Organizational culture and management:

Organisation culture can be simply defined as the shared beliefs and values that result in expected

behaviours and norms among the members. It defines how things are done in an organisation.

Organizational culture not only affects task issues – how well or badly an organisation performs, but

also emotional issues – how workers feel about their work and their organization. Most theorists

believe that organizations have some entity - a personality, philosophy, ideology or climate - that

goes beyond economic rationality and that gives each organization a unique identity. The concept of

organizational culture remains controversial, with some writers rejecting the notion altogether.

Culture: surface manifestations, values and basic assumptions

The origins of thinking about culture lie with Elton Mayo and his interest in the social aspect of

organizational life. In the early 1980s, some researchers suggested that a strong culture could be

used by managers as a powerful lever for guiding workforce behaviour. They conceived a company's

culture as consisting of values and beliefs, myths, heroes and symbols that possessed meaning for all

employees. These ideas were adopted by academics, who made use of the concept for research

purposes and came out with different models and frameworks to explain organisation culture. The

model of culture created by Edgar Schein considers culture in terms of three levels, as illustrated in

the diagram below.

1

Surface manifestations

of organization culture e.g. physical artefacts, ceremonies, logos, language and similar observable behaviour

Schein's view is that culture is the sharing of meanings and 'basic assumptions' among organizational

employees. Culture manifests through surface manifestations. Basic assumptions and surface

manifestations are mediated through values. According to Schein, understanding organizational

culture is more about the deeply held basic assumptions of members of the organization.

Many researchers have created culture typologies whose objective is to categorize the culture of

different organizations. Deal and Kennedy focused on fairly superficial surface attributes as ‘signpost’

of culture (customs, stories, rituals etc). They suggested that there are four basic ‘types’ depending

upon the risk appetite and time span for obtaining feedback from the results of decisions.

High risk

Fast feedback Slow feedback

Low risk

2

Values

Basic assumptions

e.g. relationship to environment, nature of reality, truth, human activity and relationships

Bet your company (Oil companies, Aircraft Manufacturers)

Process culture (Banks, Insurance, Accounting firms)

Tough guy macho culture (Investment banking, Management consulting)

Work hard/play hard (Sales organisations, Computer companies

However, critics argue that such characterisation are prone to being too reliant on superficial

interpretations of culture and may not reflect the deeper sets of values and beliefs; i.e. guiding

behaviour of an organization. Another approach of classifying organizational culture was suggested

by Charles Handy (drawing from the work of Roger Harrison). These are:

Power – Often seen in small organizations, power culture has a single dominant individual who

control resources by exerting power and influencing decisions. Decisions are based on a balance of

power rather than logic. These are highly centralised organisation.

Role – Role culture is characteristics of bureaucracies. These are highly formalised organisations

where emphasis is on rules and procedures. Managers operate ‘by the book’ on the basis of their

position in the hierarchy in a depersonalised way.

Task – Task culture is job or project-oriented and can be found in flexible and adaptable

organisations where expert power is the main basis of the influence. Here emphasis is on getting the

job done through individuals’ enthusiasm and commitment.

Person – Person culture organisations are highly decentralised and focused on individuals. Control is

exercised only by mutual consent and such organisations exist to serve its members.

One classification of culture types is proposed in Bradley and Parker’s (2006) Competing Values

Framework (CVF), based on work by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983).

3

The framework examines the competing demands within organisations between their internal and

external environments on the one hand and between control and flexibility on the other. These

conflicting demands constitute the two axes of the competing values model. Organisations with an

internal focus emphasise integration, information management and communication, whereas

organisations with an external focus emphasise growth, resource acquisition and interaction with

the external environment.

On the second dimension of conflicting demands, organisations with a focus on control emphasise

stability and cohesion while organisations with a focus on flexibility emphasise adaptability and

spontaneity. Combined, these two dimensions of competing values map out four major ‘types’ of

organisational culture revealed in theoretical analyses of organisations (Zammuto, Gifford and

Goodman, 1999):

The internal process model involves a control/internal focus in which information

management and communication are utilised in order to achieve stability and control. This

model has also been referred to as a ‘hierarchical culture’ because it involves the

enforcement of rules, conformity, and attention to technical matters (Denison and Spreitzer,

1991). The internal process model most clearly reflects the traditional theoretical model of

bureaucracy and public administration that relies on formal rules and procedures as control

mechanisms (Weber, 1948; Zammuto, Gifford and Goodman, 1999) Bradley and Parker,

2001, 2006).

