In the tech startup world a now-famous phrase has been coined: “culture eats strategy for breakfast,” and it has been extended to include “technology for lunch, and products for dinner, and soon thereafter everything else too.”

Culture is shaped by many factors. There are professional mores, industrial processes, internal structures, communication, personnel, accumulated habits, and more.

Our research found that culture can be changed. But doing so is subtle and complex. The key elements involve understanding and addressing the values an organization sets, the structure it builds, and the processes it puts in place.

In the review of the landscape of news that follows, we will focus on three elements of organizations: culture, structure and processes.

[pulldata context=”Culture emerges from the structure and processes of a news organization.”]

It helps to think of these as three layers that build upon each other. At the top is culture — the culmination of what an organization is and what purpose it serves. Beneath that is a broader layer of structure — the organizational and seating charts that enshrine and reinforce the culture. Finally, at the bottom is a broad base of processes — the daily actions and interactions that occur within the structure and bring the culture to life.

Culture is the most important factor in enabling innovation — but also hard to change directly or immediately, because it often flows from the bottom up. It can change over time as the result of smaller strategic alterations to the structure and the processes.

To become the kind of adaptive innovators we want, news organizations (across the full range of the editorial, marketing, business, technology and circulation functions) must envision the culture they need and then change their structure and processes to achieve it. The following sections explains these concepts and a plan for supporting that kind of transformation.


Culture is defined by leadership and then fulfilled by staff. It is a shared set of expectations, values, motivations, and purposes.

Leaders, our research found, create an innovative culture by exercising three fundamental steps:

  • Setting the right goal — Establishing a shared mission, vision and vocabulary that unites the whole organization
  • Aligning all teams toward the goal — Coordinating, nurturing, and enforcing a shared set of current priorities that all teams will work toward while recognizing and respecting the different roles each plays. This involves creating a common understanding and a common vocabulary that clarifies where different parts of an organization are aligned and also respects the necessary differences among functions that need to be respected and protected.
  • Energizing the process — Driving, demanding, rewarding and sometimes protecting the necessary change and improvement

In an environment with those three ingredients — with everyone working toward the same high-level goals while respecting their necessary differences, working with each other enthusiastically and creatively to reach them — innovation is far more likely to flourish.

Without this environment, our researchers found, any one person or team’s efforts at significant innovation are usually plagued by conflicts, insufficient resources, or internal indecision.

Here it is important to note another finding — we do not see “innovation” as a goal in itself. It is more of a byproduct: innovation is what happens while you’re busy creating your future by solving problems.

First, an organization must have clarity about what future it intends to create (its mission) and what problems it is solving to do so (its priorities).

Innovation is what happens while you’re busy creating your future by solving problems.

It is also important, the research reinforced, that people not just hear the mission from the organization’s leaders but also see the mission being lived out by those leaders in daily actions.

When trying to make change in uncertain environments, another component is also important: In an environment of change, organizations flourish where more ideas are welcome. It is important for innovation to succeed, for the people below the highest levels to feel they can shape how these high-level goals are fulfilled.

This is where the following two components — what are called here Structure and Processes — come into play. The mission statement on paper is at best a skeleton — the right structure and processes flesh it out and bring it to life.


Structure is the way an organization arranges itself both administratively and physically.

One finding of the human-centered design team’s research was that the way people organize and interact within these organizations tends to reflect the way humans organize and interact naturally in any setting. They form groups among people with similar roles, motivations, personalities, values, vocabulary, and experiences.

We call these groups tribes. This is a critical, fundamental concept.

The “Tribal” model

It is hard to overstate the importance of tribes to the functioning of any organization.

Tribes can be a powerful, and potentially positive force.

In the context of a news organization, reporters form a tribe. So do web producers. Visual journalists are a tribe. And so are ad sales reps. Mid-level managers become a tribe. People may also be members of more than one tribal cohort. For instance, groups tightly organized around one coverage area such as sports could form a tribe, one that includes editors and reporters as well as developers.

