The real hidden barrier: Good people in bad loops (How to turn vicious into virtuous cycles)

I love rediscovering forgotten concepts that explain what is really holding companies back.

This one, like a tool from a well-crafted toolbox, might help you out:

Charles Hampden-Turner’s 1981 book Corporate Culture shows that organizations are not only made up of structures and processes, but also of loops of behavior that quietly determine your company's business performance.

The key idea is that culture operates through self-reinforcing feedback loops. Some loops are vicious circles that trap companies in dysfunction. Others are virtuous circles that release energy, trust, and performance.

The difference lies in how it handles the tension between opposite values such as control vs. freedom, efficiency vs. empathy, or discipline vs. creativity.

When one side dominates, the other is suppressed and eventually retaliates in destructive ways. When both are reconciled, they begin to strengthen each other. Once they start, they tend to reinforce themselves, either destructively or constructively.

The Vicious Circle

Structure

• Begins with one value or practice dominating, for example control or efficiency.

• Provokes unintended consequences such as rigidity, disempowerment

• Reinforces the initial dysfunction, closing the loop and locking the organization in.

Example: British Airways before its turnaround

1. A strong techno-military tradition emphasized hierarchy and command.

2. This created a cold, specialized bureaucracy.

3. Ranks and roles drove top-down orders, disempowering cabin staff.

4. Staff passed on to passengers the same lack of warmth they experienced internally.

5. Feedback about customer needs was blocked, reinforcing the cold bureaucracy.

Result: an airline efficient in command but emotionally sterile and blind to its customers.

The Virtuous Circle

Structure

• Starts with reconciling the opposing values and turning conflict into complementarity.

• Each side begins to strengthen the other rather than suppress it.

• The loop amplifies capability, motivation, and learning across the system.

Example: British Airways after its turnaround

1. Staff were newly empowered to use discretion and judgment.

2. Supervisors modeled warmth and support toward their teams.

3. Feedback from passengers started to flow upward.

4. Management decisions became better informed and more professional.

5. BA’s technical expertise became more effective because it now served people, not procedure.

Result: structure and empathy reinforcing each other, control through trust rather than command.

The Shift from Vicious to Virtuous

Transformations do not start with a new strategy. They start when leaders reframe the underlying dilemma. The question changes from “Which side do we choose?” to “How can we get more of X through Y, and vice versa?”

Applying This to Modern Cases

The same dynamic plays out across industries today. Take a global fashion brand that had lost its spark. Operational control and cost discipline had crowded out creativity. The company prized efficiency and predictability, but its collections had become lifeless and its designers disengaged.

The vicious loop looked like this:

• Creative teams constrained by approvals and KPIs → timid designs

• Weak brand energy → declining sales

• Tighter control → even less creative risk

Leadership reframed how to think. Not creativity vs. control, but creative discipline.

The virtuous loop emerged:

• Empowered designers → stronger, more distinctive collections

• Brand heat and sales momentum → greater investment confidence

• Financial discipline → sustained the creative process rather than strangling it

Once the opposing forces were reconciled, energy and speed returned, almost overnight.

How to Use the Model

When analyzing or guiding a turnaround:

1. Identify the dominant value driving the vicious loop.

2. Trace the reinforcing consequences that make it self-defeating.

3. Name the repressed opposite value.

4. Define the reconciliation principle: “How can we get more of X through Y?”

5. Depict the new virtuous loop showing how both sides now strengthen each other.

Every transformation, at its heart, is a cultural reconciliation. It is not about replacing one value with another, but about combining them so both become stronger.

That is how companies shift from either/or to both/and—from vicious to virtuous.

What's next

Capturing these insights we develop the Adaptability Audit™ to uncover the hidden barriers that hold organizations back from real culture change. It helps leadership teams see what’s actually blocking adaptability and speed and what to do about it, before launching another program that treats symptoms instead of causes.

Similar loops might occur in your organization, self-defeating to self-reinforcing. Should any of this content sparked a comment or question, please do leave your comments or DM me.

Bas Kemme, Founder IntotheNXT

Culture surveys ask a lot, but miss what actually predicts next year’s performance

Most culture surveys are long, well-intended, and professionally designed. They ask dozens of questions, produce heatmaps, and generate a familiar set of conclusions.

Then… not much changes.

The core problem is not measurement. It’s relevance. Too many surveys measure how people feel about “culture” in general, instead of measuring the small set of capabilities that actually predict whether your organization will perform next year, especially under uncertainty.

If you want a culture survey that is useful at enterprise level, focus it on three factors.

The three factors that matter most

1) Energized ownership

This is not about happiness. It is about whether people care, take responsibility, and apply discretionary effort toward outcomes, not just activity.

