What are the benefits and drawbacks of having a strong vs. weak organizational culture?

In my learning about organizational culture, using the terms of strong and weak are problematic - as they tend to set up an understanding of polarized opposites. A more nuanced understanding is using the descriptor "health". Let me explain: Health is a continuum, as we have seen in the depiction of human health for centuries. Is an athlete who broke an ankle unhealthy? Is a smoking alcoholic who performs well in daily life healthy? Health is a better descriptor of organizational culture - some parts of an organization may be toxic (like a cancerous liver), but the rest of the organization is organizationally healthy. And health can *always* be improved upon, another insight that changing the label affords organizational culture.

Either way, the organisational culture will be determined and orchestrated by its employees. A large majority of behaviour will set the employee's experience and perception in a specific environment. Of course, superordinates may be influencing the work culture more forcefully than lower-ranking people but it will depend on several other aspects as well. There is no guarantee that the superordinate can set up the desired level of work ethos between two or more subordinates. Those organisations where the social factor, identity and interest are higher, tend to regress in the criteria of universally positive and more importantly, transparent work ethics. That's due to differences, including age, culture, CV and mental stage of the employee.

A strong culture implies there is a dominant way of working that guides how people work, approach work, etc. Importantly a strong culture doesn't mean it is a 'good' culture. It may be strong in a toxic or counter-productive way, so strong + good/productive/enabling is the desired goal (vs strong+dysfunctional). A strong+productive culture can be a massive differentiator and competitive advantage for a company - something that is almost impossible for competitors to match. Talent wants to be around that. The team(s) deliver results and impact. They get things done. They beat the competition. They overcome adversity and nothing is too much of an issue. That is the power of a strong+productive culture.

Like other contributors I also see the term 'strong' as problematic. Strong cultures can be toxic if they do not value people, are too focused on performance, i.e. on the 'What' with no consideration of the 'How'. Also, they can promote unhealthy behaviors, so rather than strong I would use the term healthy. The description also corresponds more to what I would consider a healthy culture, which would encompass those characteristics and some of the prerequisites such as psychological safety. In this context I like to separate culture from organizational health, to clearly distinguish the two, with the latter being the practices that will make a culture healthier.

Well there are a million benefits of a strong organizational culture. The most important one being that employees are happy. They leave work feeling empowered and fulfilled. And they go home as a better version of themselves. This is good for the WORLD. From a company perspective, employees don't leave strong cultures. When employees feel like they have a voice and can make an impact, when they love their job they don't leave. Great company cultures have healthy and safe work environments - employees don't worry about company politics or workplace drama, they just show up and do incredible work. The company wins and employees win.

> Resistance to change, potential for groupthink, and difficulty in adapting to external changes. > Lack of direction, low employee morale, inconsistent performance, and challenges in building a strong employer brand.

I'm not sure that 'strong' and 'weak' is a helpful descriptor for organizational culture. If you're more than one person working to achieve an outcome/goal, you and whomever you work with are a team, and this team will have a culture. The question is whether you're intentional about this, or not. (And a lack of intention doesn't mean you have a weak culture. It might indeed be strong.) The question is whether your culture enables and supports the business to achieve the desired outcomes, or impedes the business outcomes. And ultimately this is the role of culture - does it help or hinder the business performance?

While the initial description could be described as weak, I believe 'undefined' or 'unclear' would be more appropriate. Ambiguous could also be used, in the end the issue is that the lack of a clear purpose, behaviors, and principles hinders to create a sense of belonging amongst the people in the organization. The second part of the description sounds more like an unhealthy culture that promotes inadequate behaviors and lacks psychological safety. And such cases are unfortunately sometimes everything but weak. Thus I would clearly differentiate between the health and the clarity of the culture. Finally, another aspect that plays into this is what I call implicit vs. explicit culture, where the former can lead to a lack of clarity.

Weak organizational cultures are companies that (1) don't have clearly defined values, (2) don't reward the same behaviors, (3) aren't aligned on their purposes, and (4) vary in attitudes. Ultimately, if you're not sure where the company is going and what behaviors are rewarded, it's a sign on a weak culture.

Every organization has a culture, whether it tends to it or not. A weak or ineffective culture is one that doesn't support the organization's goals. That can mean that the organization's values aren't tied to desired outcomes or aren't defined at all. An ineffective culture is one that has failed to identify, codify, and operationalize what is most important in how they do their work.

As a Certified Culture Consultant, it’s extremely important to be ahead of what is coming up next for your company and be mindful of current changes. For example, if an upcoming merger is happening, two cultures are going to be blending which means they need to be unified with such techniques as understanding their group and individual archetypes. Another example is retention issues - if a company is noticing a trend of individuals leaving quickly after being hired, their culture needs to be added. Lower retention = lower profitability. A strong Culture leads to a strong profit - they go hand in hand!

As a culture coach, rather than 'strength' I would assess the 'health' of the organizational culture. A culture can be 'strong' (which I don't think is a good term to use in this context to begin with) but promote unhealthy behaviors. Research shows that it is the level of organizational health that correlates with performance, especially in the long-term. The suggested activities such as interviews, survey, focus groups etc. should look at questions related primarily to the health of the culture. The objective should be to get a comprehensive understanding of how safe people feel to speak up, how much they feel their voice is heard, whether they feel support and belonging, but also questions related to mental and physical well-being.

Surveys are one of the most effective tools for measuring the perception of organizational culture on a large scale. Surveys can be designed to assess specific aspects such as cultural fit, engagement, job satisfaction and alignment with corporate values. Using platforms such as CFAM®, quantitative data can be collected and analyzed, allowing for an in-depth and objective assessment of organizational culture.

