Case Analysis: Org Studies

Book.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Case Analysis: Org Studies

Organizational Culture in Action

Offering students and practitioners an applied approach to the subject, Organizational Culture in Action (OCA) walks them through a six-step model for analyzing an organization’s culture to provide insight into positive communication practices to improve organizational ethics and effectiveness.

The authors review relevant theory while integrating a constitutive approach to studying organizational culture and communication. Practical guides for multiple data collection methods are provided, and the workbook format is full of interactive tools that engage students and reinforce learning. The revised OCA cultural analysis model in this edition provides the below elements.

• The revised first step in the model – “articulating the value of cultural analysis” includes connections to public relations and crisis management.

• A definition of communication and the analysis process that foregrounds ethics throughout the book is included.

• Recent research on organizational moral learning is integrated in the ethics chapter, and throughout the book.

• The Communicative Constitutive of Organizations is now foregrounded throughout the book, and reflected in a table capturing variable and metaphor approaches to culture.

• The latest applied research is integrated in units on diversity, change, leadership, and effectiveness in relation to positive organizational communication.

• Enriched guides on multiple data collection methods now include surveys. • Cases, examples, and applications relevant to crisis, employee engagement, virutal organizations, conflict

management, and public relations are provided.

Professionals come away equipped to apply cultural insights into fostering inclusiveness in relation to diversity, supporting organizational change, making leadership more dynamic, understanding the link between ethics and culture, and achieving personal and professional growth.

Gerald W. C. Driskill is a Professor at the University of Arkansas—Little Rock, USA. He teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in organizational communication, theory, and intercultural communication.

This page intentionally left blank

Organizational Culture in Action

A Cultural Analysis Workbook

Third Edition

Gerald W. C. Driskill

Third edition published 2019 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

The right of Gerald W. C. Driskill to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

First edition published by Sage Publications, Inc. 2005 Second edition published by Sage Publications, Inc. 2011

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book

Visit the eResources: www.routledge.com/9781138384569

ISBN: 978-1-138-38455-2 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-38456-9 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-42747-3 (ebk)

Typeset in Bembo by Swales & Willis Ltd, Exeter, Devon, UK

http://www.routledge.com/9781138384569

To Angela Laird Brenton, who had the vision to develop a cultural analysis course to serve students decades before this book or others had been written. To her passion as an educator and a leader; to her love for her husband, Keith, and children Matthew and Laura, who gave her time and space to serve others; to her mother, Harriet Laird, who served as her perpetual role model and encourager. Angela will always be missed yet her faith and love, even in the midst of her battle with cancer, remain an inspiration.

To Angela, Eli, and Abigail, who gave the smiles, hugs, and laughter to remind me what matters most; and to my parents, Ferne and Lawrence Driskill, who are always in the back of my mind as models of love and perseverance.

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Preface to the Third Edition ix Acknowledgments xi

PART I Cultural Analysis Planning 1

1 Introduction: Setting the Stage 3

2 The Significance of the Stage: The Value of Cultural Analysis 20

PART II Cultural Analysis Basics 33

3 Constructing the Set: The Concept of Culture 35

4 Understanding Roles: Cultural Elements 51

PART III Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation 77

5 Method Acting: Textual Analysis 89

6 Method Acting: Observation 99

7 Method Acting: Interviews and Surveys 113

8 Getting Inside the Character: Interpretation 129

PART IV Cultural Analysis Application 147

9 Casting against Type: Diversity 151

10 Improvisation: Leading Change 175

11 An Honest Portrayal: Ethics 199

12 The Director’s Chair: Symbolic Leadership 221

13 Reading Reviews: Organizational Effectiveness 239

14 Opening Night: Conclusion 250

Index 264

viii Contents

Preface to the Third Edition

In 1984, Angi Brenton, Ph.D. introduced a course on organizational culture to the graduate students in the Masters of Interpersonal and Organizational Communication at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Her students came from a wide array of organizations (high tech to medical to industry) and positions in those organizations (management to HRD to entry-level employees). This same array of students continued to participate in this course when Gerald Driskill, Ph.D., began to teach the course in 1994. Over time, our approach to working with these students resulted in this application-focused workbook.

Fast forward to 2018. Dr. Brenton, a colleague and friend, died at the age of 60 on May 8, 2013 after a courageous but brief battle with cancer. Her passion for ideas, for life, for serving, and difference making continue to motivate me and other colleagues to engage in the education setting. This passion finds its way into this book. In revision, I sought to maintain our shared voice through the use of “we” with the belief that Angi’s ideas and passion and presence continue to be part of this book. As a way to honor her dedication, former students and colleagues established the Angie Laird Brenton Memorial Scholarship.

Students continue to comment on the practical and powerful nature of the approach outlined in this workbook. In this third edition, I have maintained the original hands-on approach to learning to “read” organizational cultures, and using that cultural knowledge in change leadership, training, supporting diversity, improving ethics, and unleashing creativity. It also serves as an introduction to qualitative research methods, introducing students to field observation, interviewing, qualitative surveys, content analysis, and other methods of textual analysis. This third edition also provides guides and examples for developing quantitative surveys.

What has changed? One primary change along with additional responses to students, reviewers, and trends in the field.

• A shift to focus on a constitutive model for analysis. Why this shift? A greater focus on communication and ethics is the short answer. The long answer is that over the years I have increasingly integrated constructivist theories into my class on cultural analysis, as well as in my research. Then, in a serendipity, Dr. Ryan Bisel, pointed me to the phrase “grounded in action” as referenced by Dr. Linda Putnam in an article on organizations constituted in communication. Dr. Putnam then provided further guidance to make this shift. Prior editions introduced two widely held perspectives on culture and organization—“culture as a variable” and “culture as a root metaphor”. In this edition, a third perspective, “culture as a discursive construction”, is introduced due to its focus on communication processes and ethics.

• Revision to the model. A minor change was made to include “articulating the value of the cultural analysis process” as a first step. We find that in practice, anyone engaged in an analysis will need to explain the benefit.

• Beyond this added step, and based on the above change, the model in the book is now affectionately labeled as the “Organizational Culture in Action” (OCA) model for cultural analysis. As such, you will notice efforts, though at times incomplete, to encourage the study of culture from a constitutive framework. For instance, rather than maintain static language more fitting for “culture as root metaphor,” changes were made to reflect a more dynamic, process focus (e.g., from elements to enacted elements, from themes to thematic action).

These changes answer two central questions heard most often from students and professionals: “How can I understand the intangible culture that is so important to working in an organization?” and “How can I use this cultural information once I understand it?”

• Dr. Bisel’s model of “Organizational Moral Learning” in integrated ethics is now treated in a more substantive way from the opening chapter, where ethics is part of the definition of organizational communication, to the closing chapter. Bisel’s model not only foregrounds ethics but provides practical insights for countering the findings from research that indicate the failure of training and education to have a significant, positive impact on ethical decision making.

• Framing the process in three practical questions (inspired by Barnett and Kim Pearce). These three questions are carried throughout the book a way to foreground communication in terms of guiding questions: (a) What are we co-creating here? (b) What do we want to co-create? (c) What forms of communication will co-create the culture we want? Students have found these questions practical and meaningful not only for moving through the analysis process but also for professional and personal application.

• A positive communication focus. We refer to trends in and outside of the communication field on positive organization scholarship. Thus, for instance, based on Dr. Mirivel’s model of positive commu- nication and Dr. Lyon’s work on courageous communication, I suggest ways to integrate these practices at appropriate times in the application process.

• Updated research, examples, and activities, on such topics as: virtual organizations, work-life balance, engagement, external communication (public relations), and crisis communication, including readiness for renewal.

We are convinced that the application of this text can help leaders shorten their learning curves and avoid costly mistakes, while understanding the power of co-creating engagement, and identification through positive and ethical communicative practices. It could help the new graduate choose a company consistent with her values rather than realizing after 6 months she “just doesn’t fit there.” It will reinforce, to the training and development director, the role of storytelling and ritual in organizational socialization and engagement. It will equip those seeking organizational change to understand ways in which change is actually constituted in communicative practices. For those with an interest in public relations, including crisis communication, the insights can improve the connection between ethical internal practices with external communication, with the goal of organizational learning.

We all participate in multiple organizations, and that participation demands the art and skill of determining the communicative practices that shape more ethical and effective organizations and organizing practices. May you find yourself reading, interacting with others, and completing various activities designed to equip you to lead with confidence, purpose, and to see yourself as co-creating not only better organizations but communities and social worlds.

x Preface to the Third Edition

Acknowledgments

Those who made this workbook a reality easily come to mind. For any names we omitted, we accept the blame and ask your forgiveness.

• To our common mentor, colleague, and friend for his support during our KU days and beyond, Cal Downs. • To you, the colleague, student, and/or practitioner, for what you will contribute to your organizations

you serve, and to the dialogue over improving life in organizations. • A special thanks to Drs. Linda Putnam and Ryan Bisel, whose detailed feedback on the theory

framework and treatments on the change and ethics chapters were meaningful and significant. • Reviewers of various drafts who developed this project: John Gribas, John Myer, Jon Camp, Vincent

Manzie, and Phil Clampitt. • Applause to 30 years of graduate program alumni who provided rich feedback that shaped this workbook.

Extra thanks to those who shaped the first edition of the book: Debbie West, Robert Mock, Michelle Young, Pat Sweeden, Patricia Hawkins-Sweeden, Jane Martin, Sherrie Sandor, Cheryl Johnston, Elaine Wooten, Martha Lowry, Tracy Pleasants, Wanda Culbreath, Hope Coleman, Brenda Winston, Lisa Rawn, and Michael Strobel; and to recent students who patiently worked with Dr. Driskill on new ideas in the third edition-Rosa Boast, Amare-Brianna Beuch, Chris Elsworth, Rania Elbahey, Frankye Jimenez, Michael (Jacob) Nesbit, Michelle Scroggins, Bonnie Ward, and Karen Willson.

• Current, former, and emeritus faculty in the Applied Communication Department who motivate excellence in the scholarship of integrating teaching, research, and service: Mike Hemphill, Linda Pledger, Carol Thompson, Rob Ulmer, Alex Lyon, Kristin McIntyre, Julien Mirivel, Avinash Thombre, Ryan Fuller, April Chatham-Carpenter, Vincent Manzie, Alan Ward, Jerry Butler, John Gray, and Ralph Eubanks.

• Dr. Vincent Manzie, for his collaboration in integrating his recent groundbreaking work in crisis communication as a way to extend the Discourse of Renewal by attending to the multinational context with a focus on ethics, and the need to give voice and agency to communities.

• Writers and colleagues who have shaped and enriched our thinking with their contributions to the study of organizational communication: Chuck Bantz, Kevin Barge, Ryan Bisel, Lee Bolman, George Cheney, Charles Conrad, Francois Cooren, Terry Deal, Stan Deetz, Eric Eisenberg, Buddy Goodall, Evangelina Holvino Allan Kennedy, Joanne Keyton, Joann Martin, Bob McPhee, Robert D. McPhee, Gareth Morgan, Nick O’Donnell-Trujillo, Barbara O’Keefe, Gerald Pepper, Mike Pacanowsky, Barnett and Kim Pearce, Linda Putnam, M. Scott Poole, Patti Riley, Linda Smircich, Karl Weick, and Pamela Zaug.

This page intentionally left blank

Part I

Cultural Analysis Planning

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1

Introduction Setting the Stage

Organizations are more than the places we work. They include places that carry humans from the cradle to the grave. The “Organizational Culture in Action” (OCA) model is introduced as a valuable tool grounded in constitutive theories of communication. As such it promises to provide insight of significance to organizations such as diversity, change, engagement, leadership, and ethics. Frequently asked questions are covered in relation to the value and goals of the cultural analysis process, the significance of how we define organizational communication and culture, the continued relevance and value of using a drama/theater metaphor, as well as criteria for selecting an organization for analysis.

I was backstage. Not as an actor, but as an observer. I looked up in awe at the myriad of lights and ropes. I glanced at the various props and backdrops anticipating a performance. All was silent. I looked at the deep purple folds of the still drawn curtain. A single unbidden thought entered my mind. A sense of panic grew as this thought took hold of my imagination: What if the curtains were opened and I was really on stage? Right now, this instant! What if I were on stage for real?

Gerald Driskill

Objectives

• Reflect on the pervasiveness of organizations in our lives. • State the goal of cultural analysis. • Apply guides for selecting an organization for analysis.

Stage Terms

• Organizations. • Organizational communication. • Organizational culture. • Cultural analysis. • Dramatism. • Organizational performance.

Cradle to Grave

When asked to name and describe an organization, like us you may often first think of a workplace. However, by focusing on workplaces we miss the shaping force of other organizations. Our first experiences in organizations were like many of yours: bright lights and masked strangers welcomed us into a hospital birthing room. Since that time, we have lived, breathed, laughed and cried, worked or consulted with, and dreamed and been bored in a wide array of organizations including daycares, schools, businesses, non-profits,

prisons, churches, universities, and nursing homes. These varied experiences have inspired us, and at times left us broken by the dysfunction and unethical practices experienced. These highs and lows have created expectations and perceptions that follow us throughout life. Beyond the myriad examples of tragic and comic tales we could each tell from our experiences as employees, we also have countless stories from our experiences as customers, volunteers, members, and patients. The point is clear—we cannot escape an inextricable connection with organizations. Yet we easily take for granted the impact of organizations, the very stages on which we live out our lives.

Like you, we know something of the moments of panic when called on to perform: lead a meeting, confront or admit to an ethical failure, make a presentation, have a difficult conversation; yet, in such moments we may not be aware of the way the lights, the props, and our assumptions about our audience shape and constrain our performances. We know when to show up, we may or may not notice when know when something goes right or wrong with a piece of equipment or a relationship, but we rarely see the big picture of how all the various aspects of the stage impact us. We continue to develop ideas in this book with students and colleagues as a way to equip us to create more competent, more meaningful, purposeful, and ethical organizational performances. Such performances are grounded in learning the way our communica- tion shapes and is shaped by the culture of the organization as well.

Organizations are places that carry us from cradle to grave by shaping our sense of ethics, identity, role, and meaning in life.

In the years that have passed since the startling birth experience, we have come to believe that organizations are no more and no less than a significant stage for human drama. Our research on cultures in hospitals, engineering firms, churches, banks, airlines, phone companies, schools, and day care centers and our service experiences in hospitals, prisons, multinationals, and nursing homes have all underscored our conviction that organizations are far more than the places where we work and make money. They are places that carry us from “the cradle to the grave” by shaping our sense of ethics, identity, role, and meaning in life.

Thus, while our motivation to study organizations began with a pragmatic sense that our livelihoods depended on being able to work in organizations, a deeper, more fundamental concern has emerged. We want to improve our ability to shape and direct organizations in ways that are more humane and ethical. We believe such an effort to be fundamental to practitioners, scholars, teachers, and students, but more importantly as participants in the human drama. The goal of this workbook, therefore, is not simply to teach you how to conduct a cultural analysis, but it has implications for your role as a leader within an organization and within your community. In short, the workbook is designed to help you do better what you do almost every day—make decisions about the best ways to lead ethically, to create meaning, value and purpose along with others in your organization(s). Our approach is inherently concerned with ethics. Rather than relegating ethics to an individual chapter or side bar as Dr. Meisenbach (2017), an organizational scholar and professor, laments is often the case, ethics is a thread woven into our thinking about communication and each stage of the analysis process outlined in the coming chapters. The assumption is that ethics are embedded in our individual intentional and unintentional decision-making as well as the organizing practices in organizations. The process of conducting a cultural analysis holds promise for surfacing practices that may clarify or distort, accurately represent or misrepresent, fully involve or marginalize interests of various groups.

In this first section, “Cultural Analysis Planning”, we offer two chapters. This opening chapter is focused on FAQs aimed at introducing you to terms, concepts, and the overall process of cultural analysis. The second chapter moves us into the first of six cultural analysis steps, articulating the value of the cultural analysis process.

4 Cultural Analysis Planning

FAQs on Cultural Analysis

This chapter sets the stage by clarifying our approach. While the remaining chapters provide greater depth on the “how to” of conducting an analysis, our goal here is to respond to common questions. As you review our responses to these questions you should gain a clearer sense of our approach, as well as options for purposes for conducting an analysis and criteria to consider in selecting an organization.

1. What Is the Value of the Cultural Analysis Process?

Chapter 2 focuses on the first formal phase or step of the cultural analysis process, developing your ability to articulate the value of this process. Still, a prelude is merited before exploring this question in depth. While the focus on culture” first emerged in the early 1980’s it continues to surface not only academic disciplines, but in the media and popular press. Even new trends or focus areas, such as “employee engagement” ultimately are about attending to culture. Comments from students and practitioners capture the value of this process at both the formal level and informal. The following are a few statements made by those who found value in conducting a formal analysis using the process outlined in this book.

• I now see the connections between culture and employee engagement. • My analysis helped guide me to create a communication plan related to diversity. • I used this process to improve recruitment and retention practices. • I can now use cultural data to gain insight for change leadership and overall effectiveness. • The cultural data helped me reflect on organizational ethics and leadership.

At the informal level, example comments included the following.

• I have learned that in any organization, change must start with me. • I now have the ability to see situations from different perspectives. • I got my last job because the interviewer was intrigued by my answers about organizational culture and

how quickly I could “read” the organization. • I have improved my ability to apply theory to the real world. • I saved myself a lot of time and energy by deciding during an interview process that I didn’t fit the

culture. Even though the salary was great, I would have become frustrated quickly.

While you may not experience all of these specific learning insights, we are confident that anyone completing this process, either at a formal or informal level, will benefit. Regardless of your goals, we are confident that as a result of learning this process, you can become a more competent and assured actor in your organization, better able to understand and question, and improve basic organizational assumptions and practices. Furthermore, as we will stress again in the final chapters, this process is not about finding problems, but describing the culture and then discerning positive communication applica- tions. We have found again and again that this process is a way of seeing our organizational communication and our own communication in a different light. While other cultural analysis tools (e.g., Dennison and Gallop) are available and discussed in the Introduction to Part III on “Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation”, we maintain the value of the OCA model introduced here rests in the focus on the way organizations are created and recreated or constituted in communicative practices. This interdisciplinary application of established communication theories, discussed further in Chapters 2 and 3, promises insight to communicative practices relevant to such topics as organizational engagement, leader- ship, diversity, ethics, and change. This communication perspective is explored further in our response to the next question.

Introduction 5

2. What Is an Organization (and Organizational Communication)?

We all know what organizations are, right? Textbooks tend to introduce definitions and then move on, leaving them buried in the opening chapter. We contend that more is at stake with definitions than an academic exercise. Definitions involve our thinking and assumptions about the nature of organizations and communication. Therefore, before you review the definitions of organization found below, take a minute to write your own. Pause now. Write your own. Ok, continue reading. As you read the following definitions of organization and organizational communication, see what they share in common with and/or how they differ with your own. First, organizations, as you might anticipate, have been defined in various ways:

• They involve “. . . five critical features—namely, the existence of a social collectivity, organizational and individual goals, coordinating activity, organizational structure, and the embedding of the organization with an environment of other organizations” (Miller & Barbour, 2015, p. 11).

• a “dynamic system of organizational members, influenced by external stakeholders, who communicate within and across organizational structures in a purposeful and ordered way to achieve a superordinate goal” (Keyton, 2005, p. 10).

• “a social interaction system, influenced by prevailing economic and legal institutional practices, and including coordinated action and interaction within and across a socially constructed system boundary, manifestly directed toward a privileged set of outcomes” (McPhee & Zaug, 2009, p. 28)

As you review these definitions of organization in light of your own, what emerges? The natural tendency is to carry an image of some group of people, perhaps working in a building toward some shared goals. This image does aid our thinking about a particular group and perhaps the role of communication in helping us reach shared goals. Yet, the building or container image misses key ideas that we will explore throughout the analysis process. Consider the extent to which your definition was inclusive of a few key ideas found in those given definitions with a focus on the final definition from McPhee and Zaug (2009): (a) communication and coordination-organizations or organizing processes are created or constituted in communication; (b) inter- connectedness and boundaries–organizations or organizing processes are not limited to a building or place, thus a focus on intertwined networks is important; (c) goals and outcomes vary at individual and group levels, but are never neutral, that is, decisions are influenced by certain goals being honored over others. We return in Chapter 8 to McPhee and Zaug’s (2009) “Four Flows” model, which can be helpful in interpreting your data.

The three major components of their definition undergird our cultural analysis model, OCA. This model flows from an interdisciplinary, widely held perspective known as social constructivism. This perspective holds that organizations are created in and through our interactions (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Since the first version of the OCA model in 2005, the process underlying this model continues to be developed as organizational communica- tion theories evolve to focus more on the way organizations are constituted in communication. For instance, a major theoretic lens that informs our current analytic model, “Communicative Constitutive of Organization” (CCO), will be explained further in Chapter 2. This theory is finding increased application internationally and across disciplines as a way of “understanding how organizations are produced in communication” (Boivin, Brummans, & Barker, 2017, p. 332). Our thinking about the centrality of communication held by this and other theories influence how we define and think not only about organizations, but also about organizational communication. In same way as above, take time now to pause and jot down your definition of organizational

communication before reviewing the following ones:

• “the interaction required to direct a group toward a shared goal” (Eisenberg, Trethewey, LeGreco, & Goodall, 2017, p. 4);

• the “collective and interactive process of generating and interpreting messages” (Stohl, 1995, p. 4); • the co-creation of intertwined relational networks through symbolic actions that create and constrain

ethical and effective processes and goals (Driskill, n.d.).

6 Cultural Analysis Planning

Over the years, when we have asked professionals in formal classrooms or in training settings to define communication, or organizational communication, the dominant thread across their definitions has focused on information sending and receiving or message exchange. In fact, notice how the first two definitions given focus on interaction and messages. We contend that we need to go further in our thinking about communication. No, not because we need to memorize a new definition, but rather because our thinking about communication or our implicit assumptions about communication and the ways we interact are connected (Barbour, Jacocks, & Wesner, 2013; Edwards & Shepherd, 2007; O’Keefe, 1988). Thus, we contend that a shift in thinking is needed to improve not only our communicative action, but the cultural analysis process. Thus, the final definition was developed to foreground four foundational ideas to the analysis process and to improving or shared experiences in organizations.

First, this definition foregrounds the central idea that organizations are co-created in and through communication. Our understanding of organizations is inextricably linked to our view of organizational communication as more than sharing information to reach a goal, more than strategy, and thus more than generating and interpreting messages. While these are all aspects of organizational communication, we argue that communication creates, and recreates our identities, relationships, organizations, and cultures. In turn, these organizations (and identities, relationships, and cultures) shape communication. For example, as we will explore in Chapter 9 on Diversity, and in Chapter 10 on ethics, upward and direct communication tends to be discouraged in organizations situated in collectivistic cultures that shape and are shaped by less direct communication. For instance, in the context of KAL flight disasters, researchers found that first officers would tend to avoid direct, upward communication to the pilot, even when there was imminent danger. Communication training was introduced that embedded new interaction rules in this context that co-created a different cultural pattern that drastically reduced airline crashes (Helmreich & Merritt, 2000).

Second, this definition foregrounds the significance of ethics. This focus entails more than individual decision- making about what is right and wrong. Communication from a CCO perspective entails a concern for ethics in that our attention is drawn “to the ways ethics are constituted in communication (McClellan & Sanders, 2013, p. 259). As such, our individual choices, both intentional and unintentional make and shape organizations and in turn are shaped by implicit and explicit organizing practices. This approach provides a way to discern the way everyday communication creates patterns of ethical and/or unethical actions. For instance, Kuhn and Ashcraft (2003) highlight the constitutive, or meaning making, role of organizational practices that create justifications for unethical behaviors. They highlight the ironic practices at Enron where stated values of “respect, integrity, and communication” for instance were marginalized due to a “rank and yank” system of employee evaluation that meant winning the game of profits was primary (2003, p. 44). On a subtler level, any of us might unconsciously pick up on phrases such as “well, that is how we do things around here” and find ourselves using these same words when engaged in false reporting behaviors. Thus, our role throughout the cultural analysis process should therefore involve discerning ways to co-create positive and ethical practices and structures.

Third, organizational boundaries are not clear-cut, thus a focus on the way communication creates and recreates relational networks constituting organizational boundaries is significant. Boundaries are not set or pre-determined distinctions between collectives. Communication is the way we define and constitute both the “what” and “where” of these boundaries. For instance, we are part of, as already stressed, multiple organizations (civic, social, religious, corporations, etc.). These organizations and thus our interactions in and between organizations function in complex ways: multinational hybrids, virtual organizations, global out- sourcing, and inter-organizational collaborations.

Finally, this definition challenges us to reflect on who to count as members of a particular organization. Membership, like boundaries, is not always cut and dried. For example, who counts as a member of a professional sports team? Only the athletes, cheerleaders, and coaches? Team physicians who may be members of a medical practice but travel with the team on weekends? What about the die-hard fans who come to every game and may have a 50-year history of following a team? These same questions could be asked of a multinational in terms of their interactions with other organizations and their respective communities. A significant decision you will face is who “counts” as an organization member and where you want to draw the boundaries of the organization.

Introduction 7

In summary, viewing organizational communication as relational networks co-created and recreated in and through communication reminds us of the challenges faced as we seek to analyze the organizational culture. Organizations are multi-layered and multi-faceted, consisting of individuals and groups with both common and competing interests.

3. What Is Organizational Culture?

We provide several definitions in Chapter 3. Yet, before reviewing our favorite one below, it is important to realize two challenges. First, popular or jargon terms may at times be used by working professionals more often than the term “culture”. Terms such as “engagement,” “resilience”, or “empowerment” often draw attention to some new initiative from popular consulting literature. One alumni of our course on organizational culture and communication now holds the position of Director of Human Resources and Talent Development for a large, diverse insurance company. She explained to Gerald’s students that members in her organization rarely referred to the concept of “culture”. Instead, they focused on “employee engagement”, yet as she noted, such a focus was about understanding and improving the culture (c.f., Mishra, Boynton, & Mishra, 2014).

Second, the meaning of the term “culture” is complicated by the tendency to focus only on culture as a variable to be manipulated to improve organizational performance. We will return to a concern we have with this focus in Chapter 3, yet it is important to know our position from the outset–organizational culture is not a variable to be manipulated. We explore the ethical challenges related to changing culture in Chapter 10, but suffice to say, we encourage caution in “jumping on the bandwagon” of simple approaches to improve or change culture.

Our favorite definition of culture is from Geertz (1973). As an anthropologist he viewed culture as the webs of significance that we have spun for ourselves. As such, culture consists of meanings constructed through interaction, yet to add to Geerz, these webs then also influence our interactions. Thus, the study of organizational culture is inevitably a focus on communicative and organizing practices. This web, the study of this web is not about simply what we are saying, but rather what is being created between us. Each of these webs or cultures has a unique way of doing things; yet there is a commonality in forms. Just as each national culture is comprised of a unique language, artifacts, values, celebrations, heroes, history, and norms, each culture is unique. Yet, organizational cultures have in common the way they are constituted, that is shaped and are shaped by these elements of culture (e.g., values, heroes, place, history, etc.) At a deeper level, organization members create and/or are indoctrinated into unique beliefs and assumptions that form the basis for acting together. Some beliefs and assumptions may operate at a conscious level. However, basic assumptions such as those about human nature and ethics often operate at the unconscious level. For example, you might assume that supervisors make decisions and employees carry them out without ever consciously questioning that assumption. This assumed way of interacting shapes other organizing processes such as the way new members are integrated into the organization (McPhee, 2015). In contrast, we believe we can become more mindful and learn to understand and consciously identify and then engage in co-creating history, norms, and values of an organization. Such a shift holds out the possibility that together we can become a true ensemble cast by coordinating our actions more effectively and we would hope, ethically with others. Together we can also understand the symbolic significance of events and actions in a more thorough way. This practical knowledge can then aid us in being ethical and responsible in our varied organizational roles.

4. What Is a Cultural Analysis?

We define the cultural analysis process as capturing the unique qualities of an organization as constituted in elements of culture such as rituals, stories, and history that both shape and are shaped by communication that has significance for organizational ethics, effectiveness, and professional development. We will first attend to this focus on process and then explore the reason we stress the significance of this process. This process of “capturing unique qualities of an organization” is about formally or informally attending to the constitutive nature of organizing and organizations. At a formal level, just as anthropologists immerse themselves in a foreign culture to understand

8 Cultural Analysis Planning

it, we use many of the same methods to understand an organizational culture. For example, we might systematically observe artifacts and interactions, analyze written documents, participate in rites and rituals, and interview members about the meanings they attach to organizational objects and events. We might focus on communicative practices related to a particular concern, a leadership change or a diversity initiative, or we may have a broader interest in describing the overall culture of the organization. At an informal level, we might observe meeting norms and how newer members engage (or don’t engage), and sort out through other various means (conversations with others, reading company policies, etc.) the process of becoming part of an organization. Interestingly, actors use many of the same techniques of observation, interviewing, and analyzing scripts in the process of crafting a credible and compelling performance on the stage or in film. Regardless of the level of formality or focus, we must attend to the constitutive nature of the organizing process. This means, as we will explore further in the methods sections, that a credible and ethical interpretation of the culture must attend to more than a single element and in particular to both micro or interpersonal interactions as well as macro or structural realities such as rituals and place. The intent of this focus, congruent with CCO, is that we need to attend to communicative processes that constitute the culture. For instance, it is not uncommon for an analysis process to focuses on values, but in the process, what is missed are the various communicative processes that actually constitute the organization. A powerful employee evaluation ritual, as in the example provided above on Enron, co-creates organizing processes that supersede espoused values.

We also stress in our definition that this analysis process has “significance for organizational effectiveness, ethics, and the development of members”. We do not believe this point can be overstated. The concern and passion for exploring organizational culture is grounded in the awareness that not only do we spend significant time in organizations, but we also shape and are shaped by those experiences. Furthermore, our organizations, are more than just places we work. They also represent the places we carry out our aspirations, ideals, and hopes for bettering our world. In these organizations, relationships matter. As you engage in using the OCA model, consistent with CCO theorizing, a focus on the presence or absence of ethical discourse will be foregrounded. More specifically, we encourage reflection on micro practices, or aspects of day to day relational interactions, often taken for granted, such as greetings, questions, disclosure, and affirmation (c.f., Mirivel, 2014). The significance of these interactions is also substantiated by applied organizational commu- nication research ranging from identifying communication practices that encourage ethical dialogue (Ander- son, Baxter, & Cissna, 2009), engaging in participatory decision-making (Deetz & Brown, 2004) and democratizing practices (Gergen, Gergen, & Barrett, 2004) and applying a model of organizational moral learning to co-create highly ethical organizations (Bisel, 2018).

In order to guide this analysis process, we will rely on three questions to keep our approach focused not simply on analysis, but on our role in co-creation. These questions, informed by the Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) theory (Pearce, 2007), frame our process: (a) “What kind of culture is being co-created?” Here the goal is to enhance our ability to ethically collect and interpret data. Part Three explores the data collection and interpretation process. (b) “What kind of culture do we want to co-create?” The goal is to determine and co-create ethical communication goals based on the data you have collected. Part Four focuses on five different application contexts. (c) “What forms of communica- tion will co-create the culture we want?” The goal here is to discern ways to ethically influence organizational discourse and culture. Part Four also provides a final chapter on co-creating an ethical action plan grounded in positive communication practices. Each question includes the term “co-create” rather than simply “create” for a reason. We want to stress that the culture creation and change process does not happen in isolation. The intent then is to view the cultural analysis process as more than understanding or describing culture, but also a way to identify specific communicative actions to positively shape our organizations.

In order to better understand the cultural analysis process, we turn to several comparisons. These three analogies provide a way to gain clarity about the overall organizational cultural analysis process. Our hope is at least one of these analogies will connect with you so that you might gain a big picture of the analysis process.

Introduction 9

Perhaps, as you engage in this process you can identify a different, more meaningful analogy that helps you grasp the overall process. We begin with one a student offered us in the process of conducting an analysis.

A Student Analogy: The Wheel of Fortune

In this television game, participants have to fill in the missing letters of a phrase based on a clue from the moderator. Participants lose a turn if they guess too soon or incorrectly. And of course, if they guess too late, they risk losing to other contestants willing to take a risk. The challenge is to have enough information about the word puzzle to make a credible interpretation. In the same way, if you attempt a definitive interpretation of a culture too early in the process, you may pay the price of misunderstanding the culture. We also recognize that, at some point, you have enough data for a realistic (although not perfect) cultural interpretation, and you need to move ahead to application. We agree with the need to balance thoroughness with timely application, and you will learn in this workbook a process of cultural analysis that emphasizes careful reflection on cultural data combined with application. We have identified two different analogies as a way to clarify the process and to encourage you to move systematically through the five cultural analysis steps outlined in this workbook.

Gerald’s Analogy: Paint by Numbers

We have a painting in our home of a wolf. The dark eyes and menacing face peer out from behind the white bark of aspens. The painting was our son, Eli’s, first time to paint by numbers. Not true art you might say. Imagine, however, if Eli did not have a color and number code. He would have to determine colors that seemed best together. He would need to create a convincing palette that made the wolf come to life.

A cultural analysis is like painting with numbers and colors without the code for three reasons. First, the cultural analysis process does not begin with a blank canvas. The paint by numbers box comes with a canvas with lines and numbers on it; the colors are in the box. In the same way, organizations come with a barrage of colors and numbers. In Chapter 4 we label these colors as elements of culture (e.g., values, stories, rituals). You do not have to create these cultural elements; you do have to identify them. You will have to find a corresponding, convincing match for the color with a number in the culture. In short, you will be called on to create a credible interpretation of “what is being created here?” Second, the analysis process requires an awareness of how your background and assumptions color the process. Eli has seen pictures of wolves (and a few at the zoo). He has ideas of acceptable hues. In the same way, our experiences literally color the process. Thus, no two analyses are going to be the same. However, for the picture to be convincing to those who view it, one must discern how previous experiences influence the interpretation process. Chapter 5 introduces the process of “bracketing” which involves recognizing our reactions and responses that color our interpretation. Finally, the analysis process influences the researcher and the organization. Eli completes a paint by numbers and in the process, he is more aware of how a wolf might appear in nature. His painting also influences others who view it. In a similar way, the cultural analysis process influences our experience with life in organizations. You will attend to communication in ways that will be new to you. Our hope is that you will become more adept and responsible in your communication based on this analysis. Furthermore, the questions you ask during interviews and the formal or informal report you provide the organization will prompt reflection on and possible changes in communication practices. The potential impact of your analysis indicates the importance of maintaining high ethical standards in the process.

Angi’s Analogy: A Jigsaw Puzzle

The cultural analysis is similar to putting together a complex jigsaw puzzle without having a picture on the box to guide your efforts. The point of this analogy is to understand the tensions between seeing parts versus the whole, and to appreciate the impact the process has on the person doing the analysis. This metaphor applies in several ways: First, it is often difficult to get a sense of the big picture when you are looking at individual pieces. Only after you have assembled a number of segments can you start to get an idea of the

10 Cultural Analysis Planning

picture the puzzle will create. Second, it takes both dark and bright pieces in most cases to assemble a complete puzzle. I recently read a story of a young girl who secretly stole pieces of a puzzle her family was assembling and hid them under the sofa cushion because they were so ugly. In frustration, her family began to despair of ever being able to put the puzzle together because so many pieces were missing. Only when the girl provided the dark pieces could the entire picture be revealed. Sometimes in our cultural analysis it is tempting to linger on the positive stories and upbeat images. They rarely form the complete picture. Sometimes you must provide the dark elements to understand the complete culture. Critical theorists such as Mumby (1993), Deetz (1992), and Deetz, Tracy, and Simpson (2000) have encouraged this phase of analysis. Finally, the process of putting together the puzzle is often as important as the finished product. The mental exercise of seeing connections, of developing creativity, and of growing in patience and discipline will develop the puzzle builder even if the particular puzzle is not a particularly useful one. Chapter 8 guides you through this process of interpretation of cultural data.

Unlike puzzles, which have a set order and only one way for all of the parts to fit together, cultural analysis is a complex and interpretive pursuit. Four different people sitting around a table would see the picture from different perspectives and develop similar but varying pictures, and each of those constructions would have degrees of validity and usefulness for understanding the organization.

5. Why Use a Dramatic/Theater Metaphor in This Text?

We find students and professionals vary in the extent they easily connect with the metaphor of drama or theater used in this book. Some have had experiences like the opening one—the idea of being on stage only produced anxiety, and perhaps a moment of insight. Few of us have done more than seen or read a theatrical performance. So, why maintain this image? We will introduce other metaphors or analogies, as those just reviewed above, as well as others connected to theory in the coming chapter. Thus, if you are not connectingwith the idea of “theater”, consider these other images, but more importantly, focus on the main thrust of the steps used to guide the analysis process. We would hope everyone grasps the role metaphors play in providing insight into organizations. Morgan’s (2006) seminal work on metaphor, Images of Organization, captures metaphors that guide the way we see organizations. His main premise is that metaphors provide a way to see. Nonetheless, we recognize the limits of metaphor. We will address these limits (Putnam & Boys, 2006), such as imprecision and the tendency to focus on similarities metaphors, in Chapter 8 when we discuss the interpretation process in greater depth (c.f., Örtenblad,Trehan, & Putnam, 2017).

In the context of a cultural analysis, we argue that organizational communication viewed through the lens of dramatism has much to offer. The use of this metaphor has a long history, from Aristotle to Kenneth Burke (1972) and Erving Goffman (1959, 1974) to more contemporary writers. Boje, Luhman, and Cunliffe (2003) point out that the theater metaphor is used to describe organizations in two ways: organizations described as “like theater” (Goffman) and those who treat organizations as being theater (Burke, 1972). We see value for all of us in understanding organizations through a drama/theater lens, whether through Goffman’s metaphor or Burke’s literal approach.

The lens of theater or drama illuminates organizational life in at least three ways. First, this lens foregrounds members as actors who coordinate their actions in performances—some tightly scripted and traditional; others, improvised and informal. Like dramatic genres, organizational performances sometimes can be categorized by themes or archetypes. Some organizations are highly controlled with the emphasis on directors or stars, while others are ensemble casts. Some organizational performances by leaders have employees as intended audiences, while other performances involve all organizational members with consumers or policy makers as audience. Second, the drama metaphor foregrounds the “ventriloquistic” nature of communication (Cooren,Matte, Benoit-Barné, & Brummans, 2013). Like the ventriloquist, we give voice to certain ideas, make requests, claims, as we interact with others. At first, it might seem like the ventriloquist is in charge—he is doing the talking for the puppet. We too may sense that the ventriloquist is the one making decisions about how his puppet communicates. Yet, the identity or type of puppet shapes what the ventriloquist is allowed to say. For example, in the Broadway production of “The Lion King”, the actor holding the puppet depicting the character of Timon had to stay true to the character of this light hearted

Introduction 11

“meerkat”. In the same way, we may think of ourselves as doing or saying what we choose to say. Yet, the nature of our requests, the ideas we present, whowe speak with and howwe speak, as well as the ethical claims wemake in our interactions are shaped by the “puppet” or in the case of a cultural analysis, the various elements of culture. Put differently, in Chapter 4, when we attend to elements of culture (rituals, rules, humor, symbols, etc.), we will note how “who” is doing the acting is not limited to what people say and do. An element of culture like a ritual, metaphor, or artifact (i.e., the type of puppet) is also co-creating the organization (Cooren, Kuhn, Cornelissen, & Clark, 2011). For example, in one organization, office cubicles, a significant non-verbal symbol, were installed with lower walls that in turn reduced privacy. In addition, no one was given a permanent cubicle. Thus, an implicit norm meant that no one displayed personal artifacts such as pictures. This use of non-verbal space impacted who talked to whom as well as when and how they interacted. The “puppet” or the cubicles shaped the employees who had voice as ventriloquists but were constrained as well. Third, the drama metaphor enriches and complicates our under- standing of our communicative performances in organizations. Pacanowsky and O’Donnell-Trujillo (1982) write about organizational communication as performance and note that organizational performances have four character- istics: they are interactive, contextual, episodic and improvisational. Some performances are episodic on an interpersonal level—with two employees enacting an episode to determine power or credibility in their relationship. Others are larger organizational performances with a company trying to recover credibility after a crisis. As you conduct a cultural analysis, you will be challenged to listen in on performances. For instance, you might hear an employee story (episode) about what one co-worker said to another (interactive) about recent layoffs (contextual) as they discussed the various ways organizational members are responding (improvisational) to management mandates. In summary, if asked why we encourage the use of the drama or theater metaphor, our response is that this metaphor not only carries a rich history from Aristotle to the present, but more importantly, it provides a valuable way for us to see ourselves and our organizations. This metaphor foregrounds members as actors, introduces the ventriloquistic nature of communication, and enriches and complicates our understanding of our communicative performances in organizations. Rehearsal 1.1 provides an opportunity for reflection on the drama metaphor.

Rehearsal 1.1 Applying the Drama Metaphor

Purpose: Identify the value and limits of the theater metaphor.

1. What value do you see in using the theater/drama metaphor to reflect on organizational life and communication?

2. What limits or possible cautions should we consider in using this metaphor? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

6. How Do I Select an Organization for a Cultural Analysis?

There are a variety of factors to consider in selecting an organization. First and foremost, much depends on your goals for a cultural analysis. Use Rehearsal 1.2 to determine your goals or purposes.

12 Cultural Analysis Planning

Rehearsal 1.2 Your Purposes for a Cultural Analysis

Purpose: Reflect on and identify possible purposes of the analysis you will conduct. Check any of the following purposes that describe your reasons for conducting an organizational cultural analysis:

______ Learn cultural analysis skills for work as a consultant ______ Gain insight into another type of organization for career development ______ Develop insight as a new employee to move up in your organization ______ Learn to use cultural data to be a more effective leader in your own organization ______ Identify ways to serve community organizations through knowledge of their respective cultures ______ Learn about a different culture in an organization similar to your own to compare and contrast ______ Other reason: ___________________________________

Your answers to these questions should influence your decision to do an analysis or audit as an “insider”, a person who works for the organization you analyze, or as an “outsider”, one who comes to the organization as a stranger. To facilitate your decision, we have outlined the pros and cons associated with each role.

As you reflect on your goals, also give consideration to the relative advantages and disadvantages of insider/outsider roles (Table 1.1). These options may be viewed more as a continuum. Your relative knowledge and experience with an organization should be weighed. For example, in your own workplace, you may be new to the organization and/or industry, thus your knowledge of the culture and ability to work with the culture are far different from someone with extensive knowledge or experience. On the other hand, outside of the workplace, you may be a relative insider as a volunteer for the Arthritis Foundation or a church organization. You may also be somewhat of an insider due to weekly visits to a favorite restaurant or health club. Farther down the continuum toward being an outsider, you may have never worked for GM but you have worked for another major auto company, and thus know something of the basic aspects of this industry. You may have read widely about a given industry but have yet to visit an actual site. And then

Table 1.1 As an Insider or Outsider in the Organization

Insider Advantages Insider Disadvantages

Ease of access Personal communication insights Potential value to your own organization Time—ease of data collection

Lack of perceived freedom for analysis Bias due to being enmeshed in the culture; start with hidden assumptions Too familiar, thus “see less”, ask fewer questions People don’t explain things to you the same way they would to an outsider

Outsider Advantages Outsider Disadvantages

Insights for career development Skills for “newcomer” socialization Less familiar, thus “see more” See the more obvious layers of the culture

May misinterpret some cultural data Access to the organization Time outside of job to collect data

Introduction 13

there are organizations that are completely alien to your world—you have heard of high-tech companies but have not read about, visited, or studied one.

The key in examining the pros and cons of the “insider” versus “outsider” perspective is more complex, and perhaps your decision ultimately comes down to your immediate and/or long-range goals for developing this skill set. We have found value, as have our students and workshop participants, in engaging in a cultural analysis with goals ranging from “becoming a consultant”, to “learning the ropes as a newcomer”, to “enhancing the way one serves in the community”. Regardless of your decision, the steps we outline will guide you in gaining valuable experience in conducting an analysis. Other considerations (in addition to outsider/insider) might guide your choice of organization as well.

What contacts do you have that might provide access to an organization to analyze? What organizations might provide especially interesting sites to study for your personal or professional development? Organiza- tions are particularly interesting sites at some stages, such as start-up of new organizations at which culture is being formed, or major organizational transitions such as downsizing or leadership changes at which culture is being modified (see Rehearsal 1.3).

Rehearsal 1.3 Identifying an Organization

Purpose: Identify organizations that you might make the focus of an analysis.

Steps:

1. Review the pluses and minuses of being an insider versus an outsider in the cultural analysis process in Table 1.1.

2. Consider an organization you might serve as an outsider/consultant and then list the top three reasons it would be advantageous to the organization for you to serve in this role.

Organization: ______________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Consider an organization you might serve as an insider and then list the top three reasons it would be advantageous to the organization for you to serve in this role.

Once you have determined an organization, you should have confidence in proposing a cultural analysis to a potential organization (see in Rehearsal 2.3). The final report has significant value to the organization (see Rehearsal 14.2). If hired to conduct this this type of study for an organization, it would involve a major fee. In addition, as we will explore throughout this process, the benefits to the one conducting the analysis are also significant (see Rehearsal 14.1).

14 Cultural Analysis Planning

7. How Is This Workbook Structured?

The workbook is organized around six major steps or processes for the conduct of a cultural analysis. These steps are reviewed at the start of each chapter beginning with Chapter 2. The major chapters share in common the following features:

• Stage Terms: At the start of each chapter we list important terms and concepts covered in the chapter. The reader may want to pay special attention to definitions and explanations of these terms contained in the chapter.

• Connections: In sections labeled “Connections” we assist the reader in making connections between theories and constructs and organizational practice by extended examples.

• Rehearsals: Case studies and other activities are designed for hands-on experience with concepts. We incorporated activities that we have found enriching for workshop participants and students. You will find these activities in Rehearsal boxes in the workbook as well as at the ends of most chapters.

Each of the chapters prepares you to conduct a cultural analysis. Regardless of the organization you study, you will have the option of exploring your data in light of one or more of the five application chapters: diversity, ethics, change, leadership, and effectiveness. To that end, the next section provides your first “Connection” with Rehearsal 1.4 designed to prompt further reflection.

Connections: Reflection

The opening lines described a moment when Gerald was conducting a workshop. The workshop was being held back stage when the above thought struck him. “What if I was literally about to be on stage?” Like the majority reading this book, being back stage is perhaps a rare experience but being on an actual stage, even rarer. The thought of being on stage is not one most of us entertains as an option. If we do, we perhaps wonder as Gerald did: What if I forget my lines? Can I really pull off this character? Will the show even mean anything to others? These questions, we contend, should also compel us to be more reflective as daily participants in varied organizations.

This workbook will have the greatest value to professionals willing to shift from going through the motions of acting on stage to active reflection. We contend that effective and ethical leadership requires space and time for such reflection. In our work, we have learned again and again of the need to spend regular, if not daily times, in which we pause to reflect on the larger questions. Earlier in this chapter, we introduced three big questions to guide such reflection: (a) “What kind of culture is being co-created?” (b) “What kind of culture do we want to co-create?” (c) “What forms of communication will co-create the culture we want?” These questions assume both interpretive and critical approaches to studying and reflecting on organizations. By interpretive, we mean a focus on exploring meaning making processes, and thus a focus not simply on upper management viewpoints, but on the perspective of organizational members. The critical approach has an inherent concern for ethics in everyday communication by attending to “marginalization, misrepresentation, or distortion of some interests over others (McClellan & Sanders, 2013, p. 255). As such, we have stressed that ethics concerns or what we are creating on the stage, matter, not just in the analysis process, but in our daily application. We find Bisel’s (2018) claim compelling—ethics training and education tends to focus more on some past event or imagined future (“there and then” talk) rather than the present, “here and now” talk, which is “more personal, emotional, messy, and context- sensitive” with “real consequences for those involved in the conversation” (Bisel, 2018, p. 102). As such, our hope is this analysis approach will aid us in becoming more mindful of the “here and now”.

These three questions encourage us then to not just move through our lives reacting to others, carrying on with business as usual, perhaps talking about the past or future, but to reflect and then participate in co-creating more ethical and effective organizations now. Competent leadership in organizations involves going backstage; that is, active reflection on the cultural forces that shape communication practices, and the way our

Introduction 15

communication practices shape culture. The steps previewed in the next chapter reflect a process that we all participate in each day. For instance, we consciously or often unconsciously decide what, and how, and when to communicate in our organizations; we decide what changes in organizational practices we can and/or should encourage or discourage; and we determine what changes we believe we are empowered or powerless to introduce. Perhaps most critical of all, we make decisions whether to reflect on our communication or remain somewhat unconscious of our influence in an organization. In all, we share in common the fact that our communication behavior is based on interpretive processes that we take for granted.

We can always improve both the quality of the data we collect as well as our communication performances in response to these data.

These day-in and day-out taken-for-granted interpretive processes are based on our informal “data collection” about our organizations (e.g., norms, what is allowed, what is expected, how to communicate, with whom to communicate). Based on our interpretations of these data, we act and react. Before reading this book, you may never have considered yourself someone who collected and used cultural data or thought of yourself as an actor on an organizational stage. However, you may have heard a story about a recent firing and wondered if all the details were true. You may have been hired as a minority employee and now wonder how to move forward in an organization. You may have read a staff development handbook and been left wondering why no one seemed to engage in the practices outlined. You may have heard during a performance evaluation that no one else was having trouble with clients like you are, and found yourself wondering about the norm: “Am I really that bad?” When faced with the mysteries or uncertainties embedded in these types of questions, we may become more aware of unspoken or unwritten rules and values in an organization. Rehearsal 1.4 provides a place to reflect on our past experiences, and ways to enhance your current efforts at conducting a cultural analysis.

This workbook assumes that we can always improve the quality of the data we collect and the accuracy of our interpretations, as well as our organizational communication performances in response to these data. As you move through the cultural analysis process, we hope you will be reminded of what we observe each time we cover this material in the classroom, in a training, or consultation—how and why we communicate in our organizations matters. To extend Shakespeare’s well-worn analogy, “All the world’s a stage,” (Shakespeare, 1954, p. 42) our challenge is to be on the stage not merely as players or actors, but also as co-directors and producers of the communication practices that shape the culture of our organizations.

Rehearsal 1.4 Method Acting and Getting Real

Purpose: Reflect on your expectations concerning the process of conducting a cultural analysis in order to identify beliefs that may help or hinder your progress.

Overview: Method acting is a term that captures a major approach to training actors (Vineberg, 1991). At the core of this method is active observation of the real and genuine emotion (or mining the real experiences of the actor or actress). Strasberg (1987), the major proponent of this method in the United States, notes that the procedures for developing an actor’s capacity are “equally, if not more, necessary for the layman” (p. 201). This activity is designed to apply method acting concepts to the cultural analysis process. In short, the more you are real with your own reactions and emotions concerning the process, the more you will be able to overcome hurdles to making it a valuable experience.

16 Cultural Analysis Planning

Steps:

1. Briefly list two or three of your own initial reactions to this first chapter. What was clear? Unclear?What appeared promising for your own application? What emotions, if any, did this chapter evoke in you?

2. Have you had a previous positive experience with cultural analysis in which you gained insight into what “made an organization tick” or how to be more effective in an organization? What happened? What was your reaction?

3. Have you had a previous negative or confusing experience with cultural analysis? Perhaps you discovered information about an organization that was disappointing. Or perhaps you were baffled by why something happened in an organization. What happened? What was your reaction?

4. What will need to happen for you to have a positive, fulfilling experience in learning about conducting a cultural analysis? In particular, what concerns do you have? Questions?

Summary

1. An organizational culture involves the unique ways of doing things in an organization that are best captured by such elements of culture as the history, norms, and values of a group.

2. This cultural analysis process, Organizational Communication in Action (OCA) attempts to apply constructivist theories, such as Communicative Constitutive of Organization (CCO).

Introduction 17

3. The intent is to improve on methods we use each day in our organizations—we observe, ask questions for understanding, and read various documents such as newsletters. In the process of analysis, we not only gain insight about the organization, but may also improve our ability for ethical and effective communication.

4. How we define an organization is based on the boundaries of the membership. You will need to make a decision in the organization you analyze about who is considered a member, which may entail a narrow (employees, management) or a broad (customers, stakeholders, etc.) definition.

5. The end goal of the process is to learn how to conduct a cultural analysis and make application of this analysis to critical aspects of organizational life such as ethics, change, and diversity.

6. This workbook will help you understand the concept of culture as well as the basics of data collection, interpretation, and application. Pay attention to the key organizing features of the book: Stage Terms, to introduce relevant theories and concepts; Connections, to aid your understanding of concepts; and Rehearsals, both within the chapters and at the end of chapters to aid you in application.

7. You should have a clear sense of how to select an organization for a cultural analysis based on your purposes for conducting the analysis as well as the pros and cons of being an insider versus an outsider.

Discussion Questions

1. Discuss the broad array of organizations of which you are a member. 2. What impacts do organizations have on your life? 3. What do you see as benefits of a cultural analysis? 4. How are organizations like theater? Brainstorm some ways. 5. Reflect on the way a cultural analysis is defined. What do you understand about this process based on

the definition? 6. As you reflect on the goals discussed in the chapter, what are your goals for performing a cultural analysis?

References

Anderson, R., Baxter, L., & Cissna, K. (Eds.). (2009).Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Barbour, J., Jacocks, C., & Wesner, K. (2013). The message design logics of organizational change. Communication Monographs, 80, 354–378. doi:10.1080/03637751.2013.788251

Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London, UK: Penguin Books.

Bisel, R. (2018). Organizational moral learning: A communication approach. New York, NY: Routledge. Boivin, G., Brummans, B. M., & Barker, J. R. (2017). The institutionalization of CCO scholarship: Trends from 2000 to 2015. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(3), 331–355. doi:10.1177/0893318916687396

Boje, D. M., Luhman, J. T., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2003). A dialectic perspective on the organization theatre metaphor. American Communication Journal, 6(2), 1.

Burke, K. (1972). Dramatism and development. Barre, MA: Clark University Press. Cooren, F., Kuhn, T., Cornelissen, J., & Clark, T. (2011). Communication, organizing and organization: An overview and introduction to the Special Issue. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1149–1170. doi:10.1177/0170840611410836

Cooren, F., Matte, F., Benoit-Barné, C., & Brummans, B. M. (2013). Communication as ventriloquism: A grounded-in- action approach to the study of organizational tensions. Communication Monographs, 80(3), 255–277. doi:10.1080/ 03637751.2013.788255

Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Deetz, S., & Brown, D. (2004). Conceptualizing involvement, Participation and workplace decision processes: A communication theory perspective. In D. Tourish & O. Hargie. (Eds.), Key issues in organizational communication (pp. 172–187). London, UK: Routledge.

Deetz, S., Tracy, S., & Simpson, J. (2000). Leading organizations through transition: Communication and cultural change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18 Cultural Analysis Planning

Edwards, A. P., & Shepherd, G. J. (2007). An investigation of the relationship between implicit personal theories of communication and community behavior. Communication Studies, 58, 359–375. doi:10.1080/10510970701648574

Eisenberg, E., Trethewey, A., LeGreco, M., & Goodall, H. (2017). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint (8th ed.). New York, NY: St. Martin’s.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gergen, K., Gergen, M., & Barrett, F. (2004). Dialogue: Life and death of the organization. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 39–59). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Hammondsworth, UK: Penguin Books. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York, NY: Harper Books. Helmreich, R., & Merritt, A. (2000). Culture in the cockpit: Do Hofstede’s dimensions replicate? Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 31, 283–301. doi:10.1177/0022022100031003001

Keyton, J. (2005). Communication and organizational culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kuhn, T., & Ashcraft, K. (2003). Corporate scandal and the theory of the firm: Formulating the contributions of organizational communication studies. Management Communication Quarterly, 17, 20–57. doi:10.1177/0893318903253421

McClellan, J. G., & Sanders, M. L. (2013). (Re)organizing organizational communication pedagogy: Attending to the salient qualities of a communicative approach to organization. Review of Communication, 13(4), 249–268. doi:10.1080/ 15358593.2014.886334

McPhee, R. D. (2015). Agency and the four flows. Management Communication Quarterly, 29(3), 487–492. doi:10.1177/ 0893318915584826

McPhee, R. D., & Zaug, P. (2009). The communicative constitution of organization: A framework for explanation. In L. L. Putnam & A. M. Nicotera. (Eds.), Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication (pp. 21–48). New York, NY: Routledge.

Meisenbach, R. (2017). Integrating ethics and responsibility into organizational communication research: Issues and new directions. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(1). doi:10.1177/0893318916676891

Miller, K., & Barbour, J. (2015). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes (7th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

Mirivel, J. (2014). The art of positive communication: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Mishra, K., Boynton, L., & Mishra, A. (2014). Driving employee engagement: The expanded role of internal commu- nications. International Journal of Business Communication, 51(2), 183–202. doi:10.1177/232948841452539

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization (updated ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mumby, D. (1993). Narrative and social control. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Örtenblad, A., Trehan, K., & Putnam, L. L. (Eds.). (2017). Exploring Morgan’s metaphors: Theory, research, and practice in organizational studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

O’Keefe, B. J. (1988). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about communication. Communication Monographs, 55, 80–103. doi:10.1080/03637758809376159

Pacanowsky, M., & O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1982). Communication and organizational cultures. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 115–130. doi:10.1080/10570318209374072

Pearce, W. (2007). Making social worlds: A communication perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Putnam, L., & Boys, S. (2006). Revisiting metaphors of organizational communication. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, &W. Nord (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational studies (2nd ed.), (pp. 541–576). London, UK: Sage.

Shakespeare, W. (1954). As you like it. (S. Burchell, Ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Stohl, C. (1995). Organizational communication: Connectedness in action. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Strasberg, L. (1987). A dream of passion: The development of the method. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Vineberg, S. (1991). Method actors: Three generations of an American acting style. New York, NY: Schirmer Books.

Introduction 19

Chapter 2

The Significance of the Stage The Value of Cultural Analysis

The hope and promise of a cultural analysis is grounded in its potential for insight for meaningful change. A thought experiment is introduced as a way to understand theory as a way of seeing. Three theories that inform the OCA model are introduced with corresponding metaphors or ways of seeing organizations. Reflecting on the Google CEO’s cornerstone of “culture eats strategy for breakfast”, five primary benefits of the culture analysis process are introduced: (a) prompt reflection on diversity practices (Chapter 9); (b) improve the change (Chapter 10) leadership process by uncovering cultural strengths and potential areas for growth; (c) empower members to integrate ethical practices (Chapter 11) into organizational structures while also becoming aware of unconsciously supported unethical structures; (d) equip formal and informal leaders (Chapter 12) to ethically co-construct symbolic resources such as stories and rituals; and (e) provide insight to cultural practices relevant for overall organizational effectiveness (Chapter 13) such as public relations, hiring, conflict management, engagement, orientation, development, crisis management, and training.

Step One: Articulate the Value of a Cultural Analysis

1. Articulate the value of a cultural analysis 2. Understand the concept of culture 3. Describe cultural elements 4. Use multiple data collection methods 5. Interpret constitutive processes 6. Co-create positive communication applications

Most anyone entering an unfamiliar work setting knows the feeling of being an outsider. Real wisdom in such situations means recognizing that the unspoken is more powerful than what can be conveyed through speaking. One gradually gains a sense of the feel, the smell, the personality of a workplace, a way of working, or a kind of work—though it may be difficult to translate all of this into words that an outsider could grasp.

(Louis, “Perspectives on Organizational Culture”, 1985, p. 27)

Objectives

• State various ways a cultural analysis adds value to an organization. • Explain the “Communicative Constitutive of Organization” as a framework for a cultural analysis. • Review the six major steps in the cultural analysis process.

Stage Terms

• Construct. • Culture. • Constitutive. • Structuration. • Social constructionism. • Coordinated Management of Meaning.

The Tales We Could Tell

We all have stories about a wide array of experiences in organizations. These organizations range from small business and community service organizations to large multinational corporations and non-profits and religions organizations with global impact. These tales reveal the good, the bad, and the ugly about life in organizations. These stories prompt laughter and tears, meaning and confusion, love and hate, hope and fear. We have all been told and listened to stories mirroring these ranges of experiences. From mundane frustrations over time schedules, to anguish in dealing with a difficult boss, co-worker, employee, and/or customer, to fears over a change, one theme common in organizational stories relates to the challenges placed on our communication abilities.

In order to gain a new perspective on our experiences in organizations, to shed light on the good, bad, and ugly found in our stories, this workbook takes you through a six step model of conducting an analysis. In this chapter, we focus on the first step of the OCA model, “Articulate the Value of the Cultural Analysis Process”. We will first introduce our personal hopes for you in this process. Then, as a way to encourage reflection on the value of a cultural analysis, we provide a brief history of the study of organizational culture and major theories that enrich and ground claims about the value of this process. We then provide a brief discussion of each step or phase of this process as well as Rehearsals aimed at practicing this first step.

Any Hope of Change?

We turn in a few pages to a brief history of cultural analysis and then review key theories. Yet, before turning to history and theory, it is fair to acknowledge a potential obstacle. Our experiences with theory, research, and analysis have often not assisted us with the difficulties listed above. It is not uncommon to hear the following complaint against theory: “I don’t see how this theory helps my life now!” In the midst of reading, reflecting, and theorizing about organizational communication and cultural analysis, we have been asked fair and challenging questions such as the the following.

• Is all of this work of analysis really worth it? • How can I apply the cultural information I’m learning? • Can a cultural analysis really help me bring change to my organization? • Is it realistic to expect change in myself or in the organization?

Our reply to such questions reveals our educator’s bias. If we were to say no, then we would see the need to give up not only on the teaching enterprise but on the human experience as well. As educators and as human beings, we hold a positive view of the human condition, that we are all capable of change and growth. We accept that such change and growth does not always happen; nor is it always easy. Nonetheless, as far as personal and organizational changes go, we have had the good fortune and blessing of witnessing changes not only in our communication behavior but also in others, and in organizations as a result of courses and workshops that use the approach presented here. However, for this workbook to work, for any

The Significance of the Stage 21

development in our communication abilities to happen, we have to play 100%. Change requires more than right information, it also requires a value set-an openness and commitment to change as well as support. Such a commitment is also required for organizational change. Change efforts may fail because they are undertaken without sufficient commitment to gaining understanding of organizational culture.

While we affirm that change is possible, it is often difficult and uncomfortable. We have developed habitual ways of acting and reacting. Changing ingrained habits in any area, whether it is nail biting, reactions in conflict, a golf slice or tennis serve, is not easy. Often in the change process we get worse before we get better because the new behavior seems unnatural. Our old response was unconscious, and in contrast we must think constantly about the new behavior. Only in time does the new behavior fade into the comfortable, taken-for-granted. Strasberg (1987) comments on the basic premise of method acting— that to create a performance that seems natural and unpracticed takes many hours of practice and preparation. He writes, “The preparation of every art must be conscious—you must know how and what you are going to do. Don’t trust your inspiration. … Then being trained in the method do it to the best of your ability. Conscious preparation, unconscious result” (p. 79). So, while this workbook will provide the tools for change, ultimately, we realize that it takes a longer period for the new behaviors and habits of interpreting and developing messages, and organizational change strategies to take root. Reflecting on and understanding the significance of the construct called “organizational culture” can aid in this change process.

We provide a number of application chapters (see Part IV) including one on change. Chapters on leadership, diversity, ethics, and organizational effectiveness are also included. In addition to these applications, cultural knowledge can help you choose the right job, navigate the socialization process, enhance public relations, and discern what counts as productive and effective communication. In fact, in order to provide context for a more complete reflection on the value of a cultural analysis, we turn now to provide a brief history of the use of this term.

A Bit of History

Culture is a construct—a term or concept used to explain events or various phenomena. A construct is “a theoretical creation that is based on observation but cannot be observed directly or indirectly” (Babbie, 2001, p. 21). Culture, like other constructs (e.g., personality, intelligence, motivation, climate, attitude), has value if it helps us make sense of our world. Thus, as we discuss this construct, it is important to understand that the term has its own story to tell. This brief history of this construct in also suggests the enduring value of the study of culture to organizational life.

“Organizational culture” became a buzzword in the late 1970s and the 1980s. Popular books, such as Deal and Kennedy’s (1982) Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. Schein’s (2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership introduced the general public to the concept. About the same time, Pacanowsky and O’Donnell-Trujillo (1982) introduced communication scholars to the concept of organizational culture, although the notion of interpretive studies emerged in the social sciences in the 1970s. Their basic premise was that organizations needed to be studied as cultures of interest for their own sake: as places where we “gossip, joke, knife one another, initiate romantic involvements, cue new employees to ways of doing the least amount of work that still avoids hassles from a supervisor, talk sports, arrange picnics” (p. 116). Pacanowsky and O’Donnell-Trujillo (1983) recognized the explicit link between cultural competence and the metaphor of acting in their article, “Organizational Communication as Cultural Performance”.

Over time, a variety of approaches to studying organizational culture emerged. We discuss these approaches in the next chapter. In brief, some organizational consultants see culture as a variable that can be manipulated in organizations to achieve more positive outcomes, and talk about pragmatic uses of cultural information. Other researchers operate from an interpretive and constructive framework, questioning whether culture can be manipulated, and are more interested in in-depth studies of how culture is created,

22 Cultural Analysis Planning

maintained, and changed through social interaction. Still others, known as critical theorists, contend that the use of cultural data can too easily solely focus on serving managerial interests. They believe a cultural analysis should focus on hidden, taken for granted, and potentially abusive uses of power (Deetz, 1991). Whether you take one of these contrasting approaches or a blended position, a few instances are provided below about ways cultural knowledge has important implications, and thus value, to organizations.

First, a cultural analysis has value for external communication or public relations. Hatch and Schultz (1997), for instance, assert that cultural meanings represented in member language, stories, and humor are critical to effective external communication related to image, vision, and strategy. Second, insight into socialization processes can be gained. For example, Mary Helen Brown (1990) described a typology of stories told by employees to socialize new employees in a nursing home. That typology might be used to determine the effectiveness of various narrative techniques in socialization. Third, an analysis may surface unethical practices or patterns. For instance, researchers have captured employee stories of mistreatment in the workplace and illuminated how some voices were privileged over others (Meares, Oetzel, Torres, Derkacs, & Ginossar, 2004). Their study provided implications for organizational strategies to treat all employees with respect and dignity. In addition, the researchers suggest strategies for employees to “gain voice” to resist unjust treatment.

Fourth, a cultural analysis may provide insight into communication patterns that have proven frustrating due to contradictory practices. Most of us could tell stories of dealing with a management dictate that makes little sense. We may feel trapped by a culture and constrained in our communication choices. For example, Patrice Buzzanell and colleagues (2017) explored the way in which women communicated, in relation to maternity leave, in light of organizational policy. Their analysis revealed contradictory and at times ironic discourse that resulted in securing their leave while at the same time undermining their image as a competent employee. In a related area of study, Boren and Johnson (2013) describe the negative impact a culture may have on employees when message norms on using family leave policies focus on resentment.

These frustrating and unjust cultural patterns are captured by the ironic statements made by Scott Adams (1996), the creator of the Dilbert cartoon. As he illustrates, a business plan has two steps: (a) “gather information” and (b) “ignore it” (p. 162). While we may find humor in frustrated Dilbert characters dealing with meaningless (or harmful) business practices, none of us likes to be in those roles. The power of analyzing a culture is that new options might emerge that had not been seen. In fact, we will explore the role of irony in introducing change in Chapter 10. Organizational members might also find that a cultural ritual has become so ingrained and unconscious that it now blinds them to more effective interaction options. Rehearsal 2.1 provides an opportunity to reflect on varied interaction patterns.

Rehearsal 2.1 Creativity and Constraint

Purpose: Discern how communication behaviors involve novel or creative responses to inherent tensions as well as more stable or constrained responses.

1. Describe a “taken-for-granted” practice in your organization. 2. How was/is this practice created through interaction? 3. How does it constrain future interaction?

Example: In most classrooms, teachers are in an authoritarian role. They direct interaction in the classroom setting, and the students (for the most part) sit passively in attention and obey directions given by the instructor. This pattern of authority is created through interaction. Each class that the teacher and students have enacted over their educational careers has reinforced the authoritarian role of the teacher

The Significance of the Stage 23

and the submissive role of students to the point that most students wouldn’t think of violating the expectations or enacting a different kind of role. This pattern, present in varying degrees depending on larger national culture norms, constraints more egalitarian roles in the classroom. Many students would resist behavior by a teacher asking them to take a more active role in setting their own educational goals, and taking responsibility for their own learning. Conversely, certain questions or more assertive student behavior is often constrained by patterns of teacher authority.

In summary, culture, as a construct, continues to appear in the popular (Goodpasture, 2007; Taylor, 2015; Vick, 2013) and research literature (Daher, 2016; Gailliard & Davis, 2017; Gardner, Reithel, Cogliser, Walumbwa, & Foley, 2012; Walker & Aritz, 2015). In popular literature, while the term culture may not be in the title of a newly released book or organizational development initiative, it is integrated throughout the pages and the processes of both. For instance, Laslo Bock (2015), the CEO of Google, in his book, Work Rules, consistently refers to culture. He tells his story of being hired by Google. The person scheduled to interview him stressed that he should not show up in a suit, “or they will think you do not understand their culture if you show up in one”. (p. 4). He speaks of the tens of thousands who visit Google headquarters asking, “What is the culture all about?” (p. 8). Bock goes onto to devote a chapter to three Google cultural cornerstones entitled, “Culture Eats Strategy for Breakfast”. The continued use of this construct means it is not merely a fad. Culture, though not always foregrounded in the jargon of an organization, is something organizational members recognize as important. Our goal is to refine our understanding of this construct so that we can best use it in the conduct of an organizational cultural analysis. This refinement process is aided by theory. We turn now to explore the theoretic perspectives underpinning the OCA model. Understanding the role of theory will further aid us in articulating the value of this process.

Theory as Seeing

Join us in a brief “Gedankenexperiment” (German for “thought experiment”). Experiment by thinking with us about the words “organizational communication”. What image or images first come to you mind? What did you see? A building? A matrix? A prison? A machine? A chart? These images belie an implicit theory or way of seeing organizations (Morgan, 2006). For example, a chart image focuses on structures and hierarchy whereas a machine image suggests the importance of interrelated functions and processes. A prison may suggest power relationships that have turned negative. These varied images may be considered implicit images or “ways of seeing”. As ways of seeing, theories are part of normal, everyday human activity. While some theories are more formal, and developed than others, we are all enabled and constrained by our images of organization or the implicit theories we hold. In fact, a key idea we explore later is how the term “culture” is itself a metaphor, a way of seeing organizations. First, though, we overview several social constructivist theories that captures certain images—images that underscore the value and process of a cultural analysis.

Communicative Constitutive of Organization

The “Communicative Constitutive of Organization” (CCO) is a phrase used to capture a collection of theories and approaches to the study of organizational communication (Novak, 2016). While differences exist across these theories, they share in common the assumption that communication is not peripheral, but the primary mode for explaining social reality (Schoeneborn et al., 2014). In addition, and particularly important to cultural analysis, they share a common premise that “who or what is acting is always open to question” (Cooren, Kuhn, Cornelissen, & Clark, 2011, p. 1152). Put differently, an analysis should not only focus on micro processes such as interactions between people but also attend to

24 Cultural Analysis Planning

macro processes such as artifacts, architecture, rituals, and the role of figures, mission statements, and metaphors in the way they constitute the organization. In Chapter 4 we introduce varied “elements of culture” as our way of attending to both micro and macro constitutive processes. In addition, CCO theorists encourage a foregrounding of ethics or “the ways ethics are constituted in communication” (McClellan & Sanders, 2013, p. 259). This foregrounding of ethics involves an exploration or communicative routines and practices, for instance, that would place a value of profit over the well-being of people or the environment.

What specifically is meant by the term “constitutive”? This term is used not only in the communication field, but also in politics, chemistry, and genetics. These varied usages present an array of images: (a) what makes a “thing what it is”, (e.g., a physical property determined by the arrangement of atoms; (b) having the power to “institute, establish or enact” (e.g., political power to appoint a position or enact a policy); and (c) a controlling mechanism (e.g. DNA controlling the synthesis of a protein regardless of the organism) (American Heritage Dictionary, 2017). These varied meanings can aid us in seeing the relationship between communication and organizations in new ways. The theories or “schools” falling under CCO “address how complex communication processes constitute both organizing and organization, and how these processes and outcomes reflexively shape communication” (Putnam & Nicotera, 2010, p. 159). For instance, McPhee and Zaug (2009), from a CCO framework, claim the need to attend to “four flows: membership negotiation, organizational self-structuring, activity coordination, and institutional positioning (p. 22). Each of these communicative processes are central to organizing and organizations. Indeed, from this perspective, organizations as we know them come into social existence through two or more of these flows. Two major theories that reflect the constructivist assumptions held by CCO perspective provide additional metaphors or ways of seeing the value of engaging in a cultural analysis.

Structuration

A major theoretic framework called “structuration” explains the grassroots nature of culture, how members shape culture, but also how culture constrains their actions (Giddens, 1979). Structuration assumes that both choice and constraint are simultaneously present in our communicative behaviors (Poole, Seibold, & McPhee, 1986). As we briefly review this theory, discern the images that come to your mind. These images become practical ways to think about organization and the organizing process.

The term “structuration” captures two ideas: (a) we are constrained by structures (i.e., social norms, organizational decision-making hierarchies), and (b) we participate in maintaining, changing, and defending these structures in an ongoing process (Poole, 1992; Poole et al., 1986). For example, each time I follow a management directive, while I may feel constrained by the directive, my submission to the directive adds to the power of such directives in the future. I may also have the choice to disobey the directive, which may then result in weakening or changing future directives (or being fired!). One research project found that employees in a federal organization communicated about work-family policies in ways that created expectations (structures) that made employees hesitant to act on available policies (Kirby & Krone, 2002). In a related way, research on networks found that rules for interaction embedded in prior history were more influential than the those external to the network (Whitbred, Fonti, Steglich, & Contractor, 2011). Structures are thus reproduced through our collective action because their constraint on our actions is often not at the level of our consciousness.

For another example, consider a religious organization. Do members accept and/or question how to celebrate a ritual, such as communion, or the leader selection process or how to conduct worship assembly? Is upward communication allowed related to taken-for-granted norms such as the lack of ethnic diversity or a dearth of service-based collaboration with other denominations or religions? If you are like most of us, you simply take certain practices or structures for granted as the way things are done. A cultural analysis may surface structure changing stories related to diversity (Driskill, Arjannikova, & Meyer, 2014) or communicative practices that promote an ethic of collaborative service (Driskill, Meyer, & Mirivel, 2012; Fogg-Rogers,

The Significance of the Stage 25

Sardo, & Boushel, 2017). Such changes occur in part when the unconscious structure moves to conscious questioning, and a time when a new structuration process, over the years, may create a new taken-for-granted reality. In other words, as humans, we actively participate in creating and re-creating the determinative power of our communication structures.

The process of structuration is part of what we seek to understand in the study of culture. We study how organization members co-create constraining and enabling structures through such elements of culture as values, communication norms, rituals, and metaphors. We also consider the process of cultural change at periods in which members challenge existing structures. For instance, a new supervisor might walk into a structure, such as performance review, with the process already in place. She might notice communication norms that fail to have the employee reflecting and self-assessing. As a newcomer, then, she would be faced with the challenge of introducing a change. Yet, such a change would be constrained by the extent the current practices have become strongly embedded in the culture.

What image or images have occurred to you as you read about structuration? One image might be that of a river. A river is constrained by the banks in terms of width and direction of flow; yet at the same time the river influences width and direction through processes as erosion. A cultural analysis provides insights into communicative structures (e.g., norms, rules, rituals) that guide the flow of the organization; as well as potential ways to influence the flow.

Coordinated Management of Meaning

The Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) is a communication theory grounded in the Social Constructionism (SC) assumption that our interactions with one another create our most basic understandings of life (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Leeds-Hurwitz, 2016). CMM tools are intended to improve the quality of our lives in and outside of organizations. Consistent with a CCO framework, they consider organizations and cultures as co-created by people in conversation and then in turn shaped by what they create (Pearce, 2007). This idea of co-construction, as introduced in Chapter 1, foregrounds the assumption that communication is substantial, weighty, and consequential. For instance, in a consulting context, Hedman and Gesch-Karamanli- dis (2015) report their use of CMM tools in aiding an organization reporting low participation and unclear decision-making in team meetings. In their intervention they focused on CMM questions that foregrounded the role of speech acts in constructing their culture. For example, in light of varied meaning levels such as episodes or culture, they asked questions such as: “How does this speech act reflect your typical meetings?” “What cultural stories does the speech act invite?” “What kind of organizational culture do they construct?” Their approach seeks to encourage dialogue and conversations in the context of change.

Story telling may also provide key insights to the co-construction process. For instance, creative risks in an organization are more likely to occur in the context of members telling stories about being rewarded for such risks. In contrast, unethical or potentially harmful organizational practices may become taken-for-granted. For instance, Lyon (2008) studied communication patterns at Enron and concluded that language used and communication styles in the culture created social capital for individuals who talked about the “new economy”, engaged in combative communication tactics, and possessed a non-industry brand of “smartness”. The culture led to these behaviors being interpreted more positively within the company than they subsequently were judged by objective outsiders who saw them as keys to the company’s collapse. His study reflects the importance of the reflexive questions encouraged by CMM practitioners: (a) What are we creating in our communication? (b) What do we want to create? (c) What forms of communication will create what we want to create? These questions flow from a constructivist perspective and are at the heart of the cultural analysis process.

As before, we wonder what images came to your mind as your read about CMM? If “Structuration” conjures an image of a river constrained by the banks but able to make changes through such processes as erosion, CMM might be imaged as Lego people coming together to build something out of Legos. The Lego blocks represent various symbolic resources we share in common (language, rules, etc.) that in turn shape our identity, relationships, organizations, and cultures. We will be limited by what is in our “Lego

26 Cultural Analysis Planning

box” and perhaps by the instructions included, yet at the same time language resources, such as reflexive questions, may aid us in locating additional Legos and directions outside of the box that may aid us in re-creating or changing identities, relationships, organizations, and cultures.

In summary, this review of theories and associated images provide another way to reflect on the value of a cultural analysis. Theories provide a way to see or imagine an organization. If asked then, what is the value of an analysis, this review of theories and images could prompt such responses as, “a powerful way to understand the DNA that defines or makes this organization”, (CCO) “insight into communicative processes that are like the shaping force of a river flowing that is also constrained by its banks” (Structuration); and/or “improved awareness of the what we are creating together and both the resources and constraints we see in our cultural lego box” (CMM).

Connections: Benefits of Studying Organizational Culture

Theories such as CCO, Structuration, and CMM all foreground the importance of paying close attention to the reflexive relationship between culture and communication. The study of culture should, therefore, focus on symbolic processes because “cultures are communicative creations, they emerge and are sustained by the communicative acts of all employees, not just the conscious persuasive strategies of upper management” (Conrad & Poole, 1998, p. 116). This relationship between communication and culture suggests multiple benefits of a cultural analysis. Below, we have listed several benefits and in particular, we highlight the five contexts covered in Part IV-Application. As you review this list, we encourage you in Rehearsal 2.2 to capture these and/or other benefits most relevant to your organization. Furthermore, for some, this list may provide a way to focus your analysis. For instance, if a leadership transition is underway or if recent diversity initiatives are of interest, then a cultural analysis may focus on those concerns. In general, a cultural analysis is beneficial to:

• prompt reflection on “diversity” (Chapter 9) practices, including an understanding of the relationship between ethnic and national culture in light of organizational communication patterns and norms;

• improve the “change” (Chapter 10) leadership process by uncovering cultural strengths and potential areas for growth, conflict management, and external communication;

• empower members to integrate “ethical” (Chapter 11) practices into organizational processes relevant to internal and external communication in relation to short versus long-term sustainability, power and decision-making, and concerns for the environment;

• equip formal and informal “leaders” (Chapter 12) to ethically co-construct symbolic resources such as stories and rituals which shape meaning and purpose, what is valued, ethical practices, and readiness to grow through crisis events;

• provide insight into cultural practices relevant for overall “organizational effectiveness” (Chapter 13) such as hiring, orientation, public relations, development, crisis management, and training

Rehearsal 2.2 The Value of a Cultural Analysis

Purpose: Identify what you believe would be the primary values or benefits of an analysis for your organization or the organization you have decided to study.

Steps:

1. Review the bulleted points above. 2. Write down the language you would use to capture three potential values of an analysis of your own

organization or of the organization you are considering as a focus for an analysis.

The Significance of the Stage 27

3. You might consider possible problems you currently perceive in the organization and describe how a cultural analysis would help you better identify solutions to these problems. Or you might reflect on current changes being considered or implemented and ways a cultural analysis would help in the process of change management.

____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

Cultural Analysis in Action

This workbook introduces a six-step process for conducting a cultural analysis. This first step, the ability to articulate the value of the process, equips you on an informal and formal level. You may, for instance, see the value of moving forward in an informal way to aid you in adjusting to a new organization or engaging in leading change. Or, on a formal level, as part of a class activity or a professional development commitment, engage in an analysis to hone your ability to gather credible cultural data for application. In either case, when you complete the process, you will have a set of tools for understanding the communication norms, the resources and obstacles for change leadership, as well as insights for developing your own communication practices. These steps, however, will often not occur in a linear fashion. For instance, you may gain insights in the early phases that prove to be “on target” for “communication applications” (Step 6). You will then be challenged to check the validity of those insights as you reflect on data. If you are studying an organization as an insider, you will have already collected data (Step 4) as you have interacted and made observations about communication. In such a situation, we will be asking you to slow down. The process outlined in this workbook will aid you in slowing down in order to draw applications based on ethical and credible data. In review, the six major steps of the OCA model are as follows:

1. Articulate the Value of the Analysis Process

Both at the informal and formal level, a cultural analysis has value. The application chapters on diversity, ethics, change, leadership, and effectiveness capture significant ways to introduce positive benefits.

2. Understand the Concept of Culture

The concept of culture needs to be understood beyond the popular business literature on improving corporate culture. Understanding the richness of this concept will further enrich your ability to clearly articulate the value of a cultural analysis as well as enhance your ability to navigate the remaining four steps.

3. Describe Major Cultural Elements

We review research on and examples of elements such as stories, rules, and heroes. The importance of being aware of these elements is that each one provides a different vantage point on the often-hidden aspects of

28 Cultural Analysis Planning

discursive and organizing practices that constitute culture. Too often an analysis will focus on one element to the exclusion of others.

4. Use Multiple Data Collection Methods to Identify Elements of Culture

We demonstrate the importance of using multiple methods, whether gathering data at a formal or informal level. Observations and systematic analysis of organizational texts are described as two of three ways to gain a rich data set. Surveys and interviews will also be introduced as alternative, but more obtrusive methods, for both insiders and outsiders. “Obtrusive” means how obvious the research method is to organizational members, thus how likely to alter their behavior.

5. Interpret Constitutive Processes

You will engage in developing a credible interpretation of the culture. The notion of an interpretation is important in that a culture analysis does not claim to be an objective and neutral video recording. Instead, the analogy we use throughout this book is that of a dramatic performance, like a play. Two directors may take the same play and stage two very different productions based on different interpretations of the written word. Indeed, the assumption with a cultural analysis is that an objective and neutral cultural recording is impossible. Instead, the individual (or team) works to provide a credible interpretation this is compelling, meaningful, valuable, and valid. You will be guided to explore varied elements to discern patterns of thematic action (i.e. organizing processes) and an overall characterization that constitute the culture.

6. Identify Positive Communication Applications

Like any good dramatic interpretation and presentation, an effective cultural analysis should inspire new insights. These insights, as we encourage in the closing chapters, will focus on positive communication applications (c.f., Brown, Morris, & Lee, 2012). The focus on “positive communication” will be explored in the closing chapter, yet from the outset it is important to resist the idea that the goal of the analysis is to find problems nor is it about ignoring problems. Instead, the focus on “positive” is first about discerning what communication practices are creating the desired culture. Organizations benefit from seeing and hearing what is working. And, then from a positive orientation, we will also work on capturing communicative processes that will aid in co-creating even more ethical and effective organizations. since this process is not linear, these insights may occur before you have worded your final interpretation. In the final section of the text, we return full circle. The value of an analysis is tied back to various application arenas including organizational effectiveness, diversity, change management, leadership, and ethics. We encourage you to develop your ability to write to the organization you would study about the value of this process in Rehearsal 2.3.

Summary

The following key ideas were introduced:

1. Change in communication behaviors is enhanced by knowledge of culture. 2. A “construct” is a term, or a concept used to explain events or various phenomena—as a construct,

culture was popularized in the 1970s and early 1980s. 3. Theories, whether formal or informal, provide a way of seeing, an image of an organization. Thus, we

need to be aware of the images we hold. At the same time, formal theories can challenge us to make the best use of a cultural analysis since they provide new ways of seeing.

The Significance of the Stage 29

4. The OCA model used in this book is grounded in constructivist theories: CCO, Structuration, and CMM. Each of these theories foreground communication in terms of the organizing process, and on organizations as created in and through communication that then shaped communication.

5. CMM suggests three big questions to guide our analysis process: “What are we creating?” “What do we want to create?” “What forms of communication will create what we want to create?”

6. Six major benefits of studying organizational culture include the following:

• prompt reflection on diversity practices (Chapter 9), including an understanding of the relationship between national and organizational communication patterns and norms;

• improve the change (Chapter 10) leadership process by uncovering cultural strengths and potential problem areas;

• empower members to integrate ethical (Chapter 11) practices into organizational structures and practices while also becoming aware of unconsciously supported unethical structures;

• equip formal and informal leaders (Chapter 12) to tap into symbolic resources such as stories and rituals; • provide insight to cultural practices relevant for overall organizational effectiveness (Chapter 13) such

as hiring, orientation, development, public relations, crisis management, and training.

Rehearsal 2.3 Writing about the Value of a Cultural Analysis

Purpose: Develop a convincing newsletter style article that conveys the value of conducting a cultural analysis.

Overview: Depending on your role as an insider or an outsider as well as on your relationship with the organization you analyze, you might find it helpful to take a step beyond the brainstorming activity on describing the value of a cultural analysis. We encourage you to take initiative and actually write an article that would argue for the merits of a cultural analysis. Such an article would have the pragmatic benefit of introducing your organization to the concept of cultural analysis. Whether you propose to study your own organization, or you make a request to study a different

organization, you will need to provide an explanation and rationale for the cultural analysis process. Why should a company want to do it? What benefits could they expect? This Rehearsal might yield information surprising to you. Furthermore it might yield information of value for publication in a company newsletter.

Steps:

1. Read a research article (i.e. it should include methods, results, etc.) on the topic of organizational culture. As a research article it should be in an academic journal as opposed to a popular press magazine. A research journal, if recent, will sometimes contain information about organizational culture studies that have not been picked up in the popular press.

2. Determine from the article two or three specific benefits of understanding the culture of an organization. You may want to add additional benefits discussed in Chapter 2 or that you identified in your brainstorming activity.

3. Summarize these values of the cultural analysis process in a one- to two-page article (length will ultimately be determined by your organization/publication outlet) that uses language that would be welcomed by members of your organization.

4. Use a format that would be appealing, like a newsletter style (i.e. catchy title, headers, bulleted points, relevant examples from your organization and the article, etc.).

30 Cultural Analysis Planning

Discussion Questions

1. How does human interaction create organizational culture? 2. What does it mean to say organization and organizing are “constituted” in communication? 3. How does organizational culture constrain or shape human interaction within it? 4. How does culture affect ethical decision-making in organizations? Reflect on what you know about

cases in the news such as Enron, AIG, and BP. How did organizational culture of these organizations affect how decisions were made?

5. What would you say to a CEO about the benefits of letting you study the culture of his/her organization? What benefit would an analysis provide for improving internal as well as external communication?

6. What kind of culture are you looking for as you decide on a place to work? 7. What is clear about the six major phases of the cultural analysis process? What would you like clarified?

References

Adams, S. (1996). The Dilbert principle. New York, NY: HarperCollins. American Heritage Dictionary (5th ed.). (2017). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Babbie, E. (2001). The practice of social research (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City,KS: Anchor Books.

Bock, L. (2015). Work rules. New York, NY: Twelve Hachette Book Group. Boren, J. P., & Johnson, S. L. (2013). Examining the relationships among peer resentment messages overheard, state guilt, and employees’ perceived ability to use work/family policies. Southern Communication Journal, 78(2), 128–145. doi:10.1080/1041794X.2012.736008

Brown, L., Morris, G., & Lee, K. (2012). The role of communication in positive organizational scholarship. In G. M. Spreitzer & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 566–577). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Brown, M. H. (1990). Defining stories in organizations: Characteristics and functions. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 13 (pp. 162–190). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Buzzanell, P.M., Remke, R. V., Meisenbach, R., Liu, M., Bowers, V., & Conn, C. (2017). Standpoints of maternity leave: Discourses of temporality and ability. Women’ Studies in Communication, 40(1), 67–90 doi:10.1080/07491409.2015.1113451

Conrad, C., & Poole, S. M. (1998). Strategic organizational communication: Into the twenty-first century (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.

