I think that the issue of discipline and its contribution to culture and organisational performance rests with the definition of 'discipline'.

Furthermore, my observations suggest that 'poor discipline' is commonly not uniform across the organisation.

For example, if a particular procedure or process is stupid, illogical or counter-productive, and if people don't comply with it, it might still be interpreted as poor discipline. In this instance, discipline and the level of its compliance, are determined by the robustness of the issue to be complied with in the minds of the people who must comply with a directive. If everything else in the organisation makes sense, then there is discipline everywhere, except where it doesn't make sense.

Using the same logic, lack of discipline in leaders' direction may be caused by poor leadership. Just because a person is 'ill-disciplined', doesn't mean that the person doesn't have the organisation's best interest at heart. It may be caused by poor direction (or understanding of the people that need to comply) or poor understanding of the issue (i.e. the logic of the direction) by the people who need to comply.

Discipline is necessarily contextual. If you don't appreciate the context and the people within it, then there is a good chance that imposed discipline may not achieve the outcome desired.

All of the above occurs within an organisation's cultural reality. Among other attributes elsewhere discussed, an organisation's approach and reaction to discipline forms and defines its cultures.