Is culture STOIC?

Every individual I have ever conversed with on the issue of leadership, organization converges on the topic of culture. The culture of an organization, how they are unique, how they indoctrinate and on and on. There are sections of books in the library dedicated to the topic and probably several hundreds of thousands of hours of research that has been translated into published literature on the topic.

Obviously like all these friends and acquaintances I have opinions and quite like most of these individuals has some element of empirical evidence to substantiate my point of view and a fair bit of hypothesis based on who I am and where I came from (or where I have been).

The reason for this essay of mine is much less to discuss this perspective but to debate over...

• Whether culture is immaculate (a shield, like The house of Windsor)?
  
• Whether culture is a organizations legacy?
  
• Whether culture is a label?
  
• Whether culture is an open door?

I believe it is all of the above with the open door being the top and most important. The one thing is isn't is STOIC! I tried to look for a dictionary definition of the word and the one I liked the most was from the Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary.

the act or process of cultivating living material in prepared nutrient media; also : a product of such cultivation

If culture is living, how could it be stoic? Which supports my next argument that as new living beings are born they evolve and bring their own special flavor, their own unique touch to the cultivation of the next generation. Obviously culture needs to be an open door one that imparts as much as it absorbs and evolves.

I think the gate keepers of the culture who boast, "this is not who we are and what we do", beware! If you are not osmotic your days may be numbered, worse yet if the organization does not adapt, look for help or prepare for death.