Data Culture Is the Symptom, Not the Solution

Knowledge tradition and knowledge governance are more and more cited as stipulations for constructing data-driven organizations. Each are seen as important for turning investments in Enterprise Intelligence and Synthetic Intelligence (AI) into enterprise worth. However right here is the catch: knowledge governance may be actively designed — knowledge tradition can’t.

This text is an in depth deep-dive of the management summary published on CIO.com. It explores the true position of information tradition when a corporation units out to change into data-driven — a task which may be fairly totally different from what you count on. Drawing on trendy organizational idea, I provide a sensible strategy to maneuver past failed ‘knowledge tradition’ initiatives and suggest a mind-set that lastly unlocks the worth of your knowledge and AI investments. 

An appendix offers a Knowledge Tradition Cheat Sheet that distills the important thing factors for quick use.

I am Jens, a business-minded knowledge skilled with twenty years of expertise serving to enterprise leaders throughout industries unlock the complete potential of information and algorithms.

tl;dr

• Many knowledge initiatives keep behind expectations not due to know-how, however as a result of leaders misunderstand tradition.
• Tradition is an emergent property of a corporation, not an object of design. It may be identified and influenced not directly, however by no means straight formed or engineered right into a desired kind.
• Due to this fact, not like knowledge governance, knowledge tradition can’t be handled as a prerequisite for worth creation with knowledge and synthetic intelligence. It’s impact not trigger.
• The true use of information tradition is diagnostic: like a sensor, it helps to disclose the hidden obstacles to leveraging knowledge as an asset.
• As soon as the basis causes of those obstacles are recognized, leaders can design focused interventions that enhance knowledge worth creation. When interventions have an impact, this not directly shifts knowledge tradition as a facet impact.
• True knowledge worth creation is feasible when each are thought of collectively: governance offering the dependable basis, and tradition enabling its efficient utility.

Desk of Contents

1 Why do organizations attempt for knowledge tradition?
2 Organizational tradition
  2.1 Limitations of mainstream approaches
  2.2 Definition of organizational tradition
  2.3 Implications for cultural work
3 Knowledge tradition
  3.1 Definition and worth of information tradition
  3.2 Fields of research for figuring out data-cultural obstacles
4 Knowledge governance vs. knowledge tradition
  4.1 Knowledge worth creation
  4.2 Distinguishing knowledge governance and knowledge tradition
  4.3 The interaction: A virtuous cycle
5 A software to design and probe cultural interventions
6 Sensible instance — how a wiser strategy to knowledge tradition can save lives
7 Conclusion
Appendix: The Knowledge Tradition Cheat Sheet
References

1 Why do organizations attempt for knowledge tradition?

Most organizations intention to change into data-driven with the intention to harvest the promised potentials of information being an organizational asset. They intention to use methods equivalent to Enterprise Intelligence (BI) or Synthetic Intelligence (AI) to re-use operational knowledge for analytical functions. Purposes embrace:

• Management: Stories or BI dashboards are used for monitoring and oversight
• Automation: Duties to handle difficult enterprise challenges may be automated
• Resolution making: Insights derived from knowledge can generally assist (not substitute!) human instinct required for decision-making to handle complex enterprise issues
• Innovation: Creating insights that assist ask (and reply) the fitting questions on prospects, opponents, know-how, and business developments

Regardless of the promised advantages many businesses struggle to unlock the value of their data [1]. And this isn’t a brand new drawback. BI, Analytics and AI — not simply massive language fashions, but additionally Knowledge Science and Machine Studying — have been round for a lot of a long time. But, turning knowledge into measurable outcomes stays a problem for a lot of organizations.

In consequence, along with strategic clarity [2], the time period knowledge culture is more and more cited as a key success factor for organizations to become data-driven [3].

However what precisely is knowledge tradition? Is it actually the precondition for turning knowledge into enterprise worth? And is it doable to actively form it right into a desired kind, such that worth creation with knowledge succeeds?

Since knowledge tradition is in the end a perspective on the general organizational tradition, it’s essential to first align on what organizational tradition is and the way it ought to be approached.

2 Organizational tradition

2.1 Limitations of mainstream approaches

Organizational tradition has been a well-established subject of research in sociology [4, 5, 6] for a lot of a long time. But many executives report that cultural change and transformation efforts are nonetheless among the many most tough challenges organizations face. Though the famously quoted failure rate about 70% [7] is subject to debate [8], there’s broad consensus on one level: cultural change is much from trivial and lots of initiatives keep behind expectations. Why is that this the case?