From my experience, I've found that assessing organizational culture serves as a critical step in determining its strength and effectiveness. Through methods such as interviews and audits, businesses can gain a comprehensive understanding of their core values and norms, as well as their impact on employee behavior and decision-making.

I see great benefits to working towards building a strong and healthy organizational culture where people can perform at their natural best. It is not easy, and it takes time, but it’s possible. Companies need to start by acknowledging there are toxic elements they need to change, and they need to listen to their people as their feedback is key. I always think of Bill Marklein’s quote: “Culture is how employees' hearts and stomachs feel about Monday morning on Sunday night.” If you get to build a workplace that motivates people to get up happily in the mornings and feel they make valuable contributions and thrive, that to me is a good indicator of a strong culture.

Example Scenario -An office is changing their organization - establishing core values, procedures/programs, new team profit driven year-end bonus. The organization wants "buy-in" from employees. However, questions without answers = frustration and disengagement with an "I'll get back to you" or "we're working out the details still" sort of response. Requested employee input isn't used, and many people aren't feeling valued in the organization. The excitement to roll out the new values and platform may have resulted in a premature launch and could result in good people leaving. The key is in the details - and having answers ready, when at all possible, to encourage support and engagement.

It’s important to be aware of assumptions when breaking down the culture, so that it can be rebuilt properly. Being able to recognize the reasons WHY your culture needs improvement will allow you further insight into HOW the change should be implemented. Allowing for continual space to create and design as a collective will enable assumptions to stay in check and build the buy in from the teams.

The only reason why we care about culture, is that it is an enabler of business results. That might be somewhat extreme, but it serves the purpose to challenge our thinking about why we care about culture. Does it create the conditions for individuals to do their best work + to thrive, or does it impede individuals and teams? To the extent then that the culture is not enabling team performance (or not enabling it as much as needed), it would be important to understand what is getting in the way (what specific behavior, what shared value) and then to identify what you'd prefer to see instead. Deliberately work out / engineer out those values and behaviors that don't support the team, & be intentional & clear on what you want to see instead.

The wording chosen by AI does not seem to be the best suited to talk about organizational culture. There is a lack of nuance and it should be seen as a continuum. Therefore talking about 'balancing' doesn't make a lot of sense. Balancing between what? I would rather prefer to talk about the 'health' of an organization and its culture. When we talk about health, it also helps to differentiate between symptoms of an unhealthy organization and the underlying root causes. A healthy organization brings a lot of benefits to its employees and the company at large, and has shown to outperform peers consistently. It is therfore less about balancing, and more about nurturing the health of the organizational culture.

Na minha visão, equilibrar a cultura organizacional é crucial para o sucesso. Uma cultura forte que é positiva, solidária e flexível pode impulsionar o desempenho e o engajamento, mas pode se tornar um obstáculo caso seja muito rígida ou resistente à mudança. Por outro lado, uma cultura fraca pode fomentar diversidade e inovação, mas corre o risco de levar ao caos e conflito. O importante é ajustar a cultura para que ela esteja sempre alinhada com os objetivos e valores da organização, promovendo um ambiente que apoie tanto a estabilidade quanto a adaptação.

The binary drawn between "strong" and "weak" as well as "good" and "bad" depicts an illusion that some cultural elements are mutually exclusive of others. How, for example, can a weak organizational culture allow for "diversity, autonomy, and innovation" but a strong culture can't? AI, your AI is showing again.

Like most strategic decisions, developing your culture is a matter of tradeoffs. What are you giving up by choosing a strong or weak culture? In my work with clients, we start by doing a current state snapshot of their existing culture. Then we evaluate where there are already strong cultural elements and where a distinct culture is lacking (we call these "neutral" traits, not "weak"). Then we work together to determine where culture traits can be better nurtured, shaped, or even ignored (to an extent) based on the goals of the organization and the needs of the workforce. It's much easier to find a healthy, practical balance between strong and weak culture when you know what your culture looks like to begin with.

Strong or weak is less difficult than 'Confused, Unfair or Maverick'. Strong normally means well branded, consistent, fair, (but not so in all cases). Strong culture suggests/enables , indicates : well communicated, understood well supported, improves , engagement, flexibility, opportunity and transparency. Tends to focus employees more on 'work' to my experience etc . Weak to my experience comes from 'weak' leadership , poorly defined expectations, limited Communications, unengaged, averse to any conflict and to me suggest lack of understanding or not taking ownership. Question restricts itself to 'Organisational' culture. Much of / the culture I would expect to root in not just 'Company' Values, but resonate with individuals

Don't make "culture" an HR initiative; this needs to be owned by leaders and managers at all levels. Don't let any manager or leader get away with not leading this clearly. Leaders and managers need to role model the desired behaviors, and if they don't there ought to be consequences. What you are prepared to tolerate speaks volumes about your culture.

‘Do as I say, not as I do’ vs ‘We do what we say and what we do aligns with what we say’. Edgar Schein in one of my favorite books, Organizational Culture and Leadership, talks about the 3 levels of culture. To understand culture is to understand actions vs speak. Cultures are difficult to pinpoint but when you know you know. And changes to culture take TIME and EFFORT. One of the most important actions a person can take, pay attention when job searching, ask probing questions to understand if the culture is one where you thrive.

Dear leaders, Culture is not good or bad, it can be right or wrong depending on context, objectives and vision. Stop building a good culture, start knowing the one that you already have. Do you know if your organization’s culture is an ally or an enemy to your projects? Culture is the sum of behaviours and habits of the people in your team, not some fairy-tale you heard from a guru!