The force controlling group behaviour at every level in the organisation - a force that can brainwash workers into believing that what they are doing is automatically good for the company, their community and their family - must be very powerful. Is it magic or is it the psychology of group membership that explains the potency of the corporate culture? Social scientists speak of "cultural norms" as the unwritten rules of behaviour. In a company, for example, a cultural norm might be: Don't disagree with your boss in public. If a norm is violated, there is immediate and strong pressure to get the offending party to change behaviour. Consider, for example, an individual who persists in presenting reservations about the company's new product at a group meeting - just after the boss has argued strongly for investing heavily in its advertising campaign. The bold employee receives stares and frown, eyes roll - all non-verbal messages to keep quiet. If these efforts do not work, the underling will hear about it later, from co-workers if not from the boss. The cultural implication is that it is management who generate ideas, make decisions, and provide leadership, and it is staff's role not to think, not to speak, but to listen and do. Where such attitudes exist cultural change is imperative.

The human need to be accepted by a group - whether family, friends, coworkers or neighbours - gives the group leverage to demand compliance to its cultural norms. Even more so if the individual feels vulnerable, e.g. a new starter or promotion or transferee (changing levels or teams/departments, is usually accompanied by learning the cultural norms of the new group). Were such a need not so widespread, groups would have little hold on people other than formal sanctions. The nonconformists and mavericks who defy pressures to adhere to group norms always do so at a considerable risk and often pay a price! (Usually nonconformists cannot stay without accepting the cultural norms of the group though in some cases they come with a good reputation for personal achievement and manage to generate enough respect to enable the group to reassess and effect cultural change its long established norms. In such cases an organisation can actively promote nonconformity and use such confident and able people to effect cultural change in long established teams in a cultural rut).

Simple experiments conducted by Solomon Asch in the early 1950's demonstrate just how powerfully the group can influence its deviants. The experiments were described to the research subjects as a study in perception. Three lines - A, B, and C all of different lengths - were shown on a single card. Subjects were asked to indicate which of these three lines was identical in length to a fourth line, D, shown on a second card. In one experiment, seven people sat in a row. One by one they indicated their choices. While line C was in fact identical to line D, each of the first six, all confederates of the experimenter, said that line D was identical to A. The seventh person was the unknowing subject. As each person deliberately gave the wrong answer, the seventh subject became increasingly uneasy, anxious and doubtful of his or her own perceptions. When it came time to respond, the seventh subject agreed with the rest almost one-third of the time. Without such group influence, there were hardly any errors.

Imagine just how easily such distorted perceptions of reality can be maintained when backed up by formal sanctions - pay, promotions and other rewards. The group can reward its members so that they ignore the disruptive behaviour of "trouble-makers". The members collectively believe that everything is fine, continue to reinforce the myth and reward one another for maintaining it. With such a cultural in place it becomes almost impossible to effect corporate cultural change. Even the group's manager has a vested interest in 'not rocking the boat' and accepts what he/she needs to do/say/not do/not say, if the group is to function without dissent, i.e., management by consensus - meaning do not introduce cultural change. In essence, everyone agrees that the dysfunctional ways can continue without question and indefinitely. Any deviant who thinks otherwise is punished (one way or another) and eventually banished from the tribe.

Asch's classic study demonstrates that the impact of a group on its members is very powerful indeed. And if the group is cohesive, if there is a strong sense of community and loyalty, there will be even stronger pressures on each member to adopt whatever the cultural norms specify. Other cultural change studies have shown that if the cultural norms of a cohesive group support the organisation's mission, the workers' performance will be high; and the culture is said to be adaptive.

Alternatively, if the cultural norm endorsed by a highly cohesive group oppose the corporate goals, then the culture will foster low performance and morale. It is better to have an uncohesive group with mediocre performance than a highly cohesive counter culture. The latter will result in consistently low performance and headaches for everyone and will be more effective in thwarting cultural change!