Trendy organizational idea based mostly on Luhmann’s system idea [9, 10, 11] affords a solution: While many enterprise leaders implicitly assume that tradition is one thing that may be deliberately formed, from a systems-theoretic perspective this isn’t doable. Consequently, the excessive failure charges of cultural change initiatives usually are not stunning, as many initiatives are designed based mostly on a flawed assumption when taking up a systems-theoretic perspective.

Luhmann conceptualized organizations as self-reproducing, advanced social methods of choice communication. Tradition, on this view, is not an object that may be straight designed, however a latent construction of which means that guides and constrains selections.

Tradition is an emergent product of organizational communication. It may be noticed, perturbed, or nudged, however can by no means be engineered.

Making use of these insights can enhance the success price for change and transformation initiatives in observe, justifying the growing curiosity in methods idea for researchers and practitioners alike [12, 13, 14].

2.2 Definition of organizational tradition

Adopting a systems-theoretic perspective right here, organizational tradition may be loosely outlined because the largely unstated and partly unconscious guidelines in a corporation, the latter being a selected sort of advanced social system. Its function is to tell members of the group concerning the anticipated conduct and thus makes sure actions extra possible than others.

Organizational tradition determines how issues are accomplished round right here.

Tradition acts as a so-called undecidable choice premise — a filter that turns into more and more necessary in advanced contexts, the place people should determine and act increasingly more autonomously [14].

Typical examples of such unstated and unconscious guidelines (tradition) embrace:

• Individuals assist one another right here
• We deal overtly with errors
• In conferences, the highest-ranking individual speaks first

2.3 Implications for cultural work

Adopting the systems-theoretic viewpoint offers new insights for cultural work in a corporation:

Tradition will not be the trigger however the impact of prevailing situations.

Thus, the assumption that a ‘good culture’ is a precondition for successful value creation does not hold [14]. Tradition is best understood as a symptom of underlying issues (or successes) in worth creation.

A number of sensible penalties observe from the systems-theoretic basis for work with organizational tradition:

• Change context, not folks: Leaders ought to shift focus from altering folks or their ‘mindset’ to altering context, as that is the larger lever for attaining behavioral change.
• Keep away from culture-design initiatives: Makes an attempt to engineer an ‘optimum’ goal tradition have inherently low success charges and ought to be averted.
• Use tradition as a diagnostic software: Deal with tradition as a sensor for hidden obstacles to worth creation, quite than a variable that may be straight formed. Use it to uncover the basis causes that designate seemingly irrational conduct blocking worth creation.
• Work by means of small interventions and suggestions loops: Design and probe interventions that change the context folks work in and observe the suggestions, such that the obstacles are resolved. Doable interventions are modifications in constructions, administration methods, the setup of interpersonal exchanges, or defending (new) methods of working.
• Watch out for blueprints: Organizations are advanced social methods. As such, you can’t count on causality. What works in a single context might fail in one other. Due to this fact, studying from profitable organizations has usually restricted worth.

The true worth of tradition work due to this fact lies in figuring out unseen obstacles, experimenting with small context-specific interventions, and permitting extra appropriate patterns to emerge — quite than attempting to engineer a desired goal image of tradition, e.g., by means of designed company values.

3 Knowledge tradition

3.1 Definition and worth of information tradition

Knowledge tradition is merely a particular perspective on organizational tradition. One potential definition may be:

Knowledge tradition focuses on the shared habits, values, and casual guidelines that determine how we use knowledge right here to create or shield enterprise worth

As a result of knowledge tradition is in the end organizational tradition in motion, the rules from Part 2 apply: you can’t engineer a desired knowledge tradition straight, neither is it doable to outline common finest practices to affect knowledge tradition in a desired manner.

As a substitute, organizations ought to use knowledge tradition to determine obstacles that block using knowledge as an asset, after which probe small interventions which progressively take away these obstacles. When profitable, an appropriate knowledge tradition will emerge by itself, as soon as the worth creation with knowledge is functioning successfully.