Cooren, F., Kuhn, T., Cornelissen, J., & Clark, T. (2011). Communication, organizing and organization: An overview and introduction to the special issue, Organization Studies, 32(9), 1149–1170. doi: 10.1177/0170840611410836

Daher, N. (2016). The relationships between organizational culture and organizational innovation. International Journal of Business & Public Administration, 13(2), 1–15. doi:10.1108/01437720510597667

Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley. Deetz, S. (1991). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization. Albany: State University of New York Press. Driskill, G. W., Arjannikova, A., &Meyer, J. (2014). A dialectic analysis of a community forum on faith: The “most segregated” or separated hour? Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42(4), 477–496. doi:10.1080/00909882.2014.880938

Driskill, G. W., Meyer, J., & Mirivel, J. C. (2012). Managing dialectics to make a difference: Tension management in a community-building organization. Communication Studies, 63(2), 243–261. doi:10.1080/10510974.2011.634476

Fogg-Rogers, L., Sardo, M., & Boushel, C. (2017). “Robots vs. animals”: Establishing a culture of public engagement and female role modeling in engineering higher education. Science Communication, 39(2), 195–220. doi:10.1177/ 1075547017696169

Gailliard, B. M., & Davis, C. W. (2017). To be known, accepted, and involved: Investigating organizational assimilation in Christian churches. Southern Communication Journal, 82(3), 117–128. doi:10.1080/1041794X.2017.1315451

Gardner, W. L., Reithel, B. J., Cogliser, C. C., Walumbwa, F. O., & Foley, R. T. (2012). Matching personality and organizational culture: Effects of recruitment strategy and the five-factor model on subjective person–organization fit. Management Communication Quarterly, 26(4), 585–622. doi:10.1177/0893318912450663

The Significance of the Stage 31

Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. London, UK: Macmillan. Goodpasture, K. E. (2007). Conscience and corporate culture. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5), 356–365. Retrieved from https://0-search-proquest-com.library.ualr.edu/docview/237024416? accountid=14482

Hedman, E., & Gesch-Karamanlidis, E. (2015). Facilitating conversations that matter using coordinated management of meaning theory. OD Practitioner, 47(2), 41–46.

Kirby, E., & Krone, K. (2002). “The policy exists but you can’t really use it”: Communication and the structuration of work-family policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 50–77. doi:10.1177/0891243298012003004

Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2016). Social construction. In Oxford bibliographies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093. OBO.978019975568410106

Louis, M. R. (1985). Perspectives on organizational culture. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundbert, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lyon, A. (2008). The mis/recognition of Enron executives’ competence as cultural and social capital. Communication Studies, 59, 371–387. doi:10.1080/10510970802467411

McPhee, R. D., & Zaug, P. (2009). The communicative constitution of organization: A framework for explanation. In L. L. Putnam & A. M. Nicotera (Eds.), Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication, (pp. 21–48). New York, NY: Routledge.

Meares, M., Oetzel, J., Torres, A., Derkacs, D., & Ginossar, T. (2004). Employee mistreatment and muted voices in the culturally diverse workplace. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 4–27. doi:10.1080/0090988042000178121

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization (updated ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Novak, D. R. (2016). Democratic work at an organization-society boundary. Management Communication Quarterly, 30(2), 218–244. doi:10.1177/0893318915622455

Pacanowsky, M., & O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1982). Communication and organizational cultures. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 115–130. doi:10.1080/10570318209374072

Pacanowsky, M., & O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational communication as cultural performance. Communication Monographs, 50, 126–147. doi:10.1080/03637758309390158

Pearce, W. (2007). Making social worlds: A communication perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Poole, M., Seibold, D., & McPhee, R. (1986). A structurational approach to theory-building in group decision- making research. In R. Hirokawa &M. Poole (Eds.),Communication and group decision making (pp. 79–108). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Poole, M. S. (1992). Structuration and the group communication process. In L. Samovar & R. Cathcart (Eds.), Small group communication: A reader (6th ed.). Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.

Putnam, L., & Nicotera, A. (2010). Communicative constitution of organization is a question: Critical issues for addressing it. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(1), 158–165. doi:10.1177/0893318909351581

Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schoeneborn, D., Blaschke, S., Cooren, F., McPhee, R. D., Seidl, D., & Taylor, J. R. (2014). The three schools of CCO thinking: Interactive dialogue and systematic comparison. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 285–316. doi:10.1177/0893318914527000

Strasberg, L. (1987). A dream of passion: The development of the method. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Taylor, C. (2015). Walking the talk: Building a culture for success. New York, NY: Random House Vick, D. (2013). The culture secret. Austin, TX: Greenleaf Books. Walker, R. C., & Aritz, J. (2015). Women doing leadership: Leadership styles and organizational culture. International Journal of Business Communication, 52(4), 452–478. doi:10.1177/2329488415598429

Whitbred, R., Fonti, F., Steglich, C., & Contractor, N. (2011). From microactions to macrostructure and back: A structurational approach to the evolution of organizational networks. Human Communication Research, 37(3), 404–433. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01404.x

32 Cultural Analysis Planning

https://0-search-proquest-com

Part II

Cultural Analysis Basics

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 3

Constructing the Set The Concept of Culture

The second step of the OCA model, “understanding the concept of culture”, captures three dominant ways of studying organizational culture. These approaches, “culture as a variable”, “culture as a root metaphor”, and “culture as discursive construction” each provide insight into organizational culture. However, the “culture as discursive construction” is foregrounded as beneficial due to the way communication is viewed as constitutive of organizing and organizations. The OCA framework is formally defined as a process which focuses on capturing the unique qualities of an organization as constituted in elements of culture such as rituals, stories, and history that both shape, and are shaped by, communication that has significance for organizational and interpersonal ethics, effectiveness, and development. We hold five assumptions about culture and communication in advocating this frame- work. The concepts of “levels of culture” and “images of organization” are introduced as ways to further understanding the construct of culture. Guidelines are provided for writing a cultural analysis proposal.

Step Two: Understanding the Concept of Culture

Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs. (Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures, 1973, p. 5)

Objectives

• Explain the concept of culture in light of three approaches. • Discuss the value of using a “culture as discursive construction” approach. • Differentiate between the different images and metaphors for understanding organizations. • Explain the implications of understanding the three “levels” of organizational culture for your analysis. • Define the OCA framework.

Stage Terms

• Culture as a variable. • Levels of culture. • Culture as a root metaphor. • Culture as discursive construction. • Metaphors of organizing.

Good News, Bad News

To enhance our performances on the stage, we have to be clear about what play we are performing. Yet, set construction will be determined not only by the play but also by the director’s, as well as the actor’s, interpretation of the work. In the world of cultural analysis, a number of options exist for what we may attempt in a cultural analysis in terms of focus, scope, and purpose. Thus, in this section on “Cultural Analysis Basics” we provide two chapters. In the chapter that follows, we move to the second step of the process, “Understanding the concept of culture”, and then in Chapter 4, we cover the third step related to “element of culture”. Combined, these chapters will prepare you for moving toward the next section on moving from informal data collection processes to more formal ones that will ensure more ethical and effective efforts at co-creating the cultures we want to create.

Thus, in this second step, we argue that order to construct the set, we need to define the term “culture”. The good news is that culture can be defined. The bad news is that different ways of defining the term can sometimes lead to confusion. The examples below are just a few of these differing takes on the term “culture” and “organizational culture”.

• Culture is the way things are done in the organization (Deal & Kennedy, 1982, 2000) • Culture is “a pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved problems of

external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid, and therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to these problems” (Schein, 2004, p. 17)

• “Culture is a system of shared symbols” (Geertz, 1973) • “Organizational culture is the set(s) of artifacts, values, and assumptions that emerge from the interactions

of organizational members”. (Keyton, 2005)

The differences in definitions betray important assumptions about what to study when analyzing culture. Each definition may produce different but useful views of organizational culture. Popular literature on organizational culture may not make the differences clear, and consultants and managers may not realize the importance of these differences. For example, if culture is just one more facet of an organization, then it may be changed as easily as a strategic plan or office layout. If culture is something an organization is, then it may be harder to change and has an implicit influence in all we do, even our efforts to change it. Finally, if culture is something created by communication, and then in turn also shaped by communicative action, then we need an analytic approach that is attentive to the process.

The Concept of Culture

Over time three major approaches to understanding and researching culture have emerged. Initially, Smircich (1983) defined culture by raising a key question concerning organizations and culture: Does the organization have a culture or is it a culture? This question indicates that culture can been studied in organizations: as a variable or as a root metaphor. A third approach, and one that forms the basis of the model used in this book, views culture as “discursive constructions” (Putnam & Fairhurst, 2015, p. 386). Nonetheless, we concur with others who see value in each approach and in understanding their relative merits (Bisel, Messersmith, & Keyton, 2010).

36 Cultural Analysis Basics

Understanding these approaches will aid you when you pick up other books or articles on the topic of organizational culture in that you will better understand their focus and assumptions. We begin by exploring the “culture as a variable” approach before turning to the “culture as root metaphor” followed by “culture as discursive construction”. We conclude this chapter by providing “Connections” focused on our approach to cultural analysis. Our approach involves capturing cultural elements to interpret thematic action and an overall characterization of the culture in order to develop practical and positive communication implications.

Culture as a Variable

The culture-as-a-variable approach focuses on causality. Culture is thought to be able to predict and thus cause certain outcomes. You might view culture as variable “X” (values, norms, etc.) that is influencing variable “Y” (productivity, for example). This focus on culture as an “object” assumes “(a) culture is measurable, (b) culture produces discourse, (c) cultures can be managed, (d) changes in the culture will result in changes to communicative activities” (Bisel et al., 2010, p. 349).

The relationship between culture and communication is complex due to the fact that culture is not an easily defined variable. For example, try to answer the question: “What make a culture ‘good’ or ‘strong?’” and you will find that the answers are not easily placed in a formula. Based on the variable approach, a manager who does not have a clear understanding of the complexity of the culture variable might say something like: “If we could just get our culture stronger, our productivity would go up”. The challenge or potential problems arise when this same manager attempts to strengthen the culture without a clear sense of what is to be strengthened and how culture influences productivity. Are values to be changed or strengthened? History to be heightened? Setting to be enhanced? This approach also begs the larger question about whether it is possible for manage- ment to change culture, or whether culture is a deeper phenomenon that emerges out of the interaction of employees over long periods of time. Pepper (2008) offers the interesting example of PLH Technologies, an organization that spent millions to build a new corporate headquarters that would reinforce and display an organizational culture of openness, modernity, and fun. The new structure with its open floor plan, walking tracks, picnic areas and glass walls was perceived and used by employees much differently from the executives’ plan. It actually inhibited open communication and was seen as counter to organization values.

In the above example, the complexity of the variable of culture is evident. Within the variable approach, however, there are two lines of inquiry: internal variable and external variable. The variable approach may focus on internal variables thought to influence culture. In this instance, organizations are viewed as producing culture as evidenced in such cultural artifacts as rituals, heroes, and norms. Consultants and researchers are therefore interested in exploring aspects of culture (e.g., leadership values, norms, structures) that predict organizational survival and effectiveness (Collins, 2001; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Peters & Waterman, 1982).

The variable approach is also evidenced in comparative or cross-cultural management research that takes into account culture as an external variable. As an external variable, culture is seen as a map for navigating differences across organizations and differences in national cultures. This approach tends to focus on ways to tap into national cultural differences to improve productivity or competitiveness (Harris, Moran, & Moran, 2007; Ouchi, 1981). For example, Mexican organizations have been compared with U.S.-based organizations in their orientation to time and relationships (Condon, 1997). In this comparison, the variable of national culture is used to explain, why for example, Mexicans tend to give priority to talk surrounding relationships whereas the U.S. norm is to have a greater task focus. Hofstede (2003), in a similar vein, has done extensive research on five underlying value assumptions that differentiate workers in one national culture from another. He considers these value assumptions, these ways of thinking, feeling, and acting as a “software of the mind” and thus central to exploring communication behaviors (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, p. 5). A web based resource has been developed that provides country scores from over 50 countries and 3 regions (Hofstede, n.d.). For example, cross cultural comparisons depict the US culture as highly individualistic in comparison to countries in South America and in the East. Given the widespread recognition of international economic

Constructing the Set 37

interdependence, the importance of understanding national cultural influences will only increase. In fact, “over three-quarters of all U.S. companies conduct business internationally, . . .” (Eisenberg, Trethewey, LeGreco, & Goodall, 2017, p. 8).

Understanding the influence of national culture on organizational culture is an important, and often overlooked, aspect of organizational culture analysis. For instance, more recently, research has explored value dimensions to explain the U.S. role in the 2008 global financial crisis. His findings will be explored further in the chapter on ethics (Hofstede, 2009). There is no doubt that many of the deepest unconscious assumptions we bring to our work life are often rooted in our cultural socialization. As Figure 3.1 summarizes, some researchers have focused on cross-cultural organizational studies. This approach, when considering its merits, focuses on the controlling and static features of culture that shape communication and thus helps visualize their impact. On the other hand, a focus on variables may tend to shift attention away from ethics and individual responsibility as well as the role of communication shaping culture (Bisel et al., 2010). Furthermore, treating culture as a variable may tempt us to believe that it can be easily manipulated or changed to produce certain outcomes. These strengths and weaknesses should now be considered in the context of two other approaches.

Culture as a Root Metaphor

This second major approach to the study of culture focuses on understanding how organizational members create cultures and how the culture affects the members who are a part of it. It is more about culture as process than as product or variable. The core idea of this approach is that culture is something an organization “is” versus culture as something an organization “has”. Thus, for example, if someone were researching or consulting with a Wall Street investment firm, consultants using the variable approach might determine how cultural practices led to organizational problems, and seek to modify those practices. In contrast, a scholar or consultant operating from a root metaphor concept of culture might attempt to develop a deeper understanding about how cultural values and assumptions led to some of the surface practices. The goal would be a deeper understanding of the influence of culture, not necessarily modification. Yet as you might infer from this example, both see the pragmatic value of understanding culture. There are three major research traditions within the root metaphor approach. Researchers in these traditions formulate or focus on different aspects of culture.

1. Culture as Shared Cognition

In this tradition, the beliefs or assumptions of the members of the culture are the focus on the inquiry (Schall, 1983). Researchers examine how employees think and what patterns of logic are shared among organization members.

U.S. vs. Japanese Culture

X = any internal “culture” variable influencing organizational outcomes. For example: • X1 = Values • X2 = Structure • X3 = Rules

Y = any external national cultural variable influencing the organization. For example: • Y1 = Japanese

culture • Y2 = U.S. culture

Organization X1 = Values X2 = Structure X3 = Rules

Outcomes = productivity, engagement, job satisfaction, etc.

Figure 3.1 Culture as a Variable

38 Cultural Analysis Basics

Researchers, for example, might describe assumptive differences between members of the same organization who come from different national cultures (Auer-Rizzi & Berry, 2000; Driskill & Downs, 1995; Maroccia, 2012).

2. Culture as Systems of Shared Symbols

This research places a focus on the actual language, non-verbal, and other organizational symbols (Eisenberg & Riley, 1988; Geertz, 1973; Smircich, 1983). A consultant or researcher using this approach might observe and record interaction patterns to understand and describe the way members use language to manage conflicts or build friendships (Jameson, 2001). In addition, such an approach may focus on discourses or underlying scripts that members may not always consciously enact. For example, in a helping organization, one study revealed how language embedded in rituals tended to minimize the experiences of lower class participants in favor of middle class (Lawless, 2015).

3. Culture as the Expression of Unconscious Processes

This focus involves an exploration of the way symbols reflect underlying beliefs and assumptions of the members. Such research might explore the deeper unconscious meaning of a common metaphor used in the organization or on the underlying archetype that predominates the lives of the members (Jung, 1964; Levi-Strauss, 1967). For instance, Forbes (2002) explores the way women’s discourse reveals dominant masculine values.

A visual depiction of the metaphor approach (Figure 3.2) captures the contrast with the variable approach (Figure 3.1). The internal variable approach assumes that culture is one element of an organization that can be studied and used to make predictions about organizational effectiveness. In the same vein, the external variable approach addresses culture as a force outside the organization, such as the norms of the larger national culture (e.g., Japanese vs. U.S. culture). In contrast, the root metaphor approach assumes that the organization is the culture and therefore, depending on how culture is defined, various aspects of the culture may be explored. Thus, the root metaphor approach sees the role of communication in shaping the culture, and does not treat culture as static but dynamic and present. As such, individual choice and attentiveness to ethics may be more appreciated. On the other hand, present, rather than past communication may be stressed along with a tendency to overlook the impact of such material constraints as place and structure (Bisel et al., 2010). As we turn to the final approach, it may be useful to capture the variable approach as viewing culture as an “object”, whereas the metaphor approach focuses on culture as “in process” or “becoming”. The final approach introduces the notion of culture as “grounded in action” (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2004).

Organization

(structure, members, values, communication,

symbols, beliefs, etc.)

Culture

Figure 3.2 Culture as a Root Metaphor

Constructing the Set 39

Culture as Discursive Construction

While we see merits in the above approaches. In fact, in previous editions of this book, we focused more on an analysis process that favored the “culture as root metaphor” approach. Our current work introduces a third option that is more consistent with the constructivist approaches introduced in prior editions and in Chapter 2 (i.e. Structuration, CMM, CCO). This third approach, “culture as discursive construction”, challenges the assumptions of the other perspectives in relation to communication and culture. This approach views culture as “grounded in action” by treating communicative action and structure as mutually constitutive (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2004). Put differently, past interactions create culture that then shape present interactions. This notion of “grounded in action” is consistent with the CCO framework introduced in Chapters 1 and 2. Recall the idea of “constitutive” from Chapter 2 with varied images of political power to institute, the role of DNA in controlling synthesis, or the determinative role of how atoms are structured. Each image is meant to convey that communication is more than information sharing. Culture then is more than a variable shaped by communication and is more than the organization itself (metaphor). It is continually shaped by and shaping communicative action. As such, this approach challenges us to attend to both individual choice in shaping culture as well as the controlling or constraining influence of culture. There may, however, be a tendency to overemphasize the power of past interactions and then give too much attention to communication over culture (Bisel et al., 2010).

In our effort to apply the constitutive approach, we need to be aware of these relative strengths and weaknesses. Nonetheless, this approach shapes the definition of our model for cultural analysis. The OCA model focuses on capturing the unique qualities of an organization as constituted in elements of culture such as rituals, stories, and history that both shape and are shaped by communication that has significance for organizational and interpersonal ethics, effectiveness, and development. We summarize five assumptions that seek to draw on strengths while attending to limits.

• Culture and communication are inextricably constitutive of one another. The tendency, especially with a variable approach, may be to think in terms of using communication to shape a culture. Or, we might think in terms of certain types of cultures as shaping communication. Instead, consistent with CCO, we concur with Shepherd’s (1999) statement about how a constitutive view “demands that we reverse the causal direction typical in our theories: Individuals don’t make communication so much as individuals are made by communication; goals don’t drive discourse so much as discourse drives goals” (p. 163). To this we would add, the individuals (and organization and culture) “made by communication” are then shaped by communication patterns and the goals driven by “discourse” then in turn shape the discourse, and thus the organization and culture.

• Culture creation, maintenance and modification, is both top down and bottom up. Leaders cannot unilaterally create or enforce organizational values and artifacts; however, they can be quite influential in influencing the overall climate and values of the organization by what they focus on, what they reward, and how they model organizational life. Organization members must buy-in, and be genuinely involved, for cultural change to occur. Any member of the organization may serve as an impetus for change.

• Cultural knowledge empowers organization members to counter managerial manipulation. Critical theorists have often characterized culture as “unobtrusive control” of employees (Deetz, 1992; Lyon, 2008; Mumby, 1997, 2015). For example, one might argue that gaining employee identification with corporate values or other related efforts aimed at “employee engagement” may actually undermine employee best interests by encouraging over-commitment through unconsciously accepted norms of working overtime. Promoting conscious awareness of cultural processes and influences among all organization members equips them to enact in ethical ways for overall organizational effectiveness. While cultures can be constraining, as we discussed in the previous chapter in describing structuration theory, they can also be the means of creativity and change.

40 Cultural Analysis Basics

• Thick descriptions (Geertz, 1973) of organizational culture provide practical implications for organizational and interpersonal ethics, learning, and change. The process of “thick description” will be discussed in Chapters 5–7. The challenge is this process is to improve our everyday ways of gathering cultural data. We all, for instance, draw conclusions about culture based on our reading various texts (emails, newsletters), making observations (in meetings, at business lunches), and from conversations with others. The goal with thick description is to improve the quality of this process by attending to context, and a larger array of cultural data in our collection and subsequent interpretation process. In particular, we seek to follow the assumptions of the CCO framework by attending to both micro (interpersonal) and macro (structural) elements of culture (Putnam & Nicotera, 2010). As such, the goal is to discern to avoid a tendency to overemphasize communica- tion over culture.

• Organizational cultures are both enduring and dynamic. While organizational change is not easy or fast, it is possible. This framework foregrounds the idea that cultures are created in communication and then in turn these same cultures both create and constrain our ability to introduce change. Thus, the analysis process, as indicated in point four above, is about gaining insight to the ethical change processes while recognizing the complexity of this process.

This complexity of this approach is hard to capture in an image. As referenced earlier, we might visualize at an abstract level as the role of a DNA in a cell, or perhaps Lego people building with Legos. Also, consider reading Bisel et al. (2010) to see these contrasting approaches in terms of a gyroscope metaphor. Here, consistent with the other images using simple line drawing, notice how the half arrows of culture and communication are reflexively connected and thus constitute varied organizing processes, which in turn construct and are constructed by what we experience as the organization. See Figure 3.3.

The culture as discursive construction approach is carried throughout the remaining chapters as we guide you through the process of conducting a cultural analysis. At times, you might pick up on language that suggests other approaches, yet our goal is to move in the direction of discerning organizing processes by attending to communication and culture. In Chapter 4 we introduce cultural elements that are foundational to the study of a culture. We believe that studying multiple elements encourages a valid and credible analysis as opposed to an exploration of a single feature of the culture. The focus on multiple and mixed data collection methods (i.e. observation, systematic analysis of organizational texts such as newsletters, and in-depth interviews and open-ended surveys) does not preclude you from using other

Communication

Culture

Organizing Processes

Organization

Figure 3.3 Culture as Discursive Construction

Constructing the Set 41

types of quantitative data (e.g. a standardized survey on job satisfaction). It does suggest that culture is not a concept that can be easily captured through brief or easily constructed surveys. Beginning in Chapter 5 we review various research skills aimed to sharpen what you do throughout your day—observe, read, talk to others, ask questions.

Our approach has a bottom line of enhancing your performance as well as that of your organization. We will do this by enhancing your awareness of various cultural elements (Chapter 4), sharpening your ability to collect and interpret data about these elements (Chapters 5–8), and then guiding you in developing communication application of insights from the cultural analysis (Chapters 9–14). This process has been proven valuable, in our experience and that of our students and clients, for improving our understanding of organizations and our ability to lead and serve. Our hope is that the cultural analysis process will assist all of us in our efforts to be better observers, interpreters, and thus leaders and managers who not only survive but thrive in the organizations that greet us at birth and carry us to the grave.

Connections: Definitions, Levels, and Metaphors

These contrasting approaches to the study of culture suggest three practical connections: (a) first, definitions matter; (b) definitions guide analysis; (c) definitions determine what we pay attention to and ignore. Therefore, it is important to reflect on how two basic questions are answered based on these approaches. In particular, these questions and example answers should be kept in mind as you discern the assumptions the organization holds about your analysis process.

1. How will you define culture?

• As a variable? ○ Internal? External?

• As root metaphor? ○ Shared beliefs? Shared symbols? Unconscious processes?

• As a discursive construction? ○ How are rules, rituals, symbols, history constituting organizing processes?

2. How will the results be used? For example:

• Change culture by manipulating certain elements of culture? (internal variable) • Assist multinationals via cross-cultural comparisons? (external variable) • Determine the way surface elements (i.e. rituals, roles) play in revealing values or assumptions? (root

metaphor) • Make unconscious processes part of our conscious? (root metaphor) • Learn how varied communicative practices are creating the culture? (discursive construction)

These basic questions, if bypassed, can lead to misunderstandings and frustrations. For example, imagine if a consultant held a root metaphor approach to culture and thus sought to surface values or cultural assumptions based on identifying rituals or rules. Then, imagine a disappointed organizational leader who unconsciously held a variable approach and thus expected recommendations based on identifying elements as variables that would impact productivity. The OCA model is based on a “culture as discursive construction” approach. In this approach, as noted earlier, we focus on capturing cultural elements that constitute the culture in order to interpret thematic action, and an overall characterization of the culture in order to develop practical and positive communication implications. Thus, as you engage in discussions with a representative from the organization, find ways to learn about their expectations. At the same time, you can present the value of an approach with the focus on

42 Cultural Analysis Basics

communicative processes that has significance for organizational and interpersonal ethics, effectiveness, and development.

Rehearsal 3.1 How Do You Define Culture?

Purpose: Identify your own definition and that of the organization you study in light of the three ways of viewing culture.

Directions: Based on the review of three perspectives above, answer the following questions:

1. How do you define the term “culture”? __________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

2. What definition of culture is most commonly held in your own organization? __________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

3. How would you describe the value of a “culture as discursive function” approach? __________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Second, to understand culture, the reader should realize that not only are there varying definitions of culture, but also that culture can be viewed as having different levels. Schein (2004) describes organizational culture as consisting of three levels.

• Artifacts and creations such as technology, art, and behavior patterns (what we describe in this text as elements of culture).

• Values held collectively by the group. • Basic assumptions held by group members concerning relationship to the environment; the nature of

reality, time, and space; the nature of human nature and activity; and the nature of human relationships.

Schein, from a “culture as root metaphor approach” explains that the deepest levels of culture, basic assumptions, operate at the preconscious level and affect our behavior without our critical awareness. We are likely to be more aware of our values, and can observe our artifacts and process but often we do not understand their connections to our values and assumptions.

To illustrate Schein’s levels, you might observe an organizational ritual in a factory of workers clocking in and out as they begin and end their workday. To fully understand the cultural meaning of

Constructing the Set 43

that behavior, it would be necessary to dig deeper into values and assumptions. The time accountability might be based on assumptions about time, the inability to trust the honesty of workers, and accountability of employees to supervisors. Schein’s ideas, if reframed in light of a constructivist perspective, varied enacted elements, such as history and rules, constitute organizing process that are inclusive of talk and assumed share meanings and assumptions. In some contexts, such as intercultural ones, communicative practices surface the lack of shared assumptions. For example, in one service project in a small Mexican town, Gerald was waiting, along with several Mexican friends, for an appointment with the major. His friends, aware of US norms on time, keep apologizing for what became an over 30 minute delay. Relational time, however, was a norm Gerald knew about and paused to explain, “Let’s enjoy this time to visit. The wait is no problem”. In this example, assumptions about time and human activity were being constituted in an interaction.

A third way to understand cultures, in addition to definitions and levels, is through metaphors. Morgan (2006) as introduced in Chapter 1, presents eight images of organizations as a way to improve insight and understanding. Over the past 30 years, his book Images of Organization, has been translated into 14 languages and cited over 15,000 times (Putnam, Örtenblad, & Trehan, 2017). These metaphors include machines, organism, brain, culture, political systems, psychic prison, flux and transformation, and instrument of domination. Bolman and Deal (2017) take a similar approach but focus on four specific metaphors or frames for viewing organizations. Each frame (structural, political, human resource, and symbolic) represents a way of viewing organizations. The structural frame focuses on organizational charts, work processes, and role definitions. Leaders operating within this frame will tend more readily to see organizational problems and possible solutions in terms of role uncertainty versus role clarity. The political frame focuses on the use of power in the organizations and how interactions are structured to maintain or challenge power. Decision-making, from this frame, would involve attentiveness to who and how power was distributed. The human resource frame directs attention to the needs of and motivation of members. A leader relying on this frame would assume that organizing processes are best improved through various efforts to focus on member needs, such as training and engagement. The symbolic frame focuses more on vision and inspiration. Leading from this perspective, somewhat akin to the OCA approaches views the organization as enactment of symbols, stories, and performances that create meaning for employees. Rehearsal 3.2 provides an opportunity to gain insights on metaphors that may be implicit or explicit in your organization.

Rehearsal 3.2 Playing With Metaphors

Purpose: Reflect on insights gained from identifying metaphors for organizing.

1. What is a metaphor you would use to describe your organization? When have you heard this metaphor used or implied?

__________________________________________________________________________________

44 Cultural Analysis Basics

2. What are the implications, both positive and negative, of this metaphor? What value might there be in reflecting on a metaphor that was not part of the communication practices of this organization?

__________________________________________________________________________________

The value of reflecting on images or metaphors should be clear: Metaphors capture the assumptions we hold about ways to think and thus the frame the questions that guide our analysis of organizations. In fact, we will return to these four metaphors in our application chapter on Leadership (Chapter 12) where we discuss these approaches as a way to enhance communication competence.

Metaphors may also be one way to get at the unconscious level of assumptions that Schein describes as the deeper layers of culture. Metaphors correspondingly provide clues to alternative ways to think about how we manage our communication behavior. For example, an image of an organization as a prison captures the reality of certain political restraints in an organization. Members of an organization or unit in such an organization might say things like “I feel trapped here” or “We don’t hear much besides where to move next, never why”. Such comments reflect the constraints members of this culture see in their organization. Leaders seeking to work with employees operating with this image of the organization may run into difficulty if they try to deny these perceptions. Saying “You have no reason to feel trapped” would do little to change things. Instead, the challenge for leaders and employees in this situation would be to explore the aspects of the culture that are influencing these perceptions (e.g., history, norms, rituals). The core challenge is to remember that we live by the images we hold; thus, we are both constrained and enabled by what we view as possible or impossible in our communication behavior.

The cultural analysis process can serve to make us aware of the dominant images held in an organization as well as the images we hold. These images or metaphors influence our everyday communication behavior. Cultural analysis can be used to learn how our images of organizations can be obstacles as well as how we can use insights from cultural analysis to become better problem solvers and leaders. For example, if we became aware of an excessive focus on the structure of an organization (e.g., roles and routines), we might present to organizational leaders the value of other metaphors or ways of thinking about their organization. A shift to include reflection on the political frame or power issues (a political metaphor), might be more likely to reflect on structures in terms of how communica- tion roles need to be clarified as well as communication norms about why and how decisions are being made.

Metaphors matter, and a cultural analysis can help reveal the implicit metaphors influencing the way we communicate and coordinate our behaviors. Part of the power and value of a cultural analysis comes from the fact that organizational members not only create, but also maintain and transform organizational meanings and expectations. Thus, the challenge for individual members is how to use insights from an analysis to improve their own use of messages as resources for growth and change for themselves and their organization, rather than focusing only on the constraints embedded in the messages. Such a shift from constraints is made more likely if we understand and reflect on the implicit and explicit metaphors constituting daily organizing and communicative practices. Chapter 4 further explores metaphors as one of the enacted elements of a cultural analysis.

Constructing the Set 45

Connection: Writing a Cultural Analysis Proposal

Depending on your purposes, you may or may not need to create a formal proposal. For those that need to take this step, we have provided an example to guide you. If you gain permission to conduct an analysis, you may still need to use the template below to guide you in responding to common questions. Furthermore, this example provides reminders about the importance of protecting participants via confidentiality. In some cases, you may be in a university context where full Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is required. We discuss this process further in the introductory section to Step Three. In addition, note that we stress the importance of gaining agreement on sharing a summary of the results with participants. Some organizations may want to share the full report, but regardless, we find a major obstacle to an effective analysis is the prior experiences of participants who gave time for interviews or surveys but never heard about the findings. Thus, we encourage you to review the example below and adapt it based on your focus and method as a guide for completing Rehearsal 3.3, “Writing a Cultural Analysis Proposal”. In addition, we provide an example proposal at the end of the chapter.

Rehearsal 3.3 Writing a Cultural Analysis Proposal

Purpose: Develop a formal proposal for conducting a cultural analysis in an organization.

Steps:

1. Identify the person (CEO, HRD manager, etc.) whom you know to be the person to contact concerning the analysis. It might be useful to have some informal visits first, before sending the formal proposal.

2. Develop a 1- to 2-page proposal in which you:

• identify who you are and your relationship to the organization; • review the goal of a cultural analysis in light of the OCA model, (i.e., a focus on capturing the

unique qualities of an organization as constituted in elements of culture such as rituals, stories, and history that both shape and are shaped by communication that has significance for organizational and interpersonal ethics, effectiveness, and development);

• discuss the advantages or value of the analysis—be specific and when possible connect it with relevant issues within the organization (i.e., if you know turnover has been high, you could discuss the way an analysis often uncovers socialization practices);

• gain agreement on confidentiality of individual responses or identifying data collected during the cultural analysis;

• gain agreement on a process for sharing findings.

3. Have a trusted colleague critique or review your proposal before sending it. 4. Schedule an interview to discuss your proposal.

Note: A formal letter of permission is required for your project, even if you are studying your own organization.

46 Cultural Analysis Basics

Summary

We can easily get tangled in the web of culture if we do not pause to understand it. A failure to pay attention to how the set is constructed, how the construct culture is defined, can lead to problems. A practitioner, for example, might pick up a cultural survey, measure the culture, and then assume changes suggested by survey results will result in a payoff for the company. Although well intended, such efforts may fail from a lack of understanding of what is being measured. Several major ideas were introduced in this chapter to head off such problems and to lay the foundation for the rest of this workbook:

1. The “culture as a variable” approach focuses on internal (values, rules, etc.) or external (national culture) variables that are thought to predict important organizational outcomes (productivity, employee satisfaction).

2. The “culture as a root metaphor” approach focuses on describing the organization. These descriptions differ depending on the way culture is perceived. (Shared beliefs? Shared symbols? Shared unconscious processes?)

3. The “culture as discursive construction” approach focuses culture as grounded in action. Past interactions create culture that then shape present interactions.

4. Culture can be understood as consisting of three levels: artifacts and creations such as technology, art, and behavior patterns, values held collectively by the group, and basic assumptions held by group members.

5. The dominant images or metaphors (prisons, structures, etc.) that are held by members of the organization influence their communication behaviors, for example, the way problems and solutions are identified.

6. Culture is often complex and thus not easily captured through surveys. Therefore we outline a process involving a combination of qualitative research methods to improve the validity of the process of cultural analysis.

7. Our goal is to guide you in the “how to” of conducting an analysis as well as the “how to” of applying insights for improving such important aspects of organizational life as managing change and ethics.

Discussion Questions

1. Which definition of culture in this chapter did you like best? Why? 2. Take a position pro or con on the following statement: The leader is the most significant influence on

the culture of an organization. 3. How does national culture influence organizational culture? Do all U.S. companies have some

similarities? What is the influence of national cultures on multi-national companies? 4. How does viewing organizations as culture aid you in understanding organizations of which you are a part? 5. How can cultural knowledge empower organizational members?

Example Proposal

To: Chief Executive Officer From: Your name

Overview

This proposal seeks permission to conduct a cultural analysis of your company. An organization’s culture is revealed by the values, history, stories, heroes, and other communicative practices that makes an organization a unique place to work. As such, this analysis will have implications for overall

Constructing the Set 47

organizational and professional effectiveness. Findings may provide insights for diversity, ethics, leadership, and change as well as employee engagement.

What is involved in a cultural analysis?

We would need permission to interview __ members of your organization in confidential interviews, preferably during work hours. Each interview would last 4560 minutes. Interviews would include the following types of questions:

What is it like to work here? What is one memory you have of being proud to be part of this organization? What types of individuals get ahead here? Why? Does the organization give any employee awards or recognition? For what? What types of events does the company sponsor for employees? What is different about working here than working at another similar organization? What does a new employee need to learn to fit in here? What type of individual would not be happy working here? What is a story that illustrates what this company is like at its best? Worst?

We would also need permission to “walk around and observe”—to see how offices are configured and decorated, what visitors to the organization encounter, how routine tasks are done, and how employ- ees work and interact with one another. If we could have the opportunity to observe representative meetings or events during the period of the study, that would also be helpful in understanding the culture. We would also do analysis of the Website, written publications, memos and e-mails that are generally available to employees of the organization. The time period of the study would be approximately four weeks.

Deliverable product

Upon conclusion of the study, you will receive a written report summarizing what we learned of your organizational culture and its communication implications for your company. You will also have an option for an oral presentation of results to whatever groups(s) you may choose within the organization.

What are benefits to my organization?

A cultural analysis can probe whether values are widely shared among employees, and whether organizational practices support organizational values and priorities. For example, one company we studied was attempting to make a transition to a team-based culture, yet we discovered that all awards and benefits were based on individual accomplishment. Cultural information can also be of value in employee recruitment, selection, orientation, and engagement. Knowing the current culture is vital in promoting successful organizational change attempts, as well as in promoting values of ethics and diversity within the organization. Cultural knowledge is also vital to effective leadership.

48 Cultural Analysis Basics

Considerations

1. Employees need to be promised confidentiality in order to feel comfortable in offering candid information in the interviews. This means that the source of information will not be revealed at any point in the report or oral presentation.

2. Our study and report of your organization is offered for your benefit and we promise to maintain confidentiality of the information we collect. We would seek your permission if we ever chose to publish any information from the study, and the identity of your company would be protected in any external use if you agreed.

3. It is important that employees receive feedback from the results process. Therefore, we ask that clients inform participants in advance that an executive summary of results will be provided to all for discussion and determination of implications.

Consultant

Attach a brief bio, stressing your professional and academic experience. If you are a student, you might emphasize that your work is overseen by your professor, and include a brief bio from your professor as well.

References

Auer-Rizzi, W., & Berry, M. (2000). Business vs. cultural frames of reference in group decision making: Interactions among Austrian, Finnish, and Swedish business students. Journal of Business Communication, 37(3), 264–292. doi:10.1177/ 002194360003700304

Bisel, R. S., Messersmith, A. S., & Keyton, J. (2010). Understanding organizational culture and communication through a gyroscope metaphor. Journal of Management Education, 34(3), 342–366. doi:10.1177/1052562909340879

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2017). Reframing organizations (7th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don’t. New York: Harper Collins. Condon, J. (1997). Good neighbors: Communicating with the Mexicans (2nd ed.). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley. Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (2000). Corporate cultures. Cambridge, MA: Perseus. Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Driskill, G., & Downs, C. (1995). Hidden differences in competent communication: A case study of Asian Indians in a bi-national organization. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19(4), 505–522. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(95) 00031-3

Eisenberg, E., & Riley, P. (1988). Organizational symbols and sense-making. In G. M. Goldhaber & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 131–158). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Eisenberg, E., Trethewey, A., LeGreco, M., & Goodall, H. (2017). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint (8th ed.). New York, NY: St. Martin’s.

Fairhurst, G. T., & Putnam, L. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, 14, 5–26. Forbes, D. A. (2002). Internalized masculinity and women’s discourse: A critical analysis of the (re)production of masculinity in organizations. Communication Quarterly, 50, 269–291. doi:10.1080/01463370209385664

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books. Harris, P., Moran, R., & Moran, S. (2007).Managing cultural differences: Global leadership strategies for the 21st century (7th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Professional.

Hofestede, G. (n.d.). Country comparison. Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/ Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Constructing the Set 49

https://www.hofstede-insights.com/

Hofstede, G. (2009). American culture and the 2008 financial crisis. European Business Review, 21, 307–312. doi:10.1108/ 09555340910970418

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Jameson, D. (2001). Narrative discourse and management action. Journal of Business Communication, 38, 476–511. doi:10.1177/002194360103800404

Jung, C. (1964). Man and his symbols. London, UK: Aldus Books. Keyton, J. (2005). Communication and organizational culture. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Lawless, B. (2015). Performing identity in “transforming poverty partnerships”: An extension of critical discourse analysis. Howard Journal of Communications, 26(3), 275–291. doi:10.1080/10646175.2015.1049758

Levi-Strauss, C. (1967). The scope of anthropology. New York, NY: Jonathan Cape. Lyon, A. (2008). The mis/recognition of Enron executives’ competence as cultural and social capital. Communication Studies, 59, 371–387. doi:10.1080/10510970802467411

Maroccia, M. (2012). The internet, intercultural communication and cultural variation. Language & Intercultural Commu- nication, 12, 353–368. doi:10.1080/14708477.2012.722101

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization (updated ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mumby, D. K. (1997). The problem of hegemony: Rereading Gramsci for organizational studies. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 343–375. doi:10.1080/10570319709374585

Mumby, D. K. (2015). Organizing power. Review of Communication, 15(1), 19–38. doi:10.1080/15358593.2015.1015245 Ouchi, W. (1981). Theory Z. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Pepper, G. L. (2008). The physical organization as equivocal message. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(3), 318– 338.

Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Putnam, L. L., & Nicotera, A. M. (2010). Communicative constitution of organization is a question: Critical issues for addressing it. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(1), 158–165. doi:10.1177/0893318909351581

Putnam, L. L., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2015). Revisiting “organizations as discursive constructions”: 10 years later. Commu- nication Theory, 25(4), 375–392. doi:10.1111/comt.12074

Putnam, L. L., Örtenblad, A., & Trehan, K. (2017). Introduction: From theory to application of metaphor in organiza- tional analysis. In A. Örtenblad, K. Trehan & L. L. Putnam (Eds.). Exploring Morgan’s metaphors: Theory, research, and practice in organizational studies (pp. 2–4). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub.

Schall, M. (1983). A communication-rules approach to organizational culture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 557–581. doi:10.1177/0893318991004004002

Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Shepherd, G. J. (1999). Advances in communication theory: A critical review. Journal of Communication, 49, 156–164. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02810.x

Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339–358. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02810.x

50 Cultural Analysis Basics

Chapter 4

Understanding Roles Cultural Elements

The third step of the OCA model, “identify cultural elements” prepares the researcher/consultant to understand and discern various types of elements as they “enact” or constitute the culture. Four major categories with examples of each are provided: (a) symbolic; (b) role; (c) interactive, and (c) context. The significance of being more aware of these elements is discussed in light of ethics. Our lack of awareness of multiple elements means that communicative behaviors that cause harm and/or fail to co-create good fall under the radar screen. Major guides are provided in understanding and identify these elements such as: (a) consider both “official” management information and “unofficial” information from rank-and-file organiza- tional members; (b) realize that enacted elements are often “nested” within one another, and (c) attend to the value of the ambiguity in interpreting elements- their ability to convey multiple meanings simultaneously- meanings that may have ethical or unethical motives.

Step Three: Identify Cultural Elements

The burglars came in the back door about midnight. They knew the layout of the restaurant and went right to the office and demanded money from the safe. When I first saw them, I was with the store manager by the dishwasher about 30 feet from the office. They each wore a ski mask and held 2 to 3 foot iron pipes. I still recall the command: “Everybody get down and stay where you are.” I hit the floor. My manager was right there on the floor with me. We waited and in a few minutes we heard laughter and then a scuffle. I craned my neck and saw the district manager, who happened to be in town to evaluate our restaurant, picking up one of the burglars while trying to pull off his mask. I did not hear what was said next, but in a few minutes both burglars were running for the back door and all that we heard was the district manager’s laughter. I do not recall the district manager’s name, but I do recall the look on his face when we let him know that it had not been a joke and that he had just thwarted a burglary.

Objectives

• Explain seven guides for understanding and analyzing enacted elements. • Gain an awareness of enacted elements.

Stage Terms

• Enacted elements of culture. • Values. • Symbols. • Stories. • Language. • Metaphors. • Artifacts. • Heroes. • Outlaws. • Rituals. • Rules. • Humor. • Communication style. • History. • Place.

The Making of a Legend?

What stories stand out in your mind from past experiences in organizations? The story above grew from an event in 1978 when Gerald worked as a restaurant manager. The story was repeated often in the coming weeks, and no doubt the legend of the brave manager spread beyond to other restaurants in the chain. This legend illustrates the fact that stories are one of the most common means of transmitting organization culture. They are rich with information about informal and unstated rules and about roles such as heroes and villains. Yet, beyond the idea of transmitting culture, we encourage exploration of how culture itself is constituted in the weaving of such stories with other discourse, such as communication rules or norms tied to valued behaviors.

Most of us seek clarity about our own roles in an organization. Yet it is useful to examine what method acting, a widely accepted approach to actor training, teaches actors about roles (Strasberg, 1987). An effective performance grows from becoming a true ensemble, an acting troupe that has such intimate communication with one another and with the set (props, etc.) that where one scene begins and another ends, where one player’s lines end and another’s begin are almost indistinguishable. In short, the audience gets the sense that the actors are part of a whole (Vineberg, 1991). What does this analogy say about our roles in an organization? Effective organizational members learn to pay attention to more than their own individual roles. This chapter will introduce you to various cultural enacted elements that help shape and serve as resources for effective individual, team, and organizational culture performances.

The term “enacted elements of culture” may be defined as various intertwined discursive forms that are constitutive of the organizational culture. The inclusion of the word “enacted” is a way to stress that the OCA model is not treating elements such as values or rituals from a “culture as variable” perspective whereby we would predict ways we could make changes in one element to impact employee engagement or productivity, for instance. Nor does this model assume a “culture as root metaphor” approach with a focus on elements revealing culture. As stressed in earlier chapters, the variable and metaphor approaches can be of value. Yet, this shift to “enacted elements” assumes a view of culture and organizations congruent with a constructivist view of communication. Consistent with other social constructivist theories introduced earlier (e.g., CCO; Structuration, and CMM), the OCA model stresses that rather than variables, or revealing and concealing, these elements “enact” or create culture and then in turn are shaped by the culture. In particular, a CCO perspective challenges us to “consider how multiple levels and processes of communication create and are created by ethics” (Meisenbach, 2016, p. 150). We return to this challenge in Chapter 8 on

52 Cultural Analysis Basics

interpretation and in application Chapters (9–13), yet here it is important to be mindful of how some of these enacted elements clearly involve human choice or agency, while others do not. For instance, when stories are introduced, one can easily imagine being in a crisis response meeting. You are aware of the history of a prior, poorly handled crisis and thus make a decision to tell a story about how we need to learn from this past incident about the high cost of not reflecting on ethics. Conversely, ethical action is easily seen in a decision not to tell a story if it is understood to be a rumor or malicious gossip. Still, other elements such as “place” or communicative patterns and norms embedded in the structure of an organization make discerning ethical responsibility more challenging. It may be difficult, for instance, to discern individual or group level ethical responsibilities regarding the place their physical building is located or to even be aware of the impact of long ago established norms for the flow of communication based on particular roles in the structure of an organization. These challenges, however, underscore the value of this process even further.

The bottom line of this chapter is that an awareness and analysis of multiple elements, whether consciously held or having unconscious influence, is central to improving our ability to gain a credible and ethical understanding of a culture. We proceed in this chapter by first reviewing seven guides for understanding and analyzing enacted elements of culture. We then invite you to review and identify examples of specific types of elements. We conclude with a Connection on the role of ambiguity in studying these enacted elements. You will also find Rehearsals that encourage you to explore web sites as well as activities that provide a closer look at stories and metaphors. This chapter functions as a prelude to the coming section focused on data collection. Thus, these Rehearsals are meant to prepare you for identifying elements you will use in your analysis.

Reliance on one element of culture to draw inferences about effective or appropriate communication behaviors is a source of communication problems for organizations

Understanding Enacted Elements of Culture

Researchers define and discuss varied elements of culture (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Pacanowsky & O’Donnell- Trujillo, 1983). The elements discussed in this chapter are not intended to provide an exhaustive treatment but should provide sufficient direction to explore culture. Seven guides should be kept in mind as we discuss these elements. As we introduce these guides and then move to descriptions of the various elements, recall that we want to continue to make a mind shift from seeing elements as variables or simply as a way to reveal the culture. First, elements of culture are not all consciously held and enacted. As we introduced in Chapter 3, Schein (2004) discussed “layers” of organizational culture—artifacts, values, and assumptions. Schein, relying on “culture as a root metaphor” approach, uses the term “artifacts” more broadly than we do in this text to refer to all the objects, rituals, and interactions that characterize the uniqueness of an organization. “Artifacts” are observable, and values may be inferred from observation of organizational processes. He then depicts “assumptions” at a deeper level and form the source for values and artifacts. Important from our perspective, is that these elements of culture often operate at a subconscious level. Elements, such as values, rituals, and informal communication rules, all have a force, an unconscious influence. From a CCO perspective, it is important to attend to this influence. If, as several theorists note,

we only accept that human interactants have the ability to make a difference in the ways situations unfold, we run the risk of dismissing or downplaying the ways in which our clinging to principles, values, interests, (aspects of) ideologies, norms, and experiences defines who and how we are.

(Cooren, Matte, Benoit-Barné, & Brummans, 2013, p. 273)

Understanding Roles 53

For instance, returning to the opening story, consider what is not told that even made the story possible. It is conceivable that no one was aware of the lack of training rituals devoted to safety nor the limited lighting or security near the back door that encouraged the entry of the would be robbers. Thus, it is an error to hear a story, describe an element in the absence of other elements, such as place or history, that provide contextual clues that play a role in communicative action.

Second, our analysis provides a snapshot of on-going constitutive processes in an organization. As we described in Chapter 2, from a constructivist perspective underlying the OCA analysis process, organizational culture is continually being created and re-created through communication. Depending on the time frame of your project, some of you may have access to a very narrow slice of organization life. However, even relying on a brief slice of time, if done well, captures more than just what is being communicatively accomplished at the moment. As we will continue to stress, data from micro level elements, such as daily interactions or communication during a ritual should be combined with macro level elements such as references made to policies or history. In doing so, you gain an understanding not just of here and now moments of a given interaction, but also “then and there” elements that have on-going force or influence in organizing processes. For instance, a new member adjusts to their role, that process is not simply a matter of a given interaction (e.g., the questions they ask or don’t ask, their willingness to speak up in making decisions). In addition, their title or position, combined with other macro elements, such as a history of agreeing to follow certain policies or signage are part of the communicative processes that constitute the culture (Cooren & Fairhurst, 2009). Thus, even in an analysis constrained by a few weeks of data collection time, will allow you to gain communication insights. On a professional level, you will become more attuned to enacted elements of culture that continually shape and are shaped by organizing processes. Recall from our discussion of the value of this process (Chapter 2), an increased mindfulness of these varied processes may aid us in the way we organize in relation to ethics and diversity and change leadership.

Third, enacted elements are embedded in one another. The opening story, as already indicated, contains potential information about organizational heroes, rules, and values. A full description of a ritual, such as a holiday party, will often contain information about organizational language, rules, heroes, and other cultural elements. Or, in the same vein, communication rules may be inferred from an interview designed to gain information about metaphors or stories. One enacted element of culture, humor, will likely emerge across elements. For instance, stories told about an organizational hero might include his self-effacing humor, often evidenced in formal rituals such as recognition ceremonies and “state of the organization” speeches. Those participating in these varied rituals would quickly notice that new leaders followed this same pattern of humor. In one organization, we observed an informal communication rule embedded in stories told that could be worded as follows-” leaders should laugh at themselves, and be intentional to doing so at organization wide gatherings”. This sort of embedding, attending to such moments, gives clues to communicative practices that constitute the culture. For instance, one might learn from additional observation and interviews that a value that continues be recreated in these varied elements may be tied to humility and a willingness to not take oneself “too seriously” as a way to negotiate member identity and for coordinating times of stressful decision-making.

Fourth, interpretations should be based on more than one enacted element. As noted above, elements are embedded in one another. Yet, we do want to point on the value of studies of organizational culture that focus on one element, such as stories (Barge, 2004; Brown, 1990; Harter, Scott, Novak, Leeman, & Morris, 2006; Meyer, 1995) or rules (Jabs, 2005; Schall, 1983). Such studies should be part of your interpretation process as will be discussed in Chapter 8. Yet to rely on only one element provides a less comprehensive, as well as credible and ethical, interpretation of the culture creating process. For example, imagine hearing the story at the beginning of this chapter as a new employee or a during your analysis project. What problems in validity or credibility exist if you drew conclusions about what was considered acceptable or expected member behavior based on this one story? Consider the possible discursive functions of this story. The story may have been told to emphasize a life risking safety error in making a joke of the situation, even if the district manager suspected it was a friend playing a prank. It may be that the culture really gives limited attention to safety issues, but you would not learn this from a single story. It may be that the whole point of

54 Cultural Analysis Basics

the story was not about safety at all but was told as a “hero narrative” to emphasize to the listener the importance of bravery or protecting the home front. Thus, defining a value, for example, based on a single ritual can be misleading. It is best to determine what contradictory or complementary conclusions can be drawn, as previously stressed, by looking at several macro and micro level elements. For instance, imagine if you worked for a non-profit focused on educating at-risk children. You join near the end of the year and find yourself impressed by an organization wide celebration ritual. You hear stories about successes, included specific recognition of success stories with children. You may be tempted to conclude that the organization is truly effective and concerned about empowering children. However, formally sanctioned events such as this end of the year ritual may not truly capture the extent to which this value set is constitutive of the organization and thus it may not be shared and regarded throughout the year. Thus, attending to micro level elements, such as informal, interpersonal communication rules and norms during regular meetings or humor during informal gathering would be equally important to discerning values.

Fifth, attend to enacted elements beyond officially sanctioned organizational sources. In short, be sure to gain cultural data from the rank-and-file members of an organization, not just a web page or interview with leaders. For example, learning about culture from looking at only the official mission statement, reading an annual report, or listening to the CEO’s state-of-the-company address gives only part of the picture. It is often enlightening to ask the employees of an organization what the mission statement is to see if anyone knows it or if their recasting is anything close to the official version. The values of top management are not necessarily the values of the members of the organization. Even more, you will learn more about values from actual interactions of organization members than you will learn from the statement of any organization member, either leader or employee. The key is to accept that a cultural analysis is not, if not simply gleaning surface level data, will involve more than officially approved sources.

Sixth, the clarity and patterns of the enacted elements depends on the relative strength of the organization. Just as there are different definitions of culture, there are different ways to define a “strong” culture. Peters and Waterman (1982), taking a “culture-as-variable” approach, might describe a strong culture as an appropriate and clear management strategy to align values and symbolism with the competitive environment. The judgment on the culture would come in organizational profitability. Schein (2004), from a “culture as root variable” perspective, might define a strong culture by the depth and integration of levels of culture. From this perspective, one might ask if cultural practices are grounded in shared values and assumptions among organizational members. Louis (1985) in evaluating the strength of subcultures uses a concept of “penetration” that might be helpful to the assessment of strength of organization culture as well. She offers three types of cultural penetration: psychological penetration, the extent to which individuals hold similar cultural meanings; sociological penetration, the pervasiveness of cultural understandings among employees; and historical penetration, the stability of cultural values and meanings over time. In strong cultures, values permeate all levels of the organization and all aspects of its functioning. If framed in terms of a culture as “discursive construction”, the enacted elements consistently constitute share values. This consistency, for example, might create shared understandings of what counts as effective feedback or ways to structure and make decisions. In weak cultures, however, you may be pressed to identify shared constructions. Organiza- tion members may not evoke shared stories about the organization’s history or co-create common rituals for employee recognition.

Having a strong culture, however, does not necessarily mean that the culture is positive. Enron had a strong organizational culture, and yet it was one in which ingrained values encouraged employees to take risks and skirt legalities, and the strong culture was eventually part of the downfall that lost many investors millions of dollars as the company collapsed. Table 4.1 distinguishes between strong and weak cultures.

With new forms of organizations, the concept of strength of culture is especially relevant. For example, “virtual” organizations have become common place in which members rarely interact face to face and enact their culture in cyberspace (Blithe, 2014; Weber & Kim, 2015). Even in these virtual organizations, culture emerges from interactions as groups develop norms about posting, or as members develop power and status through their interactions. Another recent trend in organization is outsourcing key functions such as security, training, catering,

Understanding Roles 55

accounting, or customer service (Kalaignanam & Varadarajan, 2012). Key organization functions are performed by employees who are not members of the company. How do values get transmitted to such “quasi-employees?” Does such outsourcing weaken organizational culture? Another interesting hybrid organizational form is the multi-national organization in which organizations display the influence of different national cultures in different divisions of the organization. All such organizational forms present especially interesting targets for cultural study.

Seventh, you may find multiple, instead of unitary, organizational cultures. As you collect data on various enacted elements and develop preliminary interpretations, it is important to remember the complexity of culture. Martin (2002) argues that three major perspectives should be considered in viewing the elements or manifestations of culture. An “integration” perspective suggests a cultural unity that is relatively free of uncertainty, one in which values are held consistently from the leader on down. The “differentiation” perspective suggests that the notion of unity is only on the surface. The reality is that subcultures exist that may be in conflict with one another. The “fragmentation” perspective suggests that ambiguity is the norm or “the essence of culture” (Martin, 1992, p. 118). The implications of these perspectives for transitions and change in an organization will be developed in Chapter 8. At this point, however, it is critical to realize that at any point in time, all three perspectives may hold true in an organization. In other words, you may not always discover a “unitary” set of stories, values, or other elements. Keyton (2005) writes about consensus, divided, and fragmented cultures. However, she notes that characterizing cultures in this way may over- simplify the ways that a given culture might contain elements of all three. Martin (2002) writes:

some aspects of the culture will be shared by most members, producing consistent, clear interpretations . . . other aspects of the culture will be interpreted differently by different groups, creating subcultures that overlap and nest with each other in relationships of harmony, interdependence and/or conflict . . . some aspects of the culture will be interpreted ambiguously, with irony, paradox, and irreconcilable tension.

(p. 120)

Sometimes different geographical or product divisions of a large company may develop their own unique subcultures. Rosenfeld, Richman, and May (2004) studied a large dispersed network culture and found that without strong communication systems, branch offices of a large organization can develop a fragmented culture or one that is differentiated from the overall organization. This differentiation can cause a lack of trust and interdependence and can impact employees’ personal growth. At times even, departments such as creative services and account services within a large advertising agency may have distinctly different subcultures. In these situations, it is important to probe whether the subcultures share certain uniting

Table 4.1 Comparison of Strong and Weak Organizational Cultures

Strong Culture Weak Culture

Values permeate entire organization Values limited to top management Elements of culture send consistent messages Elements send contradictory messages Most employees can tell stories about history and heroes

Little knowledge about history or heroes among average employees

Strong identification with culture among all employees Employees identify more with subcultures than with overall organizational culture

Surface cultural elements tied to employee beliefs and assumptions

Little connection between cultural elements and employee beliefs and assumptions

Culture has historical penetration—has existed over a long period

Culture is recent and not well established

56 Cultural Analysis Basics

cultural core that holds together and unites the subculture. You might also analyze whether the subcultures serve useful purposes for the organization—such as promoting diversity and creativity, matching culture to the function of different units, or promoting healthy competition. You may also, however, find that a fragmented organizational culture with competing subcultures is unhealthy and may be a sign of cultural revolution or transition.

Major Elements of Culture

These principles for understanding the elements of culture should be kept in mind in the process of identification and analysis. We provide a list of major elements in Table 4.2, and definitions and examples follow the table. We include suggestions for identifying each element; however, we reserve in-depth discussion of data collection element in the section on methods. The identification of these cultural elements is often made easier because we grow up being exposed to them: we hear stories, we participate in rituals, and we learn specialized terms or language. However, others may be taken for granted such as informal rules, history, or place. Tipton and Kupritz (2017) provide additional guides and activities for exploring elements of culture and debriefing what you learn. Their guides can be useful to both the student and the practitioner. Regardless of the process you use to identify elements, be sure to jot down your own examples. We include a Rehearsal at the end of the section to provide further practice in identifying these elements. Becoming adept at identifying each of these elements will give you a framework for your formal data collection, discussed in the next section. Again, recall, the idea is to go beyond our often unconscious data collection process where we may rely on informal conversations and observations that may only pick up on, for example, a few stories and rituals. The process outlined here requires intentionality with the result being a more credible and ethical set of data from which to develop interpretation and communication applications. We return to Martin’s (2002) model in Chapter 10, on Change Leadership. In that context, we will explore a fourth perspective that attempts to move further than the above combination of perspectives.

We have divided 13 enacted elements into five categories: values (the master cultural element); symbolic elements (symbols, stories, language, & metaphors); role elements (heroes, outlaws); interactive elements (rituals, rules, humor, & communication style); and context variables (history & place).

Values

Definition: the common beliefs and priorities of a group of people. Values are qualities that define a group to its members. In Schein’s (2004) model of levels of culture described in Chapter 3, values are the second level of culture, underlying all observable manifestations of culture. Other enacted elements such as heroes or language do more than provide a clue to organizational values, but they create them. When organization members share values,

Table 4.2 Categories of Enacted Elements of Culture

Values (Master Element)

Symbolic Elements Symbols Stories Language Metaphors

Role Elements Heroes Outlaws

Interactive Elements Rituals Informal rules Humor Communication style

Context Elements History Place

Understanding Roles 57

they form a strong force for motivating the performance of employees. Tompkins and Cheney (1985) refer to this motivating force of values as “unobtrusive control”. Employees don’t need close supervision or an elaborate set of rules to regulate their behavior if they have strongly internalized the values of the organization. Yet, recall from a culture as “discursive construction” approach, values are constituted in various communicative practices. Thus, capturing a shared value involves attending to the functions and organizing functions of varied elements.

Examples: creativity, risk-taking, cooperation, customer service, work hard-play hard, accountability, etc. For example, Enron at its zenith held collective values of boldness, risk taking, and innovation. These values became embedded in its rituals and defined the practices of the heroes of the organization (Seeger & Ulmer, 2003; Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2015). On the other hand, we have both been in church organizations that defined themselves as a “healing community” that valued the broken, the discouraged, and scarred individuals. You can imagine that the second value was constituted in very different communicative practices than Enron’s.

Identification: You may find value statements written in conjunction with a mission statement. However, as you collect formal value statements, be sure also to learn about values that are seen, not just heard (practiced vs. merely espoused). You can draw inferences about values from what the organization rewards formally or informally, by the types of individuals who are drawn to the organization, from everyday rituals, and from stories. You may infer values from almost any of the other elements. For instance, values are easily inferred from stories and rituals. Once you determine values, you have the key for interpreting all other cultural elements (Meyer, 1995, 1997).

An example of a value shared by members of your organization: ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

Symbolic Enacted Elements

The four cultural elements we categorize as “symbolic enacted elements” have in common their focus on language, nonverbal symbols, and meaning. They are all significant in interpreting organizational culture because they represent an important value or meaning in the culture. The cultural elements include symbols, stories, language, and metaphors.

Symbols

Definition: Physical objects or icons that may formally represent the organization, yet informally constitute varied organizing processes. Organizations may develop logos to represent themselves to their public. Great thought and expense may go into choosing a logo, which conveys how the organization wishes to be portrayed. Other symbols can be analyzed as well, such as varied images in corporate newsletters, annual reports, and Web pages. However, like formally espoused values, an analysis should not focus on symbols intended to draw attention to some representational image of the culture. Informal symbolic enacted elements, such as building architecture, the floor plan of an office, the function of open or closed doors, are integral to the idea of cultures as discursive constructions as noted in the examples below.

Examples: Open doors, signs, floor space, uniforms, logos, uniforms, colors, etc. One former client of Angi’s started out with values of equality and lack of corporate hierarchy. These values led to a corporate headquarters in which it was impossible to distinguish the office of the CEO from the office of a mid-level computer programmer. The indistinguishable offices served as an important icon representing a key value of equality within the company. At the same time, such physical symbols constituted the way members saw themselves and the communicative expectations of one another in terms of giving voice to varied employees. Physical facilities are another example of significant symbols. They can include the building(s), layout of rooms, furniture, parking lots, vehicles, and artifacts such as pictures, signs, plaques, visitor reading material in the lobby, and clothing (official and unofficial uniforms). These features of settings can be viewed as significant symbols. For instance, Pepper (2008) examined employee negative reactions to a new building designed to enhance openness and creativity. In use the open building design actually inhibited open

58 Cultural Analysis Basics

communication because of lack of privacy and in a depressed economy (not anticipated with the building was planned) the expensive building was seen as a lack of concern for employee jobs when layoffs occurred. Finally, the organizational Web site is a rich, modern artifact that can yield a wealth of organizational symbolism. It has become the contemporary version of the corporate handbook or newsletter. Not only the content of the Web site, but also the visual layout, the navigation logic, and the security or lack thereof, yields information about organizational culture.

Identification: Researchers have developed elaborate classification systems to study symbols (Axley, 1984). As with other elements of culture, it is important to probe the meaning and importance of a symbol to members of the organization. Often a symbol that might be interpreted in one way by outsiders has a very different meaning internally. It is also important, as just discussed, to distinguish between “official” and “unofficial” organizational symbols.

What symbols might you identify in your organization? Which unofficial symbols function to constitute the organization?

___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

Stories

Definition: Narratives that organization members tell and newcomers hear. They are often a primary form of socialization for new organization members. When you hear the same story or type of story from many different individuals in an organization, it likely has cultural significance. In short, stories are not simply about telling about an event, but also a way in which organizing processes are created, decision-making norms and member expectations conveyed. Stories may be told that feature the storyteller or some other organizational member as a main character. Stories are often disseminated organization-wide to encourage members to accept a certain value or rule. Stories may contain explicit “morals” or lessons, while other stories are subtle and allow the listener to draw conclusions. Stories may take on fantasy or mythic qualities if they begin to deal with larger-than-life characters and do not seem to be situated in time (like fairy tales, sagas, or legends). In a classic review of types of stories, Pacanowsky (1988) suggests three types of narratives that dramatize organizational life: (a) Corporate stories—Carry the ideology of management and reinforce company policy; (b) Personal stories—Those that member tell about themselves, often defining how they would like to be seen within the organization, and (c) Collegial stories—Are positive and negative anecdotes told about others in the organization.

Examples: Stories told about the past, present, or future; stories told for image (corporate or personal) image management, socialization stories told by colleagues, exit stories, hero stories, etc. One particular type of story may be prompted when something goes wrong. As an employee in a retail store, Gerald recalls a cautionary tale told by his manager after a minor accident caused by not following procedure. The manager used the occasion, with other employees gathered around, to tell about a major accident that cost the company thousands of dollars. Employees, both recent hires and old-timers, were thus exposed to a company value on following procedure. As a consultant in one hospital setting, Angi heard a wide variety of stories about status differences. All the stories had different main characters and different inferences drawn. One story might be about racial differences. Another might be about insensitive doctors being unresponsive to needs of staff. Yet the story type of status differences was strong in the culture. In one organization, Gerald often refers to stories of how colleagues manage conflict. A colleague might say to another, “close the door.” This statement signals a desire to work through a conflict.

Identification: Stories may be elicited in a direct fashion: “Tell me about the stories a newcomer is likely to hear around this place.” However, as will be discussed in Part III on data collection, the indirect approach is often the most valid way to gain cultural information. Thus, you may simply hear statements during an informal discussion or narratives presented during a formal interview. Stories in these settings may begin with statements such as: “Let me tell you what happened when . . .” or “That reminds me of a time . . .” or “The

Understanding Roles 59

boss often repeats . . .” At times, you can elicit stories by asking for an example when interviewees discuss a value or characteristic of the organization. You should be aware that conclusions you draw from a story as an outsider might be quite different from the implications of the story for an insider. Especially interesting are “story types” that you begin to discover in an organization (c.f., Brown, 1990; Meyer, 1995; Smith & Keyton, 2001). Because stories often have multiple elements embedded in them (heroes, values, etc.), Rehearsal 4.2 provides a way to explore your own organizational stories.

Write down the main ideas of a story you have heard in your organization that has symbolic significance: ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

Language/Nonverbal

Definition: The particular vocabulary or terms (argot, jargon, etc.) used by members of the organization as well as the specialized nonverbal gestures, signs, and so on, that provide clues to important aspects of the culture (Brenton, 1993). Language distinguishes insiders from outsiders and thus helps define cultural boundaries. The specific terms used by a group, as well as grammar and message construction, are also a means for drawing inferences about a group’s metaphors and values.

Examples: A university that stresses its “business plan” or “margin” or talks about its students as “customers” may have adopted a business metaphor. This type of language may be a sign of “mission drift”, where economics has taken more centrality than education as the mission of the institution. Again, the key is to view language use not simply as a conveyor of information, but practices that constitute the organization.

Identification: Brenton (1993) used critical linguistic analysis to analyze a cultural conflict in a church, looking at language features such as passive or active sentence construction, specificity versus abstraction, pronoun references, and how often certain word types appeared in a text. Scott (2013), in a cultural analysis utilizing “Structuration Theory,” identified the use of phrases like “meeting them half way” or “commu- nicating through the roof”, that captured expectations for interaction and as such values held and rules for interaction.

Give an example of language that is significant in differentiating an insider from an outsider in your organization:

___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

Metaphors

Definition: Figures of speech in which one thing is seen through the lens of another; in which two objects, individuals, or events are implicitly or explicitly compared to one another.

Examples: We are a . . . team, family, circus, machine, growing plants. The metaphor of “family” is perhaps one most often heard. A small company may describe itself as a family because of close relationships among organization members. The metaphor is consistent with the values of caring, nurturing, and permanent commitments. The values embedded in the metaphor are also found in patterns of rituals, informal rules, heroes, and communication networks that profoundly affect how the company does business. While the metaphor may have great utility, it will pose limits for the company during financial stress. How do you lay off a family member? Why should the bottom line take precedence over the best health care insurance possible when providing for family? It also may be challenged during times of corporate growth and change. While the family metaphor may work well in a small to medium-sized organization, it quickly becomes unwieldy when the company grows larger. Smith and Eisenberg (1987), in their now classic study of Disneyland, discuss the changes from the perspective of a root metaphor. Conflicts between management and employees surfaced as a management relied more on a drama metaphor tied to profit and business while

60 Cultural Analysis Basics

employees focused more on a family metaphor. Furthermore, it is important to listen for nuanced metaphors. Thus, asking members of the organization (or reading between the lines) might help you discern what “type of family”, they have in mind (i.e., close knit, blended, dysfunctional, . . ..).

One of our students studied a temporary employment agency that characterized itself as a “pride of lions”. All the managers were male, and the agents who processed orders and served employees were female. For some of the employees the metaphor captured role division and gender status differences within the agency, as well as values of interdependence and competitiveness of the environment. In another analysis across organizations, metaphors surfaced as a primary means for describing the experience of workplace bullying (Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, & Alberts, 2006). Metaphors, as these examples reflect, promise to provide a rich array of cultural meaning. In fact, Holger, Gross, Hartman, and Cunliffe (2008) argue that metaphor is a key ingredient in language and as such is foundational in holding the culture of an organization together.

Identification: Naturally occurring metaphors, which emerge from language patterns, are generally more valid in cultural analysis than artificially generated ones (Smith & Keyton, 2001). An artificially generated metaphor might be elicited by a question such as, “If this company were an animal, what would it be?” One can infer metaphors from language patterns, heroes, rituals, or other enacted elements. For example, if employees use terms such as “battle plan”, “chain of command,” “search and destroy,” and “war games” it would be fair to assume that the culture is influenced by a military metaphor. Metaphors offer insight into rules and values. In the military metaphor example, you would expect to find values and norms of loyalty, obedience to orders, and respect for hierarchical positions within the organization. Rehearsal 4.3 provides direction on using metaphors to initiate the analysis process.

What metaphor(s) symbolize(s) your organizational culture? ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

Role Enacted Elements

Although some authors, such as Deal and Kennedy (1982, 2000), identify a large number of cultural roles such as high priest, storyteller, and cabal member, we have found two roles especially helpful in under- standing cultures. These two roles are hero and outlaw, and they are described below.

Heroes

Definition: Individuals or groups who are respected by a large number of individuals within the organization because they embody group values.

Examples: Stories, rituals, and an examination of history reveal the continuing influence of founder-heroes such as Sam Walton and Walt Disney. Stories about Sam Walton still abound among Wal-Mart employees— from his driving a beat-up pickup truck to leading cheers with associates at Wal-Mart stores. A hero may also be someone other than a founder or a CEO though. For example, in one church organization, an 85-year- old church secretary named Helen was widely cited by members as “the heart of the church”, and “the custodian of all church stories, history, and procedures.” Church leaders had come and gone over the years, while Helen had remained. Her mentoring of new members, her structuring of church services, and her much-sought approval demonstrated her influence over church practices. One member told a story of a minister who didn’t stay long once he earned Helen’s ire. A critical time in any organization is the transition after the death or retirement of a hero. In most cases, the hero’s influence remains through prominently displayed pictures and symbols, much-repeated stories, and influence on leadership succession processes. If new heroes fail to emerge over time, however, the organization may drift from its values and history.

Identification: The “hero” may or may not have high formal status within the organization. It is surprising how often you find quick consensus, however, when you begin asking individuals questions such as, “Who is a hero here?” “Who is an organization member you most respect?” “Who embodies this organization at its

Understanding Roles 61

best?” Within most organizational stories, heroes are easily found. Heroes reveal a great deal about communication rules and cultural values.

Who is a hero in your organization and why? ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

Outlaws

Definition: Individuals who seem to be paradoxes in the organization, who defy organizational practices or values yet remain as valued members of the organization because they exemplify countercultural values that the organization wishes to cultivate.

Examples: Angi belongs to one of the largest Rotary clubs in the United States, with more than 500 members. Most Tuesdays at lunch one can look over a sea of sameness of American button-down business leaders. The shade of tie may vary here or there, and the color of suit may range from charcoal to navy, but the homogeneity is obvious—as are the informal rules of interaction: polite conversation. No rocking the boat with political conversation, raised voices, or divisive topics. That is, until you see Rollie—usually dressed in a Ducks Unlimited sweatshirt and always carrying one of his trademark hand-carved walking sticks. Any time he gets the microphone, which is frequently, he may “Call the Hogs” (an Arkansas football cheer), or call the ducks, or tell everyone about his latest political protégé. Why has he gained almost legendary status when he follows almost none of the rules typical of the culture? Maybe because he embodies the spontaneity, fun, honesty, and bravado that many of the business leaders would like to emulate.

Identification: In interviews, you might ask a question such as: “Who is someone in this organization who is different, who doesn’t follow all the rules but is still valued?” You can also simply observe organizational interaction. Outlaws are usually easy to spot because they are dressed differently and interact with others in noticeably different ways than most organization members. Like heroes, outlaws reveal a great deal about communication rules and cultural values. They may embody subtle subordinate values missed in other elements. Outlaws are particularly interesting to identify and study. If they are expelled from the organization, the reasons for their expulsion tell a great deal about organizational norms and values. If they are allowed to remain in the organization, it may be because they embody important counterculture values (such as creativity in a traditional culture) that the organization wants to support. It is also interesting to discover times of cultural change when a former outlaw becomes a hero, or when an outlaw who was previously tolerated in an organization is expelled or disciplined.

Who is someone who seems to break all the rules in your organization, yet is allowed to remain as a valued member? Why?

___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

Interactive Cultural Enacted Elements

The four cultural elements we have identified as “interactive” exist in interactions between members of the organization. They are a clear example of the theory of structuration explained in Chapter 2. They are created through interaction, yet also can constrain the improvisation of actors within the culture. These elements are rituals, rules, humor, and organizational communication style and are explained below.

Rituals

Definition: Rituals may be defined as planned and unplanned events that are carried out through social interaction with explicit or implicit purposes and that have multiple social consequences (Trice & Beyer, 1985). More than an event, though, from one CCO perspective, rituals may “display agency”, or serve as “actants” that “make the organization present and thus display agency among organizational members”

62 Cultural Analysis Basics

(Koschmann & McDonald, 2015, p. 235). The power of ritual is their role in enacting, beyond any one individual an “authoritative text”, a “manifestation of the organization that is “read” in such a way that it becomes an official interpretation for most organizational members’ (Koschmann & McDonald, 2015, 236).

Six basic types of rituals (or rites) include passage, integration, enhancement, degradation, renewal, and conflict reduction (c.f., Trice & Beyer, 1985, 1993). Islam and Zyphur (2009) argue that these various types of rites or rituals are concerned with (a) transformation, or the shifting of the social positions or statuses of organizational actors, and (b) stability, or “the maintenance of a communal set of cultural beliefs and values” (p. 125). They also stress that management is not the only group influencing rituals. Other groups both initiate and maintain them. In addition, Smith and Stewart (2011) capture nine interdependent functions of rituals. They claim that rituals: (1) provide meaning; (2) manage anxiety; (3) exemplify and reinforce the social order; (4) communicate important values; (5) enhance group solidarity; (6) include and exclude; (7) signal commitment; (8) manage work structure, and (9) prescribe and reinforce significant events.

Rituals form a rich source of data from which to mine inferences about other enacted elements of culture such as symbols, values, rules, and cultural heroes. Trice & Beyer (1993) claim that rites are the richest and deepest sources of cultural understanding, containing the most symbolic impact. They go on to encourage attention to rites and rituals because mangers typically conduct or sponsor them without being aware of their significance. We attend to their significance by providing a Rehearsal in Chapter 6, (Rehearsal 6.1) with a focus on the six types of rituals listed above. We encourage you to begin an initial reflection on rituals in your organization in the space below.

Examples: Informal office gatherings, award and retirement ceremonies, coffee room talk, performance reviews, holiday parties, and collective bargaining. Rituals have embedded in them routinized behaviors that may include gossip, humor, play, language, rules, and values. For instance, play might be a routinized expectation at a retreat. Yet, what members’ count as play in contrast to work, serves critically important functions. For instance, play may function to save face, socialize, convey membership, and gain perspective on negative or tragic organizational events (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Meyer, 1997, 2000). In a similar way, play may encourage flexibility and adaptation. In addition, as you attend to the obvious, such a business meeting, be sure to capture what happens prior to such events. Mirivel and Tracy (2005) captured several forms of pre-meeting talk. For instance, “small talk” focuses on relationship building, but other less obvious forms, such as “shop talk” involve discussions “about people, events, and issues that link to the workplace” (p. 16). Furthermore, attend to routine behaviors at the end of the meeting. In one virtual organization, as a way to discern support of decisions made, the person leading the meeting would ask for a “fist of five”, as a way to elicit communication. Then, everyone held up the number of fingers to indicate their level of support (Scott, 2013). In short, be sure to attend to communication formal and informal ritualized interactions before, during and after the formal ritual.

Identification: One way to identify formal and informal rituals, beyond observing them, is to ask about the events that characterize the organization. For instance, are family picnics or Friday afternoon happy hours common? Or are members rewarded, either formally or informally? Does the organization have rites for recognizing stakeholders outside of the organization (community members, volunteers)? Once you have identified rituals, you can probe for values, rules, roles, networks, and heroes. For example, you might ask questions like: What signs of status are apparent from interactions? How do employees do their work? How do they greet strangers/customers/visitors? How do they interact in meetings?

What is a ritual in your organization? What does it tell you about the culture? ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

Informal Rules

Definition: “The organization and logic that provide for behavior production” (Sigman, 1980). Informal organizational norms tell what behavior is preferred, permitted, required, or prohibited in organizational life.

Examples: How to talk and when to talk during a meeting, interaction norms during performance reviews, greeting expectations, conflict management norms, etc. When Angi began as an assistant professor years ago, several

Understanding Roles 63

colleagues took care to share a story about an assistant professor who, as legend had it, was denied tenure the year after he refused a request by the dean to chair the college United Way effort. She was left to deduce her own conclusions about organizational norms from the story. Was it expected that all employees are active in UnitedWay because of a strong community engagement? Was it prohibited for a junior faculty member to deny a request from the dean? Another example of the significance of informal or unconsciously held rules can be found by looking at decision-making processes. Jabs (2005) explored informal rules in the context of decisions surrounding the Challenger space shuttle disaster. One of the four rules she identified was: “subordinates (often engineers) should limit their input according to the interest level and receptivity of the managerial . . .” (p. 286). In the context of gossip in a virtual organization, members had developed the norm of a “bookend” or asking colleagues to keep what they shared confidential (Blithe, 2014, p. 64). These examples support the importance or identifying informal rules both for aiding individuals adjusting to a new culture as well as to significant decision-making processes. These information rules, may indeed, provide clues to unethical and/or harmful patterns of interaction.

Identification: Uncovering the complex, often unconscious ways of thinking in an organization that make some actions obligatory, some permissible, some discouraged, and some prohibited is challenging. You may find rules for behavior listed in an employee handbook (no smoking, etc.). However, informal cultural rules are rarely explicitly stated. Because rules operate in the unconscious taken-for-granted realm, organizational members might not be able to identify rules if they are asked a direct question. However, in a story about a hero or an outlaw, you may learn what types of behaviors are encouraged or discouraged. You also can uncover rules in field observations of interactions among culture members. When you observe regularities of behavior over time and across actors, the regularity is generally produced by informal cultural rules. Who calls whom by first names or formal titles? Do people arrive early or late for meetings? Who is exempt from the “corporate uniform” and why? What distinguishes those who get promotion and honors from those who do not? What are common threads among those who are fired or voluntarily choose to leave the organization? It is important, once you identify the regularity, to ask organizational members to explain it. Their underlying logic is the key element in identifying the cultural norm or rule. Informal cultural rules are embodiments of organizational values and a direct outgrowth of organizational metaphors (Schall, 1983).

How might you then word an inferred rule based on observation? It can be useful to consider two different types of rules. First, a regulative rule has to do with the logic following an “if-then” pattern. For example, “If interacting before a meeting, then ask questions about events outside of work”. Or, “If engaged in a performance review, then be prepared to discuss specific growth plans”. Regulative rules suggest a certain implicit “ought” or contextual force to act in certain ways. A second type of communication rule is a constitutive or meaning making rule. This type of rule clues you into the way meanings are being constructed. For example, “Pre-meeting exchanges about non-work events may be interpreted as valuing people for more than just for what they do at work”. Or, “Discussing growth plans in a review process might be interpreted as valuing a process of inviting others to support co-created goals”. Like regulative rules, it is important to recognize that rules are learned and may not always be shared by all. One person, for instance, may interpret the pre-meeting talk as a waste of time and either keep those views to himself or seek support from others to interpret them in this way. For example, in on organization, one regulative rule was: “If a colleague makes a demeaning comment about you, you should respond in kind”. The implicit meaning making rule was to treat such an interaction as a playful speech act. However, in time, a few members had conversations about the possible harm caused by demeaning comments, even if meant as humorous. Thus, this practice disappeared, at least in formal work place conversations. Also, while these examples are positive in nature, we recognize that rules are not always positive. As indicated above, communication rules might form that create a sense of obligation to not share information, not confront unethical behaviors, etc.

What are informal norms at your organization that may not be written down but still have a strong effect on behaviors?

___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

64 Cultural Analysis Basics

Humor

Definition: Humor has been defined as “. . . the capacity to perceive actions as funny, respond to an amusing stimulus, or create something that elicits amusement” (Meyer, 2015, p. 1). Humor, as we have all experienced, may enhance our communication or create division and confusion. One function of humor, as Meyer (2015) is to “help us understand important patterns or routines in life, along with recognizing and coping with interruptions or failures of those patterns” (p. 3). As such, the significance of humor in co- creating cultural patterns merits our attention.

Examples: Humor may surface then in informal communication rules. One organization’s CEO maintains the norm of making sure members of his team laugh at themselves by offering self-effacing humor and being able to “take a joke”. His view was that leaders may take themselves too seriously without such signs of humility. Humor may also surface in stories that function to unite. So, stories may also be told of shared events, even tragic ones, that trigger laughter at the antics of those who survived despite failures. Humor may also then divide by sharing moments when someone is implicitly inviting you to laugh at someone else, perhaps a colleague or a boss who, in the mind of the person laughing at them, sees the colleague or boss as having broken a larger cultural rule or norm or value. As such, humor serves a power function of getting others to line up to the norms. In addition, humor may surface in irony or satire. Research on irony indicates it is a marker for and toward encouraging change (Sillince & Barker, 2012). For example, in an analysis of discourse related to ethnic diversity in churches, irony was a resource for change as a participant co-created an ironic moment. The moment occurred when someone noted the impossibility of integration of churches until heaven and yet this statement was ironically made in a building that hosted a multiethnic church (Driskill, Arjannikova, & Meyer, 2014; For instance, the role of “situational irony” based in incongruities has also been explored in the context of the international relief organization, “Doctors without Borders”. The authors identified situational ironies in such statements as “a hospital director” opposing “a humanitarian organization’s health programs” or “humanitarian aid workers . . . almost forced to participate in a program that appears to go against their own organization’s medical standards” (Cooren et al., 2013, p. 260).

Identification: Discerning what “counts” as humor may be challenging given the inevitable role of ambiguity (Meyer, 2015). Yes, laughter at a meeting may be a sign of humor, but as we all know, some types of humor may not illicit laughter. In other words, they can be “funny-“ha-ha” moments, but humor may also be about “funny-ah hah” moments when we may not laugh out loud but gain perspective that is simultaneously funny, and enlightening. Listening closely then for laughter or incongruous statements can help mark humor. The key—do not take “light” moments, times when the mood is lightened by a humorous anecdote as unimportant.

What are the norms in your organization related to humor? What exactly counts as humor? How is it functioning (e.g., release stress, control, maintain structure, teach a lesson, suggest the need for change?)

___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

Organizational Communication Style

Definition: A collective preference by organization members for certain channels of communication. Usually organizations fall into three “styles”: oral/interpersonal, written/formal documentation, and electronic.

Examples: One major aspect of culture involves the collective communication patterns and preferences of the group. Some prefer face-to-face communication in an oral tradition. They value the personal contact, and may not “count” that they have received a message until someone has talked to them about it. A typical comment might be “I saw some memo about that, but no one has actually talked to me about it yet.” Cultural socialization and history are conveyed through stories and interactions. A fatal flaw in such a culture would be offering feedback or praise to a group through a memo versus a more personal contact. Change must be achieved by face-to-face appeals and coalition building.

Understanding Roles 65

A written culture, on the other hand, places emphasis on standardization of procedure and formal documentary evidence. This communication culture is most prevalent in bureaucratic organizations or in organizations with a high proclivity toward legal actions or grievances. In this culture, oral communication does not “count”. A comment in a meeting must be followed by a formal written proposal. A request is not considered effective until it is put into writing. An affirmation would seem incomplete unless it is formalized in writing with copies to all affected parties.

A hybrid of the written culture is the electronic communication culture. In this culture speed and ease of communication are highly valued, perhaps because the pace of change is intensified in highly competitive and fast- moving fields. Furthermore, the growth of “virtual” organizationmaymean employees who only make contact with each other electronically with perhaps quarterly or annual face to face meetings. Organization members are expected to be accessible through e-mail, text, voice mail, google hangouts, chat, and/or cell phone at any given time. In this culture, a faux pas might be sending a message by “snail”mail instead of by a more rapid channel, insisting on a paper copy instead of an electronic communication, or failing to check messages frequently. Challenges within this culture include information overload, improperly targeted messages, and “flaming” in which anger is more easily expressed in impersonal channels. The key is to discern the types of formal and informal rules that have emerged in terms of communication format, timing, etc. For instance, one study showed national culture differences between the on-line communication norms of French andMoroccan nationals (Moroccia, 2012). As such, your analysis should attend not simply to the style but to the communicative norms associated with that style.

Angi consulted with a company in the midst of cultural change. Along with changes in organizational structure (eliminating a layer of middle management), growth, changes in corporate ownership that had added more bureaucratic procedures, and changes in personnel, a change in communication culture had gone almost unnoticed, even though it had created major repercussions. The organization before the round of changes had a strong oral/interpersonal communication culture. Employees got things done by knowing the right person at corporate headquarters to call, and cultivating personal relationships across branches took the place of formal communication channels and mechanisms. As part of the corporate change, the company had adopted an electronic communication style. Oral briefings declined. Employees were expected to keep up with policies by e-mail updates and Web page postings. As faces were shuffled in and out, employees no longer knew who was in charge of what and whom to call when emergencies arose. Complaints abounded about the difficulty of navigation, impersonality, and competition among branches. Most of these arose out of grief over losing a comfortable and efficient culture of communica- tion without it being replaced by a clear strategy for how electronic means could serve the same functions as the previous communication culture.

Identification: You can ask organization members in interviews how most people communicate with one another. You can also observe face- to-face interactions, meeting schedules, the inbox (how many paper transactions), and the average number of e-mails per day.

What is the communication style of your organization? How do you know? ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

Context Enacted Elements

The two elements we classify as context elements, history and place, recognize that an organizational culture is substantially shaped by its placement in space and time. An organization located in India will develop different values and norms from one located in France. An organization located in New York City will have a different climate from one formed in Plains, Georgia. Organizations also do not exist in a time vacuum. Their history is vital for understanding how the organization was founded and how it has changed. It is hard to understand present organizational patterns without grounding cultural understanding in the organization’s history.

66 Cultural Analysis Basics

History

Definition: History involves knowledge of the purposes of its founding, and how it has evolved over the years; it also involves knowing information about the founders of the organization. Learning the history of an organization—the time period at which it was formed, the purposes for which it was formed, the personality of the individual(s) who founded it—can offer great insight into persisting organizational patterns or resistance to change. The insights gleaned from the history are valuable even when organizations have changed dramatically from their initial beginnings.

Examples: Stories by founders, crisis events that shaped values and practices, past mergers, etc. One of Angi’s clients was a large university hospital with roots as a charity hospital for indigent patients. Even though it has now grown into an internationally recognized medical center, the value of offering universal access to health care remains. Understanding the historic value of access to care explains tensions that result from serving different patient populations.

