A critical approach towards an integrative dynamic framework for understanding and managing organizational culture change
scalyx
Week1reading.pdf
Page 1 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
Week 1: Introduction to Organizational Culture
Learning Objectives:
1.1 The importance of organizational culture
A number of research studies found sufficient evidence to suggest that organizations do
have cultural properties and it would be unreasonable to assume that those may not interfere
with the management and leadership processes of any organization (Baker, 1980; Cameron &
Quinn, 2011; Peters & Waterman, 1982). However, in organizational theory literature, culture
was treated as an undefined concept and as a contingency factor with a varying and little
understood incidence on the functioning of organizations (Crozier, 1964; Child 1981).
Since the year 2000, the concept of organizational culture has aroused considerable
interest not because of the abstract notion of its potential impact, but rather due to its direct
association with organizational change. Nowadays, no organization would aim for constancy,
sameness, or status quo given the highly-interconnected world we live in. Stability is often
considered to be stagnation rather than steadiness, and organizations that aspire to be dynamic
players in the international market understand the importance of embracing the business of
change and transition. The association of the broad meaning of ‘change’ with the concept of
organizational culture has become the primary reason why the latter has received particular
attention. If culture somehow intervenes in the process of organizational change, no
organization would ever be indifferent about it.
• Understand the different dimensions of the concept of organizational culture
• Identify the most useful contextual approaches to organizational culture
• Assess the contribution of each approach to the conceptualisation of
organizational culture
• Be familiarised with the most representative models of organizational culture
Page 2 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
Despite the fact that most senior organizational members might not necessarily consider
the aspect of culture to be critical for performance or success, they would, perhaps, all agree on
the fact that the ideas, perceptions and beliefs, which usually guide the way people think, feel,
value or act must be of a cultural nature. Indeed, many senior managers presume that culture is
simply a stenographic cue for a set of values, norms or beliefs, which dominate working
environments, and there does not seem to be a direct link with the functions, structures or the
evolutionary processes of an organization. To this end, only if organizational culture interfered
with the process of change would organizations pay attention to it.
However, as we will find out in the next sections, the perception that organizational
culture simply interferes with change is, at least, superficial. Culture has been combined with a
number of critical organizational variables, such as efficiency, productivity, adaptation,
integration, decision-making, leadership and strategic management (Peters & Waterman,
1982). For example, Van Maanen and Barley (1985) found that the dissonance between an
organization’s value system and its other operational systems was solely responsible for the
reduction of efficiency. Similarly, Schein’s work (1990) identified another problematic link, as
follows: if organizational culture is not congruent with the socio-structural system of the
organization, severe operational dysfunctions may arise. In other words, if the type of the
dominant culture within an organization does not facilitate the social networks formed among
the individuals of the organization, the organization’s performance will deteriorate. Therefore,
the concept of organizational culture is more complex than we initially thought.
In the last thirty years or so, culture studies attempted to define the concept of
organizational culture in such a way so as to be capable of reflecting some form of shared
meaning, interpretations, values or norms. The idea was simply based on the fact that culture
has traditionally been combined with common characteristics, shared ways of thinking, shared
ways of acting or behaving or common assumptions and beliefs that drive people’s decision-
making processes. But, the concept of culture involves many different constituent elements,
which are not easily comprehensible and, as such, they cannot be represented by the
assumption of shared meanings and shared values.
Page 3 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
For example, culture may refer to a system of values within the organization. If we
assume that values are symbolic interpretations of reality, which provide meanings for social
actions and standards of social behavior within an organization, it is also reasonable to expect
that they will represent tangible expressions of specific ideologies (Mummendey & Schreiber,
1984). At the same time, in cultural dynamics, the actual meaning of those values may not
necessarily be linked with a specific ideology, but it would rather arise from the interaction
among the employees of the organization. Stated differently, although culture may be
associated with specific ideologies, its actual meaning is expected to be derived from the way
in which the employees of an organization interact with one another in the same social context
for a prolonged period of time. This example reveals the complexity associated with the
conceptualization of organizational culture. The concept involves many different elements
such as beliefs, values, norms, symbols, rituals, ideologies, etc., which render it
multidimensional.