You can see the power of tribal cultures in languages. Many indigenous tribes — the Inuit, for example — name themselves with their language’s word for “people.” The tribes we belong to are, quite literally, “our people.” It is not merely an association but an identity.

We saw a powerful example of the phenomenon of people organizing by tribe at a mid-size news publisher we visited. The new office space was entirely open — no seat assignments, no restrictions. Given the choice, nonetheless, reporters with more tenure naturally sat together while reporters with less tenure sat together. Sales and marketing sat together. Managers and other decision-makers sat together. People, in other words, naturally organized themselves based on who they felt comfortable with and who they thought they needed access to.

This separation by tribe is not a necessarily bad thing. Tribes can be a powerful, and potentially positive force. Tribe members, our researchers found, provide each other creative energy, motivation, support, learning, enjoyment, companionship, and problem solving. They also flourish when given freedom and autonomy to develop their own cultures, vocabulary, norms, histories, expectations, and path for advancement.

So one challenge is to allow tribes to flourish while not letting tribalism become an impediment to change.

Finding that balance can be difficult.

There are some things that can degrade the effectiveness of these tribes.

Tribes may suffer when their members face forced separation. Close-knit tribes can be mistaken for “cliques,” leading managers to force more integration by making tribe members stop sitting or spending time together. Or managers may try to integrate tribes by completely embedding the individual members of one tribe (like developers) in another (like newsroom reporters) — which can have a harmful effect. Developers cut off from other developers may lose some of the strength and knowledge they would draw from their own tribe.

Our research also found that tribes may suffer when members are pressed into competition with one another. If tribe members feel individually insecure, they behave like contestants on an episode of “Survivor,” motivated by fear and distrust.

Making reporters compete to get the most pageviews, for instance, can undermine the organization by making people secretive hoarders of story ideas and unwilling to help colleagues. While some competition for success is inevitable, and even desired, a shared sense of mission and shared reward can make that competition more successful.

How tribes influence an organization

Tribes are also are a powerful force in driving behavior within an organization, both enabling or impeding innovation.

Often no single person in an organization sees the complete picture. Certainly no one sees everything that is happening; and few, if even those at the top, see quite how it all fits together. This influences behavior. As the research made clear over and over, people primarily act based on what they see happening around them — in their corner of the organization, their tribe. And this can significantly inhibit or empower efforts at change.

When management sets broad, general goals (say about website traffic) without showing some of the tribes (say newsroom reporters) how those goals make them better at what they do or serve a larger shared mission, bad things can happen. The reporters often resist and disregard the goals, in part because the rationale was not understood or embraced. A mandate does not equal motivation.

The mission can also be made clear but still be ineffective when leaders do not connect it and communicate it properly to the structure of the organization.

One of the core findings of the research was that real transformation happens when there are changes in local behavior — at the tribal level — not simply because of signals from an authority at the top. And since people act based on what they see around them, the behavior and health of the tribe has a great effect on individual behavior. The influence of a respected, fellow tribe member can be greater, on a human level, than the influence of a CEO. The self-motivation of a tribe empowered to pursue its creative goals can be greater than any motivation that comes from a manager’s encouragement.

To encourage innovation and transformation, in other words, organizations need to empower and motivate their tribes.

Uniting tribes

While recognizing the influence and importance of individual tribes, one important concept the research suggested is the most successful organizations also take clear steps to unite their tribes.

In other words, while tribes that form around tasks, responsibilities, skill sets or even age and experience are the vital organs of an organization, much like they organs in a body, they cannot operate entirely on their own — often they need to work together to accomplish significant goals.

News organizations that fail to innovate often do so because tribes from the newsroom, business department, or technology team do not work with one another, do not share any mission, do not share any language. They operate in a state of adjacency, not connection.

This is probably even more important when organizations have to innovate to survive.

In such uncertain environments, it is essential to unite tribes around the larger shared goals of organizational change while allowing them to function creatively in order to make the change happen.

