Organizational Culture: Sailing Between Evangelism and Complexity

Review Article

Organ izational Culture: Sailing BetweenEvangelism and Complexity

Peter Hawkin s1,2

Strategies for Cultu ral Ch an ge. By P. Bate . 1994, Oxford: Butterworth¯Heinemann Ltd.

Anthropology and Psychoanalys is: An Encounter Through Culture. Edited

by S. Heald and A. Deluz. 1994, London: Routledge.

Rumours: Uses, Interpretation s, and Images. By J. Kapfe rer. 1990, New

Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishe rs.

Organ izational Communication . By P. K. Manning. 1992, Hawthorne , NY:

Aldine de Gruyter.

Organizational Com mu nication and Cu ltu ral Vis ion : Approach es for

Analys is. By M. L. Mohan, 1993, Albany, NY: State University of New

York Press. SUNY Press.

The Reengineering Alternative: A Plan for Makin g Your Current Culture

Work. New York: Irwin.

Anthropology of Organization s. Edited by S. Wright. 1994, London: Routledge .

INTRODUCTION

This essay has a dual focus. First, to take stock of the current state

of the field of organizational culture , both in research and how it is be ing

applie d in the practice of organizational change . Second, it include s a re-

view of a number of key books that have been publishe d in this area in

the last few years. The range of books is extremely varie d both in style

and approach. Only two of the books attempt a comprehensive perspective

on cultural change in organizations. The first of these, The Re-Engineering

Alternative: A Plan for Making Your Current Culture Work (Schneider 1994) ,

Hum an Relations, Vol. 50, No. 4, 1997

417

0018-7267/97/0400-0417 $12.50/1 Ó 1997 The Tavistock Institute

1Bath Consultancy Group, 24 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2PD, United Kingdom.2Requests for reprints should be addressed to Peter Hawkins, Bath Consultancy Group, 24

Gay Street, Bath BA1 2PD, United Kingdom.

provide s a framework for diagnosing different types of organizational cul-

ture . In contrast, Strategies for Cultural Change, by Paul Bate (1994) is far

more interested in the complex process of managing cultural change .

Three of the books are studie s of various aspe cts of organizational

communication . Each of the writers brings a radically different perspective

but each of them views communication as rooted in, and framed by the

organizations culture : (Kapferer, 1990; Manning, 1992; Mohan, 1993.

The final two books (Wright, 1994; Heald & Deluz, 1994) are both

edite d volumes of pape rs by anthropologists who are studying organiza-

tional cultures. Many writers and consultants in the area of organizational

culture in the last 25 years have borrowed heavily from anthropology for

the underpinning framework of the ir thinking. It is therefore both appro-

priate and useful that these two volumes bring a current anthropological

challenge to how the concepts of organizational culture are currently be ing

used. Wright’s volume challenge s the search for the “unitary culture ,” as

well as providing a sociopolitical critique . Heald and Deluz provide an in-

troduction of psychoanalytical thinking into cultural analysis.

THE HISTORY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

The last 30 years have seen a revolution in ways of viewing organiza-

tions and thinking about the roles of manage rs and company leade rs. Cen-

tral to this re volution has be e n the shift away from the me chanist ic

perceptions of organizations that dominate d “scientific manage ment” in the

first half of this century. This perspective emphasize d the efficient working

of the system, fixing parts that were not fully effective , and often reduced

the individual to a replace able small cog in a big machine . In the post-war

years, The Tavistock Institute ’s development of sociote chnical approache s

and the American human relations school showed the comple xitie s of the

human aspects of organizations and the centrality of workforce motivation

to ensuring effective deve lopment of an enterprise.

In the 1970s, a whole new school of organizational thinking began to

deve lop on both sides of the Atlantic. It saw organizations as cultures rather

than as machines, and drew heavily on the discipline of anthropology for

both its methodology and its intellectual framework. Anthropologists pro-

vided definitional frames for analyzing cultures. Herskowitz (1948) viewed

culture as: “a construct describing the total body of be lie f, behaviour,

knowledge , sanctions, value s, and goals that make up the way of life of a

people .” Geertz (1973) added to this in his description of culture as: “an

historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system

of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which

418 Hawkin s

men communicate , perpetuate and deve lop their knowle dge about and at-

titudes toward life .”The combination of these definitions provide s a framework that brings

toge ther the external enactments and behavior of a tribe or organization

as well as the inte rnal cognitive constructs and value s of the colle ctive

group.

The 1970s saw the gradual deve lopme nt of the academic field of or-

ganizational culture , but it was in the 1980s that the fie ld became popu-

larize d and e nte re d the language and constructs of organizational

manage rs. The pivotal event in this movement was the publication of the

best-se lling In Search of Excellence by Peters and Waterman (1982) , which

linked the status of be ing an excellent company with the organization ’s abil-

ity to create a strong unifying culture with a “share d vision.” Many books,

articles, and organizational developme nt initiative s followe d in the wake .

Chie f executive s were anxious to become as excellent as the quote d exem-

plars and wante d to know how they could manage the dimension of “cul-

ture ” in the ir organizatio n. The term became a buzzword, and culture

initiative s the flavor of the month. This led to a number of books of recipes

for “taking charge of the corporate culture ,” which were full of Petersesque

homilie s and commandme nts. Inevitably, this led to an oversimplification

of the approach. Even now the most often used definition of culture in

organizations is Ouchi and Johnson’s (1978) reductive and simplistic defi-

nition “how things are done around here,” which is fine at the behavioral

leve l but which ignores the deeper levels of culture—mindse t, emotional

ground, and motivational roots.

In the midst of this popularization, anothe r seminal book was publishe d

in 1986 called Images of Organization by Gareth Morgan. This book looke d

at organization through a number of metaphorical lenses, which include d ma-

chine s, culture s, organisms, brains, political systems, and psychic prisons. He

showed how each lens revealed different elements of the organization ’s life

and hid othe rs. He, the refore , argue d that any organizat ional analysis,

whether by a chie f executive , a consultant, or an acade mic researcher, nee ded

to use a number of different pe rspective s and not be stuck with what the poet

William Blake termed “single -eyed vision.” Not only did Morgan provide one

of the clearest accounts of the culture perspective on organizations, but his

demonstrations of the importance of the metaphorical frame through which

reality is viewed, and also his advocacy of polyocularity (using multiple lenses

to view reality) have had an important impact on the field. The concept of

organizational culture has inde ed become more polyocular and holistic, vie w-

ing many different but relate d aspects of organizational life. It encompasse s

the dimensions, from rituals to reward systems, from formal communication

to daily enactments, and from organizational symbols to the share d belief

Organizat ional Culture 419

systems across work groups. This development has opene d up rich veins of

organizational analysis, but it has also led to a ple thora of competing mode ls.