Hofstede et al (1990) recommended seven characteristics associated with the concept of
‘culture’ in an attempt to narrow down its multiple dimensions. These characteristics were
assessed to be very inclusive and their comprehensiveness was confirmed in the literature
(Deal & Kennedy, 2000). Therefore, we may use them in order to, gradually, identify the most
important dimensions involved in the concept of organizational culture, with the ultimate aim
to derive a definition of the concept. This will, subsequently, allow us to examine the more
specific concept of organizational culture management. The seven characteristics offered by
Hofstede et al. appeared, as follows:
Page 4 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
1. Culture is holistic and refers to phenomena that cannot be reduced to single individuals.
Therefore, culture involves a larger group of individuals.
2. Culture is a socially-constructed phenomenon; culture is a human product and is shared
by people belonging to various groups. Different groups create different cultures, so it is not
human nature that dictates culture.
3. Culture is historically related; it is an emergent phenomenon and is conveyed through
traditions and customs.
4. Culture is inert and difficult to change; people tend to hold on to their ideas, values and
traditions.
5. Culture is soft, vague and difficult to catch; it is genuinely qualitative and does not lend
itself to easy measurement and classification
6. Terms such as ‘myth’, ‘ritual’, ‘symbols’ and similar anthropological terms are
commonly used to characterize culture.
7. Culture most commonly refers to ways of thinking, values and ideas of things rather than
the concrete, objective and more visible part of an organization.
The above characteristics indicate that the concept of organizational culture is, indeed,
multi-dimensional. We will utilize the above characteristics in order to identify the most
important contextual approaches to organizational culture. Such approaches normally provide
different perspectives of organizational culture and, as such, they could reveal the most
important dimensions of the concept.
Firstly, according to Hofstede et al (1990), culture involves a larger group of individuals
and it is a socially-constructed phenomenon. Therefore, a sociological approach to the process
of conceptualizing organizational culture seems necessary. Secondly, the humanistic values of
the people, who work and lead the organization, suggest that an anthropological approach
would enhance our understanding about the constituent elements of organizational culture.
Along the same lines, it seems reasonable to expect that a psychological approach to the
understanding of organizational culture may shed light on factors pertinent to the emotions of
the people who work for an organization, which are not so apparent. Indeed, there is largely a
consensus between the most prominent authors in the field about the fact that, although
different groups of individuals with common ways of thinking and common values and beliefs
are able to construct different types of organizational culture, only by deciphering the relevant
psychological processes experienced by each individual could we enable ourselves to
understand the ‘culture formation process’ (Cameron & Quinn, 2011).
Page 5 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
We believe that the three approaches mentioned above would, adequately, cover all
different points raised in the seven characteristics provided by Hofstede et al (1990). The
description of each of the three approaches is provided in the next sections. The first week’s
reading closes with some final remarks.
Page 6 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
1.2 The Sociological approach to organizational culture
In an effort to understand the concept of organizational culture, it is important to first
explore the more general perspective of the concept, as discussed by sociologists.
Sociologists were the first to develop detailed theories on culture in the late 19th century
(Lane, 1992). They approached culture as the objective causal outcome of a social reality and
aimed to identify the underlying social structures and processes responsible for the formation
of culture. In sociological terms, the concept of organizational culture was directly associated
with the decision-making processes of an organization. Different authors provided different
theoretical models in an attempt to understand how organizational culture emerges from the
social reality of different groups of employees. Below, we present two of the most influential
sociological models of organizational culture.
Harrison (1972) defined 4 organizational ideologies according to the different structures
of decision-making processes within an organization, as follows: power-orientation, role-
orientation, task-orientation and person-orientation. A power-oriented organization is an
organization that tries to dominate its environment and vanquish all opposition, whereas a role-
oriented organization pays attention to legitimacy and legality. In other words, a power-
oriented organization exerts its power on a personal level, whereas a role-oriented organization
maintains highly-formalised procedures in order to apply this power. On the other hand, a
task-oriented organization focuses on a superordinate goal, and all actions and activities must
be evaluated in terms of their contribution to that goal. Authority is only gained through
knowledge and competence and if authority impedes achievement, it may be swept away. At
the other end of the spectrum, is the person-oriented ideology. A person-oriented organization
focuses only on serving the needs of its members, i.e. the organization is a device through
which its members can meet needs that they could not, otherwise, satisfy by themselves.
