Culture vs
Culture vs strategy: which to strategy
precede, which to align?
Amarjeev Kaul
N. L. Dalmia Institute of Management Studies and Research, Mumbai, India
the development of a new culture-centric strategic business model (SBM). Culture beats, eats or trumps
Accepted 29 September 2018
strategy is a legitimate and powerful argument often thrown to the air. The purpose of this paper is to un-code
the relevance of this argument and to decode its significance.
Design/methodology/approach – This is a conceptual paper and builds on prior conceptual and empirical
management research related to strategy and organizational culture. The approach is unbiased toward either
strategy or culture.
Findings – The conclusion arrived at is that, in general, strategy must precede culture and culture must be
aligned. In specific instances of governance, inner workings of a military organization, cross-cultural context
of negotiations, creative advertising and management of change culture may predominate in tactics.
Furthermore, with a strategy gone astray, or in the instance of a floundering business or start-up venture,
culture must shift to first gear, lead the requisite goal and path development, and strategy must be aligned in
the transition. A strategy–culture fit supports a sustained competitive advantage by virtue of a firm’s unique
culture proposition (UCP).
Research limitations/implications – The development of a culture-centric SBM will need to be tested by
empirical research. The UCP will also need to be researched further.
Practical implications – The conclusion that strategy should generally precede culture will guide firms
from not letting their organizational culture from undermining the success of major shifts in strategic goals
and business model positioning.
Originality/value – The conceptual arguments will help leaders and managers from marginalizing the
value of strategy. However, managers will also be directed toward paying attention to the damaging
consequences of ignoring culture. Furthermore, managers will be able to appreciate that culture must not
drive strategy, except in specific strategic decision-making contexts.
Keywords Culture, Strategy, Culture strategy alignment
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
It serves to benefit a firm if it knows and understands whether its strategy leads to a
complimentary culture, or whether its culture determines the strategy its executives and
managers formulate and implement. The peculiarities in the link between culture and
strategy is worthy of research and investigation. The reason for this is that it is not easily
discernible whether the strategy being executed was formulated driven by cultural
influences or whether culture was just a major influence for implementation. This becomes
apparent when one looks at how the links between culture and strategy have been
established. The statement “culture determines and limits strategy” is mentioned in a book
by Edgar Schein (1985), who also mentions in quotations “culture constrains strategy,” as a
phrase apparently being in prevalence. The phrase “culture beats strategy” became popular
in the 1980s–1990s. Many acquisitions, mergers, restructuring and business process
reengineering strategies failed during this timeframe (Daft, 2000). The “beats” was later
replaced by “eats.” “Culture eats strategy for breakfast” is a more famous quote attributed to
Peter Drucker, although there is no source reference of him having said it (Anders, 2016;
Anon, 2017). Possibly, it was mentioned in a private conversation. However, the quote has
been made legendary by Mark Fields, President of Ford (Durbin, 2006). To bring home the Journal of Strategy and
Management
need to become competitive again managers hung up a banner with this quote at Ford © Emerald Publishing Limited
1755-425X
(McCracken, 2006). DOI 10.1108/JSMA-04-2018-0036
JSMA Yet, the quotes earliest reference is an article in a paper industry trade journal that
attributes it to the Giga Information Group’s March periodical (Moore and Rose, 2000).
The term “breakfast” was replaced with “lunch” (Mason, 2000). Other variants are “dinner,”
with addition of words like “every day, every time.” The phrase “culture trumps strategy”
came out of another quote “the whole team and the culture trumps strategy” by a skin care
products entrepreneur Eli Halliwell (Lehmann, 2006). “Culture eats strategy for lunch”
appears as a quote of Merck CEO Richard Clark (Meehan et al., 2008). The “breakfast” quote
once again is referred to as an apparent quote of Peter Drucker (Campbell et al., 2011).
“Culture trumps strategy, every time” appeared in an HBR article with the same name
(Merchant, 2011). The saying with “lunch” in it gets attributed to Peter Drucker by the Head
of Los Angeles Fire Department (Morrison, 2014).
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:01 31 October 2018 (PT)
One may hear the combine of “breakfast, lunch and dinner” today in any address or
speech. Many leaders of organizations believe that culture is key to their organizations
success or transformation. IBM’s former CEO Lou Gerstner is one of them.
The world started paying attention to the impact of culture in doing business only after
the success of Japanese companies in the 1970s in industries like consumer electronics,
automobile manufacturing and steel production. This was also the era of the oil embargo
that placed focus on interdependencies of domestic business activities with decisions on
economic activities made in foreign destinations and cultures. Culture is complex and
evolving. Cultural complexity varies from and within geography, industry and company.
One of numerous definitions of culture useful in a business environment suggested is
“patterns of assumptions, premises, values, or beliefs generally adopted by an identifiable
group” (Louis, 1985). Similarly, organizational culture may be defined as, “a pattern of basic
assumptions, invented, discovered, or developed by a given group, as it learns to cope with
its problems of external adaptation and internal investigation” (Schein, 1992).
