Constructive ideal cultures should translate into goals and strategies that are positive and beneficial in terms of both their content and their properties (e.g., their clarity, degree of difficulty, and comprehensiveness). Such goals and strategies should lead to effective structures and systems and, both directly and indirectly, to a constructive operating culture.

However, research, observations and practical experiences indicate that this is not always the case.

Constructive ideals and value statements do not necessarily ensure that exemplary goals and strategies are a) developed at the enterprise level, b) translated into meaningful objectives and plans for subunits, and c) converted into structures, systems, and behavioral norms that would support their implementation and attainment.

 

Research and practical experiences indicate that leaders and managers who clearly translate organizational goals and strategies into meaningful objectives and results (OKR’s) for their units tend to have a relatively constructive impact on the behavior of those around them. In contrast, leaders and managers who fail to translate goals and strategies appropriately or who instead base their unit’s goals and objectives on personal agendas or self-interest do not have this positive impact. Thus, leaders and managers have the potential to promote constructive expectations by clearly articulating meaningful goals and, in turn, moving their organization toward the desired state of future affairs. Nevertheless, many leaders and managers fail to do so even though they personally express an interest in having such an impact.

​

Research in organizations in a wide spectrum of industries shows that constructive cultures facilitate strategy implementation and lead to quality and effectiveness regardless of the type of strategy being pursued. Indeed, constructive norms are just as relevant in organizations pursuing differentiation or first in strategies as they are to organizations pursuing cost leadership or second in strategies. Interestingly, further analyses show no significant relationship between type of strategy and type of culture. Constructive norms are just as likely to merge in organizations competing on the basis of cost and efficiency (i.e., defender/low-cost) as in those competing on differentiation (i.e., prospector/differentiation).

 

Thus, leaders and managers can start with setting goals and developing strategies in more constructive ways to promote cultural change and break defensive syndromes. Establishing cross-functional goals in one of the levers that we have seen organizations use to help break down silos and foster expectations for greater collaboration between unit.

​

Other ways in which goals and strategies have been used by organizations as a lever for change include:

• Making culture and culture change part of the company’s strategy

• Incorporating culture in the organization’s balanced scorecard

• Setting individual goals and aligning them with organizational goals

 

Like philosophy, vision and mission, changes to goals and strategies alone - no matter how well articulated - do not create culture change. Rather, to be effective, the various forces that are part of the day-to-day work environment - particularly the styles, skills and qualities of leaders and managers - also must change to be better aligned with and supportive of a constructive culture.

 

Source: ‘Creating Constructive Cultures; Leading People and Organizations to Effectively Solve Problems and achieve Goals, by J. L. Szumal and R.A. Cooke.