Clan Culture at Scale: How Growth Creates Factions, Misalignment, and Cultural Drift.

Abstract 

Clan organizational culture is characterized by belonging, mentoring, loyalty, and relational trust, often producing a “family-like” workplace identity (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). While clan cultures can drive engagement and cohesion in early-stage organizations, scaling introduces structural complexity, rapid hiring, and increasing performance expectations that can fracture shared meaning and create misaligned subcultures (Boisnier & Chatman, 2002; Strengers et al., 2022). This paper examines clan culture through a strategic communication lens, arguing that organizational culture is maintained through ongoing sensemaking, internal messaging, leadership narratives, and communication systems that reinforce identity (Weick, 1995). Using Schein’s organizational culture theory and research on strong cultures, subcultures, and psychological safety, this paper explains how factions form as organizations grow and teams develop competing assumptions about success, accountability, and belonging (Edmondson, 1999; Schein, 2010). The paper defines strategic communication and demonstrates how intentional communication alignment can sustain clan culture through growth by reinforcing shared norms, clarifying expectations, and reducing “us vs. them” dynamics across teams (Hallahan et al., 2007; Zerfass et al., 2018). A brief applied case example illustrates how strategic communication practices can unify diverse sub-clans while preserving relational culture strengths (Boisnier & Chatman, 2002).

Keywords: clan culture, strategic communication, organizational culture, subcultures, scaling, Schein, alignment  

Clan Culture at Scale: How Growth Creates Factions, Misalignment, and Cultural Drift.

Clan culture is often viewed as one of the most positive organizational culture types because it emphasizes community, teamwork, trust, and employee development (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). Employees in clan cultures commonly describe their workplace as supportive and relational, with leaders acting more like coaches than controllers (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). However, clan culture becomes more difficult to sustain as organizations grow because expansion introduces new roles, new departments, new leaders, and new expectations for structure and performance (Strengers et al., 2022). These changes may trigger culture drift, in which the organization continues to claim family-like values while employees increasingly experience disconnection, confusion, and internal fragmentation (Schein, 2010). From a communication perspective, cultural breakdown does not happen only because the organization changes structurally, but because shared meaning becomes harder to sustain across teams and leadership layers (Weick, 1995). Organizational culture is created, reinforced, and repaired through communication, including leadership messaging, everyday interaction patterns, organizational narratives, and systems that reward behaviors (Schein, 2010; Trice & Beyer, 1993). When growth outpaces cultural alignment, clan culture can splinter into factions or sub-clans that are internally loyal but misaligned across the organization due to competing mindsets and conflicting expectations (Boisnier & Chatman, 2002). This paper argues that organizations can protect clan culture during scaling by treating culture as a strategic communication outcome rather than a trait the organization naturally maintains (Hallahan et al., 2007; Zerfass et al., 2018).  

Clan Culture as a Communication-Centered Culture

Clan culture emphasizes belonging and collaboration, which means communication is not simply a tool inside the culture, but one of the main processes through which culture is sustained (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Schein, 2010). In smaller organizations, clan culture is reinforced through frequent interaction, shared experiences, informal mentoring, and repeated contact with leadership (Trice & Beyer, 1993). Employees learn “how things work here” through relational cues such as how leaders respond under pressure, how conflict is addressed, and what behavior is rewarded (Schein, 2010). As organizations grow, communication becomes more complex and less consistent. Messages travel through leadership layers, across locations, and through departmental norms, creating different experiences of “the same organization” (Boisnier & Chatman, 2002). Clan cultures are especially vulnerable during growth because cultural unity relies on relational consistency and shared meaning across the workforce (Schein, 2010). When communication becomes uneven, employees may receive mixed messages, observe inconsistent expectations, or interpret leadership decisions differently based on role, tenure, or proximity to power (Weick, 1995).  