Why it predicts next year’s performance: organizations with energized ownership do not need constant pushing, policing, or heroic leadership to get things done. They move faster, recover faster, and waste less energy on excuses.

Counterpoint: energized ownership can exist in a “hero culture” that burns people out. A good survey should surface whether energy is sustainable, not just intense.

2) Enterprise problem-solving capability

Next year’s performance will not be determined by how well you execute last year’s plan. It will be determined by how quickly the organization spots real problems, frames them correctly, and solves them across boundaries.

This is the enterprise muscle that prevents two classic failures:

• solving the wrong problem really efficiently

• letting cross-functional issues rot because “it’s not my department”

If this capability is weak, teams default to politics, escalation, and blame. If it is strong, the organization can handle complexity without drama.

3) Customer-oriented adaptation and execution system

Customer focus is not a slogan. It is an operating system.

This factor is about whether the organization can reliably turn decisions into outcomes, and adapt quickly when customer reality changes. It combines three things that are often separated (and therefore fail):

• customer truth (evidence, not opinions)

• decision rights and speed (who decides, how fast)

• execution cadence (follow-through and accountability)

Why it predicts next year’s performance: because it reduces decision latency, reduces rework, and keeps the organization aligned to external reality rather than internal comfort.

What to measure instead of “culture in general”: the lenses

Below are the lenses I use to translate those three factors into survey questions that are actionable. Each lens should be measured with a small number of behavioral statements. The goal is not a report, it’s a map to intervention.

Factor 1: Energized ownership

Lens 1, Meaning and contribution

Do people see how their work creates value, and do they feel they are contributing?

Example survey statements:

• I understand how my work creates value for customers.

• My work feels meaningful, beyond hitting internal targets.

• I can point to outcomes I personally contributed to in the past 3 months.

Lens 2, Recognition and fairness

Do people get fuel and fairness, or do they feel invisible and politicized?

Example survey statements:

• Good work is noticed and acknowledged quickly.

• Feedback from my manager helps me improve.

• Rewards and promotions are fair and based on contribution.

• Credit for results is shared appropriately across teams.

Lens 3, Belonging and inclusion without tribalism

Do people feel part of the club, while still staying open and collaborative across teams?

Example survey statements:

• I feel a strong sense of belonging in this organization.

• Different perspectives are genuinely included in discussions.

• People treat each other with respect, even under pressure.

• We do not default to blaming other teams when things go wrong.

Factor 2: Enterprise problem-solving capability

Lens 4, Candor and early escalation

Can people speak up early, or do issues get hidden until they explode?

Example survey statements:

• It is safe to raise bad news or risks early.

• People surface problems before they become crises.

• I can challenge assumptions without negative consequences.

• We discuss uncertainties openly and constructively.

Lens 5, Problem framing and root-cause discipline

Do teams jump to solutions, or do they first agree on what the real problem is?

Example survey statements:

• We align on the real problem before jumping to solutions.

• We look for root causes, not just symptoms.

• Decisions are based on evidence, not politics or seniority.

• Cross-functional problems get cross-functional ownership.

Lens 6, Reconciliation of differences and committed execution

This is where high performance becomes visible. It measures whether differences between individuals, functions, and viewpoints are nourished and leveraged, not suppressed or weaponized. Reconciliation is not compromise. It is the discipline of taking opposing perspectives seriously, and integrating them into a stronger “best of both” outcome.

Example survey statements:

• We actively seek out different viewpoints before making important decisions.

• When perspectives differ, we work to reconcile them into a stronger “best of both,” not pick a side.

• People are valued for what they see that others miss, even when it is inconvenient.

• In disagreements, we separate the person from the idea, and stay curious rather than defensive.

• When goals conflict, we make the tension explicit and look for a “through” solution that gets more of both.

• After we reconcile and decide, we commit and execute, even if it was not my preferred option.

Factor 3: Customer-oriented adaptation and execution system

Lens 7, Customer truth and learning speed

Is customer reality present in daily decisions, and can the organization learn fast?

Example survey statements:

• We regularly use direct customer evidence to set priorities.

• Customer data beats internal opinions in decision-making.

• We run small experiments to learn quickly.

• We stop or pivot work quickly when evidence shows it is not delivering value.

Lens 8, Decision authority and decision speed

Do people know who decides what, and do decisions happen fast enough?

Example survey statements:

• Decision rights are clear, I know who decides what.

• Decisions are made at the lowest competent level.

• Decisions are made fast enough to match the pace of our environment.

• Escalations happen quickly when needed.

Lens 9, Execution cadence and follow-through

Do decisions reliably turn into outcomes, or do they fade away into busywork?

Example survey statements:

• Meetings end with clear owners, actions, and deadlines.

• We track commitments and follow up consistently.

• Blockers are removed quickly once identified.

