To Change Company Culture, Focus on Systems—Not Communication

I was fortunate in college to have taken a class that included Social Psychology of Organizations as a textbook.  It taught me about systems thinking.  (I'd lost my copy of the book, but recently repurchased it.  If you do, make sure to get the 1978 edition.)   

A few other books I read then, but not for class, further strengthened my thinking on this, including Diffusion of Innovations, Strategic Marketing for Not-For-Profit Organizations, and Change: Principles for Problem Formation and Problem Resolution.

Later, books like Reengineering the Corporation, Reinventing Government and Process Innovation.  Processes are systems or elements of sub-systems, and they aren't unique to IT or corporations.

So the headline of this Harvard Business Review article, "To Change Company Culture, Focus on Systems—Not Communication," called out to me.  I've written tons of articles espousing applying systems thinking to urban revitalization and planning ("20th anniversary of the blog| Urban revitalization systems thinking's greatest hits: Part one -- (in)FAQ and my influences").

It's too bad people don't read blogs anymore, or that I haven't changed with the times, with say a Substack newsletter, or Medium.

From the article (emphasis added):

Culture is one of the most talked-about priorities in leadership, yet one of the least consistently understood. Executives routinely declare it is a strategic imperative. They launch values campaigns, unveil wellbeing programs, revise mission statements, and deliver impassioned talks about trust and purpose. But for all this activity, something isn’t working: in many organizations, we’ve seen that the louder leaders talk about culture, the more performative it feels—especially when actions don’t align with the message.

Culture shapes everything from decision-making norms to employee engagement, brand perception to risk tolerance. When it’s mismanaged, organizations don’t just lose trust; they lose traction.

... A consistent pattern emerged: many leaders treat culture as a communication strategy. They believe it lives in messaging—in the articulation of purpose, the rollout of values, the tone of internal campaigns. But culture doesn’t shift because a new narrative is introduced. It shifts when systems change.

What we found was striking: culture doesn’t fail because it’s forgotten. It fails because it’s misunderstood. It’s treated as branding, not behavior. As output, not infrastructure. And when that happens—even the most well-meaning efforts can erode the very trust they’re meant to build. Here’s what we learned.

... In many organizations, work on culture begins with visible gestures. Leadership teams roll out refreshed values, commission posters, launch Slack emoji packs, or schedule empathy workshops. While the intent is often genuine, when these symbolic efforts aren’t accompanied by a shift in leadership behavior, employees don’t feel inspired—they disengage.

Funny, this finding was the basis of the work by organizational psychologist Chris Argyris, who researched and wrote extensively on organizations and their ability to change. He found that while people expressed beliefs that they were collaborative and open to ground up approaches, the reality was the opposite, and a focus on top down decision making.  From the article:

The problem isn’t the intention—it’s the framing. Culture is still too often treated like a project: something to roll out, brand, or assign to HR. Meanwhile, underlying power dynamics, communication habits, and decision-making norms go untouched, and the deeper operating system stays intact.

Another HBR article had a lot of impact on me, "Your Company's Secret Change Agents," about how to elevate pockets of excellence in organizations that weren't high performing.  It was a rewarding but challenging article--I had to read it a couple times to fully understand it.

It's especially relevant to cities that are more distressed, emerging, and transitioning.