As for organizational tradition usually, the actual worth of information cultural work lies in its diagnostic energy:

• Sensor: Reveals hidden issues in knowledge worth creation
• Lever identification: Factors to root causes as a substitute of signs
• Early indicator: Reveals whether or not an intervention is starting to work
• Threat administration: Flags unintended side-effects throughout digital transformation

3.2 Fields of research for figuring out data-cultural obstacles

The place to start out when figuring out data-cultural obstacles? It has confirmed useful to take a look at usually related points of information tradition. One doable assortment of such points are the next six fields of research and their corresponding success patterns that always seem when cultural obstacles are being addressed efficiently. These shouldn’t be handled as goal patterns for knowledge tradition design, however as views to take a look at with the intention to determine related obstacles.

1. Knowledge Consciousness: Leaders and workers perceive each the alternatives and limitations of data-driven worth creation
2. Knowledge Management: Leaders actively demand and champion data-informed methods of working — the place they add worth
3. Knowledge Literacy: All members of the group possess the related interdisciplinary competencies to make use of knowledge in a value-creating manner
4. Perception-Primarily based Approach of Working: Everybody within the group is prepared to discover and exploit knowledge’s potential for worth creation
5. Collaborative Approach of Working: Knowledge and insights are shared willingly and proactively throughout boundaries
6. Knowledge Availability: Customers can entry the information related to them — simply, securely, and in time

These patterns are indicators to observe, not targets to engineer. Their formation signifies that obstacles are being lowered and that knowledge tradition is starting to shift as a byproduct of profitable interventions.

4 Knowledge governance vs. knowledge tradition

4.1 Knowledge worth creation

Knowledge governance is one other perceived precondition for organizations to change into data-driven. However how does it relate to knowledge tradition?

The time period knowledge governance will not be uniquely outlined, however one regularly quoted definition is that of [15]:

“Knowledge governance is outlined because the train of authority and management (planning, monitoring, and enforcement) over the administration of information belongings”

Utilizing this frequent definition, knowledge governance is especially about implementing processes, roles, and duties to allow sustainable worth creation with knowledge. It covers the formal guidelines to allow worth creation with knowledge. These formal guidelines may be enforced by administration with argument, rewards, or punishment. It due to this fact enhances knowledge tradition.

Knowledge tradition and knowledge governance are two sides of the identical coin: governance brings order to the difficult, while tradition creates adaptability within the advanced.

The secret’s to see knowledge governance and knowledge tradition not as separate initiatives, however as two important modes whose interaction contributes to knowledge worth creation: the continuing organizational course of wherein knowledge is used, interpreted, and built-in into selections to generate enterprise worth.

4.2 Distinguishing knowledge governance and knowledge tradition

The interaction between knowledge governance and knowledge tradition is finest understood by observing it by means of the lens of a strong guiding distinction used in organizational design [14] and management literature [16]: the excellence between the difficult and the advanced. 

Knowledge governance is the try to grasp the difficult, whereas knowledge tradition is the emergent results of navigating the advanced. This guiding distinction manifests throughout the group in additional corresponding distinctions.

1 Context: Difficult / advanced

That is the guiding distinction from which all others observe. Difficult contexts are knowable and predictable, even when they’re tough. Their interactions observe clear cause-and-effect relationships. With a enough blueprint and experience, a desired end result may be engineered. Knowledge governance is the first software for mastering the difficult, e.g. defining who might entry knowledge or making certain that knowledge high quality is enough.

Advanced contexts are unpredictable and emergent. Trigger-and-effect relationships usually are not clear upfront and are consistently shifting. Knowledge tradition permits a corporation to successfully navigate the advanced, e.g. when workers have to determine to handle advanced enterprise issues, they proactively share analytical insights to enhance their choice making.

2 Major focus: The muse / the applying

This distinction highlights what every mode prioritizes within the journey from knowledge to worth. Knowledge governance focuses on making a dependable basis. Its major concern is to render knowledge a steady, predictable, and manageable object — the information asset itself. That is largely an advanced activity: it includes defining guidelines making certain high quality, and structuring entry in line with clear cause-and-effect relationships.

Knowledge tradition, in distinction, allows the efficient utility of that basis within the occasion of the decision-making second. It determines if and the way that steady basis is definitely utilized by folks to navigate uncertainty and create enterprise worth.