History reveals the continuing influence of a founder such as Sam Walton or Walt Disney. It is enlightening to determine how much the average organizational member knows or understands about organizational history. In strong cultures, the history is often told and retold. One cultural analysis process was performed in a publishing group that started on a shoestring. Each employee we interviewed, and even recent hires, could tell about the early days when writers signed on with no salary and just a promise of future profit sharing. Most could tell about the first winter in a warehouse so cold that writers draped a stray cat across their shoulders for warmth as they sat before a typewriter. The history was a vibrant part of the culture because the publishing group did not want to leave behind the value of passionate dedication to creativity. In organizations drifting away from founding values, members often know little about history. In contrast, a founder’s values guide the response of an organization facing a crisis (Ulmer, 2001).

Identification: History, like the other elements, is often embedded in stories of heroes or the founding of the organization. Rituals that capture certain common organizational memories are also important places to gain a sense of the history of a place. Artifacts, such as pictures of the founder or pictures of earlier corporate headquarters, also show that an organization consciously tries to build on its history.

What do you know about your organization’s history? How does your knowledge affect your present behavior in the organization?

___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

Place

Definition: the complex environment in which an organization resides, whether it is a community, a state, a nation, or a multinational context.

Example: Organizations are products of their environments, as well as entities that shape their environ- ments—the same duality of creativity and constraint discussed earlier in structuration theory. Florida (2002) discusses the role of place in the new creative economy. Creative employees such as university professors, software developers, medical researchers, information engineers, and others have highly portable careers. They can choose to live and work where they want. Florida points out that the days when employees moved to where the jobs are have passed. Now the creative class chooses to live in environments characterized by technology infrastructure, diversity, and a rich cultural life, and the companies follow. The element of place may be included in varied stories, history, and statements made related to values. In one leader’s speech to varied stakeholders, he stressed the need of their organization to address race and ethnicity because of the location of their organization.

Identification: This element challenges the researcher to move beyond observation of the internal environment to consider the impact of “place”. What are characteristics of the external environment? Big city or small? Homogenous or diverse? Traditional or cutting edge? Prosperous or struggling? How does the

Understanding Roles 67

environment contribute to the organization’s culture? How does the organization contribute to its environment?

How does the physical environment in which your organization is located affect the organizational culture?

___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

Connections: What About Ambiguity?

Enacted elements of culture may be viewed as the primary roles in the organizational culture drama. From your reading of the different elements and reflection on your experiences in organizations, did you notice instances when a rule or story or ritual was complex, multifaceted, layered, or ambiguous in its meaning? For instance, in the burglar story at the beginning of the chapter, the moral of the story might be that even a great manager can make a nearly deadly mistake. Or conversely it might be that the moral is about bravery in that this manager saved the day by recognizing that these burglars were a joke and not to be taken seriously. The meaning of the tale and the significance to the company depends on who retells it and for what purposes. Is it, for instance, told at an orientation on safety or is it told at a picnic in which the virtues of brave managers are extolled? Part of its value and richness in embodying and shaping the culture is because of this very ambiguity.

The notion of ambiguity in meaning is critical to interpreting and applying cultural data. Smith and Eisenberg (1987) and others (Meyer, 2009; Meyerson & Martin, 1987; Morgan, 2006) have drawn attention to the role of strategic ambiguity in organizational communication. Strategic ambiguity is being deliberately unclear or nonspecific for a strategic purpose. Common assumptions about organizational communication often deal with clarity and certainty about messages and meanings. This is especially true in popular literature about organizational culture. Leaders are encouraged to send clear and specific messages about values and expectations.

However, the importance and existence of ambiguity should not be overlooked. Another way to think about ambiguity is to consider the value of being able to look at something a different way. If all communication were clear and certain, there would be no room for adjustments, change, and alternative perspectives. In fact, the ability to interpret and then translate the meaning of a cultural element in different ways (as allowed by the degree of ambiguity present) is a skill relevant to managing organizational change. In addition, Eisenberg (1984) points out that strategic ambiguity allows for “unified diversity” in which different groups within an organization can feel a common commitment to an abstract value into which each can read its own connotations. Such unity would break down with more specifically drawn goals.

Strategic ambiguity may also be exploited by those wishing to use organizational rituals to initiate change. For instance, Brenton (1993) studied the ritual of “going forward” at the end of a church service as a way to introduce changes in a church organization. Brenton noted how one church member, in conflict with the leadership, utilized this ritual to confess his problems and sins in dealing with a particular issue in the church. His use of the ritual for confession was clearly within the communication rules of this ritual, but his use of the confession to implicate current problems with leadership behavior was part of the ambiguity in the ritual—an ambiguity that allowed him to introduce new ideas and changes. For instance, he “defamiliarized” the ritual by making his own statement and praying for himself, while the ritual usually involved allowing a church leader to relay the request for prayer and to pray for the penitent congregant. His changes in the ritual used the ritual, which usually reinforced the power of the church leaders, to instead challenge their power.

In contrast to the use of ambiguity to bring a change, ambiguity may also be used to resist change, manage risk, or in some cases act unethically. For instance, Meyer (2009) found the use of ambiguous terms such as “unity” allowed for continuity in worship styles in a church setting. His study indicated that leaders worked against those seeking change by claiming the value of “unity”. Furthermore, in the context of risk communication, Scott and Trethewey (2008) describe how the everyday talk of firefighters included ambiguous terms that helped them downplay the level of risk in certain aspects of their job. Finally, in the

68 Cultural Analysis Basics

context of crisis management, Ulmer and Sellnow (2000) contend that leaders use ambiguity in ways that privilege their financial stakeholders over others. For instance, in the context of the tobacco industry, they argue that the biased and incomplete information was used in strategically ambiguous ways that reduced the decision or choice making ability of stakeholders Ulmer and Sellnow (1997).

The concept of ambiguity as related to the elements of culture connects with the notion of culture as a resource. We would want you to see that ambiguity may not be all bad. Yes, there may be times when ambiguity is used unethically and other times it may create a source of confusion or “action paralysis”, yet it can be a resource for innovation (Martin, 1992, p. 134) and for organizational renewal (Ulmer et al., 2015). The competent leader or communicator seeks to tap into culture, its ambiguity, and exploit it to advance ethical performance goals. As in the study by Brenton, the church member recognized the need to work within the culture and did so by utilizing the ambiguity in an existing ritual to effectively introduce a change. We therefore are not merely caught in the web of culture if we are aware of the influence of culture. Consistent with the example above, we can learn to tap into the resource of culture to develop and enact meanings that we view as important to effective and ethical leadership.

Summary

This overview of the major enacted elements of culture suggests just how commonplace most of the elements are in our everyday experience. Although we observe them every day, until now you may not have recognized their value to studying culture. While we may not formally reflect on implied rules or see a coffee break routine as an important ritual, we nevertheless learn, respond to, and enact cultures in a variety of ways. An awareness of these elements, can aid us in being more proactive as we participate in co-creating more ethical culture that make a positive difference in our world. Rehearsal 4.1 provides an initial way to explore enacted elements. Specifically, you should have learned from this chapter:

1. Enacted elements of culture from a “root metaphor approach” may be described as a “window” revealing and concealing organizational culture; yet from a “discursive construction” approach, elements constitute the organization in and through communicative practices.

2. Comprehensive and ethical organizational analysis should be based on conclusions drawn from multiple cultural elements.

3. We should consider both “official” management information and “unofficial” information from rank- and-file organizational actors when we draw conclusions since culture must pervade the entire organization to be influential.

4. Enacted elements are often “nested” within one another. One can learn about values from stories, history, or heroes, for example.

5. Part of the richness and challenge of cultural elements is their ambiguity; and therefore, their ability to convey multiple meanings simultaneously-meanings that may have ethical or unethical motives.

As you have gained an awareness of cultural elements and insight into how to identify them systematically, the next task is to refine your ability to gather in-depth information about each of these elements before interpreting and applying their meaning. Thus, the next section introduces the third step, using multiple methods to collect cultural data.

Rehearsal 4.1 Exploring Web Sites

Purpose: Identify and evaluate enacted elements that can be assessed from a company Web site.

Understanding Roles 69

Steps:

1. Identify two different company or organization Web sites. We encourage you to select organiza- tions of interest to you in terms of consulting, career development, or benchmarking.

2. Identify as many different elements of culture as possible based on the summary list provided below:

Values—the common beliefs and priorities of a group of people; they are qualities that define a group to its members Rituals—include planned (rites) and unplanned events that are carried out through social interaction with explicit or implicit purposes and have multiple social consequences (see Trice & Beyer, 1984); rituals are often the “acting out of values” Humor—perceiving actions as funny, responding to an amusing stimulus, or creating something that elicits amusement Stories—narratives that organization members tell and newcomers hear Heroes—individuals or a group within the organization that is respected by a large number of individuals within the organization because they embody organizational values Outlaw—someone who seems at the fringe, someone who bucks the rules or challenges the system, yet is tolerated and even valued because he or she embodies countercultural values that the group wishes to retain Language/Nonverbal—the particular vocabulary or terms (argot, jargon, etc.) used by members of the organization as well as the specialized nonverbal gestures, signs, and so on that provide clues to important aspects of the culture Symbols—one of a variety of a ways that an organization represents itself to the public, for example, logos, corporate newsletters, representative photographs or graphics, Web sites, executive speeches, annual reports, building architecture, even individuals who come to symbolize an organization Metaphors—figures of speech in which one thing is seen through the lens of another, in which two objects, individuals, or events are implicitly or explicitly compared to one another History—the time period at which the organization was formed, the purposes for which it was formed, the personality of the individual(s) who founded it Informal Rules—the organization and logic that provide for behavior production References to Place—the environment of which the organization is a part, and the ways in which the external environment influences the organization Indication of Organizational Communication Style—oral, written, or electronic

Rehearsal 4.2 Getting More from Our Stories

Purpose: Review six major functions of stories before engaging in a practice analysis of stories from your experiences in organizations. The role of narratives or stories in understanding our organizational communication experiences is

common both in and outside academia (Fisher, 1987; Kirkwood, 1983, 1985, 1992). Based on prior organizational cultural research (Meyer & Driskill, 1997), relied on stories to improve day care communication practices. Angi helped leaders gain insights into their culture by analyzing stories told in employee interviews. Others have identified stories as a significant source for introducing change in

70 Cultural Analysis Basics

which leaders examined the balance of positive and negative stories, and then analyzed story themes to identify values and problems within the culture (Kimoto, 2007). Reviewing a story is to participate in the ancient rite of storytelling. We are always amazed at the

range of events that come to our minds when we review our organizational stories with others engaged in the same review process. The stories range from mundane first job memories, to ethical dilemmas, to examples of the way a change in management practice can reshape an entire work environment. Interactions with mentors or heroes, and the values and informal norms taught by positive and negative experiences, have shaped all our lives in powerful ways. While each of the individual stories has significance in defining aspects of each individual organizational culture, the stories as a whole form a narrative or script of our own organizational drama. Each of the early scenes shapes the action and events of later scenes. A positive experience with an employer will influence how you interpret behavior and evaluate later bosses. For instance, a nurturing boss and mentor might prompt you to take growth-producing risks on another job. Conversely, a negative experience may prompt you to enact your own set of informal rules that limits your willingness to take many risks. An early successful or unsuccessful experience with a group will shape your reactions to teamwork. Such storytelling demonstrates four important roles of organizational stories. First, stories function as a

type of life review or life construction. The recalling of past events, this habit of reminiscing, is something we often associate with the elderly. Gerald still hears stories from his Dad of working in Alaska and in China during the 1940s. He has mental and actual pictures of a frozen winter land and of bombed-out buildings. Angi has a prized possession of an audiotape of her grandfather telling stories of his early days as a circuit-riding preacher in Arkansas and Tennessee and being paid in chickens and produce. Yet the elderly are not the only ones who engage in this review process. In fact, as soon as we are

able to create symbols, we tell stories, we make sense out of the world and do our best to create stories that others will find interesting. The standard question, “So, what did you do at school today?” is an invitation to create a story—to piece together events in a way that will make sense to us and to others. Such a process plays a critical role in our social development and in our sense of well-being. For example, imagine having no stories to tell. Or imagine if all of your stories about organizational life were dark? To be human is to be a storyteller. Second, stories function as a means of passing on values and norms. Although we may recall past

events simply in order to reminisce or to recount an event, these same stories and others often become both an explicit and implicit way to hand on norms, values, and expectations. Rather than simply say, “That is not how we do things around here”, a member might socialize a new member by telling about the fate of someone who did things right (or wrong). Gerald can still recall hearing a story 15 years ago about a company’s loss of thousands of dollars due to a mistake in a paint-mixing procedure. Of course, he was being taught the correct procedure as the boss told the story. Third, stories create a virtual shared reality for actors with little common experience. Bormann (1969) writes about narrative functioning to create community among strangers. As we enter into the details of a vivid story, we have a virtual experience of overlapping reality. That is why narrative is such a potent medium for transmitting and creating cultural identity. Fourth, in these stories, you have illustrated one route for exploring your own communication practices.

If written in detail, each story would reveal something of the cultural constraints and resources you perceived in each situation (c.f. Eisenberg, Trethewey, LeGreco, & Goodall, 2017). We could determine the implicit theories you held during the interaction, the extent to which you considered options for your response to the situation, and so on. Furthermore, we would learn something of how you frame the story in light of your current values and communication practices. What does the story tell, for example, about your values and ethics? What does it reveal about your reaction to authority? What does it have to say about your relationships with coworkers? What might we learn about your response to change?

Understanding Roles 71

Fifth, a specific type of story, a counter narrative, may empower individuals to enact changes in their group or organization. Counter-narratives function to provide missing, inaccurate, incomplete and/or damaged social constructions. (Papa, Singhal, & Papa, 2006,). These narratives suggest positive ways to frame tensions to avoid polarized management practices. For instance, in order to improve decision-making, leaders could explore exposure to stories of organizations who found a way to transcend the tension between short versus long term planning. Such a story would capture the possibility of not focusing solely on short term profits, Harter’s (2009), in the health care context, appeals to “scholars to focus attention on forces that both enable and constrain the transformative and therapeutic potential of counter-narratives” (p. 146). Sixth, and finally, organizational stories can be used to analyze the culture of an organization. This

point will be discussed in greater detail later, but suffice it to say that details from your stories do more than reveal your own practices; they also say something about the context of the stories. That context includes both the broader national culture as well as the immediate organizational culture. For instance, Gerald’s research on a multinational firm revealed the employees were aware of the influence of national culture differences but not always clear on how they influenced such things as decision- making and perceptions of effective supervisor behavior (Driskill, 1995; Driskill & Downs, 1995). As a way to review the pervasive influence of organizations in our lives, consider completing the

following exercise.

1. Make a list of 6–10 organizations that you have belonged to and/or currently belong to. 2. Review this list and then, based on your memories of events in the above organizations, write

down four organizational experiences (stories of any type) that come to your mind. Do not take time to analyze or write details. Instead, jot down a phrase in two lines or less that captures the event. If you draw blanks before you reach four experiences, review your list of 10 organizations and ask: “Now, what experiences first come to my mind when I think about my time with organization ‘X’?” Put down the first stories that come to mind.

3. Reflect on the following questions concerning the stories you recalled:

• What themes predominated in your organizational stories? • Do you have stories of success as well as failure? • Do you have stories that you would still rather not talk about? • Are there situations that still perplex you? • Do you have stories that still excite and motivate you? Did you find examples of counter-

narratives?

Rehearsal 4.3 A Game of Metaphors

Purpose: Discern the significance of applying a metaphor to enhance awareness of life in your organization. Though usually unconsciously, we act out “cultural” scripts of what we view as appropriate and

effective communication (Fairhurst, 2011; Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996). Even in an era of film and videotape, it is hard to see our own performances, our ways of responding to organizational structures. We have neither the eyes nor the objectivity of an outsider for viewing our own actions. A metaphor game can help gain some perspective. Let us illustrate. If someone were to ask Gerald what it is like to work at the university, one answer would be that it

is like being on a “team of circus clowns”. The metaphor refers to a department that maintains a sense

72 Cultural Analysis Basics

of humor amid the constant coordination needed to adjust to continuous changes. Faculty sometimes wear faces to diffuse a conflict and are engaged in improvisational acting as they juggle competing demands and schedules. Angi, in a past role as an administrator at a Christian university, might use the metaphor of a

Japanese Kabuki theater—thick masks often concealing personal identities and feelings, with a high degree of drama and traditional ritual. Now it is your turn. Identify a metaphor or analogy that comes to mind that best captures one of

your own organizations. Perhaps you can think of more than one metaphor. These metaphors, as we will see, provide a rich source of insight. For example, Gerald’s circus metaphor suggests the expectation of being able to take a joke and other roles of humor associated with workload pressures. The circus clown metaphor also suggests that if you cannot laugh at yourself, your own mistakes and limits, as others laugh with you, then you will not be viewed as an effective member of the organization. Furthermore, you should not spend time complaining about changes, workloads, and so on. Faculty must juggle many duties (advising, writing, teaching, consulting, committee work, etc.). A clown with a sad face is not viewed in a positive light. In action, then, the metaphor does more than provide a simple view of life in the department—it suggests a great deal about our communication behavior and how we define effective or competent communication. Angi’s theater metaphor implies the value of learning tradition so you can perform your role in a

way that will be accepted. In a similar vein, Angi’s theater metaphor implies that members need to stay in character and not let the mask slip. There is also an implication that improvisation is less valued than scripted organizational rehearsal. Put differently, even if you are not familiar with a Kabuki theater, you are likely to recall situations when someone (or perhaps everyone) in your organization values certainty and predictability over spontaneous and less predictable behavior. Although a single metaphor is far from a complete cultural analysis, the exercise demonstrates one

way to begin the process of cultural analysis. If such an exercise were repeated across a representative sample of organizational members, patterns would likely emerge that would capture important elements of the culture, such as heroes and values. Combined with other cultural analysis methods, the identification of metaphors becomes a potent way to portray culture. After you identify one or more metaphors, reflect on the following questions:

• What does the metaphor reveal about what is permitted in the organization? • What does the metaphor reveal about what is prohibited in the organization? • How widely held is the metaphor (i.e., across departments, roles, etc.)? • What does the metaphor suggest about organizational values?

Discussion Questions

1. What does it mean to say that an organization is “constituted” in various elements of culture? 2. Why is it important to rely on more than one enacted element of culture when we are drawing

conclusions about the culture? 3. How would you distinguish the differences between a strong culture and weak culture? Are strong

cultures necessarily positive? Give examples. 4. What stories did you hear when you first became part of an organization? What did they tell you about

the culture? 5. What functions does humor play in an organization?

Understanding Roles 73

6. Who is a hero in your organization? How does he/she embody organizational values? Do heroes have to be in a formal leadership role?

7. How do you discover organizational norms when you are a newcomer?

References

Axley, S. (1984). Managerial and organizational communication in terms of the conduit metaphor. Academy of Management Review, 9, 428–437. doi:10.1177/0893318991004003005

Barge, J. K. (2004). Antenarrative and managerial practice. Communication Studies, 55(1), 106–127. doi:10.1080/ 10510970409388608

Blithe, S. J. (2014). Creating the water cooler: Virtual workers’ discursive practices of gossip. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 15(1), 59–65. doi:10.1080/17459435.2014.955593

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bormann, E. (1969). Interpersonal communication in the modern organization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Brenton, A. (1993). Demystifying the magic of language: Critical linguistic case analysis of legitimization of authority. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 21, 227–244. doi:10.1080/00909889309365369

Brown, M. H. (1990). Defining stories in organizations: Characteristics and functions. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (vol. 13, pp. 162–190). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cooren, F., & Fairhurst, G. (2009). Dislocation and stabilization: How to scale up from interactions to organizations. In L. L. Putnam & A. M. Nicotera (Eds.), Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication (pp. 117–152). New York, NY: Routledge.

Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley. Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (2000). Corporate cultures. Cambridge, MA: Perseus. Driskill, G. (1995). Managing cultural differences: A rules analysis in a bi-cultural organization. Howard Journal of Communications, 5(4), 353–379. doi:10.1080/10646179509361676

Driskill, G., & Downs, C. (1995). Hidden differences in competent communication: A case study of Asian Indians in a bi- national organization. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19(4), 505–522. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(95)00031-3

Driskill, G. W., Arjannikova, A., & Meyer, J. (2014). A dialectic analysis of a community forum on faith: The “most segregated” or separated hour? Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42(4), 477–496. doi:10.1080/ 00909882.2014.880938

Eisenberg, E., Trethewey, A., LeGreco, M., & Goodall, H. (2017). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint (8th ed.). New York, NY: St. Martin’s.

Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51(3), 227. doi:10.1080/03637758409390197

Fairhurst, G. (2011). The power of framing: Creating the language of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fairhurst, G., & Sarr, R. (1996). The art of framing: Managing the language of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fisher, W. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Harter, L. M. (2009). Narratives as dialogic, contested, and aesthetic performances. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37(2), pp. 140–150. doi:10.1080/00909880902792255

Harter, L., Scott, J., Novak, D., Leeman, M., & Morris, J. (2006). Freedom through flight: Performing a counter-narrative of disability. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34, 3–29. doi:10.1080/00909880500420192

Holger, R., Gross, M., Hartman, J., & Cunliffe, A. (2008). Meaning in organizational communication: Why metaphor is the cake, not the icing. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 393–412. doi:10.1177/0893318907309929

Islam, G., & Zyphur, M. (2009). Rituals in organizations: A review and expansion of current theory. Group & Organization Management, 34(1), 114–139. doi:10.1177/1059601108329717

74 Cultural Analysis Basics

Jabs, L. B. (2005). Communication rules and organizational decision-making. Journal of Business Communication, 42, 265– 288. doi:10.1080/00909880500420192

Kalaignanam, K., & Varadarajan, R. (2012). Offshore outsourcing of customer relationship management: Conceptual model and propositions. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 40(2), 347–363. doi:10.1007/s11747-011-0291-0

Keyton, J. (2005). Communication and organizational culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kimoto, D. (2007). Giving voice to culture: Stories of change. International Journal of Diversity, 6(5), 37–45. Kirkwood, W. (1983). Story-telling and self-confrontation: Parables as communication strategies. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69, 56–74. doi:10.1080/00335638309383635

Kirkwood, W. (1985). Parables as metaphors and examples. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 422–440. doi:10.1080/ 00335638509383746

Kirkwood, W. (1992). Narrative and the rhetoric of possibility. Communication Monographs, 59, 30–47. doi:10.1080/ 03637759209376247

Koschmann, M. A., & McDonald, J. (2015). Organizational rituals, communication, and the question of agency. Management Communication Quarterly, 29(2), 229–256. doi:10.1177/0893318915572386

Louis, M. R. (1985). Perspectives on organizational culture. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundbert, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the Terrain. London, UK: Sage Publications. Meisenbach, R. (2016). Integrating ethics and responsibility into organizational communication research: Issues and new directions. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(1). doi:10.1177/0893318916676891

Meyer, J. (1995). Tell me a story: Eliciting organizational values from narratives. Communication Quarterly, 43, 210–224. doi:10.1080/01463379509369970

Meyer, J. (1997). Humor in member narratives: Uniting and dividing at work. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 188– 208. doi:10.1080/10570319709374571

Meyer, J. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in communication. Communication Theory, 10 (3), 310–331. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2000.tb00194.x

Meyer, J. (2009). Unity in response to mystery: Uniting diverse views to plan worship. Journal of Communication & Religion, 32, 62–92.

Meyer, J. (2015). Understanding humor through communication: Why be funny anyway? Lanham, MD: Lexington, Books. Meyer, J., & Driskill, G. (1997). Children and relationship development: Communication strategies in a day care center. Communication Reports, 10, 75–85. doi:10.1080/08934219709367661

Meyerson, D., & Martin, J. (1987). Cultural change: An integration of three different views. Journal of Management Studies, 24, 625–647. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1987.tb00466.x

Mirivel, J. C., & Tracy, K. (2005). Pre-meeting talk: An organizationally crucial form of talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 1–34. doi:10.1002/9781444303094

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization (updated ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Moroccia, M. (2012). The internet, intercultural communication and cultural variation. Language and Intercultural Commu- nication, 12(4), 353–368. doi:10.1080/14708477.2012.722101

Pacanowsky, M. (1988). Communication in the empowering organization. In J. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 11 (pp. 356–379). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pacanowsky, M., & O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational communication as cultural performance. Communica- tion Monographs, 50, 126–147. doi:10.1080/03637758309390158

Papa, M., Singhal, A., & Papa, W. (2006). Organizing for social change: Dialectic journey of theory and praxis. New Delhi, India: Sage.

Pepper, G. (2008). The physical organization as equivocal message. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 318–338. doi:10.1080/00909880802104882

Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). Search of excellence. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Rosenfeld, L. B., Richman, J. M., & May, S. K. (2004). Information adequacy, job satisfaction, and organizational culture in a dispersed-network organization. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 28–54. doi:10.1080/ 0090988042000178112

Schall, M. (1983). A communication-rules approach to organizational culture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 557–581. doi:10.1177/0893318991004004002.

Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Understanding Roles 75

Scott, C., & Trethewey, A. (2008). Organizational discourse and the appraisal of occupational hazards: Interpretive repertoires, heedful interrelating, and identity at work. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 298–317. doi:10.1080/00909880802172137

Scott, M. E. (2013). “Communicate through the roof”: A case study analysis of the communicative rules and resources of an effective global virtual team. Communication Quarterly, 61(3), 301–318. doi:10.1080/01463373.2013.776987

Seeger, M., & Ulmer, R. (2003). Explaining Enron: Communication and responsible leadership. Management Communica- tion Quarterly, 17(1), 58–84. doi:10.1177/0893318903253436

Sigman, S. J. (1980). On communication rules from a social perspective. Human Communication Research, 7, 37–51. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1980.tb00549.x

Sillince, J., & Barker, J. (2012). A tropological theory of institutionalization. Organization Studies, 33, 7–38. doi:10.1177/ 0170840611425735

Smith, A., & Stewart, B. (2011). Organizational rituals: Features, functions and mechanisms. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 113–133. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00288.x

Smith, F., & Keyton, J. (2001). Organizational storytelling: Metaphors for relational power and identity struggles. Management Communication Quarterly, 15, 149–183. doi:10.1177/0893318901152001

Smith, R., & Eisenberg, E. (1987). Conflict at Disneyland: A root-metaphor analysis. Communication Monographs, 54, 365– 380. doi:10.1080/03637758709390239

Strasberg, L. (1987). A dream of passion: The development of the method. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Tipton, W., & Kupritz, V. (2017). Using the outdoor scavenger hunt to teach theories of organizational communication. Communication Teacher, 31(2), 79–84. doi:10.1080/17404622.2017.1285411

Tompkins, P. K., & Cheney, G. (1985). Communication and unobtrusive control in contemporary organizations. In R. D. McPhee & P. K. Tompkins (Eds.),Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tracy, S., Lutgen-Sandvick, P., & Alberts, J. (2006). Nightmares, demons, and slaves: Exploring the painful metaphors of work place bullying. Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 148–185. doi:10.1177/0893318906291980

Trice, H., & Beyer, J. (1984). Studying organizational cultures through rites and ceremonials. Academy of Management Review, 9, 653–669. doi:10.2307/258488

Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. (1985). Using six organizational rites to change cultures. In R. H. Kilmann, M. J. Saxton, & R. Serpa (Eds.), Gaining control of the corporate culture. (pp. 370–399). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ulmer, R. (2001). Effective crises management through established stakeholder relationships. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(4), 590–615. doi:10.1177/0893318901144003

Ulmer, R., Sellnow, T., & Seeger, M. (2015). Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ulmer, R. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (1997). Strategic ambiguity and the ethic of significant choice in the tobacco industry’s crisis communication. Communication Studies, 48, 215–233. doi:10.1080/10510979709368502

Ulmer, R. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (2000). Consistent questions of ambiguity in organizational crisis communication: Jack in the Box as a case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 143–155. doi:10.1023/A:1006183805499

Vineberg, S. (1991). Method actors: Three generations of an American acting style. New York, NY: Schirmer Books. Weber, M. S., & Kim, H. (2015). Virtuality, technology use, and engagement within organizations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 43(4), 385–407. doi:10.1080/00909882.2015.1083604

76 Cultural Analysis Basics

Part III

Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

An Introduction to Step Three

Use Multiple Methods for Gathering Cultural Information: Method Acting

1. Articulate the value of a cultural analysis. 2. Understand the concept of culture. 3. Describe cultural elements. 4. Use multiple data collection methods. 5. Interpret constitutive processes. 6. Co-create positive communication applications.

The Meeting

You walk into a meeting and before you sit down you notice that all the seats are taken except the one next to the boss. You swallow, wondering what you’ve missed already. You are the new kid in the office. What a way to start. You swallow hard as everyone stops talking. You quickly, but quietly, sit down. You place your folder in front of you and glance at your watch, finding that you are hardly 1 minute late. The boss begins talking about second-quarter earnings, and as she talks you glance around the room. Your mind shifts to the folder and concerns you had about the earnings statement. The boss seems not to be commenting on any of those issues. You see one of your colleagues, hired just months before you, gazing out the window, apparently paying little attention. You shuffle a few papers in front of you to prepare for any questions you might be asked and then notice several other partners in the firm engaged in writing notes and not paying attention. “No one seems to respect the boss” is the first thought that comes to mind.

The boss finishes what appears to be a tirade against poor time management on everyone’s part and then asks for comments and questions. You think it strange that she says nothing about the rude behavior of her subordinates. Silence ensues, and while you want to ask a question about discrepancies you observed in the earnings statement, you see most everyone glancing at their watches and thus you decide to be silent. The boss calls the meeting to an end about 15 minutes after it started.

Objectives

• Explain the importance of using multiple data collection methods. • Discuss the utility of three qualitative methods for identifying the cultural elements. • Implement a plan for protecting human participants in a cultural analysis.

Stage Terms

• Ethnography. • Triangulation. • Institutional Review Board.

An Introduction to Cultural Analysis Methods

If you were the main character in the story at the start of this section, you would be drawing inferences from the meeting you observed. Is it usual for employees to be early for meetings? How much did you really miss by being two minutes late? Why is no one paying attention or asking questions? Are all meetings this short? While we all observe interactions around us and try to make sense of what we see, we often are not equipped with specific methods for observing interactions and analyzing them in a systematic way. In addition, while organizational life will involve reading various texts (e.g., emails, policy documents, etc.), our process of discerning cultural patterns from texts may not be well developed. Furthermore, while we each have experiences with conversations and interviews, we may not be well adept at asking questions that provide insight to the culture.

It is fair to ask, “So, what it the concern? Not all of us are consultants or researchers? While it is true that not everyone serves in these formal roles, the question about concern is perhaps best addressed by returning to the aforementioned scenario. Let’s call the new employee, Mike. After the meeting, Mike, who was not even a minute late, talks with one co-worker, Jill, who explains that being early is the norm. Jill goes on to say, “I know the meeting may seem confusing, but just hang in there and you will catch on.” Mike wants to ask more questions, but does not know where to begin. He is mostly concerned, not only about his credibility, but about the discrepancies left unaddressed in the earnings statements. Mike has only been around a couple of weeks, he has interacted with others, but this is his first time to be faced with this sort of challenge. What might guide him toward a next step? What questions should he ask? Who should he talk with next? And, we ask, what cultural data might guide him? We argue that the process outlined in the coming chapters will sharpen his ability to gather cultural data to move him forward in ethical and effective ways. Thus, whether your goal for this analysis process is a formal one involving weeks or even months of data collection as part of a consultation or a class project, or a less formal, and less involved process exploring a particular application such as ethics, diversity, or change leadership, this unit is intended to sharpen your cultural data collection abilities. Recalling our model, the OCA framework focuses on capturing the unique qualities of an organization as constituted in elements of culture such as rituals, stories, and history that both shape and are shaped by communication that has significance for organizational and interpersonal ethics, effectiveness, and development. This framework is intended to aid, even in an informal way, an individual like Mike, in discerning communicative options.

What specifically do we want to accomplish in this “Introduction to Step Three: Use Multiple Methods to Gather Cultural Information?”

Recall that the analysis process is guided by three big three questions. In this part of the book, Steps Four and Five, we formally respond to the first question: (a) “What kind of culture is being co-created?” In order to answer this question, we seek to enhance our ability to ethically collect and interpret data. Thus, Part Three explores the data collection and interpretation process. We will first provide back- ground on the role of ethnography in a cultural analysis including a brief overview of the major methods discussed in the following three chapters. Next, we provide a table to suggest ways to use specific methods to identify various elements of culture. Third, we provide a “Connections” section to encourage reflection on the significance of using more than one method in a systematic way. We conclude by responding to three FAQ’s, including questions about protecting human participants and the institutional review board process.

78 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

Ethnographic Methods

Method actors use a variety of tactics to provide a credible interpretation of their roles and the script of the play. They have as their “essential task the reproduction of recognizable reality—on stage (or screen), based on an acute observation of the world” (Vineberg, 1991, p. 6). In a similar vein, anthropologists who immerse themselves in a foreign culture rely on three primary methods of data gathering and analysis: systematic observation, conversational interviews, and systematic analysis of various oral and written texts. Such qualitative techniques are often grouped under the heading of “ethnomethodology” or “ethnography”. Goodall (1989) defines ethnography as “representing in words what you have lived through as a person when your stated purpose was to study a culture” (p. xxiii). A professional ethnographer might spend years attempting to integrate herself into the culture to fully understand it. During those years, she would repeat many iterations of observing regularities, asking natives of the culture for their interpretations of the patterns of behavior she observed or their tacit knowledge of the culture, and analyzing field notes, interview transcripts, and cultural artifacts. The results of one layer of analysis would lead to a new round of interviews and conversations.

The cultural analysis process described in this text assumes a shorter time frame for an exploration of organizational culture. Most of you will be doing projects in which you engage with the culture for two to three months of part-time exploration, applying the same methods an anthropologist uses. Others may use these methods to regularly explore some critical aspect of culture in relation to applications such as progress on diversity initiative or change leadership. In those cases, data collection might involve annual, but a relatively brief, data collection phase perhaps relying on surveys and focus groups. Rather than dozens of repeated observations, you might conduct only a few. Instead of hundreds of pages of textual analysis of policies or newsletters, you might focus on a few key cultural artifacts and a meaningful sample of a dozen newsletters. Regardless of the scope of the project, the data collection phase is one where you will come to understand systematic analysis of texts, observation options, interviews, and surveys and how one data collection process often leads back into the other.

The process of systematic data collection may begin with any of the major methods outlined: textual analysis, observations, qualitative interviews/focus groups, and surveys. Some of you might find it more meaningful to begin with observations, move to interviews, and then analyze texts. Still others will find that textual analysis provides a relatively non-obtrusive way to begin the process. Informal interviews may also provide a useful entry point. In addition, a survey might be used to gain perspectives on various elements of culture. Regardless of where you begin, the initial objective with your first round of data collection is to gain a feel for the organization and its players and to notice regularities and/or paradoxes. This information will form the ground for the next phase. For instance, if you begin with observations or textual analysis, you may use that information to aid you in developing meaningful questions in a qualitative interview guide.

In the following chapters, we first introduce various types of textual analysis. Systematic analysis of organizational texts must be approached with a major caution in mind. You should not automatically assume that mission statements, annual reports, employee manuals, or corporate newsletters are the most significant organizational texts to analyze because they may reflect more about the ways that upper management want to portray the culture but may not reflect the daily interactions of employees and their interpretations of culture. Internal memos, employee e-mails, or even coffee room bulletin boards may be truer reflections of organizational culture. We will suggest a variety of systematic methods for analyzing organizational texts. You may also uncover important organizational texts during the process of observation and interviews. Furthermore, textual analysis will be useful when you analyze your field notes from observations and with your interview transcripts or summaries.

Observations will be the second method we introduce. Some of you may be analyzing an organization you participate in on a regular basis, either as a volunteer or an employee. In such cases, you may decide to begin with observation. As noted in the meeting example at the opening of this unit, we all engage in

Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation 79

making observations and then inferring from these experiences about how to interact. The process of taking field notes when you observe will challenge you to reflect on a broader array of organizational contexts. Furthermore, you will be asked to distinguish between events and your interpretation of events.

Ethnographic or qualitative interviews/surveys as well as focus groups are also introduced. Interviews, like conversations with organization members, will help you understand how they interpret the events you have observed. Even if you are an insider to the organization, you will be encouraged to gain a wider array of perspectives on the events you observe as well as the texts you analyze. Any individual in an organization may have a limited perspective on overall cultural patterns. Focus groups may function in a way similar to qualitative interviews by gaining perspectives that go beyond those of an individual. Surveys with open- ended questions provide a way to invite narrative responses and are thereby an effective way to gain interpretive data from a larger sample of organization members. We introduce qualitative surveys in combination with interviews because the types of questions covered in each are similar. For instance, in an interview, you might ask someone to describe a metaphor they would use to explain the organization to an outsider. This same question could be placed in a survey to gain responses from a broader sample of organization members.

We are often asked about the use of quantitative surveys in cultural analysis. We concur with Van Maanan (1979) that “qualitative methodology and quantitative methodology are not mutually exclusive” (p. 520). We have used quantitative surveys in research and consultation with organizations. We have found the Downs and Adrian instrument (2004) to be of value in assessing member satisfaction levels with certain communication practices, such horizontal or vertical communication. Glaser, Zamanou, and Hacker (1987) assert that organizational culture can be measured by analyzing how members feel an organization commu- nicates on six factors: (a) teamwork; (b) morale; (c) information flow; (d) involvement; (e) supervision, and (f) communication during meetings. This instrument has been used to correlate several of these factors with member identification (Croucher, Long, Meredith, Doommen, & Steele, 2009). In addition, highly specified quantitative surveys have been developed, such as one focused on the capacity of an organization to renew through a crisis event (Fuller, Ulmer, McNatt, & Bruiz, in press) You can also locate commercially available quantitative surveys. Such surveys typically assume the culture as a variable approach. The primary claim is that this survey data can aid the company in identifying ways to be more productive and competitive. These surveys have the advantage of gaining a snapshot of participant views on a variety of culture related topics. For example, one survey assesses the extent to which participants believe the organization is responsive to change and values an external orientation (Culture Strategy Fit, n.d.). Another examines culture along four dimensions: adaptability, consistency, involvement, and mission (Denison, Hooijber, Lane, & Lief, 2012; Denison, n.d.). Gallop has also produced a set of culture tools including a survey focusing on employee engagement (Gallop, n.d.) with clear connections to organizational culture.

What is our view of these types of surveys? We believe these surveys can be of value. Yet, will introduce other survey options in Chapter 7 with a caveat. As discussed in Chapter 2, organizational culture can and has been explored from the variable, root metaphor, and discursive construction frameworks. Each option provides insights for improving varied organizational outcomes. However, the OCA is based in viewing culture as “discursive construction” —an approach that examines the way organization and organizing processes are constituted in communicative action via cultural elements. We believe that this approach promises to provide a richer, deeper, and ultimately more meaningful analysis. To this end, it is important to realize that quantitative surveys allow input from a broader range of organization members but such data by definition is reduced to quantifiable categories. This quantification allows statistical manipulation, averages and comparisons. However, the trade-off, if one relies fully on quantitative data, means missing the rich symbolic elements that both reflect and constitute the culture—the stories, metaphors, language, rituals and other elements. Even when a survey includes open questions, such as “what metaphors best describe your organization?”, employees do not share as much in-depth information as they do in interviews. Yet, at the same time, over the past 30 years of engaging students and professionals in this process, we find there are times when well-worded survey questions may be of value. One value in a survey is the snapshot it can

80 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

provide, for example on an annual basis, on such areas as participant engagement or diversity initiatives. Such surveys also, if well worded and administered, may become a ritual that meaningfully engage participants in regular reflection on their role in the culture creation process. Thus, in the final section, we have provided Rehearsals that include survey questions as options for use in combination with other methods.

Methods and Cultural Elements

As you begin data collection, remember that the first analytic step is to connect your data back to elements of culture. The idea is to attend to all elements. The reason for attending to all elements is to gain a rich data set to set the stage for a more ethical and credible interpretation and application. In addition, capturing data across elements is consistent with the theoretic frames underling the OCA model, such as Structuration and the CCO. The goal is to attend to the dual role of communication in organization and organizing processes. These elements represent both macro practices (structures such as rituals and place, etc.) and micro (conversation rules, stories, etc.). For instance, you may gather organizational texts, field notes from observations, and interview summaries or transcripts. You may then perform a series of analyses to tease out elements such as history, language, symbols, and metaphors that may lead you to an understanding of overarching themes. We will discuss this process of moving from elements to themes in Chapter 8. For now, Table III.1 suggests a place to start with each method; it is not a prescription of what information necessarily is paired with each method. Indeed, you can usually find most of the elements of culture revealed across the methods we cover in Chapters 5, 6, and 7.

For example, in observation you might choose to focus on artifacts such as office arrangement, objects hanging on the walls, corporate dress style, and public meeting spaces such as conference rooms or break rooms. In this analysis you might especially look for signs of history—pictures of the founders prominently displayed or historical pictures. You might also look for regularities that would suggest formal rules or informal norms, such as a lack of personal items in offices or conformity in style of dress. You might also find

Table III.1 Methods and Cultural Elements Revealed

Method Focus Cultural Elements Revealed

Observation Interviews/ Qualitative Surveys Analysis of Texts

Artifacts Interactions Language Symbols Place Representative texts Heroes and villains Stories Rules History Metaphors Communication style Field notes of observations Interview summaries or transcripts Representative organizational texts, drawn from organizational communication style (narratives or speeches, documents, elec- tronic communication artifacts)

Rules Heroes History Values Communication style Rules Heroes, villains, and outlaws Rituals, Humor Communication style Metaphors Stories, Humor Heroes Values Metaphors Values Root metaphors Cultural themes Values Root metaphors Cultural themes

Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation 81

suggestions of heroes—pictures hanging on the wall, prominent office locations, employees who are frequently mentioned with high regard. You can subtly infer values from the artifacts you observe. How does the organization present itself to insiders and outsiders? In a similar way, interviews or qualitative surveys might serve to follow up on the things you have observed, to ask their meaning from an insider perspective. You’d also ask about difficult to observe elements such as stories, the influence of place, and metaphors.

Connections: Getting the Best Data

The basic rationale for using multiple methods is that the validity of our cultural interpretations can be improved. The idea of multiple methods is called method “triangulation”. Geographic surveys use triangula- tion to find a point by identifying two vectors that intersect. In a similar fashion, method triangulation provides the basis for drawing more credible conclusions about a culture by gaining perspectives using more than one method. Thus, rather than relying on perceptions from a single method, such as surveys, the effective cultural analyst uses additional methods, such as observations, to enrich the data set (Miles & Huberman, 1984). For example, informal “interviews” in the organization may prompt you to take note of a metaphor used by an employee who says, “Working here is like visiting cyberspace.” Observations of work teams or the physical setting may be used to determine the pervasiveness and salience of the metaphor (e.g., is it found in company logos, newsletters, or in language used during meetings?). For instance, if space was devoted each week in the newsletter to applications of the latest and best of technology, then support exists for the metaphor beyond the one-time mention by a single employee.

Each of us has used the data collection methods outlined in this unit. We may not have consciously walked backstage and taken on the role of anthropologist or method actor. Whether or not we viewed them as “methods” per se, we have been observers of organizational behavior, we have read documents in our organizations to gain knowledge or insight, and in most cases we have participated in informal interviews and possibly even completed or sent out formal surveys. Thus, the process of collecting data about culture, like the notion of cultural elements, is not foreign ground. Put differently, to be a member of an organization is to be a “sense-maker,” someone who is trying to make sense of his or her environment (Weick, 1995). This process of sense making is important not only during the first weeks as a new member of an organization, but also during organizational changes and job promotions (Kramer & Noland, 1999). The only ways to gain information, to make sense of an organization is to observe, ask questions, and/or ask someone else to observe or ask questions for us.

These naïve approaches to understanding culture can have great practical significance for the organization member. Angi conducted one cultural analysis in which there was one employee in an insurance company that no one could stand. The cultural analysis team had probed to understand why this woman was so disliked and rejected by the majority of other employees. All agreed she was competent and hard working. When pressed for details, many of the employees gave the same answer about her failure to fit in. “She brings crackers to the office potluck,” several explained, assuming that we would understand immediately the significance of this culinary contribution.

Only in analyzing the culture further did they understand the significance. The monthly office potluck embodied several of the organization’s defining values and a sense of community and sharing, nurturing, and generosity. All the employees put great effort into bringing creative and tasty dishes. The fact that this employee brought crackers signified to the others that she did not care about the group and that she was cheap. It, of course, signified that she did not share other important group values. The employee probably never grasped the seriousness of her offense or understood why she was disliked by co-workers. She had not picked up on cultural cues about values or the significance of the potluck ritual within the company.

Two “safe” assumptions about our everyday data collection habits prove the value of this approach. First, we tend to draw conclusions about culture based on sporadic, biased, and incomplete information. In short, we can improve the thoroughness and validity of our efforts. And second, incomplete data lead to

82 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

interpretations that can harm the effectiveness of our communication and thus adversely influence the ethicality and credibility of our leadership efforts. The hypothetical meeting presented at the start of this chapter is an example of one person’s observations. Notice how the story contains a mix of descriptive data (“2 minutes late”) and interpretive data (“they must not respect the boss”). The newcomer made a decision not to ask a question based on everyone else’s behavior. It is clear, however, that he has much to learn about the function of these meetings and when, if ever, questions can be asked at meetings. In short, the newcomer’s observations, his experience of this meeting, form an important aspect of information that will guide his future behavior.

The question, then, is how can he improve his abilities as an observer? As a participant in the confusing, often ambiguous world of organizations, how can he move forward from this meeting to contribute to an effective and ethical organizational culture? Just as consultants and researchers can be critiqued based on their methods used for data collection and interpretation, so can and should we be. If, for example, from the above meeting experience, I fail to ask questions of colleagues even after they present incomplete or inaccurate information at a meeting, then my behavior is no longer simply that of “fitting in”; it can and should be challenged on ethical grounds. Rehearsal III.1 provides a way to reflect on your experiences in this arena. As we will discuss in Chapter 11 on ethics, we must resist two tendencies that surface in research on communication, ethics and upward communication in particular. One, we tend to think we are alone in our observations and thoughts about ethics in given situations, and thus may tend to be silent, “pluralistic ignorance” because we have a misperception of groups norms in which we assume we are the only one holding a particular moral stance (Bisel, 2019). Two, we may fall into the story of the “Emperor’s New Clothes” where we, out of fear, do not address an obvious problem. This later concern, as we will explore later, is found in research by Bisel and colleagues as the Hierarchical Mum Effect (Bisel, Kelley, Ploeger, & Messersmith, 2011).

Rehearsal III.1 Introduction to Method Acting: The Last Time I Was Wrong

Purpose: Identify the types of informal data you collect and the consequences of relying on these data.

Steps:

1. Recall a time when you drew an inaccurate conclusion about a work relationship, a company policy, or perhaps a change introduced in your organization.

2. What types of cultural data did you use to infer your mistaken conclusion? 3. What other types of data might have helped? What other cultural elements might have helped

improve the accuracy of your inference?

Miller and Jablin (1991) point out an inverse relationship between risk and information accuracy when seeking information in organizational entry. The less obtrusive ways of gathering information, such as observing the behaviors of others and drawing inferences, may be perceived as “safer” by the average employee because there is less risk of offending someone or appearing stupid. Yet this less direct way of gathering information can lead the employee to draw the wrong conclusions about the behaviors observed. The more direct information-gaining strategy of asking specific questions produces more reliable data but may be seen as riskier by the employee because of fear of loss of face or being perceived as incapable.

Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation 83

FAQ’s

1. Will Multiple Methods Result in Objectivity?

A common misconception is that that you can somehow create an objective interpretation if you get the right data. We would point out that even triangulated data do not produce an objective view of organizational culture. A researcher always develops subjective conclusions from a point of view. Triangula- tion produces data drawn from multiple points of reference but still contains elements of subjectivity. You will need to accept at the outset that your conclusions about the organizational culture may be different from those another individual might draw. These differing conclusions do not mean that either is invalid. It does mean that you need to be explicit about supporting your conclusions with data and explaining why you drew the conclusions you did. This transparency of logic would allow your readers or listeners to compare the ways in which they might draw different conclusions from the same data set. As we stressed in our introductory analogies, whether “painting by numbers,” or “putting together a jig saw puzzle,” the key is to create ethical, credible, and useful interpretations.

2. What About Examples of Cultural Analysis that Use a Single Method or Single Cultural Element Focus?

Researchers sometimes use multiple methods to obtain information about one or at times two cultural elements. In some cases, however, a more specialized approach (e.g., root metaphor, linguistics, rules) may focus on a particular “element as a method” for interpreting culture. For example, an analysis of stories may be the method used to decipher organizational values (e.g., Meyer, 1995). Cultural research on the role of humor has been used to gain insight to organizational sensemaking practices (Bochantin, 2017). A focus on a single element might be used to gain understanding of a particular phenomenon, such as metaphors for workplace bullying (Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvick, & Alberts, 2006) or communicative rules used in a virtual organization (Scott, 2013). The goal of this workbook, however, is to help you perform a more comprehensive cultural analysis in order to produce competent individual and organizational performances. The key is to allow researchers who focus on a particular element to spark your imagination regarding the value or importance of a given element. Our goal is to go beyond the study of one element to gain a richer description of the culture than can be obtained from a focus on a single method or element. In the following three chapters we explore each method in more depth and offer practical suggestions for how you can use each to gain insight into your organizational culture. We begin with the least obtrusive tool for actors seeking to be more effective at directing and leading the communication practices on the stage-textual analysis.

3. What Steps Should Be Taken to Protect Participants?

We provide a full chapter on ethics and hope you have noted the issue of ethics as a theme throughout this book. As stressed in our introduction of CCOs, theorists using this framework foreground our ethical responsibilities in co-creating cultures. Thus, we also have an ethical responsibility to realize our how formal and informal analysis process impacts the culture. Science fiction buffs can cite examples of time travelers who have to be very careful in their visit to the past not to take actions which would alter all of subsequent history. There is a parallel in organizational intervention. We need to realize that the questions we ask, how we ask them, and how we use the data all influence the culture of the organization. For instance, if handled improperly data may negatively influence an employee’s job security. Also, imagine an ill planned, leading question like, “Don’t you think the leaders around here care less about us?” Such questions may lead participants to be dissatisfied, or to question the motives of management, affecting organizational trust. We cannot stress enough the importance of being diligent about protecting the people in the organization you serve in this analysis process, and being aware of how your activities in the cultural analysis can have an effect on the long-term culture of the organization.

84 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

Universities require researchers using human participants to seek approval from an institutional research board (IRB). This requirement often applies to student projects as well. An IRB protocol can be informative to encourage ethical research processes for those using the OCA model outside of the university context. For those in the university setting, your instructor can guide you with the particular requirements and processes at your university. At some universities each student must gain independent approval for each project; others required a “blanket” approval form to cover all the student class projects. Still others, use a consent process, but as a class-based project, are not required to complete a formal IRB.

Protection of human subjects is based on three principles contained in the Belmont Report of Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, which was issued by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (previously the Office for Protection of Research Risks) in 1979. These three principles include (a) that the study will pose no undue risks to the life, health, or integrity of research subjects; (b) that any risks to subjects are outweighed by the potential significance of the study; and (c) that subjects have the opportunity to give informed consent about their participation in the study.

An informed consent form must contain information about the purpose and procedures of the study, any risk involved, the voluntary nature of participation and ability to withdraw at any stage of the study, and contact information for questions or concerns. It also must inform subjects of the nature of confidentiality and how their privacy will be protected in the study. It will also inform them about what will be done with the information obtained in the study. An example of an informed consent form is included in Rehearsal III.2. These same guides may be adapted to use for those conducting an analysis outside of the context of a university. Again, the intent is to ensure participants are protecting by communicating how the data will be used and how their identity will be protected.

Rehearsal III.2 Sample Informed Consent Form

Adapt the following informed consent form for use in your cultural analysis. This consent form applies to: Name: _________________________________________ The following information is provided to inform you about the research on ___________. Please feel free to ask any questions you may have about this study and the information given below. You will be given an opportunity to ask questions and to have your questions answered. In addition, you will be given a copy of this consent form.

1. Purpose of the study. This study is being conducted by [researcher’s name and faculty/student status] of the Department/School/College of [subject] at the University of [university name] in order to better understand [research topic]. This research will help [who?] better understand how [process of issue being investigated]. Your responses in the interview are confidential and available only to the [interviewer/researcher/faculty supervisor].

2. Description of the procedures to be followed and approximate duration of the study. Participants in the research will participate in [describe data collection process], which will focus on [research topic]. This [data collection process] will last approximately [length of time].

3. Description of the discomforts, inconveniences, and/or risks that can reasonably be expected as a result of participation in this study. Discussing [research topic] may be uncomfortable, and [care services] will [or will not] be available to you as a result of your participation.

Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation 85

4. Description of how confidentiality will be assured and the limits to these assurances, if any.

5. Anticipated benefits resulting from this study.

a. The potential benefits to you from participating in the study are [describe benefits]. The study may be helpful to increase your understanding of [issue being investigated].

b. The potential benefits to science and humanity that may result from this study are [describe benefits]. This study will provide information to [intended audience of research results] to help them [intended outcomes of the research results].

6. Alternative procedures. If alternative procedures exist, please describe them here. Otherwise, include a statement that says: There are no alternative procedures to participation in the interview.

7. Contact information. If you have any questions about this study, you can contact the person(s) below:

Name of Principal Investigator ___________________________________ Department/School _______________________________________________ Name of Supervisor (if PI is a student) ____________________________ Department/School _______________________________________________ Include name, address, telephone number, and e-mail addresses If you have any questions about your rights as a research subject, please contact the Chair of the Institutional Review Board at [telephone number].

Summary

Before diving into your analysis, you should understand several key ideas in the overview of methods:

1. The cultural analysis you will conduct seeks to gather valid and credible data without engaging in the years of data collection that might be involved in an ethnography of an organization.

2. We suggest that you use the methods introduced in the coming chapters in an order that is appropriate to your analysis. We introduce systematic analysis of organizational texts followed by observation, then interviews and surveys,

3. You have used the data collection methods outlined in this unit, yet your everyday data collection process tends to provide incomplete and biased information that can decrease effective leadership.

4. Less direct or unobtrusive methods of data collection, such as textual analysis, are safer in terms of influencing participants but may lead to inaccurate conclusions. Conversely, more direct information- gaining strategies such as formal interviews are more obtrusive, but may provide more reliable data because of your ability to gain insider perspectives.

5. Triangulation or using multiple methods will result in more credible conclusions about a culture. 6. One person’s conclusions about the organizational culture may be different from those another

individual might draw. 7. You should seek to collect information about all of the major cultural elements in order to attend to

micro and macro communicative process ranging from communication rules to rituals. 8. You should maintain diligence in protecting members of the organization; you may need to gain

approval from a university institutional review board before beginning your study.

86 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

References

Bisel, R. (2019). Organizational moral learning: A communication approach. New York, NY: Routledge. Bisel, R., Kelley, K., Ploeger, N., & Messersmith, J. (2011). Workers’ moral mum effect: On Facework and unethical behavior in the workplace. Communication Studies, 62(2), 153–170. doi:10.1080/10510974.2010.551314

Bochantin, J. (2017). “Ambulance thieves, clowns, and naked grandfathers”: How PSE’s and their families use humorous communication as a sensemaking device. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(3). doi:10.1177/0893318916687650

Croucher, S., Long, B., Meredith, M., Doommen, D., & Steele, E. (2009). Factors predicting organizational identification with intercollegiate forensics teams, Communication Education, 58, 74–91. doi:10.1080/03634520802450523

Culture Strategy Fit. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.culturestrategyfit.com Denison. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.denisonconsulting.com Denison, D., Hooijber, R., Lane, N., & Lief, C. (2012). Leading culture change in global organizations: Aligning culture and strategy. San Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons

Downs, C., & Adrian, A. (2004). Organizational communication: Strategic communication audits. New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Fuller, R., Ulmer, R., McNatt, A., & Bruiz, J. (in press). Readiness for renewal: Extending renewal to organizational preparedness. Management Communication Quarterly.

Gallop. (n.d.). Fortune 500 employee engagement tools. Retrieved from https://q12.gallup.com/ Glaser, S., Zamanou, S., & Hacker, K. (1987). Measuring and interpreting organizational culture. Management Communica- tion Quarterly, 1(2), 173–198.

Goodall, H. L. (1989). Casing a promised land. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Kramer, M., & Noland, T. (1999). Communication during job promotions: A case of ongoing assimilation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27(4), 335–355. doi:10.1080/00909889909365544

Meyer, J. (1995). Tell me a story: Eliciting organizational values from narratives. Communication Quarterly, 43, 210–224. doi:10.1080/01463379509369970

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Miller, V., & Jablin, F. (1991). Information seeking during organizational entry. Academy of Management Review, 16, 92– 120. doi:10.2307/258608

Vineberg, S. (1991). Method actors: Three generations of an American acting style. New York, NY: Schirmer Books.

Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation 87

http://www.culturestrategyfit.com

http://www.denisonconsulting.com

https://q12.gallup.com/

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 5

Method Acting Textual Analysis

The fourth step of the OCA model, “Use a variety of methods to collect cultural data,” is introduced by starting with the process of textual analysis. Systematic analyses of organizational texts are similar to the intense work an actor does with a script prior to crafting a performance. Textual analysis is an unobtrusive research method and can reveal a great deal about an organization. Texts, in themselves, can be understood as having a type of agency, that is like human actors, are part of the constitutive process of organizing and organizations. Three systematic ways to analyze organizational texts are introduced: Content analysis, rhetorical analysis, and discourse analysis. Four guidelines for improving the textual process are discussed: (a) choose a sufficient sample of credible texts to analyse; (b) determine which of the three main analysis method)(s) that fit your purpose; (c) decide on your unit of measurement, and (d) tie your analysis back to elements and cultural significance.

Step Three: Use a Variety of Methods to Collect Cultural Data

It is easy to create tension by trying a simple experiment. Try lifting something, such as an edge of a piano or a heavy table. At the same time, try to solve a simple mental problem, such as multiplying 75 by 6—an intellectual exercise that would normally involve little difficulty. You will discover it is nearly impossible to do so while lifting the heavy object.

(Strasberg, A Dream of Passion, 1987, p. 125)

Objectives

• Understand the significance of texts from a constitutive perspective. • Distinguish among the major types of textual analysis. • Explain major guidelines for analyzing a text.

Stage Terms

• Textual analysis. • Content analysis. • Rhetorical analysis. • Critical linguistic analysis.

Textual Analysis

“So, Jane, are you saying you read the company newsletter? Really?” “Yes, Jamal, and you would do well to pay attention to it. The HRD department takes a lead role in writing it and

they often have the inside scoop on what is happening. They have a way of dropping hints in the newsletter they you may not get elsewhere.”

Jamal was shocked to learn that in his new organization the newsletter mattered at all. In his prior experience, the newsletter went in to the recycle bin without even a glance.

“Textual analysis” is a generic term used for the analysis of any written artifact. Just as an actor in a play must be adept at reading not only the script, but the reviews, biographies of the author, and so on, so also the effective organizational actor must be adept at analyzing texts that give insight into culture. At an informal level, you engage in textual analysis any time a document (i.e., newsletter, report, contract, check-list, memo, sign . . .) influences you to respond, discuss, or take any sort of an action. What is easily missed is that texts can be understanding as having impact, a type of “agency” of their own. In other words, our focus regarding texts can too easily be on our role or that of management in the creation of texts. In contrast, some theorists with the CCO approach stresses the “active contribution of texts (especially documents) to organizational processes; that is, on the ways that texts, such as reports, contracts, memos, signs, or work orders, ‘perform something’” (Cooren, 2004, p. 374). For instance, in the example above, the text, through the supposed design of the writers, is creating interactions by “dropping hints” concerning possible changes. In addition, texts coordinate activities as in the case of signage or policy, guide behavior, such as a pilot’s check list. The significance of texts is further illustrated by attending to the various ways they constitute organizations and organizing processes. Cooren (2004) provides instances of what texts do across five major speech acts: (a) assertiveness such as informing, confirming, indicating, reminding, contradicting; (b) commissives such as committing, promising, threatening, assuring; (c) directives such as requesting, advising, warning, demanding; (d) declarations such as dismissing, approving, legalizing, blessing; and (e) expressives such as thanking and apologizing. The power of texts is further underscored by the fact that a “text remains active as long as it is recognized or not destroyed” (p. 385).

These examples illustrate the power and significance of texts. Yet, determining what to read in a more formal textual analysis may not be as difficult as determining how to read. In other words, reading just for a quick update is different from reading for cultural information. Reading for a quick update might provide information about a new policy or a meeting change. Reading for cultural information, however, will also guide you in discerning the “culture creating” roles certain texts play. For those conducting a cultural analysis, reading a newsletter for general updates while also trying to analyze it for cultural meaning may be like lifting the corner of piano while doing a math problem. Such a process creates tension one must learn to respond to in constructive ways. This chapter is about learning to still attend to the math problem (or the need to attend to meeting notices) while also focusing on the heavy lifting of textual analysis. This heaving lifting or attending to the cultural creation process, is not only important for textual analysis of newsletters and company Web pages, but also for analyzing field notes and interview transcripts or summaries.

We first review three methods of textual analysis before providing five guidelines. Regardless of the type of textual analysis selected, we see value in beginning a cultural analysis with this method. The reason for this

90 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

encouragement is that much can be learned from texts in an unobtrusive manner. By unobtrusive, we mean you are less likely to influence or draw attention to your efforts to understand the culture. Texts from web pages, artifacts, and newsletters, for example, provide insights to various elements of culture such as rituals, norms, and history. These types of texts do not reveal all you need to know, but they hold rich information. In addition, while some texts may hold primary information about the way corporate leadership want to portray the culture, they may also contain hints at the informal (e.g., postings about informal events, etc.). In the process of attending to texts like these, you gain data you can then explore further through observations and interviews and/or surveys. You may for instance, wonder about the significance of a plaque on the wall about a founding member of the organization. She may be recognized on the plaque; yet it will take additional data perhaps from an informal interview to discern if she is a hero in the organization. Therefore, in the coming chapters, we provide guides for conducting observations, as well as interviews and surveys. For now, we review three different means of textual analysis.

“Content analysis” is a method of developing categories from the text (e.g., newsletters, interview transcripts, email correspondence, etc.) and developing a method of counting material related to each of the categories. We will discuss specific data interpretation procedures in Chapter 8 but here we want to be sure you grasp the basics of the analysis process. For purposes of illustration, you might have examined several newsletters and picked up on multiple elements of culture (e.g., stories, rituals, and humor) as well as several possible themes cutting across these elements. Imagine you then jotted down four plausible categories related to these themes: risk taking, public image, innovation, and profitability. You might then system- atically sample additional newsletter as well as the web page (and in time interview transcripts) to count the number of times each theme is mentioned. At the end of your categorizing, you might conclude that profitability had been mentioned twice as often as any other value. You might also have picked up on a fifth category or the need to reword and clarify one of them based on attending more closely to the data. For instance, in a study on employee engagement, one team of researchers explored the expanded role of Public Relations professionals with regard to employee engagement. They conducted a content analysis of responses to interview questions sent via email as well as transcripts from face-to-face interviews. Their analysis allowed them to glean insight into a public relations sub-culture that viewed their primary function as “building trust through dialogue” through “employee engagement” and owning “all channels of communication” (Mishra, Boynton, & Mishra, 2014, p. 195). These themes were based on a content analysis involving first looking for the frequency of themes, then for clusters of terms related to these themes, and then finally “patterns of association” to discern the most important clusters (p. 189). As such, like the other types of textual analysis, the goal is to be intentional and systematic in order to create a more credible and ethical interpretation. This same focus on intentionality and systematic processes is true as well in the second type of content analysis.

“Rhetorical analysis” is typically more qualitative and less quantitative than content analysis. Thus, rather than counting based on categories, the researcher examines the author, background, purpose, strategy, and effect of written or oral texts. Examples of this type of textual analysis in organizations can be found in the study of apologies and crisis management responses made by corporate figures as well as public officials. For instance, scholars have used rhetorical analysis to study Planned Parenthood’s response to the release of controversial videos (Brandhorst & Jennings, 2016). In another instance, a university leadership’s response was analyzed as they addressed a plagiarism crisis in the context of revoking the former Minister of Science and Education’s dissertation (Fähnrich, Janssen Daniy, & Nothhaft, 2015). Specific “image-response” strategies to the gulf oil spill have also been explored (Smithson & Venette, 2013). Others focus on organizational renewal involving ethical and effective rhetoric in response to crisis (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2009, 2015). In these and other studies, the rhetorical scholar might investigate the public attitudes or climate in which the apology is offered, the nature of the person offering the apology, the characteristics of the message (Does it take personal responsibility? Does it contain excuses?), and the effect on the intended audience. Although this method of textual analysis is quite involved, it may be appropriate with certain important organizational texts that are cited as the moment of major cultural change, after a crisis, and/or mission redefinition.

Method Acting 91

A third type of textual analysis is “discourse analysis”. This method may involve a variety of practices including language and grammatical structures of messages (linguistic analysis), and/or attending to sequences of sentences, turns at talk, and propositions. For instance, the researcher may pay attention to why a corporate leader chose one term rather than another; why one word was repeated over and over in a text; or the intent or effect of passive verb use, which tends to deny responsibility. In addition, if analyzing a conversation pattern in a meeting, attention could be given to who speaks first, and the functions of patterns that emerge. For instance, in a study of communication during organization-wide meetings in a Danish firm, researchers discerned three ways participants legitimized decisions: (a) pointing to the abnormality of a strategic situation; (b) attending to socio-economic factors, and (c) utilizing idiomatic expressions (Agger- holm & Asmuß, 2016). This type of analysis may also surface paradoxes. Wasson (2004) examines the use of marketplace or enterprise metaphors. Her analysis provides insight into how these metaphors created irony and paradox for employees. One interviewee reflected on how the “enterprise ideology” should have prompted her to feel confident and take control over a project. However, the reality is that the success of the project was not under her direct control. Thus, this employee was ironically “disempowered by being forced to speak as if she were empowered” (Wasson, 2004, p. 190). In another example, Angi in her study of a church conflict (Brenton, 1993) examined two major texts, a statement by a dissident at the church, read ostensibly as an apology to the congregation and the second a response from church leaders. She found that the statement by the dissident used active voice, stressed agency by specific references to individuals, and used language related to change 14 times in the message. On the other hand, the statement from the church leaders used passive voice, did not include any references to specific people and used language related to order and stability 24 times. The linguistic features of the message displayed the different reactions of the two parties in their orientation to change and responsibility.

Perhaps the most powerful argument, as mentioned above, for using textual analysis is the unobtrusive nature of the method. You can, without influencing reactions from anyone, read and gain useful cultural data. Much can be learned from organizational documents and artifacts such as memos, written histories, and newsletters or even oral texts such as speeches or videos. Textual analysis also could be used to investigate a culture that no longer exists, or to analyze the past of a current organization through archival material. So, as you might imagine, wise leaders and consultants who want to be effective directors will do their homework at this stage. To make the most of a textual analysis, follow these four guidelines:

1. Determine Credible “Text(s)” for Analysis

Locating a credible text involves several key factors. First, consider the salience or importance in the life of the organization. For example, if you examine newsletters, a salient sample may need to include newsletters from both before and after a major change. Or salience may mean samples from various stages or important periods in the history and annual event calendar of the organization. Second, gain a representative sample. It is dangerous to draw conclusions from a single artifact or even from a small sample. The danger is much like that to be found in basing your understanding of an organization on one person’s views. Recall a major goal in shifting from informal to more formal cultural analysis is to engage in practices that will catch our tendency to base conclusions on limited data. Third, it is also important to consider official and unofficial samples of written artifacts. In one organization we had done an extensive analysis of a large sample of employee newsletters only to find that most employees considered the newsletter to be corporate propaganda and never read it. We then sought what culture members considered to be more authentic examples of corporate texts as viewed by culture members. You need to ask yourself who produced a particular text, and for what reason, in deciding whether it is a credible text for cultural analysis. A fourth consideration involves organizational communication style. Organizational communication style was one of the cultural elements described in Chapter 4. If an organization has a written culture, you should have an abundance of texts to choose from—from policies and procedures manuals to memos to annual reports. If an organization style is more oral or interpersonal, you may have to focus on different types of texts. You may be able to find copies of speech texts or be able to find videos

92 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

of corporate interactions. In fact, if there is a major focus on face-to-face communication, you will need to discern whether texts are going to be an important source of cultural data at all. Conversely, in an organization whose communication style is electronic, texts to analyze may include e-mail records, Facebook, or other electronic system transactions. In virtual organizations, the primary texts may be from email threads and chats. Consider completing Rehearsal 5.1 to aid you in identifying texts.

Rehearsal 5.1 Selecting Texts for Analysis

Purpose: Identify relevant texts for analysis.

Steps:

1. Review the list of possible organizational texts to analyze. 2. Put a check mark by those that you have access to in the organization. 3. Put check marks by those that observation and interviews suggest are salient, representative, official

vs. unofficial. 4. Jot down your sense of the type of cultural elements present (values, heroes, rituals, humor, etc.).

Example Texts Access? Salient? Representative? Official or Unofficial? Cultural Elements? Newsletter Annual report Website Mission statement Bulletin boards Employee handbook E-mail transmissions Transcripts of speeches Facebook Memos Affirmative action/diversity statement Employee orientation materials or videos Other

2. Choose Your Method of Analysis

Your selection of a text will also influence the type of analysis method that best fits. Here we further explore the three types to aid you discerning the one or ones most appropriate for your analysis.

Content Analysis. As reviewed above, you will probably also use this method, not just for organizational texts such as a newsletter, but also for analyzing your field notes and interview transcripts or summaries. The basic technique of content analysis is to let categories emerge from the elements of culture or from your data, and then use those categories to count some feature of the text. You might have a sense after 10 to 15 interviews that you have heard three values most frequently: teamwork, excellence, and accountability. You will go back through the interview notes and summaries with these categories in mind, and perhaps a fourth category of “other”. You will count the number of times each of the three values was mentioned, and place a tally mark beside that category for each time it was mentioned. When you encounter other values in

Method Acting 93

addition to the three you have chosen as categories, you will place a tally mark by the “other” category. If at the end of the process you find that “other” is larger than any of the three categories you started with, you might need to go back through the notes and decide whether there is another category you need to break out of the “other” category to represent the data accurately. Content analysis is often a trial-and-error process in which you may need to revise the category structure one or two times until you find the categories that fit your data best (see Rehearsal 5.2). Researchers also have the option to use software to aid in content analysis. Thus, if your texts are in electronic format (newsletters, typed field notes, etc.), programs such as Diction 7.0 (Hart, 2000, 2001) enable you to process 30,000 words in 1 minute. This type of software can examine texts for such features as “commonality”—language highlighting the agreed-upon values of a group, or “certainty”—language indicating resoluteness, inflexibility, and completeness.

Rhetorical Analysis. Although there are many systems of rhetorical analysis, its simplest form involves an in-depth analysis of a specific speech or text given by an identifiable cultural figure. Since the process is so involved, you would use this only on a very significant organizational text. For example, an exploration of a web page might surface videos and/or texts of major speeches by the current (or founding) CEO. A rhetorical analysis might be useful to discern the various elements of culture present, such as values, heroes, language, and history. In one instance, a class analysis of a university web site surfaced a former Chancellor’s speeches on addressing and improving race relations in the community. The Chancellor, over a ten-year period, used the phrase “You have to face it to fix it.” In subsequent analysis, effort was made to discern if other elements of culture on the campus echoed this language and value set. Students learned of on-going community surveys related to race, the forming of an Institute on Race and Ethnicity, as well as weekly faculty and staff meetings (Anderson Institute on Race and Ethnicity, n.d.).

A rhetorical analysis might also be useful to explore the communicative function of serving both individual and organizational interests. For instance, Mynster and Edwards (2014) present a rhetorical analysis of a non- profit, Amnesty International Denmark (AID). Their analysis revealed how members, relying on AID moral positions, construct a view of the world that offers them a sense of collective identity, and certainty. This same high moral ground creates a broad basis for support. This type of analysis can also be useful if you are studying an international corporation’s public communication. For instance, one might study United Airlines’ CEO, Oscar Munoz statements to congress and stockholders in light of the 2017 incident involving the forced removal of a passenger from a plane. In rhetorical analysis you would find out more about Munoz and the events leading up to his appearance on Capitol Hill. What factors provide context for his appearance? Then with that appropriate background information you would analyze the message itself. What was the purpose of the speech? What arguments or persuasive appeals were made? How were they supported? What type of evidence was offered? What cultural elements were woven into the speech—History? Values? Metaphors? Symbols? Finally, you would analyze the results of the speech. How effective was he in providing an apology? How did employees respond? What stories are still told about United and this event? In brief, some of you might use a form of rhetorical analysis to gain insight to values, and history in relation to a speech or statement made by a leader.

Discourse Analysis. This method of textual analysis, as reviewed above, may involve a focus on speech acts, turns in a conversation, or patterns of responses. Thus, you may focus on meeting notes, speeches, corporate apologies, and/or mission statements. For instance, if a theme emerged in newsletters about a value set on the environment, attention could be given to discourse to determine if the environment is indeed viewed as a significant “stakeholder”. Lischinsky (2015), in a study in this vein, determined that the organizational value claimed in relation to the environment was not present in actual practices. Your use of this method might also explore minority groups. In a study by Jones (2017) attention was given to the discourse of minority business leaders. The analysis enabled her to identify the way these leaders resisted dominant discourses concerning black businesses. Such an analysis takes a critical turn in that attention is given to how power structures are challenged. Following Fowler (1986), a critical turn may involve

94 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

identifying a small but culturally significant text, analyzing the language and grammatical patterns to reveal an underlying system logic. Although Fowler includes a number of linguistic features in his system, the following are particularly relevant to cultural analysis:

• Pronoun use: As corporate leaders talk and write; do they talk about “we” or “I”? Do they refer to employees as “them”? Do they use pronouns such as “you” that have the effect of finger pointing?

• Active or passive verb use: Do decision makers accept accountability for their actions by using names and active verbs or do they hide behind passive verbs that fail to identify agents of actions? (The decision was made to eliminate 600 jobs.)

• Overuse or underuse of certain words or type of words: For example, in a public statement Angi analyzed, leaders in one embattled organization used the terms “rational”, “orderly”, and “proper” more than 17 times. This was indicative of their resistance to cultural change led by the members of the culture.

• Verb tense: Do public statements talk more about the past with past tense or more about the future with future tense?

Like other textual analysis processes, the key is to discern various elements of culture and then patterns that emerge that provide insight to what is being created in communicative processes. See Rehearsal 5.3 for a way to practice this type of analysis.

3. Determine Your Unit of Measurement

As you perform content analysis on a text, either by hand or computer, you must decide your measurement unit. What are you counting? In the example above, your unit of analysis was “mentions” in a newsletter or an interview. In analyzing printed texts, different measurements might be more appropriate. You could count the number of pictures featuring management versus employees, or men versus women, or Caucasians versus African Americans. You could count the number of stories on certain subjects, or the number of column inches devoted to various topics. If you were analyzing a smaller document such as a speech, you might focus on counting actual words—how often the word “excellent” appeared in a 10-minute speech, for example. Within a lengthy newsletter, you may want to focus on one area, such as messages from the president or on member spotlights. You can analyze a written artifact at a micro or macro level. You might, for example, count the number of stories in an overall newsletter on various topics (macro analysis) or analyze specific words used in a representative paragraph (microanalysis). You may actually measure square centimeters or inches or do a word count; however, the percentage of an entire newsletter devoted to the issue in comparison to other topics is perhaps more telling. The key here is to use this analysis as “one gauge” of what is important to the organization, based on amount of space allotted in publications.

4. Link the Results of Your Analysis Back to Cultural Elements and Cultural Significance

Like the interview and observation processes, this step is about summarizing your data into a form that is usable. For instance, you might have entries that state the following:

Heroes: Three of the four newsletters gave one eighth of their space to discussing the ex-CEO. This amount of space was about two times as much as for any other person or issue. Interview summaries and articles written by this ex-CEO all suggest that he remains a hero and perhaps a legend of sorts for this organization.

Method Acting 95

Values: One value was mentioned 43 times in interviews, four times as often as any other value discussed by employees.

Language: Certain terms are used repeatedly in discussing employee pay and benefit concerns. Such terms as “tenure”, “earned”, and “seen potential” are words used by management to explain a policy change that reduces benefits for employees who have less than 2 years of history with the organization.

5. Check Your Interpretations of the Text

At the informal level, as we began this unit, we indicated that all of us engage in informal analysis. We read various texts and draw conclusions. This more intentional, formal process is intended to aid us in checking our first takes, or initial interpretations. To that end, in this final step, take time to reflect on your analysis. You might find, for example, that your initial thoughts about the way a change was talked about in newsletters was not congruent with what was experienced on the ground. You should make a list of questions about confusing or contradictory issues. For example, you might find an espoused value in the written documents that is different from the values expressed in employee interviews. The mission statement, for example, might stress the importance of sustainability or community engagement, yet there is not one picture or story in the newsletter that reflects these values. Thus, you should ground interpretations from textual analysis back into the native perspective by asking organizational members about their interpretations.

Summary

Systematic analyses of organizational texts are similar to the intense work an actor does with a script prior to crafting a performance. Textual analysis is an unobtrusive research method and can reveal a great deal about an organization. Texts, in themselves, have a type of agency, that is like human actors, are part of the constitutive process of organizing and organizations. This chapter stressed the following points:

1. Three systematic ways to analyze organizational texts:

• Content analysis. • Rhetorical analysis. • Discourse analysis.

2. It is vital that you (a) choose a sufficient sample of credible texts to analyse; (b) determine which of the three main analysis method)(s) fit your purpose; (c) determine your unit of measurement, and (d) tie your analysis back to elements and cultural significance.

Rehearsal 5.2 Content Analysis

Purpose: To gain experience in noting the types of cultural elements that can be found in various organizational artifacts.

Directions:

1. Identify an artifact for analysis (newsletter, etc.). 2. Analyze the artifact using content analysis.

96 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

• Determine the unit of analysis or your focus within the text. • Pay attention to the amount of space devoted to certain issues from one document to the next. • Identify and give examples of specific cultural elements. • Make a list of questions about confusing or contradictory issues.

3. Write a brief summary of insights about at least three of the elements. 4. Write down specific challenges and questions you faced in the process. These issues can be shared

with a colleague or instructor who is working with you in this process.

Rehearsal 5.3 Discourse Analysis

Purpose: To gain experience in using discourse analysis in cultural studies

Directions: Compare the following language features in two organizational texts. You may identify your own or consider mission and company information from similar and/or different types of organizations such as Tom’s Shoes – (http://www.tomsshoes.com/corporate-information) versus Nike Shoes (http://www.nikebiz.com/company_overview/) and/or GM Automotive (http://www.gm.com/cor porate/) versus Toyota (http://www.toyota.com/about/our_values/). As you examine mission statements and corporate philosophies, pay attention to such language features as:

• Pronoun use. • Passive or active voice. • Words that are overused or underused. • Verb tense—past, present, future.

What differences do you note in these texts? Commonalities? What tentative inferences might you draw about how the corporate cultures differ?

Discussion Questions

1. Make an argument why observation is a logical starting point for a cultural analysis, and then make an argument why textual analysis is the best starting point.

2. Why should you make sure that a text is meaningful or salient to organizational members before you draw conclusions from it about the culture? Brainstorm about texts that would be most meaningful in the organization you are studying.

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using written surveys in the analysis of organizational culture. 4. Brainstorm about artifacts you could observe that would reveal important things about the organizational

culture. 5. How can our involvement with an organization in performing a cultural analysis actually affect the

organization and the individuals in it? 6. Give an example of a situation in which you might want to perform a rhetorical analysis of an

organizational text. A discourse analysis? 7. How might the process of a formal textual analysis aid you in becoming a more ethical, and credible

member in the culture?

Method Acting 97

http://www.tomsshoes.com/

http://www.nikebiz.com/

http://www.gm.com/

http://www.toyota.com/

http://www.nikebiz.com/

References

Aggerholm, H. K., & Asmuß, B. (2016). A practice perspective on strategic communication. Journal of Communication Management, 20(3), 195–214. doi:10.1108/JCOM-07-2015-0052

Anderson Institute on Race and Ethnicity. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://ualr.edu/race-ethnicity/archive-our-beginning/ Brandhorst, J. K., & Jennings, F. J. (2016). Fighting for funding: Values advocacy and planned parenthood’s right-to-life. Public Relations Review, 42(4), 723–733. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.06.002

Brenton, A. (1993). Demystifying the magic of language: Critical linguistic case analysis of legitimization of authority. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 21, 227–244. doi:10.1080/00909889309365369

Cooren, F. (2004). Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings. Organization, 11, 373–393. doi:10.1177/1350508404041998

Fähnrich, B., Janssen Daniy, C., Nothhaft, H. (2015). The German plagiarism crisis: Defending and explaining the workings of scholarship on the front stage. Journal of Communication Management, 19(1), 20–38. doi:10.1108/JCOM-11- 2013-0081

Fowler, R. (1986). Linguistic criticism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hart, R. P. (2000). DICTION 5.0: The text-analysis program. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hart, R. P. (2001). Redeveloping DICTION: Theoretical considerations. In M. D. West (Ed.), Theory, method, and practice in computer content analysis (pp. 43–60). New York, NY: Springer.

Jones, N. (2017). Rhetorical narratives of black entrepreneurs: The business of race, agency, and cultural empowerment. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 31(3), 319–349. doi:10.1177/1050651917695540

Lischinsky, A. (2015). What is the environment doing in my report? Analyzing the environment-as-stakeholder thesis through corpus linguistics. Environmental Communication, 9(4), 539–559. doi:10.1080/17524032.2014.967705

Mishra, K., Boynton, L., & Mishra, A. (2014). Driving employee engagement: The expanded role of internal commu- nications. International Journal of Business Communication, 51(2), 183–202. doi:10.1177/232948841452539

Mynster, A. S., & Edwards, L. (2014). Building blocks of individual biography? Non-governmental organizational communication in reflexive modernity. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(3), 319–346. doi:10.1177/ 0893318914530673

Smithson, J., & Venette, S. (2013). Stonewalling as an image-defense strategy: A critical examination of BP’s response to the deepwater horizon explosion. Communication Studies, 64(4), 395–410. doi:10.1080/10510974.2013.770409

Strasberg, L. (1987). A dream of passion: The development of the method. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Ulmer, R., Sellnow, T., & Seeger, M. (2009). Crisis communication and renewal: Understanding the potential for positive outcomes in crisis communication. In R. Heath & D. O’Hair (Eds.),Handbook of risk and crisis communication (pp. 302–322). New York, NY: Routledge.

Ulmer, R., Sellnow, T., & Seeger, M. (2015). Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Van Maanan, J. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative research methods for organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 520–526. doi:10.2307/2392358

Wasson, C. (2004). The paradoxical language of enterprise. Critical Discourse Studies, 1(2), 175–199. doi:10.1080/ 1740590042000302067

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

98 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

http://ualr.edu/

Chapter 6

Method Acting Observation

The fourth step of the OCA (Organizational Culture in Action) model, “Use a variety of methods to collect cultural data”, is continued by discussing the process of observation. Like the other methods, the intent is to improve on processes we use each day. Four observation roles (i.e., complete observer, observer-participant, participant-observer, complete participant) are discussed in terms of advantages and disadvantages including ethical consideration. Seven guidelines to improve the observation process are discussed. A few examples include (a) include observations of formal meetings, rituals, as well as less formal interactions; (b) use brackets to help you distinguish descriptions and interpreta- tions; and (c) use insiders to check your understanding of jargon and your inferences about cultural elements. While rites and rituals are particularly rich sites for gathering observational cultural data, you should remain aware of the need to explore and gather information about all of the elements of culture.

Step Three: Use Multiple Data Collection Methods to Understand the Elements of Culture

To concentrate, one must have an object of concentration; one cannot concentrate abstractly. The simple presence of an object will not induce concentration. If you look at a chair and try to concentrate, nothing will happen. If you start asking yourself simple questions—How wide is the chair? How tall is it? and so on—simple concentration will take place.

(Strasberg, A Dream of Passion, 1987, p. 131)

Objectives

• Identify four major observation roles. • Describe ways to enhance the validity and reliability of observation data. • Practice recording observations in field notes.

Stage Terms

• Obtrusive and unobtrusive observation. • Complete observer. • Observer participant. • Participant observer. • Complete participant. • Field notes. • Bracketing.

Observation

Imagine an actor (or a director) who never took the time to go behind the scenes, attend to the ways others interact on the stage, or observe stage props and backdrops. We would quickly judge such an actor as incompetent. However, we all have moments when we realize that our observations may be incomplete, skewed, and/or biased. For example, based on one interaction with a colleague or observing one meeting with a new team, we may form an inaccurate overly negative or overly positive impression. However, even with such awareness it is often easier and more comfortable to maintain our casual observation and interpretation habits. We may not ever make time to pause, reflect, and develop a greater level of mindfulness about the organization we serve in every day. We may not be in the habit of asking, “what are we co-creating here?” We seek in this chapter to deepen our motivation and competence in making observations and reflecting more carefully on the organizational stage. Awareness of bias in our perceptions should motivate us to sharpen our observation skills. The goal in this chapter is to improve our understanding of and our ability to enact effective observer roles—the core or foundation of method acting and cultural analysis.

Observation is critical to method actors, as expressed by Lee Strasberg (1987). He describes actors training to concentrate on the particulars of a process that have become automatic, such as drinking a beverage. Only in concentrating on each element of the habitual behavior can the actor master the subtleties of re-creating a common behavior on stage. The actor must spend hours in analyzing and practicing a behavior in order for it to appear natural and compelling on stage. Strasberg writes, “The ability to interrupt the automatic functioning of the nerves and muscles in order to create an object’s presence for oneself . . . is part of the process of creating reality rather than imitating it” (p. 133).

What is the significance of Strasberg’s comments for our analysis process? One value of engaging in a formal cultural analysis is that we become more aware of the way our everyday interactions construct and reconstruct culture. We see, in other words, what we are creating. One way to enhance our capacity for concentration, that is seeing what we are co-creating with others, is through improving our capacity for observation. Observer roles can be categorized by examining the degree of “obtrusiveness” or degree of influence the observer has on the members of organizations. “Obtrusive” behavior is that which calls attention to the observer, affecting the flow of behavior being observed. Different behavior may be seen as obtrusive depending on the organization. For example, extensive note taking during a meeting may be the norm in certain organizations, thus taking notes during a meeting would be unlikely to influence the flow of the meeting. Conversely, such note taking during a ritual morning coffee break would be likely to trigger responses from other members of the organization. Reviews of four observation roles followed by observation guidelines are presented as ways to consider the implication of each type of observer role.

100 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

Selecting a Method of Observation

There are four major observer roles. Each role involves trade-offs based on such factors as objectivity, insight into interactions, and ethics. As you review these, be mindful of the fact that you already have engaged in these sorts of roles. Also, realize that it is not uncommon to move between different roles. In other words, entering into one type of observation role does not preclude your engaging in another type of role at some other point in time. For example, we have had students begin observation of a given non-profit as a complete observer and switch to a participant observer as they began to identify with the mission of the non- profit and get to know the staff and volunteers.

1. Complete Observer

In this role, you observe the culture with or without the organization’s knowledge and without direct interaction with members. (Please note, however, that your instructor may require you to gain permission from the organization, even if you are studying your own organization.) To use the drama metaphor, you would be an actor doing research for a role, observing behaviors of people similar to the character you are to portray. Assuming this role carries several implications:

• In traditional research terms, the researcher may have increased objectivity due to the lack of involve- ment with organization members who might bias his or her judgment.

• On the other hand, qualitative researchers would argue that the researcher would possibly also have fewer and less valid insights due to the distance from experience of members.

• The role of complete observer can raise possible ethical problems if you observe individuals without their permission, depending on the purposes of the research. If the organization studied is a professional football team, for instance, and performances are public, then the ethical concerns are less of an issue. In all instances, ethical guidelines must be observed.

• The complete observer role may be best when you do not have full access to the organization, when you have organizational permission to observe the organization, and/or when members’ knowledge of your presence would be likely to harm research objectives. For example, individuals considering a career move who are trying to learn more about a particular type of organization may find this method appropriate. If, for instance, they want to learn more about the automotive industry, they may find it useful to show up at a public event or simply to walk through public areas of the organization to learn what they can from the setting and artifacts on display.

2. Observer-Participant

In this role, you would let members know they are being observed, and you would participate partially with them in the organization. This role carries different implications:

• This role somewhat reduces objectivity due to involvement, yet possibly increases validity by interacting with organization members and gaining their insights.

• Some would question validity when members are aware of your involvement. • You may find adopting the observer-participant role places you on more solid ethical ground due to

member knowledge of your involvement. • This role is best when you have access to the organization and/or when member knowledge of your

presence would be unlikely to harm research objectives; for example, observation of meetings to understand norms and interaction patterns for the purpose of enriching the current employee handbook.

Method Acting 101

3. Participant-Observer

In this role, you let members know they are being studied, and you become fully involved in the organization. The implications of this role include the following:

• According to a traditional research perspective, it produces reduced objectivity due to high involvement in the organization.

