Organisations are often heard to say 'we can't do that because it runs counter to our culture', or similar comments that reinforce the organisation's existing culture. Because culture is legitimately so hard to change, management tends to regard it as a given and something that shouldn't be tampered with.

And yet, culture is as much of a construct (enabler) as any other part of the organisation and it is required of it to contribute to the delivery of corporate and shareholder objectives in the same way as is expected of other parts of the organisation.

Shareholders are not too interested in the preservation or enhancement of the organisational culture of their investment if that culture impedes or hinders the satisfaction of their objectives. That doesn't have to mean 'open slather' or immoral and unethical practices, but it may have implications on style and method related to decision-making, communication, competition, reward, advancement, involvement and empowerment issues, among others.

Culture is an enabler and can be (should be) moulded to provide the optimal outcome for both the organisation and the shareholder. Corporations that are internally focused and consider that they have an existence independent of their owners, find it easier to justify the stability of the organisational culture, since for employees culture helps to define who they are and where they belong. Changing culture creates instability, insecurity and enhances stress.

But when one is focused on shareholders, then culture becomes an enabler and can be prudently changed or refined when necessary.

Many corporations are in the process of spending literally millions of dollars (some hundreds of millions) on creating “knowledge-based organisations”. Yet for some of these corporations, the investment has been akin to sitting in the car park tearing up $100 bills non-stop – an absolute waste of money.

For a “knowledge-culture” to be effective, it requires a culture to share and leverage experience and skill, and to see corporate value from the “sharing” rather than the “having” of knowledge. Many of these organisations desire the benefits of a knowledge-based environment, but aren’t prepared to remove the competitive, blame mentality, inability to learn from mistakes and other dysfunctional elements from their existing organisation’s culture.

The knowledge-based enabler for these organisations is frequently appropriate to their achieving their desired outcomes, but because they regard the organisational culture as sacrosanct, they waste their investment in knowledge, and thwart the organisation’s ability to deliver the necessary benefits to shareholders.