Westrum's Organizational Culture
Beyond the Typology: What Software Leaders Miss About It
You've likely heard of Ron Westrum's organizational culture model. If you're leading engineering teams or read the annual DORA report, you might even recite the three cultures in your sleep:
Pathological (power-oriented)
Bureaucratic (rule-oriented)
Generative (performance-oriented)
The basics are clear: information flows freely in generative cultures, gets trapped in bureaucracies, and is weaponized in pathological environments.
But here's what everyone misses: the model isn't just about information flow—it's about how organizations respond to threats and opportunities.
Westrum's Organizational Typology
Before diving deeper, let's briefly revisit the fundamentals. Westrum's typology classifies organizations based on how they process information:
Pathological: Driven by power and fear. Information is hidden, blame is rampant, and cooperation is scarce.
Bureaucratic: Ruled by processes and policies. Safe but rigid. Problems get stuck in formalities.
Generative: Focused on mission and performance. Information flows freely, mistakes are learning opportunities, and collaboration is high.
Here's the complete classification from DORA research:
DORA research has shown that organizations with generative cultures have 30% higher organizational performance.
Cultural Types Aren't Pure States
Most articles present Westrum's typology as three distinct buckets into which you can neatly place your organization. The uncomfortable truth is that your organization is simultaneously exhibiting all three cultural types right now—just in different contexts and departments.
This cultural heterogeneity isn't a failure—it's inevitable. The goal isn't cultural purity but appropriate cultural expressions for specific functions, with intentional integration points.
A good example is the difference between Top-Down and Center-Out Leadership. Though often viewed as micromanagement, there are scenarios where a top-down approach benefits engineering leaders:
Bootstrapping teams, establishing ways of working, and setting common standards when processes are chaotic.
Taking the lead during crises.
Minimizing variance (e.g., financial reports or certification processes).
Most will agree, however, that the desired state should be Center-Out Leadership, and leaders should aim to transform Pathological/Bureaucratic cultures into Generative ones.
Yet, this is where things get difficult—not everyone sees the need.
I've experienced this firsthand multiple times. "If things work, why bother changing?" For example, we faced significant resistance when shifting from quality control (only testers test) to quality assurance (everyone is responsible for quality). The bureaucratic culture was convenient—fixed release cycles, thousands of test scenarios run by QA testers, and minimal product accountability from engineering teams who simply made tests pass and moved from one task to another.
The Pathological Paradox
Pathological and bureaucratic cultures aren't always ineffective in the short term. They can efficiently execute specific, well-defined tasks under stable conditions, minimizing decision-making overhead and optimizing control.
The problem emerges when conditions change, requiring adaptation. That's when pathological cultures collapse—they lack mechanisms to adjust quickly. This explains why some engineering organizations with pathological traits still deliver results and view themselves as high-performing.