3 Administration: Command and management / dedication by selection

Knowledge governance depends on command and management — the train of formal, positional authority. In distinction, knowledge tradition can’t be dictated. It allows decision-making in advanced contexts by means of dedication by selection: an emergent phenomenon the place folks observe casual leaders based mostly on voluntarily granted belief and perceived competence [13, 14].

4 Guidelines: Formal / casual

Knowledge governance operates by means of formal, specific, written guidelines present in insurance policies and processes. These manifest as tangible artifacts: written insurance policies, course of diagrams, position descriptions, or knowledge high quality KPIs. 

Knowledge tradition operates by means of casual, unwritten social norms and routines that dictate ‘how issues are actually accomplished round right here’. These manifest as invisible however decisive premises that information motion: the extent of belief in a dashboard, the perceived relevance of information, the willingness to share insights, or the psychological security to problem data-driven assumptions.

5 Choices: Work by the e-book / determine autonomously

Knowledge governance requires folks to work by the e-book to make sure consistency and standardization. That is execution — no choice required. 

Knowledge tradition helps folks to determine autonomously within the face of uncertainty. Both by combining the obtainable knowledge with instinct, or by asking the fitting questions on prospects, opponents, know-how, and business developments, which then requires figuring out what knowledge may be lacking to validate hypotheses.

6 Purpose: Stability / adaptability

Knowledge governance goals to create stability, a predictable and dependable basis the place knowledge high quality is constant, entry is managed, and processes observe outlined requirements. This stability allows reliability and compliance and permits organizations to make use of knowledge for choice making with confidence.

Knowledge tradition goals to allow adaptability, the potential to reply successfully to altering enterprise calls for, rising alternatives, and sudden challenges. This adaptability permits organizations to outlive and thrive in dynamic settings and to leverage knowledge in novel methods.

7 Creation: May be enforced / must emerge

This captures the basic distinction of their origin and emphasizes one of many key messages on this article. Knowledge governance must be designed and enforced, while knowledge tradition must emerge as an oblique results of the prevailing structural situations.

4.3 The interaction: A virtuous cycle

Whereas the first path of affect flows from knowledge governance to knowledge tradition — with governance offering the dependable basis for tradition to emerge — the interaction goes each methods. A robust knowledge tradition brings the formal, difficult constructions of governance to life.

Some examples are:

• Knowledge high quality — Knowledge governance can outline a knowledge high quality rule, however a tradition of accountability motivates an worker to proactively report an anomaly statement. 
• Metadata administration — Knowledge governance can mandate the creation of a knowledge catalog, however solely a tradition of collaboration can guarantee its ongoing curation with the wealthy, contextual, and up-to-date metadata that makes it really beneficial.
• Knowledge acquisition — Knowledge governance can outline the processes for buying knowledge, however a tradition of inquiry consistently generates new enterprise hypotheses that want testing, driving the acquisition of totally new datasets by means of these very processes.

This suggestions loop between knowledge governance and knowledge tradition creates a virtuous cycle. The designed, difficult methods of governance and the emergent, advanced behaviors of tradition repeatedly reinforce and enhance one another, driving knowledge worth creation far past what guidelines alone might implement. The sensible instance in Part 6 may also illustrate this impact.

5 A software to design and probe cultural interventions

How can we put the above idea into observe? How can we determine the cultural patterns that hinder worth technology with knowledge and AI and design interventions that deal with their root causes?

There are actually other ways to strategy tradition work in a corporation, right here I choose an strategy, which we’ve efficiently utilized in our consulting observe. To construction the method of uncovering cultural patterns and designing interventions, we draw inspiration from the so-called Culture Board [17].

Ranging from a validated enterprise want, the board guides you thru figuring out data-cultural obstacles, condensing what you found, designing connectable interventions, and eventually implementing and assessing them. Intimately, the 5 steps are:

• Step 1 — Enterprise Want: Body your guiding organizational drawback clearly. Then hint it to its root trigger to keep away from treating signs. Doc the enterprise want to make sure a shared understanding between stakeholders. Trace: changing into data-driven will not be your small business want, it may be your answer.
• Step 2 — Determine: Analyze the information tradition in mild of the enterprise want. What cultural patterns are in its manner? The six fields of research from above will help to identify concrete obstacles.
• Step 3 — Sense: Distill, combine and doc the obstacles you will have found to deal with what issues.
• Step 4 — Creating: Design connectable interventions which might be more likely to deal with the obstacles.
• Step 5 — Implement: Anchor the interventions successfully and sustainably within the group, then observe and consider their affect.

