Importantly, don’t try to copy someone else’s culture: the goal, if you have to embark on a culture change initiative, is to optimize yours, to fine-tune or upgrade it in line with your strategy and talent philosophy.
In short, even if culture does eat strategy for breakfast, that doesn’t mean you have to cook for it every day. You don’t need to change the culture before you can execute strategy—you just need to stop letting culture block your path. Moreover, while every leaders loves to think that their strategy is right but the execution is what fails, the right strategy must also contain an effective plan for execution which, incidentally, must not just account, but leverage, whatever culture is in place. Start with what you can actually influence: leadership, systems, incentives, and behavior. And if culture changes along the way, consider it a lagging indicator of doing everything else right.
An alternative view of culture may be that it is basically a form of leadership when leaders are absent. In other words, when your boss isn’t watching you, your behavior will be affected by the internalized norms and rules that the company’s leaders have instilled. This view of culture may also highlight one of the most obvious fixes or tools for your cultural re-set, namely present leadership: that is, when the formal and informal rules for interaction that govern the social dynamics of organization cease to be advantageous or conducive to success, it is especially critical that leaders are present, to act as a counterforce to this inertia or invisible force derailing individual and collective human activity.