An organizational structure can be “hierarchical, formal, systematic, rationalist, and
compartmentalised” (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). Less-hierarchical organizations have
the ability to create a more efficient and effective workplace culture. Such a vertically lean
structure can tweak, change and transform an organizational culture more easily than a
vertically dense structure. Strategic managers “need appropriate tools to develop thinking
and learning paradigms that enable attainment of a more holistic and dynamic
perspective” (Fowler, 2003). These can be provided, in part, by the cultural veracity within
the organization.
A good proportion of corporate strategies are not implemented ( Johnson, 2004). It is
suggested that the reason for this is due to a gap between the strategies and the
performance the firm realized (Crittenden and Crittenden, 2008). It is believed that
implementation is the bottleneck where efforts and resources must be concentrated
(Homburg et al., 2003). Strategy execution also constitutes a stepwise process that includes
communication, interpretation, adoption and enactment (Noble, 1999). Empirical evidence
supports the idea that a firm’s culture is associated with strategy implementation (Ahmadi
et al., 2012). Performance is affected by the “knowing-doing gap” in organizations, while
there is no gap if you know by doing; talk, documentation, complex language and planning
become substitutes for action or implementation (Pfeffer and Sutton, 2000).
Unplanned strategies are often executed in real time that originate at the upper- or
middle-management levels in response to a dramatically changed business situation
offering either opportunities or threats (Mintzberg and McGugh, 1985). The ability to
formulate these spontaneously depends on the ability and adaptability of the firm
depending on its culture.
Furthermore, there are external demands on the culture of an organization. Two of these
are global challenges and the competitive environment. Both have become extremely
complex (Raymond, 2003; Lopez et al., 2004; Dimitriades, 2005). Under conditions where
reward programs become less tenable, organizations can look at coding their cultural Culture vs
climate in order to succeed in achieving their strategic objectives through implementing strategy
their strategies (Barger, 2007). Failure in as such can be attributed to the concurrent culture
and the matched reward system of an organization (Kerr and Slocum, 1987). Once the
strategy is set, the policies are aligned (Holbeche, 2009).
Like other determinants of competitive advantage, the organization culture can be a
crucial point of differentiation and help cement a sustained competitive advantage. In as far
as longevity of this sustainability is concerned, the internal culture can be assumed to
represent the true identity of a corporation. However, a conditioning cultural transformation
in an organization must be gradual (Kotter, 1996). This would require a strategy, one
formulated with a visionary objective, implemented with viable drivers and plausible
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:01 31 October 2018 (PT)
metrics and evaluated within a consultative framework. Culture will not change in and on
itself (Kotter, 1996). In fact, a strategic model for implementing organizational change has
been suggested which progresses through eight interrelated steps (Kotter, 1996).
However, whether it relates to corporate direction, international affairs or national
security strategy is important and a matter of concern (Rumelt, 2011a, b, c). So the
determination still remains inconclusive, does culture precede strategy or does strategy
instead. This conceptual research paper is aimed at resolving this confusion. The paper
essentially seeks such a resolution with respect to corporate-level strategy and strategy
formulation. It looks to see where all strategy precedes or ought to do so. It also explores
situations in which culture may lead strategy. The research path followed is to view both
possibilities unbiased. Unfortunately, this may seem to generate conflicting evidence and
arguments. Furthermore, established constructs and topologies are used to test the
conceptual arguments in order to arrive at a final determination.
In the Introduction section, in proceeding with selection of papers as references and
quotes, the issue of culture being important or supreme is addressed first. The origin of this
primacy is followed. Next, definitions of culture are introduced. These definitions give
legitimacy to the existence of culture. This leads to the nature and characteristics of culture
and its linkage to the structure of the organization. Furthermore, culture can be a
contributing factor to strategists thinking processes are suggested. Next in line are papers
that emphasize that culture can play a critical role during the process of strategy
implementation. Again, unplanned strategies arise from adaptability that a firm’s culture
might offer. Pressures of the external global and competitive business environment on the
success of execution find links to the internal culture through the reward program systems
developed by the organization. Finally, the issue of difficulty in changing the existing
culture so that it is aligned with the strategies is presented.
The primary assertion in the paper is that in general strategy ought to precede culture.
It is suggested that this is true at the start even as culture is just being created in an
organization. Since the role of culture cannot be negated, this being supported by
empirical evidence, and a culture supportive strategic business model (SBM) is suggested.
This support provided by the culture of an organization can accrue to its fullest if the
organization formulates strategies to develop a unique culture proposition (UCP).
Both, the SBM and the UCP would need to be further tested with empirical evidence
and research.
The question whether it is important to work out the strategy first and then get the
culture aligned is an important one. The answer to the question, whether a firm should
precede with strategy and tune the culture with the help of strategies or precede with
culture-creation and leave the culture to encourage the strategists to formulate the
appropriate strategies directed at the business opportunities and the threats, is the “so what
question being answered.”
