Applying Gestalt Diagnosis in Identifying the Interdependencies among Corporate Culture, Subcultures and Leadership Style: A Case Study

The movement of “silent quitting” and the “great resignation” are trends of the post covid era when the lockdowns triggered a shift in the way that many employees viewed their workplace. According to Hopkins and Figaro (2021), with long periods of lockdowns and isolation, workers took the opportunity to reevaluate their lives and priorities and request sustainable organizational practices. Those practices enabled collaborative working processes and relationships and lead to a corporate culture that promote a stable workplace, with cohesive leadership that results in performance (Vargas-Hernandez, 2022). Our research applies Gestalt phenomenological diagnosis along with empirical data, in order to identify the interdependencies among corporate culture, subcultures and leadership style, and presents a causal work diagram illustrating the many and varied interconnections to obtain organizational sustainability. This paper contributes to the growing body of work in the area of organizational diagnosis, by understanding the Gestalt awareness process of the organizational consultant. Our research adds empirical evidence to the above concepts and provides new ways of thinking about the complexity of corporate culture via applying Gestalt practices and allowing the full self of the consultant in the assessment process.

Introduction

The literature demonstrates a significant disparity between social and management scientists on the extensive topic of the corporate culture. Social scientists have endeavored to comprehend the fundamental theories of culture, whereas management scientists appear to be eager to employ simplified versions of these theories in managerial contexts. In an era where corporate culture and individual choice are interconnected, understanding corporate culture drivers becomes critical in retaining talents and organizational performance. The corporate culture has a substantial impact on the ability to retain employees, as they are more inclined to stay with a company when the workplace culture is in harmony with their personal values and professional goals (Trice & Beyer, 1993). Trice and Beyer (1993) imply that organizational cultures are significantly correlated to leadership style and influence employee behavior and practices. Research also argues that subcultures exhibit the same characteristics as cultures, including unique patterns of shared ideology and diverse sets of cultural norms (Keyton, 2011). Niemietzet al. (2013) highlight the significance of subcultures in organizational transformation, where the importance is attached to the overall culture, but the role of subcultures is often overlooked. Ogbonna and Harris (2015) provide an example of how subcultures might impact the processes in an organization, where subcultures’ functions embody the values and norms of their members and exert a comparable influence on the overall culture as well as the behavior of its in-group members (Ogbonna & Harris, 2015).

The leading practitioners of organizational development place a great emphasis upon the proper diagnosis of organizational dysfunction. Beckhard and Harris (1977) had developed a model resting on diagnosis for effective change planning and Levinson (1972) an outline for “organizational examination,” Weisbord (1976) has developed the “six-box model” and others have emphasized in data-based intervention where the client is made aware of the diagnostic findings (Nadler, 1974; Mahler, 1974). Using Gestalt thinking as a framework in identifying the interdependencies among corporate culture, subcultures, and leadership concepts, this paper applies Gestalt in organizations holistic approach in interpreting the realm of this interconnectedness which directly impacts the organization. The phenomenology used in a Gestalt organizational diagnosis is intended to transform the pre-reflective or natural world into “a phenomenological world” (Sokolowski, 2000, p. 49) where the ideal essence or “eidos” can be revealed through what is sometimes called the “eidetic reduction” (Hintikka, 1995, p. 101) or “eidetic intuition” (Moran, 2000, p. 134). Levinson (1972) propose an extrapolation model as a means to portray these conditions by using phenomenology.