• Priorities are stable enough to execute, but can change when evidence demands it.

How to use this in practice

A survey like this only matters if it leads to behavior change.

A simple operating rhythm that works:

1. Run the survey, keep it short, keep it behavioral.

2. Pick the 2–3 weakest lenses, do not boil the ocean.

3. Translate each weak lens into 2 or 3 operating changes (decision rights, meeting cadence, escalation rules, how trade-offs are made).

4. Re-check in 8–12 weeks with a short pulse on just those lenses.

If you do this well, the survey becomes a tool for traction, not a yearly ritual.

Why 75% of change programs fail, and what to do instead (Part 1)

75% of change programs fail.

Most organisations do not need another centrally designed change program.

They need a system that makes it normal to evolve practices, learn fast, and remove constraints, until better work becomes the default.

That failure number is so high for a simple reason: many established change methods still treat change as a move from the current culture to an “ideal” future culture, in a deterministic way. Diagnose through centrally designed surveys, design the “target culture”, then roll it out.

Estalished methods fail for three reasons, they:

1. Underestimate how difficult it is to achieve and sustain change. Many programs never get to the root causes of bad practices, the unwritten rules that keep them in place, and unlearning old ways takes time and practice.

2. Tend to discard the current situation in favor of a new future and thus throwing out the best of the what already exists.

3. Lack the ground-up nuance and flexibility needed for uncertainty. When you implement truly new ways of working, you cannot predict upfront what will and won’t work. Fixed programs struggle with that reality, plus you invite resistance when frontline employees are not involved in designing and testing the changes that shape day-to-day work.
   

I’ll focus on this third point. Not another top-down change program, but managed evolution: creating autonomous, evolutionary loops of trial and error that gradually build better ways of working.

A simple loop: identify tensions, define practices, experiment, then scale what works.

Step 1: Start from friction, not from an “ideal culture”

Ask teams: “What stands in the way of your best work?”

You will get concrete friction, not abstract values. And that matters, because friction is where practices live. Now cluster the answers into a small set of themes so you can see patterns. Use categories such as: Purpose, Authority, Structure, Strategy, Resources, Innovation, Workflow, Meetings, Information, Membership, Mastery, Compensation.

Source: Brave New Work by Aaron Dignan

Pick one area that is not too difficult. Then brainstorm one new practice that might reduce the friction.

If needed, find inspiration for new practices in Daniel Coyle's excellent book The culture playbook or Aaron Dignan's Brave New Work. Tip: Use AI as a sparring partner. Prompt: “Act as if you are Daniel Coyle and suggest new practices to help us improve [meetings / decision-making / workflow] so it becomes easier for people to do their best work.”

Step 2: Define the experiment, then run it safely

Define:

• Where you will try it

• When, and for how long

• How you will evaluate success

• What “safe to try” means, what can go wrong, and what you will do if it does

Communicate it as an experiment, not a mandate. The goal is learning, not compliance.

Step 3: Scale by removing barriers, this is where top management comes in

If the experiment works locally, it still won’t spread by itself. That’s because the blockers are often structural: decision rights, policies, KPIs, budget rules, IT constraints, governance, incentives.

This is where senior leadership earns their keep: remove the barriers that prevent a better practice from scaling. In this social age, the proven new practice will spread. Then move on to a slightly harder tension.

Word of caution: if top management only “sponsors” but does not actually remove constraints, this turns into a collection of local pilots. Lots of motion, little change. Step 3 is the difference between isolated experiments and real evolution.

How to make this scalable without turning it into another program

Steps 1 to 3 can be supported by AI co-work agents such as Claud co-work instructed with specific skills: synthesising inputs, suggesting candidate practices, spotting patterns, and bringing likely scaling barriers to senior management’s attention for discussion and decision. They can work through input from individuals and teams across the organisation via Teams, Slack, or email, and feed a steady cadence into the management rhythm:

• Here’s what is getting in the way of best work

• Here are the experiments running

• Here is what seems to work

• Here are the barriers that require leadership action

Invitation

Pick one team, ask the Step 1 question, design one practice, run one safe experiment, then bring the first real scaling barrier to leadership in Step 3. If you want, message me what friction came up and what you tried, I’m happy to react with a few candidate practices and a simple experiment setup.

And if you’d like to apply managed evolution across a wider part of the organisation, with AI supporting the listening, synthesis, and experiment tracking, reach out.

Part 2 will go deeper on why many change approaches discard the strengths of today’s culture and what to do instead.

Part 3 will go deeper on solving for the root causes of bad practices, the unwritten rules that keep them in place

*** This post was inspired by Aaron Dignan’s Brave New Work. The experiments themselves can be drawn from Daniel Coyle’s The Culture Playbook, a practical catalogue of small, repeatable moves that shape group behaviour.