Authority of the power-oriented or role-oriented ideology is discouraged and the employee is
supported and valued as a human being and not only as a cog in a machine. For this reason, a
person-oriented organization is, perhaps, the most capable in terms of forming effective ways
of trust development between the organization and its employees.
Page 7 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
Figure 1.1 provides Harrison’s organizational culture model.
Figure 1.1. Harrison’s Sociological Model of Organizational Culture
(reproduced by Harrison, 1972).
Harrison’s model of organizational culture provides a very intuitive framework towards
the understanding of organizational culture. This is due to the fact that the model reveals the
importance of the underlying mechanisms of the decision-making processes involved in the
everyday operations of an organization; and, as a result, in the predominant culture that guides
the different social interactions. For this reason, many research studies employed this model as
the departure point of their investigations.
However, many authors utilised Harrison’s model in order to re-examine his main causal
hypothesis that the employees of an organization are responsible for the formation of the
culture characterising that organization. Perhaps, the most influential sociological model that
opposes Harrison’s main hypothesis was offered by Deal and Kennedy (2000). These authors
believed that organizational culture is shaped by outside influences and not by the
organization’s employees.
Role orientation
Person
(support)
orientation
Power
orientation
Task
(achievement)
orientation
Page 8 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
The model is demonstrated in Figure 1.2.
Fast Feedback
Low Risk High Risk
Slow Feedback
Figure 1.2. Deal and Kennedy’s Sociological Model of Organizational Culture
(reproduced by: Deal & Kennedy, 2000)
The process culture refers to the performance of an organization’s employees, which is
characterised by both slow feedback and low risk. Stated differently, this organizational culture
appreciates the way in which employees successfully complete a task, rather than what they
actually do in order to achieve that. Since there is little or no feedback, employees find it hard
to assess their performance. This, essentially, suggests that there is no actual professional
development (low employment risk) and the main purpose is to protect system’s integrity. A
few examples of this type of organizational culture include banks, insurance companies,
utilities, pharmaceutical companies, financial-service organizations, large departments of
governments, etc.
Work hard/Play
hard culture
Bet-Your-
Company
culture
Process culture
Tough guy/Macho/ Stars culture
Page 9 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
The work hard/play hard combination was associated with low employment risk but
intensive and fast feedback. In this organizational culture, what matters is effective team work
and, for this reason, there is a low employment risk. However, this effectiveness is normally
achieved through the advancement of the employee’s performance through fast and meaningful
feedback in the context of his/her purpose-specific continuing professional development. Some
examples may be found in the automotive distributors, real estate companies, retail stores,
mass consumer-sales companies, etc.
On the right-hand side of Figure 1.2, we can observe forms of organizational culture
with employment conditions of high risk. The tough-guy/macho/star culture focuses on the
individual employee and his/her performance. The feedback is intensive and fast and the stakes
are high in each activity, i.e. an employee’s performance would determine the continuation or
not of his/her employment contract. Although continuing professional development is
important, the individual employee is requested to act quickly and decisively. Therefore, there
is no actual support for gradual professional development as the feedback provision process
occurs in the context of intense internal and external competition. Examples of this culture
include construction companies, cosmetics, advertising, management consulting, publishing,
etc.
Finally, the bet-your-company culture is characterised by slow feedback but high risk of
employment. In this culture, the future of the company itself is at stake because, instead of
providing intensive feedback and keep evaluating employees’ performance, managers aim to
effectively utilise their employees’ capabilities in order to identify the best possible strategies
of decision-making in the long-term. The oxymoron here is that, although the idea is to invest
in developing the company’s employees in order to ensure the longevity and future success of
the company, this is actually happening without aiming for constant progression in the
employees’ performance. For example, according to this culture, the feedback, although slow
and persistent, should be utilised in advancing specialised skills according to a pace, which the
employees themselves feel comfortable with. However, such a strategy may very well
jeopardise the future of the company; the very objective managers were trying to initially
secure! Obviously, this strategy is also risky for the employees themselves because the
company, by risking its viability, is indirectly risking the jobs of its employees, also. Typical
examples of this type of culture are computer-design companies, investment banks, capital
goods, etc.
Page 10 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
It is easy to observe that all four types of organizational culture offered by Deal &
Kennedy (2000) were developed based on the assumption that the driving force of culture
formation is a combination of external influences and not the employees of the organization.