Defining Strategic Communication

Strategic communication is best understood as a discipline that centers communication as a purposeful organizational function tied directly to mission and goals. Hallahan et al. (2007) define strategic communication as “the purposeful use of communication by an organization to fulfill its mission” (p. 3). This definition is widely recognized in strategic communication scholarship because it frames communication as intentional, goal-driven, and essential for organizational success (Hallahan et al., 2007). In addition, Zerfass et al. (2018) propose a broader definition, explaining that strategic communication includes communication that is substantial for an entity’s long-term survival and sustained success, emphasizing that it is both purposeful and strategically significant. Strategic communication supports culture because culture is a system of shared meaning that develops through repeated messages, sensemaking, and reinforcement mechanisms (Weick, 1995). Culture becomes scalable when communication is aligned across leaders, departments, and systems, rather than dependent on informal proximity and founder access (Schein, 2010). In this way, strategic communication supports clan culture by (a) clarifying meaning, (b) aligning stakeholder interpretations, and (c) reinforcing consistent behaviors through organizational systems (Hallahan et al., 2007; Zerfass et al., 2018).  

Schein’s Organizational Culture Theory and the Culture Drift Problem

Schein’s (2010) organizational culture theory explains why clan cultures often feel unified early on but become divided as organizations grow. Schein describes culture through three interrelated levels: artifacts, espoused beliefs and values, and basic underlying assumptions. Artifacts include visible cultural expressions such as behaviors, rituals, language, and symbols. Espoused beliefs and values include what an organization claims to prioritize. Basic underlying assumptions represent the deepest layer, shaping how employees define reality, interpret organizational actions, and decide what “makes sense” within their work environment (Schein, 2010). Culture drift occurs when organizations maintain clan artifacts and espouse relational values, but underlying assumptions shift across groups and departments (Schein, 2010). For example, founding employees may assume loyalty and long-term commitment should outweigh performance pressure, while newer employees may assume accountability, efficiency, and role clarity are more important for fairness and success (Strengers et al., 2022). When these assumptions diverge, employees can interpret identical messages differently, which produces misunderstanding and conflict even when everyone believes they are protecting the organization’s identity (Weick, 1995). In strategic communication terms, the issue is not only the message itself, but the competing interpretive frameworks through which employees make sense of that message (Weick, 1995).  

How Growth Produces Subcultures and Factions.  

Subcultures are a common feature of dynamic organizations, especially as teams grow and specialize (Boisnier & Chatman, 2002). As organizations become larger, differentiation increases through departmental roles, leadership styles, and distinct operational pressures, which can produce different local norms and cultural interpretations (Boisnier & Chatman, 2002). Subcultures can be beneficial because they allow adaptation to specialized work contexts, but they become problematic when subcultures turn into factions that compete for cultural legitimacy (Boisnier & Chatman, 2002). Factional clan cultures often form when employee groups develop competing mindsets about what the organization values and how decisions should be made (Schein, 2010). For example, one group may interpret “family culture” as relational protection and high flexibility, while another interprets culture as professional respect, clear accountability, and consistent standards (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Schein, 2010). The result is the emergence of “multiple clans” within the same organization, each with its own assumptions about loyalty, success, and leadership expectations (Boisnier & Chatman, 2002).  

Competing Mindsets and Cultural Conflict

Once factions exist, conflict becomes more likely because groups may disagree not only on policies but on what values mean in practice (Schein, 2010). Clan cultures are often grounded in moralized language such as loyalty, commitment, family, and trust, which can make disagreements feel personal rather than operational (Trice & Beyer, 1993). Employees in a loyalty-centered faction may interpret new systems or performance metrics as cold, corporate, or disloyal, while employees in a structure-centered faction may interpret relational decision-making as inconsistent, unclear, or unfair (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996).

Research on organizational change supports the idea that employee reactions are shaped by perceptions of fairness, trust, and communication context (Oreg et al., 2011). When leaders introduce change without a consistent explanation and dialogue, employees often fill informational gaps with assumptions and informal narratives (Weick, 1995). As these informal interpretations grow stronger, “us vs. them” thinking becomes normalized, weakening cohesion across the organization (Boisnier & Chatman, 2002).

