Is Organization Structure More Important Than Company Culture?
The structure and culture of a company seem closely intertwined. The intuitive belief is that the two are closely related. But there is little research exploring this mutuality. Maybe that’s why we are often asked: “What has more impact on employee engagement: company culture or organization structure?”
Before trying to answer that question, let me try to define both concepts in more detail.
By ‘company culture’ I mean the mutual assumptions, values, norms and attitudes that guide employees in everyday actions. If there is a strong culture I assume they decide, act and collaborate in similar and predictable ways. This supports efficiency and focus.
By ‘organization structure’ I mean the structural framework that determines how roles and responsibilities are assigned, controlled and coordinated. Structure also determines how information flows. I assume companies that operate with a fitting structure find it helps them to be efficient and focused.
(Both these definitions are debatable. But it's not my aim here to propose perfect definitions.)
Defining both concepts raises other questions. Are structure and culture of equal importance in engagement and performance? Is structure more important than culture, or vise versa?
Trying to answer these questions feels like solving the chicken-and-egg dilemma—which came first? Fortunately, research by Marcus Buckingham and Ashley Goodall (in their book, 'Nine Lies About Work, A Freethinking Leader's Guide to the Real World') offers answers. They say people don't care what company they work for—but they do care which team they're on.
Their research shows that experiences we have at work with our closest team-members ("our immediate colleagues, our lunching-on-the-patio companions, and our huddling-in-the-corner partners") have much more impact on engagement than experiences we have with less close colleagues.
They write: "When people choose not to work somewhere, the somewhere isn't a company, it's a team. If we put you in a good team at a bad company, you'll tend to hang around. But if we put you in a bad team at a good company, you won't be there for long."
It is your experience with this group of people that has most impact on how you do your work. And your local team experience has direct influence on how effectively your team works. Furthermore, these experiences influence how long you choose to stay with this group, and thus how long you will stay with the company.
The 'groups of people', a.k.a. 'teams', aren't easy to escape. A 90 country study conducted by the ADP Research Institute showed all work done is, basically, teamwork. The study showed that in companies (of 150+ employees), over 80% of people work in teams, with over 70% reporting they work in more than one team. This doesn't only happen in the West. It proved to be so in every country included in the study.
There are two obvious conclusions:
- First, the majority of us are in groups that do actual work together. Most of us call those groups teams.
- Second, the experiences we have with teammates have a large and lasting impact on our engagement levels. This is a much larger impact than than experience we have with other colleagues that aren't teammates.
What can we learn from this? On the one hand, organization structure seems to be important as we all tend to work in teams. On the other, overall company culture seems to have less impact on our engagement. Our local team culture has much more.
The importance of teams
Interestingly, and despite the apparent importance of local team experience, most companies focus on improving the rather intangible aspects of the overall company culture when trying to improve employee engagement. But Buckingham & Goodall argue, there is a big problem with the idea of overall company culture: "It doesn't actually help us understand what to do more of, less of, or differently. It won't tell you, or your leader, what to do to make things better."
By focusing on changing overall company culture most companies miss the opportunity to change something much more tangible—the organization structure. If we want to make things better we have to focus and structure our organizations around teams, in what we call a 'network of teams', and on the leaders of those teams.
Ironically, most companies seem to miss the importance of teams. Buckingham & Goodall illustrate this by claiming that "Most companies don't even know how many teams they have at any moment in time". And most don't know which employee is on which team at any moment in time. Even more surprisingly, most companies don't know which are the best performing teams in the organization.
Team culture eats company culture for breakfast
In fact, most companies are virtually incompetent in deriving any facts from teams. And that's a big shame. It's a big loss of potential.
That’s a shame, because we now know local team culture eats overall company culture for breakfast. We know that local team culture matters much more than company culture does; simply because the overall company culture is often way too abstract, and too vague.
Local team culture, however, is real. It’s tangible. It's our day-to-day work. Both in the work we do and in the interactions with our direct colleagues, our teammates, with whom we do most of our work.
Teams help us to see where we should focus on in companies and what to do about them. Because we should be identifying our best performing teams, learning from them and encouraging them to help low performing teams find their way—to leverage the potential and unique contribution of every single teammate.
To answer the question we started with, culture and organization structure are both important. However, if we talk about culture we should not talk about company culture but about local team culture.
Moreover, the structure of the company should be so designed that it enables teams to develop their own culture. Then their respective teammates can thrive and be engaged. Many Bucket List companies (like Buurtzorg, Handelsbanken, Haier and NER Group) understand this only too well. They have organized themselves via a network of teams for years.
So, are you looking to improve your company culture? Don't try to create and control the company-wide culture. Start with designing and implementing a network-of-teams structure that focuses on team cultures at the local level!
Download a free sample chapter of our book. Subscribe to the newsletter.
I beg to differ. Firstly, structure framework does not 'determine' roles, responsibilities or how communication flows. It merely 'outlines' but it is culture - assumptions, attitudes and power play that determines how that structure paves out. You can have the most sophisticated structure but culture can and will derail it in the most un-seeming ways. Secondly, as much as teams are the very basic operating unit for mission accomplishment, there's one individual in the team who is the most influential person who dictates the outcome called Leader. This especially true of the team identified as Management. Hence, leadership culture eats structure for breakfast - anytime, every time, and always. That's why politics runs it's ugly head nationally and inside organisation. Good or toxic culture thrives because the leadership either supports and/or condones it. If team members don't accommodate, they face resistance, friction, stress and eventual extinction.
