There is no single “good” culture
So what kind do we need?
We talk about organisations having a “good culture” as though there were one ideal version we should all be trying to create. I’m not sure there is.
A culture that enables one organisation to flourish could make another less effective.
I’m not sure culture is usefully described as simply “good” or “bad”. It is a living pattern of norms, assumptions, behaviours and signals. The leadership task is to understand what has evolved — and whether it is helping or hindering the organisation you are trying to become.
What matters is not whether an organisation looks culturally similar to organisations we admire. It is whether the way people work together helps that particular organisation do what it exists to do — and do it in a way that is consistent with what it genuinely believes.
So perhaps the better question is not:
Do we have a good culture?
but rather:
What kind of culture will help us become the organisation we are trying to be — and do it in a way that is consistent with who we say we are?
For me, that brings together four things that are too often discussed separately — or carefully word-smithed and then shelved.
Purpose tells us what we exist to do.
Vision tells us the future we are trying to create.
Strategy tells us what we need to be good at — and where we will focus — to get there.
Values tell us what we are not prepared to trade away along the way.
Culture is the lived expression of all four — in the choices we make, the behaviours we reward and the ways we work together.
Different work asks different things of culture
Imagine a pharmaceutical company.
It cannot treat process and control as bureaucratic inconveniences. Quality, traceability, regulatory discipline and a willingness to stop something that does not meet the standard may be fundamental to patient safety.
It still needs creativity. It still needs people willing to question assumptions and pursue new ideas.
But innovation cannot mean do whatever you like.
Now imagine a music company.
Its success may depend heavily on people who are creative and willing to challenge accepted thinking — some of whom may also be quite unconventional. Too much process, conformity or fear of getting something wrong could destroy some of the very capability the organisation depends upon.
It still needs accountability and commercial discipline. But its balance may be quite different.
A hospital provides another interesting combination.
Some work requires rigorous protocols, clearly defined roles and rapid decision-making.
And yet patient safety may depend on a junior clinician feeling able to say to a highly experienced senior colleague:
I think something is wrong.
So hierarchy and control may be necessary — but they cannot be allowed to extinguish professional challenge, teamwork or the confidence and safety to speak up.
None of those cultures is inherently better than the others.
Each needs a different combination of consistency and flexibility, independence and coordination, experimentation and control.
The point is to know why.
One organisation can contain several cultures
Even within the same organisation, culture is rarely completely uniform.
There may be an overriding organisational culture, but different teams, functions, professions or locations often develop their own subcultures. Some of that variation may be entirely appropriate. A research team may need more freedom to experiment than a manufacturing team; a frontline service team may need different rhythms and ways of working from a corporate function.
The question is not whether every part of the organisation looks and feels exactly the same.
It is whether those local cultures still support the organisation’s broader purpose, direction and values — and whether any of them are beginning to work against what the organisation is trying to achieve.
The goal is not cultural uniformity. It is enough alignment around what matters, with room for different parts of the organisation to work in ways that suit the work they actually do.
Culture should serve the work
This is where I think discussions about culture can sometimes become too generic.
We reach for words that sound universally desirable.
Collaborative. Innovative. Agile. Inclusive. High-performing.
They all sound good. But what exactly do they mean here?
How much collaboration do we need? About what? At what point does collaboration become endless consultation?
Where do we genuinely want experimentation — and where do we need people to follow the agreed process every time?
When do we want people to act independently? When must they stop and involve others?
What sort of challenge will improve our decisions? What kind simply creates noise?
Culture is not a collection of attractive adjectives.
Culture simply is
The important question is whether the culture that has evolved is helping or hindering what we are trying to achieve — and whether it reflects the values we genuinely want to live by.
A shared language makes culture discussable
One of the most useful things an organisation can do is give people a shared language for talking about how they work together.
Often people know when something feels off long before they can explain exactly what is happening. They may feel frustrated, uneasy or excluded, but without an accepted language for discussing it, the conversation can quickly become personal: she’s difficult; he’s controlling; they never listen.
A shared language can turn those impressions into something that can be explored together. It gives people words for behaviours, patterns and tensions that might otherwise remain unspoken. That matters because once something can be named, it becomes much easier to notice, discuss, reinforce or challenge.
Shared language doesn’t create culture. But it can make culture much more discussable. And once people can talk about what is happening, it becomes much easier to work out what might need to change.
Values have to survive contact with reality
Values belong in this conversation too. Not because every organisation needs another workshop to choose four attractive words. Values matter because they put boundaries around how we are prepared to pursue success.
If respect is genuinely one of our values, what are we unwilling to accept even from somebody who produces extraordinary results?
If integrity matters, what happens when telling the truth is commercially inconvenient?
If courage matters, do we genuinely want people to challenge a popular decision?
If inclusion matters, what do we actually do when the fastest way to make a decision would be to involve fewer voices?
Values become meaningful when they help us make difficult choices.
Otherwise they risk becoming decoration — a list of words on posters around the office walls.
That is why I think this distinction matters:
Strategy tells us what we need to be good at. Values tell us what we are not prepared to trade away to get there.
Culture is what people experience when those intentions meet everyday reality: what we actually do around here.
Systems and processes reflect and influence culture too
Even when leaders can describe the culture they want beautifully, the organisation may be signalling something else.
Recruitment sends signals. Promotion sends signals. Performance measures and bonuses send signals. So do who gets access to senior leaders, how decisions are made, what happens when somebody misses a target — and what happens when somebody achieves a spectacular target while leaving damaged relationships behind them.
If we say teamwork matters but promote almost entirely on individual results, people will notice. If we say thoughtful risk-taking matters but punish every failure, people will notice. If we say customer focus matters while internal processes consume most people’s energy, they will notice that too.
Culture is reinforced by the signals embedded in our systems and processes, not simply by what leaders say.
This is where much of my work sits — trying to understand what is creating the gap between an organisation’s intentions and what people are actually experiencing.
Leaders curate culture; they do not control it
Article 2 explored the idea that culture is continually being created by everyone — often without people realising they are doing it.
That remains important here. Leaders cannot manufacture a culture and install it. People will interpret, adapt and reshape it through thousands of everyday interactions.
But the ability to shape culture is not evenly distributed.
Leaders have particular influence through the things they pay attention to, the decisions they make, the people they reward, the behaviours they tolerate and the systems they create.
Which is why I increasingly think of leadership as partly curating culture.
Not controlling every interaction, nor demanding conformity, but being sufficiently aware and prepared to ask:
Is the culture we are reinforcing helping us do what we exist to do?
Is it helping us move towards the organisation we want to become?
Does it support and enable the capabilities our strategy depends upon?
And are we achieving those things in a way that is consistent with the values we genuinely claim to hold?
Then watching what actually happens. Reinforcing what helps. Questioning what does not.
And being prepared to examine whether our own behaviour — or our systems — may be signalling something quite different from what we intended.
Because culture will continue to evolve whether leaders pay attention to it or not.
The opportunity is not to control it. The opportunity is to shape it with considerably more intention.
Purpose tells us what we exist to do. Vision tells us where we are trying to go. Strategy tells us what we need to be good at to get there. Values tell us what we are not prepared to trade away along the way.
Culture is the lived expression of all four.