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

Values

Basic assumptions e.g. relationship to environment, nature of reality, truth, human activity and relationships 1

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

Tough guy macho culture (Investment banking, Management consulting) Fast feedback

Bet your company (Oil companies, Aircraft Manufacturers) Slow feedback

Work hard/play hard (Sales organisations, Computer companies

Process culture (Banks, Insurance, Accounting firms)

Low risk

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. 2

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 Parkers (2006) Competing Values Framework (CVF), based on work by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983).

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).

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 companys 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 employees behaviour, values, attitudes is influenced to conform to that of organizations. 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.

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 shortterm gain and advantage. Also known as confusion dynamism.

According to Hofstedes 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. The biggest criticism of Hofstedes 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 doesnt 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, McDonalds etc). For them organisational culture is but one aspect of the component parts of an 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 leaders role in creating, maintaining or transforming culture. In this paradigm, organisational culture is sometimes used interchangeably with corporate culture 7

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 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 nationallybased 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 Watermans (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.

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. 9

The differentiation perspective regards an organization as pluralistic and consisting of several subcultures. 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 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;

10

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