Purpose - This paper aims to investigate how the dominating myths of of a company changes.

Design/methodology/approach - The article is based on action research, and an analysis based on Marx and Gramsci.

Findings - In contrast to institutional theory and the individualistic so called top-echelon theories it is shown that top management is not necessarily in control of a company's direction and that it is necessary also for top-management to liberate themselves from hegemonic minds that threaten company survival.

Research limitations/implications - This is based on a case, and more research is needed to generalize the findings.

Practical implications - Elements of how to play the political games of subcultural conflicts It is shown.

Originality/value - The article shows that top management is neither necessarily in control of the company and neither have a clear understanding how to gain control, but that such control can be achieved as a truce between subcultures of acceptable intentionality.