• This role produces increased access to the views and insights of organization members, and the researcher herself begins to understand the organization from both internal and external perspectives.

• This role places similar constraints on you as an observer-participant in relation to member awareness of your involvement, yet the more organizational members accept you as a participant, the less they are aware of you as an observer.

• Since organization members are aware of your dual role (researcher and participant), you are on fairly solid ethical ground.

• This role is best when you have longer-term access to the organization and/or when member knowledge of your presence would be unlikely to harm research objectives; for example, observation of day-to-day communication to understand positive and negative patterns that would affect training interventions.

4. Complete Participant

In this final role, you become fully involved without letting members know of your observation efforts. The implications include the following:

• You have reduced objectivity due to high involvement, and have a high level of insight due to identification with members.

• Possible ethical problems would ensue because of lack of notification of research subjects, depending on purposes of the observations. For example, if you dropped in on meetings without informing those present that you were also there to evaluate and report their behaviors, then your efforts would be judged unethical because of the potential harm that could result to those present. This approach might also be inconsistent with protection of human subjects if you did not allow informed consent of your observation.

• This role is best when you have access to the organization and/or when members’ lack of knowledge of your presence would not influence the ethicality of your research purpose. For example, as a human resource department (HRD) manager you could serve and lead more effectively if you gleaned insights about norms and rules through observation of meetings and rituals.

Standards of protection of human subjects, presented in the overview to this section, are critical in cultural research, as well. If you present a cultural study to the CEO of an organization, and your study inadvertently reveals rule breaking or violation of cultural norms, it could have serious career implications for individuals you study.

One of the observation role options, “complete participant”, should stand out as the form of observation we engage in every day. If you do not inform others in the organization of your analysis efforts, you are a complete participant. As a complete participant you are doing something external analysts and researchers are challenged to justify—“clandestine data collection”. The ethical justification for an insider is based on the reality that your observation is doing what all members of organizations do, but simply doing it in a more systematic and planned manner. Nonetheless, realize that, for some, it will be appropriate to seek the permission of a supervisor to inform others of your analysis plans. For example, you may be a trainer in your organization or work in a role that has made you aware of the need for a cultural analysis. After reviewing the value of the study with those you decide to inform, you may want to move ahead with a formal analysis that would involve a participant observer role. Regardless of the role you select, the key is to be aware of the specific issues related to objectivity, validity, and ethics.

102 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

Conducting Observations

Once you have decided on the most appropriate role, review the following guides for help in the process of conducting the observation and taking notes. You need to have a rationale for what you notice and record. Rehearsal 6.2 provides questions to ask that guide you to places to observe. As a way to focus, approach the observation process with the OCA (Organizational Culture in Action) framework in mind. Recall this framework, based in constructivist theories, encourages our attention to the way enacted elements of culture (e.g., artifacts, stories, rituals) constitute the organization. Recall from Chapter 4, on these elements,the need to attend to macro and micro communicative process. We suggested in the introduction to the section on methods (see Table III.1) that your observations could focus on artifacts, interactions, language, and symbols. We also suggested cultural elements most closely tied to each of these observable organizational representa- tions (e.g., history, values, norms, heroes). Follow these seven guidelines to enhance the quality of your observations. At the end of this chapter we summarize these guidelines in a checklist to review as you conduct a practice observation in a rehearsal.

1. Make Like an Alien by Making Use of Various Techniques to become a “Stranger”

The observational ideal of “being a stranger” is of course most relevant to those studying an organization as an insider. So much is taken for granted that you may tend to overlook facets of the culture. We suggest three strategies to aid you.

a. Write notes on the mundane, seemingly unimportant events. Improving the quality of our observations involves seeing things with new eyes. We encourage this process in Rehearsal 6.3, “Alien Culture Observation”. The first step in this process is taking notes that record information that you take for granted. For example, if you were an “old-timer” in the case study that began this unit, you would take notes on the setting, the sitting arrangement, and when and how the meeting began and ended. Such detailed notes force you to see situations with new eyes.

b. Mutate metaphors by drawing comparisons or making analogies between things that you normally do not compare (Weick, 1979). Mutating metaphors involves merging or synthesizing two metaphors to capture conflicting values or rules. For example, imagine if you frequently heard members of the organization in pre meeting talk discuss two metaphors: “fast track” and “outer space”. As you listened you got the sense that “good” employees were expected to be on the fast track. However, you also heard sarcastic statements about working in outer space with the implication being that there was not a clear sense of what was up or down, since in outer space “up and down” and “north and south” are arbitrary. To capture these two metaphors, you might mutate them to create a new metaphor like “working at Organization Z is like being on a corporate ladder without ever knowing which direction is up or down.” This mutated metaphor captures a paradox that members may be aware of but have not clearly articulated—“We hear about the expectation to move up the ladder, but we do not know which way is up!” Such comparisons may clarify or serve to identify a problem in the organization. Metaphors and the mutation process may also lend insight to insights related to communicating change.

Smith and Eisenberg (1987) in their now classic study on Disneyland, for example, indicated that the root problem in employee relations might have begun when employees began seeing their work through the family rather than the drama metaphor. Rules and actions that might have been easily accepted through the drama metaphor became inappropriate when viewed through the lens of family. For example, you might replace a cast member who is incompetent in a role, but you do not fire family. If you were consulting with an organization that had operated primarily through a family metaphor, what implications would a change in that metaphor have for employees? Customers? Helping the organization manage change, as shall be discussed further in Chapter 10, might involve a metaphor mutation—if employees were able to mutate metaphors they could envision the change in a new way. For example, the mutation might involve both metaphors, “an acting family” that has to determine who is best for what role.

Method Acting 103

c. Ask “why” and “what function” questions of everything. Though you will have to decide the appropriateness of asking others these types of questions, you should at the minimum reflect on them yourself. For example, you might observe an organization’s annual retirement banquet and assume that it indicated a culture in which employee contributions were valued. However, if you asked a member of the organization about it, she might say that there is great pressure for older employees to take early retirement so that less expensive younger employees can be hired. Or she might note that it is a sign that the company values seniority more than excellent performance since the only significant award banquet in the organization is to honor retirees rather than high performers. Once you have made your own possible interpretations, you can make notes to ask organizational insiders how they would interpret the regularities you have observed. This focus on understanding function is of added importance in multinational contexts. You may for example, assume you understand the meaning of a closed door (e.g., privacy) versus an open door (e.g., no need to knock) but fail to realize that the function of these nonverbal cues are impacted by culture. Zeisal (2006), in the context of exploring observation guidelines for design engineers, stresses the influence of national culture in the observation process. National culture may mean that an open door actually should be interpreted as “do not disturb”. He goes on to stress that “to see behavior from a cultural perspective other than one’s own” involves being aware of your own cultural biases as well as knowledge of the other culture often gleaned from members of that culture (p. 211).

2. Reserve Time Immediately after Observation to Jot Down Notes if You Do Not or Cannot Take Notes while Observing

Note taking has the potential advantage of improving the quality of the information you collect on the organization. For those who rarely take notes or keep journals, the process will be awkward and feel like a waste of time. Still, the key is to make time for this process of describing what you see. You may think you will remember details later but chances are you will forget many important details. Doing a thorough cultural analysis requires noting fine details of language, artifacts, and interaction. These are best captured in detailed field notes (see Rehearsal 6.4). Another value of the process of writing involves not just putting words on paper, but taking the time to capture events, reflect on them, and in time make sense of them. An enhanced or improved cultural analysis depends on your seeing all the possible “dots” in a connect- the-dots worksheet. Sometimes you draw conclusions—connect dots—without adequate attention to details that could change the shape of the picture. To use the drama analogy, note taking may force you to see a way to interpret the language being used in the play in a different light. For example, a review of notes might reveal a pattern you had not seen concerning the way certain types of conflicts were not discussed. This newly emerged pattern might then shed light on other practices, such as premature closure on decisions to avoid conflict. As shown in this example of conflict, your notes should reflect your observation of things that did not happen that one might have expected. For example, why did no one ask questions? Why did no one talk about anything not on the formal agenda? Why don’t employees have any personal items in their offices?

3. Attempt to Include Observations of Meetings, Rituals, and So On as well as Observations of Less Formal Interactions, Events, and the Like

The tendency, for example, may be to take notes of a ribbon cutting ceremony or a company picnic but fail to record observations of communication at the coffeepot. Culture, as previously noted, reflects how members experience daily life in the organization. A weekly office meeting or daily coffeepot ritual provides just as much insight into organizational culture as an annual awards banquet. It may be that those coffeepot interactions include significant relationship development rituals that an insider may not see immediately. For instance, Mirivel and Tracy (2005) attended to pre-meeting talk and found it carried important agenda and relationship building functions. Such insights may help current employees do more to engage new

104 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

employees, especially as it will be discussed in the application chapter on diversity, to ensure the latter are not forced to catch on to the importance of the informal interaction rituals on their own.

4. Use Brackets [ ] to Help You Focus On Descriptions Instead of Interpretations

“Bracketing” refers to the idea of putting your first impressions, initial definitions of the culture, and inferences or insights inside of brackets. For example, your first weeks spent in observation might surface the way the lounge area has unique rituals with language you did not hear in other places in the building. These observations might prompt you to draw an interpretation or conclusion about the overall culture. Strong personalities in interviews or meetings can also prompt a researcher to draw conclusions early in the process. Indeed, our own ambiguity or uncertainty in a new organization will often prompt us to develop premature ideas. The key is to bracket these conclusions until you have used other methods and explored all of the elements.

These premature conclusions, if not set aside, can prompt you to slant your future data collection toward supporting these views. They help you separate description from your tentative interpretations as you process your observation. For example, in participant observation research on a community building organization, Gerald is regularly challenged to bracket his biases. The leaders in this organization have differing political and theological positions. The value of such foregrounding is that insight is gained into the way commu- nication functions in the social construction process. Findings surfaced, for instance, related to the way leaders used stories and rituals to reframe dialectic tensions to work together across historic ethnic and denominational barriers (Driskill & Camp, 2006; Driskill, Meyer, & Mirivel, 2012). Using Gerald’s field notes, we provide four different types of bracketed information that might occur while taking notes. Under each type of bracketing you will first see an example of a brief descriptive note and the bracketed information provides an example of a type of information you might bracket.

a. Questions to ask (other) insiders: There were several new faces today, including two guests. [How would you compare and contrast what happens in a meeting when visitors or newcomers are present versus those times when just the old-timers are there?]

b. Possible paradoxes, contradictions, root metaphor(s): The meeting facilitator briefly introduced the guests who spoke about a recent statewide political initiative. [In past interviews I recall hearing discussions about being cautious about inviting guests to make presentations. I am not clear on the criteria being used]

c. Later comparisons—see how your perceptions change: The meeting ended with a ritual prayer and then with an additional prayer over a leader who was moving to another state to take on an international role in the unity movement. [The send-off made me think about other meetings that included a special send- off. This particular send-off makes me want to compare the differences in that a value emerged that I had not heard before—a global vision of cooperation among faith leaders. The member seems to be in position to be a hero for this movement.]

d. Personal reactions/differences: The guest speakers talked about positive and negative reactions to their political initiative. [I was not fully comfortable with the presentation. I am not sure why, perhaps it was that I did not get to hear the full story, the rationale of their opponents. Has this group ever considered inviting those with divergent views to their meetings? This insight makes me consider business organizations that end up with groupthink because they do not have someone or charge someone to voice divergent views.]

5. If a Newcomer or an Outsider, Rely On Insiders to Check Your Understanding of Jargon and Your Inferences about Cultural Elements

Use informal interviews to check if your understanding is accurate. We will discuss the role of interviews in greater depth; this guide is a reminder that observation alone is not sufficient. Often your own interpretation of an artifact or event may be quite different from the way an insider (or a different insider) might interpret the same event. For example, in one student culture analysis, conclusions were drawn about an organization’s

Method Acting 105

culture from its newsletter, only to discover later that no one read the newsletter, thus it had little impact on culture at the grassroots level. Another cultural analysis included a conclusion based on the many positive memos that the CEO sent to employees. They inferred that the culture was positive and supportive. When checking this conclusion with employees, they found that the memos from the CEO had become a joke because they were sent so frequently and so indiscriminately.

6. Review Your Notes to Determine if They Allow You to Draw Reasonable Inferences about Most of the Cultural Elements from Your Notes

For example, do the notes of a meeting provide enough detail for you to make relatively valid inferences about communication rules? For instance, take a minute to read an edited version of the notes used in one of the previous guidelines: There were several new faces at the meeting today, including two guests. The meeting facilitator briefly introduced the guests, who spoke about a recent statewide political initiative. The guest speakers talked about positive and negative reactions to their political initiative. [I was not comfortable with the presentation because I did not get to hear the rationale of their opponents]. The meeting ended with a ritual prayer and with an additional prayer over a leader who was moving to another state to take on an eventual international role in the unity movement.

What inferences could you draw from just this brief section of notes? Notice how even a brief section reveals elements of the culture (e.g., meeting- ending rituals). However, if the above were the entire entry, what questions would you have? What would you have missed? A lack of detail about how the speakers were introduced, as well as participant interactions or reactions to the speaker, is also evident. Also, notice how we excluded brackets that were introduced in the earlier example. The lack of brackets around information means that a later review of these notes would be unlikely to resurface the same questions and observations. If you review notes a week or two later and see a lack of detail, begin to make adjustments. And, again, remember that the goal is to spend a season being a more careful, note-taking observer. This process will pay off in the form of new insights.

7. Categorize Notes by Enacted Elements

We reviewed elements of culture in Chapter 4. At this point in your data collection, you should take a first step in analysis by entering relevant data from your notes based on these categories (e.g., rules, heroes, history). We provide a Rehearsal activity at the end of this chapter to move you down the road of “performing culture”. In particular, as you classify data into elements, you should be aware of two pragmatic goals. First, classifying data into cultural element categories will serve to guide additional data collection by helping you see gaps. For instance, if you have 2 weeks of notes and have been unable to identify a hero or communication rule, you should let this gap prompt closer and more varied (more times, situations) observations. Second, classifying data into element categories will aid you in the creation of an interview guide or survey. We will cover interviews and surveys in the next chapter. A good set of notes categorized by elements will aid you in gaining the most from these additional data collection practices by helping you identify areas where you need greater clarity or confirmation. For instance, you may have identified what you believe to be a major cultural hero from reading a history of the organization. However, the name of this hero never surfaces in informal discussions or formal meetings. Interviews or surveys may help you determine the relevance of the hero’s values and vision for the present.

Connections: Getting More from Rites and Rituals

A frequent and rich object of observation is the organizational rite or ritual—either a special event in the organization or a daily routine with cultural significance. As you stand backstage, consider why something as commonplace as a ritual is worth giving added attention. First, rituals are an expedient way to gain information on other elements of culture. Islam and Zyphur (2009) argue that “[a] focus on rituals expedites

106 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

the research process because, within these forms, it is possible to examine culturally rich phenomena compressed into relatively short periods” (p. 116). For example, an analysis of an annual retreat or a holiday party may reveal communication rules, heroes, and history. In either of these settings, a speaker (guest or manager) may review past events or honor certain events or employees. As you listen, you will be able to glean something about the espoused values of the organization. Second, rituals function to manage a central organizational tension: stability and change. They aid organizations in transition during a merger or internal change. They also serve to maintain norms and solidarity of values within the organization. Thus, for instance, rituals provide a way to move ahead in the midst of uncertainty about change while maintaining a semblance of order or progress in the midst of flux (Islam & Zyphur, 2009). In addition, in the context of crisis communication, the ritual of offering an apology, while in need of nuanced application, is argued as critical to effective responses and renewal strategies (Coombs, 2013).

Six major categories of rituals (Trice & Beyer, 1984) are listed in Rehearsal 6.1. As you reflect on examples in your cultural analysis and/or in your organization, be sure to decipher manifest as well as latent meanings. For instance, the manifest or obvious “surface” meaning of a retreat for organizational development might be the value the organization places on strategic planning. In contrast, the latent meaning or the hidden, less obvious meaning might relate to the value placed on renewing and reinforcing friendships in the organization. Notice how in this example, based on Trice and Beyer’s (1984) categories, one ritual can serve two functions. For example, the retreat may include a time for play and interaction that serves to bind members together—an integration function. During the same ritual, a renewal function may be served if the key speaker recognizes and reaffirms the current structure of the organization by honoring members who have “climbed the ladder”. Yet even the richness of such an analysis should only underscore an earlier point made. If your analysis focuses on a single element, even an element that holds insights for other elements, you are likely to leave the organization with a skewed or inaccurate understanding of the culture.

Rehearsal 6.1 Identifying Six Types of Rites/Rituals

Purpose: Identify various types of rituals in you organization and the elements of culture embedded in each.

Direction: State your example and then possible other elements found in the ritual. For example, a ritual of “passage” in the university might be the “tenure” process. Other cultural elements in this ritual include roles (power structures), language (title changes), and communication rules (how you are talk to colleagues and superiors about the process).

1. Passage: facilitates transition into new social roles and status (e.g., Army basic training) Example: ______________________________________________________________________ Other Elements: ________________________________________________________________

2. Degradation: dissolve social identities and power (e.g., firing and replacing) Example: ______________________________________________________________________ Other Elements: ________________________________________________________________

3. Enhancement: enhance social identities and power (e.g., training certification program) Example: ______________________________________________________________________ Other Elements: ________________________________________________________________

4. Renewal: refurbish social structures and improve their functioning (e.g., a retreat for organizational development) Example: ______________________________________________________________________ Other Elements: ________________________________________________________________

Method Acting 107

5. Conflict reduction: reduce conflict and aggression (e.g., collective bargaining) Example: ______________________________________________________________________ Other Elements: ________________________________________________________________

6. Integration: encourage and revive common feelings that bind members together and build commitment (e.g., office holiday parties) Example: ______________________________________________________________________ Other Elements: ________________________________________________________________

Summary

Observation as a cultural analysis tool is about taking a step beyond what you do every day. The key is to be more observant, more aware of what and how you see. The intent, as with other methods, is to improve our mindfulness and effectiveness in asking the question “what we are co-creating here?” Thus, in systematic observation, we encourage a formal recording of detailed field notes. At the end of this chapter we provide additional rehearsals aimed at helping you in the observation process in general and the note-taking process in particular. As you engage in these activities and other observation efforts, you should have a better sense of how to apply the major ideas presented in this chapter.

1. There are four observation roles (i.e., complete observer, observer-participant, participant-observer, complete participant). Each has advantages and disadvantages.

2. Seven guidelines should aid you in the observation process.

a. Make like an alien by making use of various techniques to become a “stranger”. b. Take notes while observing or reserve time immediately after observation. c. Include observations of formal meetings, rituals, and the like, as well as less formal interactions. d. Use brackets to help you distinguish descriptions and interpretations. Bracket items such as

questions, possible paradoxes, later comparisons, and personal reactions/differences. e. Use insiders to check your understanding of jargon and your inferences about cultural elements. f. Review your notes to draw inferences about the cultural elements. g. Categorize notes by elements to guide additional data collection to fill gaps; create interview guides

or surveys based on your analysis of data in element categories.

3. Rites and rituals are particularly rich sites for gathering observational cultural data; however, you should remain aware of the need to explore and gather information about all of the elements of culture.

4. As an actor with a renewed commitment to observation, if you enact the various guidelines we have suggested, you should become more adept at competent cultural performance.

Rehearsal 6.2 A Potpourri of Things to Observe in Cultural Analysis

Purpose: Practice observing a variety of organization settings and events that provide insight to elements of culture.

Directions: Review the following list of questions. Select two or three and attempt answers to these based on the organization you are analyzing.

1. What kind of building houses the organization? What impression does it convey to employees? Visitors?

108 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

2. What kind of parking is available? Is there any reserved parking? For whom? Is there any pattern of vehicles in the parking lot?

3. What does the entry look like? What kind of security? A receptionist? 4. Is there a waiting area for visitors? Does it have chairs? What kind of furniture? What kind of

reading material? What is on the walls? 5. How is office space configured? Are there “premium” offices like corner spaces or windows with a

better view? Who has these offices? 6. Are there offices or cubicles? Are office doors open or shut? 7. Is workspace nondescript or are there personal items? What type of personal items do employees

have in their spaces? 8. Do people seem to be working alone or in groups? 9. Are there any items on the walls depicting the history? Photographs of founders? Pictures of early

physical locations? 10. Are there pictures of anyone in public office spaces? Of whom? Why? 11. What types of common areas are present? Conference rooms? Break rooms or lounges? Does

access to these spaces seem to be restricted? 12. What is in the break room? Do people seem to use it? 13. What is on the bulletin boards? 14. What type of technology do members use? Are there computers on every desk? Recent or

vintage? Do employees carry PDAs? Pagers? Cell phones? 15. What do people wear? Do there seem to be status differences indicated by dress? Is dress formal or casual? 16. How do people address one another? First names? Level of formality? 17. Observe a meeting. Where do people sit? Who speaks at the meeting and who does not? Do there seem

to be cliques supporting different points of view? Is conflict expressed openly? How long domeetings last? 18. Are there awards on the walls? Corporate awards? Individual awards? Team awards? 19. Is there anything in this office to indicate uniqueness based on geographic area, or could this office

just as easily be located in Boston as Santa Fe? 20. How much diversity do you observe by race/ethnicity, gender, age, dress?

Rehearsal 6.3 Alien Culture Observation

Purpose: To develop skills in qualitative data collection and analysis through observing an unfamiliar culture and to become experientially familiar with the concept of seeing a culture through “alien” eyes. The process followed here is a short version of each of the steps of a cultural analysis. In Chapter 7, we provide a follow up activity designed to support the process of developing interview and possibly survey questions in relation to the observation process below.

Steps:

1. Identify a culture that

a. you consider “alien” to your own b. you have limited or no existing knowledge about c. would not be dangerous to observe (!) d. you would most likely not observe if not encouraged to by this Rehearsal.

Method Acting 109

2. Arrange a time to visit the culture

a. Allow a minimum of 1–2 hours. b. Be sure to gain permission if needed. c. Take a friend with you if needed for comfort or “fun”.

3. Be as unobtrusive as possible

Remember that unobtrusive behavior depends on the organization. For example, if you visit an open Weight Watchers meeting, unobtrusive might mean keeping things on a first-name basis and not inquiring too much about the background of other participants. In contrast, unobtrusive in an accounting firm might be quietly taking notes during a meeting with the partners.

4. Take field notes during and/or after the observation

a. Jot down descriptive information related to both verbal and nonverbal communication. b. Bracket [-] information that relates to your own personal reactions, feelings, interpretations. c. An example field note entry from an observation of the UK Day Care might look like this:

The corner of the room is blocked off from the rest of the larger room. The children in the area are in the 2-year-old age group. [I find it strange that they spend most of their day away from older and younger kids]. In the morning, all of the children are greeted with a hug, some children stood limply and did not return the hug while others squeezed back tightly. [Why don’t they ask if the child wants to be hugged?] A teacher runs from one side of the area to catch a child about to hit another child with a block. He makes it in time and after removing the block takes the little girl’s hand and has her softly touch the little boy she was about to hit. The teacher says, “Remember hands are for touching softly, not for hitting and hurting.” [Why didn’t he say anything about the boy taking the block from the girl!]

5. Develop a summary that

a. provides example data related to at least three of the elements of culture

For example:

1. Rules: Redirect aggression by verbally and nonverbally demonstrating appropriate use of hands. Several teachers were observed telling a child how to touch.

2. Physical Setting: The setup of the room provides a way for age-specific teaching and interaction to occur.

3. Rituals: Morning hugs are part of the daily activities.

b. interprets the data (organized by elements) by stating an overall theme

For example: “Positive use of touch is a mandated and encouraged behavior. Rules and rituals indicate that teachers should initiate touch often during the day as well as encourage children to touch each other in appropriate ways.”

c. infers an overall definition of the culture based on themes and elements

Examples: A paradox, “The UK Day Care restricts inter-age touching but mandates adult-child touching.” Or a root metaphor, “The UK Day Care is like…”

6. Prepare a summary to discuss with a mentor, a colleague, or an instructor.

110 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

Rehearsal 6.4 Note-Taking Guidelines

Purpose: Enhance observations abilities by reviewing guidelines.

Action steps: A review of note-taking guidelines is provided in a checklist to assist you. Use this checklist to review the field notes you compiled in the “Alien Culture” assignment to be sure you followed all the guidelines about systematic observation.

___1. Make like an alien by making use of various techniques to become a “stranger”.

a. Write notes on the mundane. b. Mutate metaphors. c. Ask “why” and “what function” questions of everything.

___2. If you do not or cannot take notes while observing, reserve time immediately after observation to jot down notes.

___3. Attempt to include observations of meetings, rituals, and so on, as well as observations of less formal interactions, events, and more.

___4. Use brackets [-] to help you focus on descriptions instead of interpretations. Use brackets for the following:

a. questions to ask (other) insiders b. possible paradoxes, contradictions, root metaphors c. later comparisons—see how your perceptions change d. personal reactions/differences.

___5. If a newcomer or outsider, make use of insiders to check your understanding of jargon and your inferences about rules and values, and so on.

___6. Review your notes to determine if you can draw reasonable inferences about most of the cultural elements from your notes.

___7. Categorize notes by elements to

a. guide additional data collection to fill gaps b. create interview guides or surveys based on your analysis of data in element categories.

Discussion Questions

1. Discuss advantages and disadvantages of various observational roles (complete observer, observer/ participant, participant/observer or complete participant).

2. Why is it important to adopt an “alien” perspective when doing cultural observation? How do you accomplish this as a cultural insider?

3. Why is it important to observe daily routine rituals within an organization as well as more formal events and celebrations to understand the organizational culture?

4. Why are rituals a rich source of cultural data?

Method Acting 111

References

Coombs, W. (2013). An overview of challenges facing collective apologies: Their use in the corporate world. At the Interface/Probing the Boundaries, 86, 229–247.

Driskill, G., & Camp, J. (2006). The Nehemiah Project: A case study of a unity movement among Christian churches in central Arkansas. Journal of Communication and Religion, 29, 445–483.

Islam, G., & Zyphur, M. (2009). Rituals in organizations: A review and expansion of current theory.Group & Organization Management, 34(1), 114–139. doi:10.1177/1059601108329717

Mirivel, J. C., & Tracy, K. (2005). Premeeting talk: An organizationally crucial form of talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 1–34. doi:10.1002/9781444303094

Smith, R., & Eisenberg, E. (1987). Conflict at Disneyland: A root-metaphor analysis. Communication Monographs, 54, 365–380. doi:10.1080/03637758709390239

Strasberg, L. (1987). A dream of passion: The development of the method. Boston: Little, Brown. Trice, H., & Beyer, J. (1984). Studying organizational cultures through rites and ceremonials. Academy of Management Review, 9, 653–669. doi:10.5465/AMR.1984.4277391

Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Zeisal, J. (2006). Inquiry by design: Environment/behavior/neuroscience in architecture, interiors, landscape, and planning (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

112 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

Chapter 7

Method Acting Interviews and Surveys

Asking questions is part of everyday life in organizations. Improving the formal interview process can aid us in our everyday interactions. The interview is an essential technique in gaining cultural knowledge because of its ability to allow you to learn from members about their interpretations and meanings. Several key factors, principles, and guidelines relevant to the process are introduced. Interviewers need to adapt to the varied levels of consciousness about why members think and act as they do in the organization. Furthermore, the quality of interview data is dependent not just on rapport or technique and preparation, but on one’s ability to evaluate data in light of other cultural data gained from observations and texts. Six interviewing principles are covered. A few examples include the role of building rapport, avoiding common problem questions, and the role of probing questions. The value and option of combining qualitative methods with quantitative surveys is explored in light of a constructivist framework.

How employees personally feel, think, and see the company and their work have a significant impact on the character and quality of their work, their relation to management, and their response to innovation and change.

(Deetz, Tracy, and Simpson, Leading Organizations Through Transition, 2000, pp. 1–2)

Objectives

• Describe the challenges involved in the qualitative interview process. • Apply six general interviewing principles. • Explain the factors to consider when interviewing as a member versus as an outsider to the culture. • State the five principles for conducting ethnographic interviews. • Describe basic features of qualitative and quantitative survey.

Stage Terms

• Ethnographic interviews. • Levels of communication competence. • Open and closed questions. • Leading questions. • Rapport. • Surveys.

Step Three: Use Multiple Data Collection Methods to Understand the Elements of Culture

Method actors, like effective observers of culture, become adept at making observations. They also rely on informal interviews as part of rehearsal on stage. Communication between actors in a scene, including natural reactions and questions of each other, is at the core of the type of interviewing we introduce in this chapter. In the same way, we rely daily on informal interviews when we ask questions that occur to us to use, for instance, in a meeting about a new product or change in structure. These questions are often taken for granted as just what “needs to be asked”. Yet, even our determination as members of an organization of what “needs to be asked” is part of what constitutes the culture. We may not even consider asking certain questions because they are not the kind of questions being asked in the organization. As we explore in greater detail in Chapter 11 on ethics, Bisel (2018) presents a compelling model for organizational moral learning based in research that indicates our ethical behaviors are more than individually determined decisions about what to say or not say, do nor not do. Rather, they are constituted in the practices we create with others. Thus, for instance, he notes that in organizations where explicit talk, especially by supervisors does not include ethical reflection, then the probability of subordinates asking about and/or addressing ethical issues is reduced (Zanin, Bisel, & Adame, 2016). Therefore, we find the process of asking better cultural analysis questions, as an insider or outsider to the organization, to be more than simply an effort to learn about the culture. We introduce you to ways to sharpen your informal, as well as your more formal, interviewing techniques. We then move to discuss the option of developing surveys. In this process, learning to ask better questions influences both researchers and those involved in responding to questions.

Like observations, interviews can range in their degree of formality and obtrusiveness. “Ethnographic interviews” are by definition best when both participants view them as a “friendly conversation” as opposed to an actual interview. In fact, if an informal interview with a co-worker became a series of direct questions, fired one after another, your colleague might shut down at some point by saying, “Hey, what is this, an interview?” To return to the director metaphor, if the actors on stage sense you are “after them”, out to put them on the spot, they will be less likely to help you understand what is going on in their world, in the very play you are seeking to guide and direct.

Interviewing organization members about organizational culture is grounded in several assumptions:

• Organizational culture is constructed by organization members and woven deeply throughout organizational sense making. It is not the property of organizational leaders. The values and views of leaders are not culturally defining unless members of the organization share the interpretations of management.

• Organization members can talk knowledgeably and authoritatively about their own organizational experiences and meanings. Harre and Secord (1973) refer to this as the “Open Souls Doctrine”, that one unique attribute of human beings is their ability to reflect and comment on their own behavior. However, organization members vary in their degree of consciousness about communicative and organizing practices. Harris (1979) and others (Pearce, 2007) have found that individuals range in their mindfulness of and ability to discuss and reflect on their own communication. We provide examples of these differing ranges or levels

114 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

of competence (minimal, satisfactory, and optimal) later in this chapter. Thus, in your interviews, be aware of the need to adapt questions and to rely on other methods.

We first review seven general interviewing principles before delving into the particulars of cultural interviews.

Principle 1: Rapport with the Interviewee Is Critical to Gaining Candid and Valid Information

The interviewee must understand your purpose, feel some motivation to share information, feel safe, and trust you in order to share sensitive information. It is therefore essential to spend time at the start of the interview building rapport or connection with the interviewee. This initial stage should include a full description of your purpose. If there has been conflict or change in the organization, interviewees may suspect your motives or purpose even when you tell them you are trying to understand the culture. We have both had interviewees tell us they feared the interview because they believed management would use the data as a way to pave the way for further job layoffs or reorganizations, for example.

Motivating the interviewee is also important. This involves sharing the benefits of understanding culture and discussing possible ways that this information can be used to improve working conditions and/or organizational effectiveness. If interviewees trust leaders to actually use the information gained for constructive change, they are more motivated to share information. Promising to share results with employees also enhances their motivation. It is important for you to understand, however, that the greatest motivation to participate is intrinsic for the interviewee. Few employees are asked about their views or experiences in the organization. Therefore, it is not surprising that being asked to comment on the organization confers a sense of significance and inclusion. We, along with students, are continually surprised at how much participants enjoy the process of the cultural interview and how much information they are willing to share. Furthermore, we have found when we have been in the role of interviewee, the process of reflecting on questions has a subtle way of influencing our awareness of issues or concerns and various communication processes. For instance, in one interview, as Gerald was reflecting on the way conflicts were managed in his organization, he became more aware of his ethical responsibility to more openly discuss with new members conflict stories that foregrounded positive practices.

Rapport is also created through trust and security. Interviewees feel secure as you promise them the interview is confidential and as you create credibility through your communication manner. The promises you make of confidentiality must have a basis in fact. We always negotiate in advance that no raw data from our observation (field notes, surveys, documents) will be available to the organization. We also obtain agreement in advance that we will not reveal the source of interview comments or identity of employees in organizational stories. These assurances are critical to your credibility as a researcher. You must project competence and respect in order to gain this credibility with the interviewee. Table 7.1 captures various stages of rapport building. These stages serve to heighten awareness of normal aspects of the process and factors to keep in mind at each stage. Notice how the higher or more developed the rapport, the more the interview is like a partnership in the cultural analysis process. While such levels of rapport are not necessary for an effective cultural analysis, we see the value of making time to develop such relationships.

Principle 2: Select the Appropriate Wording for Your Questions

Question wording and construction are critical to eliciting the information you want. Put differently, questions point toward answers. You have to ask the right question in the right way to gain an understanding of the interviewee’s experiences and perceptions of communicative practices. Question construction, clarity and organizationally appropriate language are all keys to effective cultural interviewing.

Interview questions range across a continuum from open to closed. “Closed questions” ask for a short, specific answer. They include yes-no answers or questions that ask for a specific piece of information, such

Method Acting 115

as, “What is your title?” “Who is considered a hero in this organization?” “When was this organization founded?” Closed questions in an interview (or survey) may have value especially if they are then followed by secondary or probing questions. So, for instance, if I asked the date of the founding of the organization (a closed question), I might then ask probing and more open questions such as: “Tell me what you have heard about the founding? When is the history of the organization talked about? For what purposes? On the other hand, “open questions” such as, “What is it like to work here?” or “Tell me about something that could get you in trouble here” require more expansive answers. Cultural interviewing calls for a reliance on open question construction because you are seeking stories, metaphors, explanations, and other rich data to understand organizing and communicative practices that constitute the culture. Some questions, however, are too open to offer sufficient guidance to the interviewee. A question like, “Tell me about this organization” may be open but can also be intimidating to an interviewee who doesn’t know where to begin. Midrange open questions, like the others mentioned above, are usually the most effective.

Not only should questions be open, they also must be clear to the interviewee. Using cultural terms may seem like jargon to the average organization member. For example, instead of asking about “recognition rituals” you might ask, “How do employees get recognized here? What kinds of honors or awards are given to employees?” Or instead of asking about symbols, you might say, “What can you tell me about the signs predominantly displayed near the opening doors?” or “Describe the communication behavior of the employee who is a perfect example of what Company A stands for?” Sometimes a question in the first draft of an interview guide is confusing in its wording or hard to answer. As part of your interview preparation process, it is good to “pilot test” your interview questions with one or two employees or colleagues who are typical of the participants who will be interviewed. This piloting process ensures you will then have revised questions that maximize the value of the data collection process.

It is also important to use language appropriate in the culture you are studying. As you analyze texts and/ or observe the organization in your first step of data gathering, you need to pay attention to organizational titles, acronyms, and unique terms. Being able to use these terms appropriately in your questions gives you credibility and taps into cultural organizing practices more easily. For example, if salespeople are called associates, that is culturally significant. You should use the term “associate” in your question and ask what it means to them, when and how it is used, etc.

Table 7.1 Stages of the Rapport Process

Apprehension is a normal first stage experienced by most interviewees. To put interviewees at ease, focus on low-risk descriptive questions such as describing their job or how they came to work at the company. Adapt to each person. The key rule is to keep them talking.

Exploration is the second stage of rapport in which interviewees may test boundaries to ascertain if they can trust you. You can help them in trust building by:

• repeated explanations of your role, confidentiality, the analysis process, purpose of questions, and the recording process

• restatement of information in their language; speak as you would to someone in their culture.

Cooperation is the third stage of rapport building, in which interviewees begin to see a shared purpose for the interview. You can enhance their motivation to cooperate by describing the constructive uses of the interview and by giving attention and significance to the information they are providing.

Participation is the final stage of rapport building. The interviewee becomes an active participant in helping find ways to assist you in learning about the culture. In this stage the control and direction of the interview are shared, and it becomes more of a conversation.

116 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

Finally, you may need to adapt your questions as you ascertain through your interaction whether your interviewee has conscious awareness of organizational practices. If the interviewee has minimal competence, he may respond to many of your questions with, “I don’t know when or even why we talk about decisions. We just do.” Or “I don’t know exactly what that term signifies. That is just what we call it.” With such an individual you might need to shift your questions to describing a situation or an interaction, but not asking that interviewee to interpret or explain. With an interviewee with satisfactory competence, you could expect more explanation and interpretation, but such a person could not offer comparative judgments such as explaining why one way of making decisions was in place over another. An organization member at satisfactory competence is immersed in the current system logic and probably cannot understand the system from multiple points of view or adopt a more objective stance of seeing the organization from an outsider’s point of view. Questions for this type of interviewee might ask for interpretation of what this means within the organization or why something is considered inappropriate, but you could not ask him or her why a certain value was privileged over another potential value to guide the organization. A person with optimal competence, perhaps someone who has experience in several different cultures or someone with a more interdisciplinary back- ground, is a gold mine for an interviewer because he or she can understand the culture from multiple viewpoints and often can provide rich cultural interpretations and explanations. (See descriptions of cosmopo- litan communication, Pearce, 2007; Pearce & Pearce, 2000). The key is to adapt to your interviewee.

Principle 3: Use Probes or Follow-Up Questions to Get the Richest and Most Useful Cultural Data

For example, stories may emerge after a secondary follow-up question. An interviewee might have said that Mr. Jones is a hero in the organization because he is so compassionate. You might ask, “Can you think of an example that illustrates this compassion?” and the response may involve the interviewee sharing a specific story about a time Mr. Jones loaned a car to an employee who had recently lost his car in a wreck. Such stories will tell you more about how compassion is enacted and defined in this culture. Follow-up questions require listening carefully for small clues in answers that should be explored further. For example, let’s say you hear an answer like, “Mr. Jones would be seen as a hero by some but not others.” You need to follow up by asking: “Help me understand what you have heard or seen that explains these different perceptions.” Probes are different in cultural interviewing from strict research protocols in which every question must be asked in the same manner and order for each respondent. In a cultural interview, you learn most by following up the particulars of each answer, thus the probes may be quite different in one interview than another, even when the initial interview protocol is the same. Table 7.2 gives examples of probe questions.

Principle 4: Avoid Common Interviewing Errors

One common error is asking leading questions. Often interviewers make this mistake by giving an example when they ask a question, in order to make the question clearer. Unfortunately, the example offered tends to direct

Table 7.2 Sample Probe Questions

1. Tell me more about that. 2. Help me understand why you see it that way? 3. Please provide an example of ________? 4. What views might other members of the organization have about this story (or rule, etc.)? 5. Why is this (ritual, history, etc.) important here? 6. How might a supervisor interpret this (interaction, metaphor, etc.) versus a subordinate?

Method Acting 117

interviewees’ responses in a direction they might not have gone without the example. If you say, “What are values shared in this organization? Like, is responsibility an important value that is expected of all employ- ees?” This combination of an open and leading question to a closed question, forces the interviewee to either agree with you or think of responsibility as the primary value to be discussed. In contrast, a non-leading question might be: “What are the values you believe as important to this organization?” This question is more likely to elicit other values (e.g., diversity, profitability, creativity, etc.) that might have not have been introduced due to the closed and leading question.

A second common error in interviewing is rushing into pauses in the interviewee answer. Interviews may tend to be uncomfortable with silence. When there is a gap in conversation, we are tempted to rush in with another question or a summary that puts words in the interviewee’s mouth. Good interviewing takes patience. Some interviewees need to take time to think through responses. One of the best interviewing techniques is to remain silent while being nonverbally attentive and connected. This use of silence often encourages the interviewee to say more or to go into an answer more fully, revealing rich cultural information. One simple technique, if you tend to rush into pauses, is to quietly count to the number five to ensure you have given time for reflection. If a longer amount of time passes, perhaps 10–15 seconds, then a follow up question might be of use. Rehearsal 7.1 provides a process for practicing catching various problem questions in order to reword them.

Rehearsal 7.1 Revising Problem Questions

Purpose: Sharpen your ability to catch problem questions to reword them into effective and ethical questions.

Directions: Note whether the question is leading, loaded, and/or closed, and then reword to make it an open question likely to glean information on elements of culture.

1. Weren’t there strange or different practices you noticed when you joined this organization? 2. Is there anyone here a newcomer could learn the ropes from? 3. Does a family metaphor best describe the organization? 4. Would you say this is a positive or negative culture? 5. Aren’t meetings generally a waste of time here? 6. Don’t you think leaders here are just after profit? 7. Do you get tired of hearing gossip? 8. Just how diverse is this organization? 9. Have you ever wanted to leave this organization? 10. Are there any negative rumors you want to tell me?

A third common error is underestimating the significance of interviewer nonverbal communication. How the interviewer communicates nonverbally has a huge impact on the interviewee. Making eye contact, leaning forward, and using encouraging facial expressions and nodding give the impression of interest and attentive- ness. Distracting gestures such as checking your wristwatch or drumming your fingers can quickly shut interviewees down or cause them to shorten their answers. You also need to pay careful attention to the interviewee’s nonverbal communication, such as when facial expression or physical tension do not match the interviewee’s response to a question. We find it helpful to see the cultural interview process as giving the gift of listening. Participants value such a gift if you practice a level of nonverbal attentiveness that sends a clear message of your level of commitment to listening.

118 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

Principle 5: Consider the Implications of the Way You Record the Interview

Choosing to audio-record an interview can have implications for interviewee comfort and for data analysis. You also may need to get interviewees to sign consent forms when you tape record interviews, using forms such as we presented in Chapter 5. Table 7.3 demonstrates advantages and disadvantages of recording interviews. We generally ask the interviewee whether he minds if we record the interview. We have also used the technique of setting the recorder beside the interviewee and showing him how to turn it off. The control over the taping reduces discomfort, yet we find that few interviewees actually turn off the recorder, and in fact, they often lose consciousness of the recorder once they become engaged in the interview.

Another recording issue is whether you choose to transcribe an interview or summarize it with detailed notes about the answers. Transcribing means you write down word for word what was said in the interview. A summary means that you capture the main ideas. A summary might contain a few verbatim quotes of expressions that seemed particularly important, but it contains mostly conceptual summaries. The advantage of transcripts is that you can do more sophisticated analysis with the exact language that an interviewee used. The disadvantage is that transcripts are extremely time consuming to prepare and analyze (see Table 7.3)

Principle 6: Consider the Advantages of Interviewing with a Partner

There are advantages to interviewing with a partner. Each of you may notice different things about the interviewee’s answers and nonverbal elements. One can take notes while the other asks questions and notices nonverbal elements. The main downside of having a partner is the possible negative impact on interviewee rapport. Interviewees might feel “double-teamed”, or it might be more difficult to build as a trusting a relationship as they might have with an individual interviewer. It is also easy to inadvertently compete for leadership during the interview in a way that is confusing to the interviewee unless you have carefully planned your roles and interactions prior to the interview.

Principle 7: Consider Focus Group Interviewing

A focus group is a cross between a group discussion and an interview. A focus group usually consists of 5 to 10 members. The interviewer asks broad questions, and members are asked to discuss them. The interviewer plays the role of facilitator, constraining members who are too talkative, drawing out more reticent members, summarizing, and playing devil’s advocate. A focus group is a rich source of data because participants are stimulated by one another’s answers to think of things they would not have thought of in a one-to-one interview. In addition, a one- or two-hour focus group can then gather a great deal of rich data that may mirror some of the same insights that would have been gained from a dozen one-to-one interviews. Disadvantages include the greater complexity of scheduling, the potential for a few members to dominate the discussion, the reticence some have in talking about sensitive cultural issues before others, and the

Table 7.3 Recording Interviews

Advantages Disadvantages

Captures more detail about interviewee answers; allows you to analyze actual language patterns

May inhibit free and open communication and cause mistrust

Frees you from taking notes and allows you to give more attention to the interviewee

Takes more time to listen to interview tapes, to transcribe or summarize

You can focus on the interviewee’s nonverbal communication

You may not record impressions gained during the interview; they may be hard to recapture listening to the tape

Method Acting 119

“bandwagon effect” in which members agree with a dominant member instead of thinking of ways their own perceptions might be different. There are various forms of groupware that allow group interaction while avoiding some of the pitfalls of oral group discussion. One product we have used is facilitate.com. This web-based software allows groups to brainstorm, react to one another’s ideas, and prioritize. The facilitator can choose whether to make all comments anonymous or allow participants to see the identity of individuals who offer comments. A key in making the decision about interviews in place of one-on-one interviews may be the communication style of the organization. For example, a student learned that the large engineering firm had bi-monthly meetings that were natural times for focus groups. At the same time, she also learned that the organization was spread out over so many locations that the pragmatics of one-on-one interviews was problematic.

Special Considerations of Interviewing as an Insider or Outsider

In Chapter 2 we discussed the considerations in deciding whether to do an analysis of a culture of which you are a member, or a culture of which you are an outsider. In Chapter 6 we discussed various observer roles and how each role influences your strategy and the type of data you collect. Your relationship to an organization and its members will also impact your interviewing strategy.

Insider Considerations

If you are a member of the organization, you come to each interview with a relational context. The interviewee already knows you or at least knows you are a member of the organization. Hopefully you have a good relationship with the interviewee so will need to spend less time building rapport at the start. However, there are times that you may bring baggage. You may be part of management, and that could create social distance if you are interviewing a line employee, for instance. You may be a member of quality control, which has a perceived adversarial relationship with production. The biggest hurdle to overcome as an insider is the necessity to ask questions about things you think you already know. You must ask others about their perspectives, and you may find different parts of the organization have different conceptions of the culture than you do. It also is sometimes difficult for the interviewee to answer questions fully and directly for a fellow employee. If you ask them what employees are rewarded for, they will say, “Oh, you know that”, and you will not harvest the rich stories and details that might be shared with an outsider. It is necessary for insiders, in the introduction to the interview, to ask interviewees to treat them as if they knew nothing about the organization, and for insiders to prompt and probe during the interview just as if they did not know anything about it.

Another advantage of interviewing as an insider is that you may know more specifics to ask about and be able to start at a deeper level of questioning than an outsider could. You might be able to ask an initial question that would take an outsider two or three probes to reach. You also have more context for interpreting answers. Another negative to being an insider, however, may be confidentiality. Interviewees may be afraid that you would share answers with others in the organization, or that their answers would affect your perception of each other and your continuing work relationship. Giving assurances of con- fidentiality are especially important for an insider.

Outsider Considerations

Outsiders will find it easier to adopt a genuinely naïve position in the interview on organizational culture. They will think of questions that the insider may not think to ask because the insider’s cultural knowledge takes certain features of cultural practices for granted. The outsider will have to work harder in developing rapport and trust with the interviewee. Another disadvantage to overcome is substituting your own interpretation for the meaning within the culture. An interviewee might tell you that a stag is the representative symbol for an insurance company, and you might assume you know the reasons why, without

120 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

http://www.facilitate.com

finding what the symbol means to culture members. Therefore, probes and paraphrasing are especially important when you are an outsider interviewer to be sure that you are checking your interpretations for cultural accuracy.

Connections: Linking Observation with Interviews

In addition to the seven general interview guidelines, it is important to keep in mind the specific considerations for interviewing based both on the unique characteristics of the ethnographic interview and on the data you have already collected. Four guides are provided that should be considered as you prepare.

1. Review Data You Have Gathered On Elements of Culture to Guide Question Development

As a general rule, it is best to rely on interviews, focus groups, and/or surveys after you have gathered data via textual analysis and/or observation. This guide is based on the typical sequence of sense making: We notice something and then we ask about it to gain more detail or check our interpretations. Thus, be sure to make notes about elements of culture in which your textual analysis and/or observation notes resulted in an incomplete and/or confusing description. Then, draft questions that might aid you in gaining clarification. In particular, review your notes to check the following possible issues:

a. confusing or unclear data b. data that lacks confirmation from multiple elements c. your interpretation needs to be checked to see if it is shared by organization members d. cultural significance of texts or artifacts that you observed, but perhaps overlooked in earlier textual

understanding e. elements not readily apparent through observation, such as metaphors, stories, history, and so on.

2. Determine Members to Interview Who Represent a Variety of Perspectives (Position, Tenure, Etc.)

Our information sources, who we select to interview, may bias our interpretation of culture. At times, random interviewing can have value in ethnographic interviewing. When you choose respondents for a specific reason, you may overlook other important sources. In cultural interviewing, every member of the culture has a perspective that may be valuable. The janitor may be in a position to overhear hallway conversations throughout the building. A part-time employee may have a boundary-spanning role that would be valuable to explore.

It is important to remember in interpretive research that every interviewee “counts”. In quantitative survey research, you may treat a statistical deviant (e.g., one or two persons strongly agreeing or disagreeing with a statement on the survey while everyone else tended toward the other end) as simply an aberration to be dismissed. However, the interviewee who presents information that diverges from the mainstream might be telling you something important about the culture or subcultures within the organization.

One question our students often ask is, “How many interviews are enough?” The answer, of course, varies. It depends on the size and complexity of the organization. In small organizations (25 or fewer members), it makes sense to interview everyone or perhaps conduct two or three focus groups. In larger organizations, time constraints often necessitate sampling. The key is to aim for a sample that is as representative as possible. For example, once you know the structure of the organization, you would seek to gain representatives from each main unit or department. Then, within those departments, you would aim for meaningful representation based on demographics such as age, tenure, ethnicity, and gender. Further- more, projects may focus on a unit in a larger organization. One student examined a specialty clinic in a hospital. The hospital was home to thousands of employees, yet this clinic, while part of the larger culture,

Method Acting 121

had a unique subculture among its forty employees. This focus still required attention to gaining meaningful representation in the sampling process.

Recall that ethnographic interviewing focuses more on depth than breadth. It is important to generate “thick” and rich descriptions from fewer people rather than having more, superficial data from a larger sample, as we might do in quantitative surveys. In a practical sense, we often know we’ve done enough interviews when we conduct three or four interviews without hearing anything new, anything that we haven’t fully explored in previous interviews. Yet, if these three or four interviews did not come from an accurate sample of the organization, then the results would not be accurate.

3. Develop and Focus On Descriptive Questions

We provide six types of descriptive questions below. We encourage you to experiment by using several of these during the interview process. As open questions, they also have a way of helping the interview by providing a context for exploring organizing and communicative practices.

Grand tour questions: Take me on a tour of the company by walking me through the doors at the start of a new day.

Mini tour: Take me on a tour of . . . (a specific department or a particular event, such as a meeting). Example questions: What are the kinds of questions that are typically asked (by certain people, positions,

times, settings). Experience questions: Give me an example of experiences you have had (with, at, and/or when). Native language questions: What does the title “Associate” mean here? Asked to gain cultural definitions/uses of

specialized language. Hypothetical language: If I were to be late to a meeting, how would it be interpreted?

4. Use Contrast Questions to Understand How Interviewees Construct Meaning

Like the above descriptive questions, a contrast question invites an exploration of meaning. For example, you might ask, “What is the difference between a new employee labeled as a ‘player’ and one who is called a ’gunner’?” Such questions, as indicated above, should flow naturally from data you have already gathered. The contrast question, therefore, provides a way to gain insight to language and in this case, metaphors rich with cultural meaning. Depending on the response, and the cultural competence of the participant, you might then probe with questions about when they have heard this term used, stories told about a “gunner” versus a “player”.

In all, these four guides should give you a sense of not only the ethnographic interview process but the content of certain types of questions you might elect to ask. Explore Rehearsal 7.2 as a resource for possible questions.

Rehearsal 7.2 Sample Interview Questions for “Reading” a Culture

Purpose: Develop an interview guide based on suggested questions below. In Chapter 8, guides for interpreting data will be provided.

1. When you were a newcomer to the (name of organization), what was strange, or different, or unexpected about the way things were done here?

2. If you wanted to explain or illustrate to an outsider the essence of (name of organization) what incident(s) would you describe? Tell me more about what happened? What was said? Done?

122 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

3. What should visitors see or observe if they want to understand this organization? What would they need to understand to “get along” and feel comfortable here?

4. To whom should visitors speak if they want to understand this organization? What would you expect them to hear from this person?

5. When compared with similar organizations, what is special or distinctive about this organization? 6. What are the principal images or metaphors that people use to describe the organization? Give an

example of a time or setting when you have heard this image mentioned. What was said? Done? 7. What physical impression does the organization and its artifacts create? Does this vary from one

place to another in the organization? 8. What kinds of values are represented in the way members talk among themselves? What is said? 9. What could limit a person’s career success here?What kinds of talk might you hear to encourage success? 10. What are the ceremonies/rituals? Describe one of these? What is said? Done? 11. What are members recognized for? How is this done? 12. What language dominates everyday conversation? What words do you hear in this organization

that you wouldn’t hear at other organizations? 13. What are the dominant stories that members tell about how to get work done here? 14. What reward systems are in place? What “messages” do they send in terms of the best way to get

things done around here? 15. What are the favorite topics of informal conversation? 16. What do you know about the history of this organization? What has changed over the years?

When, if ever, are references made to the past? 17. Think of three influential people in the organization. In what ways do they enact the values of the

organization? 18. What, if any, identifiable subcultures exist in the organization? What makes them identifiable? 19. What written sources about this organization would really tell you something about what the

organization is like? 20. How do people prefer to communicate here? If there were a new policy, how would you expect

to hear about it? If your boss wanted to thank you for a good job, would you prefer him or her to tell you in a face-to-face meeting or in a note? What, if anything, would you say should not be communicated via electronic media?

21. If you heard a rumor about layoffs or a major change, how would you check it out for accuracy? 22. What kinds of talk, if any, occurs that includes reference to the surrounding environment, such as

the neighborhood, community, and/or city? 23. When do you hear the word “diversity” around here? Who uses this term? What groups typically

are considered part of diversity? What groups, if any, would feel uncomfortable being a part of this organization? Explain situations where they might feel uncomfortable.

24. When, if ever, do members of this organization interact outside of work hours? Who? What do they do?

25. What are special activities or events this organization sponsors for its members? What role do they play in creating the culture of the organization?

Now select the ones that best fit your interview goals and consider developing a few of your own: __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

Method Acting 123

Qualitative Surveys

The process of creating effective qualitative interview questions is almost identical to that of creating qualitative survey questions. Below we discuss blending qualitative and quantitative questions, but here the idea is to use the primary qualitative interview questions in a survey format. For example, imagine not being able to catch a colleague in a “friendly conversation” or even a formal interview and instead sending an e-mail survey with your questions. We have had students, who have not been able to coordinate an interview time with several participants, use this approach. The important point is that just as in an interview, you have to be sure that you gain data that you then check against other information you have gathered about communicative behaviors that constitute the culture. In this way, though you may not gain the same depth of information you would have via probes in an interview, you remain focused on gaining an in-depth understanding of the culture. A grounded analysis takes an inductive approach; as opposed to a deductive approach that assumes an existing set of categories in advance (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Furthermore, a grounded analysis challenges you to devise your own interpretation of the culture rather than one constrained by factors already loaded into a standardized survey. Four reminders for survey development that parallels interviews include the following.

• Establish appropriate rapport in the written opening by stating the value, purpose, and length of the survey as well as your means for ensuring anonymity and plans for how the data will be used.

• Include an explanation of the flow and types of questions to make sure interviewees understand your reason for asking for examples via open ended questions.

• Develop questions based on prior data as well as various question options (i.e., structural, contrast) so as to gain needed cultural information.

• Develop question clarity and appropriateness through piloting. • Be prepared to adapt to the competence level of the interviewee. • Engage participants who represent a variety of perspectives (position, tenure, age, gender, etc.).

On a final note, remember that writing responses to open questions is time-consuming; thus, it is best to narrow your survey to focus on a handful, typically 8–10, of the most important questions. In addition, you might find that an electronic survey of even fewer (4–6) key questions will glean more cultural information from a wider array of members than attempting a long list of a dozen questions will from a handful of respondents. As a general rule, we find face-to-face interviews will glean more cultural data than what is provided from an on-line, open response question. However, if the primary communication style of an organization is electronic and/or you are studying a virtual organization, this format might be your best option.

Quantitative Surveys

Based on data from textual and/or observation methods, as well as your project goals and time frames, a quantitative survey may be of value. This decision should be influenced by the such factors as the needs of the organization and perhaps also the time frame. As already indicated, we encourage using multiple methods to glean reliable and valid cultural data. Our experience with such projects is that blending open-ended questions with the quantitative, closed ended questions is the best route. In the opening to this section on methods, we mentioned survey options that are commercially available. These options rely on frameworks that may hold value depending on the focus of your project. Our one caveat—be sure that the net caste by the survey provides the cultural data you seek. In this section, we review options grounded in the constructivist approach we are attempting with the OCA model. Thus, recall that from such theories as CCO or Structuration, rather than examining variables or ways to surface the culture, we are looking for the ways the culture is enacted through varied communicative and organizing practices. The questions, thus, reflect this focus on communicative action.

124 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

Enacted Elements

The OCA model assumes the value of multiple methods in order to gather data both macro and micro level elements. We have encouraged a primary focus on using qualitative methods for gathering cultural data and then categorizing these data based on various elements. In Chapter 8 we explore a process of interpreting these enacted elements to determine what we label as “thematic action” and an “overall characterization” of the culture. The assumption is that the move from cultural data, to enacted elements, to thematic action, and then an overall characterization effectively attends to micro and macro constitutive organizing practices.

Over the past decade, we have noted how project goals and parameters may suggest the value of including a quantitative survey. For example, one organization wanted a cultural analysis focused on diversity (see Chapter 11). In the process of developing a data collection plan it became clear that gaining a wide range of perspectives with this organization, given the time frame, would only be possible via a quantitative survey. The step taken was to build this survey after first analyzing key organizational texts and conducting observations. These data were coded based on the elements of culture. Then, following the guides presented in this chapter, areas where either information on certain elements was missing, incomplete, or unclear, became the basis for wording survey questions. In addition, key concepts in Chapter 11 on Diversity were utilized to ensure exploration of communication practices relevant to this topic. Closed ended questions were also designed to be paired with a probing or secondary question. Several example questions from this survey are provided below (Table 7.4) followed by a rationale for the approach taken. Each question fits a certain type or category of question. The first question in each pair of questions utilized a strongly agree to strongly disagree response.

Several factors guided the creation of the questions in Table 7.4. The following factors should be kept in mind when developing questions. First, concerning example question 1, an effort should be made to ask questions related to exploring intertwined elements of culture. In this case, 1 focuses on rituals as the enacted values. The intent is to gather data that may have surfaced in other data collection efforts. For example, you may learn of several ceremonies, but do not have a clear sense of how they constitute the culture. This type of question provides a venue to have a wide array of participants “weigh in” on their perceptions of the presence of such rituals and the extent to which implicit or explicit values are part of this discourse. This type of question can also be used by the organization as a benchmark and perhaps returned to on an annual basis. Second, question 2 represents an effort to gain perceptions on

Table 7.4 Example Diversity Survey Questions

1. Organizational leaders utilize events such as ceremonies or meetings in order to recognize individuals who embody core values.

a. State an example of a recognition event that functioned in this way.

2. Communication during times of transition is inclusive of what will change and what will not change.

a. Provide a story about change that demonstrates the above commitment.

3. Organizational processes, norms and expectations are intentionally introduced and explained to minority members to aid in their adjustment.

a. Provide an example of one these mentoring efforts. How is it talked about by minority members?

4. Discussions about hiring and development practices include talk and action focused on improving and/or enhancing leadership diversity.

a. Provide an example of statements made during these discussions.

Method Acting 125

communication related to the dialectic of change and stability. In these types of questions, given what was learned through observation and textual analysis, the goal is to gain perceptions on how members frame inevitable dialectic tensions. Other questions might focus on a different dialectic. For example, you might ask about the extent leaders engage others in rituals that celebrate the past while anticipating a positive future (see Chapter 12). Third, questions 3 and 4 are both about specific ideas introduced in the application chapter on diversity (Chapter 9). Recall the second of the three main questions carried throughout the OCA analysis process, “What do participants want to create?” Exploring enacted elements of culture with questions likes these aids in surfacing data about the desired culture. Finally, note how each question included a secondary question seeking an example. While participants will not consistently provide the same sort of detail with an open-ended survey question as they might in an interview, we have found that rich cultural data can be gained that provides context and a grounding for interpreting the statistical data. For example, simply knowing that 70% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that rituals enact core values, is better comprehended if we learn something about those rituals—the specific ones on their mind when they responded to the question. In the same way, those providing a low response rating need to be heard and included as well, and thus the open, follow-up question gives them voice.

In summary, a quantitative survey based on elements of culture, and when appropriate, on concepts from an application such as diversity or change or leadership, may be a valuable tool. To that end, we provide additional example questions in Rehearsal 7.3 that will jump-start this process.

Summary

You rely on question-asking and responding almost every day. Method actors, like those interested in enhancing the quality of an informal interview process, must become more aware of their questions and how they interpret and respond to those they interview. The interview is an essential technique in gaining cultural knowledge because of its ability to allow you to learn from members about their interpretations and meanings. It is based on the assumption that members can comment reflectively about their own behaviors and interpretations. This chapter covered several key factors, principles, and guidelines relevant to the process.

1. Culture members may be at varying levels of consciousness about why members think and act as they do in the organization.

2. The quality of your interview data is dependent not just on rapport or technique and preparation, but on your ability to evaluate data in light of what you have learned from other players and observations.

3. Interviewers must be conscious of six interviewing principles:

• Rapport is critical. • Question wording is important for eliciting the information you want. • Probes are critical for getting deeper cultural information. • Avoid the common problems of leading questions, rushing into pauses, and discounting nonverbal

communication. • The interviewer should carefully consider different methods of recording. • Interviewing with a partner has advantages.

4. Be aware of special considerations about interviewing as a culture member or as an outsider. 5. Be sure to review the four specific ethnographic interviewing guides: (a) review data you have gathered

on elements of culture to guide question development; (b) determine members to interview who represent a variety of perspectives; (b) develop and focus on descriptive questions; and (d) use contrast questions to understand how interviewees construct meaning

6. Explore the value and option of combining qualitative methods with quantitative surveys grounded in a constructivist framework.

126 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

Rehearsal 7.3 Alien Culture Interviews/Surveys

Purpose: Recall one goal in this process is to develop questions that will give you an outsider or “alien” viewpoint, that is to see your organization with a new set of eyes. Thus, the purpose in this activity to develop this capacity of seeing your organization as an outsider. This activity focuses on developing skills in qualitative data collection and analysis through interviewing a member of an unfamiliar culture and then developing possible survey questions as well.

Steps:

1. Review your notes from your visit to the alien culture from the previous Rehearsal 6.3. If you did not conduct observations as an “alien”, you should still take time to reflect on your knowledge of this culture.

2. Determine areas in which you have confusion or lack data on a given enacted element. 3. Prepare for your interview by creating a rapport section on your interview guide. Include ways

you might build rapport through greetings, description of the purpose of the interview, explaining your role in the organization, assurances of confidentiality, general topics of the questions you plan to ask, analysis and note taking explanation, expressions of cultural interest and ignorance, and incorporating and restating informant’s terms.

4. Create the following types of questions for your interview guide, but remember you will need to adapt to the interviewee by providing more detail in the question, repeating the question, and so on.

a. one grand tour question; one native language question b. one structural question; one contrast question

5. Provide a closure/leave-taking section on your guide (appreciation, reminder of purpose and what is ahead, ask for any questions, etc.).

6. Like the observation assignment, develop a summary section that incorporates triangulated and new data and that

a. provides example data related to at least three of the elements of culture; b. interprets the data organized by elements by stating an overall theme; c. infers an overall definition of the culture based on themes and elements.

7. Reflect on the strengths and limits of observation and interviewing. What did you understand differently/in more depth after the interview? What did you observe that would have been difficult to understand solely through an interview?

8. Now consider the value of creating a quantitative survey follow up based on your findings. For example, you may have picked up on the significance of stories in relation to multiple elements (e.g., rituals, values, heroes, communication rules). These stories may also suggest communication applications that merit exploration such as leadership, diversity, change, and/or ethics. Thus, consider closed questions with the option of taking a position from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree” to such statements as:: “Stories in this organization consistently introduce shared values.” “The stories I hear around here encourage awareness of communication expectations.” They key is to develop survey questions in a way that flows from areas that merit further exploration as well as questions that provide open ended secondary questions to encourage respondents to provide examples grounded in communication.

Method Acting 127

Step Three Review: Using Multiple Methods to Collect Cultural Data

The major methods of textual analysis, observation, interviews and surveys each provide a useful means of gathering cultural data. You should consider the following guidelines a way to provide a credible and valid interpretation. These methods and the call to integrate them into our cultural data collection process are provided as a way to combat a natural tendency we all have. Each of us tends to rely on initial impressions based on a limited number of observations, a few interactions or discussions with a limited number of employees, and perhaps a cursory look at a newsletter. Optimal cultural performance is achieved when we sharpen our ability to collect and analyze data more systematically with each of these methods. If we have a clear grasp of the following guidelines, then we will be more effective in the culture interpretation process covered in the next chapter.

1. Use method “triangulation” to obtain credible and valid data. 2. Conduct textual analysis using one or more of the methods outlined: content analysis, rhetorical analysis,

and/or textual analysis. 3. Select a method of observation and write field notes with bracketed inferences and questions. 4. Adopt the curiosity of an outsider, especially when you observe your own culture. 5. Apply important principles in the conduct of interviews and surveys, such as selecting interviewees,

developing rapport, wording questions in an open and clear fashion, using probes to dig deeper into answers, choosing effective recording methods, and negotiating the special roles of cultural insider or outsider.

6. Draw inferences from each of the methods about cultural elements.

Discussion Questions

1. Discuss why interviews are an especially rich source of cultural data. 2. How do you approach the interview differently if you are an organizational insider or outsider? What

are advantages and disadvantages of each status to the interview process? 3. What are limits to the ability of organizational actors to talk meaningfully about their own culture? 4. How is a focus group different from individual interviews? What are advantages and disadvantages of

focus groups compared to individual interviews for cultural interviewing?

References

Bisel, R. (2018). Organizational moral learning: A communication approach. New York, NY: Routledge. Deetz, S., Tracy, S., & Simpson, J. (2000). Leading organizations through transition: Communication and cultural change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harre, H., & Secord, P. F. (1973). The explanation of social behavior. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams. Harris, L. (1979). Communication competence: Empirical tests of a systematic model (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Amherst: University of Massachusetts.

Pearce, W. (2007). Making social worlds: A communication perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Pearce, W., & Pearce, K. (2000). Combining passions and abilities: Toward dialogic virtuosity. Southern Communication Journal, 65(2), 160–175.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zanin, A. C., Bisel, R. S., & Adame, E. A. (2016). Supervisor moral talk contagion and trust-in-supervisor. Management Communication Quarterly, 30(2), 147–163. doi:10.1177/0893318915619755

128 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

Chapter 8

Getting Inside the Character Interpretation

Ethical and credible data interpretation, step four of the OC Amodel requires not only immersion in the data but interpreter creativity. At this point, if an array of data on enacted elements has been collected, the consultant, researcher, or insider of the organization has already gained something of the bigger picture. Like an actor who has hung out behind the scenes to interact with an array of other actors, one who has studied the script, this chapter assumes you are now in the position to discern larger patterns of communicative practices that constitute the organization. These larger patterns are introduced as thematic action. Discerning thematic action involves identifying enacted elements that constitute various organizing processes. Next, a general characterization of the culture is constituted by thematic actions and may take the form of paradoxes, master rules/values, or root metaphors enacted in communication. Guidelines for drafting your cultural analysis report are provided.

Step Four: 5—Interpret Constitutive Processes

I must have at least a dozen pages or more of just notes, and more notes. Of course, I also have draft after draft of cultural elements. The process has been interesting but it is not realistic. No one can really spend this much time. The pay-off just cannot be worth it!

Anonymous, Cultural Analysis Student

Objectives

• Explain the interpretive nature of cultural analysis. • Determine ways that enacted elements constitute thematic action. • Create an overall characterization of the culture constituted in thematic action. • Explore basic guides for drafting a report that connects with others.

Stage Terms

• Pervasiveness. • Salience. • Thematic action. • Characterization.

A Time to Interpret

The opening statement about data overload reflects a common experience at this stage of the process. Making sense of varied data based in texts, interview notes, and survey results can be overwhelming. In fact, one reason we may defer from engaging in this process is the simplicity and ease of drawing conclusions about culture based on limited data. Perhaps the sense of being overwhelmed can be compared to a dress rehearsal of a play when you have doubts about all the pieces coming together, about the ability of your characters to be accepted as “real”. The process of “getting inside the character” means that you move to an actual interpretation. Until this time, the method actor has been devoted to rehearsing the elements, but the time comes to put it together. It is natural to feel overwhelmed at this stage. Miles (1979) discusses the issue of rich data in his article, “The Attractive Nuisance of Qualitative Data”. He notes that while qualitative data allows richer interpretations and explanations, it is also more time-consuming and complex to analyze (c.f., Van Maanan, 1979). If you gathered quantitative data as well, then making sense of the numbers can add to the challenge.

The move from description to interpretation is no doubt daunting. One way to gain perspective is to return to the reality that we engage in data collection and interpretation on an informal basis each day. We may not formally ask the big question: “What kind of culture is being co-created?” Nonetheless, it is present each time we interact with others and make sense of organizational life. Our goal in using the OCA model is to enhance our ability to ethically collect and interpret data. The interpretation stage is about being mindful of ways to improve the cultures we are creating with others. Also, recall we began by noting that the six phases in this process are not linear. We likely enter the process, especially if we are insiders, with our varied interpretations and perhaps even recommendations. In fact, we have read first drafts of student analyses that contain findings and implications that read less like a credible interpretation and more like someone seeking to support positions they already held. Put differently, one of the most common challenges is not simply data overload, but checking our biased interpretations and even our recommendations at the door. The key at this point is to check and revise our interpretations by systematically analyzing a wider array of data. The following comments from a few alumni on the value of the process may help give perspective and maintain motivation.

• Evaluating the organization’s culture adds another dimension. Although the culture of the organization may not seem to have a direct impact on the immediate, short-term profit or bottom line, it does play a big part in the long-term effectiveness of the organization.

• The basic idea that an organization has a culture was an eye-opener. Since then I’ve seen the importance of personal fit with the culture. “Problem employees” are often those who won’t/can’t adapt to the culture and have conflict with those who identify closely with the culture.

• I learned to ask questions in an interview to find out about the culture when I was considering making a job move. I also ask questions of people I’m considering hiring to see if they’ll fit with our organizational culture.

• Just simply realizing that an organization has a definable culture has been helpful in dealing with the changes that have and are continuing to occur at the medical facility I work for.

At this point in the process, if you have been collecting data on multiple enacted elements, you likely have more information about the culture than may seem reasonable or “normal”. Three factors should help you

130 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

keep this data overload in perspective. First, this extensive process of a formal analysis is usually appropriate at only certain points in time (e.g., seeking to improve hiring or orientation practices, a desire to improve responses to organizational crises or change, and/or as part of an annual cultural analysis focused on some aspect of the culture you desire to continue to improve such a diversity initiatives). Thus, the practice of conducting a formal analysis should be framed as time well spent, but not time you give beyond those instances when an analysis is indicated. Second, as indicated in the alumni comments above, managing the overload of data can have meaningful payoffs. You began this process (recall Chapter 2) by learning to articulate the value of a cultural analysis before taking the step to enrich your understanding of the concept of culture. At this point, you may need to pause and review the factors that motivated your engagement as well as the OCA framing of culture as discursive construction. A few questions merit reflection: Are you making time for this analysis because of the need to manage change effectively, improve diversity efforts, aid in leadership development or some other significant goal? Are you aware of the value of focusing on communicative practices that constitute the culture? Recalling the benefits is important to maintain motivation in sorting through the data. Third, and finally, recall that the formal analysis process can aid you in the informal process, that is your daily experiences in your own organization. The goal is thus larger than giving insight to another organization, but should also be about becoming more intentional and ethical in the daily cultural creation process. Here, we can all benefit by returning to the three big questions introduced earlier: “What are we creating here? What do we want to create? What kinds of communication will get us there?” These big questions are not reserved for formal analysis, but aid in daily informal analysis and communicative action. For instance, one student commented: I asked these questions on my way to a meeting where I was at first intended to “give someone a piece of my mind”. These questions gave this student reason to hit a mental pause button: “I realized such a move would not create what I truly wanted— a positive working relationship.” These same questions should function also to hit a pause button as we attend to our interpretations of multiple elements of culture. This analysis serves to develop the art and skill of being a better interviewer and observer and interpreter—one who listens intently with ears, eyes, and heart. Therefore, perhaps the most meaningful outcome, one worth wading through the data for, is the potential insight for our role in co-creating a more effective and ethical culture in our day to day interactions. From the varied constructivist approaches informing the OCA model, such as Structuration, CCO, and CMM, we must be aware not only of our role, of communication behaviors we are enacting as well as those would should enact (e.g., the kinds of questions we ask, stories we tell) but also to processes that may be hard to control or shape (e.g., the interpretations of others, economic influences, long-standing decision making patterns). This awareness requires a mindfulness of what is in our communicative control and what is not. We may not be able, for example, to immediately and/or directly change decision making structures that limit participation, yet, we can discern ways to improve our individual level dialogic processes with others about ways to co-create the kinds of organizations we want to participate in each day.

Not a Video Recording

Your final analysis may be viewed as a dramatic interpretation of the organization. Consider the drama metaphor as a way to remind you that when opening night finally occurs, when the curtain is being raised, the performance the audience sees will vary depending on the way a director has set the stage, cast the characters, and interpreted the tone and theme of the script. The notion of an interpretation is important in that a cultural analysis does not claim to be an objective and neutral video recording of organizations in action. Indeed, the assumption with a cultural analysis is that such an objective and neutral recording is impossible. Instead, the individual researcher (or team) works to provide a meaningful, valuable, and valid interpretation. Weick (1995) refers to an interpretive researcher’s work as being driven by plausibility rather than making claims of absolute objectivity. The researcher must develop an interpretation that fits the facts. The goal is to create an interpretation or reading of the culture based on connecting numerous data points.

Getting Inside the Character 131

To reach this goal, however, we need to return to review the varied approaches one may take in the cultural analysis process.

Recall our introduction in Chapter 3 of varied approaches or assumptions regarding the cultural analysis process: (a) culture as variable; (b) culture as root metaphor, and (c) culture as discursive construction. As we stressed before, each approach has value. Consultants in the “variable” mode may focus on the congruence of formally held values versus those members actually hold and recommend changes based on such an analysis. In a “root metaphor” approach, rituals and stories become a way to discover and then describe the culture. In each case, an organization may benefit from the insights gained. In previous editions of the book, we tended toward the root metaphor approach. In this edition, we work toward the goal of enacting a discursive construction approach. The researcher or consultant is challenged by this approach to go beyond identifying variables or uncovering various depictions of the culture represented by values, stories or the like. Instead, the OCA model views symbolic forms such as rituals and stories as enactments of a culture constituted in communication. What does such a shift in thinking mean at a practical level for the consultant, student, and/ or researcher? How might we visualize this analysis process?

The following three-stage interpretive model, shown in Figure 8.1, captures a process that is not easily systematized. The process of interpretation is difficult to delineate because interpretation involves insight and intuition. The idea of interpreting constitutive processes by moving from (a) enacted elements to (b) thematic action to (c) an overall characterization may not happen in a linear fashion. There may be points at which the process is much less linear and systematic than is portrayed in the model. Nonetheless, it is important that you cover each of the steps with the understanding that you will need to move back and forth among the steps. The first stage in this process takes us back to Chapter 4 by focusing on the way culture is constituted in enacted elements.

Creating the Actor’s Script: Enacted Elements

Each time you collect cultural information through any one of the methods, you should sort that data into summary sheets based on the cultural elements. Recall from Chapter 4, when cultural elements were introduced, we used the term “enacted elements” in an effort to move beyond a “culture as variable” or

RulesStories History Rituals Place Humor

Thematic Action-A

What is the “culture in action?” (Paradox, Master Rule, Root Metaphor)

Thematic Action-B Thematic Action-C

A. Summarize data by enacted elements

B. Interpret thematic action

C. Determine the overall characterization

Figure 8.1 OCA Model: Interpreting the Culture in Action

132 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

“culture as metaphor” to a “culture as discursive construction” approach. The idea here is to view these elements as communicative processes that enact or constitute the culture. Thus, these summary sheets can be seen as a first step in creating the script—a set of notes that influences the way the director interprets the overall performance. In order to create these summary sheets, you might take one pass through your interview notes, your observation notes, and/or your textual analysis to consider references to place or to history. You might place each reference to history on a separate note card or in document with a column labeled history. As you look across all those different references to history, you may find patterns, or even contradictions. You would then move to another element, such as heroes, and repeat the process. In this process, recall that a “discursive construction” perspective does not view elements as variables to manipulate or as a way to unearth varied representations of the culture. Instead, as communicative co- created, they constitute the culture or enact the culture. A few specific guides in this process include the following:

1. Return to the same data set more than once to identify elements that may have been overlooked in the first analysis. For example, if you focused on communicative rules in your first analysis of the interview data, return to your data again to discern stories or rituals, and so on. Remember to reflect on elements of culture embedded in one another. A story, for example, might introduce you to communication rules, rituals, and/or a hero. A ritual, in the same way, will likely contain evidence of values as well as stories.

2. Review data in each category to be sure you have collected micro and macro data. A primary goal here is to ensure, based on the OCA framework, to attend to macro and micro level elements as they constitute the culture. Why is such a step so critical? Congruent with CCO (Communicative Constitution of Organization), a sole focus on either micro level (i.e., “here and now” or in the moment elements such interactions) or macro level (“then and there” or elements that transcend time such as policies, signs, history) misses a full understanding of organizing processes (c.f., Cooren & Fairhurst, 2009). For example, your initial analysis of your observational data, might indicate a lack of information on communica- tion or interaction rules (micro level). You may need to return to observation notes from a meeting and attend to patterns, on what is said (or not said), how decisions are made, who speaks, and does not speak, etc. Deciphering how participants create and invoke communication rules is challenging. Recall that communication rules or norms are rarely explicit. Thus, returning to guides in Chapter 4 may be important in discerning the ways rules are co-constructed and constitute varied organizing process. As you discern these practices, be sure macro level data such as place and artifacts are understood as well. Finding and filling these types of gaps should be a focus of additional data analysis and/or collection efforts. If you do not have clear support or data on an element and you are not able to collect additional data, then leave the unclear data out of your final list of elements. This step of leaving out incomplete data is also an ethical one. For example, you may have picked up from one interview the idea of a metaphor for the organization. Yet, follow up interviews, observations and even survey data on other elements fail to coincide with this image. You may even like the image provided, yet without credible support, this metaphor should be left to the side. To not do so would be paramount to giving voice to data that fits in the category of “gossip” at worse, and at best, ideas that lack salience to the organization.

3. Conduct a reliability and validity check. In the process of data collection, whether as an insider or outsider, you have interacted with others. You have listened, observed, and developed insights to varied elements being enacted. At this juncture, having someone check your coding of elements will further enhance the credibility of the process. We provide an activity (Rehearsal 8.3 Reliability/Validity Check) as one suggested step. You may rely on a member of the organizational development team if you are an insider, or perhaps a colleague or fellow student. The ethical standard is to be sure your list of elements does not include data that might identify individuals or in the case of an outsider, you may need to also conceal the name of the organization. This step not only serves to check on the accuracy of your

Getting Inside the Character 133

process, put this coding check might inform you as to the need to collect additional data and/or clarify the recording of the data.

4. Finally, as part of an iterative process, engage in a “back and forth” movement between elements and your initial interpretations about constitutive processes while also reflecting on relevant research (Tracy, 2013). For example, you might note the way certain stories, rituals, and commu- nication rules all involved references to laughter and humor. Thus, it would be useful to reflect on research that reviews the various functions of humor (Meyer, 2015) and specific studies that reveal the impact of positive humor. For instance, one study suggested the role of positive humor introduced by supervisors in turn impacted satisfaction and effective recruitment of interns (Sobral & Islam, 2015)

The thoroughness of this process, and in particular, the efforts to reflect on relevant research prepares you for the second phase of interpretation.

Sorting Subplots: Thematic Action

A list of elements does not constitute a final cultural analysis any more than a list of characters empowers you to interpret or create the final play. Capturing these enacted elements is foundational for under- standing the organization, for gaining a valid interpretation, but without the next step all you will have is a list with partial insights. This second step, discerning “thematic action” is about discerning instances when three or more elements constitute an important organizing process or cultural performance. Put differently, rather than referencing these simply as “themes” as we have in past versions of the model, the idea is to move beyond a static interpretation of the culture or a “culture as root metaphor” approach, to identify member enactments of stories, rules, rituals or other combinations of elements that constitute the culture. As you notice ways these enacted elements merge or coalesce, you have captured thematic action or constitutive processes that create the organization. Here we discuss two options or approaches to discerning thematic action, the Four Flows Model and the pervasiveness and salience of enacted elements.

Four Flows Model

One of the more established CCO approaches was introduced by McPhee and Zaug (2000). They argue that organizations are constituted in four flows or organizing processes. As you review your data on enacted elements, you may notice how several merge into a particular flow or patterns relevant to one or more of these flows. We would consider instances of such mergers or meshing of elements as thematic action. Here we review each of these flows with the understanding that two or more flows are, from the theorists perspective, what is required for a group or movement or gathering to actually constitute an organization. First, “membership negotiation” refers to communicative processes that make one a member of an organization. Recall several suggested interview questions: “What does it mean to be a member here?” Or “When you were a newcomer to this organization, what was strange, or different, or unexpected about the way things were done here?” Participant responses likely referenced stories, rituals, and varied communicative norms. What patterns emerge that suggest membership negotiation practices? You might find, for instance, and then capture thematic action in terms of “membership involves upward mobility by enacting service.” This phrase may then be discussed in terms of norms and rituals that reflect the way membership negotiation is being constituted in certain enacted elements. For example, a norm observed of listening to others and promotion rituals celebrating the service of a member. Second, “self-structuring” addresses “internal relations, norms, and social entities . . . for connection, flexing, and shaping works processes” (McPhee & Zaug, 2009, p. 36). Thus, beyond, yet interconnected with membership negotiation, this flow involves enacted elements that

134 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

capture formal or informal policies, charts, accounting, and control regarding such things as how labor is divided, member rights and responsibilities, and decision making. These all form a sort of meta- communication that ultimately steer all or part of the organization. Your textual analysis, for instance may have picked up on enacted elements related to clear and/or ambiguous policies about family leave. Informally, you may have heard stories about the best way to “get things done” around here when you have a problem with the boss. Self-structuring is, however, not inherently consistent, coherent, or successful. One way to represent self-structuring is the various communicative practices that are inherently part of responding to a dialectic of clarity—ambiguity. On one hand, clarity in accounting procedures may ensure accuracy and a certain level of ethical responsibility in communicating the financial pictures. Yet, sufficient ambiguity in decision making norms may be useful in allowing greater member autonomy to get work done in more than one way. Thus, you might imagine a thematic action capturing some aspect of self-structuring in your organization, such as: “Creative collaboration around a clear core.” Third, “activity coordination” refers to adjusting work processes and addressing immediate problems that arise from self-structuring. In short, members develop ways to make adjustments, albeit coordination might involve seeking power over others for self or group advantage, collaborative communication to improve ethical decision making in the midst of a crisis response, or other forms of coordination. If you asked a question about “What are the dominant stories that members tell about how to get work done here?” you would pick up on rituals, stories, and norms related to this flow. Thematic action might then emerge from these enacted elements. You might note, for instance, that past crisis events are featured in stories told in meetings to encourage continued efforts to collaborate to improve product quality and customer communication. You might then capture these enacted elements as thematic action in the phrase, “Collaboration is encouraged in re-told crisis stories.” Fourth, and finally, “institutional positioning” refers to communication with those outside the organization, which may include governmental agencies, regulators, potential buyers, customers, suppliers, and partners. Recall our discussions on defining organizations in Chapter 1, in which we foregrounded McPhee and Zaug’s (2009) definition of organizations with the following three features: (a) communication and coordination-organizations or organizing processes are created or constituted in communication; (b) interconnectedness and boundaries–organizations or organizing processes are not limited to a building or place thus a focus on intertwined networks is important; (c) goals and outcomes-vary at individual and group levels, but are never neutral, that is decisions are influenced by certain goals being honored over others. We concur with this focus on intertwined networks, interconnectedness and boundaries that ensures that we do not focus on organizations or organizational communication in terms of a building or some entity that exists in isolation. A compelling and provocative instance of research on this flow is found in a study conducted on ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). In their study, Bruscella and Bisel (2018) explore the way members of this terrorist organization position themselves through various communicative practices. One practice they document is “cooptation” or “the adoption of a rival’s messaging for a purpose different from its original use” (p. 11). For instance, they refer to texts in every issue of an ISIL publication, that has a section labeled, “In the Words of the Enemy”. In this section they take words from Western leaders and use them to substantiate the success and strength of ISIL as a resource rich organization. While your study may not focus on this type of organization, you may have attended to enacted elements relevant to communicative practices surrounding risk and crisis commu- nication, both of which involve external organizations. These four flows comprise a theoretically rich way to frame and discern thematic action. We also, provide, an option for an analysis that is not as tied to a specific framework.

Pervasiveness and Salience

Thematic action is also concerned with “pervasiveness and salience” (Saffold, 1998). Pervasiveness has to do with the extent the thematic action is relevant to various units in the organization. Limited pervasiveness

Getting Inside the Character 135

refers to those cultural enactments that are relevant to specific departments, while extensive pervasiveness refers to organization-wide enactments. For example, in one organization, enacted or performed rituals, norms, values and rules might be captured by the phrase “work hard and play hard”. This thematic action, however, might only relate to just one or two departments, for example, sales or marketing. It may, however, have limited pervasiveness in the rest of the organization for the majority of the other units, such as Human Resources or Research and Development. In contrast, thematic action might involve extensive pervasiveness that cuts across all units.

Salience, on the other hand, has to do with the importance of the thematic action or its “weightiness”. The assumption at this point in that the analysis of varied performances or enactments of varied elements suggest their significance, not just the extent they are widely shared (i.e., pervasiveness). Salience is more than the number of times an element is enacted. Salience is indicated when numerous elements of culture constitute the thematic action. For example, thematic action may emerge from significant symbols identified in textual analysis and interviews, rules from observations of meetings, and metaphors from interviews. Across each of these elements you learn something about what appears to be a pattern of withdrawing or avoiding disagreements. You might, at first, word the thematic action as “silence is the best policy”. However, you may find other elements that indicate a more nuanced communication process. For example, you may learn of other rules that conflicts and disagreements are handled in indirect ways, and thus you reword the thematic action as “work out your differences without causing a scene”. Again, the key here is to make an interpretation that is supported by your data—enactments of the culture that emerge as significant. Just as a director checks to ensure the subplots are being born out on stage, so must our analysis attend to thematic action. Your discussion of thematic action should give the reader a sense of pervasiveness as well as salience. Rehearsal 8.1 provides a space to draft a theme based on enacted elements.

Let’s return to the earlier example concerning how hard one should work. As you review data on values, rules, and rituals you might find consistent instances of how members negotiated their roles and positions based on work-life balance. Based on these enactments, you word this thematic action as: “Work hard, but not too hard.” To support this co-constructed performance, you should be able to summarize data from the enacted elements relevant to this thematic action. You might note, in your support of the enactment, statements like the following: Of the 10 people interviewed, all but one made some reference to maintaining a healthy work-life balance; images and symbols in newsletters include members both at work and play; a CEO speech references the value he places on family as well as work. Informal member interactions reflect on ways to interpret and enact company policy on work-life balance. A daily ritual was observed—a two-hour lunch and exercise break was encouraged (yes, this is a hypothetical example, but one I hope we can co-construct in our organizations).

Notice how, in the example above, at least three enacted elements cut across more than one method. Support from these multiple sources provides a credible reading of pervasive and salient thematic action. Support like this is also about finding data that will challenge or check your biases in an organization. Of course, as you develop support by reviewing field notes, realize that other examples and relevant observations may occur to you that you failed to record in your notes. If this happens, be sure to document these important observations. As you discern instances of thematic action, remember that your analysis does not end there. As indicated earlier, this “back and forth” iterative process should include reflection on relevant research tied to the thematic action. Thus, in the example above, you might explore research on work-life balance. For instance, Hoffman and Cowan (2010), in a study of 96 employee requests for accommodation, relied on a structuration analysis to discern resources and rules that both reproduced and challenged the system. This “back and forth” process insures that the way you capture varied thematic actions are not discerned in isolation from common organizing processes. In addition, as several instances of thematic action emerge, you may be able to identify an overall characterization of the culture.