Wow, that's a big question. Kudos for having courage to take it up. The conclusion you draw is interesting, and I actually tesnd to agree, even though I think you may find, if you look deeper into the subject, that what you call company structure is simply or almost the same as company culture. But this discussion may be too philosophical. For me and for now, though, I'm going to say:
Structure eats culture for breakfast.
- Anders Dinsen
I think corporate culture needs the Leaders who are bringing the culture do their teams.
The structure has to support this and make the Framework for this.
So everything works together. The question is how people individually work with that and this begins in the smallest groups and depends on the Soft Skills and mindset from each employee.
The team leader‘s culture eats organisational culture for breakfast. Hence, our focus must be on diverse, inclusive, psychological safe teams with the right leaders - servant, lean-agile, humble etc. Which is where most organisations struggle, because they have no visibility of what happens on the team level.
Nice add on to Peter Drucker's quote on culture btw. As others have said this is a big question and I know you have sought some simplistic definitions to get the conversation going. I admire that, as I do your work. I also admire Marcus Buckingham and his work but before I could agree or disagree I'd want to look at the evidence, the stats, sample size and research quoted, in more detail. More and more these days I'm being asked to believe research and I have the need for evidence based practice very much front of my mind. I'm very curious about the companies quoted and think it would be great to reference or add footnotes so sceptics like me can follow up and delve into the detail and find out what the true basis is for believing one thing over another.
As part of my ongoing doctoral research on Self-management Best Practices, I am working with a Spanish SMO (Self-Managing Organization) named FDSA. So far I've run a significant number of extensive interviews with employees, which would rather lead me to answer your question affirmatively, Joost, even if I would also say, like Anders, that it is Organizational Structure the one eating Company Culture for breakfast. Indeed, in this startup company that I mention, no cultural criteria have been used since its foundation six years ago to hire new employees. Even if the company has an explicit desired cultural framework in the form of written principles and values, the actual company culture (not the formal one but the existing one), does not come from those principles but from the fact that the organizational structure fosters them. In this respect, FDSA is a customer-oriented company organized in autonomous working teams dedicated to single clients or groups of them. Employees take initiatives, make decisions (individually and in teams), take the lead if they feel qualified for it and if they are acknowledged by the rest, and take over staffing duties on top of their operational responsibilities (HR, Procurement, Change Management, etc.). The fact that those declared values are truly implemented through the structure is what in fact makes them believable, and therefore transforms them into truly effective cultural traits. Not the other way round.
What matters is "communication structure" how people act and interact together beyond organisational structure! Freedom to communicate versus Straitjacket org chart, don't talk to Gods.
When communication are open, transparency, collaboration and particpation are possible not matter what the org chart is.
I haven't read Buckingham and Goodall's book, so let me preface my comments with that first. However, I find the statement that "people don't care what company they work for, but they do care which team they're on" to be a pretty simplistic statement. Perhaps they have the research to support it. Anecdotally I see more and more people ruling out even considering certain companies and even whole industries because of larger concerns (environmental sustainability, diversity and inclusion on the board and in the C-Suite, ethical practices, political lobbying, etc). I first saw this trend in Gen Y and younger colleagues, but I see it now across the board. I'd be curious to learn what percentage of workers, by generation, are able to put aside connection to mission or higher purpose as a consideration of employment in favor of just being part of a strong team. Controlling for that variable, I could see the rest of the argument that the team culture is a bigger determinant than overall company culture.
Las retrospectivas es el espacio propicio para con una frecuencia determinada revisar la ¨cultura¨del equipo y como está acompaña el desarrollo, las observaciones de los miembros del equipo permiten mejorar de manera continua esa cultura, derribando supuestos y soltando patrones de comportamientos nocivos, las acciones derivadas de las retrospectivas son definitivamente el crecimiento de la Organización, el liderazgo con foco en crear contextos aptos para el desarrollo de un ámbito colaborativo de red.
In their new book, "Humanocracy", Zanini & Hamel describe how thousands of scientists organized themselves in the Atlas project. This project was to build one of the most important parts of the world's largest-ever machine, CERN's Large Hadron Collider. They organized themselves in a bottom-up structure that relied on peer-to-peer coordination rather than traditional command-and-control. This reminded me of how the former VISA organization was structured. Let me explain how such membership cooperatives work.
In his excellent book Brave New Work, Aaron Dignan asks whether your organisation behaves like traffic lights or roundabouts. These are two very different approaches to busy road intersections. Traffic lights have strict rules, which require no thought or judgement. You go when its green and stop when its red. Roundabouts, on the other hand, are based on agreed principles.
Work is solving other people’s problems. Most progressive companies on our Bucket List think they do that best when structured as networks of teams, rather than hierarchical pyramids. Teams in radically decentralized networks are often self-managed and highly autonomous. And these teams are often very small. They rarely consist of more than 15 people. But why are self-managed teams in these networks typically so small? There are very good reasons.