Several years ago, I witnessed a moment that perfectly captured the power of organisational culture. Our organisation had just moved into a brand-new office building. Everyone was excited. The previous building had become dilapidated and unpleasant – there were leaking ceilings, worn furniture, and even the occasional appearance of rodents and cockroaches. Moving into the new facility was not just a logistical decision; it was part of a broader strategy to reposition the organisation, signal professionalism, enhance customer experience and improve employee morale.
One afternoon, however, I saw something that quickly tempered the optimism. A small group of staff had just finished their tea and coffee. Instead of walking a few steps to the washroom or sink, they casually rinsed their cups and splashed the leftover liquid onto the wall. The new building was clean and modern, but the habits remained unchanged. In that moment, it became clear that while the strategy had changed, the culture had not (at least not for that group of employees).
This observation reminds me of a commentary by Harvard Business School professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter about Nigeria’s earlier attempts to reposition its global image. She noted that branding campaigns and strategic messaging alone cannot transform a reputation if the lived experience of people interacting with the country tells a different story. TCV adverts and strategy may change quickly, but culture changes far more slowly. The same lesson applies to organisations – strategy proposes, but many times, culture disposes.
Research strongly supports this idea. In their influential work Corporate Culture and Performance, John Kotter and James Heskett demonstrated that organisational culture can have a profound impact on long-term economic performance. Studying hundreds of companies over more than a decade, they found that firms with cultures aligned to their strategic goals significantly outperformed those where culture and strategy were disconnected. Their conclusion was simple but powerful: strategy may set direction, but culture determines whether people behave in ways that bring the strategy to life.
A second challenge arises from the fact that organisations rarely have just one culture. Multiple subcultures often coexist, especially during periods of rapid growth or after mergers and acquisitions. As organisations expand, they bring together employees from different backgrounds, companies, and professional traditions. Each group arrives with its own assumptions about how work should be done, how decisions should be made, and what behaviours are acceptable.
Research on mergers and acquisitions has repeatedly shown that cultural incompatibility is one of the most common reasons integrations fail. Studies by organisational scholars such as Susan Cartwright and Cary Cooper have demonstrated that even when financial and strategic logic for a merger is sound, unresolved cultural differences can undermine collaboration, create mistrust, and slow decision-making. In such situations, organisations do not necessarily suffer from a lack of strategy; they suffer from competing cultures pulling people in different directions.
This fragmentation can be subtle but powerful. Different departments or legacy organisations may interpret the strategy differently, pursue conflicting priorities, or maintain informal norms that contradict leadership’s intentions. Over time, these cultural differences create distraction and inconsistency, weakening the organisation’s ability to execute its strategy coherently.
However, strong cultures come with their own risks. When a culture becomes too rigid or disconnected from external realities, it can become an obstacle to strategic adaptation. What once created alignment can gradually turn into resistance to change. Organisations may continue to reward behaviours that supported yesterday’s strategy even when the environment has shifted.
This is why scholars such as Jennifer Chatman and Charles O’Reilly, writing in the Academy of Management Journal, emphasise the importance of cultural alignment with strategy. Strong cultures are beneficial only when they reinforce the strategic direction of the organisation. When strategy evolves but culture remains fixed, the organisation experiences internal tension and declining effectiveness.
In practice, this means leaders must treat culture not as a soft issue but as a strategic asset that requires deliberate attention. Culture shapes how employees interpret priorities, interact with colleagues, and make everyday decisions. These decisions, often made far from the boardroom, are what ultimately determine whether a strategy succeeds or fails.
The implication for leaders is clear. Organisations must diagnose their cultures with the same rigour they apply to strategy and financial performance. They must use tools like 360-degree feedback, employee pulse checks and employee engagement surveys to unearth the real culture of their organisation. Where misalignment exists, leaders must act deliberately to reshape cultural norms. This may involve redefining values, reinforcing desired behaviours through incentives and leadership examples, and creating environments where employees understand not only what the strategy is but also how their daily actions contribute to it.
The lesson from that office building many years ago still resonates. A new strategy can transform structures, processes, and symbols, but unless it also reshapes culture, the old habits will quietly persist. Walls may be repainted and offices renovated, but behaviour will continue to reflect the deeper norms of the organisation. In the end, strategy may define where an organisation wants to go. Culture determines whether people move in that direction.
Omagbitse Barrow is the chief executive of Efiko Management Consulting. He supports organisations and leaders to translate their strategy to results.