The conceptual proposition being proposed is built into the Title of the paper.
JSMA Impact of organizational structure on culture
A flat organizational structure can be more agile and adaptive. Agility can lead to increased
innovation. Such an organization would have better flow and management of ideas.
Accelerated flows can lead to quick decision making. Centralized decision making with
decentralized controls can produce rapid demand assimilation and high customer
responsiveness. A firm’s strategies result in creation or changes in the organizational
structure, organizational culture and organizational behavior of individuals and groups.
Structure logically follows strategy (Chandler, 1962; Andrews, 1982a, b, c). However,
“structure and processes in place” will in turn affect strategy in a reciprocal way (Andrews,
1982a, b, c). Furthermore, it is suggested that there exists a “reciprocal relationship” between
strategy formulation and strategy implementation, as in “one foot leads the other foot”
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:01 31 October 2018 (PT)
Co-creation of culture
Culture can be co-created in an organization, by top-management, with full consent and
participation of the employees. Research has been conducted on co-creating brand identities
by combining managerial decision making with participation from customers in terms of
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:01 31 October 2018 (PT)
structure. Reactors do not leverage their organizational structure in any consistent pattern.
Strategies affect organizational structure which in turn influences the culture of a firm.
As shown in Figure 5, defender firms use strategies to consistently protect their position
in the market and sustain their growth pattern. Their strategies are mostly defensive in
nature. Prospector firms have the ability to innovate for rapid growth. Their strategies are
offensive in nature. The skills of analyzers are in maintaining their growth trajectory with
incremental innovation. They would tend to use intensive strategies. Reactor firms’
strategies are based on responses to changes in the market. Their strategy choices would
Figure 1.
Strategy precedes
culture; culture is to be
Strategy Culture aligned with strategy
Figure 2.
Culture precedes
strategy; strategy is to
Culture Strategy be aligned with culture
Figure 3.
Strategy precedes
culture; culture is
aligned with strategy;
culture promotes
Strategy Culture Strategy new strategy
Figure 4.
Strategy precedes
culture; culture is
aligned with strategy;
culture promotes new
strategy; culture is
realigned with strategy
Strategy Culture Strategy Culture
JSMA match appropriately the opportunities and threats perceived, and would tend to be either
defensive, offensive or intensive with a measured resource compatible execution.
Culture supports both short- and long-term performance (Kotter and Heskett, 1992).
Culture on-boards employees toward the firm’s goals and objectives (Deal and Kennedy,
1982). Culture was found to be crucial in implementing the firm’s objectives related to
supply chain (Mello and Stank, 2005). Culture also plays a critical role in mergers and
acquisitions (Balthazard et al., 2006). Culture supports adoption of new realities in an
organization from management to technology. Culture has been considered as
organizational capital (Barney, 1986). Culture has been a valuable asset for Starbucks’
business model and one that turned to a liability for Toyota after the accelerator problems
(Flamholtz and Randle, 2012).
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:01 31 October 2018 (PT)
Culture can be classified by the competing values framework (CVF) into four types as
hierarchy, clan, market and adhocracy (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). Hierarchy cultures
exhibit control and internal focus. Clan type is more flexible and empowered in comparison.
Market cultures are external looking and objective oriented against competitors. Adhocracy
cultures are external driven with a dimension of innovation. Thus, cultural patterns of firms
may be viewed as stable and predictable, empowered and participatory, productive and goal
oriented and flexible and innovative, respectively, as depicted in Figure 6. Also as shown in
Figure 5 earlier, in general, hierarchy culture would be supportive of defender strategies,
Prospector Defender
Innovates for rapid Protects with sustained
Growth growth
(Adhocracy and Clan Culture) (Hierarchy Culture)
Analyzer Reactor
Maintains with slow Reacts with adaptation to
innovation changes
Figure 5. (Hierarchy and Clan Culture) (Market Culture)
Classification of
types of strategies
used by firms
Source: Adapted from miles and snow topology
Flexible
Clan Adhocracy
Culture Culture
Empowered Flexible
and Participatory and Innovative
Internal External
Hierarchy Market
Culture Culture
Stable Productivity
Figure 6. and Goal Oriented
and Predictable
Classification of
culture according to Control
the competing values
framework (CVF) Source: Adapted from Cameron and Quinn CVF
model
adhocracy and clan culture would be especially suitable to prospector strategies, Culture vs
both hierarchy and clan cultures would find synergy with analyzer strategies and a strategy
market-culture would be ideal for reactor strategies. The strategy types pursued are
innately different and the culture that coexists within the firm is different or mixed.
In an empirical study with 217 respondents from manufacturing and service firms in
20 industries, the link between marketing strategy and organizational culture fit was found
to affect performance (Slater et al., 2011). It is also suggested that the four culture types,
shown in Figure 6, provide a set of behavioral norms that in each culture type are necessary
for the success of strategies (Slater et al., 2011). Furthermore, a study on Japanese
firms revealed that market culture results in better performance in the order
market Wadhocracy Wclan Whierarchy (Deshpande et al., 1993). It has been suggested
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:01 31 October 2018 (PT)
that strategy, structure, systems, capabilities and culture are responsible for high
performance (Galbraith and Kazanjian, 1986).