136 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

Rehearsal 8.1 Finding Thematic Action

Purpose: Practice discerning the ways enacted elements combine to suggest thematic action

Steps:

1. Briefly state examples of three enacted elements (e.g., heroes, rules, & stories) from your observa- tions, interviews, and/or textual analysis that merge to constitute an organizing process.

Element A: __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

Element B: __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

Element C: __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

2. Identify connections across these enacted elements as the constitute thematic action-how might you word this co-construction?

3. Determine the relative pervasiveness of this thematic action. How widely spread is it in the organization? You may determine this by checking the sources you used for the various elements (e.g., organization-wide meetings vs. interviews in one department?).

4. Determine the relative salience of this thematic action. How important is it to organizational outcomes such as productivity or employee satisfaction? How often was it mentioned? How many elements supported it?

Getting Inside the Character 137

The Defining Plot: “What Is the Culture in Action?”

You walk out of a play, an art gallery, a music performance hall and think about what you just experienced. The effort of translating the symbolic forms of music or art into words is difficult: something is always lost. For example, a book/opera like Les Misérables might leave you with a mix of feelings and ideas, as various enactments merge to suggest “the power in love” “the mystery of mercy”, and “the self-destruction of evil”. These word pictures capture thematic action in the play. Yet another step can be taken if you reflect across varied thematic actions and attempt to answer the question, “So what is the Les Misérables story about, anyway?” The process of distilling thematic action into a clear statement about what constitutes or characterizes the overall culture is the third interpretive step in the OCA model. This step provides another way to respond to the question, “What is being co-created here?” Thus, when we consider “defining the plot,” in an effort to reflect a constitutive approach, we use the phrase, “culture in action”. This phrase is intended to stress the dynamic, enactment of culture; or how culture is being produced and reproduced by overlaps of varied thematic actions (i.e., organizing processes, multiple flows, salience/pervasiveness of enacted elements). Recalling the metaphors introduced in our discussion of the meaning of “constitutive” (see Chapter 2), it may be helpful to imagine this analysis process as deciphering communicative actions that have the power to “institute or enact” the culture (i.e., Communicative Constitutive of Organization); “flow like a river” constrained by the banks, but able to make changes through such processes as erosion (i.e., Structuration); or “building with Legos” by which you discern if participants are limited by their under- standing of resources available in the “Lego box” and perhaps by the instructions included, or the extent they sense the option to locate additional Legos and directions outside of the box (i.e., Coordinated Management of Meaning). These varied images share in common the challenge to capture a process-an organization in action or in the process of organizing. We will provide options for this interpretative step, but first, we need to consider a critique of this effort to capture an overall characterization.

An overall characterization of an organization or organizing processes may appear to fly in the face of the convention that organizations cannot or should not be reduced to specific labels or monoculture characterization (Martin, 1992). However, a general and overall characterization does not necessarily mean an oversimplification. Indeed, the answer to the question, “What is the culture in action?” may take a number of forms, each of which provides room for characterizations that are complex and creative. Furthermore, an answer to the question “What is being co-created here?” has value for organizational development as well as potential insight for internal and external communication. We provide three options to aid you in this process. Each of these options for characterizing a culture in action should be seen a tool for reflecting on ways to capture the way thematic actions are suggestive of organizing processes that constitute the whole organization. Rehearsal 8.2 provides guides for practicing this process.

1. Is There a Central Paradox Co-Created Across Thematic Actions?

A paradox is a contradictory statement that is nevertheless true. By a central paradox, we mean a contradictory true statement that captures the core of the culture in action. Thinking about paradoxes in the organization can help you and members make sense of varied enacted elements that may be constructing high levels of uncertainty. For example, “Chaotic Order” might capture a number of elements relevant to an organization characterized by standard policies and procedures that guide creative endeavors that are discussed as the reason for chaos in the organization. Often the crux of the culture is best depicted in tensions and contradictions, for example, the contradiction between espoused values and actual organiza- tional practices. The OCA model, consistent with other constructivist approaches, assumes contradiction is a central part of the organizing process (Putnam, 2013). Thus, while attending to a given contradiction, the idea is to discern how this paradox is being enacted or constituted in various thematic actions and enacted elements.

138 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

2. Is There a Master Rule/Value Co-Created Across Thematic Actions?

The notion of a master rule or value implies that thematic actions merge to suggest an overarching guiding principle that permeates is recreated across varied organizing processes. For instance, using the example above, if a paradox or contradiction is not the sense you get from your reading of the culture, you might note that the culture can best be captured by drawing attention to the way employees are expected to follow an implicit communication rule in all that they do. The rule, tied to more than one meeting or one decision-making process, is present across settings, including conflict management, self-structuring and even membership negotiation. In each flow or thematic action, the role and value given to novelty and new ideas is present. Thus, an overall characterization of the culture, might be: “Introduce new ideas always and everywhere.”

3. Is There a Root Metaphor Co-Created Across Thematic Actions?

The idea of a root metaphor, like a master rule or value, suggests that one thing serves as the source for describing varied thematic actions. It may be thought of as a metaphor “that lies underneath the understanding of something (e.g., organization) and is thus the ‘root’ for our understanding of it” (Ortenblad, 2017, p. 58). Root metaphors can capture multiple elements and provide a valuable way to examine an organization (Morgan, 2006). Thus, one option for characterizing the culture is to explore your enacted elements and thematic actions in light of the eight metaphors provided by Morgan (2006) (introduced in Chapter 3): machines, organism, brain, culture, political systems, psychic prison, flux and transformation, and instrument of domination. The idea, for instance, would be to examine enacted elements, such as language, and discern if a root metaphor best captures multiple constitutive practices (e.g., “Getting promoted around here is like trying to win an election suggests a political root metaphor”). In one organization a wide array of diversity initiatives were evident across elements and thematic actions. The student studying this organization sought to capture the uniqueness and unanticipated breadth and depth of these communicative practices, which included intentional efforts to diversify the ethnic make-up of leaders by including the ethnicity of a candidate as part of the qualification to hire, a mentoring program for minorities, and the use of more than one language in meetings. In the process of reflection, this student was creative in extending the organism metaphor described as tied to images of adaptation and survival (Morgan, 2006). He used the metaphor of a “duck-billed platypus”. Historically, the first stories of this creature were not even believed because of the uniqueness and unexpected appearance. As a root metaphor, this creative take on the organization allowed for a depiction of the uniqueness of their approaches to co-create a multi- ethnic organization. These approaches then were reflected on in light of research showing the uniqueness of such organizations with only about 10% of churches that are 90% diverse (Emerson, 2006). Just as the duck- billed platypus is novel, this organization was unique in their shared focus on diversity found across enacted elements.

Despite the power of discerning a root metaphor, caution is in order. If not used cautiously, foreground- ing a root metaphor may promote or disguise problematic power relationships. Thus, another factor to consider in your interpretation is to ask yourself, “What is not here that I would expect to see?” Martin (1992) refers to this type of analysis as probing silences and empty spaces. Angi once served as a consultant to a children’s home trying to survive a leadership transition. As she questioned the board members about the strengths and weaknesses of the organization, she was struck by the absence of any language about the care of children. Board members talked about the strength of leadership, the business plan, the endowment, and the new facilities, but no one talked about the children. The silence made it clear that the non-profit organization had drifted from the clarity of its original mission and values. In this instance, while members might have introduced a family metaphor, the lack of enacted elements that were inclusive of children is problematic given their goals. In other instances, a metaphor, such a “family” may fail to attend to the way a pattern of paternalism continues (Putnam & Boys, 2006). Thus, again, macro and micro level enacted elements should be attended to, and thus the goal would be to discern more nuanced metaphors. Thus,

Getting Inside the Character 139

rather than a simple “family” metaphor, a closer reflection on multiple elements may suggest a particular type of family (i.e., dysfunctional or blended).

Drafting Your Report: Writing to Connect

We encourage, at this juncture, to draft the main sections of your report, absent the applications section. Rehearsal 8.4 provides a format for this process. These guides, while general in nature, stress a central theme of this process—relational and ethical connection. You have connected with a leader of this organization from the proposal process and others throughout the data collection process. As you have observed and listened in a way that shows respect and ethical concern for others and the quality of data you collect. You have also shown care and caution in the interpretation process realizing that data that is not accurately representing is not just an issue of personal interpretation, but ethics. The next goal is to discern a format that will best aid others in connecting with this interpretation. Recall that while other interpretations are possible, you have based your interpretation on a richer, more diverse data set than most take the time to gather. At the same time, this drafting step is one meant to prompt careful reflection on the creating not on only a credible but compelling and ethical account of the culture. The writing process can be daunting. What language? What tone? What details to include? What format? All of these are critical questions and will be explored further in the final chapter. At this point, consider the following encouragements as you draft:

1. Plan on multiple revisions. Writing and rewriting is form of reflection. This reflection process allows you to see the flow, the way ideas can be worded more clearly in a way that will connect with others.

2. Involve others. Gain feedback from colleagues, team members, and the person who conducted the coding check. Recall that a coding check, and referencing this step in the report, adds credibility due to the high bar you are setting for engaging in an ethical analysis process

3. Remember the big question. At the heart of the drafting is making sure you are clearly answering the big question, “What is being created here?” To that end, we discourage presenting your findings in terms of a list of elements. These can be provided in an Appendix. Instead, as indicated in the Rehearsal, you will move directly to phrases that capture “thematic action” in the Results or Findings section. The idea of “thematic action” is to paint the picture of subplots or “grounded in action” (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2004) processes based on the four flows (McPhee & Zaug, 2009) and/or the concepts of salience and pervasiveness. These constitutive processes can then aid you in discerning an overall characterization of the culture.

4. Create a compelling narrative. When you write your analysis, experiment with creative forms. A cultural analysis should read more like short story than a formal research paper. Yet, it should be a short story with credible data captured in a compelling manner. You may think about this process as data with a soul or data telling a story. Thus, you may include extensive quotes or narratives from interviews with culture members to illustrate thematic action. You may also include narratives of key episodes you observed. Thus, the resultant statement about the “plot” or overall characterization is made more compelling by including the stories you heard, the places you observed.

5. Blend quantitative and qualitative data in an ethical and credible manner. You may have heard the phrase “statistics lie”. We would add that data of any type can be misrepresented and perhaps unconsciously, presented to support a bias. Thus, simply stating a percentage or the quotes from interviews should be avoided. The three-phase process of moving from enacted elements to thematic action to an overall characterization is about a careful process of reflecting on data that creates a credible, compelling account. To that end, if you used a quantitative survey, avoid simply stating a mean or average or percentage. Numbers alone will not tell a story that is supported in an ethical manner. For instance, if you found that 80% (16/20) participants agreed that the stated values were talked about in terms of creating space for both continuity and change, you need to then provide context. You may have picked up on a story that echoes this finding as well: a ritual that celebrated

140 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

the role of history as a continual, discursive thread that honors the introduction of new goals. Thus, your thematic action might be something like: “Keep the Old and Bring in the New.” This thematic action would then be discussed in light of the data points mentioned above. On the other hand, if you find other elements that contradict this find, you have options. You might need to return to a focus group to explore this finding. You might find that your survey data was skewed. In fact, the 20 who responded, let’s say of an organization of 50 were all from one unit. Thus, you would need to consider wording the thematic action as: “Contrasting stories of continuity and change.” Conversely, you might find that the sample was valid, but participants only agree with the statement at a general level. In the focus group, they express concerns about the execution of this value set. Thus, the thematic action might read: “The challenge of living out continuity and change.” This wording then allows you to explore the seeming contradiction in light of the stories told versus those being lived out.

Rehearsal 8.2 Practicing Interpretation

Purpose: Develop interpretive skills in light of the OCA constitutive approach.

Major Steps:

1. Complete two weeks of observation notes.

a. A minimum of 3–4 hours a week in observation. b. A variety of observation settings (e.g., meetings, informal interactions, setting). c. Notes that include bracketed information (about inferences and questions).

2. Use interviews or qualitative surveys to explore cultural interpretations of organizational actors.

a. Choose a representative sample of interviewees. b. Develop rapport. c. Use relatively open questions to elicit accounts, stories, and explanations. d. Follow up answers with probes.

3. Content analyze a representative text or texts.

a. Choose representative and credible texts that match the communication style of the organization.

b. Use content analysis, rhetorical analysis, or linguistic analysis.

4. Create a document summarizing data by enacted elements of culture.

a. Be sure to make clear reference to observation notes (date, etc.) and/or content analysis text (date of newsletter, section, etc.); the key here is to have summary data that can easily be traced back to notes.

b. Be sure you have several examples of most, if not all, of the elements.

5. Analyze your summary of enacted elements to determine thematic action.

a. Thematic action attempts to capture organizing processes from three or more of the enacted elements.

b. State the thematic action and enacted elements. Be specific.

Getting Inside the Character 141

For example: In a daycare organization, thematic action might be: “Supportive touch is a mandated and encouraged behavior.” Rules and rituals indicate that teachers should initiate touch often during the day as well as encourage children to touch each other in appropriate ways. Furthermore, during a weekly staff meeting a story was told of a teacher’s aide who was fired because he did not take time to hug and encourage children through positive and appropriate touch.

c. Aim for a minimum of three phrases that capture thematic action.

6. Create an overall characterization of the culture based on thematic action and enacted elements.

a. An overall characterization is a general statement that attempts to capture the core of the culture.

b. An overall characterization does not mean that subcultures do not differ or that the culture is unified across all levels and divisions of the organization.

c. Thematic action and relevant enacted elements provide support for the characterization you have developed.

d. Review Chapter 8 for options in developing an overall characterization of the culture.

7. Checklist for reviewing major steps of the Rehearsal:

_____ Interpretation section with thematic actions and an overall characterization. _____ Appendix with a paper trail (for validity and reliability/consistency checks). _____ A copy of your field notes. _____ A description or copy of the text you used for content analysis. _____ A copy of notes from any other method used (survey, interviews). _____ A copy of your summary data for each enacted element. _____ A completed reliability check by a trusted colleague, a mentor, a classmate, or a member of the organization to make sure your account is consistent with how organizational members interpret the culture.

Note: Though the idea of a reliability check seems at first “too academic,” it should be part of our interpretive processes—we check our perceptions with others. The following guide sheet can be used for a trusted colleague, mentor, or classmate to review your work.

Summary

At this stage of the analysis, your immersion in the data and your own creativity as an interpreter become all important. You should have a sense of seeing the organization you are studying in a new light or with a clearer understanding. Like an actor who has hung out behind the scenes to interact with other actors, who has studied the script and gotten inside the character, you should know more than the other actors about the set, the stage, the relationships among the players, and what makes this particular troupe and performance unique. The thematic action you have already discussed as well as other relevant data should support your characterization of the culture. Before moving to the application section, be sure you have a clear grasp of the following aspects of the interpretation process:

1. Cultural analysis is an interpretive process; characterizations of the culture will likely vary from person to person. 2. Thematic action involves enacted elements that constitute organizing processes via multiple enacted

elements.

142 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

3. A characterization of the culture is constituted by thematic actions and may take the form of a paradox, master rules/values, or root metaphor.

4. Begin the process of drafting a credible and compelling account of your findings.

Rehearsal 8.3 Reliability/Validity Check

1. Observation process:

_____ Clear rationale for the observer role that was selected. _____ Clear understanding of ethics involved in the choice of roles.

2. Check field notes: Check for improvement (from weeks 1–3) in the following:

_____ Detailed descriptions. _____ Use of brackets.

3. Check text analysis:

_____ Clear rationale for choosing this set of documents. _____ Representative sample. _____ Credible. _____ Method of analysis documented and explained.

4. Review summary of each enacted element:

_____ Are there gaps that indicate the need for more data? _____ Can you trace examples back to field notes, text, interviews? _____ Focus on descriptions? Free of judgment? _____ Examples clearly fit each element according to characterization of element? _____ Missing details? (information sufficient, makes sense?) _____ Method triangulation on most enacted elements: examples from text analysis and observation and/or interviews/ surveys?

5. Check thematic action for:

_____ Method triangulation: examples from content analysis and observation and/or interviews/surveys? _____ Data triangulation: examples from three or more enacted elements?

6. Check an overall characterization for

_____ Thematic triangulation: support based on two or more thematic actions (may include other well-developed enacted elements) _____ Method triangulation: support from text analysis and observation and/or interviews/surveys?

Discussion Questions

1. At what points in an organization’s history and life-cycle would it be especially important to engage in in-depth cultural analysis?

2. Discuss the process of working to create interpretive order from a mass of cultural data (identify enacted elements, develop thematic action, draw an over-arching cultural characterization).

Getting Inside the Character 143

3. Give examples of cultural assumptions that lie beneath the surface of organizational events and processes and are often unconscious.

4. What do the authors mean by probing silence and empty spaces in your cultural data, trying to pay attention to what’s not there?

Rehearsal 8.4 Cultural Analysis Write-Up Guides

Directions: This final checklist should guide rather than dictate your writing process. These suggestions are intended as guides to develop a highly credible and compelling report. Of course, who your audience is (members of one department vs. executive leadership team) will dictate format. Remember, the goal is to “tell the story” of your analysis in a convincing manner. In this suggested outline, you are focused on enacted elements, thematic action, and your characterization of the culture. After we cover application topics, we will discuss ways to develop implications of your findings as a final section of this report.

Introduction: _____ Draw interest to your analysis. _____ Discuss the importance of your analysis. _____ Develop credibility—references. _____ Preview main sections.

Body: I. Overview of analysis _____ Background of organization (mission, structure, brief history). _____ Methods (discuss data collection, rationale, time spent). _____ Refer to Appendix with notes on each enacted element.

II. Thematic Action _____ Minimum of three; each supported by data from three or more enacted elements. _____ Clear, convincing support from Appendix of enacted elements. _____ Clear tables/data summaries

(e.g., examples, frequency counts, quotes, paraphrases). _____ Written to capture the richness of cultural data.

III. Overall characterization of culture _____ Supported by thematic action and enacted elements. _____ Clear articulation of the rationale for the characterization.

IV. Implication/Application (to be added)

Conclusion _____ Restate major goals and major conclusions and benefits. _____ Review the process (strengths of analysis, lessons learned).

References (complete; consistent format)

Appendix _____ Synopsis of inferences on all elements (e.g., list all the rules). _____ Copy of interview/survey guide if used. _____ Copy of Executive Summary (when applicable). _____ Field notes. _____ Texts used for analysis.

144 Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

References

Bruscella, J., & Bisel, R. (2018). Four flows theory and materiality: ISIL’s use of material resources in its communicative constitution. Communication Monographs, 85(2), 1–26. doi:10.1080/03637751.2017.1420907

Emerson, M. (2006). People of the dream: Multiracial congregations in the United States. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Fairhurst, G. T., & Putnam, L. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, 14, 5–26. Hoffman, M., & Cowan, R. (2010). Be careful what you ask for: Structuration theory and work-life accommodation. Communication Studies, 61(2), 205–223. doi:10.1080/10510971003604026

Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Meyer, J. (2015). Understanding humor through communication: Why be funny anyway? Lanham, MD: Lexington, Books. McPhee, R. D., & Zaug, P. (2000). The communicative constitution of organizations: A framework for explanation. Electronic Journal of Communication, 10(1,2). Retrieved from http://www.cios.org/ejcpublic/010/1/01017.html

McPhee, R. D., & Zaug, P. (2009). The communicative constitution of organizations: A framework for explanation. In L. L. Putnam & A. M. Nicotera (Eds.), Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication (pp. 21–47). New York, NY: Routledge.

Miles, M. B. (1979). Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: The problem of analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 (4), 590–601. doi:10.2307/2392365

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization (Updated ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Örtenblad, A. (2017). Approaches to using metaphors in organizational analysis: Morgan’s metaphors and beyond. In A. Örtenblad, K. Trehan, & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), Exploring Morgan’s metaphors: Theory, research, and practice in organizational studies (pp. 54–86). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Putnam, L. (2013). Primary and secondary contradictions: A literature review and future directions. Management Commu- nication Quarterly, 27(4), 623–630. doi:10.1177/0893318913504139

Putnam, L., & Boys, S. (2006). Revisiting metaphors of organizational communication. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. Nord (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational studies (2nd ed., pp. 541–576). London, UK: Sage.

Saffold, G. (1998). Culture traits, strength, and organizational performance: Moving beyond “strong” culture. Academy of Management Review, 13, 546–558. doi:10.2307/258374

Sobral, F., & Islam, G. (2015). He who laughs best, leaves last: The influence of humor on the attitudes and behavior of interns. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(4), 500–518. doi:10.5465/amle.2013.0368

Tracy, S. J. (2013).Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Malden, MA: Wiley. Van Maanan, J. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 520–526. doi:10.2307/2392358

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Getting Inside the Character 145

http://www.cios.org/

This page intentionally left blank

Part IV

Cultural Analysis Application

An Introduction to Step Five

Identify Positive Communication Applications

1. Articulate the value of a cultural analysis. 2. Understand the concept of culture. 3. Identify cultural elements. 4. Use multiple data collection methods. 5. Develop a credible interpretation of the culture. 6. Co-create positive communication applications.

Time and time again, we’ve let our cultural cornerstones of mission, transparency, and voice anchor us in tackling difficult and divisive issues, debating them, and resolving them into clear strategies. Our culture was shaping our strategy, and not the other way around. Once you’ve chosen to think and act like a founder, your next decision is about what kind of culture you

want to create. (Work Rules: Insights from Inside Google, Laslo Bock, 2015, pp. 51 & 53)

Stage Terms

• Diversity. • Change leadership. • Symbolic leadership. • Ethics. • Organizational effectiveness.

Answering “So What? and Now What?”

Actors undertaking the rigorous training of method acting must ask themselves at some points, “Will this really make me a better actor? Will it pay off in the final production?” As they focus concentration on drinking a cup of orange juice, channelling emotions from previous experiences, and increasing concentration on stage, they have to wonder about their ability to transfer these activities into the creation of better performances. In the same way, we may wonder if the rigorous effort necessary to understand organizational cultures has a payoff.

We began with an overall definition of the cultural analysis process as capturing the unique qualities of an organization as constituted in elements of culture such as rituals, stories, and history that both shape and are shaped by communication that has significance for organizational effectiveness and professional development. We have, until now, focused on the first part of this definition by answering the question: “What is being co- created here?” The goal was to engage in more ethical and effective data collection and interpretation processes. Now we turn to the later part of this definition which includes the questions we had at the start of the process: “What is the practical significance of understanding organizational culture?” “How does it lead to more effective individual and organizational performance?” Put differently, we now ask: “So what? Now what?” This section responds to these practical questions under the umbrella of the second and third of our three big questions: “What kind of culture do we want to co-create?” and “What forms of communication will co-create the culture we want?” These big questions provide a reflection tool on ways to co-create ethical communication goals based on the data you have collected.

We began this journey by reviewing possible pay-offs. In fact, we encouraged some to move forward with a focus on one of the five application chapters covered in this final section: diversity, ethics, change, leadership, or effectiveness. Those that took this step, already have thought of their data in terms of application. Others of you likely had areas of possible application based on your experience with an organization, either as an insider or based on information shared by their contact person. Regardless of whether you maintained a broad exploration of the culture or developed a focused one, we turn now to the developing communication applications. Like other “steps” in this process, this one is not always discrete. We need, in order to treat this step fairly, to attend to at least four organizational cultural analysis realities.

One such reality is the overlap across application contexts. For example, if you focused on “diversity” in your data collection, it is incumbent to reflect on units such a “change”, since the communication practices related to change will be critical to efforts you make at introducing diversity initiatives. If your data, perhaps due to recent conflicts and/or high turnover rates, points toward the need to explore the “leadership” context, reflecting on key ideas in the “Ethics” chapter will ensure your applications are not overlooking issues related to ethics. Another and second reality is that you may need to explore applications beyond these chapters. For instance, the chapter on “effectiveness” is inclusive of a number of potential applications such as crisis communication and mediated communication, yet we do not treat these topics in great depth. Thus, there may be a need to reflect on your data in ways that go beyond any one chapter. Third, we need to be sure to not simply focus on a problem analysis. As we introduced in Chapter 1, there is a natural tendency to view any analysis process as involving a “problem- solution” pattern. Yet, here we argue that it is actually more effective to describe the culture in a way to capture what is working, practices that are creating what the organizational members want to create. In fact, in one study, Gerald found that the vast majority of the communicative practices where creating what they hoped to create. The organization, however, had never had that sort of validation. His primary implications were for the organization to validate these practices and then, build on them. Finally, we need to realize the challenge involved in discerning specific implications and applications. It is one thing to discern “what is being created?” Determining with others what we want to create and then the best path to get there is even more challenging. In short, execution, as we will explore in the closing chapter is perhaps the most challenging. To that end, Chapter 14 guides you in translating your application insights and potential strategies, to developing an execution plan. Before that step, we need to review our rationale for these five applications contexts. In fact, we will share a draft of our answer to the second question.

Five Application Contexts

Chapters 9 through 13 introduce five application contexts: diversity, change, leadership, ethics, and organizational effectiveness. It is valid to ask, “Why these five?”We have one obvious answer but a second and we believe more significant one tied to the second of our three big questions. First, to the obvious-these application contexts remain significant across boundaries of nations, organizational type, and time. Take diversity as an example. It would be difficult to make a case that an organization should not be concerned about diversity. However, while

148 Cultural Analysis Application

leaders may have a desire to harness the power of diverse perspectives among employees, problems emerge if the approach is superficial. For example, if leaders approach diversity only through training programs or other organizational practices, a true value for diversity will never become rooted in the deeper levels of organizational culture, values, and assumptions. Until diversity becomes deeply woven into the organizational culture, it fails to change the organization in fundamental ways. Organizational ethics is a similar case. If an organization tries to become more ethical through training or adopting new accounting processes without changing the fundamental ideology coded into organizational stories and metaphors, the result will be superficial. These five application contexts, thus, continue to have tangible implications for popular trends as well as on-going challenges across national boundaries such as technology and crisis communication.

Beyond the multinational and timeless nature of these five application contexts, consider these five areas in relation to our second big question: “What kind of culture do we want to co-create?” For many of you, you entered this process, already aware of ways you would like to see your culture develop. You began with certain ideals, hopes, values, and/or expectations for what the organization should be. Perhaps you held specific ideas like more efficient flow in meetings or improved feedback from management. Others may have thought in broader terms such as an improved sense of mission or overall external communication strategy. Regardless of the content or nature of your initial “improvement” ideas, recall that the challenge of improving data collection processes is often that of “bracketing” these ideals and beliefs as you seek to gain a richer data set. This richer data set is intended to challenge our initial interpretations. In particular, we hope you have moved from a tendency to look just at problems, to themes that are rich enough to capture the complexity, and contradictions, the good and the not so good of the culture.

We too face this challenge. It can be hard to put “change” ideas on hold while discerning if you have ethically and effectively interpreted the culture. Yet, at some point after more time and care in data collection and interpretation, we must come to the place of asking, “What kind of culture do we want to co-create?” As we considered again the nature of these application chapters, the titles of the chapters themselves provided a broad, initial answer to this question. “What do we want to co-create?” As we reflect on what we might share across our organization, consider the following statement as a draft, a way to begin a conversation about what we might all want to co-create: As leaders, we seek to co-create ethical, diverse, adaptive, and effective organizational cultures that are part of improving all of our social worlds. This phrase is one we hope to refine and develop with our students, colleagues and others we serve. As you move through each application chapter, we encourage you to reflect on this draft of a vision for what we want to create together. For instance, when you journey through the unit on ethics, consider with colleagues, answers to the question, “what do we want to co-create in this organization in relation to ethics? You can then move to exploring forms of communication to move you further along in that journey. Thus, each application chapter supposes you co-creating answers to these final two big questions.

The thought, then, as we turn to these application chapters, is that we already may know something about what we want to create. Regardless of how we measure up in each of these areas, we want to build on what is working and continue to improve. Our approach is inspired by scholarship on positivity organizations (Cameron & McNaughtan, 2014; Cameron & Spreitzer, 2012; Spreitzer, 2013) as well as positive commu- nication (Lutgen-Sandvik, Riforgiate, & Fletcher, 2011; Lyon, 2017; Mirivel, 2014). As such, a cultural analysis is not about finding problems in the organization and fixing them. We want to encourage reflection on what is working, ways to improve, and thus ways we can collaborate to improve not just our individual organization but all of our social worlds, but all personal and professional development goals and hopes. Each chapter provides communicative processes to aid you in leading as you co-create more ethical, diverse, adaptive (effective change), and effective organizations. Each of these suggested practices are intertwined with the applied nature of the OCA model. Recall that this model, based in constructivist communication theories, is concerned with the micro (communication rules and interactions) and the macro (e.g., structures, rituals) processes. Attending to these constitutive processes in data collection and interpretation, as encour- aged in the previous steps, is also inherently tied to application. This model is inclusive of the need to return these enacted elements of culture as pathways for discerning “what we want to create” and “the forms or

Cultural Analysis Application 149

kinds of communication” that will get us there. Thus, the framework provides a tool for additional insights for developing strategy tied to these micro and macro processes.

Chapter 9, “Casting Against Type: Diversity”, explores the linkage between organizational culture and processes that support and encourage various forms of diversity. We approach this via a set of positive communication practices. Organizations may launch diversity programs in a compartmentalized way—with an office that reports to the human resource director, several levels removed from the CEO; or perhaps with signs or policies that are not finding meaningful traction in the life of the organization. If this value is to permeate an organization, we must discern and then engage in constitutive processes and structurally grounded practices that continually support and engage members.

In Chapter 10, “Improvisation: Leading Change”, we address the reasons strong cultures resist change. We offer examples of organizational leaders who have initiated change without sufficient knowledge of the culture or sufficient collaboration with organization members, leading to unsuccessful change efforts. We explain how change can be introduced more effectively by tapping into elements of the culture rather than changing in opposition to the culture.

In Chapter 11, “An Honest Portrayal: Ethics”, we explain our perspective that ethical principles must be deeply ingrained in an organizational culture in order for them to exert an unconscious influence on employee decision-making and behavior. We explore ethical lapses in negative and positive case studies that provide insight to communicative practices that co-create highly ethical organizations.

In Chapter 12, “The Director’s Chair: Symbolic Leadership”, we consider that culture creates a frame for viewing effective leadership performance. Effective leaders must understand how they are constrained by culture, as well as the role they play in creating, maintaining, and transforming culture. We argue that one of the most important characteristics of effective leaders is not only their technical expertise, but also their ability to use symbols to create identity and shared vision. We offer opportunities for you to evaluate your own symbolic leadership abilities and to assess leaders in your organization.

Chapter 13, “Reading Reviews: Organizational Effectiveness”, summarizes the application of a cultural analysis to the organization by discussing effectiveness and how all the previous application topics contribute to organizational performance. We discuss different ways to evaluate the relationship of culture and organizational performance, and offer tools to assess the effectiveness of your organization in light of cultural data.

We anticipate each of you experiencing useful insights during this final Step. We are confident your exploration of these applications will assist you in recognizing that cultural analysis is not only fascinating but also practical for organizations and their members. We also have found the takeaways are useful not only for larger, organizational culture, but also for professional development.

References

Bock, L. (2015). Work rules. New York, NY: Twelve Hachette Book Group. Cameron, K., & McNaughtan, J. (2014). Positive organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 50(4), 445–462. doi:10.1177/0021886314549922

Cameron, K., & Spreitzer, G. (Eds.). (2012). Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. New York and Oxford: Routledge.

Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Riforgiate, S., & Fletcher, C. (2011). Work as a source of positive emotional experiences and the discourses informing positive assessment. Western Journal of Communication, 75 (1), 2–27. doi:10.1080/ 10570314.2010.536963

Lyon, A. (2017). Case studies in courageous organizational communication: Research and practices for effective workplaces. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Mirivel, J. (2014). The art of positive communication: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Spreitzer, G. M. (2013). Using a positive organizational scholarship lens to enrich research on work-family relationships. In J. G. Grzywacz & E. Demerouti (Eds.), New frontiers in work and family research. New York, NY: Routledge.

150 Cultural Analysis Application

Chapter 9

Casting against Type Diversity

This first of five applications introduces the final step in the OCAmodel by focusing on how to co-create positive communication applications for organizational diversity. The challenges and opportunities presented by the diversity paradox are explored. The choices made in response to cultural data may result in improving the quality of life and creative outcomes for participants who voices have been muted. Four communicative practices are introduced intended to aid organizations on the diversity journey and to improve the lives of those whose voice may be muted and/or who have been mistreated: (a) co-create a drive to value diversity; (b) enrich conversations about definitions of diversity; (c) assess progress on the diversity journey, and (d) make structural, cultural, and behavioral changes. The value of mentoring groups and intercultural training are introduced as well.

Thus, creativity has come to be the most highly prized commodity in our economy . . . Hiring for diversity, once a matter of legal compliance, has become a matter of economic survival because creativity comes in all colors, genders, and personal preferences.

(Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class, 2002, p. 5)

[The] way we handle our differences, more than the positions we take or even who wins the arguments, will shape the evolution of our social worlds.

(Pearce, 2007, p. 216)

Step Five: Co-Create Positive Communication Applications for Organizational Diversity, Change, Ethics, Leadership, and Effectiveness

Objectives

• Understand the challenge of the diversity paradox. • Describe positive communicative practices to co-create diversity.

• Explain the importance of diversity in today’s economy. • Describe the progression organizations take in becoming multi-cultural. • Explain communicative strategies to empower minority subcultures.

Stage Terms

• Diversity. • Multiculturalism. • Marginalized groups. • Hegemony. • Dialogue. • Cosmopolitan Communication. • Mentoring. • Creative economy.

A Diversity Paradox

Here’s a trick: Create a strong and vibrant culture in which values are shared, employees are socialized into a common way of creating meanings, and at the same time maintain a diverse organization with enough tension to promote creativity and innovation. This is the essential paradox of culture. Strong cultures tend to reproduce themselves. New employees are hired because they are a “good fit” with existing employees. Cultural values and norms are so strong that employees are socialized to accept the “company way” or they leave. The diversity paradox is an example of a value tension, creativity and constraint, foregrounded by Eisenberg, Trethewey, LeGreco, and Goodall (2017). The very cohesiveness forces enabled by a strong culture can be a constraining force on diversity and thus creativity.

The flip side also can be true. If a company strives for diversity in hiring and consciously chooses individuals quite different from the existing employee base, changes in the way elements enact culture are likely. Stories may no longer carry share historical meanings and discourse surrounding rituals may not be inclusive of the newcomers. Subcultures likely emerge and compete for organizational dominance. These changes may be positive in the long run as new ideas and ways of organizing become valued, but are disruptive and difficult at the start, including possible impacts on short term productivity (Julian & Ofori- Dankwa, 2017). For instance, in an ethnographic study, Zak (1994) explored a blue-collar organization newly diversified by race, gender, ethnicity, and class due to legal mandates. Veteran employees sought to maintain cultural identity and hierarchical position through linguistic strategies such as inside humor, exclusive language, and horseplay. Frequent conflicts between newcomers and veterans prompted manage- ment to step in to increase control and enforce punishments, leading to cultural fragmentation and resentment. In the context of religious organizations, efforts to move away from the norm of segregation face challenges. These organizations, unlike public or federal ones required by law to address issues of equality, are increasingly driven by an ethical vision rooted in their faith. As one national level faith leader commented in the context of a community forum on faith, “If heaven is not segregated, why on earth are we?” (Driskill, Arjannikova, & Meyer, 2014). However, the challenges are complex. The pressure toward homogeneity in these organizations as well as other voluntary organizations is evidenced by the shorter durations of minority members. One explanation is that integration can be experienced as a loss of identity and ethnic culture (Scheitle & Dougherty, 2010). Another force adding toward homogeneity is the lack of intentionality in diversifying leadership (Emerson, 2006) as well as the lack of diverse worship styles (DeYmaz, 2007) and effective intercultural communication practices (Jenkins, 2014).

This diversity paradox is real, regardless of organizational context. The challenges are daunting. Devel- oping intercultural competence is complex, involving more than language or cultural knowledge. Those taking on this challenge must navigate contradictory and conflicting dialectics such as individual-cultural,

152 Cultural Analysis Application

personal-contextual, and privilege-disadvantage (Martin & Nakayama, 2015). We will return to these and other challenges later, but for now, take a minute to consider your experiences in work, volunteer, community, and/or religious organizations. Few of us can claim participation in organizations which have fully arrived in practices demonstrating a high value placed on diversity combined with high levels of intercultural competence across the organization. We may not even have a clear vision related to positive diversity practices much less a process for getting there. Yet, in our consulting, research, and leadership roles, we have seen cause for hope. We have learned of leaders taking on this challenge. Such leaders, congruent with our goal in each application chapter, have decided to co-create ethical, diverse, adaptive, and effective organizational cultures that are part of improving all of our social worlds. With this vision in mind, we introduce four communicative practices aimed at co-creating organizations with diversity embedded in process and structure; both at the institutional and interpersonal level. In agreement with diversity communication scholar, Dr. Allen (2011), we view identity and power dynamics as enacted, established, and constituted in communication. These four communication practices function as guides for those who seek to ensure their organization is making progress on the diversity journey. These practices, grounded in a CCO perspective, respond to the big question, “What forms or kinds of communication will create what we want to create?”

1. Co-Create a Drive to Value Diversity

What compels you to value diversity? What keeps you committed to engage with those who differ from you in some way? What did you learn about the organization you are studying in terms of their motivations for valuing diversity? What talk do you hear in meetings, around the breakroom, and after work related to diversity? Depending on the organization, the drive or imperative may involve legal, ethical, religious, and/ or economic concerns. We do not explore legal issues, yet encourage integrating such relevant legal mandates as a means for improving commitment to diversity (Dejean, 2015).

The intent with this first positive communication practice is to connect with others in ways that will deepen our value for diversity in our organizations. Here we foreground five major drivers or imperatives. We seek to encourage conversations about the why we should stay committed to this challenging process, despite the obstacles and paradoxes. Each of these imperatives may be used to inform communicative action in various contexts and formats ranging from lunch room chats and newsletters, to focus group discussions and speeches made by leaders. Consistent with the OCA model, we need to ask if the discourse concerning diversity constitutes a drive or motive for diversity pervasive across interpersonal or micro settings as well as macro, structural settings. For example, in one university, the incoming Chancellor/President, Dr. Joel Anderson, launched his tenure with a speech to internal and external stakeholders. He stressed that one of his main goals during his tenure would be to address issues of racism. He then held informal conversations with faculty and staff about their motives for addressing racism. The group learned of his multi-decade record of being evolved in the civil rights movement. These meetings included other personal stories about colleagues still facing racial inequity, and in time became a weekly ritual. During the coming years, this group launched an annual community wide racial attitudes survey, established various campus and community initiatives including a Civil Rights Trail. After 15 years, the survey results are still shared in community forums. In time, the Anderson Institute on Race and Ethnicity was formed to carry on this university and community wide initiatives (Anderson Institute, n.d.). This positive case demonstrates the way the motive or drive toward diversity became embedded in various macro and micro elements of culture.

At the heart of the matter is for us to accept that the journey toward co-creating a diverse organization requires commitment—a commitment carried then by a sense of drive or purpose. To that end, the ensuing section includes frequently discussed diversity drivers, such as economic shifts, but also, more personal ones grounded in vision of making better social worlds. As you review these imperatives, consider the extent you engage with others in discussing these imperatives to value diversity. Also, consider the extent your analysis surfaced elements of culture that constituted these imperatives in thematic action.

Casting against Type 153

Explore Globalization, Demographic, and Technological Trends

First, globalization processes, demographic shifts, and technological trends make the need for improved diversity practices evident. One way we have explored this imperative is in the context of organizations that have been slow to realize the changing demographics in their city or region. If your cultural analysis did not include talk about or some level of awareness of the impact globalization, the following review is intended to enrich future conversations. For instance, earlier, we stressed that nearly two thirds of US organizations conduct business internationally. Our immediate networks involve colleagues, students, and friends who engage in international travel or live as expatriates. Communication scholars engage in developing assessment to improve the success of those seeking to adjust to another culture (Dodd, 2007). For the majority who do not travel, if you live in the US and in most areas of the world, you do not have to leave home to encounter diversity. If you live on the Euro-Asian, African, or Australian continents, odds are that you will either work for a multinational or do business in a diverse setting. In addition, historically and to the present day, migration based on war, famine, and the search for a better life continues to create greater cultural contact. For instance, the Syrian refugee crisis has meant the displacement of over 4.2 million people from 2010– 2015. Furthermore, from 2000 to 2010, the flow of immigrants to “Europe, Northern America and Oceania combined reached a level of 3.1 million migrants per annum” with some decline from 2010–2015 (United Nations, 2017, p. 9). These patterns continue to add to changes in global, diversity demographics.

In the U.S., demographic shifts in the next 45 years make the need for improved diversity practices evident as well. As Table 9.1 indicates, the Caucasian or White population of the United States is projected to become a “majority minority” by 2044. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, those who identified themselves only as “white” presently constitute 62.2% of the population, but will be below 50% by 2044. The Asian American population is projected to almost double their percentage of the population (5.4% to 9.3%). The Hispanic population is also projected to increase dramatically from 17.4% of the current population to 29%. Population gains will come from higher birth rates among some minority populations as well as immigration patterns. However, perhaps most significant, the fastest growing groups are those who identify with more than one race. The projected increase of 226% will be from 2.5% (8 million) to 6.2% (26 million) of the total population (Colby & Ortman, 2015). This trend suggests that traditional categories of race/ethnicity lose their descriptive power.

The trends and projections captured in Table 9.1 are commonly mentioned in the news and in classes on intercultural communication and international management. The common assumption is that these U.S. demographic shifts, along with similar patterns across the world, will result in organizations that have the potential to enjoy the benefits and challenges of increased diversity—managing multiple perspectives from differing cultural value sets and/or synergy from increased contact and collaboration between different cultural and ethnic groups (Harris, Moran, & Moran, 2007).

These higher levels of contact are further enhanced by technological trends. Cultural diverse global teams face challenges of working in virtual spaces. These teams, as found in one study, view trust as the key variable impacting performance (Phadni & Caplice, 2013). Learning the communicative practices that build

Table 9.1 Projections of U.S. Population by Race/Ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity 2014 Population/% 2060 Population/%

African American 42 million/13.2 59.7 million/14.3% Hispanic 55.4 million/17.4% 181.9 million/29% Non-Hispanic White 198 million/62.2% 119 million/28.6% Asian-American 17.1 million/5.4% 38.9 million/9.3% American Indian/Alaska Native 3.9 million/1.2% 5.6 million/1.3% Native Hawaiian & Pacific Islander 734 thousand/.2% 1.2 million/.3

154 Cultural Analysis Application

trust is key. Thus, virtual global teams raise the question of the impact of online encounters on intercultural competencies. For example, Maroccia (2012) contends that the internet may favor certain North American communication styles. Technological changes have also increased the trend toward job outsourcing. These forces mean we must give increased attention to the challenges of organizations and individuals in physical and virtual spaces from varied background, beliefs, as well as ever present complex power dynamics (Sorrells, 2012). These global trends should also be considered in light of demographics related to age.

Conversations about motivations to improve diversity should also tie to shifts in age diversity. The “demographic time bomb” is one term employed to capture these shifts (Tempest, Barnatt, & Coupland, 2002). Worldwide, persons aged 60 or above will likely more than “double by 2050 and more than triple by 2100” (United Nations, 2017, p. 13). The impact of age diversity has been documented in a study of 128 companies with a total of 8,651 survey respondents. The researchers found that increased age diversity correlates with increases in age discrimination as well as having a negative impact on performance as mediated by affective commitment (Kunze, Boehm, & Bruch, 2011). Such findings provide a glimpse of the challenges and the need to attend to this facet of diversity. Others suggest leadership development needs (Hammond, Lester, Clapp-Smith, & Palanski, 2017).

While an increased number of older workers will work longer due to economic downturns that have played havoc with retirement accounts, a new wave of younger workers (sometimes called the Net Generation) are entering the workforce in huge numbers. The “Net Generation” is the largest generation since the Baby Boomers. Tapscott (2009) documents that the “Net Generation” (born between 1977 and 1997) constitutes 27% of the U.S. population, compared to 23% for the Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964), 15% for Generation X (born between 1965 and 1976) and 13.4% for the Generation Next, born after 1998. “Net Generation” members have well-developed technological skills but very different orientations toward work from their parents and grandparents. They are dismayed when they join an organization only to find technical systems less advanced than they used in high school, policies forbidding social media at work, seniority policies that diminish their roles in the organization, and inflexible work hours that value “desk time” over work productivity. They are also impatient with cultural assumptions that encourage newer employees to “pay their dues” by silently observing current practices before speaking or promoting change. Younger employees expect to have a voice, and to exercise influence from the start. This demographic shift provides another ground for attending to diversity and the need to become more adept at adapting communication practices; yet perhaps the most commonly cited factor is economic.

Economic Factors: It Is Change or Else

Demographic shifts combine with the reality of economics as another motivator. In one meeting related to race relations, a community leader noted that while individuals may not always attend to the ethics of addressing racism they will attend to economics. The need to address the dilemma of culture and diversity is evidenced in two primary economic arenas: closing minority income gaps and grasping the significance of diversity on the creative economy.

The positive economic impact of addressing economic racism provides a wake-up call. In the U.S., for example, based on 2011 American Community survey data, Roehrig (2013) spells out the impact of eliminating minority earnings gaps. He notes that the GDP would rise by $1.8 trillion, corporate profits by $178 billion, federal tax revenues by $288 billion, and a reduction of welfare support by $61 billion. What would the net impact be over time?

By 2050, elimination of the earnings gap would increase GDP by $16.3 trillion, close to a 20% increase. This would add an average of 0.5% annual growth to GDP between 2012 and 2050. It would also reduce the deficit by $3.3 trillion, which is 4.0% of GDP.

(p. 3)

Casting against Type 155

These data provide a powerful economic incentive to address disparities in our organizations. Improving our efforts at diversity takes on additional urgency in the present “creative economy”. Richard

Florida (2002), in his book, The Rise of the Creative Class, argues that the U.S. economy (and to a large extent the world economy) is now based not only on information but also on creativity, an economy in which hardware and software innovation, biomedical research, e-commerce innovation, and entertainment are driving our total economic growth.

Florida points out that an essential ethos of the new creative class involves diversity. Members of the creative class feel that innovation can flourish only in an environment of stimulation and creative tension. As companies compete for the top creative talent, diversity is a key edge. Florida’s statistical research suggests that the fastest growing economic areas show excellent statistical fit with areas rich in diversity. His analysis, however, has been challenged on the basis of making claims of causation based on correlational data. In addition, a closer analysis of trends also reveals that some of Florida’s cities ranking lowest in his “creative class” measure economically outperformed those at the top (Malanga, 2004). Yet, despite these limits, more recent research, exploring a data set of 229,083 survey participants in 143 cultures found a “positive relationship between diversity and national economic performance/GDP per capita.” In addition, those perceiving high tolerance of diversity in their communities also claimed higher levels of community engagement and better job climates and overall subjective well-being (Wu & Muller, 2015, p. 8). These findings all point to the powerful motivator provided by economics, yet closely tied to economics, our conversations also need to pay attention to issues of equity.

The positive economic impact of addressing economic racism provides a wake-up call.

Equity: Paying Attention to the Gaps

Beyond economic realities, attention to diversity has also driven ethical ideals based in equity in pay/position and in treatment. Concerning pay, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, in a 2016 fact sheet, note that for women, “the median gender ratio for all full-time weekly workers was 81.9% . . .” of men’s pay across full-time workers (Hegewisch & Williams-Baron, 2017). They also note that women earn less than men in the most commonly held occupations for both men and women. In addition, when adjusted for age/sex, “earnings per person for people of color are currently 30% below those of non-Hispanic whites” (Turner, 2016, p. 21). Furthermore, across countries, concerns about the glass ceiling, or the tendency to not promote women into leadership roles continues. For instance, as of 2016, just 4.2% of Fortune 500 companies had women as CEOs (Zayra, 2016). Others have noted variation across countries and industry type, yet significant gaps remain (Schäfer & Gottschall, 2015). Formal leadership conversations as well as less formal conversations about these gaps should be part of organizational discursive practices. Such discussions should not simply focus on ways to develop leadership competence but also macro level or institutional practices strategies such as the diversity of the decision makers on the board (Cook & Glass, 2014).

Beyond issues of equity in pay/position, fairness in treatment also remains as a significant barrier. Discrimination continues. One study exploring minority physician experiences during their medical career found reports of discrimination ranging from 71% of black physicians to 45% of Asian physicians (Nunez- Smith et al., 2009). In the context of gender equity, a discursive analysis in small group settings in a business school found that the “type of leadership style that women tend to exhibit may not be recognized by others as ‘doing’ leadership” in the organizational culture (Walker & Aritz, 2015, p. 473). In a different study of diverse groups, Orbe and Camara (2010) analyzed 957 stories to discern their interpretative processes related to discrimination. They found that the majority versus minority culture members frame discrimination in different ways. Majority group members tend to enact meaning making rules that “focus on a particular incident”. In contrast, minority members enact constitutive rules rooted in the context of a “life script of lived experiences that, often times, span generations” (p. 292). Being aware that both groups experience

156 Cultural Analysis Application

discrimination, though framed in different ways, becomes an added impetus to improve communicative practices related to diversity.

In addition to discrimination, entrenched stereotypes still exist. Cleveland, Stockdale, and Murphy (2000) express the feminist viewpoint that despite their differences, most organizational cultures have been built upon male stereotypes and assumptions. They write:

Most U.S. organizations were built by and for men (usually White men), . . . Perhaps the biggest challenge is in building organizations that fit women as well as men is to examine critically the values and assumptions that define work and work organizations.

(pp. 381–382)

They advocate pluralistic rather than monolithic organizational culture. Rather than expecting each culture member to adapt to a single set of values and expectations, a pluralistic culture will create systemic organizational change to adapt to the dynamism of a diverse workforce. The assumptions favoring males are an example of the deep and unconscious assumptions that form Schein’s (2004) third level of culture. Beyond exploring these assumptions, we encourage reflection and discussion related to one last factor that may motivate a commitment to improving diversity and communication in our organizations.

Improving Social Worlds

Reflect back on what you have observed in your analysis. If you were to create a chart that graphed various types of diversity what would you see? To what extent did the organization reflect the ethnic diversity of their city? To what extent did you see interactions between people of varied backgrounds? To what extent does a multinational simply invite members of the community to share ideas versus giving them voice and agency in decision making? Finally, to what extent do the members of the organization and/or the organization at large, have a sense of responsibility to address social inequities beyond their walls?

Earlier, we reviewed some of the continued challenges faced by minorities. The stories that are harder to hear often involve women and children. Martin and Nakayama (2015), in their call for a dialectic approach to intercultural competence, are inclusive of a “privilege-disadvantage” dialectic. Concerning this dialectic, they plea for attention to be given to the discursive practices that promote negative stereotypes and discrimination. In particular, we must be aware of and seek ways to change workplace inequities that see women and children, transported legally and illegally to serve as “servants and concubines” in sweatshops around the world (p. 15). In another context, Blanchard (2007) notes that segregated churches are directly related to segregated communities across the USA. He goes on to state that “conservative Protestant[s] may contribute to an over- abundance of in- group ties . . . that undermine shared cultural understandings between races” (p. 429). As such, others note that “the historic diversity ideals of the Christian faith hold out promise to improve understanding. Thus, a lack of diversity in churches represents a lost opportunity” (Driskill et al., 2014, p. 3).

These patterns of social injustice and lost relational connections should challenge us to discern ways to improve our social worlds. We contend that our lives, our world is improved by organizations and communities that make intentional efforts to build bridges. Discussions and dialogue over our varied motives to engage in change are critical. We see such conversations as aiding us in diversity efforts. Deepening our motivation process, however, needs to also be tied to how we define and think about the scope of diversity.

2. Enrich Conversations about Definitions of Diversity

At first glance, the idea of defining diversity seems simple. The term may conjure images of diverse nationalities or ethnic groups or diversity represented by age or economic status. Others may think about removing pay or promotion barriers based in gender or disability. Our thinking about diversity may include differences in race, gender, ethnicity, age, cultural background, disability, social class, and sexual orientation

Casting against Type 157

(c.f., Allen, 2011). Diversity, as we will note later, may also be concerned with personality differences that may impact interactions more profoundly than the first list of classifications.

Given this range of definitions, return to your analysis. What implicit or explicit references to diversity did you hear? What assumptions were being made about “being diverse”? How was it being defined? We assert that the conversations about how we define and think about diversity are critical. In fact, you could survey an organization to discern the degree of consensus on any one definition. In one study, involving in depth interviews of communication professionals, Oliveria (2013) found that they tended to define diversity in terms of communicating with a particular ethnic group, such as Hispanics. While this focus on ethnic groups has merit, the limits are clear. Our contention is that co-creating a diverse culture requires us to challenge our assumptions about, and meanings associated with, the term diversity. This positive communication practice focuses on encouraging and enriching formal and informal discussions by asking the question, “What do we mean when we say we want a diverse organization?” Here we explore several definitions that can be used as discussion starters, as ways to enrich the conversation. Rehearsal 9.1 provides a way to enrich these conversations by reflecting on the varied experiences of majority versus minority groups.

Cox (2001) defines cultural diversity as “the representation, in one social system, of people with distinctly different group affiliations of cultural significance” (p. 6). This definition is useful because it recognizes the role of perceptual identification and cultural significance in defining diversity. For example, an African American female who identifies more with her social class and gender than with her race might not add to the diversity of an organization in which her race is underrepresented. A Caucasian male who identifies more as a disabled person than as a majority male might add to diversity. Cox’s definition also stresses the importance of group affiliation. For example, in a traditional religious organizational structure that is composed predomi- nantly of intact nuclear families, introducing a leader who identifies himself as a single or divorced male would have great cultural significance and add to diversity, while a divorced or single individual in another organization would have little cultural significance. Conversely, a multinational firm with a dominant Asian Indian culture, would enhance diversity more with the inclusion of employees with vastly different assumptions about hierarchy and power distance (Hofstede, n.d.) such as Germany than if a country with similar assumptions such as Pakistan. Thus, as you seek to enrich conversations about diversity, ask questions about “cultural significance” in light of group affiliation.

Thomas (1996) provides a broader definition that may also be used to enrich our conversations. He argues that diversity has become understood by many, especially in the U.S., as a new word for affirmative action often focusing attention on African American employees. Thomas defines diversity as “any mixture of items characterized by differences and similarities.” (p. 5). He notes that this broader definition encourages organization members to focus not only on differences, but on similarities as well, and exploring the contours of difference and sameness. He also says that his definition refers to the collective (all-inclusive) mixture of differences and similarities, using the metaphor of a jelly bean jar. In looking at the diversity, you consider not only the last color added to the jar, but to the overall mix of colors and what each adds to the jar. Finally, he states that a broader view of diversity can stretch beyond socially constructed demographic differences to consider functional or methodological diversity as well. Diversity becomes a way of thinking about organizational complexity in a holistic way. His ideas would suggest formal and informal conversations focused on asking questions about commonalities and differences, not only in terms of demographics like gender, ethnicity or race, but also about our approaches to decision-making, problem solving, and conflict management, for example.

Hays-Thomas (2004) adds additional rationales for a broader definition of diversity such as Thomas’s. She says that when diversity is understood as accommodating only a few legally protected classes of employees, it may engender resistance or resentment from other employees. The broader definition also draws on rich social science research from fields like group dynamics and decision-making, noting the superiority of heterogeneous work groups. In addition, the broader definition helps organizations understand that meeting legal requirements is only one rationale for diversity, but more important rationales lie in potential for innovation and organizational effectiveness. Hays-Thomas writes about Thomas’s leap of conceptualizing diversity based in environmental complexity and change:

158 Cultural Analysis Application

Complexity of thought and flexibility of behavior are required for success in contemporary organiza- tions. An important consequence of this perspective is that diversity management is seen as a form of organizational development and change as well as a set of processes for increasing effectiveness and harmony in a workforce that varies along important dimensions.

(pp. 11–12)

We concur with the value of these added rationales. In fact, Gerald participated in a book conversation in an organization aimed at enriching thinking about diversity. In this context, a group explored a book, Far from the Tree. The author, Andrew Solomon, complicates our thinking about identity tied to disability. From in-depth interviews, the voice of participants ranging from autistic to ex-convicts and dwarfs to transgender, his findings complicate identity based either in a simple binary of a medical model (“we can fix this disability”) or a cultural model (“I am this way, I was born this way”). Exploring our motivations for improving diversity practices is thus tied to our understandings of the experience of those with differing identities. Thus, exploring our understanding of and definitions regarding diversity provides an added rationale to connect across difference and also sets the stage for a third communicative action aimed at improving our diversity journey.

3. Assess Progress On the Diversity Journey

Cultural data will often reflect information about diversity initiatives. For instance, one student surfaced conflicting and competing views of diversity within one unit of a large organization. Some interviews boasted about various diversity practices. Others quietly spoke of the surface nature of these practices. Competing views aside, the challenge of identifying our location on the diversity journey, that is our progress in enacting this value, is ever present. Here then, we review a model for reflecting on stages of multicultural development. We find these stages a useful device for stressing the journey or process rather than an either/or dichotomy. As you review these stages, begin thinking in terms of the elements of culture you have identified that have relevance for these stages. For instance, you may have noted a complete lack of reference to diversity as a value or at the other end, you may have picked up on rituals, and heroes and communication rules all relevant to this value.

In “Creating the Multicultural Organization”, Taylor Cox Jr. (2001) reflects on his years of experience as a diversity consultant by stressing the importance of deep cultural change in supporting diversity goals. He indicates that the root cause relevant to diversity initiatives has to do with a misdiagnosis of the problem. Cox claims that the problem is not as simple as not having enough people of certain cultural identity groups or a lack of sensitivity. Rather, he asserts we need to attend to a “diversity-toxic” culture (p. 13).

So how can an organization create a culture that fosters diversity and creativity? Holvino, Ferdman, and Merrill-Sands (2004) present a Model of Multicultural Organizational Development (MCOD), developed by Holvino (1998) in a previous monograph (Table 9.2), proposing that organizations go through six phases as they move from monocultural to multicultural organizations. In the first exclusionary stage, organizations explicitly and actively base themselves on the values of one cultural group and explicitly privilege that group in organizational practices and norms. In the second phase which Holvino terms “passive club” stage, organiza- tions are less openly exclusionary, but still only admit new organization members who are similar in values and perspectives of the dominant group. Stage three is a transitional stage of compliance. In this stage, the organization may not actively exclude organization members who are different from the current dominant group but also do not make affirmative changes in management or cultural practices which would seek out diverse new members. Stage four is the transitional stage of positive action in which the organization becomes committed to including others, especially those in legally protected categories. The organization begins to tolerate differences created by new members. The fifth stage is the beginning of multi-culturalism that Holvino calls “redefining”. In this stage, the organization tries to expand its definition of inclusion and diversity. Leaders and organization members attempt to identify and change barriers to diversity. In the last stage of true multiculturalism, the organization actively includes a diversity of groups, styles and perspectives and becomes a continuous learning organization

Casting against Type 159

with changes in basic assumptions and values that captures the benefits of diversity. In short, this last point on the journey is an ideal in which a core value focuses on learning and improving processes.

As you reflected on the above stages, we hope you took time to identify where you would locate your organization (see Rehearsal 9.2). It might help to think of the stages as a continuum rather than discrete stages. Put differently, it might be that your organization shares characteristics across stages and/or has moved back and forth between strategies. You also may find that some forms of diversity such as gender or ethnicity might be valued and promoted while other forms such as political ideology or sexual identity are not. The intent, then, is to engage in active assessment that attends to embedded power-relations. You may for instance, engage in focus groups or surveys on a regular basis (i.e., every 1–2 years) to discern progress. This model suggests progress markers related to each stage of the journey. Thus, the fourth communicative action involves an exploration of CCO processes designed to address micro-interpersonal as well as macro- structural/organizational constitutive actions.

4. Make Structural, Cultural, and Behavioral Changes

Holvino et al. (2004) share their vision of what a multicultural organization looks like:

In essence, we define a multicultural, inclusive organization as one in which the diversity of knowledge and perspectives that members of different groups bring to the organization has shaped its strategy, its work, its management and operating systems, and its core values and norms for success.

(pp. 249–250)

They go on to stress the ideal of equal treatment, inclusion, and opportunities at all levels and functions. Ferdman (2014) stresses in his chapter on inclusion, not only how “well organizations and their members connect with, engage, and utilize people across all types of differences” but also the individual level experience of inclusion (p. 4). Combined, he views the need for on-going organizational level practices that engage individuals and social identity groups in meaningful ways. Such an ideal is about weaving diversity into the very fabric of the organization. As such, everyone has internalized the motive to be about making progress, seeing diversity as an asset, not a problem.

Table 9.2 The Multicultural Organizational Development Model

Monocultural Transitional Multicultural Exclusionary Passive Club Compliance Positive Action Redefining Multicultural

Actively excludes in its mission and practices those who are not members of the dominant group.

Actively or passively excludes those who are not members of the dominant group. Includes other members only if they “fit”.

Passively committed to including others without making major changes. Includes only a few members of other groups.

Committed to execute strategies to include others, especially those in designated target groups. Values the differ- ences that others bring.

Actively works to expand its definition of inclusion and diversity. Examines and changes barrier creating practices impacting members of non-dominant groups.

Actively includes a diversity of groups, styles and perspec- tives. Continuously learns and acts to make the systemic changes required to value and include all kinds of people.

Values the dominant perspective of one group, culture, or style; may deny that differences even matter and/overlook common ground.

Seeks to integrate others into systems created under dominant norms.

Values and integrates the perspectives of diverse identities, cultures, styles, and groups into the organization’s work and systems.

Source: Holvino (1998), Used by permission

160 Cultural Analysis Application

To achieve this goal, we concur with their call to engage in three types of changes congruent communicative practices at the macro and micro level: (a) structural such as recruitment, policies and pay; (b) cultural such as values as constituted in rituals, language, and metaphors; and (c) behavioral such as trainings and and dialogue groups that encourage and equip members to engage in positive communicative “third culture building” aimed at moving beyond adapting to another culture or simply adopting to the others norms, but instead attending to ways to develop common ground in order to promote positive interpersonal and group interactions (Broome, 2013).

Below we outline examples of changes that cut across elements of culture. Based on your assessment of cultural data, the key is to discern the strategies the organization is ready to execute. We also provide Rehearsals that prompt reflection on research relevant to several of these communicative actions. In particular, Rehearsal 9.3 encourages reflection on barriers to implementing positive practices. In addition, the “Connections” sections provide ways to live out these practices by attending to the experiences of minorities.

Structural Changes

• Recruitment policies and practices. • Regular reviews to ensure equality in pay and benefits, and opportunities/support for advancement. • Shift from ‘benevolent’ relationship to equity to give agency to both parties (e.g., organization and community) • Policies on work/family balance (leave, holidays, etc.). • Formal mentoring to include conscious culture socialization/orientation processes so that hidden rules

shared by a majority culture are made transparent. • Encouraging diverse subcultures; value “niches” of diversity across the organization. • Networks formed to advance the interests of minorities.

Cultural Changes

• Rituals (forums, focus groups, lunch discussions) for exploring diversity motives and definitions. • Ceremonies inclusive of stories, and language affirming common ground and diversity. • History displayed through artifacts relevant to an oppressive past and to the pride of cultural accomplish-

ments and practices. • Shared metaphors that embedded values related to diversity (tributaries, stew, quilt, jelly bean jar).

Behavioral Changes

• Regular communication training and coaching opportunities on positive communication to counter stereotyping, unconscious bias, and negative inter-group relations (e.g., awareness of marginalized groups, structural racism, dialogic communication, cosmopolitan or dialogic communication).

• Use of dialogue groups to promote and develop third culture building.

These three categories of change set both the stage and the script for moving toward an organization valuing and benefitting from diversity. The key is to take this final practice and combine it with the other three communication practices: (a) enrich conversations about definitions of diversity; (b) co-create a drive to value diversity; and (c) assess progress on the diversity journey. The following “Connections” section provides further insights and Rehearsals for application.

Connections

In an ideal world, all organizations would be in the process of becoming multicultural and developing practices to aid in responding to the challenges of this process. However, in the real world some organizations are blind to the value of diversity or uncertain as to how to move toward and respond to

Casting against Type 161

multiculturalism. Because organizations vary so widely in regard to inclusion, it is also crucial for members of marginalized groups to understand the dominant organizational culture. Being able to read the dominant culture can provide critical information to guide employment choices, as well as promoting individual career development. We offer this connection section along with other Rehearsal activities as a way to improve awareness of the experiences of marginalized groups (9.2) as well as to gain insights on discursive practices related to family-leave policies (9.3). Both organizations and individuals have responsibilities in enhancing cultural awareness. Organizations can develop mentoring, dialogue, and training. Individuals can learn to ask the right questions, participate in informal organizational activities, seek out mentors, and form their own communication networks to enhance cultural knowledge. As you analyze your cultural data, you may find themes that emerge related to the ideas introduced in this section. Tie this back to your data, and you may then find implications and recommendations for your organization. We begin with a reflection on the role of awareness.

Developing Awareness: Minority Experiences and Muted Voices

Marginalized groups are those whose interests and styles are not privileged within the organization. Such groups face a number of challenging obstacles. Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1977) in her classic book Men and Women of the Corporation offered a numerical minority hypothesis, that tokens (one of only a few representatives of their category in a larger dominant group) face similar pressures whether it is a woman in a male-dominated profession, an African American executive in a European American–dominated team, or an American manager in a Japanese subsidiary of a multinational corporation. One obstacle facing each of these tokens is the lack of access to informal channels of information that would yield tacit understanding of organizational norms. Allen (1995) found that “persons of color tend to have limited access to social networks, blocked mobility and often do not have mentors or sponsors” (p. 150). Amason, Allen, and Holmes (1999) document the stressors experienced by Hispanics in the acculturation process. Again, the limited access to supportive networks contributed to the challenges they faced in adjusting.

Rehearsal 9.1 Are You a Privileged Member of Your Organizational Culture?

Purpose: To develop awareness of your relative position of advantage over members of a marginalized groups.

Guides: Besides completing this as individuals and then moving to reactions and discussion, another option is to have participants line up on one side of a room or a parking lot (e.g., some open space). Then, indicate as you read each question that if their response to the question is “agreed”, they are to take one step forward. The idea is to visually capture the impact of varied experiences on minority groups. As rule, minority groups are “left behind”. Then, process this experience by asking what they observed, experience, and how they would interpret communication implications for themselves and the organization.

1. I have never left an employment interview wondering if my race or sexual orientation was a factor in not getting a job.

2. It is very likely that my direct supervisor in most organizations is of my race and/or gender. 3. I never have to use two languages or idioms, one for social and the other for professional. 4. It is rare for me to walk into a meeting in which I am the only member of my representative group. 5. It unlikely that someone of my ethnic or social identify group will be available as a mentor within

my organization? 6. Holidays associated with my religion are standard organizational holidays such that I do not have

to ask special permission to observe them or take personal vacation days.

162 Cultural Analysis Application

7. I am asked at times to speak for all members of my race or gender in a business conversation. 8. No questions would be raised if I chose to select or promote a member of my race or gender. 9. I am never invited to a club or restaurant for an organizational function at which I feel

uncomfortable as a member of my minority group? 10. I do not have to rely on laws to ensure equal treatment of my minority group. 11. I never have to seek assistance or alternatives to be able to enter an office or to use a restroom

because the facilities are not designed for me. 12. I never feel like I have been chosen for committees or assignments not because of my qualifica-

tions or interests but to represent my minority group.

Another challenge is related to family-leave policies. For example, Buzzanell and colleagues (2017) document how women engaged in a contradictory discourse to manage the challenges of workplace communication in light of maternity leave. They note that women simultaneously adhered to and resisted discourses related to time off and disability in order to gain leave. Yet, the experience of minorities goes beyond facing these challenges. Meares, Oetzel, Torres, Derkacs, and Ginossar (2004), as introduced earlier, examined responses to mistreatment in the workplace. They document various forms of mistreatment that occur both at the interpersonal and institutional level. Their analysis includes documentation of various ways minorities construct “muted narratives” in response to mistreatment. For instance, minority responses to mistreatment tended to fall into narrative categories such as “muted, but engaged”, “angrily disengaged”, and “resigned”. The authors stress that ambiguous policies about mistreatment were a major source. While management had acknowledged problems for several years, no action had been taken to create clear definitions or ways to address mistreatment. In fact, minorities faced a dilemma in how to respond.

If they work to resist mistreatment, they are placing themselves in a position where they are likely to face more mistreatment. If they react to the mistreatment by becoming disengaged, they are indirectly recreating the power structures and giving up the chance of being heard.

(p. 21)

As this study on mistreatment suggests, the challenges faced by marginalized groups are varied and complex. Thus, as we consider additional Rehearsals aimed at creating a culture that embraces diversity.

Rehearsal 9.2 Assess the Multi-Culturalism of Your Organization

Purpose: To apply the material from Holvino, Ferdman and Merrill-Sands to your organization

1. Where would you place your organization on the continuum of moving from mono-culturalism to multi-culturalism? Why?

__________________________________________________________________________________

2. What structural changes in recruitment practices, policies, pay and benefits, holidays, work/family balance, etc. would support multi-culturalism?

Casting against Type 163

3. How do employees’ communication patterns contribute to or inhibit multi-culturalism? Are certain voices muted in the organizational dialogue? Does employee communication about diversity policies limit their impact?

4. What behavioral changes are necessary to promote more effective inter-group relations? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

Strategies for Marginalized Groups: Mentoring, Dialogue, and Multicultural Training

We recognize an ethical dilemma as we propose strategies for marginalized groups to understand the dominant organizational culture. Numerous critical theorists (Clair, 1993, 1998; Mumby, 1997, 2015) have pointed out that when marginalized groups adapt to the dominant culture, they reinforce the legitimacy of unjust cultures that privilege the interests of some groups over others. They call this process hegemony, the participation of marginalized groups in their own domination. In a study focused on the challenges of minority members on a school board,Mease and Terry (2012) introduce a question as part of their analysis: (1) “How do racist organizational structures persist despite what we generally assume to be the good intentions of individual organizational members?” (p. 125). The researchers rely on a CCO approach to “demonstrate how co-constitutive performatives of race and organization create and maintain a hegemonic Whiteness while simultaneously making it difficult to acknowledge the fact that Whiteness exists as an organizing principle” (p. 128). Their study captures the difficulties and challenges minorities face as well as majority culture members who face such a “double-bind”.

We concur with the value of addressing these challenging and conflict interactions, not by simply focusing on one strategy, but by various micro and macros processes. As these authors note attention must go beyond rhetorical strategies to “a reconfiguration of the organizational structures through which those rhetorical styles, discursive strategies, and material realities of race are organized” (Mease & Terry, 2012, p. 138). Manzie’s (2018) crisis response analysis of the Royal Dutch Shell company in Nigeria documented efforts by this multinational to contribute to local communities. However, their process reinforced patronizing colonial practices by not addressing agency. Thus, the relationship remained prescriptive rather than being responsive to both organizational and the community's organizing practices. We believe marginalized groups as well as majority members must understand the dominant culture in order to co-create with others positive changes. Often the means of domination through unconscious cultural patterns can be the means of liberation when we understand and use cultural patterns to support the interests of equality and fairness. Both organizations and individuals should take responsibility for ensuring that members have resources to learn about cultural expectations. We explore three such options, recognizing that one strategy alone is unlikely to align a culture with a value for embracing diversity.

Mentoring Programs

One strategy is to install formal mentoring programs, in which a senior member of the organization is paired with a new employee to “show him [or her] the ropes”. These formal mentoring relationships may not produce the same results as naturally occurring mentoring relationships based on perceived mutual benefit and professional attraction. Studies comparing the two approaches found that both groups expressed greater

164 Cultural Analysis Application

socialization and career progress than employees who had not been mentored at all, satisfaction was much higher in informal mentorships, and those relationships also resulted in higher salaries for mentees (Chao, Waltz, & Gardner, 1992). Beyond traditional outcomes such as satisfaction, pay, or upward mobility, others argue for co-constructing trust in mentoring relationships that also have such positive outcomes as resilience and organizational learning on both sides (Blake-Beard, Murrell, Krothapalli, Halem, & Kweder, 2016). We provide several examples of how such goals and efforts might become part of the culture.

Kreps (1983) writes of an interesting way that organizations have sought to help all new employees with enculturation. RCA developed extensive video orientation programs, not only telling the new employee of policies and corporate data but also cultural information about history, rituals, heroes, and norms. In a context focused on leadership development and entrepreneurship, community based mentoring could find resources through insights from a different study. Jones (2017), in a groundbreaking study of empowerment narratives from Black entrepreneurs, explored ways they enacted rhetorical agency to work within oppressive systems as well as to resist damaging, dominant discourses about black businesses. In particular, their stories focused on: (a) economic improvement of resources; (b) targeted and localized community action; (c) legacy leaving or passed on ideals to future generations or passed on from older generations; and (d) social justice ideals, focused on poverty, identity, justice, and politics. Tapping into such leadership network for mentoring, is another powerful way to empower future generations.

Such minority mentoring strategies have been formalized by minorities themselves in organizations such as fraternities and sororities, all-female professional networking groups, and communities of immigrant populations. These alternative information networking groups may give the edge that formal programs lack. For example, the CEO of Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg, has launched an international effort to provide mentoring groups for women. Based on her best-selling book, Lean in: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, she promotes the development of varied communicative practices to aid leadership development. According to the “Lean In” website, 33,000 “Lean in Circles” or mentoring groups are now present in 150 countries. 85% of the participants credit this experience with positive change in their life. This approach has been critiqued by Mumby (2015) from a critical perspective in terms of the assumption that the primary problems women face are “self-imposed”. Mumby argues that this individualized approach is based on agency “framed as personal choice rather than collective action.” Rather than an on-going “collective struggle for social change” the focus is on “individual entrepreneurship” in a “neoliberal moral framework in which each of us has a duty to ourselves to cultivate a self- brand” (p. 34). However, this critique does not attend to the other resources and collective actions provided beyond mentoring resources. For instance, the web site, provides ways managers (both women and men) should change their communicative practices ranging from challenging interpretations of women who are called “bossy” or “pushy”, to ways to create gender blind evaluations. In addition, this movement is not solely based on individual efforts, but creates organizational partnerships at no fee that involve access to and involvement in public awareness campaigns. We see a congruence with such efforts and constitutive processes that cut across micro and macro elements of culture. Such processes, especially given the inter and intra organizational and global reach, hold promise for aiding the vision of greater equity and improving social worlds.

African American fraternities and sororities are an especially interesting social networking phenomenon. More than 1.5 million members, predominantly African Americans, are members of nine fraternities and sororities associated with the National Pan-Hellenic Council, according to its Web site (www.nphchq.org). The fraternities include Omega Psi Phi, Kappa Alpha Psi, Alpha Phi Alpha, Phi Beta Sigma, and Iota Phi Theta. The sororities include Alpha Kappa Alpha, Delta Sigma Theta, Zeta Phi Beta, and Sigma Gamma Rho. Unlike many Caucasian college sororities and fraternities, the organizations of the National Pan- Hellenic Council are formed as lifetime networking groups to give members an alternative to exclusive corporate and social networks. Members of the National Pan-Hellenic Council have become an economic, political, and social force. The organizations also create a strong and effective alternative networking structure. Recently we interviewed an African American applicant for a tenure-track teaching position at the university. Angi was fascinated when her associate dean greeted the young man and proceeded to tell him every member of his fraternity on campus and leading members of the community who were also

Casting against Type 165

http://www.nphchq.org

“brothers”. Listservs for the fraternity offer opportunities to seek career guidance, re-establish connections after moves, or offer social support.

Such constructive efforts provide alternative networking/mentoring structures to counteract the exclusion of many women, racial/ethnic minorities, international employees, and other marginalized groups from informal communication networks in many organizations. They may offer the best long-term opportunity for learning cultural information in alternate ways.

Dialogue Groups

Mentoring programs provide a key strategy for empowering marginalized groups. However, the need also exists to do more to engage employees in discussing their experiences through regular feedback systems. Such experiences may happen in settings in which conflict is embedded by nature of the identity of the identity of the organization. In one Christian based hospital in the U.S., an ethnic and religious minority was hired to work in a context of Christian values, language, and practices such as praying for patients. The new member was conflicted from the start and faced the challenge of realizing the culture was in place by design, based on mission, history and values. She realized that such norms would not change, yet she was not comfortable with the practices. In time, others sensed her disrespect for these norms, yet there was not a process in place for negotiating these conflicts.

Imagine a different scenario. During the interview process, the nature of these norms was made clear, so you could discern if this is a place you wanted to serve. Then, you learned from a mentor and from the orientation, that quarterly discussions and monthly dialogue groups were held to learn of minority concerns. These dialogue groups gave time to explore ways to navigate differences. Then, over time, you discover that information from these sessions is being integrated into management training. In fact, Meares et al. (2004) call for such a process based on a case analysis of a large, 1000-member research and development organization that had a history of reports on mistreatment. One issue was the ambiguity of defining mistreatment. Their case study makes it clear that engaging members in dialogue groups should not be undertaken in a casual way. We concur with Barnett Pearce and Kim Pearce (2000; c.f., 2004) with the following list of six core assumptions that should influence dialogue initiatives:

1. Dialogue is a form of communication with specific “rules” that distinguish it from other forms. 2. Among the effects of these rules are communication patterns that enable people to speak so that others

can and will listen, and to listen so other can and will speak.

Table 9.3 Creating Diverse Cultures

Method Advantages Disadvantages

Creating diversity as a central organizational value

Ends duality of culture and diversity Difficult to change culture Sends clear message through multiple channels

Top leadership must support and lead by example

Encouraging diverse subcultures Creates pluralistic cultural values and norms

Can erode community and identification Can set up battles for organization identity

Formal mentoring programs Give equal access to informal cultural information

Not same effect as natural mentoring relationships

Organizational orientation including cultural information

Recognizes the importance of culture Much cultural information is tacit Gives all access to cultural information

Minority networks for personal and professional development

Empowering May not have cultural insight to share

166 Cultural Analysis Application

3. Participating in this form of communication requires a set of abilities, the most important of which is remaining in the tension between holding your own perspective, being profoundly open to others who are unlike you, and enabling other to act similarly.

4. These abilities are learnable, teachable, and contagious. 5. There are at least three levels of these abilities, including the abilities to respond to another’s invitation to

engage in dialogue, to extend an invitation to another to engage in a dialogue, and to construct contexts that are conducive to dialogue.

6. Skilled facilitators can construct contexts sufficiently conducive to dialogue so that participants are enables to engage in dialogue in ways they would not without the work of the facilitator. (p. 162)

The promise of dialogue groups, if implemented based on the above guiding assumptions, is that they co- create communication practices that begin to shape the culture. Stories, for instance, begin to be told of employees finding voice and of leaders willing to address problems before they get out of hand. In crisis response, for instance, dialogue groups should also consider widely distributed or communal modes of leadership as suggested by Manzie (2018). Multi-national leaders need to discern ways to truly empower decision-making by, and with, community stakeholders.

Multicultural Training

Dialogue groups, however, suggest the need for developing intercultural or multicultural communication competency. Earlier in this chapter, we discussed the growing reality of diversity in the USA. Beyond growing diversity in the USA, we have stressed throughout this book the rapidly expanding number of multinationals. Friedman (2005), in his best-selling book, The World is Flat, recounts his experiences in connecting with business leaders in India. As he reflected on those experiences, he concluded, that contrary to popular belief, the world is flat. Indeed, a typical day mirrors the experience of an increasing number of individuals. For instance, in the relatively small city of Little Rock, about 190,000, Gerald interacts with three faculty in his department, each from different national cultures, and students from such far-ranging places as Senegal and Pakistan to Taiwan and Cameroon. Furthermore, within the city, it is now common to learn of diverse cultural connections. Neighbors speak of working for French as well as Dutch owned companies based in Little Rock.

An additional driver to improve training resources is found in the communication practices and assumptions that may be operating at a hidden level. For instance, Aritz and Walker (2014) studied leadership practices across diverse problem-solving groups. They noted that “East Asian language speakers reported that they did not feel as included, valued, or supported as their American counterparts” (p. 78). They explain this difference by noting the varied assumptions about important leadership characteristics. U.S. team members identified “decisive and task oriented” as the most important leadership characteristic; whereas,

Japanese and Chinese valued status-conscious and procedural style over being decisive and task oriented followed by involving others in decision-making process (listed as second by both groups) and modesty, compassion, and support (in the case of Japanese). Koreans identified “involving others in decision- making process” feature as the most important attribute of a leader.

(p. 78)

In another study of three countries, research found differences in managers and non-managers in the United States, India, and Malaysia in relationship to preferred listening behaviors (Roebuck, Bell, Raina, & Lee, 2016). These types of findings and the diversity of our organizations remind us of the reality of the “flat world” and indicate the need to go beyond mentoring and dialogue groups. We also encourage organizations to take initiative in developing intercultural communication training. Such training should be adapted to the experience and needs of participants. Training activities and assessment practices should also attend to models

Casting against Type 167

for developing intercultural competence (Driskill & Arjanakova, 2010). One central practice is to engage participants in an increased awareness of cultural identity. Jameson (2007) provides one valuable resource in this area. She stresses the importance for the field of business communication to develop professionals with insights concerning the hidden forces of culture:

To help achieve this goal, (we) should more strongly emphasize how to understand one’s own individual cultural identity: the sense of self derived from formal or informal membership in groups that impart knowledge, beliefs, values, attitudes, traditions, and ways of life.

(p. 200)

Beyond integrating aspects of improved insight to identity and communication, effective training should go beyond awareness to include affective training as well as skill or behaviors. Trainings should also reflect on the challenges of responding to inevitable dialectic tension introduced earlier. Martin and Nakayama (2015) introduce six such dialectics: individual-cultural, differences-similarities, past/present-future, personal-con- textual, privilege-disadvantage, and static-dynamic. They argue that such training would, by attending to these dialectics, move beyond a focus on the individual, to connect “individual agency with larger, structural constraints” in a way that reveals “the complexities of culture, as well as the various interests at work in driving cultural hierarchies” (p. 19). However, beyond model based training, more needs to occur to further encourage progress in this arena.

In one stellar example of going beyond “just training”, Heifer International, a non-profit working to address poverty in over thirty countries, took major strides to enhance the capacity of their employees to work in a diverse environment. As part of a larger diversity initiative, Gerald developed a full day training on intercultural communication. Heifer leadership, consistent with their process focused culture, then took three additional steps. They (a) transferred the training to employees to empower them to conduct the training in the future; (b) integrated intercultural competency expectations into job descriptions, and (c) invited employees to occasional lunches to discuss progress in their development of cultural competencies.

If done well, such training initiatives can be part of a set of practices that reflect a commitment to empowering employees from diverse backgrounds. Such training should be focused on the types of diversity present in the organization. Generational diversity training programs, as well as gender, and national or ethnic trainings indicate another level of commitment to create a culture where the diverse backgrounds of individuals truly enrich the culture of the organization.

Summary

In this chapter, we have summarized a variety of approaches for assessing and integrating the value of diversity into organizational culture. Those various approaches, along with their advantages and disadvantages, are summarized in Table 9.3. The challenges and opportunities presented by the diversity paradox are real. The choices you make in response to cultural data may result in improving the quality of life and creative outcomes for your organization and beyond. We have provided a survey (Rehearsal 9.4) as a way to assess your perceptions of the value your organization places on diversity. In all, we trust that if you have found practical tools for using cultural data in the context of diversity. Four major ideas were stressed in this application section.

1. The “diversity paradox” suggests that strong cultures can prevent organizations from embracing diversity because of hiring biases and expectations for new employees to embrace cultural norms and expectations; conversely diversity can create a lack of shared communication norms that create barriers.

2. Four communicative practices can aid organizations:

• Co-create a drive to value diversity. • Enrich conversations about definitions of diversity.

168 Cultural Analysis Application

• Assess progress on the diversity journey. • Make structural, cultural, and behavioral changes.

3. Women, racial/ethnic minorities, international employees, and other marginalized groups are often disadvantaged because they are not part of informal communication networks that transmit cultural norms and values.

4. Working toward pluralistic cultures in which diversity is a central organizational value seems the best long-term solution. In the meantime, mentoring or conscious culture socialization processes can help to level the playing field.

5. Naturally occurring mentorships have advantages over formal mentoring programs. Networks specifi- cally formed to advance the interests of women and minorities also show promise in creating cultural change.

6. Enhancing the experience of minorities should also involve well-designed dialogue or feedback groups as well as intercultural training that equips employees for a diverse workplace and thereby creates a culture that embraces diversity.

Rehearsal 9.3 Identify Barriers to Using Positive Policies

Communication practices may contribute to cultural patterns that promote or inhibit organizational diversity. Kirby and Krone (2002) document ways that employee communication influenced employee use of family leave policies. In their study, employees without young children felt that family leave policies were unfair and placed additional workload on them. They especially discouraged males from taking paternity leave. The negative talk about work-family policies resulted in low usage rates of policies designed to accommodate diversity among employees. As introduced earlier, Buzzanell and colleagues (2017) found that women engaged in ironic and contradictory discourse in order to gain time off to give birth. They noted, that “We found that time, caregiving, and able-bodiedness (as mothers and as competent workers) were issues fraught with contradiction and entangled with knowledge that corporate language could undermine women while also being used for the workers’ benefit (p. 82).

Take time to reflect on phrases used when someone makes use of a family leave policy. Note common expressions, statements made to and/or about the person seeking leaving.

Now note phrases you hear expressed by the person seeking leave. What patterns emerge? What do you learn about the communication rules associated with negotiating family leave?

Rehearsal 9.4 Diversity Survey

Original items created by Angela Brenton for a hospital client; others (*)were developed based on communicative practiced from this chapter.

Purpose: Assess your perception of diversity values and communication practices with your organization.

Directions: Please respond to each of the following questions on a 5-point scale in which 5 indicates Strongly Agree; 4, Agree; 3, Neither Agree nor Disagree; 2, Disagree; and 1, Strongly Disagree.

Casting against Type 169

1. My job is important to this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I have received adequate training to do my job. 1 2 3 4 5 3. My opportunity for advancement is good. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Hiring and promotion decisions are made fairly here. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Top management supports respect for diversity 1 2 3 4 5 6. This organization has a clear policy on sexual harassment. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I know how to file a harassment complaint. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I know how to file a discrimination complaint. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Individuals guilty of harassment are disciplined. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Individuals guilty of discrimination are disciplined. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Employees of different racial and ethnic groups are treated equally in organizational

policies and practices. 1 2 3 4 5

12. This organization treats men and women equally in organizational policies and practices. 1 2 3 4 5 13. Discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, age, disability, or sexual orientation

is not tolerated here. 1 2 3 4 5

14. I have experienced discrimination in this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 15. Someone I know has experienced discrimination in this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 16. I have heard offensive comments of a sexual nature here. 1 2 3 4 5 17. I have heard offensive racial or ethnic language used by employees in this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 18. Employees of different racial/ethnic groups and genders communicate well with one

another. 1 2 3 4 5

19. My supervisor shows appreciation for individual differences (i.e., ethnic, gender, age, disabilities, etc.).

1 2 3 4 5

20. My supervisor accommodates the needs of employees who are responsible for the care of children or older adults.

1 2 3 4 5

21. I have the opportunity for flextime on my schedule. 1 2 3 4 5 22. I have the option of job sharing. 1 2 3 4 5 23. I find it difficult to balance work and family responsibilities. 1 2 3 4 5 24. This organization would benefit if more women were promoted to managerial or

leadership positions. 1 2 3 4 5

25. This organization would benefit if more racial/ethnic minorities were promoted to managerial and leadership positions.

1 2 3 4 5

26. I would feel comfortable working with someone who is gay/lesbian. 1 2 3 4 5 27. This organization makes accommodation for employees with disabilities. 1 2 3 4 5 28. I have input into decisions that affect my job. 1 2 3 4 5 29. This organization is a good place to work. 1 2 3 4 5 30. This organization cares about the health and welfare of employees. 1 2 3 4 5 *31. We engage in conversations about definitions and varied understanding of diversity. *32. We engage in communication that creates a drive to value diversity *33. We regularly assess progress on the diversity journey. *34. We have determined and engaged in structural, cultural, and behavioural changes to improve our

diversity practices. *35. Minority groups are empowered to engage in informal communication networks that transmit

cultural norms and values. *36. We provide mentoring processes for minorities. *37. We have developed dialogue or feedback groups to improve cultural understanding. *38. We have intercultural training that equips employees for a diverse work place.

170 Cultural Analysis Application

Demographics:

39. What is your employment status? A. Part-time B. Full-time

40. What is your gender? A. Male B. Female

41. What is your racial/ethnic classification? A. Caucasian B. African American C. Hispanic/Latino D. Asian/Pacific Islander E. Middle Eastern F. Native American G. Other

42. How long have you worked at this organization? A. Less than 1 year B. 1–5 years C. 6–10 years D. 11–20 years E. More than 20 years

We computed cross-tabs of each question by employment status, gender, race/ethnicity, and tenure to determine if there were differences in job satisfaction/engagement, relationship with supervisor, training opportunities, or reactions to diversity by demographic characteristics.

Discussion Questions

1. Why is diversity especially important in today’s creative economy according to Richard Florida’s work? What other factors prompt you to value diversity?

