What leaders need to know about organizational culture

A major factor in the success of an organization is its culture. Organizational culture can significantly influence the performance and effectiveness of a company; the morale and productivity of its employees; and its ability to attract, motivate, and retain talented people. Unfortunately, many leaders are either unaware of the significant impact culture can have, are aware but overwhelmed by the extensive and sometimes conflicting information available on culture, or are not well informed about how to build and sustain cultures effectively. This article integrates the most consistent findings that leaders need to know about culture and what they can do to build strong, successful cultures that bring out the best in people. Developing organizational culture requires far more than talk about culture and emphasis on its importance. In order to achieve the best results, culture development requires leaders who see it as one of their key tasks and who understand the importance of aligning organization strategies and decision making with cultural ideals.     

Organizational performance with a broader focus: The case for a stakeholder approach to leadership

In 2019, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and the other 179 CEO members of the Business Roundtable argued that the purpose of a corporation must reflect not only the fiduciary interests of owners but also the varied interests of all stakeholders: employees, customers, partners, and broader society. This idea challenges a decades-old norm of shareholder primacy, so it is reasonable for organizational leaders to wonder whether doing so is truly in their firms’ best interests, and if so, how to implement this approach to leadership. To answer these questions, we draw on over 200 peer-reviewed articles covering leadership research to demonstrate how servant leadership, a stakeholder-focused approach to management, outperforms other leadership approaches across both shareholder and stakeholder criteria. We leverage case studies of organizational leaders from SAS, Zappos, Starbucks, and Jason’s Deli, financially successful organizations that exemplify how managers provide value and sustainability to stakeholders and shareholders through servant leadership. We also include practical steps managers can take to begin putting this form of leadership into practice.     

To agree or not to agree? A meta-analytical review of strategic consensus and organizational performance

The premise underlying most of the research on strategic consensus is that a higher degree of consensus has a positive impact on organizational performance. Empirical studies, however, have produced inconsistent results for the strength and direction of this relationship, as well as for the role of potential moderators. With this meta-analysis, we provide empirical support for a positive effect of strategic consensus on organizational performance, and offer evidence for the existence of several moderators of the aforementioned relationship, which we then discuss as fruitful avenues for future research. This study enhances our understanding of this important strategy process construct and benefits managerial practice by discussing means for improving the realization and implementation of strategies.     

Design thinking for innovation: Considering distinctions,fit, and use in firms

As firms struggle with high failure rates when developing new products and services, they seek new approaches to innovation. One method garnering attention is design thinking (DT), a design-based method of problem solving. Businesses as varied as Airbnb and PepsiCo are embracing DT in growing numbers, but some may be joining the bandwagon without understanding its distinctions compared to the main alternative, the Stage-Gate (SG) methodology. SG, a project-review process, is used in many firms today to create innovations. To guide managerial consideration of DT, this article provides an explanation of DT as compared with SG, a framework to assess DT’s fit with the firm, and ways DT may be effectively used.     

Strategic shifts that build executive leadership

Organizations are challenged to develop leaders who can think strategically about the business and solve systemic problems. How can mid-level leaders develop this capability? Herein, we describe five strategic shifts in perspective that are essential for mid-level managers in transitioning successfully to strategic leadership positions. All five shifts improve mid-level leaders’ ability to look beyond tactics to see wider opportunities and enable strategic impact. The shifts are iterative and build on each other. We offer a new model that guides managers in shaping strategic leaders using these five perspective shifts to impact the organization positively and substantially. Further, we provide specific techniques that mid-level managers can employ to shift their perspectives and build personal strategic capabilities. Finally, we share specific ‘Try It’ exercises that mid-level managers can engage in to learn about the preferred concepts.     

Leadership succession planning for today’s digital transformation economy: Key factors to build for competency and innovation

Digital transformation is rapidly changing the competitive landscape and the war on talent for today’s organizations. As part of this economy, organizations and their HR units must continuously reevaluate leadership structures and practices that exploit core competencies while allowing for innovation (i.e., leadership ambidexterity) and incorporate big data with predictive analytics. In this vein, understanding how HR executives can create better solutions around this problem remains sparse. Specifically, what frameworks can HR executives apply to identify potential alignment failures in leadership succession planning in light of newer emerging markets? What internal decision-making traps need to be recognized? Finally, what specific forms of data and evidence must test these plans for relevance and recharge and renew the talent-to-strategy pipeline? In this article, we examine these questions by reviewing the gaps in the literature and identifying through our four-step model how organizations can incorporate ambidexterity-building as a leadership succession planning practice.     

Illuminating the foundational role that mindsets should play in leadership development

Mindsets are individuals’ mental lenses that selectively organize and encode information, thereby orienting them toward a unique way of understanding their experiences and guiding them toward corresponding actions and responses. Decades of research have demonstrated that mindsets are foundational to how individuals process and operate. Despite this research, mindsets have largely been overlooked by practitioners when developing leaders. In this article, we seek to illuminate the foundational role mindsets play in leadership effectiveness to elicit greater emphasis on mindsets in leadership development. To do so, we explore what mindsets are, why they are so important for leadership development and effectiveness, and which mindsets leaders could further develop to operate more effectively. Specifically, we review the research associated with four different sets of mindsets—(1) fixed and growth mindsets, (2) goal orientations, (3) implemental and deliberative mindsets, and (4) prevention and promotion mindsets—to demonstrate how each affects leaders’ effectiveness. We conclude by discussing how leadership developers and leaders themselves can focus on mindsets to improve leadership effectiveness.     

Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management

Practices of knowledge management are context-specific and they can influence organizational effectiveness. This study examines the possible mediating role of knowledge management in the relationship between organizational culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness. A survey was conducted of 301 organizations. The results suggest that knowledge management fully mediates the impact of organizational culture on organizational effectiveness, and partially mediates the impact of organizational structure and strategy on organizational effectiveness. The findings carry theoretical implications for knowledge management literature as they extend the scope of research on knowledge management from examining a set of independent management practices to examining a system-wide mechanism that connects internal resources and competitive advantage.     

Performance implications of institutionalization process in family-owned businesses: Evidence from an emerging economy

This paper attempts to understand the role of two highly relevant founder family characteristics, harmony among family members and the degree of democratization in decision-making, in the institutionalization and adaptive capability development processes of family firms in Turkey as an exemplar of an emerging market. The paper examines how institutionalization and adaptability jointly drive firm-level differences in quantitative (i.e., sales growth, market share, and return on investment) and qualitative performance (i.e., quality of goods/services, new product development, employee satisfaction) components. Data were collected from 436 respondents in 132 family firms through structured questionnaires administered to at least three respondents from each firm. Findings indicated that among the institutionalization dimensions, transparency had the strongest effect on both quantitative and qualitative firm performance, whereas adaptability influenced qualitative performance only. Harmony in family relations increased efforts for institutionalization, whereas democracy in decision-making enhanced adaptability. Implications of these findings are discussed and several future research directions are suggested.     

Estimating the impact of Denison's (1996), “What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native's point of view on a decade of paradigm wars”

Denison [Denison, D.R. (1996), What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native's point of view on a decade of paradigm wars, The Academy of Management Review, 21 (3), 619-654] offers a paradigm to comprehend the difference between studying organizational culture and organizational climate from a methodological perspective. The present study uses a Scopus analysis to understand the contributions of Denison's work in contemporary research of organization studies, and to recognize benefits of his discussion on organizational culture and organizational climate. The Scopus analysis shows that Denison's article is seminal across academic disciplines from its appearance.