Behavior of managers down the hierarchy must help realize strategic business objectives
along the implementation path. This can be influenced positively or negatively by the firm’s
culture (Semler, 1997). Culture may be the vital link between strategy and outcomes (Vestal
et al., 1997). Culture is impactful on a firm’s ability to fulfill planned objectives (Schwartz and
Davis, 1981). Culture is one of several factors that play a role in strategy implementation
(Wu et al., 2004). Group and team culture is prevalent and useful in a manufacturing setup
(Bates et al., 1995). Culture is also a determinant of quality (Weber and Pliskin, 1996).
Hewlett-Packard has been known for quality. Its strategy for quality and innovation has
encouraged an innovation-culture. Emerson-Electric is inclined to compete with low-cost
strategy and accordingly has created a cost-cutting-culture. Apple’s strategy for competency
in technology and design has nurtured a design-thinking-culture. Start-up strategies have
fermented an entrepreneurial-culture in Silicon Valley that has led to rapid innovation.
The merger of Air India with Indian Airlines has been thwart with cultural issues that
have played a role in making Air India a financially defunct and bankrupt ridden airline for
several decades. The current culture of Air India is such that its leadership is incapable of
executing a retrenchment, divestiture or a turnaround strategy. Concurrent CEOs, to the
present, have been happy to run a bankrupt airline supported by tax-payers monies.
The Indian Government, as owner, has had no clue or desire to put a management team that
would have the capability to formulate a strategy that could put Air India on the path of
even a breakeven financial performance. Could or can the culture drive strategy in this case?
Or does strategy need to drive culture, tweak it, change it and then completely transform it.
Lately, the Indian Government seems to have decided to privatize the airline, under woes of
fiscal and election pressures. Corporate strategy must lead in this case, in line with Figure 1.
In 2006, Dell went through a retrenchment strategy which did not produce results.
In 2007, Michael Dell came out of retirement and changed the business model from direct
selling to selling at retail. Did the culture of Dell drive the strategy of change in the business
model or did the market conditions of stiff competition? Can shareholders of companies that
go bankrupt blame the culture and the employees or should they blame the strategies and
the executive and board management teams? Is the success of a single-person business
dependent on strategy or a single-person culture, that is, values system? Does the owner of
such a business draw upon culture, personal or business, to make the business successful or
on strategy? If not strategy, then, does cultural goodwill of business associates or customers
play a role in this success or does business goodwill?
Tata Motors, the flagship company of the Tata Group, has been losing market share in
India in the past four to five years and has currently posted a huge loss in 2016–2017, over
40 times the previous year. Certain corporate-level strategies are to be blamed, including
persistent leadership issues, which have apparently hampered employee morale and
motivation. The “spirit” at Tata Motors as Ratan Tata, Chairman Emeritus and previous CEO,
JSMA put it in a town-hall style employee meeting can come back. The culture suffers from lack of
galvanic action around strategic decisions in this case, although culture can lead to lack
of action in other cases.
The struggle between the founding influence and the running executive management is
best depicted by the events played out in the case of Infosys, the IT consulting firm in India.
The growth strategy being implemented by the new CEO ran aground due to a clash of
value systems between the ex-CEO of the founder group and the new board and executive
team. Culture forced a reconstitution of the top team, even though the company was
showing double digit growth compared to its two major competitors who were in single
digits. The new entrant CEO, one of the founder group, began the undoing of the strategies
that were put in place by the outsider CEO.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:01 31 October 2018 (PT)
to be most suitable in its ability to match the strategy with operational response (Deverell
and Olsson, 2010). A democratic leadership style was able to change the decision-making
structure but unable to make this match satisfactorily (Deverell and Olsson, 2010).
A decentralized organization was unable to make proper strategic or structural changes and
fell short of effectively adapting to the crisis conditions (Deverell and Olsson, 2010). Once the
corporate-level strategic decision is made, subsequently culture leads strategy in the event
of a crisis, as in a firm attempting to turnaround to avoid bankruptcy and liquidation.
This is in match with Figure 3.
Strategy–culture fit
The Shewhart cycle or Deming cycle referred to as plan, do, check, act (PDCA cycle)
effectively is a corporate-level directed strategy for continuous improvement of products,
services and processes. The Shewhart (1939) cycle used a three-step process of
“specification, production, and inspection.” The Deming (1950) cycle used a four-step
process of “design, produce, sell, and redesign.” Both used manufacturing terminology.
