Is your culture past its sell-by date?
How do you know when your culture is working against you? What if your current culture is no longer serving your business? Culture is your strategy accelerator, so you better know how it’s helping you. Even if you think all is well, you may be missing something that is going to trip your strategy up soon or later. Here’s how to be on the lookout for signs it’s time to check your culture and see if it is still fresh enough to support your strategic vision.
How to spot the flares
While leaders know that a strong culture is critical to the success of their organization, it is still not uncommon for them to ignore the warning signs of fires smoldering beneath the surface sounding the alarm that cultural combustion is near. Waiting to address these cultural challenges when everyone is busy and staring down the barrel of change is not optimal and leads to stress and burnout. Leading today means proactively tapping into the tools to nurture and shape culture before it goes bad. Done right, this will allow leaders to feel energized about deploying their culture to accelerate their strategy, not impede it.
Here are several common events that should prompt leaders to pause and examine whether trouble is brewing.
1. A change in strategy
A change in strategy, reorganization, or a shift in the business structure is a strong indicator that means people across the enterprise need to work together differently. The old roles, behaviors, collaborations, and communication may not serve the new direction. Rather than set your teams and your strategy up for failure, incorporate a culture assessment into your strategic plan so you can get in front of what needs to change.
2. Acquisition/rapid growth
Acquisitions and/or times of rapid growth force organizations to suddenly need to execute on dramatically more things, while simultaneously wrestling with old ways of working together. Rapid growth can leave employees with whiplash, struggling to keep up with the new world order. Post-merger, it is all too common for silos to form; “Oh, those are the XYZ Company folks.” Years later, acquired talent often still bears an indelible tattoo on their forehead marking cultural otherness. To nip those cultural blazes in the bud, leaders must inventory the readiness of the organization to go through the change and convey and anticipate the implications of the change. (Click here for more on culture and successful M&A.)
3. DEI initiatives
Diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives are high stakes and high visibility, particularly in the current climate. They often require behavior change that is uncomfortable and unfamiliar. Company history and the culture born of that history are both the reason why the initiatives are necessary and can be the inhibitor to change. Before jumping in, it’s critical to take a culture pulse to understand what will block and accelerate a new culture of belonging. Often, leaders find they need to course-correct or restart when DEI initiatives fall flat. Taking the time to get real up front about how to nurture and support a culture of belonging is what differentiates successful initiatives from those that are puzzlingly ineffective.
4. Marketplace disruption
External changes are also a forcing factor for culture change. When the market changes, the company needs to pivot, and this can result in a need to change go-to-market strategies, business models, and even the core of what the company does. Leaders are forced to peek under the hood to see if the company is ready culturally to take on the challenge. Take our large financial institution client who is an industry giant. They were profitable and effective, but their culture was complacent. Leaders felt satisfied about the need not to do anything different. This reluctance to be introspective about the health of their culture was costly. An unexpected economic downturn finally forced the organization to pause and take notice as they lost market position. They had an uphill battle creating the significant culture change required to pivot the company and are still feeling the ramifications years later.
Keep your culture fresh
Here are three things to consider when making sure your culture is on the right track no matter what your organization is facing.
- Honor the past. Your culture probably came to be for very deliberate business reasons once upon a time. As the context changes, it is important to acknowledge the roots and create a link to the future. Culture change can feel shocking. Making good use of storytelling skills might generate more awareness and help your team connect with the shift better.
- Don’t let success blind you. It’s easy to ignore a festering cultural problem when times are good. Focusing solely on financial performance may cause leaders to ignore early warning signs and biases about the less desirable cultural trends that are happening.
- Understand the enterprise-view. When we work with our clients on culture change, often we ask them to consider what beliefs, daily structures, and ways of working they want to hold. While it is inevitable for an organization to have sub-cultures across business units or functions, such sub-cultures should not be disconnected or in opposition of the organization’s collective cultural aspirations. While each practice area or function might have its own flavor, the pillars of culture should be aligned directionally across the organization and modeled with intentionality.
Culture isn’t homogenous. It is a fluid component of your organization that must morph alongside change, disruption, and growth. While it is experienced differently at different levels, it also beckons for unity through that diversity. Leaders can honor the one enterprise culture they are striving towards through clear guidelines that bring to life a shared vision, shared set of values, operating principles, and mindsets. Read here for more on how to make sure your culture drives your strategy, not tanks it.
