Link: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheBusinessArchitect/~3/aHMBkRcuGRE/
Cultural context is the contextual element we hear about most. It represents what the majority of employees believe about the organization and what it takes to be successful there. One way to think about it is as the organization’s reaction to the structural context. Culture can be tightly aligned with and support the structural context or can be wildly out of sync. While structural context reflects what the organization says about how it works, cultural context typically is a better reflection of how it really does work.
A few organizations put a great deal of effort into shaping their culture. When successful, a highly functioning culture that aligns with the intended structural context can significantly enhance an organization’s performance. Most organizations though, spend little effort shaping their cultural context. In these organizations, senior management believes (often erroneously) the culture accurately reflects the structural context they designed. This is the norm and is the cause for much of the frustration employees feel toward management. It is also the inspiration for many Dilbert cartoons.
Cultural context can be difficult to understand because most large companies are made up of many subcultures. For example, there may be very different cultures in the sales, HR, and engineering organizations. Some organizations vent their frustration in the misalignment between the structural and cultural contexts by developing their own cultural context in an attempt to create a more cohesive and coherent environment.
A few cultural context examples
Outlook. Outlook describes the degree to which employees feel positive about the overall organization. Are they optimistic and see future growth and opportunity even when the near term may be quite challenging? Or, are they pessimistic and struggling to see themselves succeeding in the long run? Outlook may or may not reflect reality. I once worked for a company that was very successful and still is today. However, the general cultural context was that work was a grind and management had little understanding of or sympathy for the issues faced by the average worker.
Adaptability. Adaptability describes the organization’s overall ability to respond to change, either driven by competitors and external events or internally driven by management initiatives. While structural context elements can help develop and influence adaptability, in the end, it is the employees’ beliefs that define the degree to which an organization can respond to the need for change.
The bottom line:_______________________________________________________________________________________________
The cultural context as a concept is well studied and understood. Unfortunately, most management teams give it little credence, instead believing that they can drive the organization through structural mechanisms. Cultural roadblocks cause just as many initiatives to fail as poor execution.
Tagged: Business Architecture, context 