The Japanese called it the Deming Wheel. Japanese executives replaced the Deming terms
with the PDCA terms (Imai, 1986). Firms engaging their strategy, beginning with strategy
formulation, to execute this model are effectively controlling and empowering their
corporate culture to build quality into their products and services. This is a strategic model,
as shown in Figure 7, which can be executed only with a changed culture that adopts a total
quality management approach in its organization. In this case, the plan as strategy precedes
culture. The cycle is perennial. Thus, the strategy–culture analysis efforts must be
persistently recurrent and perpetual so that as strategy precedes, culture is aligned and
Act Plan
Reconstitute Strategy
Strategies with Formulation
Plan Corrections
Check Do
Strategy Strategy
Evaluation Implementation
and Control
Figure 7.
The strategic
management process
for continuous quality
Source: Adapted from the PDCA or improvement
Shewhart–Deming cycle
JSMA when and wherein culture precedes strategy must be aligned, in the latter of the two stages
of the three-stage strategic management process of formulation, implementation and
evaluation and control. This follows the pathway suggested in Figure 4.
The Shewhart–Deming cycle is a good way to view the ultimate transformation of a
firm’s culture by the process of evolution, modification and synthesis based on a willful
corporate-level strategy to build superior quality. Behavior is the deliverance of culture,
governed and supported by progressive market-centric internal processes, procedures and
policies that can help positively generate strategy implementation outcomes. In the do
and check sequences of the PDCA cycle, corresponding to strategy implementation and
evaluation and control, culture has potency for influence and precedence. In the act sequence
of the PDCA cycle, culture can influence functional and operational strategic decision
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:01 31 October 2018 (PT)
making helping to build on the improvements achieved as the iterations proceed, or make
the gains ineffective or to fizzle.
Silo-culture
Subcultures are thriving pools of alternate cultures that co-exist in an organization. They
are referred to as “micro-cultures” with culture at the corporate level being “macro-culture”
and the culture leveraged network connections as “bridge-culture” (Coffman and Sorensen,
2013). What strategy presupposes, culture must dispose. People are the culture (Coffman
and Sorensen, 2013). People are the add-on to the mosaic that is culture, and where it
fundamentally resides. “People are the DNA carriers of culture; culture exists on its own”
(Reviewer, 2018). People are also where the strategic thinking resides. People, or leaders, can
bring their singular-culture to the fore in their strategy, whence it would be difficult to say
whether the strategic thinking was produced by the singular-culture or the singular-culture
is only one of the inputs to the strategic thinking. Nevertheless, a silo-culture is different
from the so-called subculture or the micro-culture. Subcultures and micro-cultures are
interactive. Manifested through people, they respond to, collude or even confront with the
macro-culture or with each other. Silo-cultures do neither. They seek their own disposition
and prefer isolation in competition with both. Their behavior is embedded in empowered
secret competition. To the extent that people behave, or are encouraged to behave, as
singular-silos for immediate- or short-term tactical benefits to the organization there is high
risk that strategic decisions may go astray, resulting in a miscalculation by the leader.
Sony fell behind in the consumer electronics business due to silo-cultures that got created by
corporate strategies for internal competition in research and development, which failed to
deliver timely innovation.
Positive subcultures, micro-cultures or silo-cultures are beneficial for strategy
implementation, where they can even be critical. In many cases, for example, Arthur
Andersen, Circuit City, Hostess, these businesses failed not on account of strategy but due to
their organizational cultures (Coffman and Sorensen, 2013). Culture is a synergetic lever to
strategy and strategic performance. It can magnify strategic outcomes and performance by
enabling strategy implementation. A superior culture infuses energy and, therefore, has the
onus of ownership by the team at all hierarchical levels. A well-aligned culture enables
execution actions during strategy implementation. Culture must be aligned to the business
imperatives (Coffman and Sorensen, 2013).
Strategies can install such cultures in a firm. These focuses tend to produce formulated
strategies that provide new and better offerings, more effective and better tactics and
higher satisfaction and better value in the market. Installed cultures are in-built and
supportive of corporate strategies. Evolved cultures may be obstructive to the changing
vision and mission of the firm, especially to the newly formulated strategies planned to
give the firm an impetus to be able to generate sustained superior profitability and
growth, or just to survive.
When there is a major change in strategic direction, the prevalent organizational culture
needs to be uninstalled. This is especially true in a firm undergoing a strategic turnaround.
Turnaround strategies cannot survive in a business-as-usual culture, whether it is
centralized, or not, hierarchical or not. The failure in implementing lean manufacturing has
been attributed to organizational culture (Worley and Doolen, 2006; Emiliani, 1998). Since
the lean process is driven by technology and behavior, it comprises a unique socio-technical
system that requires changes in the culture, which can be brought about only in strategic
steps (Mirdad and Eseonu, 2017).
can help create core competency and develop distinctive competency, while culture can
help refine distinctive competency.
Strategy implementation shows successful compilations when supported by a potent vibrant
culture, a firm’s UCP. A UCP can strategically be developed to be a part of the set of distinctive
competencies that arise from the core competencies of an organization and lead to a competitive
advantage. Whenever necessary, corporate-level strategy must be used to bring about a
strategy–culture fit. Thus, a UCP may be reciprocal to strategy in execution, if there is a fit.
