What's more powerful - leadership or culture?

I was having a spirited debate with a friend who works in another company.  Her argument is that leadership trumps culture all the time.  I think that's probably true - in the short run.  But only very charismatic leaders who have a long tenure effect permanent cultural change.

If it's true that most "C" level officers have tenures of less than three to four years, we can say that no matter how strongly they believe in their vision, they'll be driven by the market, the need for consistent quarterly returns and short term thinking.  Moreso, the people within the organization recognize this and will understand most of the management team's efforts to be in good spirit, but not a serious attempt to change the culture.  It takes years to embed a new culture or significantly change an existing culture, so if leaders have short tenures, they may impact a culture for a while, but that culture, following the laws of inertia, will revert back to old ways of doing things, or will only apply the concepts at the surface level, and will not fully commit to change until they can determine that they must change.

Culture has a couple of advantages on its side.  First, the fear and difficulty of change.  No organism, even one in trouble, likes to change and does so voluntarily.  Even when forced to change, it will change only enough to sustain it for another day.  Leaders often call on organizations to change without appreciating the fear of change and the difficulty of accepting change.  Second, culture has inertia on its side.  Even if change is valuable, most organizations are comfortable in their existing processes and expectations.  Third, the time factor.  Cultures are developed over years and reinforced during that time.  Changing a culture does not happen overnight - it requires consistent reinforcement of a few key themes over a very long period of time.  Leaders come and go - but the culture remains.  Finally, a culture can overcome a bad leader, but few leaders can overcome a poor culture.  Many businesses that have been around for 20, 50 or 100 years have had inconsistent leadership, but have sustained themselves through their culture.  History is full of examples of leaders who failed to succeed when given organizations with poor cultures.

Leaders can impact a culture - in the short run and in the long run.  Most only get to have an impact on the short run, since it takes so long to change a culture and requires such incredible focus.  Since there are simply too many demands on a "C" level officer, it's simply very difficult for them to have a lasting impact on a culture unless they have an exceptionally long tenure.

Comments

[Early Riser]

I'd prefer to work under a boss who goes for culture first, and only then for leadership. Though can a true leadership be without culture? I don't think so.