Working group devised recommendations for an organisation with a unique culture

'Our organisation doesn’t easily fit into any of the established corporate culture models, such as a market culture or an innovative culture,' says Debby van Leeuwen, manager of the Clinical Research Unit (CRU) and CRU support. 'Our working group preferred to choose our own words to describe the culture that fits our organisation, and base our recommendations on that description,' adds Manon Jansen, Senior Clinical Scientist in the Immunology group.

The Culture Development Programme was set up by the Management Team. Reflection on corporate culture was needed because of the organisation's rapid growth in recent years and its ambitions for the future. Members of the working group formed a cross-section of the organisation, from operations to science and from business development to various supporting departments. Van Leeuwen: 'The official kick-off was in March, but the most important starting moment was the off-site meeting in North Holland, where the Board explained our mission.' The working group was asked to present their recommendations, describing the current corporate culture and how it relates to the organisation's strategic goals.

The value of the programme was clear from the beginning: Not everyone in the group knew each other. For example, Debby and I didn't know each other at the time,' Jansen says. ‘Many of us work in different locations. This clearly showed our organisation had become too big to automatically stick to all the habits of the past. We all found it very useful to reflect on our corporate culture, and we noticed lots of enthusiasm about our programme in our conversations. The huge response to our survey strengthened that impression.'

The working group’s report, released in late 2023, describes the current corporate culture and makes recommendations for improvements based on four pillars: communication, engagement, leadership and collaboration. 'These pillars are interconnected. For example, improving collaboration also requires communication and leadership,' says Van Leeuwen.  

According to Van Leeuwen, CHDR still has a strong family culture when it comes to interpersonal interactions. ‘I think that was even more noticeable in the past. Operationally, we have many traits of a ‘hierarchical culture’, which is more about the crucial role of standard procedures than corporate hierarchy. And we have several unique characteristics that do not fit into well-known types of corporate culture'.

Jansen outlines the implications for the working group’s recommendations: 'Our goal is to reinforce the positive aspects of our corporate culture and address potential pitfalls. For example, the advantage of a family culture is that people quickly feel at home and receive individual attention. A disadvantage could be that people avoid holding each other accountable. For the quality of our data and the connection to our market, accountability and fixed procedures are very important. However, CHDR’s commitment to innovation means that a ‘rigid’ hierarchical corporate culture could hinder progress. We have identified these opportunities and potential pitfalls in our report, and our recommendations will now be translated into policies.’  In 2024, a core team and several working groups will contribute to the implementation process.