Background

Corporate Culture and Subculture

Corporate culture (CC) is a broad and somewhat ambiguous concept which has been investigated for many decades and with various approaches of understanding and measurement. The concept refers to “the shared pattern of beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviors that members of the organization learn over time” (Schein, 1990, p. 11). Ravasi and Schultz (2006) referred in their definition to a set of shared assumptions that guide behaviors. Corporate culture is complex because “it is shaped externally by the national and global environment, and internally by the cultures of all of its individuals” (Kucharska & Bedford, 2023, p. 27). Deal and Kennedy (2000) argue that corporate culture is the single most important factor accounting for success or failure in organizations; and identified a link between corporate culture and business performance. Carmeli (2005) provided preliminary evidence that employees’ withdrawal behavior and intentions are partly products of the corporate culture. Multiple studies indicate that a corporate culture if aligned with the organization’s strategy and environment, can bring superior results (Carvalhoet al., 2019). Hofstede’s (1928, 2010) extensive research on both national and corporate culture has had a profound influence across many disciplines. Hofstede has defined corporate culture as “the way in which members of an organization relate to each other, their work, and the outside world in comparison to other organizations. It can either enable or hinder an organization’s strategy” (Hofstede, 2010, p. 6). Most quantitative measures of culture include at least one dimension that is conceptually similar to those of Hofsted’s model (Taraset al., 2009). Even if empirical research has identified organizations as complex systems (Carley, 1995), through specifying how the system is structured and the rules of interaction, one can explore the patterns of behavior of its actors, as culture consists of multiple actors that are interconnected and engaged in mutual interaction. According to Kuhn (1974), subcultures can only be understood in relation to all other elements of the system, and corporate culture should be seen as a set of behavioral patterns inside the system. Therefore, the study of the social interactions that power the system consists of interpreting “communicated, learned patterns common to relatively large groups [of people]” (Kuhn, 1974, p. 157).

Kucharska and Bedford (2023) asserted that corporate culture is influenced by two sets of factors, those that are inherited from the organization and those that derive from the composition of the unit or team and what each individual brings along. The pluralist position views corporate culture not as a single entity, but rather as a compilation of subcultures existing inside a dominant culture (Ulusoy, 2013). Those subcultures are defined as cohesive social groups that are characterized by a collective adherence to a specific set of norms and beliefs that emerge inside established units (Martin & Siehl, 1983; Trice & Beyer, 1993). Martin (1992) argued that organizational cultures might be either coherent and unified, or integrated and defined by collections of subcultures. Subcultures could develop based on a variety of drivers including task interdependence, reporting relationships, proximity, office design, and sharing of facilities and equipment (Martin, 1992). Teamwork itself may lead to the development of an ingroup/outgroup feeling (Loket al., 2005) and this professional identity is a strong driver of the development of subcultures (Fitzgerald & Teal, 2004). Location and geography can also be important determinants for the growth of subcultures (Gaved & Mulholland, 2016). The topic of subcultures within organizations has not received a great amount of research attention to date.

Organizational Development Based on Gestalt Diagnostic Practices

In line with social constructionism, Robine (2011) states that “there is no other reality than that which we construct in relationship” (p. 42). In the field of organizational development, this position is revolutionary because it dispels the illusion of objectivity and puts the organizational practitioner at the center of meaning co-construction. Gestalt practices, through a phenomenological hermeneutic process, that builds on the above and supports those interactions with other people and surroundings, and shapes how people perceive themselves at all times. Gestalt principles emphasize awareness and interconnectedness, at the present moment, which can be harnessed for diagnosing and resolving organizational challenges (Nevis, 1998).

Gestalt in organizational development drives emphasis in seeing the organization as an interconnected whole rather than isolated parts. The focus is on patterns, relationships, and processes within the organization. This principal aids in understanding dominant issues or dynamics affecting the system (Nevis, 1998). Examining how individuals, teams, and departments interact and where boundaries exist or need adjustment is supported by the Cycle of Experience, as a framework that describes the natural process of recognizing and resolving an issue. Understanding this cycle is essential for diagnosing where disruptions occur in organizational processes and facilitating smoother operations (Clarkson & Mackewn, 1993). By applying phenomenological diagnostic practices, the consultant observes communication patterns, decision-making processes, and interactions proposed by Clarkson and Mackewn (1993).

