Cultural addition vs. cultural evolution: Why does integration beat implementation?
- Daisy Torres
- Jan 31
- 7 min read
Read the article in English here: (1) Culture Addition vs. Culture Evolution: Why Integration Beats Implementation | LinkedIn Translated and adapted by Rosa Zapata
Article originally published on LinkedIn
Most change initiatives fail because they try to add a new culture to the old one. It's like painting over rust.
After analyzing more than 150 organizational transformations using Mission-Directed Workteams, I have identified the main predictor of sustainable change: if leaders try to incorporate or develop culture .
The difference determines whether the transformation lasts for years or months.
The Addition Trap
Add culture It sounds logical: Take your current culture, incorporate new behaviors, and get better results.
What does it look like?
New programs alongside existing processes.
Additional meetings at the current times.
Additional training beyond existing responsibilities.
Independent improvement initiatives that are carried out in parallel with daily work.
Why it feels good:
Less disruptive to current operations.
It does not require stopping existing activities.
It gives the impression that it is built upon strengths.
It seems respectful of current culture.
Why it fails:
Old habits die hard.
People resort to what they have always done under pressure.
Conflicting priorities dilute focus and energy.
The new culture never takes root enough to survive the stress.
The alternative of evolution
The cultural evolution It means using change initiatives to become the type of organization you want to be, not just adding activities you want to do.
What does it look like?
Transform or replace existing meetings instead of adding new ones.
Evolve or replace current processes instead of creating parallel processes.
Integrate improvements into daily work instead of turning them into additional work.
Use change as a vehicle to become, not just to do.
Stories of successful integration
Global trader and processor of raw materials: DNA as an operating system
A global commodity trader and processor did not add its DNA (Developing New Skills) Program to existing operations. He made it the cornerstone of his Master Plan for Industry.
The approach : The principles of Mission-Directed Workteams (MDW) were integrated into the structuring, measurement, and improvement of work in Brazil, Peru, Paraguay, Argentina, Uruguay, China, and India.
The reflection : "MDW's global success demonstrates that, while cultures differ, the need for meaning, contribution, and a sense of belonging is universal."
The result : A globally harmonized approach to performance that was adapted to local cultures, while maintaining consistent standards of excellence.
BHP Billiton: BAOS as a cultural base
BHP Billiton did not implement MDW in conjunction with its operations, but instead made it the basis of its Aluminum BHP Operating System (BAOS).
Integration : MDW became the cultural backbone that made technical excellence sustainable across multiple global plants.
The transformation : "MDW became the cultural backbone within a global transformation... based on leadership, accountability and the creation of shared value."
The result : Sustained Zero Harm Key Performance Indicators, lower conversion costs, and greater team-level accountability thanks to the joint evolution of culture and operations.
Producer of Reusable Plastic Containers: RPMS as a Unified Identity
A European producer of reusable plastic packaging faced a complex challenge: more than 20 years of mergers had created disparate systems, values and cultures in 13 plants in more than 50 countries.
The solution : RPMS (Repetitive Performance Manufacturing Standards) did not replace local practices, but rather transformed them into a unified system based on MDW principles.
The philosophy : "RPMS is not just a system, it's our way of working every day."
Results:
OEE improved by more than 20 points.
Availability increased by more than 25 points.
More than 3000 improvement ideas generated and shared across all locations.
A unified culture of transparency, accountability, and sharing of best practices.
The Research Foundation
McKinsey's research on organizational health shows that companies Companies with strong, aligned cultures outperform their peers by 30% in return on capital and 70% in revenue growth.
But this is the crucial finding: Cultural change takes 3 to 5 years to consolidate completely, and success depends on integration, not addition.
Why? Because culture isn't what you do in addition to your work; culture is how you work. You can't change culture by adding activities; you change culture by evolving the activities.
Why addition seems safer (but isn't)
The illusion of disruption
The addition seems less disruptive because it doesn't require stopping current activities. But it creates the exhausting reality of doing everything you used to do plus everything new you're trying to do.
The myth of respect
The addition seems more respectful of the existing culture. But in reality, it disrespects it by treating it as something immutable rather than evolutionary.
The convenience of control
Addition seems more manageable because the new program can always be stopped if it doesn't work. But this escape mentality prevents the deep commitment needed for real change.
The speed trap
Addition seems faster because you can start immediately without changing existing systems. But in reality, it's slower because new habits never become ingrained enough to replace old ones.