The multitude of new books considered in this essay are of course a sign of

this development.

THE CURRENT FIELD OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

Reichers and Schne ider (1990) argue that there are three phases in

the deve lopme nt of a theoretical perspective:

(1) introduction and elaboration,

(2) evaluation and augmentation, and

(3) consolidation and accommodation .

If this mode l were applie d to the field of organizational culture , it could

be assumed that the phase of introduction was in the 1970s and elaboration

in the 1980s. Since then, to judge by the books and pape rs that have

emerged, there has been plenty of augmentation, but with relative ly little

evaluation. Certainly, the phase of “consolidation and accommodation” has

not yet arrived. Many writers, mostly from the world of consultancy, fall

into the camp of the evange lical, while othe rs, mostly from academia, suffer

from taxonomitus, a term I have coine d to describe those addicte d to tax-

onomie s and dividing the world up into lists and models. In this pape r I

am setting out to argue the case for a fulle r integration of the various ap-

proache s to organizational culture . However, this inte gration should avoid

the dange r of reductive ly simplifying the depth and richne ss of the cul-

ture perspective of organizat ions. At the same time, the re is great in-

te rest in many organizat ions in acquiring accessible and usable concepts

about organizational culture that can re ally make a diffe rence to how

they manage change more sensitive ly and succe ssfully. Later in this pa-

per, I have include d my own atte mpts at providing such a working syn-

thesis alongside the more specialize d perspe ctive s from the books unde r

conside ration.

The most extreme case of taxonomitus is Diane Pheysey’s book Or-

ganizational Culture that not only provide s numerous models culled from

the field of organizational culture but also pulls in models from such sub-

jects as general approache s to change , types of behavioral research science ,

and “inquiring systems,” presenting mode ls from sociology, psychology, and

episte mology as well as anthropology. The difficulty for the reader is that

to cut the cake in so many different ways often leave s nothing but crumbs.

The book’s style is at times both pedantic and patronizing. The chapters

begin by telling readers what they will be able to do by the end of the

chapte r. So chapter one begins:

420 Hawkin s

“By the end of the chapter you will be able to:

(1) name Hofstede’s four measure s of national cultures,

(2) explain the Skinne r and Winckle r model,

(3) show how change could be relate d to values,

(4) examine the argume nt that cyclical conflict occurs in British indus-

trial relations,

(5) name Harrison’s four organizational culture s, and

(6) do the recommende d exercise and study the case .”

One is left with the sense that this book is really a crammer for the MBA

student having to “do” organizational culture , with some of Pheysey’s other

interest in sociological research methods thrown in for good measure .

Mary Leslie Mohan’s book, Organizational Communication and Cultural

Vision , while also attempting to summarize the field is less patronizing and

easier to read. In the preface , her work is introduce d as “a modest step in the

understanding of inte rrelationships among existing approache s, in order to

create more holistic models of organizational culture .” The writer’s survey of

the literature is both more focused than Pheysey, and more comprehensive in

dealing with the writings on culture . The task of synthe sis is undertaken in a

way that ne ithe r forces too many linkage s nor reduces the different ap-

proaches into an all encompassing new meta-model. However, a simple new

model is introduce d by Mohan that is called a “Multi-frame approach to Or-

ganizational Culture .” In this, it is suggested that researchers tend to focus on

culture through one of three ove rlapping frames. Some use a systemic frame

that focuses most on the structure and function of the organization. Others

use a cognitive frame that focuses on the mental maps and constructs of those

within the organization. Others use a symbolic frame that looks at root meta-

phors, storie s, rituals, and visual images and the meaning making processes in

an organization. While the first of the frames relies more heavily on quanti-

tative research methods and external analysis by researchers, the last of these

frames uses more qualitative research with the elicitation of the accounts of

the culture by those within it. The cognitive frame, Mohan sugge sts, uses a

mixture of external/inte rnal perspective s and quantitative /qualitative ap-

proaches. She argues that for a holistic cultural portrait a “triangulation” of

these three approache s is necessary. This ensures that one can test the align-

ment and validity of the data across the three different perspectives.

Unfortunate ly, Mohan’s two studies of universities in North America,

while inte resting in themselves, do not live up to the promise of the earlier

theoretical synthe sis. The case studies illustrate more about the diffe rences

between a university in crisis and one that is making grade d change s on a

stable , successful organizational base .


TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

Whereas Pheysey and Mohan spend a lot of time trying to look at the

nature of culture and its complex levels, Bill Schneider’s book The Re-engi-

neering Alternative: A Plan for Making Your Current Culture Work, focuse s on

type s of organizational cultures. The aim is to provide a classification system

for the personality of the organization in a paralle l way to that done by My-

ers-Biggs for the individual personality. It can be argued that the reason for

the failure of many business process re-enginee ring proje cts is because they

treat all organizations as if they had the same personality or culture . His the-

sis, which builds on the earlier work of Harrison (1972, 1994) and Handy

(1976) , is that there are four basic organization culture type s:

· control

· collaboration

· competence

· cultivation

No one culture type is intrinsically better than the others, but diffe rent

culture s are more suitable to diffe rent enterprises and environme nts. Con-

trol cultures are best suited to large production companie s or financial in-

stitutions. The control culture is:

. . . an actuality-impersonal culture. What it pays attention to most is concrete, tangible

reality; actual experience; and matters of practicality and utility. Its decision-makingprocess is analytically detached, formula oriented, and prescriptive. (p. 115)

The collaboration culture on the othe r hand is:

. . . an actuality-personal culture. Like the control culture, it pays a great deal of

attention to concrete , tangible reality; actual experience ; and matters of practicalityand utility. Howeve r, its decision-making process is people driven, organic, and

informal. (p. 117)

It is more suited to some of the he lping profe ssions, or companie s that are

highly people focused. The competence culture is:

. . . a possibility-impersonal culture. It pays most attention to potentiality, imaginedalternatives, creative options, and theoretical concepts. Its decision-making process is

analytically detached, formula oriented, scientific, and prescriptive. (p. 119)

It thrives in research organizations, adve rtising age ncies, partnerships, and

consultancie s in organizations where there is a strong emphasis on achieve-

ment and there is a competitive meritocracy. The cultivation culture is:

. . . a possibility-personal culture. It pays attention chiefly to potentiality, ideals andbeliefs, aspirations and inspirations, and cre ative options. Its decision-making

me thod is people driven, organic, open-minded, and subjective. (p. 121)

It flourishe s in religious and therapeutic organizations where there is a

strong emphasis on personal development.