Gestalt diagnosis is a phenomenological hermeneutic process and is based on the work of phenomenologists namely Heidegger (1962) and Gadamer (1960/1989). According to Gestalt perspective, Gestalt emphasis on interconnectedness, context, and the holistic nature of experience is rooted in holistic nature of experience. As a result, the organizational “self” and the organizational consultant are always evolving and modified to fit the circumstances in which they find themselves. The process is dynamic and flexible, adapting to its surroundings and experiencing shifting objectives and demands, as circumstances constantly changing and shifting as these relationships change (Perlset al., 1994).

The Self Theory as a Gestalt Phenomenological Diagnostic Framework

The theory provides a framework for understanding how organizations experience, express, and develop their sense of “self” through interactions with their environment. This approach integrates Gestalt principles and phenomenological methods, focusing on real-time awareness, context, and relational dynamics. In Gestalt theory, the “self” is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of interaction between the individual and their environment. Yontef and Jacobs (2005) state that it is understood as arising through contact—meaningful interactions where individuals engage with their surroundings and others. The self is conceptualized in three interrelated aspects:

1. Id: The spontaneous, instinctual aspect of the self.

2. Ego: The organizing and decision-making part that shapes responses.

3. Personality: The structured, habitual ways of being that emerge from past experiences.

When applying the above “Self Theory” as a diagnostic tool in organisations the consultant is assessing the broader context of the individual’s interactions, including cultural, relational, and environmental factors. Also, the consultant is identifying external influences that shape the self-process, such as power dynamics, systemic pressures, or cultural norms. The benefits of Self Theory in Diagnosis holistic understanding supports the examination of the interplay between internal experiences and external environments, and focusing in the present moment (Parlett, 1991).

Research Method

This paper applied a mixed method research design in a business case study. This design capitalizes on the strengths of both methods while addressing their respective weaknesses and is especially useful when complex research questions require diverse types of data to be collected and analyzed.

More specifically, the qualitative phenomenological approach was intended to make the diagnostic analysis, as the Gestalt approach attends to explores the emergent patterns (gestalten) within an emerging experience (Perlset al., 1951), which explains the only “reality” of concern for describing phenomena accurately (Perlset al., 1951). By using the “Self-Theory” as a process to understanding how crucial it is for an organization to be able to sense itself in order to implement its strategy through planning, execution, and decision-making, the consultant observes the self, “what is said,” and “what it did.” This latter was interpreted as “an organization’s culture, historical narrative as well as its perceived strengths and weaknesses” (Chidiac, 2013, p. 465). Similar to individuals, businesses can become mirrored in an established perception of their identity and limitations. In other words what is obvious, the ego aspect, “what is said” and especially “what is done,” is analyzed without necessarily considering the unnamed dynamics (id function) and culture and subcultures.

The quantitative analysis used the Hofstede (1980) Multi-Factor Method (MFM). This scale produces six autonomous dimensions and two partially autonomous dimensions. From the autonomous dimensions, D1 describes organizational effectiveness (means oriented vs goal-oriented cultures), D2 describes customer orientation (internally driven vs externally driven), D3 describes the level of control (easygoing work discipline vs strict work discipline), D4 describes focus identification (local vs professional), D5 describes approachability (open system vs closed system) and D6 describes management philosophy (employee orientation vs customer orientation). D7 measures acceptance of leadership style and is also determined by the scores on D1 (means versus goal-oriented). The scores on D8 which measures identification with the organization, are partly defined by the scores of D2 (internally versus externally driven). D7 and D8 are normative, producing a good pole and a bad pole; whereas D1 to D6 are non-normative and in such the desired and actual position is determined by employees, whereas the optimal position is determined by management. The evaluation of these dimensions is presented in a 0–100 analysis, providing where the organizations stand within the spectrum of the two poles. By evaluating these six dimensions, this approach allows for the quantification of cultural dimensions, enabling comparisons over time or between subcultures and the overall culture, and ensuring congruence between actual, optimal, and desired outcomes. The actual and desired results are obtained via the survey questions where the participants are invited to answer questions on how they see some practices today and how they wish to see them in the future to identify with the organization (person-organization fit). The optimal results are agreed upon among leaders via a workshop that the consultant facilitates, where the management identifies what direction their practices should follow in the six dimensions in order to achieve their strategic objective. The MFM model is well-validated and reliable and has been used in research and practice for over 20 years (Hofstede, 2010). The data are self-reported, and the analysis is facilitated by the Hofstede Insights Organization, which holds the rights to the survey.