The open systems model involves a flexibility/external focus in which readiness and

adaptability are utilised in order to achieve growth, resource acquisition and external

support. This model has also been referred to as a ‘developmental culture’ because it is

associated with innovative leaders with vision who also maintain a focus on the external

environment (Denison and Spreitzer, 1991). These organisations are dynamic and

entrepreneurial, their leaders are risk-takers, and organisational rewards are linked to

individual initiative (Bradley and Parker, 2001, 2006).

The human relations model involves a flexibility/internal focus in which training and the

broader development of human resources are utilised to achieve cohesion and employee

morale. This model of organisational culture has also been referred to as ‘group culture’

because it is associated with trust and participation through teamwork. Managers in

organisations of this type seek to encourage and mentor employees (Bradley and Parker,

2001, 2006).

4

The rational goal model involves a control/external focus in which planning and goal setting

are utilised to achieve productivity and efficiency. This model of organisational culture is

referred to as a rational culture because of its emphasis on outcomes and goal fulfilment

(Denison and Spreitzer, 1991). Organisations of this type are production oriented, and

managers organise employees in the pursuit of designated goals and objectives, and rewards

are linked to outcomes (Bradley and Parker, 2001, 2006).

Organizational culture can also be classified by strong and weak culture (Gordon and DiTomasso,

1992) depending on the level of intensity and sharedness amongst the employees; dimensions of

sociability and solidarity of the employees (Goffee & Jones, 2003) and also greatly influenced by the

national cultures (Hofstede, 1993). However it is important to note that organisations do not

necessarily fall neatly into any one type. Instead different types of culture may operate in different

functions within the same organisation (‘subcultures’ or sometimes ‘counter culture’).

It is important to understand that a company’s culture depends on the homogeneity of group

members, the length and intensity of their shared experience in a group. The employees learn about

the company culture through the process of organizational socialization. This is the process through

which an employee’s behaviour, values, attitudes is influenced to conform to that of organization’s.

The process involves careful selection process of new employees, their induction in the organization,

training and instructions to adherence to company values, appropriate ways of thinking and

behaving by the senior managers.

National cultures

Work on national culture seeks to identify the traits of a specific culture. The interaction between

national (societal) cultures and organizational culture is one area of focus. This interaction is of

particular importance to multinational organizations. Hofstede (1986, 1991) carried out research

into multinational companies, and distinguished five differences (predominant traits) between

national cultures, as illustrated in the diagram below. Each of these dimensions represents a

continuum from high to low along which each country can be rated.

5

Power distance - The extent to which an unequal distribution of power is accepted by members of a

society.

Uncertainty avoidance - The extent to which members of a society feel threatened by ambiguous

situations and have created beliefs and institutions which try to avoid these.

Individualism/Collectivism – The tendency to take care of oneself and one's family versus the

tendency to work together for the collective good.

Masculinity/Femininity –The extent to which highly assertive masculine values predominate

(acquisition of money at the expense of others) versus showing sensitivity and concern for others'

welfare and the quality of life.

Long-term /Short-term orientation -The ability to pursue long-term and general goals versus short-

term gain and advantage. Also known as ‘confusion dynamism’.

According to Hofstede’s results, it is possible to identify different country ‘profiles’ that have

clear implications for attempts to translate organizational culture from one national context

to another. For example, there would be a clear ‘clash of cultures’ associated with the

translation of more collective Japanese values into the more individualistic context of US

business. He went on to suggest that different parts of the world were characterised by

different types of ‘models’ of organisation. For example, high uncertainty avoidance

combined with low power distance was associated with ‘well oiled machine’ of German

business whereas low uncertainty avoidance combined with relatively high power distance

was associated with the ‘family’ business model adopted in part of Asia.

6

The biggest criticism of Hofstede’s works is the tendency of adopting a sweeping

generalization and national stereotyping (McSweeney, 2002). Societies are highly complex

and consist of different subcultures; hence have diverse characteristics. Secondly, the

methodology adopted for the research have been criticised for biased sampling and use of

‘snapshot’ survey methods. It doesn’t provide any explanation for how differences emerge

or whether and how conditions might change.

