Democratizing strategy

Shared strategy, stronger results: Why involvement increases motivation, adaptability, and culture

Most of us have been on the receiving end of a strategy that felt like it dropped from the sky. A new set of priorities is announced at an all-hands meeting. A glossy slide deck outlines ‘the strategic plan’. Management explain what needs to be done. Everyone nods, but inside many people feel the same thing: I had no say in this, so why should I care?

This is the problem with the old way of thinking about strategy. For decades, it was seen as the task of the C-suite. A small circle of bosses would go off-site, create the strategy, and then cascade it down the hierarchy. Culture was handled the same way. Leadership teams wrote lists of ‘core values’, printed them on posters, painted them on the meeting room walls and expected everyone to follow.

But the world is moving too fast and is too unpredictable for this model to work anymore. Markets shift in months, not years. New technologies change entire industries. Global events reshape how people live and work. A strategy built only by the top risks being brittle. A culture defined only by leaders risks feeling hollow.

Here is the deeper truth: strategy and culture are two sides of the same coin. Strategy sets direction. Culture shapes how people actually move in that direction together. One without the other cannot last. And both depend on participation, not just proclamation.

Participation creates ownership

Think about the last time you were part of designing something important. Maybe you were on a project team, or you helped write a plan for your department. When the work moved forward, you probably felt more motivated to see it succeed. That is the power of ownership.

Large studies of organizations have consistently shown the same pattern: when people are involved in decisions, their satisfaction and commitment increase, and performance improves. When people see their ideas reflected in the final direction, they carry more of the load because it feels like their plan, not just the boss’s.

Participation is not perfect. If leaders ask for input but ignore it, trust erodes. If the process becomes too complex, decisions stall. But when done correctly, it’s the most effective way to engage your teams.

Sensemaking keeps organizations adaptable and engaged

For a long time, strategy was seen as a static document. Leaders would define the course and then stick with it. Today, that idea feels outdated. Strategy is less like a blueprint and more like a compass. It requires constant sensemaking – noticing signals, interpreting them, and adjusting as you go.

If only a few leaders are allowed to do this work, the organization will move too slowly. People on the front line often see problems first, whether it is a customer complaint, a sudden supply issue, or a small shift in demand. If their voices are not included, the organization misses weak signals that matter.

Examples from crisis research drive the point home. Organizations facing disasters or pandemics have shown that they adapt more effectively when many people contribute their observations and interpretations. This is not just about reacting quickly. It is also about motivation. When people are part of making sense of what is happening, they feel respected and engaged.

Sensemaking also feeds culture. Culture is built out of the stories people tell and the meanings they assign to events. When sensemaking is shared, culture becomes more authentic and energizing.

Networks, not just charts, carry strategy and culture

We often picture companies as pyramids, with neat boxes stacked into layers. But that image hides the reality. Strategy and culture flow less through charts and more through conversations – the web of relationships across the organization.

Research has shown that networks with central hubs can outperform flatter structures, but only when communication moves both ways. A hub that only broadcasts orders fails. A hub that listens, gathers insights, and shares them back helps the whole system adapt faster.

This is also how culture spreads. Not through memos, but through the stories people tell each other in hallways, in meetings, and now in chat channels. Democratizing strategy strengthens these networks by giving more people a voice in the conversation. The effect is practical – faster learning – and cultural – a sense of respect and inclusion.

Shared language builds unity

Culture is, at its core, a language. It is the words people use to describe goals, values, and priorities. When those words are consistent, coordination becomes easier and unity grows.

Hospitals, for example, have found that surgical teams who develop shared vocabulary make fewer mistakes and achieve better outcomes. Sports teams with shared mental models play more cohesively and perform better. The same principle applies in business: when everyone describes priorities in the same way, silos break down and the organization moves together.

People also feel more motivated when they can see themselves as part of a shared story rather than an isolated fragment. Shared language is not just technical – it is cultural glue.

Rituals create meaning

Every culture has rituals, and organizations are no different. Rituals are the repeated practices that mark what is important. They might be as formal as a quarterly review or as simple as a team huddle.

Psychologists have shown that rituals sharpen focus and encourage cooperation. In companies, they anchor meaning. Rituals like celebrating wins, opening projects with a shared kickoff, or holding reflection sessions keep energy alive and build unity.