Either can help to generate a competitive advantage. But it is the combined workings of strategy
and UCP that produce a sustained competitive advantage. This advents an SBM that is fully
supported by the firm’s UCP. When a competitive advantage is lost it is often times due to a
firm’s culture that failed to respond to the dynamics of competitive forces. When opportunities
go unpredicted or unrealized, it is often due to poor strategic insight or weak strategic thinking.
Culture evolves in an organization as in society. A one-person entrepreneurship has a
one-person-entrepreneurship-culture. If the owner survives in the market-culture with the
business proposition, a company begins to be founded, private or public. In order to survive,
the owner must formulate, execute and evaluate the outcomes of strategies. There is no
organizational culture to evaluate. As of yet, personal traits, values and ethics of the owner
play a role. These have genetic and environmental influences. To that extent, the social and
business culture in the society have some influence. They only influence the outcome not
determine it. As the business entity grows, by way of entrepreneurship success, a culture
gets created or co-created between the owners and the employees. The owner must initially
impose a desired culture based on personal traits, values and ethics combined with
influences of external environmental social and business factors. This imposition is a
strategy for survival. Strategy creates this culture, thus, in an upstart.
Later, the culture may be co-created. Co-creating culture results in belonging. This
co-creation or belonging is strategy for growth. When the business transits from small to
medium to large, the constituted culture becomes complex. The complexity devolves into
subcultures. These subcultures give birth to silos. Both the complexity and the silo-cultures
need to be managed. This management is a strategy for sustainability. Survival, growth and
sustainability of a business depend on strategy. These strategies have both an external and
an internal focus. These strategies are interrelated to the external and the internal
environment of the business. These strategies are proactive as well as reactive decisions
planned for and against forecasted serendipitous opportunities or threats in the market.
These strategies are also proactive as well as reactive decisions planned for and against the
potential for success or failure of the internally focused business strategies. The latter is
aimed against internal factors one of which is culture.
Since these internal factors have a bearing on business outcomes, they have a relationship
with them. And since the business outcomes have a relationship with the strategic decisions
planned, the internal factors have a relationship with strategies. And since culture is one such
internal factor, culture has a relationship with strategy. A culture that has a strong
JSMA relationship with strategy partners in strategy implementation. A culture that has a
weak relationship with strategy largely partners in specific functional and operational
strategy decision-making situations. A good strategy can fail due to poor implementation.
A not so good strategy can do well due to good implementation. Culture may play a major or
minor role in either or both scenarios. However, since culture does not create or co-create itself,
it is best if strategy precedes culture and culture follows strategy in alignment. Business
prudence suggests that culture should be elevated to match the strategies being deployed and
culture should be aligned to strategy through strategy. This then may define a true SBM,
which entails an invisible component as in culture that provides for the leverage that helps
create a competitive advantage that can be sustained.
Culture can be a stronger driving force for projected strategies at specific hierarchical levels
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:01 31 October 2018 (PT)
in certain types of organizations like government, military organizations and other for- or non-
profit organizations. The same is true during a turnaround crisis in a firm when the demand for
cultural alignment is critical under the umbrella of the freshly constituted corporate-level
strategies. The organizational culture may subsequently influence implementation, functional
and operational strategies, in transition, to actually harness the turnaround.
Organizational culture is fuzzy, difficult to perceive or gauge, measure or target
and, therefore, needs to be handled with “fuzzy logic.” The relativity of its presence and
consequential effects need to be understood in the approach to dealing with culture.
Silos are different from subcultures and “micro-cultures” in that they develop their own
UCP character, attitudes and behavioral norms.
Culture may be the super “glue” that binds the organizational constructs of structure,
valuable resources and valuable capabilities and policy, but if the silos are not
accommodating, and deny a sense and feeling of belonging, the constructs may turn out to
be ineffective and unable to deliver the strategic intent, goals and objectives as defined and
projected in the vision and targeted by the mission.
A wrong strategic decision can run the culture thin. Managers can lose their motivation.
The decision may be related to hiring a new CEO, ignoring environment sustainability,
ethics in business dealings or lack or dampening of internal hierarchical upward mobility.
The culture will not be able to reinvent or reconstitute itself. It will take a new freshly
conceived strategy to shake things up and invigorate the disenchanted or dampened
cultural pulse. The energy and vibrancy of action, activities and networked workflows is the
true manifestation of culture. That in disarray, the firm will lose out to competition. And the
stats will show. The bottom line will speak.
When failure looms, or is persistently consistent, the culture of the organization must be
addressed. When culture changes on its own, it chances to deteriorate or degrade or weaken
relative to that of competition. Culture cannot pick itself up and run on its own toward
high performance and achievement since it does not have a physical manifestation.
A strategy is required.
References
Ahmadi, S.A.A., Salamzadeh, Y., Daraei, M. and Akbari, J. (2012), “Relation between organizational
culture and strategy implementation: typologies and dimensions”, Global Business &
Management Research: An International Journal, Vol. 4 Nos 3/4, pp. 286-299.
