It does to a certain extent but the whole issue is rather contextualised, thus we need to take into account the type of national culture, the type of industry, the type of culture in the organisation, the type of strategy adopted, the role of change agents, the extent to which employees are engaged in the organisation  and so forth. In an organisation where there is a strong culture which is accomodative to change we can infer theoreticaly that corporate culture can affect corporate strategy positively. However, in the the event that a toxic corporate culture exists in that organisation there is bound to be resistance and negativity which will affect the corporate strategy negatively. More importantly, i feel the whole issue also lies mostly in the type of strategy adopted by a particular organisation. A clearly crafted strategy free from ambiguity which takes into cogniscance the various stakeholders in the organisation, participation by all members should blend well with the corporate culture.

I was just going through  the article below and i found it quite useful

The influence of organic organizational cultures, market responsiveness, and product strategy on firm performance in an emerging market

Yinghong (Susan) Wei,

Saeed Samiee,

Ruby P. Lee

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11747-013-0337-6

Corporate strategy defines the strategic levers to achieve corporate goals - on a mid-term horizon.

Corporate culture, values and vision relate to a long-term horizon.

Vision defines the core of what a corporation is and will be in the future.

Values guide decision making of individual parts of the organization. This includes decision making on corporate goals.

Corporate culture shapes the behavior of the organization and individual parts thereof. Thus, is influences - among other - how the corporate strategy will be implemented.

To give an example:

when "Excellence" belongs to the values of an organization, high performance and excellent results will be incorporated and show in the corporate goals. They will be more ambitious than the goals of leading competitors, and there will be stretch goals for managers.

when "Responsibility" belongs to the values, the organization will be committed to ethical behavior and act responsibly e.g. when restructuring parts of the organization.

I am rather of the opinion that strategy can also shape corporate culture. consider a new organisation that has got no pre-existence history, what would its corporate culture be?, in such instance, the actions selected by the organisation will determine what will emerge as its culture. i stand to be corrected.  

As always taking a single, theoretical view helps little. Yes, strategy should influence culture and indeed in some cases the expression of strategy will be enculturation. But in other cases the flow will be the reverse, in the sense that a strategy can emerge from the essential identity of a culture. This is not some woolly-headed abrogation of strategic responsibility but rather a recognition that a culture can be as much  of a distinctive resource on which to base distinction in the market as anything else.

It is very dangerous academically and practically to ascribe a single source to strategic  success: as they tell young engineers "to every complex and difficult problem there is a simple and obvious solution... and it doesn't work'". In practice and in theory strategy is part of the management landscape rather than the landscape itself. It is both influenced by and influences other considerations. Thus BPM is not necessarily the primary process that distinguishes one company from another (it may be useful) . At the risk of being tautological, what distinguishes one company from another is...well...what distinguishes one company from another..and that difference can indeed by identified by BPM or any other single shot method, but BPM like all the other analysis tools is not a unique solution.

Life academically and practically is complex. Beware of hammers looking for nails.

The question assumes that corporate strategy and corporate culture are two different things. This is not the case. Strategy is a commitment (or, to be more exact, a pattern of commitments). Culture is a web of meanings that define what people in an organisation consider as commitments and what they do not consider as such. Hence, culture shapes strategy and strategy shapes culture. They are mutually interdependent.

They have vicious cycling effect, the corporate strategy can shape corporate culture with visionary leadership, at the same time, the corporate culture can mediate or block  implementation of corporate strategy, so both has to be taken into consideration at the same time.

They have a virtuous cycling effect, the corporate strategy can shape corporate culture with visionary leadership, at the same time, the corporate culture can facilitate and enable implementation of corporate strategy, so both have to be taken into consideration at the same time.

:>)

The relationship between corporate culture and strategy is mutual.The strategic choice that key strategists make are influenced by corporate culture just as corporate culture will be shaped by strategy in the long run

Each organization has its own culture. The culture affect many functions and activities in organization including corporate strategy. At the same time, corporate strategy affects the culture of the organization.

The answer to the question does corporate culture affect strategy is yes! Corporate culture, climate, and strategy all arise from senior management as their point of origin! The spoken and unspoken attitudes of senior management and the owners or orginal founders of the company affect all of the above.

From a socio-technical systems approach to organizational design, worksystem design, and business stragegy their is a technical system that is grounded in industrial engineering principals and methodology and social system grounded in the behavioural sciences. Senior managements' attidudes in regards to either the technical system and engineering and to the social system and human behaviour and behavioural science along with their values and even morality greatly affect the strategy and performance of the the organization!

It is helpful to consider the social functions of strategy. Fundamentally, strategy is an aligning force, shaping decisions about norms, assets, technologies and skills. Accordingly, strategy, in part, is a sensegiving and sensmaking activity (see D.A. Gioia and K. Chittipeddi).

"Culture" is a catch-all sociological construct that enables us to study people's shared world-views (i.e.the ways that they make sense of the world). Strategy is socially constructed by elites, strongly influenced by their world-views. Hence, culture shapes strategy and strategy shapes culture. The two constructs are inseperable - they are dance partners.

Yes, it does. That is why, it is said that: "Culture eats strategy for lunch." It means that if, for example, you have a dysfunctional culture, it would adversely affect strategy adopted and implemented by the organization. In that case, it would not let strategy attain its goals, and vice versa.  Often, strategies fail because there is no commensurate culture in the organization that can facilitate the implementation of the intended strategy. In such cases, what is needed is a change master leader who can juxtapose strategy and change management issues, and is able to implement it through his sagacious leadership.

Having been in the position that Debi describes on a number of occasions, I would offer the empirically based observation that while it is quite quick to change the strategy, changing the culture is not at all quick. An often quoted estimate is that cultural change can take about 5 years even in the smallest, apparently faster moving organisations. The dangerous effect of that is that you can get 'suckered in' to a belief that you are changing strategic direction, when in fact what you are changing is merely the expression of strategy. It's probably safest to think of culture and strategy as two sides of the same paper, as figure and ground or as mind and brain.

I also love the naive idea (not expressed so far in this debate) that strategy is in some way a gift of the leader, something owned by the elite. That has often struck me as either a dangerous conceit by the leader or an abrogation of responsibility by the led.

Here is an extract from my 1998 book (with Ray Shaw). It is much the same point that David made earlier

Mintzberg and others have made the case that

the strategy adopted by any firm is more likely to emerge, self-organise, from a

compromise of human irrationality and perception, prevalent mental models and

recipes, cognitive limits and micro-politics as much as be crafted through rational

thought and shared purpose. In our words this view would hold strategy in practice

as a function of the patterns of a company rather than a matter a conscious decision

and rational choice. It doesn’t have to be that way: it usually is.