Whether is system’s integrity (process culture), performance (work hard-play hard culture),
competition (tough guy culture) or future success (bet-your-company culture), employees do
not actively contribute to the development of the organizational culture.
The two sociological models described above revealed a critical debate between
sociologists with regard to the causal relationship between culture and society. In other words,
do people create a specific type of organizational culture or is the broader societal culture,
which involves key actors of a particular industry, responsible for the formation of
organizational culture? This is not a settled debate. Many authors generated alternative to Deal
& Kennedy’s models indicating that certain key actors and key external influences may,
indeed, shape an organization’s culture and the employees’ influence may not be as significant
as initially thought (Schein, 1990). Some examples of those key actors/external influences
could be the organization’s type of products, competitors, customers, technologies,
government influences, etc.
At the same time, a large segment of the literature in organizational culture makes use of
a key similarity between the Harrison’s model and the Deal & Kennedy’s model of
organizational culture. This is simply the fact that, regardless of how the organizational
culture was formed, its development would depend upon the effectiveness of the interpersonal
relationships between the employees and key members of the management team of an
organization. This particular perspective of organizational culture could not be served by the
sociological approach because the nature of interpersonal relationships requires us to redirect
focus on the individual. For this reason, the next sections will offer individual-centred
approaches to organizational culture, i.e. the anthropological approach and the psychological
approach.
Page 11 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
1.3 The anthropological approach to organizational culture
One of the most important authors in social anthropology, who developed extensive
theories of culture, is Emile Durkheim. Durkheim (1961) did not believe that organizations
could form their own culture, separate from the people who work for them. Instead, he
suggested that everyday interactions between employees would normally lead to a process of
trading-off particular values and the “norm values” would gradually emerge and be perceived
as organizational culture. However, Durkheim’s perception that culture is always associated
with moral order, cohesion and humanistic values made him appear a romantic of the past
without a pragmatic approach to the formation of organizational culture. Yet, once influential
sociological models on organizational culture had been published, Durkheim’s ideas seemed
highly-relevant again. The main reason was the realization of many theorists that social
solidarity, as a prerequisite for culture formation, is much more than simply the mere
aggregation of individual sentiments. To put it differently, Durkheim’s micro-sociological
approach to the importance of emotions involved in interpersonal relationships within an
organization revealed that those emotions may be the key anthropological factor of
organizational culture formation. To this end, emotions, sentiments, rituals, beliefs and
perceptions were all recognized as key factors of culture formation.
But, how exactly Durkheim’s anthropological approach helped the argument of effective
interpersonal relationships in the formation of organizational culture? Although Durkheim
never discussed culture in a purely organizational context, his contemporaries interpreted his
work in this way. They claimed that Durkheim believed in strong interpersonal relationships
between both employees among themselves and between employees and employers, and this
observation alone was extremely important. According to this argument, for organizations to
reach peak performance, they must develop a sense of a collective purpose and a sense of
“belonging” in an enterprise community that is bound together by informal, yet clearly-
defined, rules, a consistent system of beliefs and a set of values that are capable of
transcending different socio-demographic or economic characteristics.
Page 12 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
This approach to organizational culture was very close to the work of social
anthropologist Edward B. Tylor, who viewed culture as the “complex whole which includes
knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by
man as member of society” (Tylor, 1871). Indeed, Durkheim followed Tylor in demonstrating
that individual employees are not able to shape the culture of an organization and, for that
reason, culture emerges as an entity greater than the sum of each employee’s contribution to its
formation. However, in order for this to be achieved, the values and beliefs of each individual
employee must not only be respected, but, also, be manifested in any interpersonal
relationships of that particular employee with colleagues or senior managers, and be
adequately represented in any attempt to culture formation. In other words, the Durkhemian
perspective towards organizational culture was based upon the assumption that, if the values
held by each employee were adequately represented, it would be possible to identify shared
goals, values, beliefs, symbols and ideologies and, hence, a common purpose and identity.
This, in turn, would naturally lead to the emergence of a common working culture.
The most prominent author, who capitalized on Durkheim’s ideas, was William
Schneider. Schneider (1994) attempted to unify the sociological perspectives of Harrison
(1972) and Deal & Kennedy (2000) by identifying their anthropological dimensions using the
Durkhemian approach to organizational culture, as described above. Schneider’s model of
organizational culture describes the ways in which different types of interpersonal relationships
within an organization could lead to different types of organizational culture. Schneider
presented this differentiation as fully-dependent upon a very specific system of beliefs,
expectations, symbols, rituals, work ethos, broader societal values and a specific sense of
moral justice.