Anders, G. (2016), “Did Peter Drucker actually say ‘culture eats strategy for breakfast’ – and if so,
where/when?”, available at: www.quora.com/Did-Peter-Drucker-actually-say-culture-eats-
strategy-for-breakfast-and-if-so-where-when (accessed March 2018).
Andrews, K.R. (1982a), The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Irwin, Homewood, IL, p. 552.
Andrews, K.R. (1982b), The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Irwin, Homewood, IL, p. 853.
Andrews, K.R. (1982c), The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Irwin, Homewood, IL, p. 99.
Anon (2017), “Quote investigator, culture eats strategy for breakfast”, available at: https:// Culture vs
quoteinvestigator.com/2017/05/23/culture-eats/ (accessed March 2018). strategy
Atkinson, P.E. (2012), “Creating culture change”, Operations Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 32-37.
Balthazard, P.A., Cooke, R.A. and Potter, R.E. (2006), “Dysfunctional culture, dysfunctional
organization: capturing the behavioural norms that from organizational culture and drive
performance”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 709-732.
Barger, B.B. (2007), “Culture an overused term and international joint ventures: a review of the
literature and a case study”, Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 1-14.
Barney, J.B. (1986), “Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?”,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:01 31 October 2018 (PT)
Kotter, J.P. (1996), Leading Change, Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kotter, J.P. and Heskett, J.L. (1992), Corporate Culture and Performance, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Lado, A.A. and Wilson, M.C. (1994), “Human resource systems and sustained competitive advantage:
a competency-based perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 699-727.
Lam, K. and Shi, G. (2008), “Factors affecting ethical attitudes in Mainland China and Hong Kong”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 463-479.
Lehmann, J. (2006), “Jurlique goes back to its roots”, The Australian, Section: Finance, Australia,
NewsBank Access World News, June 13, p. 22.
Lin, M.-M. and Wu, Y.-H. (2013), “The relationships among business strategies, organizational
performance and organizational culture in the tourism industry”, South African Journal of
Economic and Management Sciences, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 1-8.
Lopez, S.P., Peon, M.M. and Ordas, C.J.V. (2004), “Managing knowledge: the link between culture and
organizational learning”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 93-104.
Louis, M.R. (1985), “An investigator’s guide to workplace culture”, in Frost, P., More, L., Louis, M.,
Lundberg, C. and Martin, J. (Eds), Organizational Culture, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 73-93.
McCracken, J. (2006), “Way forward requires culture shift”, Wall Street Journal, B1, January, p. 23.
McKenna, S.D. (1992), “A cultural instrument: driving organizational learning”, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 24-29.
Ma, Z. (2010), “The SINS in business negotiations: explore the cross-cultural differences in business
ethic between Canada and China”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 123-135.
Mason, S. (2000), “Performance-based planning for hospitals”, Health Care Strategic Management,
Vol. 18 No. 12, pp. 14-17.
Meehan, P., Rigby, D. and Rogers, P. (2008), “Creating and sustaining a winning culture”, Harvard
Management Update, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 3-5.
Mello, J.E. and Stank, T.P. (2005), “Linking firm culture and orientation to supply chain management”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35 No. 8,
pp. 542-554.
Merchant, N. (2011), “Culture trumps strategy, every time”, in Ignatius, I. (Ed.), Harvard Business
Review, Harvard Business Publishing, Boston, MA, March 22, pp. 1-4.
Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1978), Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Mintzberg, H. (1990), “The Design School: reconsidering the basic premise of strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 171-195.
Mintzberg, H. and McGugh, A. (1985), “Strategy formation in an adhocracy”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 160-197.
Mirdad, W. and Eseonu, C. (2017), “A strategy of resilient systems thinking to sustain a lean
organizational culture: promoting conceptual change in lean class”, IIE Annual Conference,
Proceedings, Norcross, GA, pp. 1472-1478.
JSMA Mitroussi, K. (2003), “The evolution of the safety culture of IMO: a case of organizational culture
change”, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 16-23.
Moore, B. and Rose, J. (2000), “Recovered paper trading – ready for the Web?”, RPIMA’s
North American Papermaker: The Official Publication of the Paper Industry Management
Association, Vol. 82 No. 9, pp. 26-28.
Moore, J.R., Kizer, L.E. and Jeon, B.P. (2011), “Leading groups to create healthy culture through
accomplishing tasks aligned to strategy”, International Journal of Management and Information
Systems, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 55-64.
Morrison, P. (2014), “Into the fire: Patt Morrison asks James G. Featherstone”, The Los Angeles Times,
Col. 1, Los Angeles, CA, March 19, p. A11.
Mustak, M., Jaakkola, E. and Halinen, A. (2013), “Customer participation and value creation: a systematic
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:01 31 October 2018 (PT)
review and research implications”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 341-359.
Noble, C.H. (1999), “The eclectic roots of the strategy implementation research”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 119-134.
Pascale, R.T. and Altos, A.G. (1981), The Art of Japanese Management, Simon & Schuster,
New York, NY.