Related content
Related content
There’s a specific kind of strategy meeting getting scheduled right now, in nice hotels with bad coffee: the AI reset off-site.
And for good reason. In a 2026 WRITER survey, 48% of leaders described their AI rollout as, in their own words, a "massive disappointment." That's nearly half the room.
What that number really measures is the distance between what these tools can do and what people are doing with them. In our experience, that distance is almost entirely human.
Which is why the off-site is the right instinct. Making the most of that time is the harder part.
What separates an AI reset that actually changes the game from an expensive two-day conversation? In our experience, it comes down to avoiding four common design mistakes.
Mistake 1
Blaming the bots
The gap between AI investment and real adoption is almost always about people, not technology. And when adoption stalls, we usually find it's one of four things.
- They don't think it will help them
- Nobody around them is using it
- They don't feel capable
- Or they don't have real access to the tools they were promised
Four different problems, and four completely different fixes.
That's why diagnosis comes first. If you don't know which barrier you're dealing with, every intervention becomes an educated guess. And you cannot tell which one you have by staring at a dashboard. A belief gap and a skill gap look identical in a status report and need opposite interventions. Show up guessing, and you'll spend real money teaching people to use a tool they simply don't trust yet. Congratulations - you've just catered the wrong conversation.
Mistake 2
Letting leaders off the hook
One of the biggest predictors of whether change sticks is also one of the most overlooked: leadership.
If your executives show up as observers, nodding along and quietly answering email under the table, your people clock it in about four minutes.
That doesn't mean your CEO has to emcee the thing. It means they use the tools in front of everyone, participate in the conversation, and make it clear this isn't someone else's initiative.
Recently we’ve been working with a Fortune 200 global professional services firm who’s top 120 leaders were at very different points with AI. Some were redesigning entire processes. Others were using it to summarize emails, or not at all. Rather than focus on the technology, the four-hour session focused on what leaders could do with AI, applying it to a live strategic challenge and ending with a personal commitment to lead differently. The response was strong enough that the organization is now cascading the experience globally.
The lesson is simple: when leaders experience AI as a strategic capability, they're better equipped to model the behavior that makes adoption stick. Nothing you build during those two days survives without that entire chain of leadership doing its part.
Mistake 3
Chasing the wrong outcome
Without a behavioral baseline, you have no way to prove anything actually moved. No baseline, no ROI. You're just hoping the energy in the room was good, which is a wonderful feeling and a terrible metric to bring to your CFO.
But the baseline isn't just about proving the off-site worked. It's about understanding where you're starting in the first place. And you'll want that clarity, because the quiet resistance is real. In that same 2026 research, nearly a third of employees admitted to actively working around their company's AI strategy. If you don't win their belief in the room, some of them will keep politely ignoring the whole thing from their desks. You can't measure your way out of that. You have to earn your way out of it.
Which brings us to the biggest reframe of all.
Mistake 4
Leaving follow-through to chance
We've been working with a Fortune 100 medical device company on their AI strategy for three years. It started with their leadership team, a three-hour session built around what those leaders would do differently, and it landed. What became clear afterward was that the same experience needed to happen everywhere else. So, it expanded: 90-minute activations for 15,000 people, and this year intact teams redesigning their own workflows.
Three years in, that first session is the smallest part of the story.
Your event is where momentum gets created. What happens at 30, 60, and 90 days is where results get made.
If you're planning one of these and want to change what happens on Monday, not just how everyone feels on Friday, that the work we do.
We'd be glad to help you design it.
Candidates now arrive at interviews pre-coached by AI, with their resumes optimized to pass every checkpoint. Polish has stopped being a signal. The traditional hiring process was built to read exactly the cues that AI is now best at producing, and the signals hiring managers once relied on have weakened as a result. And for roles where the wrong hire carries real business consequences, losing the ability to tell who will actually perform is not a minor inconvenience. It is a material risk, and it exposes the business to unnecessary turnover, reduced performance, and heavier investment for talent growth and development.
So how do you observe the behaviors that matter most, before someone is in the role?
Not by asking better questions, but rather by putting candidates in situations designed to elicit that behavior.
The limits of predicting from paper
Credentials tell you what someone has done. Structured interviews tell you what someone says they would do. Neither lets you observe what they actually do in the moments that count.
This distinction matters most in client-facing, relationship-driven roles, where the performance gap between a strong hire and a weak one plays out in real business outcomes (revenue, retention, client growth). Organizations that hire at scale in these roles carry that gap across hundreds of decisions at a time.