Page 13 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
Schneider’s model is shown in Figure 1.3.
Actuality
Personal Impersonal
Possibility
Figure 1.3. Schneider’s Anthropological Model of Organizational Culture
(reproduced by Schneider, 1994)
Collaboration
culture
Competence
culture
Cultivation
culture
Control culture
Page 14 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
Schneider described cultivation culture as the result of a personal commitment and
dedication to a common purpose that is perceived as highly possible to be achieved (personal,
possibility). He believes that people-driven interpersonal relationships characterise this type of
culture. For this reason, the sense of fulfilment, which usually accompanies the pursuit of
common organizational goals, is based on a shared understanding of humanistic values, beliefs
and attitudes. For example, employees with shared ideas about spirituality, work ethos or
morality may easily cultivate trust among themselves, and, through meaningful and respectful
interpersonal interaction, their common purpose would drive culture formation. This type of
culture involves empowering employees and inspiring them to want to serve the organization’s
objectives, and, professionally, continue developing themselves in order to more effectively
respond to their roles. It fosters self-expression, willingness to grow, shared decision-making
and maximisation of the potential of each employee’s competences. Typical examples involve
religious enterprises, artistic organizations, symphony orchestras, theatres, etc.
The collaboration culture is based upon purely effective synergy. It may not necessarily
lead to empowerment, inspiration or continuing professional development, but it always
ensures effective team work, personal dedication, contribution to the common objective and
trust development among all members of the organization. This type of culture engenders a
positive, people-driven, affective and emotional interpersonal relationship among its members
leading to a collaborative effort towards a clearly-understood common goal. The personal
element is based on the belief to the overall effort and the participative leadership of the senior
managers. The actuality element is based on the fact that the organizational objectives are quite
predetermined in this culture and they are based upon a clearly-defined strategy, which, in turn,
is formulated from externally-generated evidence. In this regard, there is no flexibility in
exploring possibilities and alternative opportunities or investing in inspiring new ideas. Typical
examples of collaborative organizational culture include family-owned and family-operated
businesses; service organizations, such as healthcare organizations, nursing services or
hospitals; entertainment and many personal service companies.
Page 15 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
At the other end of the spectrum, Schneider presented two types of impersonal cultures,
i.e. the control culture and the competence culture. The control culture was defined as one that
is characterised by objectivity, i.e. what counts is empiricism and systematic examination of
externally-validated facts. The type of interpersonal relationships that govern this culture is
based upon the exercise of control through strict hierarchy, methodical and task-driven
management and an authoritative/directive leadership style. This is a type of culture which,
essentially, transforms interpersonal relationships into highly-impersonal and detached
interactions with a purely rational and non-emotional approach towards the pursuit of the
organizational objectives (actuality). The main strategy is to impose a system of beliefs and
values according to which compliance and adherence to a set of predetermined rules is the only
secure way towards achieving organizational goals. In this regard, this type of culture emerges
through the acceptance of domination and subordination as effective human management
procedures. Anything subjective or emotional is perceived to be potentially harmful to the
organization. Typical examples of this type of organizational culture involves military/defense
organizations, manufacturing companies, energy companies, resource companies, commodity
companies, etc.
The final type of organizational culture, according to Schneider’s model, is the
competence culture. This type of culture is based upon the achievement motive (McClelland,
1961), according to which accomplishing more and doing better than others essentially reflects
a need to compete against a standard of excellence. In this context, feeling superior or the best
is fully acceptable in this culture and it is, in fact, fully-rewarded. This culture invests in
interpersonal relationships, which are characterised by impersonal expertise exchange rather
than meaningful human interactions. Competence culture emerges as the result of self-
confident experts, who are functioning independently and their shared understanding of the
common objectives is only formulated through rational and analytical approaches. However,
there are no concrete externally-defined standards because expertise and competence provide
the right to creativity and, in this regard, exploring alternative possibilities is plausible and
desirable. Following Schneider’s description: “This culture gains its uniqueness by combining
possibility with rationalism. What might be and the logic for getting there are what count”
(Schneider, 1999, p. 65). A competence culture values competition for its own sake, although it
may not necessarily be more competitive than other core cultures. Typical examples are
universities and research & development organizations, think tanks, consulting firms,
accounting firms and engineering construction firms.