422 Hawkin s

Having outline d the various style s, Schneider presents an organiza-

tional deve lopment process based on the typology. It consists of five steps

(pp. 131-137) :

Step 1: Determine your core culture .

Step 2: Capture your culture ’s strengths.

Step 3: Determine your core culture ’s level of integration.

Step 4: Determine your core culture ’s degree of wholeness.

Step 5: Determine your core culture ’s degree of balance .

This approach, like that of Peters and Waterman, emphasize s the impor-

tance of a strong unitary culture that is integrate d throughout all parts and

leve ls of the organization and is in dange r of becoming an overdetermined

approach that in its classifying and striving can kill the butterfly.

Schne ider’s work follows a number of mainly American writers, con-

sultants, and researchers who have deve lope d classification systems for

organizatio ns. He himself shows the links between his own mode l and

that of the othe r writers; they are shown in Fig. 1, a taxonomy of tax-

onomies!

Schneider’s classification is the most useful and well documented of

all the taxonomie s. The taxonomic approach itse lf, however, raises funda-

mental questions about whether such classifications are nominalizing a dy-

namic concept and seeing culture as something an organization has, rather

than being an integral part of what an organization is.

Fig. 1. A Comparison of organizational culture typologies. Ó BathConsultancy Group 1996.


CRITIQUE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

One needs to turn back to the anthropologists for a critical consideration

of some of the fundamental issues. Two recent colle ctions of pape rs are An-

thropology of Organization s edited by Wright (1994) , and the othe r Anthropol-

ogy and Psychoanalysis edite d by Heald and Deluz (1994) . Both provide

introductions with fascinating explorations of many challe nging issues.

Susan Wright’s paper is a key text that deserves to be wide ly read,

particularly by the many popularize rs of the use of culture in the organ-

izational development field. Unfortunate ly, its appearance in a colle ction

of acade mic papers, many on the minutiae of very specific organizational

situations, make it unlike ly that it will reach a wide audience. Wright follows

Smircich, and paraphrase s her classic pape r in 1983 in arguing that: “Cul-

ture is a process—it cannot be fixe d into a checklist of attribute s of a de-

line ated group: that would be to treat culture as a thing.” Wright reasserts

the radical, proble matizing role of the cultural perspective on organizations.

O rganization as culture is used to que stion assumptions in both the scientific

manage ment and organism schools that organizations have an existence which is

objective, material and unproblematic. For these writers, organization as culture

problematize s the very concept of organization: When culture is a root metaphor,

the re searche r’s attention shifts from concerns about what do organizations

accomplish and how may they accomplish it more efficiently, to how is organization

accomplished and what does it mean to be organized. (Smircich, 1983, p. 353)

Instead of presuming a thing calle d an organization with a boundary against

its environme nt, the emphasis is on a continuous process of organizing

(Pondy & Mitroff, 1979) . In this perspective, even the most material aspects

of organizations are only made real by be ing give n meaning. This mean-

ing-making is seen as a continuous process; these authors try to dispe l the

idea of an organization as static, in homeostasis or equilibrium. An exami-

nation of how people negotiate the meaning of their everyday routines is in-

volved, and of the way they generate symbols through which organized activity

is mobilize d—including the construction of boundarie s (Young, 1989).

Culture is seen as the ongoing process of “organizing and negotiating

meaning.” Within this approach, there is a diffe rence between those who

see the organization as having a unified system of meaning-making which;

“has the function of rendering the structure of cultural expe rience and of

political action isomorphic,” as argue d by Douglas (1987) , and those like

Geertz (1978) who argue that there is a continuous relationship, dialogue ,

and struggle between different meaning-making processes in any culture .

This approach reintroduce s a political perspective into the analysis of

organizational cultures. This is taken up by Linstead and Grafton-Small

(1992) who distinguish between corporate culture and organization culture :

424 Hawkin s

The former is attributed to manageme nt—who devise and impose it on organization

through rites, rituals and values. Organization culture is associate d with workers,and unfortunately described as “organic” (1992, p. 332) .

The ir aim is to explain that workers are not just passive consume rs of CorporateCulture. This approach acce pts a priori that there is a dominant group. (Wright,

1994, p. 24)

It is also central to the writings of Asad (1979) who explore s how, in par-

ticular social and economic conditions, certain forms of discourse become

authoritative .

Many of the papers in Wright’s edited volume take up this politico-

cultural analysis with its study of conflicting subculture s and mindse ts. The

first section has three studie s on “indige nous manage ment” in Third World

settings. The second section looks at gender issues in organizational change .

The final group of pape rs looks at clients and empowerment in three dif-

ferent he lping age ncies (community care , divorce courts and a local housing

aid office ).

The sociopolitical analysis of many of the anthropologists in Wright’sbook contrasts to the political naive té of many of the organizational con-

sultants who have followed in the wake of Peters and Waterman. In at-

te mpting to he lp organizations de ve lop “a strong unitary culture ,”consultants often fail to look at the richness of the culture as it already

exists with its multiple and complex meaning-making processes. In a recent

piece of work with a large international company in Europe , for example ,

I was faced with the complex criss-crossing of national culture s (an Ameri-

can company coming to terms with the many diffe rent European cultures),

professional cultures (sale s, production, research etc.), departme ntal cul-

tures linke d to products, and the culture s of diffe rent client channe ls (sell-

ing into government agencie s, hospital systems, large production companie s

and many other diverse systems).

Consultants can fail to see the sociopolitical dimensions which can lead

to a culture change program being an attempted instrument of power and

control by the dominant leade rship group, which if unilate ral and insensitive

to the cultural complexity, will inevitably lead to a reaction and often rejec-

tion by those on the receiving end of the new wave of cultural imperialism.

THE BATH MODEL

Bath Consultancy Group, in its work ove r the past 11 years, and its

acade mic research prior to that, has attempted to deve lop a methodology

of culture change that honors the richne ss and depth of the organization ’sculture and the complexity of the change process. Building on the work of

Geertz (1973) and Sche in (1985) , it has deve lope d a mode l of the five levels


of organizational culture (Fig. 2). It has deve lope d an image of the water-

lily (originally used by Schein, 1985) to illustrate the mode l.