The better approach is to watch candidates do the work before you hire them. Put them in simulated, role-relevant scenarios, and pair the simulation with a second, different kind of measure so no single method carries the whole decision. That combination is what lets you evaluate real performance before anyone is in the role. Organization-specific simulations provide a clear read on who is ready and capable of performing on day one. In a world of AI-supported candidate signals, the use of simulations makes the process harder to prep for. It is harder to fake. And, when designed well, it is substantially more predictive than other hiring methods.
What counts as evidence
Claims about predictive power are easy to make. Evidence for them is rarer than you would expect.
A predictive validity study, the kind that links pre-hire assessment scores to how someone actually performs once hired, is some of the hardest evidence to produce and the rarest to see. Many assessments are validated against proxies: another test, or a theoretical model of the role, rather than real results on the job. Connecting scores to concrete business outcomes and doing the statistical work to show the link holds, takes years of shared data and a level of commitment from both the assessment provider and the client that most partnerships never reach. That is precisely why it is worth asking for. A provider who can show how assessment scores track to training completion, retention, and first-year output is offering something categorically different from one who can only show a correlation with another test.
Why simulation holds up where other methods do not
When a candidate sits across from a trained assessor (someone playing the client or prospect on the other side of the conversation) and has to work through a real situation, they cannot rely on a rehearsed answer. The scenario is specific. The stakes feel real. What you see is close to what you would get on the job.
That is the value of simulation-based assessment: it does not test what candidates know about the role.
It shows how they use what they know when a real person is on the other side of the conversation, before the stakes are real.
For roles that carry significant business responsibility, this distinction is the whole game. The cost of the wrong hire in a high-stakes client-facing role is not just a missed quota for a quarter - It plays out in relationships that do not develop, clients who leave, and productivity losses that compound over time. Getting those hiring decisions right, at scale, with consistency, requires methods that are built for predictive accuracy, not just candidate experience or hiring speed.
What this means for how organizations think about hiring
Most organizations are still optimizing the wrong things in their hiring process. They invest heavily in employer branding, application flow, and interview structure, all of which matter, but less in the core question: does our hiring process actually predict who will succeed in this role?
AI has sharpened the stakes here. If every candidate can present as polished and prepared, screening based on presentation becomes less useful. What holds up is direct observation of the behaviors that the job requires.
A few principles worth building from:
- Measure what the job requires, not what is easy to measure. Cognitive tests and personality questionnaires have their place, but they do not look much like the job. The closer the assessment is to the actual work, the better it predicts performance in it.
- Ask what your assessment predicts. Training completion? Retention? First-year output? Most organizations cannot answer that question today, largely because providers have rarely been asked to prove it. It is a fair thing to ask for.
- Take the human element seriously. In a simulation, a candidate is having a real conversation, responding in real time, navigating a situation that requires judgment. Even with the help of AI, that is hard to game. And it remains one of the strongest predictors of on-the-job performance available.
The data exists to make hiring decisions more accurate, fairer, and more directly tied to business outcomes. For organizations operating in high-stakes roles at scale, there is too much on the line to rely on methods that cannot hold up to that standard.
You may be interested in BTS’ thought leadership in the five talent shifts AI is forcing now.
La IA ya forma parte del día a día de las ventas. Hoy cualquier asesor puede llegar a una reunión con datos, tendencias e insights generados en segundos. Sin embargo, disponer de más información no garantiza conversaciones de mayor valor.
A través de una experiencia real con un consultor comercial, este artículo explica por qué la inteligencia artificial funciona como un GPS: ayuda a interpretar el entorno, pero no conduce la conversación ni entiende las prioridades del cliente.
En este artículo descubrirás:
- Por qué el acceso a la información ya no supone una ventaja competitiva.
- La importancia del business acumen para interpretar los datos con criterio.
- Cómo hablar el lenguaje del cliente genera credibilidad y diferenciación.
- Por qué las relaciones B2B evolucionan hacia relaciones P2P basadas en la confianza.
- Qué capacidades consultivas seguirán siendo exclusivamente humanas incluso en la era de la IA.
La tecnología seguirá evolucionando, pero la ventaja competitiva estará en quienes sean capaces de combinar inteligencia artificial con conversaciones centradas en el cliente, pensamiento estratégico y relaciones de largo plazo.