Systems Induce Change in Culture, Not Just Communication

Systems Induce Change in Culture, Not Just Communication

September, 2025

Excelrate White Paper Series

_____________________________

Introduction

I recently read an interesting and well researched article in the Harvard Business Review, August 2025 article by Benjamin Laker, Chidiebere Ogbonnaya, Yasin Rofcanin, Tomasz Gorny, and Marcello Mariani titled, “To Change Company Culture, Focus on Systems — Not Communication.” The authors highlight based on their research that communication campaigns are superficial unless backed by systems that reinforce desired behaviour.

For decades, culture has been treated as a matter of communication of values. As leaders, we publish value statements, design posters, run workshops, and deliver speeches about “customer focus,” “innovation,” or “safety first.” (I recall, to my surprise, I was asked to deliver a speech impromptu on customer centricity, at a company meeting). And surely enough, employees often experience a mismatch between words and the lived reality.

We encounter any number of such examples. A bank may tell staff to put “customer first,” yet appraisals are tied to sales numbers. A factory may declare “safety is our priority,” yet bonuses reward production speed. A CEO may talk about “collaboration,” yet promotion and recognition criteria emphasise individual heroics.

Such mismatches between communication about values and culture on one hand, and the metrics that are actually measured on the other, create cynicism. It is natural for employees to internalise real culture based on what the system rewards and punishes and not on what is said. This stand, about systems being necessary to change culture, is also supported by theoretical foundations. Let’s dwell on a few here.

Theoretical Foundation

Three key strands of management research converge on this insight:

Schein’s Model of Organisational Culture (2010): Edgar Schein pointed out that what really shapes a culture are the hidden beliefs and the visible practices, not just the values people talk about. Systems (reward, measurement, structures) embody those assumptions and shape behaviour more than rhetoric.

Control Theory (Ouchi, 1979): Organisations shape behaviour through three controls—market, bureaucratic, and clan. Systematic metrics and processes belong to bureaucratic control, which powerfully aligns behaviour with desired outcomes.

Behavioural Economics (Kahneman & Tversky, 1974): People respond to incentives, framing, and default rules. Systems structure these incentives, making certain behaviours easier or harder.

Thus, culture change cannot be “taught” through communication alone. It must be engineered and reinforced through systems. Here are a couple of examples published by respectable sources.

Example 1- DBS Bank, Redefined Performance Management to improve customer service.

Background

DBS Bank in Singapore wanted to move beyond traditional financial performance towards becoming the “world’s best bank for customer service.” However, employees’ KPIs still prioritised short-term revenue and cross-selling. The communication campaign of “Customer First” felt hollow.

Intervention

DBS redesigned its performance management system. According to MIT Sloan Management Review (Kiron & Spindel, 2019). Appraisal metrics now included customer satisfaction (Net Promoter Score), digital adoption rates, and complaint resolution times. The incentives were tied to these new metrics, not just sales volume. Leaders were required to track leading indicators of service excellence. In the next three years DBS was named the World’s Best Bank by Euromoney (2019). Further, customer experience scores rose sharply. Employees reported that “customer first” was no longer a slogan but a daily reality. So the lesson learnt from this is that by altering the system of measurement and reward, DBS shifted culture from sales obsession to customer centricity.

Example 2 - The second example revolves around embedding safety culture in Automotive Manufacturing.

Background

In heavy manufacturing industries, safety incidents are frequent despite extensive training and posters declaring “Safety is Priority #1.” Workers face pressure to prioritise speed over safety.

Intervention

A 2025 case study in Safety (Nioata et al., 2025) analysed an automotive plant adopting Smart Manufacturing Systems (SMIS) to reduce safety risks. These included measures such as Real-time monitoring via cyber-physical systems identified unsafe conditions, Automated alerts and machine cut-off mechanisms prevented accidents. Further to the above systems, team bonuses were tied to accident-free days, creating shared accountability.

The plant saw significant change in safety adherence. Reported accidents declined significantly. Near-misses were proactively flagged and addressed. Workers described safety as “part of the workflow” rather than an external imposition. It was therefore established that embedding safety metrics into operational systems, rather than relying on posters, created a sustainable safety culture.

Why Communication Alone Fails

It is not that communication fails. But, it is important to be aware that communication creates the necessary awareness, and systems tight jacket the behaviour. When the effects of the communication fades, the systems are still holding tight. This is because systems are tangible. Therefore employees will focus on what is measured, more than what is said.

An interesting point is that systems shape trade-offs and they define what is chosen in times of conflicting decisions to be made. For example, when speed and safety conflict, the rewarded metric wins. The fact remains that systems provide the framework to align incentives. No amount of speeches can override a pay system that rewards the opposite behaviour.

Conclusion

Culture change is not about communication intensity; it is about system integrity. When systems align with values, culture shifts naturally.

The DBS Bank and manufacturing safety cases show that systemic changes in performance management and operational monitoring created cultural shifts more powerfully than campaigns ever could.

References

• Benjamin Laker, Chidiebere Ogbonnaya, Yasin Rofcanin, Tomasz Gorny, Marcello Mariani. (2025). To Change Company Culture, Focus on Systems — Not Communication. Harvard Business Review, Aug 25, 2025.

• David Kiron & Barbara Spindel. (2019). Redefining Performance Management at DBS Bank: How Lofty Ambitions and Innovative Metrics Sharpened Customer Focus. MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved from https://sloanreview.mit.edu

• Alin Nioata, Alin Țăpirdea, Oana Roxana Chivu, Anamaria Feier, Ioana Catalina Enache, Marilena Gheorghe, Claudia Borda. (2025). Workplace Safety in Industry 4.0 and Beyond: A Case Study on Risk Reduction Through Smart Manufacturing Systems in the Automotive Sector. Safety, 11(2), 50. MDPI. https://www.mdpi.com/2313-576X/11/2/50

• Edgar Schein. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. 4th Edition. Jossey-Bass.

• William Ouchi. (1979). A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control Mechanisms. Management Science, 25(9), 833–848.

• Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

_____________________________

GEMS from Excelrate enables cultural change by translating strategy into measurable execution systems, ensuring that what organisations claim as values are consistently tracked, rewarded, and reinforced in day-to-day work. By embedding accountability, data-driven trade-offs, and continuous review into planning and execution, GEMS acts as the systemic backbone that aligns culture with behaviour far more effectively than communication alone.