We talk about culture as something we define, build, and protect. That may be true of our values. But culture, the way we usually talk about it, is something else. It’s an experience. It’s how you answer when someone asks, “What is it like to work there?” It can be shaped, but not bullied into submission. It feels objective, but in practice, the way you and I experience the same workplace might be very different.
All this means that culture (the one we want and the one we think we have) is probably vulnerable — highly vulnerable — to the influence of personality. And if that’s true, it should change the way all of us lead.
We don’t like to talk about it, but culture is a subjective experience.
Imagine a culture you didn’t like. I’d be willing to bet your mind drifted first to people or faces. The leader who cared more about moving fast than being right. The team member who dominated every meeting, and the leader who tolerated it. The team that would never say out loud what everyone was clearly thinking.
Now, imagine that you are a fast-moving innovator. You strongly believe it’s better to move forward and learn something than to keep planning while the world passes you by. In this case, you’d probably experience an “action-oriented but impulsive” leader positively. A culture shaped by that leader would energize you. Where some coworkers are rolling their eyes, you’re rolling up your sleeves. You stay ten years, but a third of your team is gone by year two.
In this scenario, personality is enmeshed with the cultural experience of working on this team at multiple, significant points:
- The leader’s personality sets expectations for how the team should behave.
- The team’s personalities respond to these expectations differently. Some have a positive experience. Others experience stress and difficulty adjusting to those expectations. Too long acting “out of type” and a third of the team leaves to find a less stressful place to work.
- Research suggests the leader is probably hiring people just like them, and that personality and organizational culture interact in ways that determine who actually gains influence on a team. For example, research from Stanford shows that extraverts tend to gain more influence in team‑oriented cultures, while conscientious individuals gain more influence in more individual, task‑focused environments. When the team is comprised of very similar personalities, an aggregate “team personality” emerges and begins to entrench.
Now, let’s say that while this is the team’s personality, the organizational values state something like: “We respect and encourage diversity of experiences, perspectives, and talents.” Now we have a new problem: a mismatch between the experience of working on this team and the values the organization has defined. That mismatch layers on new stress, skepticism, and disappointment among those who already feel counted out.
And then, voilá. The first Glassdoor review appears citing “toxic culture” as their reason for leaving.
What is culture, really?
I suppose at this point I should be clear about what I mean when I say culture. Many people believe that culture and values are the same thing. I don’t.
Values are definable, universal, objective, and global. You set them, you protect them, you make decisions based on them, and if you’re a great leader, you actively try to keep the gap between values and behavior small.
Culture, the way people talk about it in normal, casual conversation, is different. When people casually say “culture,” they mean “the experience of working there.” By this definition:
- Culture is shapeable, but not dictateable.
- Culture is bad or good depending on your perspective, not a universal definition.
- Culture is subjective, not objective.
- Culture happens in pockets, not globally. One team’s culture is different from another’s. It’s why people say, “People don’t leave bad companies, they leave bad bosses.”
When I talk about culture, I’m talking about behavior. What behavior is rewarded with smiles, kudos, promotions, plum assignments, or hires? What behavior is punished or ignored? Are unproductive behaviors tolerated?
Behavior bridges values and pragmatism.
A gap between a team’s behaviors and its values becomes a problem fast on both an ethical level and a practical one. If the gap survives too long, you’ll see turnover, disengagement, and stalled progress.
But there’s a second gap that matters too, and that’s the gap between a team’s behaviors and the ones needed to succeed on a particular project or in a particular season of the business.
If a business is moving from a period of stabilization and incremental growth to one of innovation and high growth, the behaviors that worked in the first context will stop working in the second…even if the team is exactly the same.
If culture is about behavior, we have to start talking about personality.
Behavior isn’t a free choice we make fresh every morning. It has a strong default setting, and that default is personality. A team of cautious risk-analyzers will struggle to “fail fast to learn fast,” no matter how many times it’s written on the wall. A team of introverts will struggle to think out loud in a brainstorm, even when the moment calls for it. They can do it for a meeting, or for a quarter, but the gravity is always pulling them back toward type.
That’s why both gaps are so stubborn. When a team’s behavior drifts from its values, or from what the season demands, personality is often the reason the gap won’t close on its own. It’s the headwind that must be overcome for the team to stay aligned on values and maintain momentum on its goals.
And when personality happens to match what’s needed, it’s the tailwind. The culture “feels good,” often because it feels almost effortless.
So the real question isn’t whether personality shapes culture. It does. The question is what a leader is supposed to do about it when you can’t swap the team, and you can’t will people out of their own wiring.
If you can’t change a team’s personality, design around it.
So here’s the move. We help our teams design behaviors that:
- Align to our stable values.
- Support our current goals.
- Make acting against type more comfortable.
Knowing your team is risk-averse doesn’t make them less risk-averse. But it tells you exactly which behaviors you’ll have to build on purpose, because they won’t show up on their own.
That’s the difference between wishing and designing. In almost a decade of executive coaching at The Persimmon Group, I’ve learned I’m not going to turn an unexpressive leader into a charismatic motivator, and I’d waste a year of coaching trying.
But I could coach them to start saying what they’re thinking out loud — to state (even if in a monotone voice) what they think, feel, and believe so their team doesn’t have to guess. That single behavior can provide the team alignment and clarity, while relieving the unease that comes with not knowing where you stand. And it’s a behavior the leader could sustain over time without getting exhausted.
This scales to teams, too. I can’t in any permanent sense turn a team of doers into a team of planners, and I shouldn’t try. Their bias to action is probably why they were hired. But I can install a pre-mortem before every big project launch: a standing two hours where the only job is to ask, “If this fails, why?” And I can build a rhythm to review this list for thirty minutes every five weeks. Now, a risk-aware behavior lives in the system, and no one is exhausted trying to act like someone they’re not. The cautious instinct nobody on the team has is supplied by the design instead — which also takes the pressure off the people who’d otherwise have to force it.
Which brings us back to the question we started with.
So, how much of culture is just personality?
More than we’d like, and less than we fear. Personality sets the defaults, shapes the experience, and decides which behaviors come easy and which ones cost something. That part isn’t up for negotiation. But “the experience of working here” doesn’t have to be beholden to whose personality is the strongest.
It can be built, one designed behavior at a time, in the gap between who your team is and what the moment asks of them.
Which means the leader’s job isn’t to bend people to a culture you declared, or to pretend personality doesn’t matter. It’s subtler than that. You name the values that don’t move. You read what this season actually demands. And then you work with your team to design the behaviors and ground rules that bridge the two — so your team can act against type when it counts, without burning out trying to be someone they’re not. That’s not a smaller job than “building culture.” It might be the whole thing.
If you only do one thing
Block some time this week to do a structured reflection. Walk it through in order:
- Your organization’s (and team’s) stated values. What principles are global and non-negotiable? (Be sure to note if a person’s personality may make one value or another difficult to embody).
- What this moment requires. What kind of team do you actually need to be successful right now?
- For each member of the team, what do you think it’s like for them to work on this team? Try to use evidence where you can: things they’ve said, done, or expressed in the past.
- Your own contribution. How does your own experience shape the experience of each person working on this team? Does it match what the moment requires?
- Three behaviors. Name three tangible behaviors that, if you designed them on purpose, would help bridge the gap between the team you have and the team needed now.
The first four questions are diagnosis. The fifth is the job. Don’t skip it.