The water-lily (Fig. 3) illustrate s that what is most notice able about a

culture is the “arte facts,” the building, logo, mission statement, annual re-

port, etc. which equate s with the flower of the lily. Above the surface of

the water are the typical “behaviours” of the culture . If the arte facts dem-

Fig. 2. Five levels of culture.

Fig. 3. Five leve ls of culture (the waterlily diagram).

426 Hawkin s

onstrate the espoused values, the behaviors show the value s in action. Many

organizations have run into difficultie s when there has been a rift between

the ir rhetoric (what they say) and the reality of what they do.

Beneath the surface are the “mindse ts,” which hold in place the belief

systems of a culture . These in turn are enacte d in the “emotional ground”or climate of the organization. The “motivational roots” are about the

alignme nt of individual purpose and motivations with those of the colle ctive

organization.

Positive culture change does not only happe n in an organic and demo-

cratic process, for organizational leade rs have a clear role in shaping both

the direction and the process of culture change . To be effective in this role,

leade rs are encourage d to be sensitive to the needs of the various stake-

holde rs and confront discrepancie s between the current dominant culture

of the organization and the demands of those at the environme ntal bound-

ary, be they customers, clients, competitors, stake holders, or political age n-

cies. Leaders must also represent the needs of the future, but in a way

that deeply knows the integrity and value of the past as it is containe d in

the present living culture . This culture change has to be a double dialogue

process across the boundary of the organization between insiders and out-

siders, and across the time boundary of the present, between past and fu-

ture . It must involve leade rship that both receptive ly listens and active ly

challe nge s, as well as allowing space for creative e volutionar y change

through the organization.

CULTURE AND EPISTEMOLOGY

If Wright’s volume has helped to focus the sociopolitical aspects of

culture , then the collection of pape rs by Heald and Deluz puts epistemo-

logical issues back into the forefront of the debate .

Like Wright, Suze tte Heald also challenges the positivistic approach

that views culture as something an organization has. She quotes Rabinow

(1977) : “The very strength of anthropology—its expe riential, reflective , and

critical activity—has been eliminate d as a valid area of enquiry by an at-

tachment to a positivistic view of science” (p. 9). Heald then goes on to

show how the earlie r anthropological debate s polarize d between “the Scylla

of pure objectivism and the Charybdis of ‘going native .’ ” This diale ctic was

resolved in the synthesis provide d by the writers on reflexivity in anthro-

pology, chie fly George Devereaux. Reflexivity is an approach built on the

belief that anthropology is always contextualize d within the relationship of

anthropologists with their cultural frames and within the culture they are

studying. Lévi-Strauss (1966) wrote that anthropologists do not study vil-

lages, but study within village s. Their writings are as much about themselves


and their cultural ways of perceiving, as they are about that which they are

studying outside themselves.

Devereaux (1967) is one of the leading writers on reflexivity and drew

heavily on his dual career in psychothe rapy and in particular on the con-

cepts of transference and counte rtransference :

. . . that is, the way the subjective projections of the anthropologist influence his

understanding and the way, likewise, they interact with the unconscious projections

of his informants. These reciprocities between the observe r and the observed make

the fieldwork situation fundamentally problematic, shot through with ambivalence,

distortions, defence mechanisms and the trauma of the observe r.

Making the transfe rential process central to the anthropological proce ss

means that:

Like Alice, the anthropologist is in constant motion in a tunnel that links the

conscious and unconscious and is the conduit from our world to theirs. This may

also be said to be the means by which experience is transformed into knowledge,

and “Anxiety into Method.”

Devereaux’s writings preceded the more recent writings in psychoanalysis

(Searle s, 1976; Casement, 1985) which have develope d the notions of coun-

tertransference and proje ctive identification beyond seeing them as proc-

esses that occlude the objective meaning of the patie nt by the analyst, to

seeing them as a positive form of communication between the unconscious

of the patie nt and the unconscious of the analyst. What the patient cannot

verbalize can be communicate d unconsciously by making the analyst feel

a paralle l feeling.

This notion has been further developed by Bollas (1987) in his explora-

tion of “the unthought known”—that which one is aware of in one’s pre-re-

flective and pre-verbal consciousne ss, but have not yet thought. The unthought

known cannot be verbalize d, but can be communicated through proje ctive

identification and a transference¯counter transference communication.

THE SECOND BATH MODEL

In our own work on culture at Bath, we are deve loping the notion of

“the unthought known” in organizational culture s. Alongside the five-leve l

mode l, we suggest that culture is expe rienced and expre ssed through three

leve ls of consciousne ss:

· Espoused Culture—the public presentation of the collective self; the

organizational persona.

· Enacted Conscious Culture—the live d culture that is noticed and can

be verbalized.

428 Hawkin s

· Unconsciou s Culture—the unthought known that is colle ctively expe-

rienced but unnotice d by conscious reflection and not able to be

verbalized.

Stolorow and Attwood (1992) divide the unconscious into three realms:

(1) the pre-reflective unconscio us—the organizing principles that unconsciously shape

and thematize a person’s expe riences; (2) the dynam ic unconsciou s experiences that

were denied articulation because they were perce ived to threaten needed ties; and

(3) the invalidated unconsciou s—experience s that could not be articulated because

they never evoked the requisite validating expe rience from the surround.

These have paralle ls in organizational culture . The pre-reflective unconscious

can be seen as the unconscious aspe ct of mindsets, where one does not

see the frames with which one is seeing, which has been absorbe d from

constant inte raction with the culture . The cultural paralle l of the dynamic

unconscious contains the expe riences that are collectively repressed because

they are too threatening or difficult. Repression can be defined as forget-

ting, and then forgetting that one has forgotte n. The unvalidated uncon-

scious in the organization contains those collective experiences and feelings

that resonate , but are not verbalize d, because there is no language , in words

or actions, that reflect or validate them.

All thre e type s of unconscious can form parts of the “unthought

known,” although the dynamic unconscious would more correctly be termed

the “once but no longer thought known” (Fig. 4). These three leve ls of

culture (espoused, enacted, and unconscious) , with the tripartite division

of the unconscious leve l, provide a diffe rent dimension to the Bath culture

mode l. They do not equate directly with the five leve ls. However, whereas

the level of arte facts is mostly part of the espoused culture and the emo-

tional ground mostly unconscious, there may be unconscious elements in

the organizational stage d rituals and there will be areas of emotional

ground that are conscious and espouse d.

Fig. 4. Culture leve ls: second model. Ó Bath

Consultancy Group 1996.