Page 16 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
In conclusion, the Schneider’s model of organizational culture agrees with Harrison’s
model in terms of the fact that society drives culture and not the other way around. However,
Schneider agreed with both Harrison (1972) and Deal & Kennedy (2000) in terms of the fact
that the key predictor of each type of organizational culture remains the interpersonal
relationships between the people of the organization. Indeed, the four types of culture
presented by Schneider (1994) indicated that the different types of interpersonal relationships
are the driving force to culture formation and the different managerial or leadership style fully
depends on the effectiveness of such relationships.
As our exploration evolves, it is not difficult to observe that, while the sociological
approach to organizational culture offered a sensible way of understanding the way in which
different social structures (internal social networks or external influences) create culture, the
anthropological approach came to complete this rationale by providing information about the
means through which organizational culture usually emerges from groups with a shared system
of beliefs and shared ways of thinking, i.e. the relationships between the people of the
organization.
Moreover, Schneider explained that, in most organizations more than one type of
cultures emerge and the predominant culture would be determined from the willingness and
motivation of the employees of an organization to accept a different set of beliefs or values, if
a given percentage of colleagues already share those. According to Granovetter (1978), whose
work followed Durkheim’s ideas to organizational culture, it is important to understand the
deeply personal way in which each individual employee assesses values and beliefs and is
ready to trade-off certain values and beliefs in order to enjoy a sense of ‘belonging’ to a
community he/she is able to identify with. Therefore, this ‘trading-off’ process is what lies
beneath each employee’s decision-making process that drives his/her decision to accept or
reject a particular type of culture.
Page 17 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
This realization is summarized in Figure 1.4, which depicts the ‘culture formation
process’ implied by Durkheim (1961) and utilized by Schneider (1994). The individual
employee considers carefully his/her system of values and he/she is willing to search for
commonalities with other employees in order to acknowledge the set of shared values and
beliefs. Subsequently, the employee recognizes alternative systems of values within different
groups of other employees, and he/she must consider those in order to identify the group of
employees with whom he/she can best identify with.
Nonetheless, even within the identified set of shared values, there are specific values
he/she can accept and other values that he/she cannot accept. For this reason, there is a mental
process taking place in which the employee is ‘trading-off’ competing values, i.e. he/she is
accepting or rejecting values according to whether or not those are expected to facilitate
effective team work and strengthen his/her sense of “belonging”. The predominant culture, i.e.
the prevailed type of culture within the organization, will emerge as the outcome of this
‘trading-off’ process of all individuals involved. However, it is important to state that the
individual values of each employee must be adequately represented in the predominant culture
according to how the employee himself/herself perceives this representation; otherwise, the
eventual type of culture won’t be maintained.
The ‘culture creation process’, as described above, suggests that we must seek a
psychological approach to organizational culture, so that psychological processes involved in
culture formation may be recognized and be identified. Given the fact that the psychological
approach is expected to combine elements of the other two approaches, it was deemed
necessary to include it in the next week’s reading.
System of values
Trading-off process: acceptance/rejection of values
Figure 1.4 The ‘Culture formation process’
Shared values Predominant culture
Individual
values Adequate representation
Page 18 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
1.4 Concluding Remarks
The evidence identified in this reading suggest that the concept of organizational culture
is very important because of it influences the development of management and leadership
strategies and it plays a critical role in organizational change. In spite of this, the concept
itself is complex and multidimensional. This indicates that there is no easy way to define
organizational culture.
In order to narrow down the dimensions of this concept, we depended on a set of well-
accepted characteristics, which helped us identify three different alternative approaches
towards the understanding of organizational culture. Those were as follows: the sociological
approach, the anthropological approach and the psychological approach.
The sociological approach presented two alternative models of organizational culture.
Although both models were based upon intuitive frameworks, they differ on a very critical
point, i.e. the causal relationship between culture and society. One model assumed that the
employees of the organization are responsible for culture formation, whereas the other model
assumed that only external influences, such as customers’ needs, competitors’ goals, etc., drive
culture formation.