For the analysis, the research design recognizes corporate culture as simplified in theory, but in actual fact it is a complex system that needs to be understood using a systems thinking approach to answer the following research question: what are the interconnections between corporate culture, subcultures, and leadership style?

Sampling

The consultant approached a Greek consulting office, a franchise of a global brand. The office was founded in 2003 and has become a top leadership advisory firm in the local market, with expertise in top-level and senior management executive search. The firm employs 38 business consultants and back-office staff and is managed by a 5-shareholder scheme, of which three members act as executives and are included in the employee number count. All research participants were, at the time, full-time employees of the firm. Following a personal email invitation to participate in an Organization Culture survey as part of the new business plan 2024–2026 process, employees were asked to anonymously complete an online survey. The online survey link was disseminated via email with the assistance of the human resource department. Furthermore, a gentle reminder was included during data collection to increase the number of responses. Researchers checked each form to ensure there were no missing values in the dataset. From the invitees, 31 out of the 38 in total responded which results in 82% response rate. Of the 31 respondents, 27 belong to the customer front units that drive the business and the other 4 belong to support units. This paper presents the results of the 27 customer-front participants in order to measure the subcultures as well as the overall culture of the organization. The demographics of the 27 respondents are as follows: 11 men and 16 women, age ranges between age brackets with seven participants being over 40 years old, 14 being between 30 to 40 years old and six participants being under 30 years of age, giving this research a distribution of opinions in the generational side. Regarding their tenure in the firm, there is an even distribution between participants of under two years and over two years tenure, with five participants being rather new, under one year in the firm. Regarding their education, half of the participants hold a bachelor’s degree, and the other half, Masters and Doctoral degrees. The firm’s 27 customer-front consultants are structured into three sectorial subgroups that interact on a project basis and need.

Results and Discussion

A Holistic Presence Using the Theory of Self

Using Gestalt theory’s concept of “self” to explain organizational culture and subcultures can provide a holistic view of how individuals and groups within an organization interact, shape, and reflect its identity. Gestalt theory focuses on the interconnectedness of parts within a system and emphasizes the dynamic relationship between the individual and their environment. As a result, the “self” is always evolving and modifying to fit the circumstances in which it finds itself. It is also dynamic and flexible, adapting to its surroundings and modifying its objectives and needs as circumstances demand. The purpose of the “self,” however, is to organize this emerging and changing experience to make it meaningful. Following this concept, the organizations is the “self-function” and is accompanied by the “self-structures” of “id,” “ego,” and “personality” (Perlset al., 1994). The Gestalt notion of “self” offers a relational framework within which the consultant can engage with the outside world, both influencing and being influenced by it. Moreover, it considers more conscious and persistent elements of ourselves as well as emerging unconscious processes. Like individuals, groups and organizations can also be meaningfully seen through the lens of the Gestalt theory of “self” since they depend on and are generated within a network of developing interactions. This can be also verified through the published work of many Gestalt writers, such as Nevis (1987), Critchley (1998), Barber (2006; 2012), and Footeet al. (2010). In Gestalt theory, the self is not isolated but exists in relation to its environment. Similarly, organizational culture can be viewed as the collective self of the organization, shaped by the following criteria as observed by the consultant and using a phenomenologic approach:

• History and Identity: The organization’s foundational values, mission, and vision were very much encountered in the case organization and were strongly connected with the founder of the office that recently retired. Even though tenured employees viewed the founding story as inspirational, the majority of the newcomers seemed to perceive it as irrelevant. That was observed as tenured employees continuously called the organization their “family” and wished to socialize with colleagues after working hours, whereas newcomers were acting indifferently to the above, often avoiding social gatherings when possible.