Perspectives on culture contrasted

Given the divergent views on definition, types and manifestation of organizational culture as

described above, it is worth exploring whether it is possible to ‘manage’ culture. If organisational

culture is to be managed it helps first to be able to define it, for definitions of culture influence

approaches to managing culture. Defining organisational culture is, however, not an easy task, for

while there is general agreement about the components of culture as a broad construct, there is

considerable disagreement about:

what constitutes organisational culture,

whether the culture of a given organisation can ever be adequately described,

whether culture management can ever be truly effective and, if so,

which management strategies are most likely to succeed.

1. Culture ‘has’ versus culture ‘is’:

There are two contrasting view about the organizational culture; one by the managerial writers and

consultants (‘scientific rationalists’), who hold that a well developed organizational culture can result

in improved performance. They argue that a ‘strong’ culture, where the core values are intensely

held and widely shared amongst employees, is a powerful enabling force to achieve higher

commitment and increased loyalty amongst the members of the organization (e.g. Apple, HP,

McDonald’s etc). For them organisational culture is but one aspect of the component parts of an

7

organisation, a facet that can be measured, manipulated and changed as can organisational variables

such as skills, strategy, structure, systems, style and staff (Peters & Waterman 1982). In this

paradigm, organisational culture is primarily a set of values and beliefs articulated by leaders to

guide the organisation, translated by managers and employees into appropriate behaviours and

reinforced through rewards and sanctions. ‘Scientific rationalist’ writers thus tend to talk about

culture as if it is a definable thing — the culture of the organisation; the organisation ‘has’ a service

culture — and their strategies for change focus on ‘modular, design-and-build activity’ often related

to structures, procedures and rewards. They usually discuss organisational culture from the

perspective of managers, rather than workers, and often emphasise the leader’s role in creating,

maintaining or transforming culture. In this paradigm, ‘organisational culture’ is sometimes used

interchangeably with ‘corporate culture’

However, some academic social scientists who take an ‘anthropological’ stance, organisations are

cultures describing something that an organisation ‘is’ (Smircich 1983) and thus, like national

cultures, an organisation comprises:

1. a pattern of shared basic assumptions,

2. invented, discovered, or developed by a given group,

3. as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration,

4. that has worked well enough to be considered valid, and, therefore,

5. is to be taught to new members of the group as the

6. correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (Schein 1991).

In this paradigm, organisational culture is both defined and circumscribed by group parameters (e.g.

language, concepts, boundaries, ideology) and by normative criteria that provides the basis for

allocating status, power, authority, rewards, punishment, friendship and respect. Culture determines

what a group pays attention to and monitors in the external environment and how it responds to

this environment. Thus for those who take an anthropological stance, organisational culture and

organisational strategy are inextricably linked and interdependent. Culture, in this paradigm, is not a

separable facet of an organisation, it is not readily manipulated or changed, and it is not created or

maintained primarily by leaders.

‘Scientific rationalist’ writers argue that organisational cultures are unitary and integrated, however

social scientists argue for the existence of pluralism or ‘differentiated’ sub-cultures in the one

8

organisation or even adopt a ‘fragmented’ or anarchist perspective and claim that ‘consensus fails to

coalesce on an organization-wide or subcultural basis, except in transient, issue-specific ways’ (Frost

et al. 1991). A unitarist perspective also underpins various category descriptions of organisational

culture. Change agents or writers who take a unitarist perspective generally argue for change or

maintenance of organisational culture through top-down leadership and organisation-wide systems

and programs. From the unitarist perspective, the essential unity of the organisation makes it

possible for the leader or leadership group to effectively control or alter organisational direction.

This sort of top-down organisational control may conceivably occur in transnational companies, in

which national or professional cultures arguably exert less influence, but many writers or change

agents perceive in most organisations the existence of sub-cultures which militate against the

effectiveness of top-down cultural leadership. Those who take a pluralist perspective and recognise

the existence within organisations of diverse sub-cultures arising from factors such as professional

affiliation, status, social or divisional interactions, argue that organisational success springs from the

effective leadership and management of diversity, and that cultural change or maintenance efforts

have to be undertaken through programs specifically designed for different segments of the

organisation. International companies, with national subsidiaries tied to a parent company, often

exhibit distinct cultures interacting with the parent company culture, but so also do many nationally-

based companies where, for example, research and development divisions may form a sub-culture

quite different from that of marketing divisions. The integration perspective presents a relatively

unlikely scenario [consistency, organization-wide consensus, absence of ambiguity] more reflective

of the desire of top management than the realities of most employees’ working lives…

Differentiation and Fragmentation studies have convincingly demonstrated that cultural descriptions

which exclude conflict and ambiguity disproportionately silence the relatively powerless, particularly

those men and women who hold low paid jobs or who are in some way demographically different.