Paunova, M. (2007), “How to characterize and evaluate the organizational culture”, Economic
Alternatives, Vol. 83 No. 6, pp. 111-121.
Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982), In Search of Excellence Lessons from America’s Best-Run
Companies, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R.I. (2000), The Knowing-Doing Gap, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Rashid, A.Z., Sambasivan, M. and Johari, J. (2003), “The influence of corporate culture and
organizational commitment on performance”, Journal of Management Study Development,
Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 708-728.
Raymond, L. (2003), “Globalization, the knowledge economy, and competitiveness: a business
intelligence framework for the development SMES”, Journal of American Academy of Business,
Vol. 3 Nos 1/2, pp. 260-269.
Reviewer (2018), Comment Made in Review, Journal of Strategy and Management, Emerald Publishing,
Bingley.
Rishi, P. and Moghe, S. (2013), “Integrating corporate social responsibility and culture as a strategy for
holistic corporate success in India”, The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, No. 51, September,
pp. 17-37.
Robbins, S.P. (1990), Organization Theory, Structure, Design and Applications, Prentice-Hall,
Englewoods Cliffs, NJ.
Rouquet, A., Goudarzi, K. and Henrique, T. (2017), “The company–customer transfer of logistics activities”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 321-342.
Rumelt, R. (2011a), Good Strategy Bad Strategy, 2017 ed., Profile Books Ltd, London, p. 2.
Rumelt, R. (2011b), Good Strategy Bad Strategy, 2017 ed., Profile Books Ltd, London, pp. 210-211.
Rumelt, R. (2011c), Good Strategy Bad Strategy, 2017 ed., Profile Books Ltd, London, p. 77.
Saarijarvi, H., Kannan, P.K. and Kuusela, H. (2013), “Value co-creation: theoretical approaches and
practical implications”, European Business Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 6-19.
Sadri, G. and Lees, B. (2001), “Developing corporate culture as a competitive advantage”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 853-859.
Saffold, G.S. (1988), “Culture traits, strength, and organizational performance: moving beyond ‘strong’
culture”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 546-558.
Schein, E.H. (2010), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 4th ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Schein, E.H. (1985), Organizational Culture & Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 33-34.
Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, p. 12.
Schein, E.H. (2004), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Culture vs
CA, p. 91. strategy
Schulz, M. and Jobe, L.A. (2001), “Codification and tacitness as knowledge management strategies: an
empirical exploration”, Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 139-165.
Schwartz, H. and Davis, S.M. (1981), “Matching corporate and business strategy”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 30-48.
Semler, S.W. (1997), “Systematic agreement: a theory of organizational alignment”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 23-40.
Shewhart, W.A. (1939), Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control, Department of
Agriculture, Dover, p. 45.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 09:01 31 October 2018 (PT)
Siegel, D.S. (2009), “Green management matters only if it yields more green: an economic/strategic
perspective”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 5-16.
Skinner, B.F. (1971), Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY.
Slater, S.F., Olson, E.M. and Finnegan, C. (2011), “Business strategy, marketing organization culture,
and performance”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 227-242.
Surijah, A.B. (2016), “Global environment, corporate strategy, learning culture, and human capital: a
theoretical review”, International Journal of Organizational Innovation, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 188-200.
Ulrich, D. (1998), “A new mandate for human resource”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76 No. 1,
pp. 124-134.
Vestal, K.W., Fraliex, R.D. and Spreier, S.W. (1997), “Organizational culture: the critical link between
strategy and results”, Hospital and Health Services Administration, Vol. 42 No. 13, pp. 339-365.
Volkeman, R.J. (2004), “Demographic, cultural, and economic predictors of perceived ethicality of
negotiation behavior: a nine-country analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 1,
pp. 69-78.
Volkeman, R.J. and Fleury, M. (2002), “Alternative negotiating conditions and the choice of negotiation
tactics: a cross-cultural comparison”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 381-398.
Waterman, R.H. Jr, Peters, T.J. and Phillips, J.R. (1980), “Structure is not organization”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 14-26.
Weber, Y. and Pliskin, N. (1996), “The effects of information systems integration and organizational
culture on a firm’s effectiveness”, Information & Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 81-90.
Wei, Y.S., Samiee, S. and Lee, R.P. (2014), “The influence of organic organizational cultures, market
responsiveness, and product strategy on firm performance in an emerging market”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 49-70.
Worley, J.M. and Doolen, T.L. (2006), “The role of communication and management support in a lean
manufacturing implementation”, Management Decision, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 228-245.
Wu, W., Chou, C.H. and Wu, Y. (2004), “A study of strategy implementation as expressed through Sun
Tzu’s principles of war”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 104 No. 5, pp. 396-408.
Yarbrough, L., Morgan, N.A. and Vorhies, D. (2011), “The impact of product market
strategy–organizational culture fit on business performance”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 555-573.
Corresponding author
Amarjeev Kaul can be contacted at: amarjeevk@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com