Last week I discussed the danger of rigid marketing models and evolving executive groupthink when the market outside is changing. However, this should not be confused with a strong corporate culture that monitors and embraces ongoing change.
Some organizations build their corporate cultures gradually over time. Other organizations are created at the outset with values and cultural characteristics intended to differentiate them from the others.
For example, some silicon valley companies are building team cultures by offering free food, child care, attractive health and other benefits, parking, recreation facilities, mid-day rest time, paternity and maternity leave, etc. These perks serve as hiring advantages, team building tools, and high productivity incentives.
On the other hand, Amazon was recently criticized for a no-nonsense culture with high expectations for fast work and long work hours. But the company responded that employees there were energized by a culture based on exciting new challenges and being a part of a cutting-edge organization on the move.
Even though universities are more like small cities they too have corporate cultures that help define their competitive advantage. Some use benefits and a sense of family in place of salary to attract top quality faculty and staff. Others count more on a culture of rigorous scholarship, academic prestige, and competitive salary to motivate achievement and define competitive advantage.
No matter how corporate culture is established it becomes a major part of an institution’s brand identity. A clear understanding of “how we do things around here” can be a positive force so long as those things can evolve with outside market changes. The challenge is to let those things evolve without damaging the features which have established the institution’s competitive advantage.
The interesting thing about corporate culture is that it both defines the nature of the workplace inside and much of the appeal the institution has with most of its external constituents.
Experience suggests that cultural features can be so strong in many organizations that even in hard times every effort should be made to hold on to as many as possible. Some may go so far as to prefer cutting staff positions before damaging the external “brand promise” and the internal work experience for those who remain.
In the final analysis, groupthink and marketing models that insulate executive teams from the forces of change are certainly harmful. But organization-wide task forces and internal think tanks that monitor market changes and carefully manage the evolution of strong and creative corporate cultures are really powerful and essential strategic communication tools.
Larry D. Lauer 