7. When Leadership Fails -The Culture Clash.
What will happen when Leadership fails?
The concept of organizational culture is
often understood as the invisible system of beliefs, behaviours and norms that
shape the way people work in an organization. However, culture is not born by
itself; it is highly mediated by the behavior of leaders. A culture that is
cohesive and predictable is likely to come about when leaders model
consistency, fairness, clarity and emotional maturity. On the other hand,
inconsistency, avoidance, favoritism, and emotional volatility of leadership
lead to a cultural clash. This means that employees are faced with
contradictions between the commitment of the organisation and the experience
they have. The extent of such emotional conflict may be worse than strategic or
operational failure, as cultural wronging is a direct killer of trust, morale,
and long-term identity of the organisation (Schein, 2017).
Inconsistency in leadership is not in our
face but rather in our efforts to be subtle: overlooking bad behaviour amongst
high performers, avoiding tough conversations, providing inconsistent decisions
or showing favouritism. Groysberg and colleagues (2018) state that workers
evaluate the culture based on visible behavior as opposed to a slogan.
Therefore, a culture statement that has been formulated so well becomes
irrelevant when leaders act in a way that is inconsistent.
Lack of focus in behaviour and vision makes
employees lose focus and confidence. As Kantabutra and Avery (2010) argue,
employees tend to lose interest when the organisational rhetoric fails to match
organisational reality, thus creating confusion as to what the organisation
actually holds to be important.
Leadership Failure Emotional Impact.
Leadership failure is not something that
only impairs the level of operational efficiency; it has a critical impact on
the emotional and psychological state of employees. In case the employees are
faced with contradiction, avoidance or unjust treatment, they are emotionally
unsafe and the deterioration of the psychological safety occurs very fast.
Clark (2020) says that workers need to feel emotionally included and autonomous
to feel safe enough to give their full contribution.
The Ripple Effect of the Tolerated Behaviour.
Culture is behaviour tolerated by the
leaders. Social-learning approach used by Bandura (2018) proves that people
acquire behaviours through watching leaders. In case of actions that are toxic
but the leaders turn a blind eye, the silence is thought to be approval. Such
institutionalised behaviours develop with time.
Conflicting Subcultures
According to Schein (2017), strong cultures
are based on stability throughout the levels of leadership. With conflicting
subcultures present because of inconsistent leadership styles, employees are
exposed to conflicting subcultures, causing silos, lack of communication, and
incoherent decisions.
Various Academic Perspectives.
Researchers introduce different views:
- Schein (2017): Cultural clarity is interrupted by the failure of leadership.
- Groysberg et al. (2018): When leaders fail to live up to values, there is the collapse of culture.
- Clark (2020): Ineffective leadership undermines psychological safety.
- Skogstad et al. (2019): The leadership style of avoidance increases the level of ambiguity and stress.
- Bandura (2018): Tolerated behaviour is imitated by employees.
- Ravasi and Schultz (2006): Culture becomes weak when values do not agree with experience.
Repairing Culturally after Destruction.
The following is required to rebuild
culture:
- Acknowledging contradictions.
- Evidencing observable behavioural change.
- Reestablishing psychological security.
- Resetting expectations.
- Integrating systems with institutional values.
Conclusion
It is the failure of leadership that is one
of the most effective triggers of cultural clashes. The culture is chaotic and
emotionally insecure when leaders go against organisational values, condone
harmful behaviour or avoid having tough conversations. When leadership fails,
cultural collapse ensues and when leaders are clear, courageous, and
consistent, cultural restoration will happen.
References
Bandura, A. (2018) ‘Toward a psychology of human agency’, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), pp. 130–136. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699589. Accessed on 02.11.2025.
Clark, T. (2020) The 4 Stages of Psychological Safety: Defining the Path to Inclusion and Innovation. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. [Online] Available at: https://www.bkconnection.com/books/title/the-4-stages-of-psychological-safety. Accessed on 02.11.2025.
Groysberg, B., Lee, J. & Price, J. (2018) ‘The leader’s guide to corporate culture’, Harvard Business Review, January–February, pp. 44–52. [Online] Available at: https://hbr.org/2018/01/the-leaders-guide-to-corporate-culture. Accessed on 02.11.2025.
Ravasi, D. & Schultz, M. (2006) ‘Responding to organizational identity threats’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), pp. 433–458. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.3.433. Accessed on 02.11.2025.