The anthropological approach capitalised on the two prominent sociological models, but
it assumed that only society and, hence, employees, may influence the culture formation of a
particular organization. However, the most representative model of this approach focused on
the ways in which interpersonal relationships within an organization could lead to different
types of organizational culture. This model described the way in which interpersonal
relationships could influence the willingness of a particular employee to accept or reject
specific values in order to ensure that he/she feels comfortable within the organization. This
process was named the ‘trading-off process’. Although, this process was often based on
competing values, the anthropological approach did not allow for the development of a specific
theoretical framework which would strengthen our understanding about it.
Finally, given the fact that the psychological approach is expected to capitalise on the
sociological and anthropological approaches, it was deemed necessary to explore it separately.
In other words, we expect the psychological approach to directly guide the derivation of an
operational definition of organizational culture. For this reason, the psychological approach
will be presented in the next week’s reading.
Page 19 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
Nonetheless, the two contextual approaches presented above were used to identify the
most representative models of organizational culture, which helped us assess the contribution
of each approach in understanding the concept of organizational culture. Therefore, the two
approaches reduced the dimensions of the concept and allowed us to identify the most
important aspects of it.
We are now ready to proceed with the psychological approach, which combines
elements of the other two approaches with the ultimate goal to derive an operational definition
of the concept of organizational culture. This will take place in the next reading.
Page 20 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
Reading tips
- The content of this module drawn upon a number of scientific disciplines due to the nature
of organizational culture, such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, management
science, behavioural sciences, etc. For this reason, you may need to refer to a number of
scientific papers apart from the main textbook that accompanies the module. Do not restrict
attention to the scientific discipline of psychology. Your search strategy should, first and
foremost, be guided by the topic you want to explore further and not by the main
discipline, i.e. the discipline which engages with this topic much more frequently and
thoroughly than others.
- There are different types of papers according to the goals of your study. For example, if
you are trying to gain more clarity on technical concepts, such as organizational culture,
you should refer to ‘literature reviews’, which present the academic debates between
different authors and the different approaches followed. However, if you need to locate
more information about a particular theoretical model, then you should search for papers
involving the description about how those models were developed. Finally, if you want to
identify evidence about the credibility of a particular model, you should turn focus on
empirical studies, which involve the collection and analysis of primary data.
- Make sure you dedicate adequate time in order to identify the key authors of each topic you
want to study further.
Page 21 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
1.5 References
Baker, E. L. (1980). Managing organizational culture. Management Review.
https://doi.org/Article
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). An Introduction to changing organizational culture:
Based on the competing values framework. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational
Culture, 1–12.
Child, J. (1981). Culture, contingency and capitalism in the cross-national study of
organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 303–356. Retrieved from
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0191308509000124
Crozier, M. (1964). The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Frontiers A Journal of Women Studies.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2391417
Durkheim, E. (1961) [1915]) The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. New York: Collier.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1983). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate
life: Addison-Wesley, 1982. ISBN: 0-201-10277-3. $14.95. Business Horizons, 26(2), 82–85.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(83)90092-7
Deal T. E. and Kennedy, A. A. (2000) Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate
Life, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1982; reissue Perseus Books, 2000.
Granovetter, M. S. (1978). Threshold Models of Collective Behavior. American Journal of
Sociology, 83(6), 1420–1443. https://doi.org/10.1086/226707
Harrison, R. (1972). Understanding your organization’s character. Harvard Business Review.
Retrieved from http://bschool.pepperdine.edu/masters-degree/organization-
development/content/parttwo-chapterten.pdf
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring Organizational
Cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 35(2), 286–316. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393392
Lane, R. (1992). Political Culture: Residual Category or General Theory? Comparative
Political Studies, 25(3), 362–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414092025003004
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Mummendey, A., & Schreiber, H.-J. (1984). Social comparison, similarity and ingroup
favouritism - A replication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14(November 1982),
231–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420140211
Page 22 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
Piereson, S. (1983). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies.
By Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. New York: Harper & Row, 1982. NASSP
Bulletin, 67(466), 120–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263658306746628
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109–119.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.109
Schneider, W. (1994) The Reengineering Alternative: A Plan for Making Your Current Culture
Work. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin Professional Publishing.
Tylor, Edward B. 1958 [1873, 1871]. The Origins of Culture and Religion in Primitive
Culture, Volumes I and II of the 1873 edition of Primitive Culture. New York: Harper &
Brothers.
Page 23 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