The Framework of Evolution
Based on successful transformations, cultural evolution follows a predictable pattern:
1. Integration instead of addition
Instead of : New improvement meetings. YES : Transform existing meetings to include improvements.
Instead of : Standalone training programs. Yes: Integrate learning into daily work processes.
Instead of : Additional measurement systems. Yes: Develop current metrics to drive better behaviors.
2. Replacement instead of accumulation
Instead of : Adding new processes alongside the old ones. Yes : Replacing inefficient processes with better ones.
Instead of : Parallel systems for transformation. Yes : Unique systems that embody transformation.
3. Evolution instead of revolution
Instead of : Drastic changes that impact the system. Yes: Make systematic changes that strengthen it.
Instead of : Abandon everything that exists. Yes: Build on what works and fix what doesn't.
How evolution looks in practice
Evolution of global food and beverage manufacturers' meetings
This fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) giant did not add MDW meetings to existing meeting structures. He modified them to incorporate MDW principles.
Production meetings became problem-solving sessions.
Management reviews became coaching conversations.
Discussions about performance became opportunities for capacity building.
The result : The same investment of time, radically different results.
Producer of premium beverages and its integration
An African-based beverage producer did not create separate improvement systems alongside its brewing operations. They integrated MDW into their Premium Beverage Production Operating System.
The transformation was aligned with the principles of World Class Manufacturing, but used MDW as the cultural foundation that made technical excellence sustainable.
The result : Production plan compliance improved from 90.2% to 95.0% in three years, with a sustainable cultural change integrated into daily operations.
The difficult questions that evolution requires:
What will we stop doing?
Evolution requires subtraction, not just addition. What current activities, meetings, or processes will you eliminate to make way for better ones?
How will we change, not just what?
Evolution focuses on how existing work is done differently, not just on what new work will be incorporated.
Who will we become, not just what will we do?
Evolution raises questions of identity: What kind of organization do we want to be? How do we materialize those qualities in our daily activities?
The Integration Diagnosis
Addition Signals:
Separate dashboards for transformation initiatives.
Different language for improvement vs. operations.
Additional time required for transformation activities.
Parallel systems competing for attention.
Signs of Evolution:
Unique dashboards that integrate excellence with operations.
Common language that describes both the work and the improvement.
Integrated transformation in the way we work.
Unified systems that strengthen each other.
Why evolution requires courage
Evolution is more difficult than addition because it requires:
Admit that current culture is not perfect
Addition allows you to keep everything and simply add the good parts.
Evolution requires recognizing what needs to change.
Making irreversible commitments
Addition facilitates a return to old habits.
Evolution breaks bridges with old patterns.
Trust the process during uncomfortable moments
The addition provides the security of the usual resources.
Evolution requires faith in difficult times.
Lead the change instead of managing the addition
The addition can be delegated to program managers.
Evolution requires a transformation of leadership.
The reality of Monday morning
If you're adding culture:
You'll have competing priorities and divided attention.
People will revert to old patterns under pressure.
Progress will stall when initial enthusiasm wanes.
The change will be perceived as extra work, not better work.
If you are evolving the culture:
You will have integrated systems that reinforce each other.
People will adopt new default patterns because they are the only ones.
The improvements will become established because they are integrated into daily work.
The change will be perceived as natural growth, not as an imposed burden.
The long-term option.
Adding elements to the culture creates a temporary improvement that accumulates on top of permanent systems. When pressure increases, people remove the added elements and revert to the core patterns.
The evolution of culture creates continuous improvement integrated into renewed systems. When pressure increases, people turn to stronger and better patterns that manage stress more effectively.
The definitive test
This is how you can tell if you're adding elements or evolving:
Ask your frontline teams : "Is this transformation something they do in addition to their job, or is it how they do their job?"
Addition : "It's extra work we do to improve."
Evolution : "It's simply our way of working."
The paradox of integration
Organizations that try to change everything at once often end up changing nothing permanently. Organizations that systematically evolve their way of doing everything tend to be completely transformed.
Addition is rapid and temporary. Evolution is gradual and permanent.
The question is not whether you want change, but whether you want lasting change.
We love to hear your voice, share your experience with sustainable change versus temporary change:
Are you adding to your culture or developing it?
How do you know when transformation has become "simply our way of working" instead of "extra work we do"?
Comments