This new dimension is particularly useful in refining the methodologi-

cal approach to inquiry into culture . The espoused culture can be studied

by reading and observing the public face of the organization, its formal

communication , its meetings and by inte rview or que stionnaire . To access

enacte d conscious culture , diffe rent approache s need to be developed. At

Bath (Hawkins, 1995) we have deve lope d a cultural inquiry approach that

builds on the traditions of collaborative inquiry (Reason & Rowan, 1981;

Reason, 1989, 1995) and humanistic psychology and the methods of dis-

course and storyte lling (Reason & Hawkins, 1989). In this approach, we

set up inquiry workshops jointly with cultural inside rs and facilitate them

in exploring their own live d culture . We outline methods, such as:

· Inviting them to produce “the unofficial induction program—every-

thing you need to know to thrive in the organization, but which no-

body tells you officially”;

· Collecting stories of heroes, villains, and fools which carry implicit mes-

sages of what is admired, sanctioned, and ridicule d within the culture;

· We also use a numbe r of drawing methods (Tight, 1996) and organ-

izational simulations which capture elements of the culture through

its re-enactment in different frames.

The main approach deve lope d for inquiry into the pre-reflective uncon-

scious culture is to attend carefully to the feelings, thoughts, and images

that emerge in the consultant while working with or reflecting on a par-

ticular organizational culture . This data provides simultane ously information

about the reactions of the consultant to the organizations including restimu-

lation of their own personal material, and also possible data about the pre-

reflective organizational culture communicate d through countertransference

and projective identification processes. The difficult task is to sift out the sepa-

rate elements. A full separation is impossible , but with a rigorous, reflective

discipline with colleagues external to the culture, a very useful partial separa-

tion can be achieved, which yields illuminating understanding.

This methodology has been deve loped by us and a numbe r of col-

league s (Hawkins, 1994; Harrison, 1994; Casey, 1993) unde r the title of

Shadow Consultancy. This was defined by Marjan Schrode r (1974) :

The term shadow consultant denotes a consultant who, at the request of a colleagueand by means of a series of mutual discussions in which he uses a socio-scientific

approach, helps evaluate and, if necessary, change the diagnosis, tactics, or role

adopted in a certain assignme nt.

This work paralle ls the work in anthropology by Obeyenskere (1990). Heald

writes that:

Obeyeseke re (1990) distinguishes the three intersubjectivities “at the crossroads

where the cultural anthropologist must meet Freud if he is to undertake any kind

430 Hawkin s

of serious psychoethnography.” (1990, p. :xxi) These are, firstly those of the cultural

group studied, secondly, those involve d in the anthropologist’s relationship andreactions to that group and, lastly, his relationship with other audie nces, most

particularly his follow anthropologists. (p. 12)

I be lieve like Obeyeskere that organizational culture must be viewed as an

intersubje ctive inquiry, which involve s the constant inte rplay of meaning-

making between the various constituencies of the organization, as well as

the inte rplay of meaning-making between the organizational anthropologist

or consultant and the culture engage d with, and the consultant/anthrop olo-

gist and the professional community. Consultants cannot be engage d in an

exact, positivistic science, but a rigorous methodology that is constantly ac-

quiring greater validity can be deve lope d, not through empiricism but

through critical intersubjectivity, triangulation of data (Mohan, 1993) , and

other inquiry discipline s (Heron, 1988).

CULTURE: AN INTERSUBJECTIVE SCIENCE

One of the most exciting paralle l deve lopme nts between anthropology

and psychothe rapy, in relation to organizational culture , is in this area of

intersubje ctivity. Unfortunate ly, the colle ction by Heald and Deluz has no

mention of the innovative work on intersubjectivity in psychothe rapy that

has been developed in recent years by Stolorow and Attwood (1992) . By

bringing toge ther psychoanalytic and phenomenological approache s, they

have taken forward the development of inte rsubjective methodologie s and

the ir body of writing has much to offer the explore r of organizational cul-

ture . The “intersubjective” approach holds that objective study of the inner

world of the othe r is impossible and that meaning and unde rstanding

emerges in the dialogical relationship between at least two partie s. This

being so, the study of the deeper aspects of culture can only be carried

out by consultants and researchers who can also reflect on their own culture

and personal mindse ts, emotional ground, and motivations.

Culture is a multiface ted phenomenon that frames our meaning-mak-

ing, influe nces our behavior, is enacted in our organizational rituals, and

evolve s through the gradual shifts in enacted emotional and verbal dis-

course . A rich source of data about culture can be gleaned from those

phe nomena that reside at the edges of the conscious verbal exchange s such

as metaphors (Gunn, 1995; Lackoff & Johnson, 1980) , image s (Tight, 1996) ,

and rumors. Kapferer (1990) in his book Rumours: Uses, Interpretation s,

and Images provide s us with an engaging exploration of this cultural by-way.

He avoids the political naive té mentioned above , by que stioning the tradi-

tional academic definitions of rumor as: “a specific (or topical) proposition

or be lief, passe d along from person to person, usually by word of mouth,

without secure standards of e vide nce being present” (Knapp, 1944) . He


que stions the equation of official verification with truth and gives a number

of core example s where rumors have , in retrospe ct, been more valid than

the official channe l of communication . “What characte rises a rumour’s con-

tent is not its correctness or incorrectness but rathe r its unofficial source”(Kapferer, 1990, p. 13) .

Rumors flourish in the rift between the rhetoric and reality of an or-

ganization. The larger the gap between the espouse d and enacted culture ,

then the larger the mismatch between the official communication and the

content of the rumors. Rumors also flourish in times of ambiguity and un-

certainty. Most people cannot bear to live with an unstable reality and need

to fill the information vacuum with rumor. At times of takeove r or company

mergers, company members would rathe r believe the worst than live with

not knowing. In one company, the rumors were that the senior leaders

were conspiring to withhold information, because the staff found it even

harder to accept the truth that their leaders were also in the dark about

whether a takeover was going to happe n or not.

Kapfe rer usefully summarize s the previous lite rature that has often

seen rumor as a negative force , to be limited by better management of the

company communication processes. He doe s illustrate the many positive

roles that rumor can play.

I have used the concept of rumor in my own attempts to illustrate

how the organizational unthought known can, step-by-ste p, emerge into the

public domain. I sugge sted that powerful fe lt expe riences in the colle ctive

pre-reflective subconscious would first be thought about by individuals but

remain unspoke n. Next, they would be spoken about in gossip circles (the

domain of rumors) before being discusse d in public but in encode d form.

