When the Executive Meeting Reveals the Culture
- Joe Gacioch
- Mar 13
- 4 min read
Field Notes on Civic Leadership
I picked up this book while looking for examples of leaders who successfully guided organizations through major disruption using culture as a foundation for change. The story of why Bill Ford Jr. recruited Alan Mulally away from Boeing to lead Ford Motor Company is extensive and worth reading. For my purposes here, I want to focus on one of the most important tools Mulally used to drive cultural and organizational change: the weekly Business Plan Review (BPR) meeting.
In many ways, it resembles what we might think of as an executive leadership meeting in local government. When Mulally became CEO, Ford was losing billions of dollars and facing deep structural challenges. He introduced a clear strategic premise:
Ford would return to profitability through a unified plan built around a streamlined product portfolio, disciplined capital allocation, and a single global strategy that aligned the company’s international operations.
But Mulally understood something critical...A plan only works if leaders consistently align their decisions and actions to it.
To reinforce that discipline, he introduced a weekly leadership meeting called the Business Plan Review (BPR).
Each executive was expected to bring three things for their area of responsibility:
(1) data & analysis, (2) progress, and (3) problems. The purpose of the meeting was straightforward. Every leader had to demonstrate how their work connected to the plan.
The central question guiding every discussion was simple: Are we on plan?
If the answer was yes, the work continued. If the answer was no, the issue surfaced immediately so the leadership team could solve the problem together and create a depth of awareness - which reinforced the depth of commitment to being on plan across service areas.
But something strange happened in the early meetings, every status report was green.
According to the dashboards, nothing seemed to be going wrong inside one of the most complex organizations in the world.
Mulally knew this couldn’t be true. Ford was losing billions of dollars. Product lines were struggling. The company was navigating one of the most difficult periods in its history.
Yet inside the executive meeting, everything appeared fine. The problem wasn’t the data.
The problem was the culture.
Historically at Ford, internal relationships often carried more influence than performance. Information stayed within silos. Executives protected their territory rather than exposing problems that might reflect poorly on their division.
The leadership culture reflected what Patrick Lencioni describes in The Five Dysfunctions of a Team—most notably, a lack of trust.
Mulally’s response was not to lecture the organization about culture; He changed the behavioral system. The weekly BPR meetings created new habits centered on alignment, transparency, and collective problem solving. Leaders were expected to surface issues early, and the team would work together to address them.
Over time, solving problems that advanced the One Ford plan became the currency of leadership credibility.
By maintaining the frequency and structure of the BPR meetings without compromise,
Mulally systematized collaboration and accountability. What began as a meeting gradually became a mechanism that reinforced trust, transparency, and alignment across the company.
Reflections on Executive Leadership Meetings
Reflecting on this model made me reconsider how executive meetings function in civic organizations.
During my years in municipal leadership, I often relied on regular one-on-one meetings with department heads and held full leadership team meetings on a monthly basis.
Those one-on-one conversations are valuable. They build relationships and create space for coaching and problem solving.
But Mulally’s approach highlights something important.
In organizations where trust is still developing—or where departments operate in silos—more frequent leadership team meetings with a consistent structure may be the more powerful leadership tool.
One-on-one meetings remain important, but they may be most effective when they grow out of the work of the leadership team rather than replacing it.
In other words, the team meeting becomes the root system, and one-on-ones grow from the needs that emerge there.
Organization size, leadership capacity, and existing culture all influence how leadership teams should structure their meetings. But Mulally’s experience offers a useful lens for leaders considering how to strengthen alignment and collaboration within their organizations.
Three Takeaways for Leaders
For leaders thinking about how executive meetings shape culture, Mulally’s approach offers several lessons.
1. Executive meetings reinforce the plan. Leadership meetings should consistently reconnect decisions, performance, and priorities to the organization’s strategic plan.
2. Transparency must be structured. If leaders are not explicitly expected to bring problems to the table, they often won’t. Systems that normalize transparency create the conditions for trust and collaboration.
3. Culture follows behavior. Mulally didn’t begin by trying to change Ford’s culture directly. He created new leadership habits. Over time, those behaviors reshaped the culture of the organization.
This experience reinforced something I’ve come to believe about leadership:
Executive meetings are not just operational routines. They are one of the most powerful mechanisms leaders have for shaping how their organizations think, collaborate, and solve problems together.
Comments