Even though the unitarists observe that strong cultures increase employee commitment, ownership

and strength of purpose. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that individuals are more committed to

their organization if it has a “strong” culture, and much evidence that the opposite is true. Strong

cultures are most definitely not associated with long-term business success. As demonstrated by the

subsequent poor performance of many of Peters and Waterman’s (1982) so-called ‘excellent’

companies, the effectiveness of the chosen approach to organisational culture and strategy at any

given time is dependent upon contextual factors relating to both the internal and the external

environment (Bate 1994). Thus, context determines a culture needs to be maintained or changed,

but the strategies adopted are very much determined by the paradigm and perspective subscribed

to by the manager or change agent.

9

2. Integration versus differentiation/fragmentation

Meyerson and Martin (1992) distinguished three perspectives on culture which they labelled as

‘integration’, ‘differentiation’ and ‘fragmentation’. The managerial approach to culture takes

an integration or unitary perspective, viewing culture as characterized by consistency, conformity,

consensus and clarity. A 'strong' culture is identified by:

the existence of a clear set of values;

the sharing of these values by more or less all of its members; and

the guidance of employees' behaviour.

The differentiation perspective regards an organization as pluralistic and consisting of several sub-

cultures. Occupational sub-cultures arise when members have an allegiance to extra-organizational

reference groups. Examples include professional groups for engineers, accountants and nurses.

The unitary, managerial view of culture emphasises consensus. Conflict is attributed to a failure in

communication. The focus is on what the culture should be, rather than what it actually is.

The social science view rejects the notion of consensus. Instead, it views an organization as a

collection of frequently opposed groupings that are rarely reconciled. The fragmentation (conflict)

perspective regards organizations as being in a state of continual flux. Conflict is regarded as

inevitable and as the norm within organizations.

3. Culture managed versus culture tolerated

The managerialist perspective views culture as something that can be created and modified by

leaders. Managers have a responsibility to manage the fit between the organization's culture and its

chosen strategy.

4. Symbolic leadership versus management control

In symbolic leadership, managers are seen as heroes that symbolise the organization both internally

and externally. The manager is primarily an expert in the promotion and protection of values.

The social science perspective argues that symbolic leadership represents an attempt to internalise

management control. Ray (1986) suggests that control through company norms seeks to change

10

people's emotions or what they think, believe and value. Through working with culture, people can

be educated and influenced without their knowing it.

In dealing with the management of organisational culture, it is necessary to identify as fully as

possible the attributes of the existing or new target culture — the myths, symbols, rituals, values and

assumptions that underpin the culture. Subsequently, action can be instigated in any of several key

points of leverage (Allen 1985; Davis 1985; Trice & Beyer 1985; Kilman et al. 1986; Schneider &

Rentsch 1988):

recruitment, selection and replacement — culture management can be affected by ensuring

that appointments strengthen the existing culture/s or support a culture shift; removal and

replacement may be used to dramatically change the culture;

socialisation — induction and subsequent development and training can provide for

acculturation to an existing or new culture and also for improved interpersonal

communication and teamwork, which is especially critical in fragmented organisational

cultures;

performance management/reward systems — can be used to highlight and encourage

desired behaviours which may (or may not) in turn lead to changed values;

leadership and modelling — by executives, managers, supervisors can reinforce or

assist in the overturning of existing myths, symbols, behaviour and values, and

demonstrates the universality and integrity of vision, mission or value statements;

participation — of all organisation members in cultural reconstruction or maintenance

activities and associated input, decision-making and development activities is essential if

long-term change in values, and not just behaviours, is to be achieved;

interpersonal communication — satisfying interpersonal relationships do much to

support an existing organisational culture and integrate members into a culture;

effective teamwork supports either change or development in and communication of

culture; and

structures, policies, procedures and allocation of resources — need to be congruent

with organisational strategy and culture and objectives.

The above constitute a number of many strategies and leverage points that can be used in

organisations to manipulate an organisation in terms of its overall culture and the subcultures

that are contained within. The management of culture is based on a sophisticated understanding of

the tacit and explicit aspects that make-up the existing culture.

11

12