2. Why is a broad definition of diversity like Thomas’s (“any mixture of items characterized by differences and similarities”) helpful?

3. Describe stages toward becoming a multi-cultural organization. What do we mean by “multi-cultural” organization?

4. How do generational differences pose a challenge for organizational cultures? 5. Do you agree with research cited in this chapter that American organizations are built on the

assumptions and patterns of white males? In what ways may women or racial/ethnic minorities be challenged by corporate rituals or values?

6. What is the danger in creating and fostering subcultures in an effort to support diversity? 7. What are ways in which organizations can mute the voices of marginalized groups?

Casting against Type 171

References

Allen, B. J. (1995). “Diversity” and organizational communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23(2), 143–155. doi:10.1080/00909889509365420

Allen, B. J. (2011). Difference matters: Communicating social identity (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Amason, P., Allen, M., & Holmes, S. (1999). Social support and acculturation stress in the multicultural workplace. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27(4), 310–334. doi:10.1080/00909889909365543

Anderson Institute (n.d.). Retrieved from http://ualr.edu/race-ethnicity/ Aritz, J., & Walker, R. (2014). Leadership styles in multicultural groups: Americans and East Asians working together. International Journal of Business Communication, 51(1), 72–92. doi:10.1177/2329488413516211

Blake-Beard, S., Murrell, A., Krothapalli, V., Halem, J., & Kweder, M. (2016). Mentoring as a connecting competency builder. In L. Wooten, L. M. Roberts, & M. Davidson (Eds.), Positive organizing in a global society: Understanding and engaging differences for capacity building & inclusion (pp. 110–116. New York, NY: Routledge.

Blanchard, T. C. (2007). Conservative protestant congregations and racial residential segregation: Evaluating the closed community thesis in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties. American Sociological Review, 72, 416–433. doi:10.1177/000312240707200305

Broome, B. (2013). Building cultures of peace: The role of intergroup dialogue. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication (2nd ed., pp. 737–761). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Buzzanell, P., Remke, R., Meisenbach, R., Liu, M., Bowers, B., & Conn, C. (2017). Standpoints of maternity leave: Discourses of temporality and ability. Women’s Studies in Communication, 40(1), 67–90. doi:10.1080/ 07491409.2015.1113451

Chao, J. T., Waltz, P. M., & Gardner, P. H. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison of mentoring functions and contrast with non-mentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619–663. doi:10.1111/j.1744- 6570.1992.tb00863.x

Clair, R. P. (1993). The use of framing devices to sequester organizational narratives: Hegemony and harassment. Communication Monographs, 60(2), 113–136. doi:10.1080/03637759309376304

Clair, R. P. (1998). Organizing silence: A world of possibilities. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Cleveland, J. N., Stockdale, M., & Murphy, K. R. (2000). Women and men in organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Colby, S., & Ortman, J. (2015, March). Projections of the size and composition of the U.S. population: 2014 to 2060 population estimates and projections. Current Population Reports, pp. 25–1143. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/ content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.pdf

Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2014). Women and top leadership positions: Towards an institutional analysis. Gender, Work & Organization, 21(1), 91–103. doi:10.1111/gwao.12018

Cox, T. H. (2001). Creating the multicultural organization: A strategy for capturing the power of diversity. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Dejean, J. S. (2015). Synching the law to resolve the disconnection between awareness and action in legally mandated diversity hiring practices in higher education institutions. Journal of Research Administration, 46(2), 34–54.

DeYmaz, M. (2007). Building a healthy multi-ethnic church. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Leadership. Dodd, C. (2007). Intercultural readiness assessment for pre-departure candidates. Intercultural Communication Studies, 16(2), 1–17.

Driskill, G., & Arjanakova, S. (2010). Assessing intercultural communication: Models and Methods. In P. Backlund & G. Whitfield (Eds.) An Assessment Primer: The role of assessment in the life of a Communication Department. Washington, DC: National Communication Association.

Eisenberg, E., Trethewey, A., LeGreco, M., & Goodall, H. (2017). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint (8th ed.). New York: St. Martin’s.

Emerson, M. (2006). People of the dream: Multiracial congregations in the United States. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ferdman, B. (2014). The practice of inclusion in diverse organizations. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.),Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 3–54). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

172 Cultural Analysis Application

http://ualr.edu/

https://www.census.gov/

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the 21st Century. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books. Hammond, M. M., Lester, G., Clapp-Smith, R., & Palanski, M. (2017). Age diversity and leadership: Enacting and developing leadership for all ages. In E. Parry & J. McCarthy (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of age diversity and work (pp. 737–759). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Harris, P., Moran, R., & Moran, S. (2007).Managing cultural differences: Global leadership strategies for the 21st century (7th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Professional.

Hays-Thomas, R. (2004). Why now? The contemporary focus on managing diversity. In M. S. Stockdale & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Hegewisch, A., & Williams-Baron, E. (2017, April 4). The gender wage gap by occupation 2016; and by race and ethnicity. Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Retrieved from https://iwpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/C456.pdf

Hofstede, G. (n.d.). Country comparison. Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/ Holvino, E. (1998). The multicultural organizational development model (Unpublished training materials). Brattleboro, VT: Chaos Management.

Holvino, E., Ferdman, B. M., & Merrill-Sands, D. (2004). Creating and sustaining diversity and inclusion in organizations: Strategies and approaches. In M. S. Stockdale & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Hopson, M., Hart, T., & Bell, G. (2012). Meeting in the middle: Fred L. Casmir’s contributions to the field of intercultural communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(6), 789–797. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.08.008

Jameson, D. A. (2007). Reconceptualizing cultural identity and its role in intercultural business communication. Journal of Business Communication, 44, 199–235. doi:10.1177/0021943607301346

Jenkins, J. J. (2014). A “community” of discipline: The paradox of diversity within an intercultural Church.Western Journal of Communication, 78(2), 134–154. doi:10.1080/10570314.2013.845793

Julian, S. D., & Ofori-Dankwa, J. C. (2017). Context matters: Diversity’s short- and long-term effects in fortune’s “best companies to work for”. Strategic Management Journal, 38(7), 1557–1565. doi:10.1002/smj.2576

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books. Kirby, E., & Krone, K. (2002). “The policy exists but you can’t really use it”: Communication and the structuration of work-family policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 50–77. doi:10.1080/00909880216577

Kreps, G. I. (1983). Using interpretive research: Development of a socialization program at RCA. In L. Putnam & M. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 243–254). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Kunze, F., Boehm, S., & Bruch, H. (2011). Age diversity, age discrimination climate and performance consequences—A cross organizational study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32 (2), 264–290. doi:10.1002/job.698

Malanga, S. (2004). The curse of the creative class. City Journal, (Winter). Retrieved from http://www3.cis.gsu.edu/ dtruex/courses/IB8710/Articles/City%20Journal-Florida-is-all-wrong.pdf

Manzie, V. (2018). Applying the rhetoric of renewal model in a contemporary African context: Lessons learned from Royal Dutch Shell Oil crisis in Nigeria. Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research.

Maroccia, M. (2012). The internet, intercultural communication and cultural variation. Language & Inter cultural Commu- nication, 12(4), 353–368. doi:10.1080/14708477.2012.722101

Martin, J., & Nakayama, T. (2015) Reconsidering intercultural (communication) competence in the workplace: A dialectical approach, Language and Intercultural Communication, 15(1), 13–28. doi:10.1080/14708477.2014.985303

Mease, J., & Terry, D. (2012). [Organizational (performance] of race): The co-constitutive performance of race and school board in Durham, NC. Text and Performance Quarterly, 32(2), 121–140. doi:10.1080/10462937.2011.653390

Mumby, D. K. (1993). Narrative and social control. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mumby, D. K. (1997). The problem of hegemony: Rereading Gramsci for organizational studies. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 343–375. doi:10.1080/10570319709374585

Mumby, D. K. (2015). Organizing power. Review of Communication, 15(1), 19–38. doi:10.1080/15358593.2015.1015245

Casting against Type 173

https://iwpr.org/

https://www.hofstede-insights.com/

http://www3.cis.gsu.edu/

Nunez-Smith, M., Pilgrim, N., Wynia, W., Desai, M., Jones, B., Bright, C., & Bradley, E. (2009). Race/ethnicity and workplace discrimination: Results of a national survey of physicians. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 24, 1103–1109. doi:10.1007/s11606-009-1103-9

Oliveria, M. (2013). Multicultural environments and their challenges to crisis communication. Journal of Business Communication, 50(3), 253–277. doi:10.1177/0021943613487070

Orbe, M., & Camara, S. (2010). Defining discrimination across cultural groups: Exploring the [un-] coordinated manage- ment of meaning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 283–293. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.02.004

Pearce, W. (2007). Making social worlds: A communication perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Pearce, W., Pearce, B., & Pearce, K. (2004). Taking a communication perspective on dialogue. In R. L. Anderson, L. Baxter, & K. Cissna (Eds.), Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies (pp. 39–56). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Phadnis, S., & Caplice, C. (2013). Global virtual teams: How are they performing? Supply Chain Management Review, 17(4), 8–9.

Roebuck, D., Bell, R., Raina, R., & Lee, C. (2016). Comparing perceived listening behavior differences between managers and non-managers living in the United States, India, and Malaysia. International Journal of Business Communica- tion, 53(4), 485–518. doi:10.1177/2329488415572789

Roehrig, C. (2013, August). Economic impact of closing the minority earnings gap. Ann Arbor, MI: Altarum Institute. Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York, NY: Random House. Schäfer, A., & Gottschall, K. (2015). From wage regulation to wage gap: How wage-setting institutions and structures shape the gender wage gap across three industries in 24 European countries and Germany. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 39(2), 467–496. doi:10.1093/cje/bev005

Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Scheitle, C., & Dougherty, K. (2010). Race, diversity, and membership duration in religious congregations. Sociological Inquiry, 80(3), 405–423. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2010.00340.x

Solomon, A. (2012). Far from the tree: Parents, children and the search for identity. New York, NY: Scribner. Sorrells, K. (2012). Intercultural training in the global context. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 372–389). New York, NY: Routledge.

Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Tempest, S., Barnatt, C., & Coupland, C. (2002). Grey advantage new strategies for the old. Long Range Planning, 35, 475–492. doi:10.1016/S00246301(02)001024

Thomas, R. R. (1996). Redefining diversity. New York, NY: American Management Association. Turner, A. (2016). The business case for racial equity. National Civic Review, (Spring), 21–29. doi:10.1002/ncr.21263 United Nations. (2017). World population prospects: The 2017 revision, key findings and advance tables (Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP/248). New York, NY: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.

Walker, R. C., & Aritz, J. (2015). Women doing leadership: Leadership styles and organizational culture. International Journal of Business Communication, 52(4), 452–478. doi:10.1177/2329488415598429

Wu, M. Y., & Muller, G. (2015). Exploring the Relationships between Diversity, National Economic Performance, Community Attachment, Job Climate, and Subjective Wellbeing in 143 Cultures. Intercultural Communication Studies, 24(2), 1–10.

Zak, M. W. (1994). It’s like a prison in there. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 8, 282–298. doi:10.1177/ 1050651994008003002

Zayra, V. (2016, June 6). The percentage of female CEOs in the Fortune 500 drops to 4%. Fortune. Retrieved from http:// fortune.com/2016/06/06/women-ceos-fortune-500-2016/

174 Cultural Analysis Application

http://fortune.com/

Chapter 10

Improvisation Leading Change

Improv theater involves implicit scripts and structure. Change leadership also requires attending to implicit rules, norms, and values that constitute the culture. Guiding and promoting change through collabora- tive processes will remain a critical change leadership skill. Five assumptions about culture and change are reviewed: (a) not all organizational change is cultural change; (b) change, like culture, is symbolically constructed; (c) not all cultural change is purposeful; (d) the stronger the culture, often the more the members are resistant to change, and (e) initiation and active support of leaders is necessary but not sufficient for cultural change. Regardless of the language used to motivate or frame a change (merger, resizing, and so on), a constitutive approach to change helps us attend to varied perspectives on change and culture: integration, differentiation, fragmentation. Four constitutive principles are introduced: (a) shift from a leader focused, transmission model of communication, to a constitutive process model; (b) adapt communication to the varied meaning structures held in response to change; (c) respond dialogically to tensions inherent in the change process (e.g., assimilation-autonomy, consensus-command, upward-downward, transparency-secrecy); (d) determine ways to ethically utilize cultural elements during the change process (e.g., rituals, stories, values, humor). These insights ease us into being more adept at co-creating more ethical, diverse, adaptive, and effective organizational cultures that are part of improving all of our social worlds.

• “This merger was tougher than others in that we were expected to do a full banking computer conversion in 12 hours.”

• “Things change so often around here that we do not even call it change.” • “If it were not for a supervisor really listening to our gripes, I am not sure I would be handling these

changes so well.” • “We are learning to align our internal communication with our external communication in order to be

more ethical and adaptive to our clients.”

Step Five: Identify Applications for Organizational Diversity, Change, Ethics, Leadership, and Effectiveness

Objectives

• Identify language embedded in the discourse of change. • Describe five assumptions about the relationships between change and organizational culture. • Explain four perspectives on the way organizations view change. • Reflect on cultural data in light of five change practices.

Stage Terms

• Substitution. • Evolution. • Loss. • Integration. • Differentiation. • Fragmentation.

A standard part of the training for method actors involves improvisation—creating scenes and characters without the security or structure of a script. In improvisation, characters draw on their creativity and inner experiences to create a reality with one another when neither knows what is coming next. They must be ready for twists and turns and changes and adapt accordingly. To the outsider, it might seem the actors simply have a knack for being creative in the moment. They appear to be adept at responding to changes in the moment. However, there is more going on than meets the eye. The reality is that improv acting operates somewhat like daily interactions within certain implicit rules. For instance, one improv rule is that of “yes and. . .” in which the actor responding to another, must first validate their statement by agreeing to it. They are then to add information to it in “the form of detail, feeling, or consequence such as turn taking or staying on topic that guide the conversation” (Quinn, 2007, p. 4). In a similar way, improv actors learn patterns involving constitutive rules. Somewhat akin to improv jazz (Hatch, 1999) where player rely on structures, these actors are not simply making up what they say or do next.

This analogue for change leaders is useful. If we attempt, for instance, to introduce change without an awareness of unspoken scripts or assumptions, then no amount of strategy will aid us. Perhaps you have experienced times when you or others in the organization have attempted changes without being tuned into organizational history, assumptions, and values. The constructivist assumptions underlying the OCA model, stress the need to attend to history and values not as part of culture or as a variable to analyze but rather to the way the past is brought into the present as members co-construct their lived experiences. Put differently, think about times when history is referenced to encourage or discourage a particular organizing practice (e.g., “Let me tell you about a time when we tried what you are suggesting. . .”). Thus, while change leadership poses challenges, an awareness of how performances are enacting the culture of the organization provides a way to navigate those challenges. This perspective provides a unique viewpoint on organizational change for several reasons: (a) it focuses on how organizations are constituted in varied communicative processes such as membership negotiation and activity coordination (c.f., McPhee & Zaug, 2009); (b) it helps organizational leaders understand resistance to change (or at least what they may interpret as resistance) and helps them co-create successful change strategies, and (c) it suggests collaborative and symbolic strategies necessary for successful organizational change. This view- point then is responsive to the overall vision we maintain in each of these applications. Thus, regardless of the type of change being considered, when asked, “What do we want to create?”, our response is that we

176 Cultural Analysis Application

seek to co-create ethical, diverse, adaptive, and effective organizational cultures that are part of improving all of our social worlds. This chapter focuses then on communicative practices that aid in adapting to and introducing change in ethical and effective ways.

We first review the forces or language often featured in the discourse surrounding change before discussing major assumptions we hold regarding culture and change. These assumptions lay the foundation for constitutive principles for facilitating and leading change. These principles answer the third big question, “What forms or kinds of communication will create what we want to create?” We also provide Rehearsals to guide your application of your cultural data. We conclude with a “Connection” focused on tapping into humor as a resource for introducing and leading change.

The Discourse of Change

A list of phrases found in the rationales given or discourse surrounding change or proposed changes in organizational policies or practices is not difficult to generate. If you created your own list, what would you include?

Rehearsal 10.1 The Discourse of Enacting Change

Purpose: What phrases are used when changes are proposed or made in your organization?

1. _______________________________________________________________________________

2. _______________________________________________________________________________

3. _______________________________________________________________________________

4. _______________________________________________________________________________

Your list probably includes such things as competition, changes in the environment and technologies, government regulations, economic conditions, generational changes, globalization, and/or rapid growth. These rationales are often part of the discourse surrounding restructuring (“right-sizing”), labor force reductions, and mergers. Regardless of the language you have most often heard, it is critical to pause and reflect on assumptions being made about culture and change. The tendency can be to think in terms of “forces that drive change” rather than language or discursive moves that constitute the change. process.What value is there in viewing these as constitutive of change rather than “forces or factors”? First, the tendency can be to think of them as unmediated, that is as “facts” that do not involve interpretation or framing. If, for example, I represent globalization as a bare fact, it may be assumed to be a sort of external variable that mandated certain responses. A tendency might be to assume then the larger discourse of the need to “right size” our labor force. Communication may then be relegated to tips found in popular literature such as “communicate a clear, meaningful vision”, or “celebrate and reward successes during the change.” Furthermore, the assumption that such moves as labor reductions or “right sizing” are the best moves can get lost in automatic responses to “forces” without being mindful of our ethical responsibility in co-creating change. While we will discuss communication

Improvisation 177

practices, the next section on assumptions is meant to ensure we rely on wisdom guided by theory and research on change processes.

Assumptions about Culture and Change

We offer six observations about the relationships between culture and change that underlie the theories and practical suggestions about change leadership in the last part of the chapter: First, not all change creates actual change. In other words, for change to be meaningful, it needs to be “responsive” to that specific cultural context within which the organization operates. Changes in technology, leadership, business strategy, or even the competitive landscape may not alter the flow or direction of organizing practices. At times, we even talk about how an organizational change is going to “re-shape” an organizational culture, when in fact it does not. Several examples will illustrate. The health care debate continues to rage in the U.S. As far-reaching as some of the implications may be, powerful cultural forces have lobbied successfully to assure that the basic structure of health care financing and delivery will not be altered. Physicians will still perform fees for service. Private insurance companies will still serve as the intermediary for financing. The government will still assume gap financing for those who cannot afford private coverage. A second example highlights that in fact, changes in behavior are sometimes best accomplished without efforts at long term culture change. Coulson- Thomas (2015), based on a five-year study, foregrounds “performance support” processes for front line work groups. He argues that in the context of diverse subcultures, not all change is best viewed as requiring cultural change. Groups and individuals may, for example, maintain certain values and practices, while still learning “critical” behaviors important to organizational effectiveness. In short, changes happen, but may or may not nor should they always require and/or result in cultural change. Even though not all organizational changes are cultural changes, employees tend to view changes through the lens of their lived experienced and values. A bureaucratic culture trying to become more service oriented may still view customer service as following correct procedures. Traditional faculty members may feel threatened by on-line instruction and express conviction that it cannot produce the educational quality of face-to-face instruction. We are convinced that the reason why many organiza- tional change efforts such as those related to improving diversity or ethics, are not ultimately successful is because they are not co-constructed in a way that attends to the lived experiences of members. For example, a leader might mandate diversity training or implement a policy in isolation from the members.

Second, change, like culture, is symbolically constructed. When leaders initiate an organizational change, they may have a rationale in mind for the change. However, they cannot necessarily control the ways in which organization members will interpret or react to the change. Jian (2007) refers to employee sense- making as one major factor creating unintended consequences of planned organizational changes. McKinley and Scherer (2000) write that change often produces a reassuring sense of order and control for corporate executives, but cognitive disorder, stress and lack of control for rank-and-file employees. Ford and Ford (1995) discuss resistance strategies that employees may use to reconstitute the meaning or practice of organizational change, such as attributing different motives for the change, or complying with the change superficially instead of embracing its intent. Levels of resistance to change are also influenced by informal networks. For example, in a study of the introduction of electronic medical records (EMR’s), now mandated by the government, Barrett and Stephens (2017) found that participants able to create “work arounds” to implement the new system were also more likely to have lower levels of resistance to this change. Deetz, Tracy, and Simpson (2000) offer a timeless insight on the different reactions of management and employees to major change:

Business leaders rarely anticipate the extent of the resistance to planned changes. One reason for this is that the leaders have had more time to think about the change and more fully understand the reasons for

178 Cultural Analysis Application

it. But equally important, leaders often have less to lose from it. Employees, on the other hand, are surprised, do not understand the reasoning, did not participate in the choice, and see themselves as having much to lose.

(p. 39)

At the global level, Collins (2015), in an article in Forbes, argues that the shift in multiple countries away from international global trade agreements is due in part to leaders failing to provide adequate transition support for organizations and individual impacted by these agreements. The complexity of change is illustrated by Bridges (1991) who likens the change process to a marathon with thousands of runners. Runners start in tiers. The competitive runners start first. The “Sunday runners” are so far in the back of the pack they can’t even hear the starting gun. By the time the Sunday runners have eased into a trot, the competitive runners have neared the finish line. However, to add to his analogy, the consequences for each of these runners differ. Those who did not even hear the gun were most likely not part of the decision- making or the implementation process. Too many leaders, at the global as well as local leadership level are typical of the frontrunners; they are impatient with those who can’t seem to catch a vision of the finish line. Conversely, the “Sunday” runners are too quick to place full blame on those at the front.

We have both encountered this phenomenon of different constructions of change. In one setting, in a prior role as a dean of the college, Angi called together two departments to suggest that they explore the idea of a merger to create a professional school. She stressed that she was proposing the idea only as a pro-active investigation that might enhance the position of both departments and that the decision rested totally with the faculty and staff of the two departments. However, in response, the faculty and staff developed their own rationales for the impetus for the action—desire to reduce budgets, political motives about the leadership of the two departments, or other rationales. Only through consistent and open discussion did some of these attributions subside. These open discussions co-created a new organizing process where members developed a better understanding of the complexity of decision- making and in turn a greater trust in each other to maintain faculty control of final decisions. In a different context, Gerald, continues to engage a church leadership team on the topic of diversity. Along with another leader, they continue to engage in conversations that embed this effort in the national level discourse surrounding the need for practices that will remove barriers to integration (DeYmaz, 2007; Jenkins, 2014). This leader team, over the years, continues to struggle to identify ways to be more welcoming of diversity. In meetings, they share a value of being welcoming of a more ethnically diverse membership and staff. However, one-on-one visits with various leaders reveal differences in the way progress and even the value of diversity is framed. For some, improvements are happening and for others, their talk indicates the belief that not much more can be done. For others, the concern exists that diversity for the sake of diversity may become a goal in and of itself. Finding ways to co-create a shared understanding of goals and processes requires continued dialogue and recognition of the lack of shared assumptions.

Third, not all cultural change is purposeful. As we discussed in Chapter 3, cultures are enduring and dynamic. They are always being created and re-created in the interactions of their members. Kuhn and Corman (2003) claim that cultures evolve in a subtle process as new organization members and new conditions construct values, assumptions, and practices that slowly create and re-create the culture. Sometimes these changes are adopted by consensus and sometimes they develop through political wrangling and conflict. Alvesson (2002) calls this an organic social movement that is generally not controlled from the top. At times cultures can follow the same laws of entropy as other social systems with values that were once functional for an organization becoming dysfunctional over time. For example, in a home health nurse staffing agency, a pattern slowly developed that involved an acceptance of twice the industry standard in employee turnover rates. The organization remained sufficiently profitable despite this decline. One new supervisor took initiative to show the increased rates in light of national level data and also indicated the cost of the high rates of hiring, training, as the negative

Improvisation 179

impact on employee and customer satisfaction. Yet, higher level leaders had come to accept the turn- over rate as part of the cost of doing business. The increases in turnover rates had been gradual and the overall impact on their profit was manageable, such that the dysfunctional pattern had become ingrained as “the way things are”. This potential for a dysfunctional pattern to emerge is indeed a major reason to explore the discourse constituting the culture.

Fourth, the stronger the culture, often the more the members are resistant to change. In light of the example just provided, this assumption is an important consideration. We discuss in the next section the different assumptions cultures hold about change. As you might anticipate, some cultures are built on a strong assumption that continuous change is essential. However, for other cultures, the more ingrained and entrenched the cultural assumptions and values, the harder they are to change. We have found in our work with religious organizations, universities, and government bureaucracies, particularly entrenched ideologies, which are difficult for members to change even when they are dysfunctional. Lyon’s (2007) analysis of communication at Merck concurs with the problems of a strong culture. Entrenched patterns at Merck contributed to unethical communication practices resulting in the death of thousands of patients taking Vioxx. Put differently, a strong culture is not necessarily a good one or an effective one. As we will discuss in Chapter 13, on effectiveness, the notion of a strong culture as an effective one is not always accurate.

Fifth, change leadership is not just about leaders. Executive management, according to Keyton (2005), initiates most planned organizational changes. This may be due to their belief that new practices or strategies are necessary for corporate success or survival. Yet since culture and change are constituted through co-constructed and enacted elements, leaders cannot always be successful in forcing cultural change on employees without a cooperative process. Eisenberg and Riley (1988) claim that some cultural change efforts fail because leaders are pushing an ideology that conflicts with strongly held cultural assumptions and values. Jian (2007) advocates the critical role of dialogue in leading change processes. He offers a process model of organizational change that “emphasizes that both senior management and employees are change agents positioned in to different roles: initiation and imple- mentation, respectively” (p. 24). He writes:

To facilitate system integration and manage tensions, senior managers should be able to create opportunities of employee participation in change initiation, attend to critical communication events by emphasizing dialogue and negotiation, and participate themselves in change implementation among local employee groups. Such two-way participation will foster shared interpretive schemes and transform tensions into constructive energy.

(p. 25)

We discussed in Chapter 3 that culture creation is both a top-down and bottom-up process. It is difficult to sustain a change effort in any part of the organization if there is not leadership support and commitment but, at the same time, leaders cannot force change in culture without the active participation and commitment of the members of the organization. We have all been part of an organization in which the mission statement is not embraced beyond the executive suite. The customers of organizations interact most frequently with organization members at the bottom of the organizational chart. If the value or ideology does not pervade the whole organization, then it doesn’t exist to the average stakeholder. Furthermore, multinational corporations may miss this opportunity to enact change from the bottom. In non-western communities, leadership is often spread across village groups, community associations, youth groups, and/or women’s groups. Engaging these varied groups is an example of how change could occur from the bottom-up.

These five assumptions regarding change lead to a foundational reality regarding change leadership— cultures differ with regard to their perspective on change. Thus, before turning to specific communicative practices, we now attend to these varied perspectives.

180 Cultural Analysis Application

Organizational Perspectives Concerning Change

Consider your varied experiences in organizations. In all probability, you have been in organizations where change was a constant, and in others where it was rare. Foundational to the constitutive practices to be discussed in the next section is the need to understand the organizational perspective held about change. As we discussed in Chapter 4, Martin (1992) reviews three variables that influence how members interpret culture: (a) “the relationship among cultural elements or manifestations” such as values and rules, (b) the degree of consensus among organization members about the culture, and (c) the “orientation to ambiguity” or uncertainty (p. 190). Based on these three variables, Martin characterizes organizational cultures as integrated, differentiated, or fragmented. These three perspec- tives can help in understanding why one organization experiences change so much differently than another organization. However, Martin suggests a fourth perspective as a way to counter the tempta- tion to assume these three variables fully capture organizational reality. We maintain that this fourth perspective mirrors a CCO framework that provides a richer and more meaningful way to explore change processes. After reviewing each perspective, we will present implications for communicative practices.

The “integration” perspective focuses on consistency in cultural elements, organization-wide consensus on issues or policies, and has a negative orientation toward ambiguity. Those holding this perspective believe shared values come from inspirational leaders who unite organization members, often in response to the external environment. The strength of the culture is often seen in its stability and in the continuity of organizational values and practices. It is clear from this perspective how change is seen as destabilizing and threatening to group identity. Keyton (2005) notes that change often happens more slowly in consensual culture organizations since there is value in reaching wide agreement on proposed changes. Developing this level of consensus on change can take time.

The “differentiation” perspective focuses on the differences in values and assumptions among members of the organization, and the tensions among subcultures competing to define organizational values and practices. For example, you may have noticed differences in your analysis between a marketing department and a research department about the values or norms of the organization. One of your themes might have been paradoxes or tensions among organizational values. Change, from this perspective, is viewed differently by various subcultures in the organization. Some subgroups may applaud a change consistent with their values while others may feel loss and disconfirmation. Keyton (2005) indicates that change may happen more rapidly in a differentiated culture, yet change may be restricted to a subculture rather than permeating the entire organization.

Finally, a third perspective, “fragmentation”, assumes an inherent complexity in cultural elements, accepts a multiplicity of views on organizational issues rather than organization-wide or even subculture consensus, and accepts ambiguity and change as normal. A researcher operating from a fragmentation perspective assumes that values and meanings are only partially shared among organization members and that cultural consensus is more surface than real. For example, while all organization members say they value diversity, the term may have completely different meanings and implications among employees. Members of a divergent culture welcome diverse views and do not see problems with varying values or interpretations of events. For example, a computer research laboratory may thrive because it accepts the norm of uncertainty and embraces such uncertainty as a resource and motivation for creativity. Change, from this perspective, would not even be noticed since change is par for the course. Yet because of the ambiguity, not all members might agree about the application of the value to specific practices or events.

Martin’s model provides a way to “contextualize change” by directing attention to the meaning organizations attach to uncertainty or ambiguity in the environment. Table 10.1 highlights examples of each of these perspectives by providing a metaphor, the degree of consensus within the organization about how change is viewed, how ambiguity is viewed, assumptions about the source of change, and finally implications for each perspective.

Improvisation 181

The jungle metaphor for each of the three perspectives captures the importance of understanding how an organization views change. Each metaphor holds implications for how the organization views effectiveness and ways to manage change. For example, the difference between an organization seeking, and accustomed to, organization-wide consensus on issues (integration) versus an organization accustomed to continual change (fragmentation) is clear. For one, change typically must be monitored and initiated by top leaders; for another, change is something everyone is involved in adapting to each day. Thus, a new leader not tuned in to a fragmentation culture, with the norm of accepting change, may run aground. Her failure may be inevitable if she attempts to manage change based on an integration perspective with the focus on top management taking charge and managing the process. Understanding this final perspective, like the others, finds greater utility when understood in light of a “constitutive framework”.

A constitutive framework on change focuses on how we construct and enact change. Understanding the first three perspectives provides an awareness of our own as well as an organizational comfort level with ambiguity. Others have found support for the value of this model for understanding the culture of a retail organization (Harris & Ogbonna, 1998). However, we should be cautious in fully borrowing Martin’s framework. Taylor, Irvin, and Wieland (2006) note the problematic nature of using her framework given its inconsistency with a constitutive view of communication. In other words, we want to be sure that we do not treat the three perspectives as reality. Instead, the three frames can be understood as ways members talk about change. In turn, these discursive practices shape their experience of the culture. A constitutive framework has the value of encouraging us to see how the language and practiced embedded in the three major perspectives are part of actions and performances that constitute the discourse of change. In addition, a constitutive view attends to the way members participate in multiple organizational discourses—we are all embedded in and draw on the discourses of other organizations, including “larger social, economic, and political institutions” (p. 319). We should not confuse our analytic frameworks with reality.

Martin (1992) voices her own critique of these three perspectives and in doing so reminds us that reality is not contained in just one of the three boxes. With her, we realize that any framework may cause you to fail

Table 10.1 Three Perspectives (Plus One) on Organizational Culture and Change

Perspective/Paradigm Integration Differentiation Fragmentation Constitutive

Metaphor Clearing in a jungle Islands of clarity in a sea of ambiguity

Jungle Jungles and clearings emerge in discourse

Consensus/Scope Organization-wide Within subcultures (Localized and loosely coupled)

Issue specific (Changes among individuals)

Contested and accepted meanings

Psychological Safety in response to ambiguity

Denial Channeling Acceptance Negotiated

Process Revolutionary Incremental Continual Situational

Source of change Leader-centered External/internal catalysts Individual catalysts Interactions

Implications If superficial, controllable; if deeper, difficult to control

Predictable and unpredictable sources and consequences of change

Uncontrollable due to continual change

Complexity, Contradiction, Paradox

Source: Adapted from Martin (1992), Table 1–1

182 Cultural Analysis Application

to ask other important questions of your cultural data. While Martin does not provide a clear “fourth perspective”, she does suggest questions that you might ask that get beyond her boxes. For example, she suggests examining cultures in light of the focus or intent of changes that are introduced by management: Does management introduce change solely for its own interests? Do they seek change that would be less oppressive to lower ranked organization members? (Stablien & Nord, 1985). To these questions, we would add constitutive questions: “To what extent due members draw on all three perspectives?” “Which perspectives are contested?” “To what extent, as the one analyzing the culture, does your reliance on one of the three perspectives mask and/or miss the language used by members of the culture?” These questions underscore a key component of effective change leadership: we should not confuse our analytic frameworks with reality; they, like culture, are constructs intended to help us manage meaning. Rehearsal 10.2 provides an opportunity to apply these ideas to your organization.

Rehearsal 10.2 Perspectives on Culture and Change

Purpose: Understand the way an organization views change and change processes in light of constitutive framework.

Steps:

• Review your analysis data to determine the extent members’ talk reveal one of the organizational perceptions of change. To what extent does talk about change reflect integration, differentiation, and/or fragmentation perspectives? Constitutive?

• Determine your own, as well as participants’, awareness of a constitutive understanding of change. To what extent do you, as well as the organization, grasp the way these three perspectives each involve their own language and practices that actually constitute change processes?

• Develop a communication strategy appropriate for the organization, in light of a constitutive approach. While attending to the way change is understand, find ways to introduce the way change and culture are constituted. For example, the organization may place a high value on consistency and clarity, which suggests certain top management efforts to establish direction. However, there may be subcultures or minority cultures that have a greater acceptance of uncertainty. A constitutive approach (review practices provided in the next section as well), would encourage a mindfulness of how these varied discourses are co-creating their experience of change and allow room for discussion and dialogue on the implication for future change initiatives.

Metaphor A: It Is a Jungle Out There Culture: A stable force with high consistency among manifestations of culture. Change: Results in a loss of psychological safety if clarity is not maintained. Subculture Variation: _________________________________________________________________. Strategy: Leadership creates messages to indicate control over change process, reduces ambiguity by clarifying roles and norms, and processes in place to maintain stability and meaning.

Metaphor B: The Jungle Is Not All Out There Culture: Stable within units, but diverse and unpredictable across units. Change: Accepted unless viewed as an effort to disturb subculture clarity or autonomy.

Improvisation 183

Subculture Variation: _________________________________________________________________. Strategy: Leadership stresses and defines sources of change that can be controlled by the organization and those factors that are beyond their control. Organizational responses are developed as a longer-range incremental approach that will be viewed and adjusted as new information is gained. Messages focus on maintaining clarity and meaning in areas most significant to the organization.

Metaphor C: We Are Part of the Jungle Culture: Cultural manifestations are accepted as unclear and inconsistent. Change: Not noticed as a problem unless underlying value system disturbs perspective of acceptance. Subculture Variation: _________________________________________________________________. Strategy: Leaders encourage continued acceptance of the reality of change process. Policies are reviewed that encourage empowerment of subcultures and individuals to respond to change and to serve as catalysts for future change.

Metaphor D: Co-created Jungles Culture: Culture is constituted through enacted elements, through co-created practices. Change: Negotiated through contested and accepted meanings. Subculture Variation: _________________________________________________________________. Strategy: Leadership encourages dialogue and negotiation on issues of importance to the employees and management. Symbols and rituals surface from the interactions in the process of co-constructing the change. These interactions involve co-creating ethical guidelines for the change process.

Principles for Leading Change

These five assumptions and the four perspectives held about change have implications for how we introduce and communicate change. It is not uncommon at this juncture in reading books on change leadership to be introduced to a list of steps. In popular literature, and in previous versions of this book, we have introduced such a list. In fact, we would ask that you evaluate a list we included in the previous edition. Take a minute to reflect on what might be missed if a change leader simply followed this list.

1. Establish a sense of urgency. 2. Form a powerful guiding coalition. 3. Create a guiding vision. 4. Communicate the vision. 5. Empower others to act. 6. Create small wins along the way. 7. Consolidate improvements and create more change. 8. Institutionalize the new culture.

What did you notice? The list follows a logical sequence moving from need (a sense of urgency) through strategic involvement of others (a guiding coalition and empowering others to act) along with support for the change (small wins). The reasonableness of these steps is at first appealing. We contend that it is not that the suggested practices are wrong, yet we now see them as inconsistent with a constructivist approach that foregrounds our role in co-constructing change. From a CCO framework this inconsistency is problematic on two grounds. First, the list does not focus on enactment processes such as engaging in dialogue. Instead, much like the “integration perspective” it begins with the assumption that someone who has identified a

184 Cultural Analysis Application

need for change must now convince others. We are not saying that change may not involve “a sense of urgency” by someone sensing the need for a change. Nor are we contending that rhetorical or persuasive processes are unimportant. Yet, based on what we know of organizational differences in framing change, urgency may not need to be the driver. Change may be considered, as we will review in detail below, a normal part of on-going organizing process in some organizations. Yet, our second and larger concern is not just about this lack of attention to cultural differences.

Our second concern is that we may miss a critical, and ethical component of leading change. If a change leader begins with persuasive appeals grounded in their own sense of the urgency, an opportunity is missed for engaging others in the process. We recognize that organizational leaders may, as part of their role or function, be charged to scan the environment for threats and opportunities. In our own organizations, we have engaged in this type of SWAT analysis. Yet, again, we would stress the value of discerning ways to engage others from the start. Our contention is that a list like the one above needs to be revised to focus on co-creating the change process from the start. We concur with Stan Deetz, a leading organizational communication theorist and scholar, about the ethical and practical value of finding ways to engage in “democratizing” practices (c.f., Deetz et al., 2000). In one community, for instance, a need was seen to close the non-profit hospital and then enlarge the capacity of the previously competing for-profit hospital. The size of the community did not necessitate both hospitals. Concerns of course were immediately expressed about the impact on patients and the community. Community leaders discerned a way to engage in a change process that included community members and representatives from the for-profit hospital that would remain. These individuals formed a working group charged to listen and discern ways to collaborate on what they could create together. They attended to community concerns about the loss of the other hospital and the perception that the for profit would not be there for the community. This group was able to find ways to co-create shared values that resulted in launching a community foundation funded by the new hospital. A percentage of annual profits went to this non-profit foundation. In the coming years, the foundation was able to fund a major park that including an amphitheater, a swimming and fishing lake, as well as walking and biking trails. This collaborative work is one instance of a change process that sought to engage in a process that was a win-win.

What then do we suggest for change leaders other than revising the list to maximize participation or co- creation in process?

In revising the OCA model, we derived constructivist principles from the change and culture literature to guide the process of reflecting on your data for communication applications. These same principles are included in a Rehearsal with suggested survey questions. The first principle makes a case for a formal engagement in shifting to a CCO process based approach.

1. Shift from a Leader Focused, Transmission Model of Communication, to a Constitutive Process Model

We find in our work and in conversations with others, that the default mode for change leadership focuses on a downward process involving the crafting of messages of leaders often in isolation from others. Phrases such as: “We have to find a way to get them on board.” “You just have to go with this change or leave.” “We are making this change and ask you to value it.” These and variations of these statements are grounded in the assumption that change processes are best when developed and directed from the top. Then, it follows one must find and build the most compelling process to get others to join in the change.

In contrast, as intimated, we see value in a shift from viewing communication as a vehicle for carrying information, persuading others, and/or expressing ideas. Just as we do not see culture as a variable or a metaphor, we also do not view communication in this light. Yet, it takes an intentional effort to shift to a constitutive approach. We find the three questions we introduced earlier to be a useful way to make this shift. Adapted from Barnett and Kim Pearce, colleagues and leaders relying on a constructivist perspective, these questions ground the process in co-creation, in attending to communication as actually creating something.

Improvisation 185

Thus, a change leader should engage others in asking these same questions: What are we co-creating? Want do we want to co-create? What kinds of communication will get us there? Until now, the data collection process has focused on the first question. Change and implications for leading change, focus on the second two questions. For example, if a major change appears imminent (e.g., a leadership transition or a technology change), creating a transition plan rooted in conversations over cultural data about what have we been creating will aid in discerning answers to what we want to create as well as communicative practices related to change.

Another way to consider this shift to a focus on process, is the idea that the how of change is more important than the what (i.e., getting the change to happen). It is not so much where you end up as how you get there that will impact organizational outcomes. Even a good change idea that is badly handled will be damaging. Change processes, again depending on the perspective or way change is framed, may be destabilizing and increase uncertainty. A transmission or information sharing focus would suggest, “Give people information, and do it again and again” (Bridges, 1991). Yet, process is not simply about sending out the facts. One major medical institution implemented a new value statement constructed by upper management. The CEO then emailed the list of values to the employees. The email fell on deaf ears. A member, an alumnus of our program worked in the OD department and was charged with developing a three-year formal process aimed at helping employees buy into these values. They now, however, had the added resistance from employees who felt they had to been told what to value. Having to “sale” values from the top down is much more time intensive and less likely to find success than a collaborative process from the start.

We all tend to support what we help create. Involving employees or members in not only every stage of the change effort, but also in constituting the process and content of the changes, will reduce feelings of being passive victims and will encourage ownership. A warning is needed here. Perhaps like us, you have been involved in a process where organizational members were engaged in the process (e.g., focus groups, brainstorming, etc.). Yet, in time, the credibility of the process was damaged as it became clear that upper- level leaders had an agenda, a decision had already been made. They were simply using the process of “collaboration” as a “good practice to reduce resistance.” In contrast, had they been open about their ideas, their rationale, and engaged others in responding and discerning options, credibility and a more effective implementation of the change would have been enhanced. In another case, a medical organization, Gerald was contacted to provide assistance in the midst of a merger process. The lack of focus on the process had resulted in one physician becoming the scapegoat for much of the grieving and sense of loss in the organization. To complicate matters, this physician was from another country. Thus, HRD managers and senior managers tried to determine if part of the problem was to be found in employees’ having to adjust to a national culture difference. A closer examination of the two organizations showed that the issue was not as simple as the collision of two national cultures. The core issue was that the controversial physician represented an organizational culture that valued research productivity while the other organization valued patient care. In short, the merger got on track only when HRD focused on process and gave more time to discussion of value differences and ways to attend to both the value of research and patient care. This example illustrates the need to focus on cultural data.

2. Adapt Communication to the Varied Meanings Held in Response to Change

Imagine your organization is going through a change, perhaps in leadership or structure. A shift, as indicated before, to a co-construction process, one focused on process, does not mean everyone will experience change the same way. As you listen during a formal or informal data collection process, attend to these varied experiences. Marris (1974) argues that disruptions in “meaning structures” are what people most resist in change processes, not the change itself. Put differently, individuals hold different levels of “psychological safety” in response to change depending on how they view or interpret the form of the change. Marris’s three “meaning structures” are adapted and revised below to capture the significance of how each structure is constituted in discourse of the lived experience of participants.

186 Cultural Analysis Application

• Substitution: A change in which one item of meaning is exchanged for another. “We have a new boss but the way things are done around here are pretty much the same.”

• Evolution: Gradual shifts in values, meanings. “It took a while but I now see how our family business needed to expand beyond to be inclusive of others.”

• Loss: Significant change in the avenue a person had used to achieve attachment, success, and compe- tence. “I was moved to a new role and no longer feel my work is valued.”

As we review each of these forms of change, we integrate Alvesson’s (2002) ideas on these different ways of framing change. In “substitution,” the organization member gives up one cultural meaning for another. Alvesson (2002) uses the phrase “every-day reframing”, which is an informal process in which opinion leaders promote new patterns of interpretations of practices or policies. This process of substitution or reframing does not always occur easily. Smith and Eisenberg (1987), as introduced in our discussion of metaphors in Chapter 4, analyzed a conflict at Disneyland. In this classic study, a conflict was grounded in the management held theater metaphor and a family metaphor held by employees. A family metaphor was experienced as inconsistent with hard “theater” business decisions management had to make. You don’t lay off family members. The authors suggest that these challenges are not unique as organizations inherently respond to the dialectics of “stability-change” and “autonomy-connection” (p. 377). Disneyland, they argue, could either substitute the current root metaphors with a new one that does frame employees as “actors” or “children” or they may find ways to enrich the family-theater metaphor by not seeing them as incompatible. They contend that the theater metaphor could subsume the family one by focusing on “family entertainment” that also allows for a business orientation (p. 378). At times, when change is perceived as substitution rather than loss, it may be easier for organization members to accept the change because they are not left with a void. When there is strong ego attachment to the culture, however, even substitution may be difficult to accept.

In “evolution”, change seems gradual rather than abrupt. In the taken-for-granted reality, employees may not even be aware of gradual changes. Alvesson (2002) views this type of change as an organic process in which values and assumptions slowly shift and change over time. Those reacting negatively are members with longer tenure who are most likely to remember “the way things used to be.” At times, there is a moment of cultural comparison that may make organization members more aware of the change. Such awareness may prompt reflection on whether changes are perceived as positive and/or negative. In our university culture, we have seen this process of evolution occur. For instance, in the area of discourse and organizing practices related to international or intercultural competency, there has been a gradual shift. Twenty years ago, there were pockets of administration, students, and faculty who valued the development of this competency in the learning process. Today, a cultural analysis would note substantial growth in the number of rituals (events, research projects, community engagement practices) that are co-creating this value. For example, several colleges participate in an annual intercultural education week. Other changes have resulted in the centralization of some functions, such as study abroad. This centralization is not received well by all, but has meant a growth in opportunities for students. In all evolution, is likely the way many of us experience change in our organizations.

In “loss”, change is sudden and shocking, and in the lived experience of some involved, producing resistance and grief. Alvesson (2002) uses the term “revolution”, in which important cultural tenets are abandoned suddenly. Recognizing change being experienced as loss, can be useful in recognizing normal and expected reactions. Depression, grief, denial, anger, sadness, and holding on to the past are all responses to loss. Thus, in managing changes viewed in terms of loss, communication practices involving reflection and paraphrasing may be more appropriate than arguing with someone to “get over” a normal process. In particular, Bridges (1991), in an excellent and practical book on change, offers several communicative practices to guide us in responding to a sense of loss.

• Identify who’s losing what. • Accept the reality and importance of the subjective losses.

Improvisation 187

• Don’t be surprised by “overreaction”. • Acknowledge the losses openly and sympathetically. • Expect and accept the signs of grieving. • Compensate for the losses.

This interpersonal focus is in direct response to the question: “What forms of communication will create what we want to create?” In short, at the institutional levels, training should be encouraged that prompts individuals to respond to others based on supportive, and positive communication practices such as listening and mutual disclosure of concerns, and ideas.

Alvesson (2002) notes that these forms of change can be complementary. For instance, a new employee or a new role created in an organization may also prompt experiences of gradual, evolutionary change or a sense of loss. Nonetheless, the value of paying attention to change leadership as a symbolic meaning-management process places a greater emphasis on understanding individual framing or responses to change, since symbolic (“sense-making”) processes are at the core of understanding change. This concern for sense making is developed further in the third constitutive practice.

3. Respond Dialogically to Tensions Inherent in the Change Process

As you review enacted elements, thematic, and the overall characterization of the culture, you are likely to pick up insights related to experiences related to change. You might have, for instance, heard stories of changes that created a new sense of vision. Alternatively, you might have heard stories about mergers that have caused a residual ill will. Pepper and Larson (2006), based on a case analysis of a merger, argue for identifying and then responding to identity tensions that emerge in the change process. An identity tension is created as certain individual values are enacted, perhaps as part of identification with organizational values (c.f., Scott, Corman, & Cheney, 1998). In one study, Gilstrap and Smith (2016) note how changes in the branding of an NGO involved identity tensions related to certainty/uncertainty, transparency/opacity, and participation/restriction. Lower levels of identification were found when transparency and participation were perceived as limited. In a consulting context, one medical specialty organization experienced major difficulties when they expanded to work with a state-run agency. Comments were made about who was to benefit from this new association. It was clear that most of their energy was being used to negotiate the new political territory. Even as they continued to spend energy there, leadership had become aware of a higher turnover rate and much lower employee satisfaction. They noticed that employees called on to spend more time in the state agency were experiencing a loss of meaning. Some of them had a strong identity with the smaller, “family” culture of the home organization. They sensed that they were being asked to assimilate into a new culture that meant a complete loss of their own.

We believe change leadership practices should involve the identification of tensions and framing practices. Table 10.2 captures questions useful to identify two different dialectic tensions. The “assimilation-auton- omy” tension refers to the extent participants value communicative practices that encourage members to integrate with a new culture versus maintaining their own. “Consensus-command” refers to communication practices that focus on decision-making rooted in developing common ground and agreement versus being directed or told based on a dictate. Since tensions are “constructed in the daily discourse of organization life”, you should reflect on cultural data in ways that will help surface or unveil these tensions (Pepper & Larson, 2006, p. 65). Yet, one should not stop with discerning the particular tension. Listening for the way these tensions are being framed and responded to dialogically is essential. So, for example, the group leaving the “family” based organization are likely framing the “assimilation-autonomy” in terms of no option (i.e., commanded to assimilate). A change leader could engage in a dialogic process with these members to discern framing options that may be conflicted (c.f., Barge & Andreas, 2013) or “micro processes that may escalate or de-escalate a conflict” such as contention responses that lead to conflict spirals (Putnam, 2006, p. 16). Dialogue is aided then by leaders modeling micro level positive communication practices such as asking open

188 Cultural Analysis Application

questions, listening, complimenting, and disclosing self (Mirivel, 2014). For instance, in the context of change prompted by crisis, Manzie (2018) calls for leaders to attend to the local community, decision- making norms. In the case of the Royal Dutch Shell company oil crisis in Nigeria, leaders needed to carefully address ancestral land claims over oil ownership that required attention to how the past is intrinsically tied to the present. Dialogic, grounded meetings provide an opportunity to reaffirm and give voice and agency to the varied stakeholder cultures. Listening and asking questions can be part of constituting a culture that is sensitive to the issue of managing challenges to identity. Thus, the questions in Table 10.2 explore varied framing responses.

Each of the above tensions provides a resource to aid in interpersonal interactions as well as discerning sources of conflict. For example, a merger might find two sets of expectations related to how decisions are made. Other dialectics could be explored as well. In coming application chapters, for example, we will explore the attention Lyon (2017) gives to other dialectics such as upward-downward communication practices and transparency-secrecy. Regardless of the dialectic, change leaders need to discern the commu- nicative practices that will aid framing and reframing of these dialectics. To that end, the next change principle stressed the value of tuning into various elements of culture.

4. Determine Ways to Ethically Enact Elements During the Change Process

In the book The Heart of Change, Kotter (2012) stresses the emotional and symbolic dimensions of change. He notes that too often leaders approach change through an analytic procedure, assuming that if they produce enough data that organization members will be able to analyze it and understand the need for change. We concur with Kotter that effective and we would add, ethical change process, must attend to emotions. Waldron (2012), in his book, Communicating Emotion at Work, captures a list of varied “moral” emotions and their social referents. For example, listening and responding empathically to such varied emotions as hope, shame, pride, and/or scorn co-creates supportive communication during change processes (p. 138). As such, recall that the OCA model assumes cultural elements as enactments that constitute the culture. For instance, a conscious awareness of communication during a change, could include a ritual that includes a space for expressing emotional high and lows while celebrating the past, grieving loss, and affirming a vision for what is ahead (Fox & Amichai-Hamburger, 2001). The power of the cultural analysis process is that you already have at least an initial understanding of varied elements in their role in creating organizing processes. Here, we introduce rituals, stories, and values as examples of how attending to these enacted elements can be of value in leading change. We also introduce, in the Connections section, ideas on humor as yet another resource.

Table 10.2 Assessing Cultural Identity Tensions

Identity Tension: Assimilation-Autonomy:

• What do you value most about who you are as members of this organization? • What should members of the other organization do to be more like you? • What are you willing to give up and/or change? Not change? • What will aid us in maintaining aspects of both cultures?

Identity Tension: Consensus-Command:

• How do you make decisions here? • What do you value about your decision-making norms? • What happens when other types of decision-making practices are attempted? • What decisions merit the time required for consensus building?

Adapted from Pepper and Larson (2006, p. 65)

Improvisation 189

Rituals

You may have been in an organization where a ritual was introduced or carried forward to honor someone retiring, unveil a new brand, a work force initiative, and/or a new company name in light of a merger. Such rituals may be taken for granted. We attend, we listen, we talk with colleagues, receive an award, retire, admit to mixed feelings over a merger, and the list continues. Here, though we want to return to the need in a cultural analysis to attend to what is being created, or constructed in the ritual, in the talk in and around such moments. I may, for instance, have formed a clique that is resistant to the change. I may still attend a ritual celebrating the change, but before, during, and after, participate in evaluation, critique, and perhaps sarcastic comments. At the corporate level, the ritual has happened before, the lines are predictable. Lines are read about employees being involved in a change or the history of honoring employees, while along with my team, I frame the change in a different way. The point? In the context of change, rituals are complex and merit attention beyond functions.

We reviewed varied functions of rituals (Trice & Beyer, 1984, 1993) in Chapter 4: passage, integration, enhancement, degradation, renewal, and conflict reduction. This list underscores the significance and pervasiveness of rituals. Yet, our goal in analysis and in reflecting on change leadership, is to go beyond stating functions to ask, “what is being created or constituted based on how the ritual is enacted?” For instance, a ritual during a change may constitute “activity coordination”, which is needed during times of changes in “self-structuring” processes (McPhee & Zaug, 2009). Such coordination involves enacting the ritual by “symbolically” acknowledging the past. This process involves inviting members to share what they will miss about the way things were while also encouraging talk about what they value about the change (Smith & Stewart, 2011, p. 115).

In this same vein, Bridges (1991) suggests three communicative practices that can be part of co-creating rituals to constitute the change process: “Mark the endings; “Treat the past with respect”; and “Let people take a piece of the old way with them.” These practices suggest ways to attend to how a ritual is enacted or the kinds of communicative practices being enacted. One can imagine introducing a ritual that would accomplish all three of these suggestions. You may plan a pre-launch event to mark the end of a particular practice or structure. During this event, individuals could be prepared to honor what they will miss, rather than just assume all that is old or passing was not valued. Furthermore, reminders of the “old way”, could be kept in the form of mementos or artifacts. Anniversary celebrations could include reminders of the history that display respect for the contributions of what has been before. For example, in a major leadership transition in one organization, the ceremony included stories by an array of organizational members as well as community members. The stories featured various ways this leader addressed race relations in the community. In addition, the event included the unveiling of the plans for a commissioned sculpture related to race relations to be placed on the organization’s campus. The sculpture captured the values of the outgoing leader. As such, this transition ritual constituted and recreated values that members of the organization desired to carry forward.

Stories

Your data collection involved hearing or reading varied stories. We have stressed that stories are rich with cultural insights. Stories carry implicit references and explicit language referencing enacted elements such as values, history, and heroes. As such, stories are not only functioning perhaps to argue, for example, for the value of a change but also co-create the change itself. Thus, attending to what stories are creating is important for effective and ethical change leadership. For instance, imagine your role as an insider who listens for stories told about a change that was introduced in an effective and ethical manner. You pick up on one such story from five years ago when a decision was made by leadership to encourage daily small group meetings as a sort of debrief at the end of the day. You hear across unit that the change was introduced through dialogue and discussion, and tweaks were made to how the meetings were conducted based on feedback. After you learn about this story, you realize it can become a discursive resource for leading a change process in the future. In fact, one study of

190 Cultural Analysis Application

a major culture change, the researchers noted the key role stories played. They found that “stories sent messages both about the way things had been culturally in the past as well as providing justification or proof of the need for a cultural change in the future” (Dulek, 2015, p. 236).

In one case example from Gerald’s department, the story is told of a time when the option of introducing a major change was being considered. Meetings were held, pros and cons were weighed. The particular change involved one that would cost customers, in this case students, more money. It would also end an almost decade long collaborative and creative process, in this case faculty co-writing a lower-cost textbook for their students. The change would also mean a loss of revenue in that the monies for the faculty published text were used for students in a learning center. It was, at first hard, for anyone to imagine the value of such a change. Then one member, one viewed as a hero in the organization, introduced the fact that the faculty had taken on the book writing project because at the time it was the only option to meet the learning needs of the students. Now, as he indicated, “there are better books on the market.” A consensus was developed that other collaborative projects were also available and that the core value, serving the learning needs of their students (not money) was what should guide them. This story now introduced to new faculty and at varied junctures when changes are underfoot and thus re-creates decision-making patterns based in discerning what is best for students.

Values

Values are often represented as an obstacle or a resource for change. From a constitutive view, however, values are not simply slogans on the web page or symbolic forms representing the culture. Rather, they may be part of the discourse used to argue for certain action (e.g., “we value the environment, so we must . . .”) and as such are constituted in communicative practices. Daher (2016), in his study of predictors of innovativeness in organizations, noted the way values were represented as central to the change process. Enablers of innovation constituted values in communicative practices such as tolerating mistakes, group reward recognition, valuing new ideas, flexibility, future-oriented, support risk-taking, participative decision- making, adaptability, and empowerment. Notice how each of these enablers of innovation involve commu- nicative actions that enact innovative organizing practices.

It is therefore helpful to attend to the way communicative practices represent or constitute certain values before engaging in a change process. For example, Angi was a management consultant for a bank for several years. It was known internally and externally for the value employees placed on exceptional customer service. As banking was deregulated to offer more financial services, the bank rolled out what they thought was an innovative plan to encourage employees to sell more products and services to bank customers. They offered significant financial incentives and were surprised when few employees achieved their selling goals. After interviewing several employees, she concluded that the resistance to selling was based on employees’ perceptions that selling compromised the value they placed on service to employees. She encouraged the bank to drop the financial incentives and to focus instead on explaining to bank employees how the new products could serve existing customers, to tell stories about the elderly lady getting 1.7% on a large balance in a regular savings account who could earn 6% with the same money in a mutual fund. Sales soared once employees “reframed” the new practices not as incentive based sales, but within the existing cultural value of service. The drive to take care of customers was already embedded in the discourse of the culture and thus the earlier efforts were misguided.

In summary, enacted elements create communicative processes that aid or inhibit change processes. Rituals, stories and values, from a constitutive perspective, are not variables to be manipulated for a particular desired outcome. However, we can ask ourselves if we are engaging in the forms of ethical communication that co-create rituals, stories, and values that improve change processes. Other elements, such as history, metaphors, and artifacts as well as other enacted elements may be viewed as resources for constituted change. The key, from a CCO perspective, is to engage in ethical processes that attend to both micro and macro level practices. Thus, for example, in the story told above about the book decision, micro level practices

Improvisation 191

related to collaboration and consensus building were represented. What was not mentioned was that in time a macro practice was adopted–the department formally wrote consensus building into their policy manual as their preferred way to make decisions. In this way, as new members join the department and/or in moments when conflicts emerge about decision-making, members may represent the text from the manual as have force or shared agreement on the preferred mode. We now introduce another element of culture that we have typically overlooked in our writing, research, and consultation.

Connections: Humor and Sarcasm as Change Resources?

Consider times you have made or heard an ironic or sarcastic statement. Often such statements are made when an individual or a group believes something needs changing but can’t see the likelihood of it happening. As such, irony is one way change is framed and constituted. See if this mix of ironic and sometimes sarcastic phrases resonate with your experience:

• Yeah, right, so we get raises just by telling the boss we are underpaid. • I could bet my first child on the odds of that (fill in the blank) is happening around here. • Well, we know what happens if we stay with the idea “we have not done it before”. • If heaven is ethnically diverse, then why on earth aren’t we?

As you read over the above statements and perhaps think of your own examples, we want to draw to how humor is enacted constitutively and what is it doing to enact organizing/organization. First, let’s consider the role of irony before introducing a close cousin, sarcasm. Irony can be viewed as “a form of non-literal language in which the speaker means much more than what is said” (Dews & Winner, 1995, p. 3). An ironic statement might include a shared sense of a contradiction—we may laugh at or notice an incongruity, but have not yet moved to a place of contempt, which is central to sarcasm. Irony might serve an expressive function, a way to “improve social interaction” by drawing attention to “clashes in logic”, or “absurdity” (Meyer, 2015, p. 28). Thus, an ironic statement may be expressed in a professional, ethical tone to introduce a new level of dialogue, or through ritual to provide an alternative symbolic reality, and thus choice (Hatch, 1999; Sillince & Barker, 2012). For example, in one analysis of a community dialogue forum involving multiple stakeholders and community organizations, the issue of integration of religious organizations became a major discursive thread. Historically, practices in the U.S., growing from hundreds of years of legalized slavery, have resulted in segregated religious institutions. Blacks were not allowed in most white religious organizations. This pattern continued through reconstruction and to this day, with approximately 90% of churches still only about 10% integrated (Scheitle & Dougherty, 2010). In this forum, one leader indicated that a change to integration would not happen this side of heaven. In response, a minority leader in a multi-ethnic church, comprising over 35 ethnic groups, introduced “dramatic irony.” This type of irony requires the audience to detect contradictions inherent “in the characters and their situations” (Brown 1977, c.f., Brown, 1990 p. 176). This Chinese- American leader stated that in their church they often use a “brainteaser” by asking: “The kingdom of God is not segregated, so why on earth is the church?” The tone and context was not sarcastic, yet was an intentional effort to create an opening to challenge the assumption of the larger cultural practice followed by the majority (Driskill, Arjannikova, & Meyer, 2014, p. 11). The varied forms and functions of irony may be viewed in terms of discursive enactments that create organizing processes. Thus, in the context of change leadership, attending to such openings created through irony is of value.

Ironic statements, however, can take a cynical turn. Irony, when it contains contempt, becomes sarcasm. Sarcasmmay be present for any number of reasons. A group and/or individual may (a) perceive they are not being heard; (b) experience inconsistency in behaviors, and/or (c) learned and carried negative habits of criticism from another organizational culture. We may tend to think of sarcasm only in a negative light, either deprecating self, other, or some group or organization. Yet, Huang, Gino, and Galinsky (2015) in their experimental study of sarcasm in brainstorming groups found that levels of individual creativity were enhanced by those sending or

192 Cultural Analysis Application

receiving sarcasm. While sarcasm did in some cases breed conflict, if the other was viewed as trusted, it was a plus. Others have noticed the constructive use of sarcasm to gain support for a union movement (Brimeyer, Eaker, & Clair, 2004). How then might sarcasm provide an opportunity for change? Consider how the following example grounded earlier micro and macro communicative practices.

Imagine if you were part of this conversation between two co-workers. One co-worker is convinced it is “about time” for someone to be fired.

BRAD: Jay has had zero sales for months now. It is time for him to go. MARY: Jay did sell some product this past month. I believe part of the issue is we need a change in our rubric. BRAD: Well, regardless, the real problem is he poisons the well with others. MARY: What do you mean? BRAD: Jay has a habit of being sarcastic and negative. He sends unprofessional and disrespectful emails.

The challenge now is for Brad and/or Mary to discern how to move forward. This brief conversation suggests a possible need for evaluation rubrics to be changed but notice there is more involved. Jay is perceived as sarcastic. We do not know if he is simply a problem employee seeking to divert attention from his poor performance, or perhaps he is unclear on cultural norms on introducing complaints and ideas on change, and/or he may be engaged in a negative habit in the context of an organization that does not have clearly communicated and modeled policies and norms on civility and conflict management. The challenge then is to engage with Jay in a way most likely to tap into his sarcasm in a positive way.

For sarcasm to be an opening for change, at least two communicative moves are needed. First, on the interpersonal level, Mary might encourage Brad to first talk to Jay, co-worker to co-worker. This step would be based on a positive communication approach reminiscent of dialogic communication. Consistent with Pearce and Pearce (2004), the approach would be to avoid judging motive but to ask open questions, to seek understanding. Brad, for instance might state, “I am wanting to understand your recent comments about . . ..” This framing of sarcasm as a speech act, now embedded in a dialogic episode, would open the door for the possibility of Jay responding by talking about his concerns more openly. Central to this process is that Brad would be adept at listening, paraphrasing, and discerning ways to draw out the concerns. Thus, even if met with another sarcastic remark, to maintain a dialogic episode, Mike might respond by stating: “I am hearing frustration. Your comments let me know you are really wondering if anything can be done. Perhaps we could find a way to address this problem together.” Regardless of the outcome, this positive commu- nication approach (Mirivel, 2014), would need to be, in time coupled with macro level efforts to co-create communication policies that promote civil discourse as well as ways to address conflicts and improve feedback processes. We will return to these ideas in Chapter 11 on ethics. Rehearsal 10.3 (A Change Plan) and 10.4 (A Change Case) provide opportunities for application and reflection.

Summary

We began with an improvisation analogy. Improv theater, unlike what we might assume, actually involves implicit scripts and structure. Change leadership also requires attending to implicit rules, norms, and values within the culture. Guiding and promoting change through collaborative processes will no doubt remain one of the most critical leadership skills. We stressed five assumptions about culture and change:

1. Not all organizational change is cultural change. 2. Change, like culture, is symbolically constructed. 3. Not all cultural change is purposeful. 4. The stronger the culture, often the more the members are resistant to change. 5. Initiation and active support of leaders is necessary but not sufficient for cultural change.

Improvisation 193

Regardless of the source of the change (merger, resizing, and so on), we should also understand the different perspectives organizations (culture and subcultures) hold regarding change: integration, differentia- tion, fragmentation.

Finally, we should attend to four constitutive principles whether in formal or informal change leadership roles.

1. Shift from a leader focused, transmission model of communication, to a constitutive (CCO) process model. 2. Adapt communication to the varied meaning structures held in response to change. 3. Respond dialogically to tensions inherent in the change process (e.g., assimilation-autonomy, consensus-

command, upward-downward, transparency-secrecy). 4. Determine ways to ethically utilize cultural elements during the change process (e.g., rituals, stories,

values, humor).

Our hope is that these insights will guide all of us into being more adept at co-creating more ethical, diverse, adaptive, and effective organizational cultures that are part of improving all of our social worlds.

Rehearsal 10.3 A Change Plan

Purpose: Make application of change principles by developing a plan. These questions can be adapted to create a survey relevant to change processes.

Overview: Choose a project that would be a significant cultural change within either your own organization, your cultural analysis organization, or another organization with which you are very familiar. Outline a plan for how you would approach leading the change, using principles from your reading. Make sure that your project narrative addresses the following issues:

1. What change is envisioned? Why is this change a cultural change? 2. Discuss how you would prepare individuals in the organization for change. 3. Describe the change process. How long would it take? Who would be involved? What would be

the steps toward change? 4. Describe how your plan would accomplish the following:

a. Shift from a leader focused, transmission model of communication, to a constitutive (CCO) process model.

b. Adapt communication to the varied meaning structures held in response to change (substitu- tion, evolution, loss,).

c. Respond dialogically to dialectic tensions embedded in the change process. d. Determine ways to ethically utilize cultural elements during the change process.

Rehearsal 10.4 A Change Case

Purpose: Apply change principles to a situation.

Dean John Smith was hired by a research-intensive university to become Dean of the College of Science and Mathematics. He had served as a program director for a major national science

194 Cultural Analysis Application

foundation for 10 years before assuming this role. He had previously held a tenured faculty position at a university but had no university administrative experience. He inherited a college in which 40% of the faculty were older than 55; the college was dead last in the university in grant activity; the numbers of majors were declining, and the quality of facilities for instruction and research were substandard. The college had been led for 4 years by a series of interim deans during unsuccessful searches for a permanent dean. During his first year as dean he led the faculty (in the face of some resistance) in a major

and ambitious strategic planning process. The plan produced by the process set ambitious goals that would require about $3 million in new investment. He also instituted the following actions:

1. He required all faculty members to integrate Internet instructional tools into their classes, with the goal of developing online instruction that would attract new students.

2. He overruled a faculty decision to award promotion to a popular faculty member he considered did not have sufficient research productivity.

3. He made public comments disparaging the quality of the current faculty, and put pressure on senior faculty members to consider early retirement.

4. He requested that the university offer his faculty no summer teaching contracts to force more faculty members to seek outside grant support to provide summer income.

5. He developed assertive (some perceived them as aggressive and competitive) appeals in the Dean’s Council for why his college should receive additional funding for salaries, graduate assistantships, and facilities.

Results of his efforts were mixed. The number of majors and student semester credit hours increased in the college. The number of grant submissions increased, although his faculty did not have a high percentage of awards to submissions. A number of senior faculty members chose early retirement, and the dean hired bright new faculty members to take their places. His evaluations by faculty members in his college were the lowest for any dean in the university. Many of his colleagues on the Dean’s Council viewed him as brash and noncollegial.

Questions:

1. How would you evaluate these change efforts? 2. Were such reactions by members necessary and to be expected? 3. What type of cultural orientation to change existed prior to the change efforts (integrated,

differentiated, fragmented)? How did this affect reactions to change? 4. What might have been done differently to gain more acceptance of change? Reflect on the major

guides provided:

a. Shift from a leader focused, transmission model of communication, to a constitutive (CCO) process model.

b. Adapt communication to the varied meaning structures held in response to change (substitution, evolution, loss,).

c. Determine ways to ethically respond to identity tensions embedded in the change process. d. Determine ways to ethically utilize cultural elements during the change process.

Improvisation 195

Discussion Questions

1. What forces prompting change have impacted you? 2. What is the difference between organizational change and cultural change? 3. Why might employees resist change or feel threatened by it? 4. What is meant by the statement that leadership support is necessary but not sufficient for organizational

change? 5. Discuss Kotter’s idea that change happens more as a result of being shown a need, having an impact on

feelings, as opposed to our usual approaches to change through data and analysis. 6. What does it mean to shift from a leader focused, transmission model of communication, to a

constitutive (CCO) process model when it comes to leading a change effort? 7. What elements of culture would you find most useful in leading a change effort? Why? Give examples?

References

Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Barge, J. K., & Andreas, D. (2013). Communities, conflict, and the design of dialogic conversations. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication (pp. 609–634). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Barrett, A. K., & Stephens, K. K. (2017). Making electronic health records (EHRs) work: Informal talk and workarounds in healthcare organizations. Health Communication, 32(8), 1004–1013. doi:10.1080/10410236.2016.1196422

Bridges, W. (1991). Managing transitions: Making the most of change. Reading, MA: Perseus. Brimeyer, T. M., Eaker, A. V., & Clair, R. P. (2004). Rhetorical strategies in union organizing: A case of labor versus management. Management Communication Quarterly, 18(1), 45–75. doi:10.1177/0893318904265128

Brown, M. H. (1990). Defining stories in organizations: Characteristics and functions. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 13 (pp. 162–190). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Brown, R. (1977). A poetic for sociology: Toward a logic of discovery for the human sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Collins, M. (2015, May 6). The pros and cons of globalization. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ mikecollins/2015/05/06/the-pros-and-cons-of-globalization/#ac24584ccce0

Coulson-Thomas, C. (2015). Learning and behaviour: Addressing the culture change conundrum: Part two. Industrial and Commercial Training, 47(4), 182–189. doi:10.1108/ICT-01-2015-0004

Daher, N. (2016). The relationships between organizational culture and organizational innovation. International Journal of Business & Public Administration, 13(2), 1–15.

Deetz, S., Tracy, S., & Simpson, J. (2000). Leading organizations through transition: Communication and cultural change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dews, S., & Winner, E. (1995). Muting the meaning: A social function of irony. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10 (1), 3–19. doi:10.1207/s15327868ms1001

DeYmaz, M. (2007). Building a healthy multi-ethnic church. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Leadership. Driskill, G. W., Arjannikova, A., & Meyer, J. (2014). A dialectic analysis of a community forum on faith: The “most segregated” or separated hour? Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42(4), 477–496. doi:10.1080/ 00909882.2014.880938

Dulek, R. (2015). Instituting cultural change at a major organization: A case study. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 78(2), 231–243. doi:10.1177/2329490614554991

Eisenberg, E., & Riley, P. (1988). Organizational symbols and sense-making. In G. M. Goldhaber, & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 131–158). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 541–570. doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080330

Fox, S., & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2001). The power of emotional appeals in promoting organizational change programs. Academy of Management Executive, 15, 84–94. doi:10.5465/AME.2001.5897664

Gilstrap, C., & Smith, S. (2016). Identity tensions during an NGO name change: How managers experience an international organization’s rebranding effort. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(5), 445–461. doi:10.1080/1553118X.2016.1225302

196 Cultural Analysis Application

https://www.forbes.com/

Harris, L., & Ogbonna, E. (1998). A three-perspective approach to understanding culture in retail organizations. Personnel Review, 27(2), 104–123. doi:10.1108/00483489810369269

Hatch, M. (1999). Exploring the empty spaces of organizing: How improvisational jazz helps redescribe organizational structure. Organization Studies, 20(1), 75–100. doi:10.1177/0170840699201004

Huang, L., Gino, F., & Galinsky, A. (2015). The highest form of intelligence: Sarcasm increases creativity for both expressers and recipients. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 131, 162–177. doi:10.1016/j. obhdp.2015.07.001

Jenkins, J. J. (2014). A “community” of discipline: The paradox of diversity within an intercultural church. Western Journal of Communication, 78(2), 134–154. doi:10.1080/10570314.2013.845793

Jian, G. (2007). “Omega is a four-letter word”: Toward a tension-centered model of resistance to information and communication technologies. Communication Monographs, 74, 517–540. doi:10.1080/03637750701716602

Keyton, J. (2005). Communication and organizational culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kotter, J. (2012). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change their organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Kuhn, T., & Corman, S. R. (2003). The emergence of homogeneity and heterogeneity in knowledge structures during a planned organizational change. Communication Monographs, 70, 198–229. doi:10.1080/0363775032000167406

Lyon, A. (2007). Putting patients first: Systematically distorted communication and Merck’s marketing of Vioxx. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 376–398. doi:10.1080/00909880701611052

Lyon, A. (2017). Case studies in courageous organizational communication: Research and practices for effective workplaces. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Marris, P. (1974). Loss and change. New York, NY: Pantheon. Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. McKinley, W., & Scherer, A. G. (2000). Some unanticipated consequences of organizational restructuring. Academy of Management Review, 25, 735–753. doi:10.2307/259202

Meyer, J. (2015). Understanding humor through communication: Why be funny anyway? Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Mirivel, J. (2014). The art of positive communication: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Pearce, B., & Pearce, K. (2004). Taking a communication perspective on dialogue. In R. L. Anderson, L. Baxter, & K. Cissna (Eds.), Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies (pp. 39–56). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pepper, G., & Larson, G. (2006). Cultural identity tensions in a post-acquisition organization. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34, 49–71. doi:10.1080/00909880500420267

Putnam, L. (2006). Definitions and approaches to conflict and communication. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication (pp. 1–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Quinn, J. (2007). Improvising our way through tragedy: How an improv comedy community heals itself through improvisation. American Communication Journal, 9(1), 1–20.

Scheitle, C., & Dougherty, K. (2010). Race, diversity, and membership duration in religious congregations. Sociological Inquiry, 80(3), 405–423. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2010.00340.x

Scott, C. R., Corman, S. R., & Cheney, G. (1998). Development of a structurational model of identification in the organization. Communication Theory, 8(3), 298–336. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00223.x

Sillince, J., & Barker, J. (2012). A tropological theory of institutionalization. Organization Studies, 33, 7–38. doi:10.1177/ 0170840611425735

Smith, A., & Stewart, B. (2011). Organizational rituals: Features, functions and mechanisms. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 113–133. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00288.x

Smith, R., & Eisenberg, E. (1987). Conflict at Disneyland: A root-metaphor analysis. Communication Monographs, 54, 365– 380. doi:10.1080/03637758709390239

Stablien, R., & Nord, W. (1985). Practical and emancipatory interests in organizational symbolism: A review and evaluation. Journal of Management, 11, 13–28. doi:10.1177/014920638501100203

Improvisation 197

Taylor, B. C., Irvin, L. R., & Wieland, S. M. (2006). Checking the map: Critiquing Joanne Martin’s metatheory of organizational culture and its uses in communication research. Communication Theory (1050–3293), 16(3), 304–332. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00272.x

Trice, H., & Beyer, J. (1984). Studying organizational cultures through rites and ceremonials. Academy of Management Review, 9, 653–669. doi:10.5465/AMR.1984.4277391

Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Waldron, V. (2012). Communicating emotion at work. United Kingdom: Polity Press.

198 Cultural Analysis Application

Chapter 11

An Honest Portrayal Ethics

Organizations with a conscience are a pressing need in our society. The statistics are alarming in terms of ethical abuse related to fairness, safety, bullying, harassment, and our environment. However, enacting an honest portrayal involves more than being aware of these abuses or developing the ability to improve critical thinking regarding moral decision-making. Research on the effectiveness of ethics education and training reveals either no impact or a negative one. Five major ideas to aid in the process of improving our ethical performances are presented: (a) The challenges we face in our world economy and in our daily interactions in organizations frequently grow from moral and ethical lapses—lapses that make us aware of gaps between ethical ideas and reality; (b) Ethical heroes embody values of courage and integrity and serve as a resource for improving ethical practices; (c) Organizational moral learning requires a shift to talk that normalizes reflection on and improvement of decision-making; (d) Ethically framing three inherent value tensions can aid organizational moral learning; and (e) Ethical leaders should seek to improve organizational discourse related to these three value tensions along with others that are relevant to highly ethical performances.

To preserve our deeper desires amid the pressures of the modern corporation is to reserve our souls for the greater life we had in mind when we first took the job.

David Whyte, The Heart Aroused: Poetry and the Preservation of the Soul in Modern America, 1994, p. 298

We have to realize that a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor.

Pope St. Francis, 5/24/15, Laudato Si’, no. 49

Step Five: Identify Applications for Organizational Diversity, Change, Ethics, Leadership, and Effectiveness

Objectives

• Describe various ethical challenges facing organizations. • Define ethics as constituted in communication. • Explain major value tensions that influence communication and ethics. • Develop critical questions to improve ethical communicative responses to value tensions.

Stage Terms

• Value tensions. • Economizing values. • Power aggrandizement values. • Ecologizing values. • Teleopathy. • Organizational conscience.

When the Curtain Is Lifted

When the curtain is raised or when the screen lights up, as audience members we hope for nothing more and nothing less than an honest portrayal. Method actors are trained to develop a devotion to the “power of truth in acting” (Vineberg, 1991, p. 7). In short, effective acting is not about pretense, but honest portrayals that bring truth to the heart and mind.

When the curtain is raised on cultural performances, we hope for the same. In fact, what we deem not only as right and wrong but what should or ought to happen, is at the heart of many complaints about life in organizations. In this chapter, we concur with other CCO theorists who encourage a foregrounding of “the ways ethics are constituted in communication” (McClellan & Sanders, 2013, p. 259). Consistent with our other applications, we carry forward with a goal to co-create ethical, diverse, adaptive, and effective organizational cultures that are part of improving all of our social worlds. In order to enhance ethical organizing and communicative processes, we first review global ethical concerns facing our world. These concerns make us aware of gaps based in our professional and personal experiences. We then turn to the inspiration provided by ethical heroes. Such heroes, however, also make us aware of the need for an alternative approach to improving ethical behavior. This alternative approach rooted in CCO assumptions and Dr. Ryan Bisel’s (2018) model of Organizational Moral Learning, set the stage for exploring three value tensions. These value tensions provide a way to reflect on macro and micro practices that hold promise for filling the gaps-for co-creating more ethical organizations. We also provide rehearsal activities for reflection and application. Here, we again encourage reflection on the three big questions: (a) “What kind of culture is being co-created?” Based on the data you have collected, reflect on what is being created through varied elements of culture. (b) “What kind of culture do we want to co-create?” The goal in this application chapters it to determine the extent to which members value and seek to develop a more ethical culture. Finally, you will explore a process for informing the final question: (c) “What forms of communication will co-create the culture we want?” First, we turn to explore the gaps frequently experienced in our organizations.

Too Much Bad News: About the Gaps

When was the last time you were made aware of the gaps? See if any of the following six gaps resonate with your experience. Perhaps you read a headline about the growing gap between rich and poor—the fact that

200 Cultural Analysis Application

CEOs have incomes that rival the budgets of third world countries. Perhaps your attention was drawn to the sentencing news of Enron, ImClone, and Tenet Health Care executives that was then eclipsed by the financial crisis in 2008 that was rife with unethical leadership practices. You may have heard yet another newscast of an organization being called to task for a lack of truth in advertising or the unethical communication practices of pharmaceuticals such as Merck that have caused death and suffering (Lyon, 2007; Lyon & Ulmer, 2010). A second gap then between our standards for ethical leadership and the reality. A third gap then also exists between moral and legal standards. As Martin Luther King, Jr. (1963) noted in his letter from the Birmingham jail, “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” (p. 84). Laws or unwritten norms allowing for unfair treatment based on skin color, should then be disobeyed. Yet, less likely to be noticed is the impact of the “unwritten rules” embedded in a common metaphor, “business is a game”. Hamington (2009) argues that the power of this metaphor is that we act then as if “business should have its own morality: because a game has its own rules, and business is a game, business should have its own rules” (p. 477). As such half-truths, bluffing, and deceit become acceptable in order to win. This gap, though, suggests a different challenge that goes beyond incongruities in income, truth telling, or legal-moral issues.

We too may be aware of gaps from listening to reports from friends. Gerald heard from a friend who was bullied at work. Threats were made to bodily harm her. It was not the first time. The only response from HR was to tell the immediate supervisor that she must stay in her office. Her experience mirrors researchers who document the reality of cultural patterns that either explicitly or implicitly support bullying (Salin & Hoel, 2011; Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvick, & Alberts, 2006). The unethical communication practices associated with workplace bullying (Tracy et al., 2006) and sexual harassment (Keyton & Menzie, 2007; Richardson & Taylor, 2008) impact millions. Add to these numbers, the tidal wave of stories from women breaking the silence in relation to sexual harassment and abuse also increases our need to improve our organizational ethics. This fourth gap exists between our expectations for a safe place to work and the reality.

A fifth gap is perhaps the one we may not always see or acknowledge. This gap is about incongruities in our own behaviors. For example, we sense a co-worker is having a tough time with work-home balance (c.f., Kirby, Wieland, & McBride, 2013). We start to say something to be supportive, offer to go to lunch to listen, or perhaps even write a note to encourage. Another week and then two, and then a year rolls by and we have not acted. We are in a conversation with a colleague who clearly holds the “wrong” economic, social, and/or political positions. We spend our time interrupting, making sure they hear our views and hit them with the facts to ensure they know how wrong they are. We become aware of dishonest budgeting practices but wonder if we can afford the loss of our job, so we remain silent. At home, we react to our spouse, demean a child who has not done what we asked. In short, perhaps the more challenging gaps are the one between our own personal sense of the right thing to do and our own failings; between what we know is the best way to engage in dialogue and our own behaviors; between the best we know how to be and sometimes are not.

A final, and perhaps most disconcerting gap exists between the hoped for and actual impact of ethical education/training. Ryan Bisel (2018), an organizational communication scholar who studies ethics, came to a disconcerting conclusion. After review of research gauging the impact of ethical education and training, he concludes that “whether the participants were students or doctors the story of the effectiveness of ethics training remains unimpressive” (p. 7). In fact, some studies show a decline in the effect of the training within a month (Richards, 1999) and even studies looking at years of educational efforts, have found a negative impact on ethics-based performance (Allen, Bacdayan, Kowalski, & Roy, 2005). This final gap, introduces the need for an alternative to the tradition of seeking to improve ethical behavior by focusing on developing individual level moral reasoning.

An awareness of these gaps should, at some level, motivate us to identify ways to improve our ethical communication practices. Organizational communication scholar Gail Fairhurst (2011) argues that our

An Honest Portrayal 201

“ethical choices so readily display themselves in our framing and actions, these choices are an open window into our leadership” (p. 135). This window reveals our moral stance and ideals and if we are mindful, we too gain insight. Thus, the hope is that our awareness of these gaps will grow us as leaders. We may, for example, experience a greater sense of obligation when we pick up a book or read an article on the high human cost of these gaps. One such study caught our attention. In a study of 800 managers across 17 industries, workers reported the impacts of incivility that took varied forms such as belittling, rudeness, blatant disrespect, yelling (Porath & Pearson, 2013). The impact included a list of startling percentages:

• 48% intentionally decreased their work effort. • 47% intentionally decreased the time spent at work. • 38% intentionally decreased the quality of their work. • 80% lost work time worrying about the incident. • 63% lost work time avoiding the offender. • 66% said that their performance declined. • 78% said that their commitment to the organization declined. • 12% said that they left their job because of the uncivil treatment. • 25% admitted to taking their frustration out on customers.

These numbers in concert with the disconcerting gaps prompt us to ask: “What communication practices will aid us in addressing these gaps?” “What will aid us in developing a greater commitment and motivation to create more ethical organizations?” An effective answer to these questions must attend to the reality already introduced—current efforts to educate or train others to be more ethical have a well-documented failure rate. Bisel (2018) captures the primary reason for these failure rates. He notes the problematic assumption that our ethical choices flow from our individual moral reasoning, that is our analysis of and decision about a situation. In contrast, research supports the contention that moral decisions are more intuitive, often made without conscious reflection on ethical guidelines, and that we typically make a decision and then discern the reasons for such action. We must therefore, find pathways that go beyond the norm in ethical education or training. The norm continues to focus on models that attempt to improve our ability to critically analyze cases involving ethics. A reflection on the positive yet limited impact of ethical heroes sets the stage for a constructivist approach tied to reframing value tensions intended to address these gaps.

Ethical Heroes

Given this litany of bad news, this array of gaps, it is fair to ask, where do we turn for guidance? One partial answer is the role of ethical heroes who draw us back to ethical high-ground. Stories of those who have foregrounded ethics in their discourse for doing the right thing, provide a discursive cue that can empower others. One such person can be found in the founder and former president of Malden Mills, Aaron Feuerstein. After a fire destroyed his textile plant, he kept employees on the payroll despite the cries of shareholders to do the opposite (Seeger & Ulmer, 2001; Ulmer, 2001). The “1996 Botwinick Prizes in Business Ethics and in Ethical Practice in the Professions” was presented to Feurstein for his ethical leadership (Columbia Business School, n.d.). Later, despite speculation that bankruptcy could have been avoided had he not been so generous with his employees, he maintained his position of no regrets. The guiding ethical principle for Feurstein, growing from his religious faith, was that of acting for the larger goal, not for the moment, for doing the right thing (Shafron, 2002).

Ethical heroes such as Feurstein are rarely in the news. Yet, fortunately, he is not alone. For instance, Bunnatine Greenhouse, at the cost of her job, stood against an improper no-bid contract to Halliburton in

202 Cultural Analysis Application

the reconstruction of Iraq. Basseem Youssef fought against post 9–11 discrimination that targeted Arab Americans within the FBI. In corporate America, Cynthia Cooper and Sherron Watkins were recognized by Time magazine as “Persons of the Year” in 2002. They were instrumental in exposing Enron and WorldComm scandals. Harry Barko discovered ways that Halliburton/KBR inflated costs while working in Iraq. This lawsuit is scheduled to go to the Supreme Court (National Whistleblowers Center, n.d.). Beyond national level heroes, you may have experienced in your cultural analysis or in reflecting on other organizations you have been part of, individuals who were considered heroes because of their ethical behavior (see Rehearsal 11.1). Perhaps like these “whistle blowers”, these heroes stand out because they model behaviors that display such virtues of courage, honesty, and integrity. They can aid us and even empower us to fill the gaps.

Rehearsal 11.1 Ethical Heroes

Purpose: Reflect on experiences of being influenced by individuals who have modeled ethical behavior. Most of us can tell a story based on what we have heard or experienced related to gross financial

inequities, harassment, bullying, and/or lying. It may be harder to identify an organizational hero that stands out as a person of integrity and/or moral courage. Write about a story you have heard and/or a person you know who has displayed such virtues. If you are unaware of such a hero in your own experience, review the list of over 30 whistleblowers at www.whistleblowers.org.

1. What was the difficult change or situation—the “crucible” they faced? _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. What did they do that makes them stand out? _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. What communication behaviors did they enact that created an honest portrayal? ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________

4. What communicative behaviors would you hope to model in our own organizations? _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________

5. When (and to who) might you share this story to encourage such behavior as normative? _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________

An Honest Portrayal 203

http://www.whistleblowers.org

Identifying virtues found in ethical heroes provides one approach to improving organizational ethics. In the context of deciphering cultural data, such principles may provide a benchmark or a place to reflect on themes. We might see the need, for example, to co-create policies to guide civil discourse or improve processes to address bullying (see Rehearsal 11.7). Beyond such constitutive practices, we may be personally challenged to close the gap in our personal interactions. The combination of macro and micro level practices, including our own commitments, will ground ethical values and assumptions in organizational culture. In contrast, if ethics become compartmentalized, if they reside just in the behavior of a few and/or if they reside only in organizational practices at the surface level of culture, such as formal mission statements, they will fail to become a guiding force or anchor for the organization.