Communication Consequences of Fragmented Clan Cultures

When clan culture fractures into factions, communication patterns often become more selective, filtered, and protective (Boisnier & Chatman, 2002). Employees may trust their in-group and avoid open communication with other groups, particularly when cross-team interaction feels unsafe or politically charged (Weick, 1995). In these settings, informal channels such as rumors and side conversations can become the dominant source of meaning-making because employees rely on peer interpretation to understand leadership decisions (Trice & Beyer, 1993; Weick, 1995).

Psychological safety tends to decline in factional environments because employees may fear relational harm, misunderstanding, or retaliation when speaking openly (Edmondson, 1999). Edmondson (1999) describes psychological safety as essential for learning behavior, collaboration, and adaptability in teams. When psychological safety decreases, people speak up less, errors may be hidden, and constructive conflict becomes avoided (Edmondson, 1999). These outcomes are especially damaging in growing organizations that require adaptation and coordinated performance across teams (Strengers et al., 2022).

How Factional Clan Culture Can Damage or Kill Organizational Culture

When clan culture becomes fragmented into factions, it can slowly destroy the very cultural strengths that once made the organization successful. Clan culture depends on shared trust, unity, and a consistent understanding of what “belonging” means (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). However, as the organization grows, employees may begin to experience culture differently depending on department, leader, and tenure. This inconsistency creates confusion and weakens cultural identity because employees no longer share one common interpretation of organizational values (Schein, 2010; Weick, 1995). Instead of being united by a shared mission, groups may become loyal to their sub-clan’s values and priorities, ultimately replacing organizational commitment with faction loyalty (Boisnier & Chatman, 2002).

Over time, factional clan culture can produce a toxic “us vs. them” environment, where employees interpret other teams as untrustworthy, unmotivated, or culturally misaligned. This is especially harmful in clan cultures because relationships and interpersonal trust are meant to be the cultural foundation (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). Once trust becomes selective, collaboration declines, and communication becomes filtered through alliances rather than shared purpose (Boisnier & Chatman, 2002). Employees may begin withholding information, avoiding cross-team problem-solving, or interpreting leadership actions as favoritism. These dynamics disrupt organizational cohesion and reduce the sense of psychological safety necessary for effective teamwork and learning (Edmondson, 1999).

Additionally, factional clan cultures often create inconsistent accountability standards. In one faction, relational loyalty may protect underperformance, while another faction prioritizes strict accountability and measurable outcomes. These inconsistencies can increase resentment and perceptions of unfairness, which weakens employee engagement and organizational trust (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996; Oreg et al., 2011). When culture becomes unpredictable, employees may disengage emotionally, withdraw effort, or choose to leave the organization, especially high performers who expect clear standards and stability (Oreg et al., 2011). Ultimately, culture fragmentation can kill organizational culture by replacing unity with confusion, collaboration with competition, and trust with uncertainty (Schein, 2010; Weick, 1995).

Strategic Communication as the Stabilizing System for Clan Culture

Strategic communication offers a structured approach to sustaining culture during organizational expansion. Rather than relying primarily on informal networks and proximity, a strategic communication approach treats culture as a repeatable system of meaning reinforced through consistent messaging, behavior standards, and aligned leadership practices (Hallahan et al., 2007; Zerfass et al., 2018). This matters because culture does not scale automatically; it must be clarified, communicated, and reinforced through systems that reach all employees (Schein, 2010).

A strategic approach to protecting clan culture at scale includes leader message alignment, behavior-based value translation, cultural storytelling, feedback systems, and consistent reinforcement across organizational processes (Hallahan et al., 2007; Trice & Beyer, 1993; Zerfass et al., 2018). Values cannot remain abstract, particularly in growing organizations. Strong cultures are shaped by consistent meaning systems and clear expectations that guide behavior (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996).

For example, if a company values teamwork, leaders must communicate what teamwork looks like in decision-making, collaboration, conflict resolution, and accountability (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Schein, 2010). If the organization values community, it must also define how community aligns with performance standards and fairness so that “family culture” does not become a justification for inconsistency or favoritism (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996). Strategic communication strengthens clan culture by making expectations shared and visible rather than assumed and uneven (Hallahan et al., 2007; Zerfass et al., 2018).