Schein, E.H. (2017) Organizational Culture and Leadership. 5th edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. [Online] Available at: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Organizational+Culture+and+Leadership%2C+5th+Edition-p-9781119212041. Accessed on 02.11.2025.
Skogstad, A. et al. (2019) ‘The dark side of leadership avoidance: Leadership, employees, and stress’, Journal of Leadership Studies, 13(3), pp. 7–26. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21669. Accessed on 02.11.2025.
The connection between leadership failure and psychological safety is very well explained. In service environments, emotional safety is critical for employees to perform at their best. When leaders avoid difficult conversations or show unfair treatment, it creates fear and reduces accountability at the operational level.
ReplyDeleteGood article, Charith.
Thank you for your comment. You highlight an important point supported by research: when leaders demonstrate avoidance or unfairness, psychological safety diminishes, leading to fear and reduced accountability (Edmondson, 2019). Your observation is especially relevant in service settings, where emotional security directly affects performance and problem-solving. I appreciate your engagement with the discussion.
DeleteThis is a brilliantly insightful and, frankly, courageous post. It tackles the uncomfortable truth that culture isn't broken by external forces, but implodes from within when leadership fails.
ReplyDeleteYour point that "Culture is behaviour tolerated by the leaders" is incredibly potent. It perfectly captures the subtle hypocrisy that employees detect instantly—the gap between the framed values on the wall and the behavior that's ignored, or even rewarded, in the boardroom. This is far more damaging than a simple lack of direction; it's a breach of trust that is almost impossible to repair.
This directly ties into the concept of psychological safety. When leaders tolerate inconsistency or favoritism, they signal that the environment is not safe, forcing employees into a state of self-preservation rather than contribution. The "cultural clash" you describe is the sound of brilliant people disengaging to protect themselves.
I also appreciate that you don't just diagnose the problem but offer a clear, actionable path forward. The steps for "Repairing Culturally after Destruction" are a crucial reminder that while culture can be broken quickly, restoring it requires deliberate, consistent, and humble effort.
Thank you for your insightful comment. Your reflections reinforce the central argument that cultural deterioration often stems from leadership behaviour rather than external pressures. The point you emphasise—that culture becomes defined by what leaders tolerate—aligns strongly with research showing that inconsistency and favouritism erode psychological safety and trust (Edmondson, 2019). I appreciate your linkage between these leadership failures and employee disengagement, as this shift from contribution to self-protection is well documented in organisational behaviour literature. Your recognition of the structured steps for cultural restoration also highlights the necessity of sustained, transparent, and accountable leadership action.
DeleteThank you for contributing meaningfully to the discussion.
Leadership's impact on organizational culture is a critical aspect of business success, and you've explored this topic with great depth. The way you've highlighted the consequences of leadership failure, including the erosion of trust and psychological safety, provides a sobering reminder of the importance of effective leadership. Your discussion on the need for leaders to model consistent behavior and address contradictions is a valuable takeaway for anyone in a leadership position. The emphasis on rebuilding culture through observable behavioral change and resetting expectations is a practical and necessary step towards recovery.
ReplyDeleteThe main theory you've mentioned revolves around Schein's concept that organizational culture is shaped by leadership behavior, and that inconsistent leadership can lead to cultural clashes and a breakdown in trust.
Great job on tackling a challenging topic and offering actionable insights for leaders seeking to build a strong, positive culture!
Thank you for your thoughtful reflection. Your points strongly reinforce Schein’s view that culture is fundamentally shaped by leadership behaviour, particularly through the consistency—or inconsistency—leaders display in daily actions. As you highlight, when trust and psychological safety erode, cultural fragmentation quickly follows, making observable behavioural change essential for recovery. I appreciate your emphasis on resetting expectations and modelling alignment, as these are practical steps supported by organisational culture research.
DeleteThank you for engaging meaningfully with the discussion.
This analysis is exceptional, correctly asserting that inconsistent leadership is a direct killer of trust and long-term identity. It powerfully shows that cultural failure stems from avoidance, favoritism and inconsistency not just strategic error. The core takeaway is that culture is defined by behavior leaders tolerate (Bandura) leading to a rapid decline in psychological safety (Clark). The call to action is clear cultural repair requires leaders to demonstrate observable consistency and courage to address contradictions.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your insightful comment. Your reflections strongly reinforce the argument that cultural breakdown is driven less by strategic mistakes and more by inconsistent, avoidant, or preferential leadership behaviours. I appreciate your linkage to Bandura’s view that culture forms through the behaviours leaders model and tolerate, and to Clark’s work on the rapid erosion of psychological safety under such conditions. Your emphasis on restoring culture through visible consistency and the courage to confront contradictions highlights the essential conditions for rebuilding trust and organisational identity.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good read. I actually agree the way explain on how it doesn’t treat culture as a vague ideal but shows concretely how leadership behavior directly shapes, or destroys, organizational culture. Your point that culture is essentially what leaders tolerate is spot on and deeply resonant.