However, despite the insights and inspiration that may lead to cultural shifts, we argue that ethical lapses as well as times of reaching ethical high marks are not simply moral failings or successes of individuals, but reflections of organizing practices that constitute the culture. As Bisel (2018) notes, rather than just focusing on bad apples, “organizational cultures can be ‘bad barrels’ that exacerbate unethical behaviors over and above the deviousness of any single individual” (p. 58). Consistent with CCO theorists, we need to attend not just to interpersonal communication practices, but also macro structures that also shape our practices such as rituals (Cooren, 2004). One way to think about this move toward improved ethical organizing practices is to reflect on a model of moral development.

Moral Development

Goodpaster (2007) describes the organizational tendency to approach organizational decision-making with- out consideration of ethical values as “teleopathy”. He defines teleopathy as “the unbalanced pursuit of purpose in either individuals or organizations.” (p. 28). He writes that principal symptoms of teleopathy are fixation on personal goals, rationalization, and detachment of moral values from decision-making. Goodpaster draws on Piaget’s model of moral development of children (Piaget, 1932) in arguing that the antidote to teleopathy is in balancing rationality and respect in decision-making. He defines rationality as focused on criteria by which a person or group measures success for self. Respect, on the other hand, takes others’ needs, goals, and interests into account in decisions, not just instrumentally as they contribute to your own goals, but as deserving consideration in their own right. Piaget’s model of moral development explains that children proceed through stages of egocentrism, compliance with norms, and interdependence. In ego-centrism, the child is focused only on what she wants and has little awareness of others around her. As the child grows and develops, she learns external norms and rules about how she must interact with others. It is only with maturity that the child reaches the stage of autonomy or understanding of interdependence, in which she understands the ways in which she is interdependent with others and develops a genuine desire to orient her own needs with needs of others, not out of compulsion but because of an understanding that her own best interests depend on the well- being of others.

Goodpaster (2007) claims that organizations develop a corporate conscience when they move through a similar set of stages of moral reasoning. An organization locked in teleopathy may not be aware of its impact on external stakeholders or larger social systems or may regard such considerations as irrelevant in organizational decision-making. In fact, relevant to this concept, another researcher explored managerial perceptions of business toward society. The study included 1000 managers across eight different types of international organizations in Europe and North America. The results found managerial scope to be narrow: “the managers . . . are mostly occupied with the rather narrow responsibilities . . .” such as “the products, the people, the customers, the environment and the local communities” with little said concerning human rights, hunger, poverty reduction. A limited percent, even within this range spoke in terms of responsibilities for diversity management, supply chains, equal opportunities or work-life balance (Pedersen, 2010, p. 161). The researchers did find variation in whether managers took a more reactive approach, focused more on risk avoidance and compliance versus a proactive approach which

204 Cultural Analysis Application

focused on actually making a difference in society. We will return to this dialectic of proactive versus reactive, but for now it is important to note that reactive responses only take organizations to Piaget’s second stage of moral reasoning, responding to external norms or constraints. It is only when organizations move to a genuine understanding of interdependence that places self-interest and public interests as intertwined rather than competing, that we can claim that organizations are ethical and operating with conscience or morality.

This focus on moral development, whether based in Piaget or perhaps more commonly, in Kohlberg’s (1981) model, is a common approach associated with education and training in moral development. However, while we maintain some utility in reflecting on these models, as noted earlier, improvements in ethical decision-making require more than improved cognition or critical reflection. In aligning the OCA model with a constructivist approach, we assume the need to move beyond an individual, cognitive development model, to a holistic approach grounded in organizational learning.

Bisel (2018) in his book titled Organizational Moral Reasoning: A Communication Approach reflects on research indicating the limits of ethical training and education based on the assumption that organizational ethics will be improved with the development of individual critical thinking tied to a model of moral development. In particular, in sharp contrast to the assumptions of existing models of development, he points toward research on brain development that indicates that as early as six months old, humans have an intuitive sense of right and wrong. Furthermore, beyond the failure of ethics education and training, he documents the way our ethical decision-making do not flow from rational analysis. In fact, the opposite has been documented. We may develop, for instance, at the highest level of Kohlberg’s model, and only become adept at critiquing the moral failures of others. In addition, we tend to come up with moral reasoning after a decision has been made. Those reasons, may in time, shift or change, and are influenced by others in the organization and thus in turn influence future decisions. His contention, then, is not that verbal reasoning is unimportant, but that organizational members have private moral concerns and aspirations that they tend to keep private. Thus, the goal should be to find ways to draw out these concerns and allow them to shape and improve ethical decisions making.

Bisel (2018) turns to the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” to illustrate research supporting our tendency to remain silent. This story depicts numerous adults who fear speaking the truth about the nakedness of the emperor. The emperor has been tricked into thinking he has grand new clothes, when in fact he is naked. The cost of speaking the truth is assumed to be too high by those he rules. This cost of confronting ethical violations creates what is labeled by Bisel and colleagues as the Moral Mum Effect (Bisel, Kelley, Ploeger, & Messersmith, 2011). The cost, as Gerald recently learned from a friend, may well be more than potential shame or the repercussions of angering the “emperor”. One friend indicated that confronting a pattern of bullying was not as simple as going to an HR director or immediate supervisor. In his situation, directors, supervisors, and co-workers were complicit in supporting a tight network that maintained silence. Confronting the pattern in such a network does not leave space for documentation–for adequate grounds to prove instances of bullying. The end result of a confrontation would, in his words, only insure increased abuse as well as job loss and the inability to support his family. Such situations along with the general tendency for training and education to focus on improving individual ability to evaluate ethical case studies demands that we ask several challenging questions.

What then are we to do if our moral reasoning based on accepted models of moral development is not the answer to the gaps? What are we to do to co-create highly ethical organizations so such patterns as noted above can be addressed? How might we, beyond attending to ethical heroes, close the gaps? What will move us toward being ethically reliable organizations-ones that move from teleopathy toward an interdependence which reflects the intertwining of the best of human values?

The approach we take in teaching and consultation is to examine cultural data in light of value tensions in the organization. We focus on a model that assumes that key value tensions are an inherent part of organizational communication. Value tensions are not assumed to be the problem, but rather an opportunity to improve reflection and dialogue tied to the three big questions (i.e., What are we creating? What do we

An Honest Portrayal 205

want to create? What forms of communication will get us there?). This model, if applied to cultural data, provides a way to enrich our understanding of, and ability to, proactively address ethical concerns in the here-in-now. Our contention is that we need to do more than reflect on past moral lapses or cases that prompt us to consider what we might do in the future. This type of “then-and-there” talk, as Bisel (2018) argues, misses our need to address current practices. Our current practices, the creation and experience of ethical gaps, are in part due to being lulled into an auto-pilot mode or a mindlessness about our need to and capacity for giving voice to ethical concerns. Such moments can be as subtle as not confronting a rumor, being duplicit in co-creating a toxic culture by assuming we can do nothing, and/or saying nothing about the “Emperor’s New Clothes”. This section is meant to encourage greater mindfulness by triggering questions that hold promise for changing cultural patterns. Research, in fact, confirms and gives support to the contention that such “here-and-now” talk infused with explicitly moralized language makes a difference. Zanin, Bisel, and Adame (2016), for instance, found that subordinates were more forthcoming with their private moral concerns when their bosses were known to introduce explicitly moralized language. In one informal discussion about a highly ethical workplace, Gerald learned of a leader who had infused the culture with explicit phrases, such as “we will do the right thing even if it costs us.” This language was more than talk, as stories were also shared about times when business was lost due to “doing the right thing”. Employees thus shared in “here and now” talk that empowered more ethical decision-making. Before discussing three specific value tensions, we provide a context for this tension centered approach.

Value Tensions and Ethics

We have stressed that organizational cultures do not exist in a vacuum. Effective organizations must find ways to exist and thrive in the national and international cultures that they seek to serve. The challenges organizations face in adapting and responding to the external culture are especially salient in the case of ethical issues. As an organization develops its own value system for evaluating ethical behavior, it must at the same time be responsive to the larger societal value system (Nicotera & Cushman, 1992; Weaver, 2001). In fact, Hofstede (2009) and colleagues, based on a study of 16 country cultures, point to certain U.S. values that contributed to the financial crisis in 2008. They identified the negative impact of the primary focus in the U.S. on values such as individualism and short-term orientation. U.S. business leaders, for instance, scored higher than any of the other countries on seeking personal wealth and this year’s profits.

Examining the norms of a given culture via customers and business partners, however, is not sufficient. The lament of sales, marketing, and development specialists in multinationals is often that bribes and corruption appear to be the norm in certain societies. The U.S. government has passed laws and interpretive guides. Intercultural specialists also provide additional insight on how to respond to bribery and corruption (Thornburg, Missal, Fishman, & Young, 2006). Nonetheless, the challenge of knowing when to “do as the Romans do” and when to take a stand for an ethical principle is not easily resolved. For example, if you learn that it is the norm to pay an extra fee to build an additional storage facility for your company, do you take on a local bureaucrat about the ethicality of the fee knowing it may mean months of delay, or do you pay it realizing that you may be hit with other hidden fees later? Furthermore, what do you do if you learn that your own organization has developed a culture that allows for practices such as paying bribes that you know the society “back home” would not consider ethical? A cultural relativist position would encourage you to view the fee as a tip, while a cultural universalistic position would challenge that view by noting the differences in power relationships and motives between a tip and a bribe. A tip, in this context, is a gift for service, a bribe is about a power relationship in order to gain access to service. Thus, a universalist position is that bribes are immoral based on the abuse of power. Meisenbach (2006) introduces Habermas’ discourse ethics as a way to communicatively ground the idea of a universalist position, akin to Kant’s categorical imperative, in way that values all voices and addresses “unequal power relations” (p. 56). The idea is to give attention to

206 Cultural Analysis Application

both the contextual (cultural, situational) and the universal in ways that surface morally valid positions. The challenge of carrying out this discursive ideal is illustrated in the following case.

An example of a value conflict faced by a U.S. company in an international context can be found in the ethical dilemmas Google faced in 2010. Google with stated cornerstone values of mission, transparency, and voice, had to agree on limits on operation imposed by the Chinese government, including censorship and privacy limits. As time went on, such limits brought Google under criticism at home as their actions betrayed corporate and U.S. values. Google was faced with a difficult choice. Do you stay in China with the government limits on your operation, defacto supporting such limits by your compliance or do you withdraw from the country with the result of denying billions of Chinese access to internet information? Add to this dilemma was the awareness that leaders at Google understood that social change in China was slow and that they should consider playing the long game. They asked, for example, “Wasn’t some access to truth, however limited, better than none?” (Bock, 2015, p. 50). Added to this dilemma were the charges by Google, denied by the Chinese, that multiple efforts were made to hack into and gain access to accounts that would identify communication by and from civil rights activists (Hartnett, 2011). Furthermore, Google leadership faced an additional dilemma. In Google’s race to provide public access to documents and books, multiple lawsuits are pending as authors and publishers claim copyright infringement (Kirschbaum, 2009; Saltmarsh, 2009). In the end, after thousands of hours of discussion and input from employees from across the globe (i.e., “here-and-now” moralized talk introduced by leaders), they decided they could not censor search results. They did, however, make sure that www.google.hk (Hong Kong) was made available to Chinese users since Hong Kong is exempt from main land Chinese regulations until 2047. This site is currently blocked in China, yet Google continues to build bridges through AI (Artificial Intelligence) events held in China. Cases like this illustrate the types of ethical and communication tensions that are part of our world.

Given our diverse and multicultural society, leaders need to be equipped to meet ethical challenges. One approach to communication and ethics is to be mindful of values tensions that are an inescapable part of organizational life. Frederick (1995) discusses three value clusters. He argues that these value clusters are tied to each other and inform our efforts at ethical decision-making. He contends that the task and challenge are considerably more formidable than a simple “discover your organizational culture’s values” as popular formulas suggest (p. 5). He goes on to argue that businesses have typically been aware of and operated within the confines of two of these value clusters: economizing which involves concerns over sufficient profit and sustainable cooperation; and power aggrandizement or concerns over the extent power is dispersed. Often overlooked is the value set related to ecologizing values—concerns over the macro environment and the microenvironment. Reflection on the interdependency of each of the three values sets can provide a foundation for understanding ethical dilemmas and values conflicts. As such, they then indicate the kinds of communicative framing practices needed to effectively respond to these inevitable value tensions.

Adapting William Frederick’s work, we discuss these value clusters as tensions that may become an impetus to promote dialogue for improving ethical responses. The assumption guiding this work, in concert with dialectic theory, is that these value tensions are an inevitable part of communication in organizations (Barge, Lee, Maddux, Nabring, & Townsend, 2008; Tracy, 2004). The goal, therefore, is not to view the tension as the problem, but to frame these tensions with ethical mindfulness. Jian (2007) offers one example of responding to dialectical tensions regarding organizational change. He notes that senior management and employees because of different interests and dialectical power relationships develop different meaning processes about the organizational change effort. While senior management may focus on the change in terms of organizational efficiency and profitability, employees may experience the change in terms of personal losses of jobs, salaries, and customary ways of operating. Jian proposes that a solution to these value tensions is dialogue and negotiation. He states that:

Dialogue and negotiation allow creation of innovative interpretations and choices that are mutually acceptable and accommodate both sides’ interests. In contrast, synchronous monologues, through

An Honest Portrayal 207

http://www.google.hk

which one side attempts to persuade the other, will lead to negative unintended consequences because the interaction only reifies positions on both sides and escalates tensions and differences.

(p. 14)

The goal, however, in reviewing these tensions is to not only improve mindfulness and subsequent dialogues, but then to go further by engaging in co-creating macro level process that, combined with micro practices will ensure continued learning and growth in terms of ethical behavior. The goal of such growth is aimed at closing the gaps reviewed earlier.

As we present each value tension, we include rehearsal questions designed to promote reflection and connections to your analysis as well as leadership application. One organizational implication might involve introducing the language of the value tension to others. The potential for improved ethical decision-making occurs when members learn to talk about ethics in terms of framing options with regard to value tensions. The significance of “learning to talk about ethics” should not be minimized. Bisel (2018), in setting the stage for his model of Organizational Moral Learning (OML), grounds his model in neuroscience which supports the claim that from an early age, we hold moral intuitions and evaluations. Yet, communication shows that without concerted efforts, these intuitions are not voiced, critiqued, and as a result organizational practices are not informed by them. He documents the tendency toward “pluralistic ignorance”which he defines as “a widespread misperception of group norms by individual group members” (Bisel, 2018, p. 82). In particular, he stresses the fallacy in our own thinking that others do not share our concerns over moral discrepancies. Such thinking may lead an employee, for example, to assume that no one else is concerned about bullying, as noted above. We may instead assume that no one sees a problem and perhaps we should not see one either or perhaps maintain silence. Attending to value tensions, if done with an awareness of confronting pluralistic ignorance, holds promise for improving our ethical behaviors. In particular, Bisel’s OML model, which he defines “as the adaptation of work according to members’ communication about their moral intuiting” (Bisel, 2018, p. 175), foregrounds the role of organizational learning. In other words, becoming an ethical reliable organization involves a movement from individual level moral intuition to include a culture that is rich with discursive cues tied to ethical decision- making. The OML model, consistent with a CCO approach, focuses on communicative process that involves both individual as well as organizational level processes.

In the following section, after introducing a value tension, we provide reflection questions as a way to increase your level of mindfulness and framing options as you determine venues for improving organizational discourse and learning. Here we return to constructivist questions meant to encourage reflection on framing options: (a) “What kind of culture is being co-created?” (b) “What kind of culture do we want to co- create?” (c) “What forms of communication will co-create the culture we want?” The three tensions are introduced in the following order: (a) economizing; (b) power-distancing, and (c) ecologizing. We end this chapter by challenging you to give thought to other value tensions while also providing additional rehearsal options for enriching ethical discourse and organizational moral learning.

Economizing: Short Term Profit and Long-Term Sustainability

The economizing continuum involves communicative processes tied to the value tension of short-term profit values and human values of sustainable cooperation. This value tension, like the others, is an essential societal dialectic. The values in this cluster support activities that cause individuals and groups to act efficiently in using resources required for survival and material prosperity. One accepted measure of economizing is monetary profit and loss. However, as we argue in the discussion of organizational effectiveness in Chapter 13, the bottom line of profits is insufficient as a measure of effectiveness. Other measures revolve around the interests of employees, customers, and other stakeholders. Thus, the goal is to avoid framing this tension as an either/or as if attending to one end of this dialectic precludes attending to the other.

Economizing, therefore, demands a degree of cooperative interactions to promote goals that do not work against other, important societal values (Gardner, 1990). Without such cooperative interactions, decisions

208 Cultural Analysis Application

will often fall far below an ethical “high-water” mark. For example, Enron, before the ethical scandals went public, was a strong culture, in a negative sense. A strong value set kept those at the top embedded in a value that focused on short-term profit to the detriment of employees and other stakeholders. The lack of integrity as a core value meant that the company lost its balance in its efforts to place profit as the only value (Seeger & Ulmer, 2003; Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2015). Lyon (2008) goes further to claim that the culture contributed to a self-serving value set that added to unethical practices. This same imbalance, as introduced earlier, has been linked to several U.S. organizations instigating a world-wide economic recession (Hofstede, 2009; Hofstede, Van Deusen, Mueller, & Charles, 2002).

In short, economizing suggests that profit is one value, but is not the end itself. Economizing suggests an essential role for values that promote cooperative interactions such as fairness, equality, and caring for both individual, group, and societal needs (see Rehearsal 11.2). Several proactive versus reactive positions should be considered when reflecting on this tension. These positions adapted from Pedersen (2010; should prompt closer reflection on cultural practices (see Table 11.1). For instance, one action research project in the U.K. was aimed at developing an organizational culture of “public engagement”. The project involved storytelling workshops aimed at empowering engineers to connect with others in the community about their work with robotics. The project had a positive impact on the self-efficacy of the female engineers as well as contributing to the culture of engagement. One of their goals was also to impact diversity initiatives by having these women engineers serve as role models in the community. Female engineers only represented about 20% of the engineers in the organization (Fogg-Rogers, Sardo, & Boushel, 2017). Projects like this one capture the vision of a proactive effort to engage in longer term societal needs in terms of diversity in this industry sector.

Take time to reflect on the rehearsal questions in light of your cultural data. As you do so, give thought to the value of introducing the idea of the economizing value tension to others in your organization and/or the organization you are analyzing.

Rehearsal 11.2 Applying the Economizing Value Tension

Purpose: Apply your cultural data to the economizing value tension to gain insight to your organization and personal ethical development.

1. What rationales for decision-making are dominant in the organization? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

Table 11.1 Reactive versus Proactive Social Responsibility Responses

Reactive Proactive

Be a market-driven product and service provider Develop and market new ‘ethical’ products and services Create jobs and ensure health and safety Invest in education, career development and diversity Avoid negative impacts on local communities Contribute to the community well-being Comply with rules and regulations Move beyond rules and regulations Maximize short-term shareholder value Maximize short-term shareholder value

Source: Adapted from Pedersen (2010), Figure 2 Modelling CSR, p. 163

An Honest Portrayal 209

2. What is said (or not said) when a team member suggests a strategy that may reduce profits in the short run but benefit society (other stakeholders) in the long run?

3. What examples can you find of heroes who are known for framing this tension in ways that achieved productivity goals while maintaining other values, such as fairness and equality? What role might you play in introducing talk about this value tension?

Personal Reflection: Imagine someone listened to the way you talked about this value tension. What might they conclude about the way you frame this tension? Does your talk reflect selecting one value over the other? Silence over this tension? How might you improve the way you communicate about and frame this value tension? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

Power Distancing: Hierarchy and Equality

Power distancing refers to communicative practices framing hierarchy and equality values. We use this term, as opposed to Frederick’s “power aggrandizing”. His term primarily captures the negative aspect of this value tension. In contrast, power distancing parallels one of the deeper level metaphors that can be used to analyze and reflect on communication in organizations. Morgan (2006) and others (Bolman & Deal, 2008) introduce the political metaphor as a way to draw attention to issues of power. Viewing organizations as political realities involves an assumption that power and control are an inherent part of organizing. This perspective is shared by critical theorists who seek to decipher communication patterns that may contribute to abuses of power or add in democratizing in the decision-making process (Deetz, 1992). Understanding both poles of this tension places leaders in a position to meaningfully reflect on and engage in dialogue on the ethical implications of how this tension is framed.

One end of the pole, high power distance or concentrated power in a hierarchy, is found when organizations impose a rank order and/or coercive power on organizational resources. This pole refers to the acquisition, accumulation, and retention of power among a small group of individuals for both instrumental and potentially domineering purposes. This hierarchical focus is not inherently necessary for a company to be profitable or successful. Giving allegiance to such values may “divert a company from making effective use of resources” (Frederick, 1995, p. 57). Consider, for example, organization leaders who become too concerned with maintaining position and power, and as a result cease to adapt strategically to the interests of customers or employees (Kotter & Heskett, 1992). The tragic tales from the financial industry that contributed to the global recession provide an example of power imbalances that harmed the economizing value. Yet, as noted, hierarchy or high-power distance is not inevitably a problem. As we will explore, organizations nested in certain

210 Cultural Analysis Application

national cultures, may be more in tune to prioritizing decision-making based on positions of authority. Even in low power distance countries, such as in the West, military organizations may have similar structures or chains of command.

Equality values, or lower power distance, can be viewed as distributed power webs. This pole refers to organizations that seek to distribute decision-making throughout the organization. Thus, for example, various units are understood to have a certain level of autonomy over resources and decisions. The assumption held in developing this type of structure is that decisions are often best made by individuals closer to the process or problem they are charged to address. For instance, a case analysis of the Columbia shuttle incident, revealed that despite an awareness of the need for changes after the Challenger tragedy, interorganizational structures were still in place. These structures meant decisions were being made in the same way as they had in the past without sufficient consultation with lower- level engineers. “NASA’s interactions with members of its interorganizational network have become so routinized through the years that NASA can be controlled without necessarily being conscious of that control” (Garner, 2006, p. 380).

The need to ethically respond to the power distancing tension is clear, yet the way such alignment happens also varies by national culture. Hofstede (2003), based on research with thousands of partici- pants, describes national cultures with a “high-power distance” versus a “low power distance.” In a high-power distance culture, inequality between members of that culture are accepted. A high-power distance culture holds norms that value hierarchy or vertical patterns of organizing and communication (e.g., Korea, Mexico, India). In contrast, a low power distance indicates a national culture that values equality, thus it tends to be horizontal or less focused on hierarchy in relationships (e.g., New Zealand, U.S.A, Australia).

Organizations within a given national culture are likely to share the norm with the national culture. Exceptions exist, for example, with the tendency toward high-power distance military cultures within lower power distance national cultures. Weaver (2001) suggests implications for ethics initiatives based on this value set. Organizations situated in high power distance cultures, for instance, are less likely to be receptive of initiatives that “focus on all organizational members” since the norm is to locate decision-making and primary responsibility at the top (p. 9). However, an exception to this tendency can be seen when the failure to empower lower level employees proves to be disastrous. For example, Gladwell (2008) reviews the case of Korean Airlines (KAL) in the context of their high-power distance score. Korea is second highest in the world on Hofstede’s scale and in the context of a study with pilots, power distance tends to be higher (Helmreich & Merritt, 2000). These same authors observe that “. . . regardless of the personality and experience of the person working in the cockpit with you, your duties and obligations have been clearly defined and should not be breached. Having an unchanging routine ensures . . .. unchallenged hierarchy (p. 9). Korean Airlines, after close scrutiny of the fatal crash of KAL 1997 and the dismal record of KAL overall, made changes that proved successful. They identified one of the issues as the reticence of first officers to take initiative even when they felt the flight was in danger. However, due to a number of major changes, including training to counter the tendency toward deference to authority, their safety record has been spotless since 1999. One major change involved empowering first officers to respond in critical situations when the Captain may have missed or not understood the need for changes in a flight plan. Put differently, the training focused on framing the power distance value set in terms of situations that demanded directness and “deference to expertise” (Bisel, 2018, p. 197).

Again, it may be helpful to use a Rehearsal activity (11.3) to reflect on this value tension in light of your analysis. Consider using the Hofstede link to gain a country score for the organization you are studying. Regardless of the national country score or the insight gleaned about culture or subcultures in the organization, recall two central realities: (a) value tensions are ongoing; thus, one set structure or “solution” to manage political or power issues does not exist and (b) whether an organization maintains a focus on hierarchy or more distributed power webs, creating systems of accountability combined with opportunities to overcome “pluralistic ignorance” through open forums is critical.

An Honest Portrayal 211

Rehearsal 11.3 Applying the Power Distancing Value Tension

Purpose: Apply your cultural data to the power distancing value tension to gain insight to your organization.

1. What is the power distance value reflected in the communication practices of this organization?

• For instance, do employees tend to value close supervision? • Is “effective management” viewed as close supervision? • Is the chain of command clear and does it tend to include multiple levels?

2. What role does a newcomer or someone in a “lower position” have in decision-making? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

3. What communication practices, if any, empower subordinates to participate in ethical decision- making?

Personal Reflection: What kind of culture is being co-created related to power-distancing? What would your co-workers as well as your subordinates say about your efforts to empower them to make decisions? What communicative practices from your national culture have you adopted? What power distancing values do you want to enact? How communicative practice might improve the way you frame and enact those values? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

Ecologizing: Macro and Micro Environment Values

Ecologizing focuses on managing macro environment and micro environment values. As the term suggests, this value set is concerned with the impact and relationship of the organization to the external and internal environment. Ecologizing includes values, on one hand, that focus on a larger macro value for the

212 Cultural Analysis Application

environment. Ecological relationships interweave the life activities of groups in ways conducive to the perpetuation of an entire community, including the flora, fauna, and physical features that constitute the organizations’ ecosystem. On the other hand, in tension with the macro value is a concern over the microenviron- ment, which includes accepted allegiance to stockholders seeking sufficient profits. Like other value tensions, again, the challenge is to become more mindful of individual and organizational framing practices. The tendency, like with other value tensions may be to pit one value against the other.

The rise in the number of people in the “creative class” (Florida, 2002) parallels a trend toward greater attention to the external environment. Individuals in this class serve an economic function of creating new content, technologies and/or ideas. Members of the creative class are part of a shift that includes great concerns for environmental issues. For instance, Florida and Davison (2001) report on manufacturing plants that utilize an environmental management system that results in reduced environmental risks to communities. Such efforts reflect a larger initiative called the “creative communities leadership project”. One such project in Roanoke, VA boasts plans to develop a carbon neural region (Services: Creative Communities, n.d.). In addition, the opposition of CEO’s from over 30 corporations, including General Electric and Exxon/Mobil, to the U.S. pulling out of the Paris Climate accord, indicates a value set on making progress with regard to ecologizing values (McGregor, 2017).

This trend is also found in a wide array of organizations. In a shift from just a few decades ago, it is now popular for a company to boast of its attention to the environment, both social and physical, beyond the walls of the organization. Two key questions need to be asked about to this trend. First, does the popularity of “sustainability” translate into meaningful and accountable changes that impact the relationship of organizations to the environment? Ihlen (2015), in a study of 76 of the 100 top organizations on the Fortune Global list, found that while they all mentioned being sustainable, their definitions were ambiguous and framed sustainability in terms of business success. She ends by noting that “aspirational talk will not dissolve the discrepancy between business goals and achieving sustainability” (p. 149). Others suggest that a focus on ecological concerns creates a false dichotomy between the enviroment and the economy (Pal & Jenkins, 2014, p. 195). Instead, a focus needs to be given to framing process that ensure accountability or a “license to critique by multiple stakeholders so that options may be explored to address these conflicts (Christensen, Morsing, & Thyssen, 2017).

A second question that needs to be asked, like with the other tensions, is the extent organizations are reactive versus proactive. A reactive stance can be captured with the idea of minimizing an environmental footprint versus a proactive stance of being on the forefront of innovation in environmental practices (Pedersen, 2010). Here a gap needs to be addressed—a gap between public rhetoric and action. In an analysis of the “textual behavior” of 50 CSR and environmental reports, Lischinsky (2015) notes that “findings shed doubt on claims, made both by industry and scholarly voices, that the environment has become the definitive stakeholder in contemporary CSR practice and reporting” (p. 555).

One case study exemplifies an organization moving in the proactive direction engaging in both public rhetoric and action. “Interface”, the world leader in modular carpets, made a major shift in their business practices in the mid 1990’s. This shift grew first from their customers. At that point in their history, Interface primarily responded to mandated emission controls. Customers began asking what they were doing for the environment. They did not have an answer. A group in their research division decided they should bring together a global task force to discern options. The group asked their CEO Mr. Ray Anderson to launch this task force and give a kick off speech with an “environmental vision”. He did not know what to say because at that point, he had no vision. However, in what he describes as “pure serendipity”, Mr. Anderson had been sent a copy of Paul Hawken’s book The Ecology of Commerce. Before then he had no idea of the negative impact they were having on the environment. The book was like a “spear in the chest experience – he read it and “wept.” He gave the speech to the research group and challenged the team to lead the company to sustainability. The end result has been impressive including accountability measures. The average product carbon footprint has been reduced by 35% since 2008 and about 50% since they first started in 1996. The “Mission Zero” in terms of greenhouse gases has also meant a 95% reduction from 1996 to 2016. They found these efforts also reduced business costs. Their work,

An Honest Portrayal 213

has been proactive as well, and not just focused on the physical environment. Their code of ethics and guiding values have resulted in community partnerships ranging from projects focused on affordable housing for the economically disadvantaged in Georgia, to creating an ethical supply chain, and other community projects focused on improving the health and safety of schools (Interface, n.d.).

This Interface story points to the significance of counter narratives in introducing such changes. As introduced in Chapter 4, counter narratives introduce positive ways to frame tensions to avoid polarized communication practices. It is also a story that illustrates Goodpaster’s (2007) stages of development of organizational conscience, moving from compliance with external laws or standards to an understanding of interdependence between corporate success and ecological responsibility. Livesey et al. (2009) underscores the significance of narratives in a case analysis of a successful collaboration between environmental advocates and the rice industry in one region in California. They argue that stories are generated by eco-collaboration and in turn institutionalize new under- standings for improved, ethical decision-making. In all, an understanding of how the ecologizing value tension interweaves with other value clusters is important to seeing intersections and conflicts, and ways to manage them. A series of rehearsal questions relevant to the culture of the organization should aid you in deciphering the relevance of this value in light of the other two.

Rehearsal 11.4 Applying the Ecologizing Value Tension

Purpose: Apply your cultural data to the ecologizing value tension to gain insight to your organization.

1. To what extent do company documents explicitly discuss environmental policies? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

2. How are ecological concerns weighed when making decisions about stock profit margins? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

3. To what extent is it permissible to criticize a policy or decision based on larger environmental concerns? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

Personal Reflection: What behaviors would you list that indicate you are proactive vs. reactive regarding this tension? What ecologizing values do you want to enact? What communicative practices might improve the way you frame this value tension? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

214 Cultural Analysis Application

Connections: Other Tensions?

Paying close attention to these value conflicts is not an easy leadership task. Yet time spent reflecting on our framing practices in response to these value tensions provides new insights into co-creating effective ways to manage the ethical landscape. In an effort to connect these value sets with your own cultural analysis, consider instances when your data indicate an implicit or explicit tension existing across the three values: economizing, power distancing, and ecologizing. For example, are there stories that indicate concerns over management treatment of the environment or use of power? Do your themes suggest framing practices that pit profits against ecological values?

Earlier, we indicated that these three value tensions are not intended to be exhaustive. For example, based on Lyon (2017), you could explore transparency versus secrecy. In addition, another value tension could be diversity versus uniformity. In the context of a multinational in relationship with community stakeholders, benevolent patronizing versus agency (Manzie, 2018). A tension could exist between resistance versus withdrawal in response to mistreatment. In one study, minority members who perceived maltreatment faced a dilemma: resistance might result in more mistreatment whereas reacting by disengaging might result in strengthening the power structure that kept them from being heard in the first place (Meares, Oetzel, Torres, Derkacs, & Ginossar, 2004). Such a dilemma brings home the types of challenges involved in responding to ethical dialectic tensions, yet such challenges are what, with reflection, and dialogue with others, aid us in our growth toward ethical ideals. In a different case study, one focused on the importance of “here and now” ethical dialogue, police officers engaged in a discussion over the challenge of accepting meals as a gift at restaurants. The richness of their discourse revealed the complexity of such situations that may be framed as accepting a bribe or rudeness for not accepting a gift (Jovanovic & Wood, 2006). The authors conclude that the officers explored the complexity of this daily, real situation in ways that went beyond a “then and there” exploration of a case study. Their dialogue revealed the nuanced and challenging nature of daily, mundane, yet ethically loaded events. Rehearsal 11.5 provides a place for you to brainstorm additional tensions that you see as critical in the process of making ethical decisions.

Rehearsal 11.5 Other Value Tensions

Purpose: Apply your cultural data to other value tensions to gain insight to your organization. Discern the extent the organization is reactive or proactive. Discern their current framing practices. Example tensions you might explore include: transparency-secrecy, diversity-uniformity, engaging-disengaging, cooperation-non-cooperation.

1. Value tension: __________________________________________________________________________________ Questions to ask:____________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Ethical implications:__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

2. Value tension: __________________________________________________________________________________

An Honest Portrayal 215

Questions to ask:____________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Ethical implications:__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

Summary

Organizations with a conscience are a pressing need in our society. The statistics are alarming, as is the significance of ethical abuse in terms of fairness, safety, and our environment. However, enacting an honest portrayal involves more than being aware of these abuses. Returning to a study introduced earlier in this chapter, Pedersen (2010), suggests limited progress. Recall that this study captured data concerning the responsibilities of business toward society from over 1000 managers in eight international firms. Findings indicated that these leaders focused on taking care of workers and making products and services that customers want in an environmentally friendly way. However, they failed to include responsibilities related to issues such as “social exclusion, third world development, and poverty reduction” (p. 163). These findings and the three value tensions we have introduced take us back to an application of the first step in the cultural analysis process: We all act out our ethics based on implicit frames, metaphors, or theories. Reviewing ways to maximize a positive influence and minimize the negative influences embedded in each of the metaphors, or implicit theories, is critical not only for our lives but for future generations.

In short, managing these tensions is a basic part of our job descriptions. We cannot avoid them. Our hope is we each find inspiration in the counter narratives of individuals and organizations, such as Feuerstein at Malden Mills or Anderson at Interface. Such narratives challenge us to frame these value tensions in ways that bring equity, empowerment, and environmentally sustainable practices. As you reflect on these value tensions, consider completing Rehearsal 11.6 to prompt further reflection on ethics and culture. This chapter captured five major ideas to aid in the process of improving our ethical performances.

1. The challenges we face in our world economy and in our daily interactions in organizations frequently grow from moral and ethical lapses—lapses that make us aware of gaps between ethical ideas and reality.

2. Ethical heroes embody values of courage and integrity and serve as a resource for improving ethical practices.

3. “Organizational Moral Learning” (Bisel, 2018) requires a shift to “here-and-now” talk to improve mindfulness of ethical issues as a way of normalizing reflection on and improvement of decision-making.

4. Ethically frame three inherent value tensions, which can aid organizational moral learning:

a. Economizing: Short-term profit and cooperative human values. b. Power Distancing: Hierarchy and equality values. c. Ecologizing: Macro environment and microenvironment value tensions make ethical dilemmas a

reality.

5. Ethical leaders should seek to improve organizational discourse related to these three value tensions along with others that are relevant to highly ethical performances.

216 Cultural Analysis Application

Rehearsal 11.6 Enhancing Organizational Moral Learning

Purpose: Utilize a five stage model for enhancing ethical discourse and organizational moral learning following Meisenbach (2006). This model, based on Habermas’s (1979, 1996) work on discourse ethics encourages dialogue over potentially competing ethical norms while balancing “attention to the contextual and universal” and addressing “concerns about unequal power relations” (Meisenbach, 2006, p. 56).

Steps:

1. Generate an utterance or potential norm—Define terms, meanings; explore the current use of strategic ambiguity and review your cultural data for instances when implicit or explicit ethical norms, concerns, expressions were given voice. Consider a formal discussion of “pluralistic moral ignorance” to encourage members to give voice to their moral intuitions.

2. Determine who is potentially affected by the utterance- Discuss issues of control and bias while reviewing the impact of moral action/inaction in light of expanding circles of influence and stakeholders.

3. Articulate the utterance to all parties—Invite dialogue over the ethical ideas of all parties identified in “Step 2”. Explore the relevance and applicability of current codes of ethics if the organization has adopted one.

4. All parties discursively debate over consequences and their acceptability- Encourage full and equal debate, explore practicality of ideas.

5. Make a judgment about the validity and acceptability of the proposed norm—Handling disagree- ments while finding ways to privilege consensus building.

Rehearsal 11.7 Ethics and Co-creating Civic Communication Practices

Purpose: Co-create a civil discourse policy with others in your organization following a CCO approach of including micro and macro level practices.

Steps:

1. Review your cultural analysis, including elements, themes, and overall characterization. 2. Write down instances when your data indicate implicit or explicit examples of elements reflecting positive

and ethical communicative practices that aided in conflict management, ethical dialogue processes across diverse world views, political positions, and cultures, and in collaborative decision-making.

3. Set a meeting with colleagues to review these current positive practices with a goal of co-creating a list of communicative practices aimed at creating civility.

4. Reflect on Mirivel’s (2014) six positive communication practices found in The Art of Positive Communication as one resource for identifying micro level practices, such as greeting and complimenting.

5. Discern macro level practices that combined with micro level ones will effectively constitute these policies into the culture. For example, concerning external stakeholders who will support these policies, rituals that already exist that might include affirmations (stories told) of civil discourse, trainings on conflict management and interfaith dialogue, etc.

An Honest Portrayal 217

Discussion Questions

1. What are some of the manifestations of an ethical vacuum in organizations? 2. What ethical gaps stand out most to you when you reflect on organizational life? 3. Reflect also on the gaps between your ethical ideals and your communicative behaviors. What gaps do

you see there? What do you consider to be the foundational motivation for your ethical framework? 4. Describe the difference between a “surface” attempt to make an organization more ethical as opposed to

a cultural approach to engrain ethics deeply within the organizational culture. Can you think of examples of each?

5. How is a values tension approach to ethics different from a rules approach?

References

Allen, W. R., Bacdayan, P., Kowalski, B., & Roy, M. H. (2005). Examining the impact of ethics training on business student values. Education + Training, 47, 170–182. doi:10.1108/00400910510592220

Barge, J., Lee, M., Maddux, K., Nabring, R., & Townsend, B. (2008). Managing dualities in planned change initiatives. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(4), 364–390. doi:10.1080/00909880802129996

Bisel, R. (2018). Organizational moral learning: A communication approach. New York, NY: Routledge. Bisel, R., Kelley, K., Ploeger, N., & Messersmith, J. (2011). Workers’ moral mum effect: On facework and unethical behavior in the workplace. Communication Studies, 62(2), 153–170. doi:10.1080/10510974.2010.551314

Bock, L. (2015). Work rules. New York, NY: Twelve Hachette Book Group. Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Christensen, L., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2017). License to critique: A communication perspective on sustainability standards. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(2), 239–262. doi:10.1017/beq.2016.66

Columbia Business School. (n.d.). Aaron Feuerstein and Washington SyCip (MS ‘43) Receive 1996 Botwinick Prizes for Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol22/vol22_iss3/Feuerstein_SyCip_Botwinick.html

Cooren, F. (2004). Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings. Organization, 11, 373–393. doi:10.1177/1350508404041998

Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization. Albany: SUNY Press. Fairhurst, G. (2011). The power of framing: Creating the language of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Florida, R., & Davison, D. (2001). Gaining from green management: Environmental management systems inside and outside the factory. Harvard Business Review, 43(3), 64–84.

Fogg-Rogers, L., Sardo, M., & Boushel, C. (2017). “Robots vs animals”: Establishing a culture of public engagement and female role modeling in engineering higher education. Science Communication, 39(2), 195–220. doi:10.1177/1075547017696169

Frederick, W. (1995). Values, nature, culture in the American corporation. New York, NY: Oxford. Gardner, J. (1990). On leadership. New York, NY: Free Press. Garner, J. (2006). Masters of the Universe? Resource dependency and interorganizational power relationships at NASA. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34, 368–385. doi:10.1080/00909880600911249

Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. New York, NY: Little, Brown & Co. Goodpaster, K. E. (2007). Conscience and corporate culture. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms (W. Rehg, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hamington, M. (2009). Business is not a Game: The metaphoric fallacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(4), 473–484. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9859-0

Hartnett, S. J. (2011). Google and the “Twisted Cyber Spy” affair: US–Chinese communication in an age of globalization. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 97(4), 411–434. doi:10.1080/00335630.2011.608705

Helmreich, R., & Merritt, A. (2000). Culture in the cockpit: Do Hofstede’s dimensions replicate? Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 31, 283–301. doi:10.1177/0022022100031003001

Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

218 Cultural Analysis Application

http://www.columbia.edu/

Hofstede, G. (2009). American culture and the 2008 financial crisis. European Business Review, 21, 307–312. doi:10.1108/ 09555340910970418

Hofstede, G., Van Deusen, C. A., Mueller, C., & Charles, T. (2002). What goals do business leaders pursue? A study in fifteen countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 33, 785–803. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491044

Ihlen, O. (2015). It is five minutes to midnight and all is quiet: Corporate rhetoric and sustainability. Management Communication Quarterly, 29(1), 145–152. doi:10.1177/0893318914563145

Interface. (n.d.). Our sustainability journey – Mission zero. Interface. Retrieved from http://www.interfaceglobal.com/ Sustainability/Interface-Story.aspx

Jovanovic, S., & Wood, R. V. (2006). Communication ethics and ethical culture: A study of the ethics initiative in Denver City Government. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34(4), 386–405. doi:10.1080/00909880600908633

Keyton, J., & Menzie, K. (2007). Sexually harassing messages: Decoding workplace conversation. Communication Studies, 58, 87–103. doi:10.1080/10510970601168756

King, M. L., Jr. (1963). Why we can’t wait. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers. Kirschbaum, K. (2009, October 10). Germany criticizes Google for copyright infringement. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5991L120091010

Kirby, E., Wieland, S., & McBride, M. (2013). Work-life conflict. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey, The Sage handbook of conflict communication, 2nd ed. Chp. 14; pp. 377-402. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development, Vol. I: The philosophy of moral development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

Kotter, J., & Heskett, J. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York, NY: Macmillan. Lischinsky, A. (2015). What is the environment doing in my report? Analyzing the environment-as-stakeholder thesis through corpus linguistics. Environmental Communication, 9(4), 539–559. doi:10.1080/17524032.2014.967705

Livesey, S., Hartman, C., Stafford, E., & Shearer, M. (2009). Performing sustainable development through eco-collabora- tion. Journal of Business Communication, 46, 423–454. doi:10.1177/0021943609338664

Lyon, A. (2007). “Putting patients first”: Systematically distorted communication and Merck’s marketing of Vioxx. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 376–398. doi:10.1080/00909880701611052

Lyon, A. (2008). The mis/recognition of enron executives’ competence as cultural and social capital. Communication Studies, 59, 371–387. doi:10.1080/10510970802467411

Lyon, A. (2017). Case studies in courageous organizational communication: Research and practices for effective workplaces. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Lyon, A., & Ulmer, R. R. (2010). Ethics in “big pharma”: Communicating the risks of medicine. In J. Keyton & P. Shockley-Zalabak (Eds.), Case studies for organizational communication (3rd ed., pp. 350–356). Los Angeles: Roxbury.

McGregor, J. (2017, June). ‘Climate change is real’: CEOs share their disappointment over Trump’s Paris accord exit. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2017/06/01/ceos-make- final-pleas-to-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/?utm_term=.94e79d15c5fa

Meisenbach, R. (2006). Habermas’ discourse ethics and principle of universalization as a moral framework for organiza- tional communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 20(1), 39–62. doi:10.1177/0893318906288277

Mirivel, J. (2014). The art of positive communication: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization (Updated ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. National Whistleblowers Center. (n.d.). Meet the whistleblowers. Retrieved from www.whistleblowers.org Nicotera, A., & Cushman, D. (1992). Organizational ethics: A within-organization view. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20, 437–462. doi:10.1080/00909889209365348

Pal, M., & Jenkins, J. (2014). Reimagining sustainability: An interrogation of the Corporate Knights’ Global 100. Environmental Communication, 8(3), 388–405. doi:10.1080/17524032.2014.906477

An Honest Portrayal 219

http://www.interfaceglobal.com/

http://www.reuters.com/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/

http://www.whistleblowers.org

http://www.interfaceglobal.com/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/

Pedersen, E. (2010). Modelling CSR: How managers understand the responsibilities of business towards society. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 155–166. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0078-0

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Pope St. Francis. (n.d.). Encyclical letter Laudato Si’ of the Holy Father Francis on care of our common home, no. 49. Retrieved from http://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-lau dato-si_en.pdf

Porath, C. & Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review, 91(1), 114–121. Richards, C. (1999). The transient effects of limited ethics training. Journal of Education for Business, 74(6), 332–334. doi:10.1080/08832329909601706

Richardson, B., & Taylor, J. (2008). Sexual harassment at the intersection of race and gender: A theoretical model of the sexual harassment experiences of women of color. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 248–272. doi:10.1080/ 10570310903082065

Salin, D., & Hoel, H. (2011). Organizational causes of workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 227–243). New York, NY: CRC Press.

Saltmarsh, M. (2009, December 18). Google loses in French copyright case. The New York Times. Retrieved from http:// www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/technology/companies/19google.html?_r=1

Seeger, M. W., & Ulmer, R. R. (2001). Virtuous responses to organizational crisis: Aaron Feuerstein and Milt Cole. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 369–376. doi:10.1023/A:101075931

Seeger, M. W., & Ulmer, R. (2003). Explaining enron: Communication and responsible leadership. Management Communication Quarterly, 17(1), 58–84. doi:10.1177/0893318903253436

Services: Creative Communities. (n.d.). Creative class group. Retrieved from http://www.creativeclass.com/services/ creative_communities

Shafron, A. (2002, June 29). Aaron Feurstein: Bankrupt and wealthy. Aish.com (Current Issues-Business Ethics). Retrieved from http://www.aish.com/ci/be/48881397.html

Thornburg, D., Missal, M., Fishman, E., & Young, J. (2006). The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: US legislation with global implications. Cross-border Quarterly, April–June, 51–54.

Tracy, S. (2004). Dialectic, contradiction, or double bind? Analyzing and theorizing employee reactions to organizational tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 119–146. doi:10.1080/0090988042000210025

Ulmer, R. (2001). Effective crises management through established stakeholder relationships. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(4), 590–615. doi:10.1177/0893318901144003

Ulmer, R., Sellnow, T., & Seeger, M. (2015). Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Vineberg, S. (1991). Method actors: Three generations of an American acting style. New York, NY: Schirmer Books. Weaver, G. R. (2001). Ethics programs in global businesses: Culture’s role in managing ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(1), 3–15. doi:10.1023/A:1006475223493

Whyte, D. (1994). The heart aroused: Poetry and the preservation of the soul in corporate America. New York, NY: Doubleday. Zanin, A. C., Bisel, R. S., & Adame, E. A. (2016). Supervisor moral talk contagion and trust-in-supervisor. Management Communication Quarterly, 30(2), 147–163. doi:10.1177/0893318915619755

220 Cultural Analysis Application

http://w2.vatican.va/

http://www.nytimes.com/

http://www.creativeclass.com/

http://www.aish.com/

http://w2.vatican.va/

http://www.nytimes.com/

http://www.creativeclass.com/

Chapter 12

The Director’s Chair Symbolic Leadership

You have impact in the organizations you serve whether as an informal or formal leader. This chapter focuses on the goal of co-creating ethical, diverse, adaptive, and effective organizational cultures that are part of improving all of our social worlds. As such, the leader is called to see their role in ethically responding to and interpreting organizational events, very similar to the way the director shapes and encourages the meaning of a play carried through the performance of actors. While the leader has an important role to play, organizational meaning is an interactive, co-creation process between leaders and organizational members. Three major ideas are explored: (a) The most important job of a cultural leader is shaping meaning; (b) The leader can shape many types of meaning such as perceptions of external threats or what is valued; and (c) Leaders use several types of symbolic means to participate in constituting the culture such as telling stories to co-create values and communication norms, and ethically reframing events through language that provides significant choice.

Caring for the culture cannot be delegated. It can be shared but not left for someone else to do.…The leader is the fountainhead. This is true whether that individual is the entrepreneur-founder who first lays out the guiding beliefs or the current CEO who has been given the right to reinterpret the guiding beliefs and state new ones. If the leader is a great person then inspiring ideas will permeate the corporation’s culture.

Stanley M. Davis (1984), Managing Corporate Culture, pp. 7–8

Step Five: Identify Applications for Organizational Diversity, Change, Ethics, Leadership, and Effectiveness

Objectives

• Explain the role of leader in reframing. • Explore symbolic forms through which the leader shapes meanings within the culture. • Recognize ideology and identification as forms of unobtrusive control.

• Develop optimal competence as a leader through multi-frame thinking. • Evaluate yourself as a cultural leader.

Stage Terms

• Framing/reframing. • Vision. • Symbolic leadership. • Contrast. • Spin. • Unobtrusive control.

In theater or film, the director plays a critical role in shaping the performance of actors to create a unified artistic vision. To be effective, the director must have a clear interpretation of the work he wishes to produce and the skill to communicate that vision to the actors who will help him realize that vision. His skill includes the ability to communicate and to motivate the actors to call on their best efforts in realizing the vision. In the end the production, and even the vision, is a cooperative venture between the talents of the director and actors. In earlier management literature, the role of a manager was seen as planning, control, and coordination of organizational resources and systems. However, current leadership theory places more emphasis on the intangible leadership functions of communication and meaning creation. The leader is called to see their role in ethically responding to and interpreting organizational events, very similar to the way the director shapes and encourages the meaning of a play carried through the performance of actors.

Alvesson (2002) notes that there is a symbiotic relationship between leadership and culture. Leaders emerge because organization members see a unique fit between the leader and the culture. As such, the organizing and communicative processes that constitute the organization shape the decision-making related to who to hire as a leader. In addition, researchers have documented that a person is more likely to be sought out as a leader if they are viewed as being civil, that is engaged in politeness with regard for others within norms for respect (Porath, Gerbasi, & Schorch, 2015). The leader, once he or she emerges, has a unique role in constituting the culture through communicative behaviors that, with others, recreate, maintain, and change organizing processes. Bolman and Deal (2017) offer one way leadership is enacted. Leaders “interpret experience so as to impart meaning and purpose through phrases of meaning and passion” (p. 353). They illustrated this interpretive role through often quoted words by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. On a national level, during W.W. II, he assured citizens, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Fairhurst (2008) calls this approach to leadership “discursive leadership” and distinguishes it from psychological approaches to leadership studies by its focus on leader-member commu- nication processes that exert mutual influence toward the achievement of goals.

Schein (2004) went so far as to state that the only thing of real importance that leaders do is to create and manage culture. Keyton (2005) writes that leader influence on culture can be direct or indirect. Direct forms of influence may include designing systems and procedures for work, allocating resources, and giving or withholding rewards. They also have discretion over what they choose to endorse as a rite or ritual. However, the greater influence of leaders on culture may be through more informal means, especially through personal modeling and communicative interactions with employees.

In previous chapters, we have noted that there are limits to the influence of leaders on culture. Since culture emerges from the interaction of organization members over time, organizational leaders can inspire change or shape vision, but the members of the organization must implement the vision before it becomes a reality. Furthermore, the complexity of the leader-culture relationship also needs to be seen in light of leadership practices constructed in gender and national culture based discursive practices. Concerning gender, after finding that women were not selected for leadership roles based on differing discursive practices, Walker and Aritz (2015) note that it is likely that “students and employees hold unexamined stereotypes about the type of talk that may be recognized as “leadership” in certain organizational settings (p. 474). Concerning national culture

222 Cultural Analysis Application

differences, as introduced in Chapter 9, cultures differ in terms of preferences for “power distance” with western norms favoring more direct communication styles, lower power distance, less rigidity in roles (Driskill, 1995; Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). Our focus in this chapter will be on the direct and indirect ways that formal and informal leaders influence the creation, maintenance, and change of culture. Kouzes and Posner (2017) write that while leaders cannot create or change the culture unilaterally, that they can create the conditions for cultural change by embracing and modeling new values and assumptions, interacting with and listening to employees, and responding appropriately to resistance to change.

In this chapter, we again return to the goal to co-create ethical, diverse, adaptive, and effective organizational cultures that are part of improving all of our social worlds. We focus on the communicative and constitutive or processes of leadership in carrying out this goal. In the first section, we talk about opportunities for leaders to shape meanings in organizations, a process called “reframing”. We then follow with a section on symbolic processes that are helpful to leaders in the reframing process. Our hope is, whether you see yourself as an informal leader or you currently hold a formal position of leadership, that you will explore and discern ways to develop your leadership practices.

Reframing

The term “framing” or “reframing” refers to adopting a different perspective or interpretation of an event or person. When we refer to reframing as a central function of leadership, we mean that leaders often have the ability to help organizational actors shape and/or change their interpretation of organizational events. However, Bryman (1996) cautions that leaders are not unlimited in their ability to shape meanings in organizations. He notes that organization members are not “passive receptacles but imaginative consumers of a leader’s visions and of manipulated cultural artifacts” (p. 286). Some leaders, when facing a financial crisis in their organizations, might frame the emergency as a time to seek out and eliminate weak programs, a perspective that would lead to turf protection and competition. Another leader facing the same challenge could frame the crisis as “a time for the family to pull together and make joint sacrifices for the common good.” This framing might lead to stronger ties and a common commitment to making it through the financial crisis. Each of these ways of framing has constraints. The leader who uses the crisis to set organizational priorities may have relational fallout but will also avoid the democratic pitfall of weakening all programs rather than making hard decisions. The second approach will build common ties and commitments but may result in overall weakening. Each framing process then can be viewed in terms of the kind of culture co-created as a result. An effective leader, indeed, may engage in such reflection with their team in the process of discerning framing options.

What kind of meanings or interpretations can leaders influence? Leaders set organizational perceptions on a number of important areas that affect every other decision within the organization. Leaders can influence perceptions of external threat. History is rife with leaders who have used perceptions of external threat to divert attention from internal problems or to create internal unity to deal with a common enemy. Sometimes employees have become complacent and need to be more aware of potential threats than they currently are. A perception of external threat gives urgency and focus to their work. Leaders can also influence perceptions of competitors and benchmark institutions. One university president we observed had a massive impact on his school when he influenced faculty to accept they were no longer competing against small in-state colleges, but should consider larger regional universities as their “benchmark” comparisons. This changed views of faculty salaries, research expectations, student admission standards, and many other decisions within the university. Leaders often create the internal perceptions of primary stakeholder groups to whom the organization should be accountable. A central question for any organization is to whom are we accountable? Who has an interest in what we do? A corporation who sees itself as accountable primarily to shareholders might focus more on short-term profits while a corporation who sees itself as equally accountable to shareholders, employees, and customers might stress balanced values of profitability, environmental responsibility, and safety. A leader through overt and subtle messages also shapes what is most valued. Is it profit and efficiency? Is it service? Is it people? Civility? Is it the environment? Too often the leader may send inadvertent messages about what is most valued by where he spends

The Director’s Chair 223

time, what he talks about, and what he rewards. Shockley-Zalabak and Morley (1994), in a longitudinal organizational study of the influence of the founder on organizational values and rules, concluded that organizational founders were influential in shaping both management and worker values and rules over time. Finally, a leader creates meaning by co-creating and casting a vision for the future. Bolman and Deal (2017) write about the powerful role of a leader in distilling and disseminating a vision of hope for the future by addressing present challenges and future hopes of organizational members. He states:

Vision is particularly important in times of crisis and uncertainty. When people are in pain, when they are confused and uncertain, or when they feel despair and hopelessness, they desperately seek meaning and hope.

(p. 355)

Bolman and Deal (2017) make the point that leaders do not create a vision in isolation and then persuade organization members to adopt it. Instead, they co-create the vision by listening to hints throughout the organization. They listen for needs, deficiencies, dreams, and goals and then synthesize all the varied input into a compelling image of the future. Deetz, Tracy, and Simpson (2000) contrast mission, strategic planning, and vision. They define “mission” as the direction the organization wants to go and the strategic plan as a roadmap for getting there but say that the vision is the compelling image of what it will be like once you arrive at that destination. They conclude, that a good vision must be

realistic enough to create a recognizable picture of the future, powerful enough to generate commitment to performance, coherent enough to provide coordination, and open enough that others can make it their own. If this is done the vision can inspire and motivate, provide direction and enable benchmark- ing progress toward the future.

(p. 52)

The power of these various reframing practices should be clear. Rehearsal 12.1 provides an opportunity to reflect on your experiences with these various practices.

Rehearsal 12.1 Identifying Leader Reframing Practices

Purpose: Identify leaders or cultural heroes from your cultural analysis who have engaged in reframing practices. What was the context/issue involved? How did he or she influence meanings for other culture members? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

Symbolic Dimensions of Leadership

Leaders, like other members, participate in discursive practices that constitute the culture. The commu- nicative and organizing practices we have explored, various cultural elements such as rituals and humor, are

224 Cultural Analysis Application

central to this process. Schein (2004), from a “culture as metaphor” perspective, discussed five ways leaders transmit organizational culture: (1) by what they pay attention to, measure, and control; (2) by their reactions to critical incidents and crises; (3) by deliberate role modeling, coaching, and teaching; (4) by their choice of criteria for allocation of reward and status; and (5) by their choice of criteria for recruitment, selection, promotion, retirement, and “excommunication”. Schein also discussed five “secondary mechanisms” for creating, displaying, and maintaining culture: (1) the organization’s design and structure; (2) organizational systems and procedures; (3) the design of physical space, façades, and buildings; (4) stories, myths, legends, and parables about important events and people; and (5) formal statements of organizational philosophy, creeds, and charters. Schein’s first list is framed in terms of transmitting the culture, and his second in terms of creating or maintaining the culture. We would argue that both of these lists, from a “culture as discursive construction” approach, actually constitute the culture.

Inspired by Schein, we offer seven leadership communication practices. For each principle, we encourage you to write down insights gleaned from your analysis. In addition, we encourage you to reflect on your own leadership habits. First, symbolic leaders model the cultural significance of all communicative actions. This first principle in many ways sets the stage for the other six. This principle stresses that effective leaders grasp the constitutive nature of all communication—that they are doing something, creating something with all their actions. For instance, one study foregrounded a particular interactive element of culture-humor. Supervisors who engaged in positive humor with interns, increased satisfaction levels, and the propensity of interns to accept a full-time role (Sobral & Islam, 2015). From interactive elements, to nonverbal ones, the impact is present. If the CEO’s office is much more opulent and luxurious than offices of other employees, it sends a message. If a non-profit manager throws a fund-raiser at an expensive hotel while claiming the non- profit is in dire need of funds, it sends a message both without and within that organization. In a positive example, a new CEO of a of non-profit, started her first week on the job by removing her office door and then announcing that she meant it when she said she had an open-door policy. One large organization hosts a company picnic at which all the corporate officers serve the meal to janitors, secretaries, and other employees. At PepsiCo, CEO Indra Nooyi, inspired by practices in her parent’s home culture of India, now writes notes of appreciation to the parents of executives on her team. She also took initiative to provide a day care on the campus to aid in work-life balance.

In short, what the leader spends time doing, what she talks about in public addresses, who she interacts with, what information she asks for, what she spends money on, and a variety of other seemingly insignificant choices send clear value messages. If you want to show you value employee input, eat in the company cafeteria. If you claim to value diversity, spend time developing relationships with those different from you. Ensure that hiring practices are equitable, and launch minority mentoring groups and intercultural training. If you want to emphasize customer service as well as civility in organization and community relationships, serve as a role model yourself; talk about it in every message you give, and appoint the most important members of the organization to a task force you chair yourself.

What culture creating practices have you observed in a leader of the culture you studied? ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________

Second, leaders tell stories to co-create ethical values and communication norms. They understand the power of the narrative structure. Bormann (1969), in his theory of symbolic convergence, states that when we participate together in telling or hearing a powerful story we share a common experience that binds and unifies us. Stories are powerful because they are memorable, multifaceted, and dramatic. We can draw multiple messages from a story; thus, the storyteller should recognize that symbolic convergence will vary due to the fact that listeners may have more to gain than others in acting on the implications of the story. Furthermore, they may see cause to confront or challenge the story based on power relations (Olufowote,

The Director’s Chair 225

2006). Nonetheless, the significance of stories remains due to their power to connect and motivate. In addition, story-telling in organizations has been linked with innovative work behaviors (Halac & Celik, 2016). Recall that stories, like other symbolic elements, reflect and reproduce the culture of an organization and in the process, they provide the material from which new stories of organizational life can be created” (Barge, 2004, p. 106).

Stories can tap into a rich historical legacy to interpret the present, or can paint an inspiring picture of the future in imagery to which listeners can relate. Bolman and Deal (2017) write about the power of the symbolic leader in crafting stories about our past, present, and future.

The past is usually a golden one, a time of noble purposes, of great deeds, of legendary heroes or heroines. The present is troubled, a critical moment when we have to make fateful choices. The future is a dreamlike vision of hope and greatness, often linked to past stories.

(pp. 355–356)

As such, stories can also be a force for change. Recall our discussion of counter narratives in Chapter 4. Counter narratives are stories that foreground outliers, individuals or groups that have overcome the odds. As introduced in Chapter 9 on “Diversity”, Jones (2017) captured narratives of Black entrepreneurs discussing ways they overcame oppressive systems. Such counter narratives parallel our discussion of positive deviants in Chapter 10, and as such are a rich resource for minority leadership development as well as developing an awareness for the majority culture.

The power of stories told about leaders is evidenced by two stories. In one case, Angi heard a university provost of a small university tell an especially poignant story about one of his predecessors. The former president had retired, and on his last workday, unknown to him, every member of the administration and staff gathered in a long line outside the building to wish him well and show their love and respect for him. The provost ended the story by saying, “That’s who we are at this university. That’s what makes us different.” In a second example, during a cultural analysis we performed, we heard the same story about the CEO from several interviewees. The company had a regional meeting at a hotel in the Southwest. The CEO noticed when one of the regional managers didn’t arrive at dinner and called his room. When he didn’t answer the door, the CEO got the manager to open the door and found the regional manager barely alive after a heart attack. The CEO cancelled an international conference to stay at the hospital with the family for 4 days until the manager was out of danger. Then he paid for all medical expenses and travel expenses for the family. He became a legend, and the story did much to create and display the organizational value of caring and responsibility for others.

Despite the promise of such stories as we know from history, stories may be believed even when they lack ethical or valid support. For instance, Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi, and Hitler told stories with starkly different ends. As this historic contrast suggests, stories told about leaders are often as important, if not more, than the stories a leader may tell. Part of the challenge of determining the veracity of a story is that leaders may focus on what they believe “people want to believe, regardless of historical validity or empirical support” (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 356). If organizational members consider them credible, incomplete, or even partially true, stories may be believed. However, some stories may seem so contrived and manipulative that they not only lose their impact but also may even have a negative one in that listeners may discount the speaker all together. A leader, thus, has a responsibility of ensuring that a story is not just believable, but also true, grounded in ethical use of supporting data.

One way to develop stories that are credible and ethical is to engage in what Barge (2004) refers to as “systemic” story creation. Systemic stories involve a process that “values, respects, and incorporates the differing stories other members in a human system have created” (p. 111). At a pragmatic level, this means that symbolic leaders take the time to listen deeply to others in the organization. They humbly respect the fact that multiple stories or representations of the culture could be told. This process means that the resultant stories reflect the inherent tensions in organizational life. For instance, a systemic story about a change would

226 Cultural Analysis Application

represent voices of those championing, as well as challenging, the change. Rather than a story criticizing the past or those opposed to the change, leaders weave a story that respects other voices by

valuing the contributions of others and working with them to create and sustain the collective resources available within a system as opposed to adopting a morally superior position and instructing others in what changes are needed and how to perform them.

(Barge, 2004, p. 122)

Systemic story creation becomes one process or tool you might use. For example, in one meeting, a unit head used the first hour of a six-hour planning retreat, to have members share the top three stories of what made them “proud to be part of this department”. The stories told and shared not only socialized new members into a culture that valued support, transparency, and learning, but also fueled the next part of the meeting in terms of vision and direction. This form of storytelling takes an “Appreciative Inquiry” approach which assumes effective change leadership must involve positive affect and social bonding (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). This approach to stories resonates with recent work in positive organization theory (Cameron & Spreitzer, 2012; Wooten, Roberts, & Davidson, 2016) including positive organizational communication scholarship (French & Holden, 2012; Lutgen-Sandvik, Riforgiate, & Fletcher, 2011; Socha & Pitts, 2012).

As you reflect on your analysis, consider these questions: “Did the leader of the organization you studied tell stories?” “What did they convey relative to the culture?” “Did you hear stories about the leader of the organization you studied?” “Did you learn if their stories were deemed credible? Ethical? Positive?” ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________

Third, symbolic leaders enact rituals to reframe change and continuity. We described rituals in Chapter 4 as one way the culture is constituted. We stressed also the role of rituals in framing change efforts (Chapter 10). Rituals can be everyday routines such as a daily religious observance at a parochial school or a weekly staff meeting. They can also involve organization-wide events such as family picnics, awards banquets, celebrations of achievements, or retirement rituals. Rituals, from a constitutive view, are more than windows on a culture, but performances or enactments creating or recreating culture. CCO theorists underscore rituals as “powerful precisely because they cannot be reduced to the actions of individuals, but make present the full force of the organization—its values, norms, and relations of power” (Koschmann & McDonald, 2015, p. 247). An awareness then of their performative force is critical. A company with a tradition of rowdy Friday afternoon happy hours is different from a company with an annual family picnic. An organization that has implemented a rite or ritual that includes mentoring for minority members stands in sharp contrast to one that gives lip service to valuing diversity. In short, it is very important that an organization’s rituals, line up with the values and ethics the leader is seeking to co-create in the culture.

The significance of co-creating such an alignment is evidenced in an example when this did not happen at first. One of Angi’s clients was in the midst of a cultural transition shifting to a team-based culture and was frustrated that employees were still emphasizing individual action over team cooperation. After a review of the culture, she noted that all their corporate awards were for individual achievement rather than team accomplishments. The implications were obvious—co-create an award for best team efforts. In another organization, a leader wanted to emphasize a performance-based culture. Yet the only corporate-wide event that employees attended was an annual retirement dinner at which employees were honored for length of service rather than excellence of performance. Symbolic leaders know what is rewarded says more to employees than the formal mission statement. They reward employees in public ways that emphasize values the culture wants to encourage.

The Director’s Chair 227

What rituals did the leader of the culture participate in and/or promote? What rewards were presented to employees? What meanings were co-created in these rituals? What type of culture is being created in these rituals? ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________

Fourth, symbolic leaders bring history into the present to frame the value of change and continuity. Our tendency may be to think in terms of history as “that was then”, and the present culture as now. A constructivist perspective does not demarcate the present from the past. In fact, history, like other elements of culture, are discursive resources for the present. For instance, an effective community organization identified the power of surfacing the language of historic faith values in stories and language about unity and collaboration. These church leaders, in public statements, acknowledged their failure to collaborate in the past and their need to honor their historic values of unity and cooperation. References to these values helped engage previously divided groups to serve the community (Driskill & Camp, 2006).

In a medical care context, a university hospital had lost its focus on caring for the most fragile and underserved populations through an emphasis on managed care, Medicare reimbursement formulas, funded research, and the bottom line. Few employees knew that the hospital had once been a private charity hospital formed as a health care safety net for the poor. Leaders became intentional in including that history in employee orientations, in posting pictures of the first hospital throughout the current facility, and in telling stories about the early heroes. These discursive choices, over time, became part of a culture with a sense of continuity with the past. In a similar situation, another organization hit an impasse on a major decision. Several hours of group meetings and debate over the best route to take proved to be to no avail. The value conflict was seen in the fact that a decision to make a change would mean a loss of profit. Then, one senior member recalled an early life event in the organization. He said something like: “We would not even have this decision to make if we had not originally placed our customers and needs above profit.” His statement prompted a discussion that made it easy to develop consensus.

Did the cultural leader you studied make reference to organizational history? To what purpose? In what ways did members introduce talk of history? What role did this knowledge play creating the culture? ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________

Fifth, symbolic leaders ethically reframe events through language that provides significant choice. The idea of reframing is based in the image of providing a context that will aid others in seeing an event, such as a change or crisis, in different way. Here, though the concern is not simply in seeing differently, but providing a significant choice. The idea of significant choice is concerned with ensuring others have full information to make a voluntary choice in making decision, and we would add, understanding events (Nilsen, 1966).

Fairhurst and Sarr (1996), in their book The Art of Framing: Managing the Language of Leadership discuss language tools for leaders. They include metaphors, jargon or catch-phrases, contrast, spin, and stories. Each of these, if used in light of the concept of significant choice, can aid in discerning options for interpreting events. Metaphors a leader uses consciously or unconsciously will shape employee perceptions and meanings. One university president assumed leadership of a university that was second in the state to the “flagship” research campus. In his inaugural address he said, “I don’t care that we’re not the flagship. Flagships are an anachronism in today’s military. They’re large, unwieldy, and difficult to turn. Let’s be a starship.” This use of metaphor was a discursive choice intended to counter a “second-best” mentality among the faculty, staff, and students. This metaphor also functioned persuasively as a rationale for a number of initiatives during his presidency to create a flexible and technologically sophisticated university. Some metaphors are unconscious

228 Cultural Analysis Application

and emerge through language patterns. A leader, for example, who talks continually in athletic terms is introducing a metaphor for the organization that has positive and negative implications. It may foster team commitments but may also encourage competitiveness that works against those same commitments.

Fairhurst and Sarr (1996) define “jargon” as “language that is peculiar to a particular profession, an organizational culture, or a well-developed vision or program” (p. 108). Jargon or “catchphrase” is about using familiar terms to frame a subject (Fairhurst, 2011). In my department, for example, we began to use the term “deep learning” to capture a commitment to encouraging focus, to “do less, better”, by sharing certain learning outcomes across courses. Thus, when this catchphrase or jargon is introduced it provides a short hand means of encouraging collaborative and focused engagement.

“Contrast” is the opposite of metaphor. Rather than explaining the common elements of two unlike things through comparison, the leader highlights an essential trait by placing one object, person, or idea in opposition or contrast to another. Just as we talked about the power of a leader to define competitors for an organization, or to suggest similar benchmark institutions, contrast can define an organization by what it is not. For instance, the CEO of Kaiser Permanente used LinkedIn, a professional networking site, to share an internal note he sent to his people reaffirming their commitment to diversity and inclusion. He opens by using contrast. “The recent events in Charlottesville, Virginia and the president’s response have been disheartening and unsettling. At times like this, it’s important for us to ground ourselves in our mission and reaffirm the beliefs upon which our organization was built.” His comments about the organization’s 70-year history of inclusivity stand in contrast to his opening remarks contrasting the “disheartening and unsettling” response of the nation’s leader (Tyson, 2017).

“Spin” is a term from politics, as political handlers compete to place their own interpretations on speeches, debates, or political contests. As such the term “spin” easily has a negative connotation, yet the intent is to realize that meaning is based on framing or the context given to a particular fact. For example, is finishing third a good or bad thing? Third might be framed in terms of the “first top three” finish in the history of the organization versus “we were not first.” Is a 10% drop in revenues a crushing blow or, in light of trend data, a normal downturn tied to the economy as well as an opportunity to evaluate which functions are most efficient and essential to the organizational mission? Still, spin has its limits. Organization members are sophisticated enough to see through an obviously self-serving interpretation. Nonetheless, events can be framed in both positive and negative ways. Here the ethical leader is not about masking or avoiding the need to be real. Rather, the intent is to think holistically about what is possible, what other meanings might be co- constructed to move forward. For instance, the “Discourse of Renewal” theory focuses on communicative practices that aid an organization in learning and growing through a crisis event. An essential element in this discourse is to reframe the crisis in terms of opportunities during the post-crisis phase (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2015).

Fairhurst (2011) cautions that there are no simple linguistic recipes or formulas for framing success. No one can say, “Add two parts metaphor, one part story, a master frame, and viola, you will have constructed an artful message!” (p. 92). She encourages instead, and consistent with our approach, that you view these options as an artist’s palette. The challenge then is to discern ways to ethically and effectively utilize these resources as a leader. For example, Gerald, while engaged in participant observation at a workshop aimed at creating service focused and collaborative efforts across churches, noticed two different, three dimensional large models at the front of the room. For the morning session, there was a model of a country club. In the afternoon workshop, a model of a bridge was displayed. Leaders used contrast and metaphor to invite a co- construction of a new vision and different organizing practices within and between community churches and organizations. The church was no longer to be a “country club” but instead as a “bridge”. The contrast was intended to help the workshop participants move away from a focus on taking care of their individual congregation to organizing processes that would involve connections with other congregations to segments of the community not being served. These constitutive practices, in time, were part of organizing practices that reframed the collaboration-non-collaboration dialectic tension in a community based organization (Driskill, Meyer, & Mirivel, 2012).

The Director’s Chair 229

To that end, reflect on the practices of the leader(s) in the organization you studied. What types of language behavior did you notice? Can you give examples of metaphor, contrast, stories, spin, or jargon? How were events reframed? How was culture co-constructed through language choice? What was effective/ineffective about these efforts? ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________

Sixth, symbolic leaders co-construct pathways to meaningful and ethical engagement. Pause and repeat this simple activity in a search engine. Enter the words “motivation and organizational culture”. Were the results about 3.5 million hits? Now, enter the words “engagement and organizational culture”. Were the results well above 32 million? In this revision, the language of the sixth practice caved into the more popular term, “engagement”. Regardless of the terms used now or in the future, finding the key to motivation or engagement has long been the quest for the “holy grail” of leadership. We maintain that there are no simple formulas but rather the need to attend to ethical co-construction processes. In other words, we argue that engagement or motivation is not something leaders should do to control employees or simply increase productivity, but rather an opportunity for engaging in ethical constitutive practices that bring value and purpose to organizing.

A major goal of these constitutive processes is to attend to the potential ethical problems with unobtrusive control. Tompkins and Cheney (1985) write of unobtrusive control as a “third generation” of organizational control systems. In the first generation, employees were controlled directly by a supervisor watching every action and correcting errors. In the second generation, bureaucratic rules replaced direct supervision. If we could make rules for every possible situation, then employees would be controlled by rules rather than direct supervision, making possible larger spans of supervision. We suspect we are now in an era of technological control in which software can count and trace every action in a way that monitors performance. Tompkins and Cheney’s argument still applies. Leaders, through unobtrusive control, can influence employee behavior more powerfully through identification with values than with any control mechanism. If you control by supervision, then I will comply only when I am in your line of sight. If you control by rules, you are successful only to the extent I believe you will enforce the rules and know if I have broken them. If you control by technology, I may find ways to modify the technology or to manipulate counting systems. However, if I understand and believe in an organizational value like service, and that value is strong and unequivocal, then I will know what to do in any situation. As such, unobtrusive control is not inherently unethical. Like all communicative processes, the ethical dimension is intertwined with process and outcome. For instance, if leaders have drummed up service as part of the discourse meant to encourage engagement, then it is fair to ask, did members have a voice in the nature of the service and/ or the extent commitments to service intrude upon work-life balance?

Such questions encourage us to think more critically about choice and agency. Unobtrusive control should not be oversimplified to mean that supervisors and/or the organization controls members who are without any agency. In an intriguing study of a Swedish bases multinational research and development firm, Wieland (2011) challenged the position that control operates in a simple way: either the individual is empowered to resist control or the organization controls the individual. Instead, she notes that both “control and resistance operate through powerful normalizing discourses; each discourse provides the material for control and resistance vis-a`-vis the other simultaneously” (p. 178). To be more specific, members experienced times of “domination”, when they felt they had to say “yes” to requests to take on projects; but at the same time they also experienced times of emancipation, through a discourse related to moderation and work-life balance.

Many credit Johnson & Johnson’s ability to survive an incident of product tampering with strong and consistent organizational values that placed patient safety first. Thus, there was no question that all products would be pulled from the shelves and new product packaging developed. The significance of control via shared values in responding effectively and ethically to crisis has been documented in numerous case studies (Ulmer et al., 2015). In contrast, efforts to control through policy and rules may backfire. One of Angi’s hospital clients has an employee policy that employees must call in the day before to be eligible for a sick

230 Cultural Analysis Application

day. Otherwise if they are absent, they must count the day as a vacation day. The rationale for such a policy is valid since it is critical to public health that hospitals maintain sufficient staffing levels on any given day. However, the effect of the policy is that employees come to work sick and view the sick days as an entitlement that they take when they want to have a day off. How much more effective would it be if leaders would truly inculcate a value of how important each and every employee is to the hospital’s mission, and employees really believed that? They would come to work because they felt their work was important and would take responsibility for making arrangements if they could not come to work.

The power of unobtrusive control should, however, give leaders and members cause for pause. Recent applications of this construct suggest reasons or causes for resistance to this type of control (Bisel, Ford, & Keyton, 2007). Unobtrusive control, as indicated in the hospital example, depends on members having a strong sense of identification with the mission of the organization. Yet, individuals typically carry multiple and complex identifications. Thus, certain values of organizational life may be salient to one member, but not another. An employee may seek, for instance, to work extra for an ill co-worker due to internalizing a value for being a team player but may refuse extra work if they sense it is being placed on them due to a management request to meet certain profitability goals. In short, as we have stressed at various junctures, the leader-follower relationship is complex. Individuals select the types of values that create the level of identification needed for unobtrusive control. Thus, reflecting on core organizational values and aiding members in making informed choices about the importance of these values is an essential leadership task.

To what extent do the organizing processes of the leaders seek to engage or motivate members through language focused on values? What was the effect? How did members respond? When did they honor them? Negate them? ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________

Seventh, symbolic leaders use multiple frames for productive conflict management and for effective problem/ solution identification. Conflicts and problems are part of organizational life. Leaders have a role in developing their communication competence in response to these inevitabilities. We discussed levels of competence in Chapter 7. We return to these levels here as a way of improving understanding of a pathway toward greater competence. An individual with minimal competence may demonstrate culturally competent behavior without being able to articulate the underlying logic or rule. An individual with satisfactory competence can explain the rationale but will not be able to see the situation from multiple points of view. A leader with optimal competence can see the culture from multiple points of view and thus be in a position to help others understand the culture in multiple ways. A leader can be competent in being aware of, and being able to take the point of view of, various subcultures within the organization. Because she understands the power of the metaphor or story, she also knows its limits, and how such symbolic forms could be “read” or understood in multiple ways.

One approach to developing the ability to see from multiple points of view is to adopt multi-frame thinking. Lee Bolman and Terry Deal, Reframing Organizations (2017), explain how organizations can be seen through structural, human resource, political, and symbolic frames. If a leader focuses on one frame, they will face added obstacles since each of the frames, as we will discuss, has limits. The key then is to explore your leadership communicative practices in light of all four. “Structural leaders” are architects and analysts who are skilled in restructuring the organization to perform more efficiently. They do their homework, are skilled at analysis, and see the connections among structure, function, and environment. They pay attention to the details of implementation and are not hesitant to reorganize if their data and analysis indicate another structure might be more efficient. A downside of this style is that they may lose sight of the human consequences of continual structural changes, they can be micromanagers, and they may not be as adept at seeing the synergy between human and system elements in performance.

The Director’s Chair 231

A leader who operates primarily from the “human resource frame” is a facilitator and catalyst who motivates as well as empowers. Consistent with our discussion on engagement, such empowerment occurs through participation and inclusion. This process seeks to provide the autonomy and support needed to perform well. Leaders who excel in this way of seeing the organization often adopt a servant leader model and see their role as supporting organization members to achieve goals. Such leaders would attend to issues of safety and civility in the organization. Strengths of human resource leaders are communication abilities, accessibility, serving as visible role models, and anticipating impacts of change and motivation on people. Weaknesses can include oversensitivity to how they are viewed by others, insufficient decisiveness, and failure to see that many problems have both human and system components.

“Political leaders” are pragmatic and realistic. They are adept at analyzing power and in determining whose interests are being served by any particular initiative. They are good at developing coalitions to support change, and in gaining the support of opinion leaders within the organization and external stakeholders. Bolman and Deal (2017) stress that such leaders seek to avoid coercion, but focus instead on persuasion and negotiation. Political leaders are effective in getting things done, but they can fall prey to pragmatism over idealism, and can be seen as divisive and manipulative.

“Symbolic leaders”, as defined by Bolman and Deal (2017), are master image weavers. Organizations are represented as both theaters and temples in this frame. The authors explain further by noting:

As theater, an organization creates a stage on which actors play their roles and hope to communicate the right impression to their audience. As temple, an organization is a community of faith, bonded by shared beliefs, traditions, myths, rituals, and ceremonies.

(p. 353)

Symbolic leaders, as we have stressed in this chapter, exemplify many of the skills we have described throughout this text of framing meaning, considering the importance of symbols, and recognizing the durable fabric of organizational culture. The downside is that without substance, the focus on forms can feel empty and meaningless.

We concur that each of these ways of seeing the organization can aid us. Multi-frame thinking requires time and attention to communicative practices that will optimize insights to be gained from structural, human resource, political and symbolic communication and constitutive process. We agree with Lyon (2017) that competence across these four frames means giving attention to four communicative shifts which involve moving from (a) control to collaboration; (b) top down to upward communication; (c) secrecy to transparent commu- nication, and (d) impersonal to engaging communication. When leaders are able to see the organization through multiple points of view and engage in these communicative practices, they are better equipped to engage in communication practices that are ethical. An optimally competent leader is not only able to reframe situations but is adept at reframing events and casting a vision in ways that co-create, and at times transcend, the diverse national cultures and subcultures within an organization.

What frame seemed to be the strength of the leader you studied? What were his or her deficiencies? ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________

Summary

You may or may not see yourself as a leader. Our hope is that whether in informal ways or formal ones, you will grasp the significance of your impact in the organizations you serve. In this chapter, we focused on the leader’s role to reach toward the goal of co-creating ethical, diverse, adaptive, and effective organizational cultures that are part of improving all of our social worlds. As such, the leader is called to see their role in

232 Cultural Analysis Application

ethically responding to and interpreting organizational events, very similar to the way the director shapes and encourages the meaning of a play carried through the performance of actors. While the leader has an important role to play, organizational meaning is an interactive, co-creation process between leaders and organizational members. Members must identify with the values and vision of the culture to penetrate and guide the organization to desired outcomes. To that end, consider completing Rehearsal 12.2 for a symbolic leadership assessment, 12.3, a case study on leadership, and/or 12.4 on leading virtual teams in organizations.

In this chapter, we have stressed the following main ideas:

1. The most important job of a cultural leader is shaping meaning. 2. The leader can shape many types of meanings:

• perceptions of external threats • perceptions of competitors and benchmark organizations • accountability to stakeholders • what is valued in the organization.

3. Leaders use several types of symbolic means to participate in constituting the culture:

• model the cultural significance of all communicative actions • tell stories to co-create communicative values and communication norms • capitalize on rituals for culture change and continuity • bring history into the present to frame the value of change and continuity • ethically reframe events through language that provides significant choice • co-construct pathways to meaningful and ethical engagement • use multiple frames for productive conflict management and for effective problem/solution

identification.

Rehearsal 12.2 Assessing Yourself as a Leader

Purpose: Assess yourself as a cultural leader or potential cultural leader. Alternatively, you may adapt these questions to survey leaders in the organization and/or perceptions held by members about leaders.

Directions: Consider each of the leadership practices below, and rate yourself on a 1–10 scale, with 10 highest if your leadership style reflects this quality. On items on which you rate yourself 7 or lower, consider an action plan for how you can cultivate this cultural leadership behavior in yourself. We state each of the seven symbolic practices below along with a secondary question to aid a process of mindfulness in this self-assessment. You should consider discussing your assessment with a trusted mentor.

1. I model the cultural significance of all communicative actions. (My verbal and non-verbal actions affirm positive values in the organization). Rating on 1–10 scale:____________ Action plan if score is less than 7: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

2. I tell stories to co-create communicative values and communication norms (I share memorable stories in speeches and remarks that reinforce organizational values, expecta- tions, ways to execute task, and adapt to changes).

The Director’s Chair 233

Rating on 1–10 scale:____________ Action plan if score is less than 7: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

3. I capitalize on rituals for culture change and continuity (I participate in rituals and give employees rewards that value both change and continuity). Rating on 1–10 scale:____________ Action plan if score is less than 7: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

4. I bring history into the present to frame the value of change and continuity. (I make time to introduce key stories from the past that aid us in maintaining core values). Rating on 1–10 scale:____________ Action plan if score is less than 7: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

5. I ethically reframe events through language that provides significant choice. (i.e., I ethically use language elements of metaphor, jargon, or spin to provide choice in meaning making). Rating on 1–10 scale:____________ Action plan if score is less than 7: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

6. I co-construct pathways to meaningful and ethical engagement. (I use shared values rather than rules to support and encourage effectiveness). Rating on 1–10 scale:____________ Action plan if score is less than 7: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

7. (I use multiple frames for productive conflict management and for effective problem/ solution identification)

(I use structural, human resource, political, symbolic frames to co-create a more diverse, ethical and adaptive culture.)

(My communication involves making shifts from (a) control to collaboration; (b) top down to upward communication; (c) secrecy to transparent communication, and (d) impersonal to engaging communication).

234 Cultural Analysis Application

Rating on a 1–10 scale:____________ Action plan if score is less than 7: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

Rehearsal 12.3 Case Study of Cultural Leadership

Purpose: Apply principles of effective cultural leadership to a case. David Tate is dean of a College of Arts and Sciences at a Midwestern university. He guides his college

according to two clear values: excellence and community. He stresses the value of excellence in a number of ways. He maintains his own professional scholarship at a high level even with his heavy administrative demands. He participates personally in the hiring of every faculty member in the college of almost 200 faculty members. In the interview process he stresses the expectations of the university. He has been known to veto hiring candidates if he feels the department is settling, and he has been known to extend searches if the right candidate cannot be found. In his 10 years in the position, he has fired three department chairs because they did not meet the standards he set for college leaders. In each case this was done after extensive counseling, and in each case he met with each member of the affected department to explain his actions and solicit their views on a new departmental leader. He encourages faculty members and chairs to compete for university-wide awards, and faculty and students in the college are represented disproportionately each year in university-wide awards.

He also reinforces the value of community in a number of ways. He knows each faculty member in the college and is aware of their activities and accomplishments. He often drops by faculty members’ offices to hear about their classes and professional activities. He personally hosts a first-year orientation program for all new faculty members in the college to get to know them, and to socialize them to expectations and practices within the college. These orientation sessions include a couple of Friday afternoon happy hours in his home. He hosts a dinner and tent theater performance each summer for all faculty and staffmembers and their families. He states that he makes the college calendar his own and is almost always present at concerts, performances, readings, and other college events. His collegiality and sense of community extends to other deans in the university. Although he is assertive about the needs of his college, he is seen as a cooperative and knowledgeable colleague who is a trusted team player. He recently developed a strategic plan for the college with extensive input from every member of the college. He also allocates all discretionary funding in the college through a democratic process in which all of the department chairs in the college explain their needs to one another, and then as a group the chairs vote on spending priorities. The norm is very clear in the group that competitive behavior is not expected or valued.

Questions:

1. In what ways does David Tate demonstrate symbolic leadership? 2. How do his actions create cultural values and expectations? 3. Which of Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames seem especially strong in his leadership style? 4. Are there any drawbacks to the culture in David Tate’s leadership style?

The Director’s Chair 235

Rehearsal 12.4 Leading virtual teams in organizations

Purpose: Reflect on leadership implications of research on virtual teams.

Read: Weber, M., & Kim, H. (2015). Virtuality, technology use, and engagement within organization. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 43(4), pp. 385–407. doi:10.1080/00909882.2015.1083604

Summary: This study focuses on a multinational organization relying on collaborative technology to enable virtual organizational teams. Collaborative technology provides workers with a way to form relationships and share knowledge, yet this same technology also has complex, interwoven implica- tions for virtual organizing. The researchers consider four key dimensions of virtuality—spatial dispersion, temporal dispersion, dynamic structure (degree of turnover/change on the team), and functional diversity (extent of differences in functional roles, and backgrounds as well as priorities, assumptions, and routines. Survey data and analysis revealed connections between two dimensions of virtuality, use of collaborative technology and peer engagement in the organization. They conclude that understanding interactions in virtual organizations requires a more nuanced approach to virtuality and active management of technology implementation. Leaders need to actively manage the deployment of new collaborative technology by focusing on specific characteristics of work groups.

Questions:

1. What have your experiences been with virtual teams? Positive? Negative? Mixed? 2. Regardless of your level of experience, what steps would you take to ensure a virtual team

functioned well? 3. What ideas from the leadership practices from this chapter are relevant to introducing a virtual team

to an organization and ensuring maximum effectiveness?

Discussion Questions

1. In what ways is one of the most important jobs of a leader “managing meaning”? Give examples. What are the limits and/or potential problems with thinking about leadership as managing meaning?

2. What are limits on the leader in trying to create or change culture? 3. Why are stories such a powerful force in symbolic leadership? 4. Why do leaders need to understand the power and symbolism of rituals? 5. How does identification of the employee with the values and culture of the organization serve as a form

of unobtrusive control? What might a mindful leader do in response to the potential problems with this type of control?