Recommendations: Strategic Communication Practices to Prevent Cultural Drift

Because organizational culture is created through shared meaning, leaders must use strategic communication to protect clan culture during periods of growth (Hallahan et al., 2007; Zerfass et al., 2018). Strategic communication is defined as “the purposeful use of communication by an organization to fulfill its mission” (Hallahan et al., 2007, p. 3). This perspective helps organizations understand that culture is not maintained through intention alone, but through consistent messaging, aligned leadership behaviors, and reinforced systems that help employees interpret expectations the same way (Schein, 2010; Weick, 1995).

Clarify “Non-Negotiable” Cultural Values and Translate Them Into Behaviors

Organizations should clearly identify their non-negotiable clan values and define them as observable behaviors rather than slogans (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Schein, 2010). For example, instead of only stating “we value teamwork,” leadership should define what teamwork looks like during conflict, deadlines, feedback conversations, and performance issues. This reduces interpretation gaps that often drive faction formation (Weick, 1995). When values remain vague, sub-clans naturally define them differently based on local norms and leadership expectations (Boisnier & Chatman, 2002).

Align Leadership Communication to Reduce Competing Culture Narratives

Organizations should train leaders to communicate consistent cultural messages across departments and levels. When leaders send mixed messages, employees engage in sensemaking that creates competing narratives and assumptions (Weick, 1995). Leadership alignment should include shared language about what the culture is, why changes are occurring, and how decisions reflect the organization’s mission and values (Hallahan et al., 2007). This prevents employees from viewing organizational growth as a betrayal of clan culture and instead frames change as necessary for long-term sustainability (Oreg et al., 2011).

Strengthen Psychological Safety and Two-Way Communication

Clan culture depends on trust and relationship-based engagement, which means leaders must actively protect psychological safety during growth (Edmondson, 1999). Organizations should create formal opportunities for employee voice and feedback, including listening sessions, anonymous feedback channels, and structured check-ins. These communication practices reduce fear, increase clarity, and prevent employees from retreating into faction-based loyalty (Edmondson, 1999; Oreg et al., 2011). Two-way communication also supports culture alignment because it allows leaders to identify where employees are experiencing confusion before cultural drift becomes entrenched (Weick, 1995).

Use Strategic Culture Systems to Reinforce Clan Values at Scale

Organizations should embed clan values into systems such as onboarding, mentoring, performance feedback, recognition programs, and promotions to ensure culture is reinforced consistently across teams (Schein, 2010; Trice & Beyer, 1993). When systems do not match values, employees notice the inconsistency and trust declines. For example, if leaders claim to value people but reward only speed and output, employees will interpret the true culture as performance-first rather than people-first (Schein, 2010). Culture alignment must be reinforced through formal mechanisms so employees receive the same message regardless of who their manager is (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996).

Treat Subcultures as Normal, but Manage Misalignment Early

Subcultures are natural in growing organizations, and they can be beneficial when aligned with the larger mission (Boisnier & Chatman, 2002). Leaders should not attempt to eliminate subcultures, but they should monitor faction development and address misalignment early through intentional communication and leadership coordination (Schein, 2010). Cultural audits, regular organizational climate checks, and cross-team projects can strengthen organizational cohesion while respecting local team identity (Boisnier & Chatman, 2002; Zerfass et al., 2018). Managing faction risks early prevents cultural drift from becoming permanent and protects the relational strengths that define clan culture (Cameron & Quinn, 2011).

Mini Case Example: Gateway Christian Academy and Culture Drift During Leadership Transition

A useful example of clan culture drift can be seen in the context of Gateway Christian Academy during a period of organizational transition. Historically, Gateway’s culture reflected a relational, family-oriented foundation rooted in shared history, strong community ties, and connection to Gateway Free Will Baptist Church. This type of identity is consistent with the characteristics of clan culture, where belonging, shared relationships, and tradition often function as key cultural strengths (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). In such environments, trust is frequently built through longstanding relationships, shared expectations, and informal communication patterns that reinforce unity (Schein, 2010; Trice & Beyer, 1993).