• Dynamic Interactions: The organization is lived through a series of relational experiences, where the meaning of interactions emerges dynamically and varies for each participant. This is how individuals and groups interact, resolve conflicts, and create meaning. Every interaction is situated in a specific context, for example, in meetings the exchange of ideas and the power dynamics were promoted among tenured employees and were discouraged from newcomers, and a conflict is perceived as a threat to tenured employees.

• Conflict and Meaning: Resolution of conflicts is not merely about reshaping relationships to become meaningful, as individuals reinterpret their roles. For example, newcomers were considered as outsiders from tenured employees and a simple argument due to a difference of opinion, is perceived as an arguments and treated as a threat from tenured employees towards newcomers. Also, client needs were always considered by seniors as a priority, demanding after hour work to support the “family.” Such actions was perceived by newcomers as inappropriate.

Quantitative Research Results

The analysis of the MFM model shows the actual results on the six dimensions as presented in Table I, where the subcultures are close to the overall culture, measuring towards the same direction with no extreme fluctuations. Even though the overall actual culture is defined including the results from four back-office employees, in times it seems that it represents the mean of the three subcultures. This identifies the significant role of subcultures and how a subculture can influence the overall culture.

Table I. Survey Results in the MFM 6 Dimensions

	D1 Actual	D2 Actual	D3 Actual	D4 Actual	D5 Actual	D6 Actual
Overall corporate culture	68	39	42	63	28	55
Subculture 1	57	29	32	61	30	54
Subculture 2	69	37	35	61	34	64
Subculture 3	71	52	45	58	21	40

The analysis of the MFM model also shows the optimal (management view) versus the desired results (employee view) on the six dimensions where the differences in subcultures exaggerate the overall culture, showing extreme fluctuations and a low identification of employees with the management view. Such extremes present a problem regarding the sustainability of the organization.

Table II is also identified with the semi-autonomous dimension D7, where the results show an overall low acceptance of the leadership style, with an emphasis on Units 1 and 3, which have experienced high employee turnover rates during the past three years. Table III presents the leadership data.

Table II. Comparison of Survey Results Among Optimal and Desired Cultures in the Six Dimensions

	Corporate culture	Subculture 1	Subculture 2	Subculture 3
D1 Optimal	60	60	60	60
D1 Desired	91	88	90	92
D2 Optimal	75	75	75	75
D2 Desired	67	54	79	71
D3 Optimal	55	55	55	55
D3 Desired	55	59	52	52
D4 Optimal	55	55	55	55
D4 Desired	86	83	87	80
D5 Optimal	55	55	55	55
D5 Desired	−4	0	−7	0
D6 Optimal	70	70	70	70
D6 Desired	17	25	8	25

Table III. Survey Results in Leadership Preference

	Leadership acceptance	Actual leadership style	Desired leadership style
Overall	32%	39% Consultive	58% Consultive
Unit 1 results	20%	60% Consultive	60% Consultive
Unit 2 results	43%	36% Paternalistic/Consultive	50% Consultive
Unit 3 results	20%	60% Paternalistic	80% Consultive

Findings and Discussions

From the qualitative and quantitative results in Table III, we identify the following interdependencies:

• A low score in leadership acceptance indicates that employees do not believe leaders preserve their desired corporate culture.

• Overall, we see a disagreement between what management desires (optimal culture) and what employees desired (desired culture), showing a negative relation of organization-person fit. The literature indicates that there is a weak negative relationship between organization-person fit and turnover intention (Khalida & Safitri, 2018)

• From the literature, employee desired culture when opposite from optimal culture, decreases identification/organization -person fit with the organization and increases intention to quit (Grahamet al., 2022).

• Higher D4 professional culture preference by employees has a negative identification of employees with their team or organization, which renders them more receptive to external opportunities and increases their intention to quit. The local versus professional score is positively associated with the intention to quit.

• Dimension D6 which corresponds to management philosophy towards work-orientation, drives employees to feel that management doesn’t prioritize their welfare over clients; and so that negatively affects employee retention (Hofstede, 1980): the person organization fit is negatively correlated with intention to quit.