ReplyDeleteIn my perspective, the most dangerous outcome of leadership failure isn’t just short term process breakdown or inefficiency it’s the erosion of psychological safety, trust, and long term organizational identity. Once those crack, even the best policies or strategies become meaningless because people stop believing in them.
Thank you for your insightful comment. Your reflections strongly support the argument that culture is shaped and often damaged by the everyday behaviours leaders choose to tolerate. I appreciate your emphasis on the deeper consequences of leadership failure; research consistently shows that the erosion of psychological safety, trust, and collective identity has far greater long term impact than any immediate operational disruption. Once these foundations weaken, even well designed strategies and policies lose credibility because employees no longer trust the intentions behind them.
DeleteThank you for engaging meaningfully with the discussion.
Thank you for your insightful reflection. You highlight a crucial truth echoed in the research that cultural breakdown rarely begins with systems but with subtle leadership inconsistencies that quietly erode trust and psychological safety. Your emphasis on the gap between stated values and tolerated behavior captures the heart of cultural contradiction. I also appreciate your point on long term identity loss; once people lose belief in the organization's integrity, no strategy can compensate. Your perspective adds meaningful depth to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtful comment. Your reflections align strongly with the argument that cultural decline begins not with formal systems but with subtle, repeated inconsistencies in leadership behaviour. I appreciate your emphasis on the gap between stated values and tolerated actions, as this disconnect is a well recognised driver of trust erosion and psychological insecurity. Your point about long term identity loss is particularly important, since once organisational integrity is questioned, strategic initiatives struggle to gain credibility or traction.
DeleteGreat point. You clearly show how leadership behavior shapes psychological safety, especially in service environments where emotional confidence drives performance. When leaders avoid tough conversations or act unfairly, fear replaces accountability. Well written, Charith.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. Your reflections align well with research showing that leadership behaviour directly shapes psychological safety, particularly in service settings where emotional confidence strongly influences performance. As you note, avoidance or perceived unfairness from leaders quickly replaces accountability with fear, undermining openness and problem-solving. I appreciate your engagement with the discussion.
DeleteCharith, building on this, I’ve been considering how psychological safety also relies on consistency rather than only intention. Even when leaders communicate support, mixed signals such as selective listening or uneven enforcement of expectations can quietly limit openness. In service settings, where emotional labour is already high, even small shifts in leader tone can influence whether teams speak up or stay silent. I’m interested to hear your perspective on how leaders can maintain emotional steadiness and behavioural consistency so that safety is sustained rather than momentary.
DeleteMadushi, Thank you for your thoughtful comment. You raise an important point about the gap between promoting Emotional Intelligence and actually reinforcing it through organisational systems. This leads to a critical question. Can EI based behaviours truly shape culture if performance evaluations continue to reward output while overlooking relational conduct? Research suggests that when empathy, collaboration, and supportive communication are encouraged rhetorically but not recognised formally, employees treat them as discretionary rather than essential. Aligning performance criteria, reward structures, and promotion pathways with EI related behaviours is therefore crucial. Without such structural reinforcement, Emotional Intelligence remains a personal preference rather than a sustained cultural norm.
DeleteThank you for extending the discussion with this valuable perspective.
This is an excellent article. You have discussed how leadership failure can trigger a culture clash, erode trust, and create emotional and psychological challenges for employees. And also, you have discussed the ripple effect of tolerated behaviors, the emergence of conflicting subcultures, and the importance of psychological safety. Furthermore, you have discussed the strategies for repairing culture acknowledging contradictions, demonstrating behavioral change, and aligning systems with values make the discussion practical and actionable for organizational recovery.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtful comment. Your reflections align closely with the core argument that leadership failure often initiates cultural fragmentation by eroding trust, weakening psychological safety, and allowing conflicting subcultures to emerge. I appreciate your emphasis on the ripple effect of tolerated behaviours, as this mechanism is well recognised in organisational culture research. Your acknowledgement of the recovery strategies addressing contradictions, demonstrating consistent behavioural change, and aligning systems with values highlights the practical steps required for meaningful cultural restoration.
Delete