As a result of success of interventions is rarely assured in advanced social methods — like organizations — , the tradition board is used iteratively: loop as usually as wanted till the the obstacles are resolved.

Word that making use of the tradition board is in itself already an intervention: it exposes workers to beforehand unseen cultural patterns. These insights alone can already set off change and have a optimistic affect on worth creation with knowledge.

The next instance from healthcare illustrates how the tradition board helps put this strategy into observe.

6 Sensible instance — how a wiser strategy to knowledge tradition can save lives

A hospital faces a excessive price of therapy errors threatening affected person security, regulatory compliance in addition to its strategic ambition to be a frontrunner in high quality of care. A so-called Vital Incident Reporting System (CIRS) is in place to seize and study from near-misses and errors. Nonetheless, it stays largely unused. The few studies submitted are sometimes too obscure for significant evaluation.

Step 1: Enterprise Want

To satisfy its strategic ambition and meet regulatory necessities, the hospital should cut back its error price. This requires a scientific technique to study from incidents. The enterprise want isn’t just to extend the quantity and high quality of studies, however to create a dependable suggestions loop that measurably improves affected person security. That is the place solid strategy work [2] plays out, offering prioritization, administration consideration and the motivation for designing a data-driven group.

Step 2: Determine

Utilizing the present tradition as a diagnostic software, interviews with medical employees reveal a number of highly effective, unstated guidelines that block using the CIRS:

• Worry: “Reporting an error is an act of contrition. It begins a seek for a offender, not a trigger.” This factors to a tradition of blame, the place reporting looks like a private danger.
• Effort: “We’re overloaded as it’s. Taking 20 minutes to doc one thing for a system that provides nothing again is a waste of time.” This reveals a battle with the core worth of effectivity.
• Futility: “These studies go right into a black field. We by no means hear what occurs with them, so why hassle?” This exhibits a scarcity of a visual suggestions loop, making the trouble appear pointless.

Step 3: Sense

Distilling these findings makes the core drawback seen: The group’s context is incompatible with the specified studying ambition. Whereas administration formally asks for studying from incidents, the system’s constructions, incentives, and routines really punish the required conduct. The issue will not be the mindset of the employees; it’s the context wherein they work.

Step 4: Creating

As a substitute of attempting to power medical doctors to raised doc incidents or initiating a ‘tradition change program’, three exact, structural interventions are designed to handle the recognized obstacles:

• To counter concern, a knowledge governance intervention: Clear, binding guidelines for a totally anonymized and guarded reporting course of are established. The method is explicitly designed to be ‘blame-free’, a proper assure protected by administration.
• To counter effort, a know-how intervention: The incident reporting platform is redesigned for minimal friction, making documentation as fast and simple as doable.
• To counter futility, a knowledge management intervention: A protected, interdisciplinary studying crew is created, sponsored by a senior supervisor. This crew is shielded from the every day effectivity pressures and has the mandate to investigate the studies, develop concrete enhancements (like new checklists), and, crucially, talk successes and learnings again to the group.

Step 5: Implement

The interventions create a optimistic suggestions loop. Time to doc incidents reduces considerably. As the primary studies are dealt with beneath the brand new, protected course of, employees see that it’s protected and begin offering detailed incident studies. The educational crew can develop and optimize a surgical guidelines based mostly on early studies, which demonstrably reduces a particular class of error. This tangible success is extensively communicated, proving the CIRS’s worth, reinforcing report documentation additional.

In consequence, the amount and high quality of studies enhance considerably. A brand new tradition of psychological security and data-based studying begins to emerge — not as a deliberate objective, however as a facet impact of the tailor-made change in structural situations.

7 Conclusion

Knowledge tradition will not be a set of values to be designed and rolled out, however an emergent property of the group. It’s the impact, not the trigger, of profitable worth creation with knowledge and AI. In distinction to knowledge governance, it can’t be engineered or demanded.

Keep vital of one-size-fits-them-all finest practices for designing a ‘good knowledge tradition’. Every group is a fancy social system and reacts in another way to interventions. It’s emergent — you by no means know what outcomes you’ll get when following such recipes. What works in a single group would possibly fail in one other.