However, cultural tension began to surface following a leadership transition in which a new principal was hired who was not part of the historical “family system” of the organization and did not have established ties to the church community that had shaped the school’s identity. During his tenure, several new positions were created, and a significant number of new staff members were brought into the organization. At the same time, many long-standing staff members remained, resulting in two distinct employee experiences: one group grounded in legacy expectations and relational loyalty, and another group shaped by new structures, leadership priorities, and evolving roles. In growing or transitioning organizations, this kind of cultural split can contribute to the formation of subcultures and factions, especially when groups interpret organizational values through different underlying assumptions (Boisnier & Chatman, 2002; Schein, 2010).

Over time, these differences became more visible in communication patterns between the upper school and lower school divisions. Rather than functioning as one cohesive academic community, the school began operating as two separate cultural “clans,” each with its own routines, norms, and expectations. When consistent communication channels are lacking, employees often rely on informal sensemaking processes to interpret changes, which increases confusion and strengthens internal narratives that may not align with leadership intent (Weick, 1995). In this case, limited communication, follow-through, and inconsistent messaging across divisions contributed to tension, misunderstanding, and diminished collaboration between staff groups.

As a result, the effects extended beyond internal employee experience and began influencing stakeholder perceptions. Parents and families, as primary stakeholders in a school environment, tend to interpret organizational credibility and stability through communication consistency, trust signals, and the alignment between stated values and visible action (Schein, 2010). When communication becomes inconsistent across departments, stakeholders may experience confusion, reduced confidence, and frustration due to unclear expectations and uneven messaging. Over time, inconsistency can damage relationships, weaken trust, and contribute to broader reputational concerns, especially when stakeholders experience different information depending on which division they interact with. This case illustrates how clan culture drift, if unmanaged, can create internal factions and reduce organizational cohesion while also impacting external stakeholder engagement through a breakdown in strategic communication alignment (Hallahan et al., 2007; Zerfass et al., 2018)

Conclusion

Gateway Christian Academy’s experience demonstrates that clan culture is not self-sustaining during growth or leadership transition. Even when an organization continues to espouse relational values, culture can shift rapidly when communication becomes inconsistent and stakeholder experiences vary across divisions (Schein, 2010; Weick, 1995). In a clan-based environment, the absence of clear, strategic communication channels does more than create confusion; it reshapes trust, identity, and unity across the organization (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). This case reinforces the importance of strategic communication not only as a leadership skill, but as a culture-preservation system that aligns beliefs, reduces faction development, and stabilizes shared meaning as the organization changes (Hallahan et al., 2007; Zerfass et al., 2018).

Clan organizational culture can be a powerful foundation for engagement, loyalty, and belonging, but it becomes vulnerable during growth because it depends on shared meaning and relational consistency (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Schein, 2010). As organizations scale, clan cultures can fragment into factions when groups develop competing assumptions about accountability, success, fairness, and belonging (Boisnier & Chatman, 2002; Schein, 2010). Using Schein’s organizational culture theory, this paper argues that factional clan cultures emerge when underlying assumptions diverge even while espoused values remain stable (Schein, 2010). A strategic communication perspective reveals that culture is sustained through intentional alignment, consistent messaging, and reinforced behavior systems that help employees interpret changes cohesively (Hallahan et al., 2007; Weick, 1995; Zerfass et al., 2018). Ultimately, organizations can grow without losing the strengths of clan culture by communicating culture strategically, reinforcing it through systems, and supporting shared meaning across teams as complexity increases (Schein, 2010; Strengers et al., 2022).

References 

Boisnier, A., & Chatman, J. A. (2002). Strong cultures and subcultures in dynamic organizations. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 33–62.

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

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

Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., van Ruler, B., Verčič, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2007). Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(1), 3–35.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and commitment. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 157–200.

Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral    Science, 47(4), 461–524.

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

Strengers, J., Groen, A. J., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2022). The organizational culture of scale-ups and performance. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 28(7), 1711–1736.

Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Prentice Hall.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.

Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., Nothhaft, H., & Werder, K. P. (2018). Strategic communication: Defining the field and its contribution to research and practice. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(4), 487–505.