The concept of corporate culture emerged as a consciously cultivated reality in the 1960s along-side related developments like the social responsibility movement—itself the consequence of environmentalism, consumerism, and public hostility to multinationals. Awareness of corporate culture was undoubtedly also a consequence of growth, not least expansion overseas—where corporations found themselves competing in other national cultures. The U.S. competition with Japan, with its unique corporate culture, was yet another influence. So was the rise to prominence of management gurus the dean of whom was Peter Drucker. As corporations became aware of themselves as actors on the social scene, corporate culture became yet another aspect of the business to watch and to evaluate—alongside the "hard" measures of assets, revenues, profits, and shareholder return.

Corporate culture by definition affects a firm's operations. It is also, by definition, something that flows from management downward and outward. In many corporations, the "culture" was set very early on by the charismatic activity and leadership of a founder. But as major tendencies become deeply institutionalized, corporate culture also becomes an institutional habit that newcomers acquire. In actual practice "reinventing" the corporation from the top down, therefore, is difficult to achieve, takes time, and happens only under strong leadership.

Observers and analysts of the phenomenon tend to subdivide culture into its various expressions related either to major constituencies (employees and workers, customers, vendors, government, the community) or to methods or styles of operation (cautious, conservative, risk-taking, aggressive, innovative). A corporate culture may also, by overstepping certain bounds, become suicidal—as the case of Enron Corporation, the energy trader, illustrates. In the Enron culture an aggressive, creative, high-risk style led to fraud and ultimate collapse. Analysis is helpful in understanding how a corporate culture expresses itself in specific areas. However, the concept is social and culture, as the phrase itself implies. It does not lend itself to reorganization by a rearrangement of standard building blocks.