• Subculture scores show a higher gap between desired and optimal culture than the overall culture which is positively associated with intention to quit.

By applying the “iceberg metaphor,” the results identify the three levels. Level one is the “tip of the iceberg” and  what is visible, i.e. the structure, goals, policies and the “way we say and get things done” along with everyday employee behaviors. Level two is the first bottom level which is the unseen culture and which reflects relationships and attitudes, norms, traditions, beliefs and shared assumptions. And level three is the bottom of the iceberg which are the unwritten rules, norms traditions, and the way we really get things done within the organization. None of the visible elements can ever make real sense without understanding the drivers behind them and the “hidden culture” on the bottom side of the iceberg, the invisible side. It is these invisible elements that are the underlying causes of what manifests on the visible side. By embracing a Gestalt thinking mentality with regard to corporate culture, and applying an approach to “Self” by Perlset al., (1951), which define the “self” as the system “not isolated from the environment, [but in] contact [with] the environment” (p.11), the consultant interprets the organizational culture in this case. The “Id” function represented the subcultures which act as informal internal dynamics, the “Ego” function represented what the organizational members say and do, and the “Personality” Function represented the member narratives.

The Executive Team of the organization, following the presentation of the above results, rather than focusing on understanding the needs of their existing resources and capabilities, remained disconnected, and reemerged original narratives such as “we need to follow how things used to be done around here.” This reaction is a suffering from poor awareness of the organisation “Id” function which leads to the high employee turnover and dissatisfaction. Being aware of a changing environment is not always enough for an organization (and its leadership) to take action. Attending to emergent needs requires a supportive environment according to the needs of the employees that are requested to fulfill strategy requirements. Although many authors make the link between a strong organizational culture and performance (Denison, 1990; Truskie, 1999), Alvesson (2002), other warn of the dangers of objectifying culture by assuming there are key attributes that can be applied to fix an organizational cultures. interrelated aspects of self-functioning need to be considered as a whole, and cultural adaptability as well as fit to internal/external pressures and market needs will eventually determine organizational performance. Thus, a proposal for creating a retention strategy will involve identifying the type of culture employees desire, and compare it with the current culture within the organization and for seeking a balance between optimal and desired culture that retains employees and ensures the company’s prosperity. The actual culture is one of the more important determinants in the model, next to issues such as content of the job, remuneration and career opportunities that significantly influence employee retention (Hoftede, 2010) as organizational culture has a high impact has a high impact on retention (Anitha & Begum, 2016).

The diagram in Fig. 1 illustrates the flow of influence between corporate culture, subcultures, and leadership style, showing how these interact to achieve organizational sustainability. Key pathways include:

1. Corporate Culture → Leadership Style:

• Culture defines expectations for leadership behaviors.

• Leaders adapt their style to embody and promote cultural values.

2. Leadership Style → Subcultures:

• Leadership approaches shape the emergence and management of subcultures.

• Effective leaders harmonize subcultures with corporate goals.

3. Subcultures → Corporate Culture:

• Subcultures feed back into the larger corporate culture, either strengthening or diluting it.

• Shared practices among subcultures reinforce corporate identity.

4. Organizational Sustainability:

• Alignment among these elements fosters adaptability, innovation, and resilience.

• Discrepancies lead to inefficiencies, disengagement, or resistance to change.

Fig. 1. Causal loop diagram.

Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Directions

This study has focused on the analysis of the actual versus the desired culture and their impact on employee retention. In practice, taking a Gestalt thinking approach to culture and understanding it could provide alternative answers to an organizational challenge. As noted by Schein (2010), the study of corporate culture is of paramount importance now due to the increasing complexity of business environments, greater interconnectedness, the increasing role of artificial intelligence, and the role of stakeholders, all of which present a far more complex scenario for understanding and transforming corporate culture. The fundamental principles of an organization originates from its leadership and its leadership style. A robust corporate culture occurs when there is a cohesive alignment of behavior, values, and beliefs (Personality) that drive a positive organization. Leaders must recognize their important role in preserving the organization’s culture (Ego), as this will minimize conflicts and foster a positive work atmosphere for employees (Id). Some degree of constructive misunderstanding, or deliberate or unconscious ignorance, maybe an almost necessary condition for scientific creativity (Klausen, 2013; 2014). Yet, whenever phenomenology is transformed into a practical method, there is a danger of losing some of the sophistication found in philosophical phenomenology. Secondly, recognizing that “phenomena” are always partly constituted by pre-given conceptual structures, attentional habits, existing practices, and other things that are “always already there” makes it a task for phenomenology. Conklin (2007) and Gibson and Hanes (2003) highlight the significance of phenomenological research methodology, in its capacity to understand the complexity of human experiences and its potential to bridge the gap between qualitative researchers and practitioners. Management scholars are increasingly utilizing phenomenology to reach new insights in areas of decision-making based on in-depth human understanding rather than rational and logical processes (Gill, 2014).

Applying Gestalt Self Theory to organizational culture and leadership involves focusing on the interconnectedness of individuals, their awareness, and their relationships within the organizational environment. Gestalt theory emphasizes holistic perspectives, personal responsibility, and present-moment awareness, which can have profound implications for leadership styles and organizational culture. Awareness of the present moment is central to self-actualization and growth. Leaders foster awareness by being fully present during interactions, listening actively, and responding empathetically. Leaders use awareness to identify the dynamics of the organizational culture and address areas of conflict or misalignment in real-time. Leaders view the organization as a dynamic system where individual roles, relationships, and processes are interconnected. Cultural shifts are approached as systemic changes rather than isolated interventions. Gestalt diagnosis model supports that growth occurs through meaningful contact and authentic relationships and so leadership should focus on building trust and open communication, as the organizational culture is built on mutual respect, collaboration, and shared goals. Growth arises from navigating and resolving internal and external tensions and so when leaders recognize and address conflicts as opportunities, thry facilitate the dialogue that surface differing perspectives and encourage adaptability and resilience in the face of change, using tensions as catalysts for transformation. This processs involes integration and alignment of parts with the whole to achieve congruence. This paper is an early exploration of the use of Gestalt diagnosis in understanding the relationships between various aspects of culture from the lenses of Gestalt Self theory and how these various factors are interrelated in producing this particular outcome.

Practical Implementation

Applying a Gestalt diagnosis to corporate culture, subcultures, and leadership style allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how these elements are interconnected. By viewing the organization as a whole system, leaders and consultants can identify areas of alignment and misalignment, address conflicts, and implement strategies for greater coherence and performance. The practical approach following a Gestalt diagnosis is to understand dynamics in relationship, along with patterns among leaders and employees. In our case, this is not apparent and so the organization faces difficulties in implementing their strategy and lowering the employee turnover rate.

In Gestalt theory, leadership is seen not just as a top-down function but as a key in shaping the organization’s behavior and its interactions with subcultures. Leadership behavior creates patterns and defines the way the broader culture is shaped and experienced across the organization. A Gestalt consultant, following the diagnosis, will be invited to perform assessments using various tools to understand the predominant leadership style in the organization, observe how leaders communicate, make decisions, and set expectations. Using data from surveys, interviews, and focus groups, the consultant could evaluate how these subcultures interact with the broader corporate culture. Lastly, the consultant observes patterns where leadership styles and subcultures either align or create friction and observe feedback loops, and the critical role they play in system functioning. Finally, implementing a Gestalt diagnosis is not a one-time activity. It requires continuous feedback and interaction to monitor how changes in leadership, culture, and subcultures influence organizational dynamics, and adjust interventions as necessary. By considering the organization as an interconnected system and using tools like cultural mapping, leadership assessments, and system thinking, Gestault consultants can support leaders in gaining deep insights into how these elements influence each other and develop strategies that align the whole system for greater organizational effectiveness.