Oh, always this corporate culture.... 

Let's create a common understanding of the term right at the beginning. According to Wikipedia, corporate culture is described as "the emergence and development of cultural value patterns within organizations". It "affects all areas of management (decision-making, leadership, relationships with colleagues and suppliers, communication, etc.)". Personally, I like the much simpler definition by D. Bright and B. Parkin, who say quite pragmatically: "this is how we do it here".

So what does culture in general and corporate culture in particular consist of and what influences it?

The literature is fairly unanimous that culture consists of values, rituals, norms, symbols and experiences. Every person is shaped by the customs and traditions of his social and political environment and in turn shapes this environment himself. The human being and his individual values, norms, etc. is thus at the same time creature and creator of culture. If we apply this standard to a company, the whole story becomes even more complex. This is because every person in the company and in the environment contributes his or her own imprint, is simultaneously shaped by the corporate culture, and in turn also shapes it. These interactions also explain why employees identify with a company and even feel attracted to certain companies. The prerequisite for this is that their personal values and those of the company harmonize.

In the early 1980s, when research around organizational theories began, these imprints were still somewhat manageable. Markets were more static and regional, and so were companies and their employees. However, this has changed rapidly. Today, at least in larger companies, culturally diversified teams are normal, and globalization means that even smaller companies increasingly have to deal with other cultures.

With the knowledge of the many interactions and the complexity; shouldn't we then immediately stop trying to actively shape corporate culture?

There have been many clever minds in the last decades who have dealt with the question of how corporate culture can be analyzed and described and who have designed models from this. Although they use different terms and divide the aspects differently, they differ only insignificantly. Most are based on the iceberg model of Sigmund Freud - founder of psychoanalysis, 1856 to 1939 - and assume two levels, one visible (conscious) and the other not visible (unconscious). Visible is the factual level with goals, data, facts, formal rules and the official organization. Not visible is the relationship level with its basic assumptions. The basic assumptions steer the people in companies unconsciously. They relate to the environment, human actions, interpersonal relationships, and shared understanding of the truth. Simply put, they determine how "one" should behave in a company, what is right and what is wrong. The boundary is, of course, more fluid than presented here. However, it is believed that 80% of behavior happens unconsciously. That is quite a lot. Especially if one assumes that the unconscious aspects are the decisive ones in culture changes.

And here we finally come to the crux of the matter. The common method of culture change in the context of change management is to make as many of the unconscious aspects as possible visible in order to then reassess them and - hopefully adapted to the corporate strategy - make targeted changes. The only question that remains is how best to go about this. Opinions differ on this question. However, it is a question that is worth asking in any case. According to the consulting firm Mutaree, which has been conducting regular studies on this topic since 2010, the success rate of change projects is just 25%. If so many projects fail, I believe that the first question to be addressed is when a controlled cultural change makes sense at all. The how comes only in the second step.

When does active "intervention" in the corporate culture make any sense at all?

I have been involved in this topic a lot over the last 10 years. I have been involved in various change projects. I have studied models and methods. I have talked to many people, listened to their opinions and arguments and I have analyzed many cases. From these reflections and experiences, I share here my thoughts and my very personal opinion:

Man and culture have always evolved. Steadily and quite naturally. This is not a phenomenon of today. I think it's a very valid question to ask why on earth we don't just let things take their natural course. I'll even go so far as to say that most culture programs are totally overdone, at best "just" keeping employees from doing their actual jobs, and at worst causing them to quit internally or even effectively, even though they would be a good fit for the job and the company. There are, however, two cases where I believe it is imperative to address the corporate culture.

• ·Comprehensive strategic realignments. Why do I say comprehensive. Just because a single target group changes or something new is added doesn't mean the entire corporate culture has to be turned upside down. This process often happens slowly enough for employees to adapt naturally. When it comes to disruptive change, however, things look very different. We speak of disruption when entire business models are radically questioned and replaced by new solutions to problems (often technologies).
• ·Personnel changes at the top of the company. A change in leadership often goes hand in hand with a strategic change, but it doesn't have to. When there is a generational change, for example, a new generation takes the reins. The company may retain the well-functioning strategy, yet the new boss will not represent the same values and norms, and thus the same culture, as her father. The same with a CEO change. Often this change is even more extreme, as these two people don't even have to be from the same culture.

Both in the case of a comprehensive strategic realignment and in the case of personnel changes at the highest position, a natural adaptation of the corporate culture to the new requirements is not possible. The change simply happens too quickly.

I know I have to...but how?

As already mentioned, opinions differ on this question. The only thing that is clear is that it must be preceded by an analysis of the currently valid culture-shaping aspects, both consciously and unconsciously. Furthermore, it must be defined how "we want to do it here in the future", to use the words of D. Bright and B. Parkin quoted in the first section. Parkin, quoted in the first section. The measures are then based on the path from ACTUAL to TARGET. This is nothing new and in theory very logical and understandable. In practice, however, culture change projects are so difficult because 80% of behavior happens unconsciously. Thus, already during the as-is analysis, an essential problem arises: if the people in the company are not aware of 80% of their behavior, who do I ask?

The solution to this problem lies in the type of questioning. Personality tests show the way. If they are good, they manage to draw a picture of a person's character, strengths and weaknesses, and typical behavior in certain situations that could only have been created by many hours of questioning in this level of detail. Such tests also exist for entire (corporate) cultures. My favorite model for this is the Graves model. If you are interested in it, you will find many more application examples and articles on the model itself in the magazine.

My conclusion

Corporate culture is a fact and shapes the company from both an internal and external perspective. Regardless of whether you want it to or not. Intervening in its natural flow can, under certain circumstances, be useful and purposeful. However, it is important to keep in mind that the corporate culture is the way it is for a reason. If one wants to change it, this also needs good reasons and must therefore be well considered. To initiate such a project purely for its own sake or because it is fashionable to change culture can cause a lot of damage.