In fact, we find this question of managing unity and separation one of the key elements of cultural change.

Connecting the various tribes across a media organization requires several critical steps.

That begins by identifying a shared mission, or seeing how the tribes fit together. Business and editorial, for instance, are not at odds. But how do their differences combine to a common purpose? How do they actually work together to make changes, yet in ways that respect their different roles?

An important step in identifying this shared mission is creating a shared vocabulary, some language that helps different tribes describe that shared purpose. A shared vocabulary, particularly across the business and news sides of a media organization, can go a long way to developing a sense that people in different tribes are unified. Without it, people across departments can feel that their tribe is threatened, that innovation is going to undermine something they hold dear, and that mandated statements about shared mission are false or imposed.

Even with a sense of shared purpose and vocabulary, the sense of unity has to be something that people can see in action. For that to happen, researchers found that it was important to establish and encourage personal relationships across tribes, and to have what might be called ambassadors, people who have trust and communication with other tribes.

One way of doing this is to create shared projects in which people across tribes work together and see the benefits of doing so.

News organizations that fail to innovate often do so because tribes from the newsroom, business department, or technology team do not work with one another, do not share any mission, do not share any language. They operate in a state of adjacency, not connection.

The first step in order for tribes to want to work with each other, is that people must understand their shared mission. What interest do they have in collaborating? What are they all trying to accomplish together? And what are the current priorities all should be working on to advance that mission?

One particular challenge in a news setting is that many newsroom people see what they are engaged in as a higher mission — public service and public good — that transcends the company for which they work. On the other side, business people in news organizations can feel as though their mission is more critical and under appreciated because they provide the revenue that makes everything else possible.

A key part of the leaders’ role is to develop empathy and understanding with each tribe, and then communicate to the different tribes how their different missions align. How does the mission of creating more revenue for the advertising tribe meld with, not just benefit, the mission of public service strongly felt in the newsroom, and vice versa?

Creating innovative organizational structure, then, is primarily a challenge of empowering strong, unique, creative tribes while also connecting and coordinating them for the good of the whole.

The research identified several ways to do this. Some involve arrangement of physical space where tribes can be alone together and other physical spaces where tribes will naturally interact with other tribes. Other methods involve implementing organizational processes that unite tribes. That is what we address next.

[pulldata align=center context=”Innovative organizational structures empower tribes while also connecting and coordinating them”]


The third element in creating an environment where change is possible involves processes. Processes are the daily or regular occurrences that unite the structure and create the culture. They are the acts that make up daily work life and subtly yet powerfully express who we are as an organization and what we value.

The daily planning meeting is a process. The way people communicate by email or instant message is a process. The workflow of content is a process. The way ads get sold or bundled is a process.

Any one process, viewed in isolation, appears to be just a mundane part of getting the day’s work done. But these simple routines that occupy daily life easily evolve into rituals that define it. With time they take on tradition and significance (“that’s the way we do things around here”). We are what we repeatedly do.

We can also change what we are, in part by changing what we repeatedly do.

Our research identified several examples of processes that news organizations can use to build and strengthen their structures and cultures. Some processes are useful in themselves for directly supporting innovative projects. Others are useful more as exercises that build the organizational capacity for innovation — building relationships, trust and tribal connections that will pay off over time.

We will explore some of those innovation-building processes in the next section.

Share with your network

You also might be interested in:

  • Sustainability cannot simply focus on finances. If we want to do better journalism, sustainability must also focus on building community, inside and outside of the newsroom.

  • This is a column on how to measure well-being for yourself and your organization. By the end, you’ll have a clear direction and quantitative ways to chart a healthy path forward for your journalists.

  • Experts define moral injury as the suffering that comes from witnessing, perpetrating or failing to prevent events that violate one’s own deeply held moral beliefs and values. It is not classified as a mental illness, but it can lead to depression, substance abuse or burnout, which is one reason news managers need to understand the phenomenon of moral injury — and ways to address it or head it off.