6. Discuss the four frames of leadership from Bolman and Deal (2017) – Structural, Human Resource, Political and Symbolic). How might these be used to improve decision-making processes?

References

Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Barge, J. K. (2004). Antenarrative and managerial practice. Communication Studies, 55(1), 106–127. doi:10.1080/ 10510970409388608

236 Cultural Analysis Application

Bisel, R. S., Ford, D., & Keyton, J. (2007). Unobtrusive control in a leadership organization: Integrating control and resistance. Western Journal of Communication, 71, 136–158. doi:10.1080/10570310701368039

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2017). Reframing organizations (6th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bormann, E. (1969). Interpersonal communication in the modern organization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bryman, A. (1996). Leadership in organizations. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 276–292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cameron, K., & Spreitzer, G. (Eds.). (2012). Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In R. W. Woodman, & W. A. Pasmore Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 1, pp. 129–169). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Davis, S. M. (1984). Managing corporate culture. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Deetz, S., Tracy, S., & Simpson, J. (2000). Leading organizations through transition: Communication and cultural change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Driskill, G. (1995). Managing cultural differences: A rules analysis in a bi-cultural organization. Howard Journal of Communications, 5(4), 353–379. doi:10.1080/10646179509361676

Driskill, G., & Camp, J. (2006). The Nehemiah Project: A case study of a unity movement among Christian churches in central Arkansas. Journal of Communication and Religion, 29, 445–483.

Driskill, G., Meyer, J., & Mirivel, J. (2012). Managing dialectics to make a difference: tension management in a community building organization. Communication Studies, 63(2), 243–261. doi:10.1080/10510974.2011.634476

Fairhurst, G. (2011). The power of framing: Creating the language of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fairhurst, G., & Sarr, R. (1996). The art of framing: Managing the language of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fairhurst, G. T. (2008). Discursive leadership: A communication alternative to leadership psychology. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 510–521.

French, S., & Holden, T. (2012). Positive organizational behavior: A buffer for bad news. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 75(2), 208–220. doi:10.1177/1080569912441823

Halac, D. S., & Celik, T. S. (2016). The moderating role of organizational storytelling in the relation between organizational memory and innovative work behaviors. Ileti-S-Im, 25, 261–285.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Keyton, J. (2005). Communication and organizational culture. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Koschmann, M. A., & McDonald, J. (2015). Organizational rituals, communication, and the question of agency. Management Communication Quarterly, 29(2), 229–256. doi:10.1177/0893318915572386

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. K. (2017). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations (6th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Lyon, A. (2017). Case studies in courageous organizational communication: Research and practices for effective workplaces. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Lyon, A. (2017). “Putting patients first”: Systematically distorted communication and Merck’s marketing of Vioxx. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 376–398. doi:10.1080/00909880701611052

Nilsen, T. R. (1966). Ethics of speech communication. New York, NY: Bobbs-Merrill. Olufowote, J. (2006). Rousing and redirecting a sleeping giant: Symbolic convergence theory and complexities in the communicative constitution of collective action. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(3), 451–492. doi:10.1177/ 0893318905280326

Porath, C. L., Gerbasi, A., & Schorch, S. L. (2015). The effects of civility on advice, leadership, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1527–1541. doi:10.1037/apl0000016

Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shockley-Zalabak, P., & Morley, D. (1994). Creating a culture: A longitudinal examination of the influence on manage- ment and employee values on communication rule stability and emergence. Human Communication Research, 20, 334– 355. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1994.tb00326.x

The Director’s Chair 237

Socha, T., & Pitts, M. (Eds.) (2012). The Positive side of interpersonal communication. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Tompkins, P. K., & Cheney, G. (1985). Communication and unobtrusive control in contemporary organizations. In R. D. McPhee, & P. K. Tompkins (Eds.), Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions (pp. 179–210). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tyson, B. (2017, August 17). An important message from Bernard Tyson, Chairman and CEO. Company culture, editor’s picks, healthcare, insurance, social impact. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/important-message-from-bernard-j- tyson-chairman-ceo-bernard-j-tyson/

Ulmer, R., Sellnow, T., & Seeger, M. (2015). Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weber, M., & Kim, H. (2015). Virtuality, technology use, and engagement within organization. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 43(4), 385–407. doi:10.1080/00909882.2015.1083604

Wieland, S. B. (2011). Struggling to manage work as a part of everyday life: Complicating control, rethinking resistance, and contextualizing work/life studies. Communication Monographs, 78(2), 162–184. doi:10.1080/03637751.2011.5646

Wooten, L., Roberts, L. M., & Davidson, M. (2016). Positive organizing in a globalsociety: Understanding and engaging differences for capacity building & inclusion. New York, NY: Routledge.

238 Cultural Analysis Application

https://www.linkedin.com/

Chapter 13

Reading Reviews Organizational Effectiveness

Research on organizational culture and effectiveness call for a change on a tendency to only focus on profitability. Problems arise if profit becomes the driving rationale in making changes, and employees may resist such efforts if they are seen as solely for management’s gain. In the wake of corporate scandals, top corporations realize that corporate responsibility in terms of care for the planet and people must be evaluated as well as profitability in determining long-term organizational effectiveness. Several approaches to defining an effective culture are reviewed: (a) strong is good; (b) strategically appropriate is good, and (c) efficiently adaptive cultures are good. This final approach is foreground as the one that finds support for long-term, high-performing organizations. A model for co-creating an efficiently adaptive culture involving the micro and macro level organizing and communicative practices is presented.

We forget that the primary function of language, if we have something to say and are not merely babbling, is to uncover something within the world, to bring it into the open.

(Barrett, The Illusion of Technique, 1979, p. 158)

We exist to help end childhood starvation around the world through our Meal 4 Meal program. (Tacos 4 Life, 2017)

Step Five: Identify Applications for Organizational Diversity, Change, Ethics, Leadership, and Effectiveness

Objectives

• Describe three major perspectives on the relationship between culture and effectiveness. • Explain the dimensions of an effective organizational culture.

Stage Terms

• Strong versus weak cultures. • Strategically appropriate cultures. • Adaptive cultures.

Full Circle

We began the cultural analysis process by examining expected payoffs or benefits of conducting a cultural analysis. We noted that our six-phase process of analyzing a culture aids an organization in such areas as hiring and socialization practices and employee engagement initiatives. We also noted how understanding culture is an essential aspect of being an effective and ethical leader. We have provided tools for you to link your cultural analysis findings to relevant aspects of organizational cultural performances: diversity, change, ethics, and leadership. Each of these areas contributes to overall organizational effectiveness, and thus our final application will draw together key ideas on leadership, ethics, diversity, and change.

With a final application chapter on effectiveness we have come full circle. Performance reviews in the workplace, like reviews of dramatic performances, are not always productive and useful. Sometimes managers go off on tangents; sometimes a reviewer has a personal bias against an actor. Yet a review of overall organizational effectiveness in light of cultural data should not be discarded or discounted because the process is sometimes flawed. In fact, we would argue that effective organizational performances always involve review. Like a thorough review of a play, a review of organizational effectiveness should provide a perspective on the organization that is convincing, enlightening, and empowering. The hope is that this review process will inspire new insights into the forms of communication that will create what we want to create in an organization. Recall our guiding, overall goal related to our second major question: “What do we want to co-create?” Our goal is to co-create ethical, diverse, adaptive, and effective organizational cultures that are part of improving all of our social worlds. Organizations and professionals aiming at this ideal, may not always reach it, but will be moving in the right direction. We also believe that you should leave this process with a clearer sense of how you can improve your own effectiveness by being an observer of your own thinking (Singe, 1990). Such improvements should provide a greater sense of direction, meaning, and value for your organizational experiences. As one CEO, writing about the process of leadership and organizational success suggests,

Listen In every office you hear the threads of love and joy and fear and guilt, the cries of celebration and reassurance, and somehow you know that connecting those threads is what you are supposed to do, and business will take care of itself.

(James Autry, Love and profit: The art of caring leadership, 1991, p. 26)

Our approach to analysis is about listening. Listening not just for problems, but listening in a way that seeks to describe the organization in an ethical and credible manner. Recall our OCA definition flowing from constructivist theories such as CCO – the cultural analysis is a process of capturing the unique qualities of an organization as constituted in elements of culture such as rituals, stories, and history that both shape and are shaped by communication that has significance for organizational effectiveness and professional develop- ment. During this listening process via interviews/survey, observations, and texts, you may have noted important aspects of your own communication that contribute to or distract from certain organizational cultural values. For example, you may realize that you tend to discourage innovation by focusing on failed

240 Cultural Analysis Application

projects. You may also have interpreted thematic action that revealed inconsistencies between lived versus espoused values. For instance, a web page may have included value statements about community and environmental engagement.

However, organizational rituals and employee talk reveal the opposite. Or you may have observed how an organization marginalizes minority populations in decision-making. At the same time, beyond potentially negative cultural enactments, we trust you will also attend to positive patterns. The tendency is to believe you have to find problems but, in fact, identifying cultural strengths may be of even greater importance. For instance, you might have picked up on the way a unit in an organization consistently enacts organizational learning by discussing failures and lessons learned and then the co-creation of action plans to incorporate this learning into organizing practices. This type of feedback may help members grasp the significance of these positive thematic actions or patterns. Such insights, whether positive or negative, whether personal or organization-wide, are major payoffs in the analysis process.

Regardless of your organizational role, you are now in a position to develop positive communication recommendations. You may be in a position (e.g., a trainer, learning coach, internal performance consultant, or external consultant) to make a formal presentation. For students, the organization may have agreed from the start for you to share your overall findings and implications. However, even if your analysis is never to be formally presented to the organization, this chapter encourages applications of value for your development as a leader. We begin by reflecting on the concept of organizational effectiveness. In particular we focus on three different takes on the relationship between culture and effectiveness. We then introduce varied Rehearsals to prompt reflection on your experiences and your cultural data in light of their relationship to effectiveness.

Organizational Effectiveness

Terms like “the bottom line”, “productivity/profit”, and “return on investment (ROI)” are perhaps the most commonly used rationales for making changes or justifying the existence of an organization. You may have said or heard the phrase, “If we don’t make a profit, what are we here for?”ROI, return on investment, continues to be a hot topic in the training industry as human resource professionals seek to justify the expense of training and other organizational development (OD) efforts (Jain & Gulati, 2016). Definitions of productivity and effectiveness vary, but the approaches of short versus long-term productivity (Eriksson, Olander, Szentes, & Widén, 2014) or the highest level of performance with the least expenditure of resources (Little, 2016; Mali, 1978) share a common emphasis. Not surprisingly, the concern over maximizing profits and increasing efficiency is either implicit or explicit in most discussions about productivity and performance. Leaders in organizations, like directors bringing a play to the stage, seek a payoff—they want their work to have some sort of success beyond opening night.

We accept the importance of this bottom line; however, there are three problems with making the bottom line the primary rationale to drive changes in culture. First, organization members and stakeholders typically react to and resist efforts at change that they view as manipulative for management gain. Employees may actually counter such efforts and resist changes. In fact, it is critical to realize that the cultural analysis process may reveal information that the organization or individuals in the organization are not ready to hear (Deetz, Tracy, & Simpson, 2000). Concerning other stakeholders, such as community members, a "bottom line" approach may result in limited responsiveness to a particular culture. While this unresponsive approach could increase profits, in the long term, there will be resistance from community members whose lived experiences contradict these organizational values (Manzie, 2018). Thus, even if your analysis is a convincing one, grounded in careful consideration of multiple micro and macro elements gathered over time, how you make sense of the analysis and present it to others is a challenging process that merits planning and preparation. Your preparation should take into consideration one particular fact: Culture change grounded in a profit motive alone is likely to backfire.

A second consideration in linking culture to profit as the main measure of effectiveness is the fact that effectiveness is framed in different ways by organizations. While everyday discourse suggests a focus on

Reading Reviews 241

profit, in fact, we see not only trends but new, more complex approaches. Baker and Branch (2002) present three logics relevant to issues of effectiveness, and argue that the third logic best represents current trends. Logic 1, “Bureaucratic Control”, focuses on the primary value of management with organizations designed around internal functions and hierarchical relationships and processes. Logic II, “Engagement”, focuses on leadership with the value added of all employees with the organization designed around external products and customers with lateral relationships and processes. Logic III, “Networking and Collaboration”, focuses on facilitation with the value added of partnership and alliances. The design tends to be more flexible and fluid. Example adjectives in Logic III reflect ideas referenced in discussing ethics: collaboration, partnerships, alliances, positioning in an external environment. Logic III has “given rise to the identification of new performance functions, such as change management, organizational learning, knowledge management, organizational partnerships and network formation, innovation and creativity” (p. 10).

A shift in logic from I or II to III is inclusive of discourse that challenges the notion of a single bottom line of profit. One could ask: Was Enron an effective organization? It certainly was profitable over the short run. Yet because of unethical practices and lack of concern for employees and stockholders, its house of cards eventually collapsed. Organizations are realizing that environmental impact, community citizen- ship, financial stewardship, global development, and corporate responsibility are as important to evaluate as profitability in determining an organization’s effectiveness. For instance, the idea of a “triple bottom line” (people, profit, planet) introduced by Elkington (1998), resonates with the current mission statements (e.g., Tom’s Shoes & Nike) that were part of the linguistic analysis exercise in Chapter 5 (Rehearsal 5.3). One other recently launched organization, “Tacos 4 Life” states on their web page that we “exist to help end childhood starvation around the world through our Meal 4 Meal program” (Tacos 4 Life, n.d.). In addition, several organizations have gained substantial attention for going far beyond the law in terms of improving employee pay rates. Dan Price, a CEO of a Seattle based company, Gravity Payments, is best known for raising the minimum salary to 70,000.00 a year. Others have followed suit and in each case, profits have increased as well as employee engagement (Wheeler, 2017). These organizations are finding that taking care of people is not incompatible with profit. Organizations like these are clearly concerned about multiple bottom lines.

Consider again the case of “Interface” introduced in Chapter 9 on Ethics. Recall the micro (e.g., communication practices of co-creating vision and strategy) and macro (e.g., community engagement practices; measurements benchmarking progress with stakeholders) elements of culture that were constitutive of their organizing processes, leading to more sustainable environmental practices. Their vision statement goes further than the triple bottom line to add two more “p’s”:

To be the first company that, by its deeds, shows the entire industrial world what sustainability is in all its dimensions: people, process, product, place and profits—by 2020—and in doing so we will become restorative through the power of influence.

(Interface, n.d.)

If you completed Rehearsal 5.3 on corporate mission statements, you may have gained additional instances of the latest generation of corporate mission statements as they embed language and other discourse tied to the idea of a triple bottom line.

Beyond instances in the business section, non-profit organizations provide another example of the need to expand the way we discuss effectiveness. Non-profits contributed an estimated $905.9 billion to the US economy in 2013, composing 5.4% of the country’s gross domestic product. Added to this, in 2014 giving totaled $358.38 billion, an increase of over 5% from 2013; and 25.3% of US adults volunteered in 2014, contributing an estimated 8.7 billion hours valued at approximately $179.2 billion (McKeever, 2015). As such, non-profits represent a significant sector of the US economy. Non-profits do not exist to make a profit, but they can be examined by a number of other outcome measures, such as social capital (Putnam, 2002). Rehearsal 13.1 provides an opportunity reflect on this idea of the triple bottom line.

242 Cultural Analysis Application

Rehearsal 13.1 How Do You Measure Effectiveness?

Purpose: Reflect on how your organization defines effectiveness in light of the triple (or quadruple) bottom line.

Steps:

1. Select an organization you have worked in or participated in (from business, to non-profit, to faith based). You may opt to reflect on the organization you are studying in this cultural analysis process.

2. Write down the statements you can recall from members, memos, and so on, that best capture how effectiveness is/was measured.

3. What are the pros and cons of the measures being used? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

4. Review Table 13.1. What elements of culture suggest the current logic of the organization you studied? What are the implications you see of this reflection for communication?

A third issue with trying to manipulate culture to improve performance is that research paints a complex picture concerning the relationship between culture and performance. A review of this research provides a backdrop for the model of organizational effectiveness we find useful in the application of cultural data. Research in this area can be captured in terms of three major perspectives on the link between culture and performance.

Perspective 1: Strong Cultures Are Good

Early discussions of the link between culture and performance argued for the notion of “strong cultures” being associated with excellent performances. Deal and Kennedy (1982, 2000) popularized this argument by defining strong cultures as possessing the following themes: (a) shared vision and values; (b) supportive business environment; (c) recognized corporate heroes; (d) effective rites and rituals, and (e) effective formal and informal communication networks. These authors highlighted organizations like IBM and Tandem Computers for their strong cultures. Peters and Waterman (1982) also popularized certain characteristics of strong cultures based on their study of 62 successful companies. For instance, they noted things like a “bias for action”, “close relations to the customer”, “simple form, lean staff”, and “hands-on value driven or strong core values”.

Though dated, the work of Deal and Kennedy (1982) and Peters and Waterman (1982) still resonate. Who can argue against strong core values or effective networks? Still, further exploration of the strong

Reading Reviews 243

culture concept has shown that some of the organizations identified in these studies have not been strong performers over the long haul. Strong cultures, paradoxically, may honor certain values or communication patterns that are actually detrimental to the organization (Kunda, 1993). In the worst case, unethical practices may become embedded in the culture. As Kotter and Heskett (1992) point out, “the strong culture theory” fails to account for the success of weak cultures. Such organizations as McGraw-Hill and Pitney Bowes, for example, received “weak corporate culture” scores but had impressive performance records.

Perspective 2: Strategically Appropriate Cultures Are Good

A second perspective argues for the notion of “strategically appropriate cultures”—the contents of the culture “fit” the context (conditions of the industry, degree of competitiveness, amount of change, degree of government regulation, degree of uncertainty). This “contingency” notion, like the strong culture, has appeal in the logic presented. It makes sense that an effective organization would somehow adapt its strategies to fit specific economic conditions. However, research has shown that while short- and medium- term performance can be predicted by the notion of “fit”, prediction of long-term effectiveness remains as elusive to predict with this theory as the “strong-cultures” perspective (Kotter & Heskett, 1992, p. 43). In fact, Collins (2001) based his theory of effective organizations on distinguishing companies that perform well in the short run versus those that have moved from “good to great” over a longer period of time. His analysis indicates that strategic fit is not the key to becoming a great organization. Rehearsal 13.2 provides an opportunity to reflect on this perspective.

Rehearsal 13.2 Finding the Drawbacks of the Best Fit

Purpose: Reflect on the limits of the second perspective, “Strategically appropriate cultures are good.”

Steps:

1. Reflect on the discussion of strategically appropriate cultures. 2. Identify an instance in your experience, or that you have read or heard about, when an organization

worked to adapt to its environment yet did not prove to be an effective organization over time. ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________

3. Review the facets of the culture that may have contributed to this lower-than-expected performance. _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________

Perspective 3: Adaptive Cultures Are Good

A third and final perspective, “adaptive cultures”, presents arguments for cultures that can “help organiza- tions anticipate and adapt to environmental change” (Kotter & Heskett, 1992, p. 44). In these organizations,

244 Cultural Analysis Application

not only is leadership key, but communicative practices tied to organizational learning. Concerning leader- ship, organizations such as Hewlett-Packard, Facebook, Golden West, Google, and American Airlines demonstrate the importance of leaders focused on changes needed to satisfy the legitimate interests of stockholders, customers, and employees. In contrast, less adaptive cultures tend to have leadership that was absorbed in self-advancement or protection of position and status.

Collins (2001) documented 11 organizations that made the move from “good to great”. He argues that leadership is at the core of this “leap”. These organizations, according to Collins’s careful market analysis, stood out from competitors in their markets over a 15-year time period. His research team, despite instruction to downplay the role of top executives, found each of these organizations had a type of leadership that blended “personal humility and professional will” (p. 20). In short, their ambition was for the institution, not for themselves. They tended to leave behind an organization that could be great without them. For instance, 75% of the comparison companies, those that did not make the leap from good to great, had executives who set their successors up for failure or chose weak successors (or both).

The adaptiveness of an organization is also seen in their capacity for learning and renewal that extends beyond the typical boundaries of an organization. Organizational learning, in a study of 20 small and medium sized Pakistani enterprises, revealed the association of four important values: employee empowerment, open communications, employee collaboration and continuous learning. These values were significantly associated with the perceived goal achievement levels of the firms (Khan & Syed, 2013). In addition, research on effective crisis communication has demonstrated the value not only of message responses strategies but also communicative practices that aid an organization and their stakeholders in learning and renewal (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2015). For example, in a case study of an education union crisis, the researcher found evidence of learning through renewal processes that increased collaboration between partners (Paquette, 2015). In a case involving the 2009 earthquake in Italy, researchers documented how this crisis proved to be an opportunity for organizational learning and renewal for the international scientific earthquake community. The failed communication prompted an awareness of greater information sharing between groups ultimately responsible for coordinating risk and crisis communication (Sellnow, Iverson, & Sellnow, 2017). Manzie (2018) extends the renewal model by documenting the need for organizational learning and renewal to address the dangers of corporate benevolence and neocolonialism through engagement with and respect for local leadership decision making practices. The significance of organizational learning is explored further in Rehearsal 13.3 in the context of crisis communication.

Rehearsal 13.3 Readiness for Renewal: Crisis Communication

Purpose: Identify thematic action that contributes to the likelihood of an organization’s ability to renew through crisis events.

Steps:

1. Determine an organization that you want to assess in terms of their readiness to renew through a crisis.

2. Review current research on the “Readiness for Renewal” inventory (Fuller, McNatt, & Ulmer, 2017) to gain a better understanding of renewal practices.

3. Write down instances when your data indicate implicit or explicit examples of such practices as organizational learning, such as transparency or openness in communication, positive relationships with stakeholders, collaborative communication.

4. Brainstorm a list of two or more positive communicative implications from this reflection.

Reading Reviews 245

In summary, an organization is likely to be effective because of its ability to adapt. While certain traits of strong cultures, such as effective communication practices, make sense, they do not provide sufficient direction. Furthermore, the ability to “fit” current market conditions, while a critical component, fails to account for long-term effectiveness. So a core question remains: “What, about adaptive cultures, do we need to pay attention to in relation to the data found in a cultural analysis?” Leadership has been mentioned, along with a value on renewal and learning but what other characteristics might be used to guide the analysis of organizational culture data? From our focus on cultures as discursive constructions, we ask, “what sorts of thematic actions are likely to constitute an adaptive organization?”

Adaptive cultures do tend to share certain characteristics. Table 13.1 highlights a model of organiza- tional effectiveness that captures communicative practices that should be considered in determining implications of your organizational analysis. This model was co-created through reflection on research and theory indicating micro and macro positive communicative practices attending to people, planet, process, and profit. We welcome hearing from you as you discern other practices or revisions/ clarifications to these constitutive practices deemed candidates for co-constructing more effective and ethical organizing practices. Remember, however, that any insight or potential recommendation for change needs to be sifted through, researching, finding, and indicating the power of the national culture context. For instance, it would be a mistake to overlook the power of communicative processes that constitute national cultures that also then shape organizations. In the United States, a value is placed on the management of objectives (e.g., working toward clearly established goals). Thus, success is deter- mined and measured by time-efficient goal achievement. In contrast, in other cultures, such as Mexico, business is not conducted until partners have a chance to get to know one another (Varner & Beamer, 1995). Effective organizations find ways to adapt to and manage these cultural differences when engaged in a global environment.

As you review this model, think about the extent to which your cultural analysis contains thematic action that encourage or discourage moves toward being effective through being adaptive. The themes you interpreted in your analysis as well as the overall characterization of culture often give hints about the extent to which an organization is enacting the communication practices indicated in Table 13.1. Embedded in the themes you identified, for example, may be statements about how stakeholders are to be treated, or about communication rules regarding customer interactions. For instance, if you identified thematic action related to conflict (“Customers are heard only when they file formal complaints”) you might generate a list of possible applications since this theme has such clear ties to important organizational performance issues. You might note as a strength that this theme makes it clear that customer complaints are important. Yet, in contrast, other important information from customers may be downplayed. Any number of insights and potential interventions might be suggested by such an analysis. Yet, before jumping to recommendations, reflect on aspects of the organization’s history that are present in this communicative norm. Furthermore, exploration of socialization and/or training practices related to customer service merit attention. In all, this process of cultural analysis should be about a willingness to explore patterns that contribute to effectiveness as well as those that are detrimental.

Summary

Research on organizational culture and effectiveness has prompted a revision of earlier, overly simplistic ideas. We agree that sufficient levels of profitability are essential to most organizations, yet we concur that it “should not be maximized at the expense of other equally important social needs, including living wages, sustainable development, quality of work/life, and self-determination” (Eisenberg, Trethewey, LeGreco, & Goodall, 2017, p. 162). We covered two major approaches to defining an effective culture before introducing the one that is best supported by research. We also encouraged your own review process. The following summary points capture the main ideas presented.

246 Cultural Analysis Application

Table 13.1 The Communicative Constitution of an Efficiently Adaptive Organization

Employees

• Participate in informal networks to encourage innovation, supportive change processes. • Open forum for discussing differences, disagreements. • Learn from failed efforts without assigning blame. • Understanding and sharing a vision of what the organization does best. • Selecting and keeping the best. • Merit-based (rather than political) rewards and advancement. • Tapping into strengths of cultural diversity. • Committed to continual learning of the art of positive communication through greetings, asking open questions,

complimenting, disclosing, encouraging, listening, and inspiring (Mirivel, 2014).

Customers

• Communicating a clear vision to customers of what the organization does best. • Channels for receiving customer input and feedback. • Always listening and changing based on feedback.

Stakeholders

• Balancing demands of stockholders for profits with concerns for the physical environment. • Balancing demands of stockholders for profits with concerns for employees, customers, and community members.

Leadership

• Practices courageous communication by shifting from: (a) control to collaboration; (b) top down to upward commu- nication; (c) secrecy to transparent communication, and (d) impersonal to engaging communication (Lyon, 2017).

• High value on co-creating vision based on facts/truth. • Adapts communication to the varied meaning structures held in response to change. • Responds dialogically to tensions embedded in the change process. (e.g., assimilation-autonomy, consensus-command,

upward-downward, transparency-secrecy). • Ethically utilizes cultural elements during the change process (e.g., rituals, stories, values, humor). • Enacts symbolic leadership practices (stories, rituals, reframing, optimal competence through multi frame reflection). • Models mindfulness by reflecting on and introducing three big questions (“What are we creating here?” “What do we

want to co-create?” “What kinds of communication with create what we want?”). • Models civil discourse and positive communication through practice and supporting formal policy and training. • Focus on leadership identification and development. • Encourage identification of positive deviant practices. • Plans for leadership succession.

Organizational Structures

• Flexible and dynamic structure to match organizational mission and goals. • Build in diversity supportive practices (e.g., dialogue groups, community forums, intercultural training, mentoring,

positive communication training). • Macro level practices (trainings, forums, formal policies, etc.) to encourage civil discourse, member safety and equitable

treatment, grievance and conflict management practices. • Positive external stakeholder relationships with accountability on measurable sustainability goals.

1. Problems may arise if profits become the driving rationale in making changes to culture. Employees may resist such efforts if they are seen as solely for management’s gain.

2. In the wake of corporate scandals, top corporations now realize that corporate responsibility and values must be evaluated as well as profitability in determining long-term organizational effectiveness.

3. The first approach to defining an effective culture is the notion that “strong is good”. Reviews of long- term strong performers show they do not always fit this model and, in some cases, unethical practices can be embedded in a strong culture.

4. A second approach suggests that a “contingency” or strategically appropriate culture is a good one. Again, the long-term high-performance companies that were reviewed do not fit this approach.

5. The final approach, and the one argued for in this workbook, is that efficiently adaptive cultures are the most effective. This perspective finds support for long-term, high-performing organizational cultures maintaining and passing on a value set focused on changing as needed.

6. We encourage you (Rehearsal 13.4) to review the thematic actions and overall characterization of the culture to gain clues about the extent to which the culture you studied is efficiently adaptive.

Rehearsal 13.4 Gauging Effectiveness

Purpose: Identify thematic action that contributes or fails to constitute effective organizational commu- nication patterns.

Steps:

1. Review your cultural interpretation, including enacted elements, thematic, and an overall definition(s). 2. Write down instances when your data indicate implicit or explicit examples of effective commu-

nication practices relevant to the dimensions of effectiveness based on Table 13.1. 3. Write down instances when your data indicate implicit or explicit examples of ineffective

communication practices based on Table 13.1. 4. Brainstorm a list of two or more implications of the observations you made in your data. For example,

if you noted effective communication patterns, how might the values inherent in these patterns be further strengthened? Conversely, if you noted ineffective behaviors, how might these be addressed?

Discussion Questions

1. How would you define an effective organization? Give an example of an organization you would categorize as effective.

2. Which of the three approaches to organizational effectiveness seems to make most sense to you? (strong culture, situationally appropriate culture or adaptive culture). Explain your reasoning.

3. How can efforts to manipulate culture in order to maximize profits fail for organizational leaders? 4. What makes the idea of a triple (or quadruple) bottom line compelling?

References

Autry, J. (1991). Love and profit: The art of caring leadership. New York, NY: Avon. Baker, K. A., & Branch, K. M. (2002). Concepts underlying organizational effectiveness: Trends in the organization and management science literature. In E. L. Malone, K. M. Branch, & K. A. Baker (Eds.), Managing science as a public good: Overseeing publicly-funded science. Retrieved from www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/doe/benchmark/ch01.pdf

248 Cultural Analysis Application

http://www.au.af.mil/

Barrett, W. (1979). The illusion of technique. Garden City, NY: Anchor. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don’t. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley. Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (2000). Corporate cultures. Cambridge, MA: Perseus. Deetz, S., Tracy, S., & Simpson, J. (2000). Leading organizations through transition: Communication and cultural change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eisenberg, E., Trethewey, A., LeGreco, M., & Goodall, H. (2017). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint (8th ed.). New York, NY: St. Martin’s.

Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers. Eriksson, P. E., Olander, S., Szentes, H., &Widén, K. (2014). Managing short-term efficiency and long-term development through industrialized construction. Construction Management & Economics, 32(1–2), 97–108. doi:10.1080/ 01446193.2013.814920

Fuller, R. P., McNatt, A. M., & Ulmer, R. R. (2017). Extending renewal to organizational preparedness: Development and test of readiness for renewal instrument. Proceedings of the 82 Annual Association for Business Communication Conference. ISSN 2472-0658

Interface, (n.d.). Our sustainability journey – Mission zero. Interface. Retrieved from http://www.interfaceglobal.com/ Sustainability/Interface-Story.aspx

Jain, R., & Gulati, S. (2016). HRD systems and organizational performance: Qualitative review of research. Journal of Institute of Public Enterprise, 6(1–2), 86–108.

Khan, M. R., & Syed, N. A. (2013). Exploring association of OD values with organizational perceived effectiveness: Case of small and medium enterprises. Journal of Independent Studies & Research: Management & Social Sciences & Economics, 11(1), 41–55.

Kotter, J., & Heskett, J. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York, NY: Macmillan. Kunda, G. (1993). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Little, B. (2016). Benchmark report reveals trends in corporate learning and development. Industrial & Commercial Training, 48(5), 225–230. doi:10.1108/ICT-12-2015-0079

Lyon, A. (2017). Case studies in courageous organizational communication: Research and practices for effective workplaces. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Mali, P. (1978). Improving total productivity. New York, NY: John Wiley. Manzie, V. (2018). Applying the rhetoric of renewal model in a contemporary African context: Lessons learned from Royal Dutch Shell Oil crisis in Nigeria. Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research.

McKeever, B. (2015, October 29). The nonprofit sector in brief 2015: Public charities, giving, and volunteering, urban institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/research/publication/nonprofit-sector-brief-2015-public-charities- giving-and-volunteering

Mirivel, J. (2014). The art of positive communication: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Paquette, M. (2015). Renewal or re-entrenchment? A case study of 2011 education union crisis. Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(4), 337–352. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2015.1060130

Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Putnam, R. (2002). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Sellnow, D., Iverson, J., & Sellnow, T. (2017). The evolution of the operational earthquake forecasting community of practice: The L’Aquila communication crisis as a triggering event for organizational renewal. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 45(2), 121–139. doi:10.1080/00909882.2017.1288295

Singe, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Tacos 4 Life. (n.d.). Giving-food changes everything. Retrieved from https://tacos4life.com/ Ulmer, R., Sellnow, T., & Seeger, M. (2015). Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Varner, I., & Beamer, L. (1995). Intercultural communication the global workplace. Chicago: Irwin. Wheeler, M. (2017, August 20). Three years ago, this boss set a $70,000 minimum wage. Linkedin.com. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/best-boss-america-year-3-michael-wheeler/

Reading Reviews 249

http://www.interfaceglobal.com/

http://www.urban.org/

https://tacos4life.com/

https://www.linkedin.com/

http://www.interfaceglobal.com/

http://www.urban.org/

Chapter 14

Opening Night Conclusion

This book opened and now closes by prompting reflection on the span of experiences found in organizations— from the cradle to the grave, from tragic to comic stories. Given the significant time spent in organizations, this analysis process is intended to improve the way we co-create organizations with a desire to see more such places characterized by hope, joy, love, and purpose. Both the training tools of method actors and the process of cultural analysis encourage an awareness of communication in the foreground. This chapter focuses on our ethical responsibility to act on an improved awareness of culture, and to act in ways that improve and enhance organizational life. The uncertainty experienced at start of the process may be reduced, but the insights and possibilities for future application should provide a sense of curiosity and wonder. Formal and informal analysis may aid in leading a life that corresponds with transcendent purposes by participating in co-creating better and more ethical organizations for all of those living and participating in them from day to day.

The kind of concentration necessary for acting demands the ability to recreate something which is not there. It leads not only to the workings of the imagination, but also the presence of that kind of belief or faith which has often been characterized as the essential element in acting.

(Strasberg, A Dream of Passion, 1987, p. 131)

Objectives

• Apply your cultural analysis to create professional communication goals. • Apply your cultural analysis to create a plan for organizational development.

Back to Change

Reflect on the following statements from various individuals involved in gleaning insights from this cultural analysis process.

• “I cannot believe all that I am seeing here. I really have a better sense of how to make it in this organization. I realize now why things seem to be going faster than the speed of light. I am not as stressed as I once was and I am far less critical of management. I began my analysis as I began my second week here and now I feel like an insider after just a few months. In fact, I was able to make some suggestions on how to manage our recent transitions to a new facility.”

• “I think it was a mistake doing this study. Well, I knew before I started that I held some strong biases, but now I have to face them. The truth is that I would rather not address these issues at this time. It is hard to admit, but it really is easier not changing my communication habits even when I see from my study that they need changing.”

• “I actually went to my boss and said: “Do you know how my new cultural and communication skill sets can help us?” He listened, and I have been given new and exciting opportunities.”

• “This analysis has pretty much convinced me that I do not belong in this organization.”

We began our reflections with a simple, but true statement—organizations are the places that carry us from “the cradle to the grave” by shaping our sense of ethics, identity, role, and meaning in life. This shared experience motivates our collaborative efforts with friends, colleagues, and students to improve our understanding of organizational culture. As we move to this final chapter, we contend that change often begins with one single, solitary insight. Insights like the ones listed above. The challenge of enhancing your own performance or that of an organization is to act on that insight. You may never step on an actual stage or even stand on the back stage as mentioned in the opening chapter. Yet, we all, each day, are engaged on varied organizational stages. This final chapter is about such moments when some insight prompts us to step back into our organization in a new or different way. Opening night, as we consider professional and organizational application in this closing chapter, is that moment when an insight, an interpretation of a role, is put into action.

After much thought, planning, and rehearsal, a role is enacted, a script is brought to life. As the opening statements suggest, the outcomes of paying close attention to culture vary greatly—from aiding in a transition to a new organization to an awareness of a lack of self-motivation in the change process. If these insights are to have value, it is essential to develop and execute an organizational and professional communication development plan. Perhaps your experience is like ours. We find coming up with strategies to be easy, but execution is often lacking. For instance, Gerald was at a board meeting of a community organization in which members discussed a shared experience. Past meetings were filled with energy and great strategic plans. Everyone seemed on board with our compelling mission. However, from meeting to meeting, the energy level declined. Execution was lagging behind big ideas. A change happened when we discussed ways to improve execution. This experience inspired many of the practices outlined in this chapter. The idea is to shift from ideas to action. To move from vision to communicative strategies, following our OCA constitutive model, we seek to co-create ethical, diverse, adaptive, and effective organizational cultures that are part of improving all of our social worlds. As the following quote indicates, the challenge of taking responsibility for such action is both significant and meaningful.

[A] lasting organizational community requires more than commitment and communication. It requires discipline and mastery. This mastery is achieved as each person makes his or her contributions and assumes responsibility for them. Instead of a solitary leader responsible for performance, each member becomes a leader depending on the skills, knowledge, and experience needed in each situation.

(Eisenberg, Andrews, Murphy, & Laine-Timmerman, 1999, pp. 145–146)

Your newly gained knowledge of how to conduct a cultural analysis as well as the applications you have identified place you in the position to make a contribution not only to an organization, but also to your own professional and personal development. You have taken time to answer big questions: (a) “What are we co-creating here?” (b) “What do we want to co-create?” This closing chapter guides our response to the final of our three big questions: (c) “What forms of communication will co-create the culture we want?”

Opening Night 251

The intent is to discern ways to ethically influence organizational discourse and culture. Flowing from reflections on application, the “so what?” question or “what do we want to co-create?”, this chapter is about co-creating ethical action plans grounded in positive communication practices. Throughout this chapter we stress the role of co-creating positive communication action grounded in varied elements of culture, including action steps that can be meaningful measured, assessed, adjusted and celebrated. Figure 14.1 captures this move from your focus on enacted elements forming thematic action to an overall characteriza- tion of the culture. Your interpretative process is intended them to move to professional (Rehearsal 14.1) and organizational application (Rehearsal 14.1).

Your contribution to this change process, however, should begin by changes you make in your communica- tion. Your credibility as a change leader requires such intentional efforts. Put differently, we hope you will have stories to tell others about the minor and/or major transformations that occurred in the process of your analysis and reflection. In fact, we envision some of you having others tell stories about the changes they see in your behaviors. What is the basis for such high hopes? Such hope has grown from several decades of hearing from students, former students, and from our research and consulting participants as well. We are confident that paying careful attention to culture, to a wide array of cultural elements, as well as the time spent in discerning thematic action, overall characterization of the culture, and varied communication applications (Chapters 9–13), has prompted reflection on your role on the stage. Such reflection results in varied insights, as indicated in the statements above. While not all will leave with major insights and/or a willingness to improve their communica- tion, the majority gain practical insights for professional development. Regardless of the insight or application, we encourage you to share your experiences and be enriched by reading and/or hearing about those expressed by others. Some of you might want to engage in conversations on “LinkedIn” that include a group of “influencers” sharing culture change stories.

We trust you will see your role as a leader in paying attention to culture; to giving shape to cultures that improve the life for others. Pearce (2007) challenges us to realize that our diverse world requires effective leaders to become champions of attending to how we communicate; the processes we create through daily interactions.

RulesStories History Rituals Place Humor

Thematic Action-A

What forms of communication will create what we want to create? (Positive Communication Practices

Diversity, Change, Ethics, Leadership, Effectiveness)

Thematic Action-B Thematic Action-C

A. Summarize data by enacted elements

B. Interpret thematic action

C. Determine the overall characterization

What is the “culture in action?” (Paradox, Master Rule, Root Metaphor)

D. Professional and organizational application

Figure 14.1 From Interpretation to Application

252 Cultural Analysis Application

The cultural analysis process framed through constitutive processes enhances this focus on communication. Communication is taken seriously, not merely as a way to share information or get others to line up with some plan, but as a social construction process. As introduced earlier, the OCA model, in conjunction with the varied constructivist theories, shares “the assumption that the organization does not predate commu- nication but emerges and perpetuates itself as a network of interlocking communication events (Schoene- born et al., 2014, p. 305). Thus, we need to attend again to these constitutive processes. Do you recall the guiding metaphors from Chapter 2 related to the term “constitutive”? Images of (a) atoms or what makes a “thing what it is”; (b) political power to “institute, establish or enact”; and (c) DNA as a controlling mechanism. These images foreground the fact that communication is more than information sharing or clarity, but that it is central, it matters, and is consequential. Thus, even, if you are not formally presenting results to your own organization or to the organization you analyzed, you have gained insights that merit further reflection and application. After discussing an analogy aimed at keeping the planning and change process in perspective, activities designed to aid you in professional and organizational development are outlined.

A Compass, Not a Map

Goal setting and the process of developing an action plan can give the illusion that we can know exactly where our plans will take us. The tendency is to think that an action plan is like a map to be followed; for instance, take I-30 west from Little Rock, Arkansas to Dallas, Texas. Using this map analogy, we might think to ourselves: “I know where I am going, and I am not lost.” In contrast, we view action plans as more in keeping with the statement: “I don’t know where I am going, but I am not lost.” Action plans are more like a compass than a map. A compass gives you the confidence that you are not lost; you know the general direction you are going, but you may not know exactly where that direction will lead you. You cannot predict all the consequences of all the plans you put in place. You may, still, gain confidence in moving in the best possible direction with the information you have garnered.

In the art and skill of change leadership, and more particularly making changes in professional or organizational communication, usually the best that can be done is gaining an awareness of where you are through an analysis and then using an action plan to point you in the direction of desired change. In fact, there is value in learning to maintain a level of uncertainty about decisions that may flow from plans. Langer (1989) summarizes a study that assessed the level of certainty managers had about decisions they made every day. She and her colleague also evaluated the work relationship of these managers with their subordinates. They found that “those managers who were confident but relatively uncertain were evaluated by their employees as more likely to allow independent judgment and a general freedom of action” (p. 144). Put differently, there is value in using a compass, rather than a map.

A compass gives you the confidence that you are not lost, you know the general direction you are going, but you may not know exactly where that direction will lead you.

The need for both confidence and uncertainty is due in part to the fact that the process of implementing changes involves continual readjustment. For example, you may identify a goal for professional development that involves setting up a conflict management ritual or co-creating a civility policy. Once initiated, this change may make you aware that you have not adequately addressed the issue of motivating coworkers or employees to engage in productive conflict. Thus, new goals and strategies relevant to co-creating support for effective conflict management may need to be developed. Nonetheless, the process you engage in, a process of awareness, action, and adjustment, is at the heart of enhancing your organizational culture performances.

Opening Night 253

The compass illustration suggests that we have a sense of a desired direction (i.e., a goal to implement an organizational change), and we have an awareness of where we are now (i.e., as a result of the cultural analysis), but even the best action plans cannot predict the future (e.g., what will the actual result of the change be?). Students and practitioners have shared with us the variety of outcomes that have come through their cultural analysis process: promotions and transfers; business as usual; others speak of personal insights or being more effective in adapting to the culture; still others have left their organizations for various reasons. In short, action plans do not guarantee certain outcomes, but they should be developed to make certain desired changes possible.

Professional Communication Action Plan

Rehearsal 14.1 provides a means for reviewing your cultural analysis experience with the intent of helping you visualize results for professional development. The process of writing an action plan is familiar turf for many of you. Yet, we encourage a process of co-creation; one involving others who have a stake in the organization as well. To that end, the checklists include reminders on writing an effective action plan, but not one done in isolation. This first rehearsal focuses on professional communication development goals. We provide a space for writing a rough draft. As you develop ideas, note our encouragements to create plans that you can and will execute; as well as plans to continue engaging others along the way. We find execution of any plan to often be the most challenging, yet also rewarding as we celebrate progress and find support to grow through defeats. The guides are, therefore, intended to integrate positive, constitutive practices to support this journey. To that end, and to encourage a positive communication focus, we encourage you to reflect on Mirivel’s (2014) model of positive communication. His model is embedded in a trend in applied organizational and interpersonal scholarship focused on positivity (Brown, Morris, & Lee, 2012; Lyon, 2017; Pitts & Soya, 2012; Wooten, Roberts, & Davidson, 2016). The positive communication practices may serve as a starting point, to discern specific communicative action of value for your professional development. Grounded in constitutive theories of communication (i.e., speech act theory, Coordinated Management of Meaning, Symbolic Interactionism), Mirivel foregrounds seven positive practices. They are listed below with possible applications to illustrate how they might become part of an action plan relevant to insights from your cultural analysis.

• Greeting others to co-create relationships. • Asking questions to discover the unknown about another person as well as varied organizing practices. • Complimenting to affirm the value others bring to the organization. • Disclosing to develop trust and deepen relationships. • Encouraging to co-create networks of social support. • Listening to co-create dialogic practices during conflicts and negotiations. • Inspiring to influence and construct meaning and purpose.

Consider integrating and adapting one or more of these positive practices into your action plan. The key here is to reflect on insights from your data about your role in co-creating better, more ethical organizing processes.

Rehearsal 14.1 Action Plan for Professional Communication Development

Purpose: Develop an action plan for at least two communication goals important to your leadership development.

254 Cultural Analysis Application

Steps:

1. Identify two position communication goals that have the following characteristics. Specific and measurable communication behavior, rather than general attitudes or values. For

example, your analysis may have made you more aware of the types of tensions and value dilemmas with a diversity initiative. You might then draft a goal related to diversity, as something like: “Gain a better perspective on my role in addressing the problems minorities have in our employee engagement program.” Then, revise this goal to focus on a specific communication behavior. For example, you might revise it to be: “Explore ideas with my immediate supervisor and team about creating a continuous learning process related to diversity in our engagement program.” The key here, as you can see with this last version, is you can see it in action, you can measure if it was accomplished. You can celebrate accomplishments and discern new goals.

Contextualized communication behavior (appropriate setting, purpose, etc.), rather than gen- eral statements of what you plan to do. The above example does not provide a sense of reflection on the most competent way to approach this topic with a supervisor. For instance, consider the different interpretations and impact of a statement about your awareness of a specific issue made to a supervisor informally spoken over a morning cup of coffee versus a formal discussion during a team meeting. Thus, a revised version should contextualize your plan and might read like this: “Gain approval to add the following agenda item to our next team meeting: “The creation of a continuous learning process related to diversity in our engagement program.” This goal then embeds the process in an enacted cultural element—a ritual (meeting) where you are attending to a common norm of introducing items for the agenda.

Your communication behavior, rather than something that requires a change in someone else. We have found that a common tendency is for us to quickly see ways a supervisor or co-worker needs to improve. We might say: “If I could just get them to change or if we could just get a decent boss life would get better around here!” However, this focus is ultimately defeating in that it places the hope for a more productive and meaningful life in the organization on everyone else. In fact, the shift from sarcastic irony (recall Chapter 10 on Change) may grow from assuming you have to wait on others to act. Thus, for example, the goal, “To get my supervisor to provide clearer feedback”, would be better worded as: “To provide paraphrases of my supervisor’s feedback to ensure understanding.”

Inspiring or/and motivating—Remember these are your goals, even as we encourage you to create them with input from others. Go for what is most important—something you know will be good for you to do, something you believe the data indicates would be right and ethical for you to do, something you will be glad you did or at least glad you attempted. We find it valuable to reflect on deeper values and passions that you carry that are transcendent and yet also encompass daily interactions. For instance, a new or renewed commitment to affirming or complimenting others not only impacts others, but also your own lived experience. Personal, hand written notes, for example, to each member of your team places you in the role of constituting a positive, supportive culture. Gerald still recalls the first weeks in a new role in a new department. The verbal affirmation of one colleague are still remembered.

2. Identify a time frame with action steps with space to revise, learn, and celebrate. For example, one goal might be: “During my upcoming review this June, discuss my professional

development goals in light of the results of my cultural analysis”. We provide an example set of dates and steps. Such details create a level of commitment. Note that in the second step (b), the encouragement to include a review with a trusted peer or mentor. Change in communication behaviors happens best in the context of support.

Opening Night 255

Dates Steps May 15 a. Summarize data on theme one as it relates to my ability to negotiate differences between

work groups. June 1 b. Review my ideas and goals with a colleague and mentor. June 15 c. Make revisions in goals and gather resources (books, training, etc., that may be needed). July 7 d. Present my goals at my performance review.

3. Set a time frame to review results of your action plan (ideally with a trusted colleague/friend) and evaluate appropriate next steps).

An evaluation step is a way to encourage you to picture desired results and then determine ways to revise and develop a plan. Drafts of this step may actually prompt revisions of the earlier steps. The following example illustrates elements that might be included in this step.

Follow up by October 1.

a. Discuss with key parties the effectiveness of recent meetings that depended on my negotiation skills.

b. Keep a journal of meetings—review impact of integrating alternative negotiation tactics based on each of the four frames.

c. Celebrate successes, revise goals as needed.

Write a brief follow-up plan that relates to the steps you wrote earlier. Again, remember that a compass allows you to adjust your plan as you gain more information. The adjustments should be considered part of your ongoing commitment to acting on your awareness of ways to enhance your communication in the context of the overall performance of the organization.

Steps:

1. Communication goals that identify specific and contextualized communication behavior and focus on your own rather than others’ behavior.

Goal A: ___________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

Goal B: ___________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

2. Identify a time frame with action steps.

Goal A: ___________________________________________________________________________

Date Steps _________________ ___________________________________________________________ _________________ ___________________________________________________________ _________________ ___________________________________________________________

Goal B: ___________________________________________________________________________

256 Cultural Analysis Application

3. Time frame for reviewing action plan results; evaluate appropriate next steps (including revision and celebration).

Date Evaluation Comments/Revision/Celebration Plan _________________ ___________________________________________________________ _________________ ___________________________________________________________ _________________ ___________________________________________________________

Organizational Development Action Plan

Beyond your professional development action plan, discerning how to co-create a plan related to positive organizational communication application is equally challenging. The final chapters (diversity, change, ethics, leadership, and effectiveness) provided a venue for reflecting on your cultural data. Each chapter encouraged you to draft potential communication implications of your analysis in light of applied research and theory. The intent is to take the next step and discern a way to move forward. This step may involve a focus on one of these application chapters, or insights that move beyond any one chapter. Even if you are not being asked by the organization to create a plan of action, you can tailor Rehearsal 14.2 to informal change leadership steps.

To that end, imagine the sense of loss if you have information that is pertinent and important for organizational effectiveness or change practices, but you are not able to find the appropriate channel for introducing that information. Further imagine the sense of wrong or misdirection if you are aware that a failure to translate your insights into action may not only cost the organization money, reduced levels of engagement, but may also mean unethical practices continue unchecked. In addition, we realize that this process has meant many of you engaging in more formal data collection processes. Recall the proposal process involved a request to share results with the organization. Not taking a step of co-creating an action plan can aid to a pattern of leaders claiming to listen, but then not responding or letting other know of what came of the data. The intent with this final Rehearsal then is to co-create a positive pattern of responding to feedback.

Introducing ideas based on your own detective work, your own artistry in action, is not an easy chore. This section will guide you through a set of steps intended to make the process comprehensible and more likely to succeed. Remember, however, that this process should not be treated separately from the first section on your own professional development. Recall that formal and informal recommendations are more likely to be received if you have already demonstrated meaningful changes in your own communication behaviors. If, for example, you see the need for improved meeting management skills among all supervisors, and if you have already begun to improve your own skills in this area, recommendations are much more likely to be heard. Because of the breadth of questions reviewed in the next section, space is not provided for all of your responses. We encourage you to draft your ideas, review them, and check them against your cultural analysis before deciding on a final plan of action.

Opening Night 257

Rehearsal 14.2 Organizational Development Action Plan

Purpose: Develop a process for implementing positive communicative practices important for the effectiveness and ethicality of your organization.

Steps for Developing Recommendations:

1. Reflect on insights gained from the application chapters (Chapters 9–13). Write down specific themes that relate to issues in each of these chapters. Chapter 9: Diversity _____________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 10: Change _____________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 11: Ethics ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 12: Leadership ___________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 13: Effectiveness _________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

2. Select no more than two themes that you see as most important and most likely to be accepted if translated into communication and culture development goal. You or another leader may well need to initiate this process, but the key is to let others identify and create goals. Such focus will increase the likelihood of application. The idea is to discern possible goals based on these themes, growing from the relevant chapters. The intent is to brainstorm and envision a communication, organizational development initiative that would enhance or develop a cultural theme that will create what you and others seek to create in the organization. For example, you might have concluded from several elements of culture that the organization culture is inconsistent in supporting diversity initiatives. However, you did learn that one cultural hero encouraged diversity initiatives and that a diversity strategy was in place. Thus, you might brainstorm a next step that would include additional rituals and training in the area of diversity. Possible Areas of Focus: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

258 Cultural Analysis Application

______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

3. Engage others in translating the draft goal into a meaningful, motivating communication goal. For example, note the difference between the following goal statements. “To be an industry leader in diversity by 2020.” Contrast that statement with, “To engage 80% of our members in informal dialogue groups over the next two years.” While the first statement may function as a sort of vision statement, the ability to measure it, to celebrate a success, to discern how to move ahead is difficult. The second statement is one that you can then easily imagine creating a plan to execute. More importantly, the plan seeks to integrate ritualized practices of assessing and celebrating progress. Thus, a team might agree to meet each week to celebrate progress and address revised steps.

4. Decide if these practices would be best presented in a formal manner or introduced informally. You might have aspects that you present formally and others that are best introduced informally. A few criteria to check to determine if you are in position to make formal recommendations:

• Your organization knows of your study and expects you to present your findings. • Your position allows you such credibility and thus freedom. • Your relationship with leadership makes it possible.

If you are not able to answer yes to at least one of the above, then develop your action plan for this section according to the guides provided in the informal recommendation section. If you were able to answer yes to one or more of these criteria, then create your action plan based on the suggestions in the formal recommendations section.

Informal Recommendations:

Informal recommendations take on numerous forms. They may, for example, involve talking one on one with a colleague or a supervisor. They may involve a team that knows of your analysis and desires to collaborate. In each case, we want to stress that this process should focus on co-constructing relationships with others rather than “telling others” what needs to happen. Still, these recommenda- tions, the process you engage in, challenge you to be more than an observer. Wearing the “hat” of a change agent, a leader willing to find ways to reflect on meaningful changes is invigorating and challenging. The following set of questions, if thoroughly considered, will guide you in dealing with this challenge. You should answer these questions in conjunction with each of the two applications you selected for organizational communication development.

Questions for Analysis: Informal Recommendations:

What are you presenting?

• What has been the content of past attempts (your own as well as those of colleagues) of making informal recommendations?

• In what ways, if any, does the content of your current recommendation relate to past recommendations? • Is your recommendation positively worded? Restate one of your recommendations in positive

language.

Opening Night 259

Who are you presenting your ideas to?

• Is there more than one person who would be receptive? • What is your relationship like? • What aspects of diversity or national culture should be considered? • Who can you rely on to co-create ideas with you that will also champion these ideas? • Who in your organization is known for implementing change? Who is listened to/respected? • Who will be reluctant to accept or is against most any idea? • How can you learn about their reluctance? • How can you engage them in the process, in co-creating?

Why should they listen?

• Why are these changes of value to the organization? • Are the changes connected with employee, stockholder, and/or customer satisfaction data/issues?

Explain.

When will you present?

• What time of day will you be best received? • Is there a time in the week, month, or year where ideas related to change are most likely to be

explored? • Is there a time in the day when the person you present ideas to is most receptive/least rushed?

How will you present?

• What are the expectations of those to whom you will present your ideas? • Do they expect detailed, written support of the ideas? • Do they prefer to be involved in shaping the idea?

Action Plan:

1. Review your responses to each of the above questions. 2. Write/rewrite at least two of your informal organization-wide communication applications, in

single-sentence, positively worded statements. 3. Write down the date(s), place(s), and person(s) important to implementing these goals.

Formal Recommendations:

Writing and presenting a formal recommendation requires an analysis of your audience, setting, purposes, and so on, in a way much like that of preparing for informal recommendations. We again stress that this process, as a communicative one, should focus on connection, on relational connection; rather than a performance or a set of strategies. Here, what you are seeking to co-create is a relational connection that ensures others know your ethical and credible process and your desire to work with them to discerns ways to move forward. The following set of questions mirrors the informal recommendation development exercise with only minor differences. If thoroughly considered, it will guide you in preparing effective recommendations. Each question encourages you not only to examine your own recommendation, but the history of past recommendations. The reason for doing this

260 Cultural Analysis Application

additional history step is so you will be able to determine what was effective or ineffective. You should answer these questions in conjunction with each of the two applications you selected for organizational communication development. What are you presenting?

• What has been the content of past OD recommendations (your own as well as those of colleagues)?

• In what ways, if any, does the content of your current recommendation relate to past recommendations?

• Is your recommendation positively worded? Restate your recommendations in positive language.

Who are you presenting your ideas to?

• Is there more than one person who would be receptive? • What aspects of diversity or national culture should be considered? • Who can you rely on to champion your ideas? • Who in your organization is known for implementing change? • Who is listened to/respected? • Who will be reluctant to accept this idea? • What can you learn about their reluctance to accept it? • How can you deal effectively with the reasons for resistance?

Why should they listen?

• Why are these changes of value to the organization? • Are the changes connected with employee, stockholder, and/or customer satisfaction data/issues?

Explain.

Where will you present?

• Where will you be presenting your recommendations? • Will media equipment be expected in this setting?

When are you most likely to be best received?

• Is there a time in the week or year that you are most likely to be heard fully? • Is there a time in the day when the person(s) you present your ideas to is most receptive?

How does this organization define an effective presentation?

• How have successful recommendations been presented? • Formats used? Audiences? Time length? • Other audience expectations?

Action Plan:

1. Review your responses to each of the above questions.

Opening Night 261

2. Write/rewrite at least two of your formal organization-wide applications, in single-sentence, positively worded statements. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

3. Write down the date(s), place(s), and person(s) important to implementing these goals.

Date: Place: Contact Names: _________________ __________________________ ___________________________ _________________ __________________________ ___________________________ _________________ __________________________ ___________________________ _________________ __________________________ ___________________________ _________________ __________________________ ___________________________ _________________ __________________________ ___________________________ _________________ __________________________ ___________________________ _________________ __________________________ ___________________________

Summary

You made it! Regardless of whether you engaged in completing a small-scale analysis involving a few weeks of data collection or a more ambitious one spanning several months, you have improved your grasp of the process. The stage is now set for you to use your analysis in ways that make the most sense to you. Remember, as you discuss your analysis and informal and/or formal communication recommendations, you are involved in a process of shaping communication patterns and thereby the culture in an organization. In this process, you have an ethical responsibility to act on your awareness of your culture, and to act in ways that improve and enhance organizational life.

Our desire is that both the process and the outcome of cultural analysis will surprise you. The uncertainty you had at the start of the process may be reduced, but the insights and possibilities for future application should provide a sense of curiosity and wonder. We find a sense of meaning and purpose as we learn of other colleagues who are about making better, more ethical social worlds. It is a journey worth our best efforts. We began and now end by reflecting on the span of experiences we have in organizations, from the cradle to the grave, with tragic and comic stories. Given the significant time we spend in organizations, our passion is for each of us to improve the way we co-create organizational stories characterized by hope, joy, love, and purpose. Both the training tools of method actors and the process of cultural analysis encourage an awareness of communication in the foreground. We have found the outcome of this foregrounding process to be no less than greater participation in the meaning-creation process. We concur with Barrett (1979):

Life is many days, day after day. But it is not, we hope, a mere succession of days. We long that these days will somehow add up to a meaning or a drama that we can call a life.

(p. 154)

262 Cultural Analysis Application

To Barrett’s reflection, we would add, a life lived that co-creates better and more ethical organizations for all of those living and participating in them from day to day.

Discussion Questions

1. What insights have you drawn about yourself over the course of this project? 2. What insights have you drawn about your organization over the course of this project? 3. How might you use the three big questions in the future: (a) What kind of culture is being co-created?

(b) What kind of culture do we want to co-create? (c) What forms of communication will co-create the culture we want to create?

4. Which process, formal or informal, will you utilize to share the results of your analysis? Explain why you are taking this route.

5. Based on reviewing the guides for formal or informal presentations, which elements are you most comfortable with at this point? Least uncomfortable? What will help you move forward?

6. What aspects of this process have influenced the way you will evaluate an organization as an employee, member of a faith based organization, and/or volunteer in a non-profit?

7. How can you see yourself as a change leader as a result of this project/course?

References

Barrett, W. (1979). The illusion of technique. Garden City, NY: Anchor. Brown, L., Morris, G., & Lee, K. 2012. The role of communication in positive organizational scholarship. In G. M. Spreitzer & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 566–577). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Eisenberg, E., Andrews, L., Murphy, A., & Laine-Timmerman, L. 1999. Transforming organizations through commu- nication. In P. Salem (Ed.), Organizational communication and change (pp. 125–147). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Langer, E. (1989). Mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. Lyon, A. (2017). Case studies in courageous organizational communication: Research and practices for effective workplaces. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Mirivel, J. (2014). The art of positive communication: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Pearce, W. (2007). Making social worlds: A communication perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Pitts, M., & Soya, T. (2012). Positive communication health and wellness. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Schoeneborn, D., Blaschke, S., Cooren, F., McPhee, R. D., Seidl, D., & Taylor, J. R. (2014). The three schools of CCO thinking: Interactive dialogue and systematic comparison. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 285–316. doi:10.1177/0893318914527000

Strasberg, L. (1987). A dream of passion: The development of the method. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Wooten, L., Roberts, L. M., & Davidson, M. (2016). Positive organizing in a global society: Understanding and engaging differences for capacity building & inclusion. New York, NY: Routledge.

Opening Night 263

Index

action plans 252–4 action steps 111, 252, 255 active verbs 95 Adame, E.A. 114, 206 Adams, S. 23 adaptive cultures 240, 244–6 African Americans 95, 165 Aggerholm, A. 92 Alberts, J. 61, 84, 201 “Alien Culture” 111 Allen, B.J. 172 Alvesson, M. 179, 187–8, 222 Amason, P. 162 ambiguity 51, 53, 56, 65, 68–9 American Heritage Dictionary 25 Anderson, R. 9 Anderson, S. 94 Andrews, L. 251 applications 5, 22, 28–9 Aritz, J. 24, 156, 167, 222 Arjannikova, A. 25, 65, 152, 192 art of framing: managing the language of leadership 228 Asian Indians 158 Asmub, B. 92 assumptions 4–8, 10, 25, 35–41, 44, 53, 55, 68 Auer-Rizzi, W. 39 authority 23–4, 211 Autry, J. 240

Baker, K.A. 242 Barbour, J. 6–7 Barge, J.K. 54, 188, 207, 226–7 Barker, J.R. 192 Barrett, A.K. 178 Barrett, F. 9 Barrett, W. 239, 262–3 Beamer, L. 246 Bell, G. 173 Bell, R. 167 Benoit-Barné, C. 11, 53 Berry, M. 39 Beyer, J. 62–3, 107 bias 21, 100–5, 121, 140, 161 Bisel, R. 9, 15, 36–9, 40–1, 83, 114, 135, 200–8

Blake-Beard, S. 165 Blithe, S.J. 55, 64 Bochantin, J. 84 Bock, L. 24, 147, 207 Boivin, G. 6 Bolman, L. 44, 63, 222, 224, 226, 231–2 Boren, J.P. 23 Bormann, E. 71 bottom line 42, 53, 60, 130, 208, 241–2 Boushel, C. 26, 209 Bowers, B. 31 Boynton, L. 8, 91 bracketing 10, 100, 104 Branch, K.M. 242 Brandhorst, J.K. 91 Brenton, A. 60, 68–9, 92 Bridges, W. 179, 186, 190 Brown, L. 254 Brown, M.H. 192 Brummons, B.M. 6, 11, 53 Bruscella, J. 135 Bryman, A. 223 buildings 71, 225 Burke, K. 11 Buzzanell, P. 23, 163

Cameron, K. 149, 227 Caplice, C. 154 Caucasians 95 CEO 55, 94–5, 186, 113, 225 Challenger Space Shuttle 64; categories of 161; change

assumptions about 158, 175–8; communication and 83, 200, 207, 222; difficulty of 66; emotions and 189; forces driving 177; leadership and 200–1; management 178, 180, 182–3, 186; metaphors 52–7, 60, 187, 210; organizational vs. cultural 156–60, 175–85; perspectives about 159–60; plan 186 see action plans process 241, 252–3; reactions to 171, 195, 225; rituals and 224, 234, 241; values and 178, 181, 187, 204, 208

Chao, J.T. 165 Charles, T. 209 Cheney, G. 57, 230 China 71, 207 Christensen, L. 213 churches 4, 65, 157, 229

Clap-Smith, R. 155 Cleveland, J.N. 157 Cogliser, C.C. 24 Colby, S. 154 Collins, J. 37, 244–5 Collins, M. 179 Communicative Constitutive of Organization 6, 24, 138 competence 22, 100, 115, 117 complete observer 99–101 complete participant 99, 102 Condon, J. 37 Conn, C. 23, 163, 169 constraint 23–5, 45, 121, 152 content analysis 89–94 context 7, 9, 11, 22, 26, 46, 51, 57 contrast 38–9, 122 Cook, A. 156 Coombs, W. 106 Cooper, C. 203 Cooren, F. 11–12, 24, 53–4, 65, 90, 204 Corbin, J. 124 Corman, S.R. 179 corporate cultures: Deal and Kennedy 36–7; The Rites and

Rituals of Corporate Life 22 Coulson-Thomas, C. 178 counter-narratives 72 Cox, T.H. 158–9 creative class 67, 151, 156 creativity 11, 23, 40, 58, 67, 129, 142, 151–2 crisis 53, 67, 80, 91, 106, 135, 164, 167, 189, 223–4, 229 critical linguistic analysis 60, 90 see linguistic analysis 92, 242;

cross-cultural comparisons 42 Croucher, S. 80 cultural analysis applications 147–97; definition 6–9; goals 9,

12–14; insights 26, 28–9, 45; methods 105, 114–15, 124, 128; selecting organization for 3; steps 4, 10–11, 14; themes 11, 71, 81, 91, 134, 149, 162, 246

cultural difference 37, 185, 246; see also diversity cultural elements 10, 28, 37, 51, 57–8, 62, 81–4 cultural identity tension 189 see cultural norms 102, 168, 193;

cultural penetration 55; cultural themes 81 see change and 175; communication and 7, 21; comparison 9, 37, 56, 103, 105; as construct 6, 8, 11, 17; definitions 6–9; effectiveness and 8, 150; elements of 8, 10, 12, 29, 40–4 see performance and 12, 150; root metaphor 35–40, 52–3, 60, 129, 132, 139; as shared cognition 38; as shared symbols 39; as unconscious processes 39; as variable 37

Cunliffe, A. 11, 61 customers 4, 18, 60, 180

Daher, N. 24, 191 data collection cultural elements 77–8; challenges 130; by

cultural elements 128–9; data interpretation accuracy 91, 129; ethics 199–208, 211, 214, 221, 227; ethnographic methods 79; interviews 113–14; observations 64, 79–82; organizational characterization 125; surveys 113–14; by themes 134

data overload 130–1

Davidson, M. 227, 254 Davis, S.M. 24, 221 Davison, D. 213 Deal, T. 22, 36, 44 Deetz, S. 111, 178, 185, 224 Dejean, J.S. 153 Denison, D.R. 80 Dennison, D. 5 Derkacs, D. 23, 163, 215 DeYmaz, M. 152, 179 dialectics 23, 163 dialogue groups 160, 166–7 diction 5.0 software 98 differentiation perspective 56, 181 Dilbert 23 discursive construction 35–7, 40–2, 55, 58, 80, 131–3, 225 discursive leadership 222 Disneyland 60, 103, 187 diversity 151–3; communication and 153; cultural analysis and

21; defining 36, 55, 59, 135, 138, 239; developing 91, 114, 120, 125, 148; outcomes 6, 22, 25, 80, 135, 165, 168, 229; paradigm 182; surveys 113–14; training 7, 16, 149, 151; valuing 64, 153, 191, 227

Dodd, C. 154 Downs and Adriene instrument 80 Downs, C. 72 drama metaphor 11–12, 60, 101, 131 Driskill, G. 65, 72, 105, 152, 157, 192 Dulek, R. 191 dynamic systems 6

ecologizing 200, 207, 212, 214 ecology of commerce 213 economizing 200, 207–9 Edwards, L. 9, 94 effectiveness 20, 147–8, 150–1 Eisenberg, E. 6, 38, 60, 68, 103, 180, 246, 251 elements of culture 8, 35, 52–3, 57 Elkington, J. 242 Emerson, M. 139 employee communication 169 see data collection and 77–86;

see also language and 61, 92, 122, 182; metaphors and 60, 103; rules and 16, 52, 55; stories of 53, 67, 202; values of 7–8, 52

enacted elements 44–5, 51–69, 103, 106, 124–6, 129, 132, 135–6, 139

Enron 7, 9, 55, 58, 209, 242 Eriksson, P.E. 241 ethical heroes 199, 202–5 ethics 199–208, 211, 214, 221, 227 ethnicity 67, 94, 139, 154; see also diversity ethnography 78–9 every-day reframing 187; evolution 176, 187;

facilitate.com 120

Fairhurst, G. 36, 39–40, 201, 222, 229 Ferdman, B.M. 159–60 Feuerstein, A. 202, 216

Index 265

financial crisis 38, 201, 223 Fisher, W. 70 Florida, R. 67, 151, 156, 213 focus groups 79–80 Fogg-Rogers, L. 25, 209 Foley, R.T. 24 Forbes, D.A. 39 Ford, J.D. 178 Ford, L.W. 178 formal recommendations 260 four flows 6, 25, 134–5 fragmentation perspective 56, 181 framing 131, 177, 185, 187–9, 193, 222; see also reframing fraternities 165 Frederick, W. 207, 210 Friedman, T. 167 Fuller, R.P. 80, 245

Gailliard, B.M. 24 Galinsky, A. 192 Gallop 2, 80 Gardner, P.H. 24, 165, 208 Geertz, C. 8, 35, 41 Gerbasi, A. 222 Gilstrap, C. 188 Gino, F. 192 Ginossar, T. 23, 163 Gladwell, M. 211 Glass, C. 156 Goffman, E. 11 Goodall, H.L. 6, 38, 79, 246 Goodpaster, K.E. 204 Google 20, 24, 147, 207 Gottschall, K. 156 Greenhouse, B. 202 Gresch-Karamanlidis, E. 26 Gross, M. 61 Gulati, S. 241

Hacker, K.F. 80 Halem, J. 165 Hammond, M.M. 155 Harre, H. 114 Harris, P. 37, 114, 182 Hart, L.M. 94, 114 Hart, T. 173 Harter, R. 54, 72 Hartman, J. 61 Hartnette, S.J. 207 Hawken, P. 213 Hays-Thomas, R. 158 health care 60, 72, 178, 201 heart of change 189 Hedman, E. 26 Hegewisch, A. 156 Heifer International 168 Helmreich, R. 7, 211 heroes 8, 28, 52, 61

Heskett, J. 210, 244 high power distance 210–11 Hispanics 158, 162 history 8, 11, 22, 35, 37, 44–7, 52–61, 67 Hofstede, G. 37, 158, 206, 211 Holger, R. 61 Holmes, M. 162 Holvino, E. 159–60 Hooijiber, R. 80 Hopson, M. 173 Huang, L. 192 human resource frame 44, 232 humor 12, 23, 54–5, 57, 65, 84, 192, 225

identity tension 188–9 improvisation 62, 73, 150, 175–96 informal recommendations 257, 259–60 informal rules 57, 60, 63–4 informed consent 85, 102 insider 13–14, 28–30 institutional review board 46, 78 integration perspective 56, 181–2 intercultural training 151, 169 interface 213–14, 242 interpretation 9, 10–11, 29, 54, 56 see data interpretation 77–9,

81–96 interviewees 60, 115–16, 118–19, 128 interviews 10, 29, 41, 48, 62, 78–86; see also questions Islam, G. 63, 106, 134, 225 Iverson, J. 245

Jabs, L.B. 54, 64 Jacocks, C. 7 Jain, R. 241 Jameson, D.A. 39, 168 Jargon 8, 24, 99, 105, 229 Jenkins, J.J. 152, 179, 213 Jennings, F.J. 91 Jian, G. 178, 180, 207 jigsaw puzzle analogy 10 Johnson & Johnson 230 Johnson, S.L. 23 Jones, N. 94, 165, 226 Julian, S.D. 152 Jung, C. 39

Kalaignanam, K. 56 Kanter, R.M. 162 Kennedy, A. 22, 36–7, 61, 243 Keyton, J. 6, 36, 56, 180–1, 222 Khan, M.R. 245 Kim, H. 55, 166, 236 Kirby, E. 25, 169 Kirkwood, W. 70 Korean Airlines 211 Koschmann, M.A. 63, 227 Kotter, J. 189, 210, 244 Kouzes, J.M. 223

266 Index

Kramer, M. 82 Kreps, G. 165 Krone, K. 25, 169 Krothapalli, V. 165 Kuhn, T. 7, 24, 179 Kunda, G. 244 Kweder, M. 165

Laine-Timmerman, L. 251 Lane, N. 80 Langer, E. 253 language 8, 23, 26–7, 39, 52, 54, 57, 60 Larson, G. 188–9 Lawless, B. 39 leaders: adaptive culture and 239–40; change and 175;

competence of 122; culture and 175, 177–8, 180–3, 239, 243; effective 239–48; language of 8, 23, 26–7, 39, 52, 54, 57, 60; political 25, 40, 44–5, 62, 105–6, 210, 229; reframing by 187, 202, 222–3; rituals and 63, 67–8, 70, 99, 106–7, 125; self-assessment 233; shaping culture 38, 40; stories and stories of 53, 67, 202; structural 160–1; symbolic 221–36; values and 7–8, 52

Lee, C. 167, 254 Lee, K. 29 Lee, M. 100, 167 Leeds-Hurwitz, W. 26 Leeman, M. 54 LeGreco, M. 6, 38, 71, 152, 146 Lester, G. 155 Levi-Strauss, C. 39 Lief, C. 80 linguistic analysis 60, 90, 92, 242 Lischinsky, A. 94, 213 Little, B. 241 Liu, M. 163 Livesey, S. 214 Long, B. 80 loss 71, 83, 152, 176, 187–9 Louis, M.R. 20, 55 low power distance 211 Lutgen-Sandvik, P. 149, 227 Lyon, A. 26, 180, 189, 209, 215, 232, 247

Maddux, K. 207 male assumptions 157 male-dominated workplaces 162 male managers 61 Mali, P. 241 managers: change and 165, 180; cultural understanding 55, 63,

66, 157; male 51, 157–8; in multicultural organizations 159; permission of 102; stories by 60, 67, 190; see also leaders

Manzie, V. 164, 167, 189, 215, 241, 245 marginalized groups 152, 161–4, 171 Marocia, M. 39, 155 Marris, P. 186 Martin, J. 56, 57, 69, 139, 157, 168, 181–3 Matte, F. 11, 53 McClellan, J.G. 7, 15, 25, 200

McDonald, J. 63, 227 McGregor, J. 213 McKeever, B. 242 McKinley, W. 178 McNaughtan, J. 149 McPhee, R. 6, 8, 25, 134, 135, 140, 190 meaning structures 175, 186 Meares, M. 23, 163, 166 Mease, J. 164 Meisenbach, R. 4, 52, 206 men 156, 157 men and women of the corporation 162 mentoring programs 164, 166 Menzie, K. 201 Meredith, M. 80 Merrill-Sands, D. 159 Merritt, A. 7, 211 metaphor mutation 103; language and 58, 61, 92, 122, 182;

metaphors game 72–3; root 129, 132, 139; value of 38, 45 method acting 16, 22, 52, 77, 83, 89–100, 113–47 methods 105, 114–15, 124, 128 see data collection Mexico 246 Meyer, J. 25, 58, 65, 68, 134, 192 Meyerson, D. 68 Miller, K. 6 Miller, V. 83 minorities 139, 157, 163–6; see also diversity Mirivel, J. 25, 63, 104, 189, 193, 229, 254 Mishra, A. 8, 91 Mishra, K. 8, 91 mission 207, 224, 231 mission drift 60 mission statement 25, 55, 58, 79, 96, 180 Morgan, G. 11, 26, 44, 139, 210 Morley, D.D. 224 Morris, J. 54 Morsing, M. 213 Mueller, C. 209 Muller, G. 156 multicultural organizations 159; see also diversity multicultural training 164, 167 multinational corporation 21, 162, 180 multinational organization 236 multinationals 42, 167, 206 Mumby, D. 11, 164–5 Murphy, K.R. 157, 251 Murrell, A. 165 mutating metaphors 103 Mynster, A.S. 94

Nabring, R. 207 Nakayama, T. 153, 157, 168 narratives 59, 70; see also stories NASA 211 National Pan-Hellenic Council 165 Net Generation 155 newsletters 91–2 Noland, T. 82

Index 267

non-profits 21, 242 norms 175, 181, 189 note taking 100, 104, 111 Novak, D. 24, 54

observation 9, 16, 29, 79–83, 99–110 observer-participant 99–102, 108 obtrusiveness 101, 114 Oetzel, J. 23,163, 215 Ofori-Dankwa, J.C. 152 Olander, S. 241 Oliveria, M. 158 open souls doctrine 114 organizational change 22, 41, 68, 82, 157, 175–6, 178, 180 see

benefits of studying 27; changes in 152, 154, 159; definition 5–9; leadership (Schein) 22; levels of 35–6, 55; multiple 47, 51–3

organizational culture in action 3, 99, 103 organizational development goals 241, 257 organizational effectiveness 239–41, 246, 248, 257 organizational moral learning 9, 114, 199–200, 208, 216–17 organizations definition 5–9; reason for analyzing 8–10 Ortenblad, A. 44, 139 Ortman, J. 158 outlaws 52, 57, 62 outsider 13–14, 20, 59–60, 105, 120–2, 176 outsourcing 55–6

Pacanowsky, W. 12, 22, 53, 59 paint by numbers analogy 10 Palanski, M. 155 Papa 72 Paquette, M. 245 paradox 56, 62, 92, 103, 105, 110, 129, 138–9, 152–3 participant-observer 99, 101, 108 passive verbs 95 Pearce, W. 9, 26, 114, 117, 151, 166, 185, 193, 252 Pedersen, E. 204, 209, 213, 216 penetration 55 Pepper, G. 37, 58, 188 pervasiveness 3, 130, 134–7 Peters, T. 37, 55, 243 Phadnis, S. 174 physical facilities 58 Piaget, J. 204–5 Pitts, M. 227, 254 place 54, 57, 59 plans 64, 251; see also action plans political leaders 232 Porath, C.L. 202, 222 Posner, B.Z. 223 power distance 158, 210–11, 223 probe questions 117 productivity 241 profits 241–2 pronoun use 95 proposals 46–7, 140, 257 psychology safety 182–3, 186 Putnam, L.L. 11, 25, 39, 39, 40–1, 44, 139–40, 188, 242

qualitative surveys 80–2, 123 questions 91, 96, 103–6, 108–9, 113–22; see also interviews;

surveys

race 152 Raina, R. 167 recommendations 42, 130, 241, 257–61 recording interviews 119 reframing 187, 202, 222–3 Reframing Organizations (Bolman and Deal) 231; rehearsals

15, 53, 241 Reithel, B.J. 24 Remke, R. 31 renewal 63, 69, 91, 106–7, 229, 245 revolution 187 rhetorical analysis 89–91, 94, 96 rich data 29, 81, 116, 119, 130 Richard, O.C. 201 Richardson, B. 201 Richman, J.M. 56 Riley, P. 39, 180 ritual 62–3 rituals 63, 67–8, 70, 99, 106–7, 125, 190–1, 227–8,

232–3 Roberts, M. 227, 254 Roebuck, D. 167 Roehriq, C. 155 roles 51 Roosevelt, F.D. 222 root metaphor 35–40, 52–3, 60, 129, 132, 139 Rosenfeld, L.B. 56 rules 129, 132–6

salience 130, 133–6 Sandberg, S. 165 Sanders, M.L. 7, 15, 25, 200 Sardo, M. 26, 209 Sarr, R. 228–9 Schafer, A. 156 Schall, M. 38, 54, 64 Schein, E. 22, 36, 43–5, 53, 55, 57, 157,

222, 225 Scherer, A.G. 178 Schorch, S.L. 222 Scott, C.R. 188 Scott, C.W. 60, 63 Scott, M.E. 60, 63, 84 Secord, P.F. 114 Seeger, M. 58, 91, 202, 209, 229, 245 Sellnow, T.L. 58, 69, 91, 209, 229, 245 sense making 82, 121, 188 Shafron, A. 202 shared cognition 38; shared symbols 36, 39 Shearer, M. 214 Shockley-Zalabak, P. 224 Sigman, S. 63 Sillince, J. 65, 192 Simpson, J. 11, 113, 178, 241

268 Index

Singe, P. 240 Singhal, A. 72 Smircich, L. 36, 39 Smith, F. 60–1 Smith, R. 60, 68, 103, 187–8, 190 Smith, S. 188, 190 Sobral, F. 134, 225 social constructionism 21, 26 Solomon, A. 159 sororities 165 Sorrells, K. 155 Soya, T. 254 spin 222, 229 Spreitzer, G. 149, 227 Stafford, E. 214 stage terms 15 stakeholders 18, 67, 167, 215 Steele, E. 80 Stephens, K.K. 178 Stephens, R.J. 178 Stockdale, M. 157 stories 8, 21, 52–72, 189–91 Strasberg, L. 16, 22, 89, 99–100, 250 strategic planning 195 strategically appropriate cultures 240, 244 Strauss, A. 124 strong culture 55–6, 67, 152, 243–4 structural leaders 231 structuration 25–7 subcultures 55–7, 152 substitution 176, 187 surveys 113–14; see also questions Syed, N.A. 245 symbols 36, 39, 44, 58–9, 70 systemic stories 226 Szentes, H. 241

Taylor, C. 24 Taylor, J. 182 teleopathy 204–5 Terry, D. 164, 231 textual analysis 79, 89–90 themes 11, 71, 81, 91, 134, 149, 162, 246 thematic action 29, 37, 125, 129–30, 132, 134–6, 138–40, 142,

241, 246 theory 20–1 Thomas, R.R. 158, 178 Thyssen, O. 213 tokens 162 Tompkins, P.K. 58, 230 Torres, A. 23, 163, 215 Townsend, B. 207 Tracy, K. 63, 104 Tracy, S. 11, 113, 134, 178, 201, 224 transcripts 119 Trethewey, A. 6, 68, 71, 152, 246 triangulation 78, 82, 84, 128 Trice, H. 62–3, 107, 190

Trujillo, N. 12, 22 Turner, A. 156

Ulmer, R.R. 58, 67, 69, 80, 91, 201–2, 209, 229–30, 245 uncertainty 224, 244, 250, 253, 262 unconscious processes 39 unethical practices 209, 242, 244, 248, 257 United Nations 154–5 unobtrusive control 40, 221–2; population 154

value clusters 207–8 value tensions 199–200, 205–8, 211, 213, 215 values 57–8, 175–6, 181, 212, 213–14 values analysis 93–6, 114, 125–6; assumptions and 159, 180,

184; change and 175–6; countercultural 62; as cultural element 51–2; definition 57; differences in 125, 160–1, 176; see also value tensions diversity and 205–8; employee 190–1, 202, 206–8; ethics and 199–208, 217; language and 58, 61; maintaining 106; metaphors and 57–60, 103; observed 77–8; rituals and 63, 67–8, 70, 99, 106–7, 125; stories and 67, 202; symbolic leaders and 221–2; U.S. 206, 213

Van Deusen, C. 209 Van Maanan, J. 80, 130 Varadarajan, R. 56 variable 35–40 Varner, I. 246 verb use 92, 95 Vick, D. 24 Vineberg, S. 79, 200 vision 222–4, 229, 242

Waldron, V. 186 Walker, R.C. 24, 156, 167, 222 Walton, S. 61, 67 Waltz, P.M. 165 Walumbwa, F.O. 24 Wasson, C. 92 Waterman, R. 37, 55, 243 Watkins, S. 203 weak culture 55 Weaver, G. 211 Weber, M.S. 55 websites 48, 93, 165 Wesner, K. 7 Whyte, D. 199 Widen, K. 241 Williams-Baron, E. 156 women 39, 95, 156–7, 162–3, 165–6 Wooten, L. 227, 254

Youssef, B. 203

Zak, M.W. 152 Zamanou, S. 80 Zanin, A.C. 114, 206 Zayra, V. 156 Zyphur, M. 63, 106

Index 269

Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Table of Contents
Preface to the Third Edition
Acknowledgments
PART I: Cultural Analysis Planning

1. Introduction: Setting the Stage

Cradle to Grave
FAQs on Cultural Analysis
Connections: Reflection
Summary
Discussion Questions
References

2. The Significance of the Stage: The Value of Cultural Analysis

Step One: Articulate the Value of a Cultural Analysis
The Tales We Could Tell
Any Hope of Change?
A Bit of History
Theory as Seeing
Connections: Benefits of Studying Organizational Culture
Cultural Analysis in Action
Summary
Discussion Questions
References

PART II: Cultural Analysis Basics

3. Constructing the Set: The Concept of Culture

Step Two: Understanding the Concept of Culture
Good News, Bad News
The Concept of Culture
Connections: Definitions, Levels, and Metaphors
Connection: Writing a Cultural Analysis Proposal
Summary
Discussion Questions
References

4. Understanding Roles: Cultural Elements

Step Three: Identify Cultural Elements
The Making of a Legend?
Understanding Enacted Elements of Culture
Major Elements of Culture
Symbolic Enacted Elements
Role Enacted Elements
Interactive Cultural Enacted Elements
Context Enacted Elements
Connections: What About Ambiguity?
Summary
Discussion Questions
References

PART III: Cultural Data Collection and Interpretation

5. Method Acting: Textual Analysis

Step Three: Use a Variety of Methods to Collect Cultural Data
Textual Analysis
Summary
Discussion Questions
References

6. Method Acting: Observation

Step Three: Use Multiple Data Collection Methods to Understand the Elements of Culture
Observation
Selecting a Method of Observation
Conducting Observations
Connections: Getting More from Rites and Rituals
Summary
Discussion Questions
References

7. Method Acting: Interviews and Surveys

Step Three: Use Multiple Data Collection Methods to Understand the Elements of Culture
Principle 1: Rapport with the Interviewee Is Critical to Gaining Candid and Valid Information
Principle 2: Select the Appropriate Wording for Your Questions
Principle 3: Use Probes or Follow-Up Questions to Get the Richest and Most Useful Cultural Data
Principle 4: Avoid Common Interviewing Errors
Principle 5: Consider the Implications of the Way You Record the Interview
Principle 6: Consider the Advantages of Interviewing with a Partner
Principle 7: Consider Focus Group Interviewing
Special Considerations of Interviewing as an Insider or Outsider
Connections: Linking Observation with Interviews
Qualitative Surveys
Quantitative Surveys
Summary
Step Three Review: Using Multiple Methods to Collect Cultural Data
Discussion Questions
References

8. Getting Inside the Character: Interpretation

Step Four: 5—Interpret Constitutive Processes
A Time to Interpret
Not a Video Recording
Drafting Your Report: Writing to Connect
Summary
Discussion Questions
References

PART IV: Cultural Analysis Application

9. Casting against Type: Diversity

Step Five: Co-Create Positive Communication Applications for Organizational Diversity, Change, Ethics, Leadership, and Effectiveness
A Diversity Paradox
Connections
Developing Awareness: Minority Experiences and Muted Voices
Strategies for Marginalized Groups: Mentoring, Dialogue, and Multicultural Training
Mentoring Programs
Dialogue Groups
Multicultural Training
Summary
Discussion Questions
References

10. Improvisation: Leading Change

Step Five: Identify Applications for Organizational Diversity, Change, Ethics, Leadership, and Effectiveness
The Discourse of Change
Assumptions about Culture and Change
Organizational Perspectives Concerning Change
Principles for Leading Change
Connections: Humor and Sarcasm as Change Resources?
Summary
Discussion Questions
References

11. An Honest Portrayal: Ethics

Step Five: Identify Applications for Organizational Diversity, Change, Ethics, Leadership, and Effectiveness
When the Curtain Is Lifted
Too Much Bad News: About the Gaps
Ethical Heroes
Moral Development
Value Tensions and Ethics
Economizing: Short Term Profit and Long-Term Sustainability
Power Distancing: Hierarchy and Equality
Ecologizing: Macro and Micro Environment Values
Summary
Discussion Questions
References

12. The Director’s Chair: Symbolic Leadership

Step Five: Identify Applications for Organizational Diversity, Change, Ethics, Leadership, and Effectiveness
Reframing
Symbolic Dimensions of Leadership
Summary
Discussion Questions
References

13. Reading Reviews: Organizational Effectiveness

Step Five: Identify Applications for Organizational Diversity, Change, Ethics, Leadership, and Effectiveness
Full Circle
Organizational Effectiveness
Perspective 1: Strong Cultures Are Good
Perspective 2: Strategically Appropriate Cultures Are Good
Perspective 3: Adaptive Cultures Are Good
Summary
Discussion Questions
References

14. Opening Night: Conclusion

Back to Change
A Compass, Not a Map
Professional Communication Action Plan
Organizational Development Action Plan
Summary
Discussion Questions
References

Index