They are not minor details. Over time, they become cultural anchors – the living practices that turn strategy into shared culture.

Culture cannot be built top-down

Leaders often say they want to “shape culture.” The mistake is thinking culture can be commanded. A poster on the wall or a value printed in a handbook does not change how people act.

Culture grows from shared experience and lived behavior. It becomes strong when people co-create it, not when it is handed down. Scholars of organizational culture have shown that it develops through consistent practices, stories, and rituals that make sense to the people inside the organization.

Consider Google’s “Project Aristotle.” What made some teams succeed was not raw talent but psychological safety – the sense that people could speak up without fear. No leader could simply order that to exist. It developed through open dialogue and participation.

Or take Buurtzorg, the Dutch home healthcare organization. Nurses there work in self-managing teams, deciding together how to care for clients. The result is not only flexible service but also a culture of ownership and purpose.

Hospitals provide another lesson. The most powerful cultural tools are not slogans but shared routines like patient handovers. When staff shape those routines themselves, trust rises, errors fall, and culture strengthens.

The pattern is clear: culture is sensemaking made visible. And sensemaking cannot be imposed from above – it has to be shared.

Measuring progress

Democratizing strategy and culture may sound abstract, but it can be measured. Organizations can track:

• How many people take part in workshops and reviews

• Whether milestones are achieved compared with plans

• How quickly decisions and adjustments are made

• The density of communication networks

• Surveys on trust, fairness, and shared language

• Consistency of rituals and symbolic practices

Measuring does more than track progress. It shows employees that involvement is real and valued. That signal alone reinforces both motivation and culture.

Conclusion

Democratizing strategy does not mean everyone decides everything. Leaders still matter. But it does mean opening up the process so more people help make sense of what is happening, set direction, and take action. It means networks of communication, not just charts. It means building shared language and anchoring meaning in rituals. And it means recognizing that culture cannot be dictated from the top. It must be grown through participation.

The evidence is strong:

• Involvement builds ownership, motivation, and cultural strength

• Shared sensemaking makes organizations more adaptable and engaged

• Networks carry trust and culture more than formal structures

• Shared language unites people and reduces errors

• Rituals sustain meaning and energy

• Culture grows from the bottom up, not from slogans

Organizations that take these lessons seriously will not only execute better today, they will also build the adaptability, motivation, and culture they need for the uncertainties of tomorrow.

References

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

Filho, E., Tenenbaum, G., & Yang, Y. (2015). Cohesion, team mental models, and collective efficacy: Towards an integrated framework of team dynamics in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 33(6), 641–653.

Fischer, R., Callander, R., Reddish, P., & Bulbulia, J. (2013). How do rituals affect cooperation? An experimental field study. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(5), 279–285.

Hällgren, M., Rouleau, L., & De Rond, M. (2021). A matter of life or death: How extreme context research matters for management and organization studies. Academy of Management Annals, 15(2), 463–495.

Hatch, M. J. (2018). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Klein, G., Feltovich, P., Bradshaw, J. M., & Woods, D. D. (2006). Common ground and coordination in joint activity. In Organizational Simulation (pp. 139–184). Wiley.

Kreitzer, M. J., Monsen, K. A., Nandram, S., & de Blok, J. (2015). Buurtzorg Nederland: A global model of social innovation, change, and whole-systems healing. Global Advances in Health and Medicine, 4(1), 40–44.

Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 21–49.

Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57–125.

Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 29(4), 727–753.

Sagie, A. (1994). Participative decision making and organizational behavior: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 7(4), 325–344.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Shore, J., Bernstein, E., & Jang, S. (2020). Network centralization and organizational adaptation. Organization Science, 31(2), 341–364.

Vohs, K. D., Wang, Y., Gino, F., & Norton, M. I. (2013). Rituals enhance consumption. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1714–1721.

Wagner, J. A. (1994). Participation’s effects on performance and satisfaction: A reconsideration of research evidence. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 312–330.

Wagner, J. A., & LePine, J. A. (1999). Participation and performance: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 865–879.

Weick, K. E. (1995/2020). Sensemaking in organizations (Updated ed.). Sage.