The meeting might discuss the proble m in democratic decision-making as

a way of bringing the gossip about the dictatorial behavior of the manager

into the edges of the public domain. I developed my mode l (Fig. 5) to

explain the importance of each stage and to he lp consultants realize the

dange rs of taking information directly from the realm of the pre-reflective

unconscious into direct attention and the importance of developing facili-

tative methods that respect the natural flow of the emergence of data from

pre-reflective unconscious, through the enacte d conscious culture , into the

area of the publicly espouse d culture .

This way of viewing culture also acts as a balance to cultural change

methods that are predominantly top-down approache s. In the wake of Pe-

ters and Waterman, many writers and practitione rs have advocate d change

initiative s that work top down; they recommend starting by changing the

organizational artefacts such as mission, vision, or core value statements

and then align the behavior of all parts of the organization behind these.

432 Hawkin s

In time they believe the mindse ts, emotional ground, and motivational roots

will also move behind the new direction and new culture .

This heroic school of manage ment development, while at times a criti-

cal aspe ct of organizational deve lopme nt, has illuminate d only one aspect

of the change process. It focuse s on the discrepancie s and tensions between

the environme ntal demands and the organizational performance. However,

there is also anothe r dynamic tension in the body of the culture between

the enacte d culture and the felt experience of its members. Thus, in paralle l

to working in forming the new vision to respond to the environme ntal de-

mands, create the new future and aligning the organization behind this, it

is also essential for change programs to work with the internal dynamic,

and help the experience and action move toward greater integration.

Individuals are at the ir most creative , productive , and energized when

the ir root motivation and sense of purpose , the ir feelings and emotions,

and their mental frames are all in relationship to each other. Likewise in

the collective field of culture , such a relationship between cultural levels

is at the heart of synergistic teamwork and organizational performance.

Fig. 5. Learning emerging upwards through the culture. Bath Consultancy Group

1996.


Danie l Goleman (1995) in his ground-bre aking book, Emotion al Intel-

ligence, has attempted to show the neurological and hormonal communi-

cations between feelings and mental states. In the social domain of culture ,

there is much still to be discove red about the conne cted flows of felt ex-

periences, purpose , and mental states, particularly at the level of pre-re-

flective unconscious experience . It has been suggested how more use can

be made of the rich psychothe rape utic concepts of transference and coun-

tertransference , projective identification, and paralle l process.

Another fie ld that is providing some exciting possible avenues for fur-

ther exploration is that of subatomic physics and new biology. Margare t

Wheatley’s (1992) Leadership and the New Science draws paralle ls between

“dynamic connectedness” among subatomic particle s and the hidden or-

ganizing principle s that order the comple xity of organizational life . Rupert

She ldrake ’s (1981) research on morphoge netic fie lds shows that there are

many unknown ways that human and animal communication take s place .

To work effectively with culture change , a better unde rstanding of the com-

plex web of connections between all aspects of a culture is needed.

CULTURE AND POSTMODERNISM

In a recent article by Omid Nodoushani (1996) on “The Problems and

Prospe cts of Post-Mode rn Manage ment Discourse ,” he argues that growth

of the interest in organizational culture is in itself a postmodern phe nom-

ena, for: “post-modern science is defined primarily as advocacy for holistic

thinking through a relational inte rpretation of the world.” However, he

goes on to argue that the postmode rnist view of corporate culture is not

of a strong unitary meta-narrative mediate d by such arte facts as vision

statements, but one which: “celebrate s ambiguitie s and multiplicity of con-

flicting views due to the logic of diffe rence.”Manning ’s study of communication, Organization al Com munication ,

certainly shows how a postmodern perspective can uncover the comple x

multiplicity of organizational communication, but like most postmode rn

writers, including myse lf, in this pape r, he struggle s with making this ap-

proach accessible to an audience othe r than the specialist academic.

Despite its title , this book is about organizational culture and particu-

larly depth culture . Two type s of communication are described:

The first is the processing of information in message form into, through, and outof organizations. However, organizational communication also entails the analysis

of al l the nonme ssage and noninformational matte rs and the pe rforming ofcommunication that shapes such “processing” of communicational transactions and

gives them organizationally valid meaning. Thus, organizational research shouldexplicate the social climate , social context, and formal structure within which

organizational communication as performance takes place. (p. 9)

434 Hawkin s

Later he adds: “Communication involve s inte rpretation of actions and

thoughts, and even imagine d ideas and intentions” (p. 12) . To study the

second type of communication he adopts a dramaturgical analysis which:

“seeks to unde rstand the process by which communication expre sses mean-

ing and how this meaning is structured and orde rs social relations” (p. 5).

He also explore s a postmode rn perspective with its: “preoccupation not

with surface manife stations of features of what is taken to be the social,

but with identifying the structures of principle s that underlie or orde r these

‘surface feature s’ ” (Culler, 1975, p. 22) .

BACK TO EARTH

Postmodernism provides an ove rarching philosophy and epistemology

within which to understand the comple xities of culture . But the job, for many

consultants, is not to be philosophe rs of theory, but enable rs and facilitators

of the culture change process in the heat of modern organizational life . For-

tunate ly, the last book in this bibliographic review provide s a route back to

earth, for Paul Bate (1994) , in Strategies for Cultural Change, steers a master-

ful middle course between the twin dange rs of abstract theorizing and reduc-

tive recipes. He is an avowed postmode rnist who states quite boldly that:

An organization culture, implying a single, unified entity, is pure myth. (p. 136)

The idea of changing the ‘whole’ organization culture must be abandone d. Such

an ambition is silly and misguided. (p. 136) Cultures are not physical entities. They

are complex social phenomena produced interactively not biologically. (p. 137)

Bate then goe s on to show how cultural analysis doe s equip a change age nt

with a depth understanding of both the organization and the change proc-

ess, which can inform choice and intervention strategies. The analysis must

begin with a full understanding of the present culture : “if you want to know

where you want to be , begin by finding out where you are .”This must be followe d by an understanding of the history of the cul-

ture , “the origins and trajectory of the organizations” and the historical

patte rn of recurrence that reappears regularly in new form. Only having

unde rstood the present and the past can one find a culture change strategy

that builds on the internal dynamics and natural patte rn of change . Bate

explore s the basic patterns for change in any culture , utilizing such concepts

as wave patte rns, first and second orde r change , and the diffe rence between

cultural developme nt and cultural transformation.

It is also heartening to note his emphasis on the interface between cul-

ture change within the organization and culture change in the wider environ-

ment. His main case example , that of British Railways in the period prior to

privatization, clearly shows how organizational culture change and wider so-


cie tal and political change cannot be separated: culture is as much created

at the boundarie s of an organization as it is within its core operations.