As a substitute, use knowledge tradition as a sensor. Let it reveal the essential obstacles that stop your knowledge basis from being translated into higher enterprise selections. As soon as these root causes are seen, design small, tailor-made interventions to bridge this hole, observe the affect, and permit a simpler knowledge tradition to take form consequently.

The tradition board is a sensible software for this data-cultural work. It helps leaders floor obstacles, design focused interventions, and iterate till the enterprise want is met and, consequently, new cultural patterns have emerged.

Editorial assist (spelling, grammar, wording, literature analysis) was supplied with the help of generative AI. The concepts, construction, and arguments on this article are totally created by the writer.

Appendix: The Knowledge Tradition Cheat Sheet

References

[1] R. Bean, “Why Turning into a Knowledge-Pushed Group Is So Laborious,” Harvard Enterprise Assessment, Feb. 24, 2022. [Online]. Accessible: https://hbr.org/2022/02/why-becoming-a-data-driven-organization-is-so-hard

[2] J. Linden, “How Most Organizations Get Knowledge Technique Mistaken — and Learn how to Repair It,” In the direction of Knowledge Science. [Online]. Accessible: https://medium.com/data-science/how-most-organizations-get-data-strategy-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it-b8afa59f1533

[3] G. Kesari, “Constructing a Knowledge-Pushed Tradition: 4 Key Components,” MIT Sloan Administration Assessment, Jan. 23, 2025. [Online]. Accessible: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/building-a-data-driven-culture-four-key-elements/

[4] G. Burrell and G. Morgan, Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis, 1st Version. London: Routledge, 1979. doi: 10.4324/9781315242804.

[5] G. Morgan, Images of organization, Up to date ed., [Nachdruck]. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications, 2011.

[6] E. H. Schein, Organizational culture and leadership, 1. ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publ, 1985.

[7] N. Nohria and M. Beer, “Cracking the Code of Change,” Harvard Enterprise Assessment. [Online]. Accessible: https://hbr.org/2000/05/cracking-the-code-of-change

[8] M. Hughes, “Do 70 Per Cent of All Organizational Change Initiatives Really Fail?,” J. Change Manag., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 451–464, Dec. 2011, doi: 10.1080/14697017.2011.630506.

[9] C. Baraldi, G. Corsi, E. Esposito, and Ok. Walker, Unlocking Luhmann: A Key phrase Introduction to Programs Concept. Bielefeld: Bielefeld College Press, 2021. [Online]. Accessible: https://www.transcript-verlag.de/978-3-8376-5674-9/unlocking-luhmann/?number=978-3-8394-5674-3

[10] N. Luhmann, Organization and decision. Cambridge: Cambridge College Press, 2018. doi: 10.1017/9781108560672.

[11] J. Tække, “Luhmann and Group Tradition -A Programs Theoretical Analytical Technique Luhmann and Group Tradition -A Programs Theoretical Analytical Technique,” June 2025. [Online]. Accessible: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392760245_Luhmann_and_Organization_Culture_-A_Systems_Theoretical_Analytical_Strategy_Luhmann_and_Organization_Culture_-A_Systems_Theoretical_Analytical_Strategy

[12] D. Seidl and Ok. H. Becker, “Organizations as Distinction Generating and Processing Systems: Niklas Luhmann’s Contribution to Organization Studies,” Group, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 9–35, Jan. 2006, doi: 10.1177/1350508406059635.

[13] M. Poppenborg, Wir führen anders: 24 ½ befreiende Impulse für Manager, 1. Auflage. Berlin: intrinsify.me GmbH, 2021.

[14] G. Wohland and M. Wiemeyer, Denkwerkzeuge der Höchstleister: Warum Dynamikrobuste Unternehmen Marktdruck Erzeugen, 1st ed. UNIBUCH VERLAG, 2014.

[15] D. Henderson, S. Earley, C. Bradley, and Knowledge Administration Administration Affiliation, Eds., DAMA-DMBOK: data management body of knowledge, Second

[16] D. J. Snowden and M. E. Boone, “A Chief’s Framework for Resolution Making,” Harvard Enterprise Assessment, Nov. 2007. [Online]. Accessible: https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making

[17] F. Heuer and O. Kruggel, Der Kulturarchitekt: mit dem Culture Board Unternehmenskultur analysieren und verändern, 1. Auflage. Düsseldorf: Fachmedien Otto Schmidt KG, 2022.