The second half of his book analyze s diffe rent culture change ap-

proache s, which he divide s into four:

Aggressive—the “decree-approach,” impositional.

Conciliative —the “joint approach,” collaborative .

Corrosive —the “informal approach,” unplanne d, evolutionary.

Indoctrinative —the “training approach,” normative -reeducative .

Bate avoids becoming ove rdetermined with his own mode l and like

Mintzberg asks “do they really exist.” He conclude s no, but quotes Mintzberg

(1979) in saying: “there are times when we need to caricature , or stereotype,

reality in order to sharpen differences and so to better understand it.”He then proceeds to argue for a relative morphoge netic orientation

which allows diffe rent change approache s to be used at different stages in

the cultural cycle and looks at the type of leade rship that is require d at

each stage in the process.

One main reservation about this very valuable text is its overcognitive

orientation, which sees organizational culture as about competing “isms”and belief systems. Bate lacks interest in or unde rstanding of the emotional,

motivational, and unconscious realms and overemphasizes the sociopolitical

dimensions. In working with organizational culture , the irrational aspects

of the organization are ignored at our peril. Shifting the mindsets and per-

ceptions prevale nt in an organization is a fundamental process in cultural

change . However, if the emotional climate and deeply held motivations of

the organizational members are not addre ssed, then newly acquired per-

ceptions and unde rstandings will be short-live d.

THE CHALLENGE AHEAD

O rganizational culture is both a fascinating fie ld and a discipline

fraught with acade mic and methodological complexity. Pettigrew (1990)

wrote about some of the challenge s in this area, which are summarized by

Mohan (1993, p. 152):

. . . the fact that culture is a multilevel construct that may be approached at a

highly abstract, me tamorphic laye r or a more tangible arte factual leve l . . .

organizational leve ls may complicate an analysis of an entire organization in terms

of share d conce ptualizations. Most investigations are cap able of only a partial

analysis that captures cultural snapshots of a distinct workplace group . . . political

issues and ethical implications, affecting both the perpetuation of corporate culture

and the maintenance of distinct work unit cultures also contribute to analytical

complexity.

436 Hawkin s

To these challenge s one could add others. Researchers and consultants of

organizational cultures need to be able to draw upon a range of acade mic

discipline s, including anthropology, ethnography, sociology, psychothe rapy,

psychology, and organizational behavior. The researchers should adapt a

collaborative inquiry process that works with members of the culture as

co-researchers, as a culture can not be fully discovered by participant ob-

servation. This inquiry process should be based on a reflexive epistemology

that moves between an analysis of the comple xitie s in the studie d culture ,

to the use of one ’s own self as a receptive device for deeper levels of com-

munication, to the phenomenological critical que stioning of the very frames

used to perceive that which is be ing studied.

Researchers on culture also need to embrace a postmodernist perspec-

tive that eschews any hope of a neat cultural meta-narrative , but embraces

the richness of conflicting, complex sense-making both within the organiza-

tion and those working with it. Culture s are not distinct, but criss-cross each

othe r to form a rich interlocking tape stry. Consultants need to have a rich

menu of cultural change style s and approache s, so that they can be matched

to the needs of the particular culture and the current phase of change .

It is clear from this review of the current literature that consultants

and academics cannot retreat back into an objectifying simplicity, with its

heroic efforts to build a unitary culture and pedal taxonomie s, models, and

recipes. Instead, a postmode rn perspective, with its acceptance of the com-

plex, pluralistic, inte rsubjective , and relational nature of organizational cul-

ture must be adopte d. However, how can one avoid ge tting lost in this

pluralistic complexity, this world of relativism and uncertainty, and find a

way of he lping those who have the difficult jobs of leading, managing, ena-

bling, or working in the modern organizations with the ir perpetual change

processes? Instead of the recipes, formulas, and overdetermined classifica-

tions, consultants need to incre ase their ability to ask quality questions,

with adept timing. Questions that are grounde d in a rich understanding of

the nature of cultural interplay and change processes, that draw on the

varie d worlds of anthropology, ethnography, psychology, psychothe rapy, so-

ciology, and organization behavior, but are containe d by none of the se.

Questions need to be aske d that:

· enable more of the unconscious culture to become available for re-

flection and dialogue ,

· expose the rifts between the rhetoric and reality, the espoused and

enacted culture s,

· facilitate a more fluid discourse betwee n the various centers of

meaning making.


The ability to ask such que stions can not be learned by acade mic study

alone , no matter how diverse. It require s the deve lopme nt of a rigorous

discipline that comprises at least the following elements.

· phe nomenological awareness and bracke ting of some of our own cul-

tural assumptions, beliefs, prejudice s, framing processes, emotional

ground, and motivational roots.

· the ability to attend with sensation-rich receptivity. To observe the

arte facts and behavior; listen to the stories, metaphors and image s;

feel and registe r the communicate d emotions.

· the ability to focus on the transitional spaces and the relational dy-

namics and patterns and not just on the individuals and processes.

To see the waves of the culture and not just the particle s.

· reflection and analysis of the framing processes used by the indi-

viduals in a culture and the colle ctive mind sets that underpin such

framing.

· experiential methodologie s for enabling the hidden culture to be-

come partially uncove red.

· collaborative inquiry processes that work toward validity of under-

standing in the inte rsubjective space between those inside and those

on the boundary of the culture .

· a discipline d reflexivity such as shadow consultancy.

Organizational culture needs to furthe r develop itself as an action science

that bridges the acade mic world of reflection and understanding and the

consultancy world of enabling complex change and deve lopme nt.

There is much still to be done .

REFERENCES

ASAD, T. Anthropology and the analysis of ideology. Man (N.S.), 1979, 14, 607-627.

BATE, P. Strategies for cultural change . Oxford: Butterworth¯Heinemann Ltd., 1994.

BENNIS, W., & NANUS, B. Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper andRow, 1985.

BOLLAS. The shadow of the object: Psychoanalysis of the unthought known. London: FreeAssociation Books, 1987.

CASEMENT, P. Learning from the patient. London: The Tavistock Institute, 1985.

CASEY, D. Managing learn ing in organizations. Milton Ke ynes: Open University Press, 1993.CULLER, J. Structuralist poetics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Unive rsity Press, 1975.

DEAL, T. E., & KENNEDY, A. A. Corporate cu ltures: The rites and rituals of corporate life.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1982.

DEV EREAUX, G. From anxiety to m ethod in the behavioural sciences. The Hague and Paris:Mouton, 1967.

DOUGLAS, M. How institutions think. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987.

GEERTZ, C. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books, 1973.GOLEMAN, D. Emotional intelligence. Bloomsbury, 1995.

GUNN, J. Accessing the Hidden Culture Using the Tool of Metaphorical Language. MSc

dissertation, Unive rsity of Surrey, 1995.

438 Hawkin s

HANDY, C. Understanding organ izations. Penguin, 1976.

HARRISO N, R. Understanding your organization’s character. Harvard Business Review , 1972,3, 119-128.

HARRISO N, R. The collected papers of Roger Harrison . McGraw-Hill, 1994.

HAWKINS. Shadow consultancy. Bath Consultancy Group Working Paper, 1993.

HAWKINS, P. Taking stock facing the challenge. In Managem ent learning journal (Vol. 25, Pt.

1). London: Sage, 1994.

HAWKINS, P. (Ed.). Working with corporate cultures. Bath Consultancy Group Workbook,1995.

HAWKINS, P., & MILLER, E. Psychothe rapy in and with organizations. In M. Pokorny, and

P. Clarkson (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1994.

HEALD, S., & DELUZ, A. (Eds.). Anthropology and psychoanalysis: An encounter through

culture. London. Routledge, 1994.

HERO N, J. Validity in cooperative inquiry. In P. Reason (Ed.), Hum an inquiry in action. Lon-

don: Sage, 1988.

HERSKOWITZ, M. J. Man and his works. Ne w York: Knopf, 1948.

HIRSH, S. Using the Myers-Briggs type indicator in organizations. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press, 1985.

KAPFE RER, J. Rumours: Uses, interpretations, and images. New Brunswick: Transaction Pub-

lishers, 1990.

KNAPP, R. A psychology of rumour. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1944, 8(1), 22-37.

LACKOFF & JOHNSO N. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Unive rsity of Chicago Press, 1980.

LÉ VI-STRAUSS, C. The savage mind. London: Weidenfield, 1966.

LINSTEAD, S., & GRAFTO N-SMALL, R. On reading organizational culture. OrganizationStudies, 1992, 13(3) , 331-355.

MANNING, P. K. Organizational com m unication . Hawthorne , NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 1992.

MINTZBERG, H. The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research . New Jerse y:Prentice-Hall, 1979.

MOHAN, M. L. Organizational com munication and cultural vision: Approaches for analysis.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. SUNY Press, 1993.

MORGAN, G. Im ages of the organization. Beverle y Hills: Sage, 1986.

NODOUSHANI, O. The problems and prospects of post-modern management discourse.Managem ent Learning, 1996, 27(3) , 359-381.

OBEYE NSKE RE, G. The work of culture: Symbolic transform ation in psychoanalysis and an-thropology. Chicago and London: Unive rsity of Chicago Press, 1990.

O’TOOLE, J. Vanguard managem ent: Redesigning the corporate future. Garden City, NY: Dou-

bleday, 1985.

OUCHI, W. G., & JOHNSO N, A. B. Types of organizational control and their relationshipto emotional well-being. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1978, 23, 292-317.

PETERS, T. J., & WATERMAN, R. In search of excellence. New York: Harper and Row,

1982.

PETTIGREW, A. M. Organizational climate and culture: Two constructs in search of a role.In B. Schne ider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco Jossey-Bass, pp.

413-434.

PHE YSEY, D. C. Organizational cultures: Types and transform ations. London: Routledge, 1993.

PONDY, L. R., & MITRO FF, I. I. Beyond open systems models of organization. In L. L.

Cummings and B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (Vol. 1). Gre en-wich CT: JAI Press, pp. 3-39.

QUINN, R. E., & MCGRATH, M. R. The Transformation of organizational cultures: A com-peting values perspective. In P. J. Frost et al. (Eds.), Organizational culture. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage, 1985.

RABINO W, P. Reflections on fieldwork in Morocco. Berkeley: University of California Press,

1977.

REASON, P. (Ed.). Participation in hum an inquiry. London: Sage, 1994.

REASON, P., & HAWKINS, P. Inquiry through storytelling. In P. Reason (Ed.), Hum an inquiry

in action . London: Sage , 1988.


REASON, P., & ROWAN, J. Hum an inquiry, the source book of new paradigm search. Chich-

ester, John Wiley, 1981.REICHE RS, A. E., & SCHNEIDER , B. Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In

B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990,pp. 5-39.

SCHEIN, E. H. Organization al culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.SCHNEIDER , W. E. The reengineering alternative: A plan for m aking your current culture work.

New York: Irwin, 1994.

SEARLES, H. F. The patient as a therapist to the analyst. In R. Langs, R (Ed.), Classics inpsychoanalytic technique. New York, Jason Aronson, 1975.

SHELDRAKE, R. A new science of life. Los Angele s: Jere my Tarche r, 1981.SKOLIMOWKI, H. The participatory mind. London: Arkana, 1994.

SMIRCHICH, L. Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 1983, 28(3) , 339-358.

STOLOROW, R. D., & ATTWO OD, G. E. Structures of subjectivity: exploration s in psycho-analytic nom inology. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytical Press, 1984.

STOLOROW, R. D., & ATTWO OD, G. E. The context of being— The intersubjective founda-tions of psychological life. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytical Press, 1992.

STOLOROW, R. D., BRANDCHAFT, B., & ATTWO OD, G. E. Psychoanalytic treatment: Anintersubjective approach. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytical Press, 1987.

TIGHT, S. Drawing—A Way of Increasing the Understanding of Emotions in OrganizationsManaging Change, 1996.

WHEATLEY, M. Leadership and the new science. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler, 1992.WRIGHT, S. (Ed.). Anthropology of organizations . London: Routledge, 1994.YOUNG, E. On naming of the rose : Interests and multiple me anings as e lements of organ-

izational culture. Organization Studies, 1989, 10(2) , 187-206.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

PETER HAWKINS is a leading consultant, researcher, and writer in the fields of organiza-

tional learning, organizational culture, and managing complex change processes. His PhD atthe University of Bath was one of the first ever written on the learning organization and since

then he has been working as managing partner of Bath Consultancy Group with a wide rangeof leading edge companies and organizations in Britain, Europe , and South Africa. He also

teache s at a number of universities and has presented at a number of international confer-ences.

440 Hawkin s

Organizational Culture: Sailing Between Evangelism and Complexity

Documents

Transcript of Organizational Culture: Sailing Between Evangelism and Complexity