TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
ABSTRACT 4
2
INTRODUCTION 4
THE IDEAS AND
LANGUAGE 4
EVOLUTION OF
IDEAS 4
BORROWING OF
CONCEPTS AND THE CONFUSION OF MEANING
5
3 EVOLUTION OF
ORGANISATIONAL‑CULTURE
6
VIEWS OF
ORGANISATIONAL‑CULTURE
7
4
ORGANISATIONAL-CULTURE 7
CULTURE AND
CHANGE 8
5
REFERENCES 10
6
BIBLIOGRAPHY 12
1. ABSTRACT
The concept of organisational-culture is born out of culture, and its
acceptance and application is dependent upon culture. Further more any
particular form of the idea, of organisational-culture, is dependent upon which
culture adopts the idea, and how they adapt it to suit their particular needs.
There are thus many different and useful views of organisational-culture, but
by far, the most useful is the original study of culture and organisations by
social anthropologists.
2. INTRODUCTION
3. THE IDEAS AND LANGUAGE
Organisations are both effected by, and affected by the needs of human
society and culture. Therefore :
...I find it difficult to
separate "management thought" from the broader literature dealing
with man and society. I think it relevant that those who dominate the
literature that is labeled[sic] "management thought" frequently claim
that their intellectual heritage is outside of management literature
(Wolf,1974)[1].
The concept of organisational-culture follows this trend of coming from
outside the narrow field of organisational theory, in that 'The study of
cultural influences, a topic that is central to social anthropology, has
existed for some time, buts its application to business organisations is a
fairly recent phenomenon (Vecchio,Hearn,Southey, 1992, pp 574).'
4. EVOLUTION OF IDEAS
But why so long to apply the concept of culture to business
organisations ? The answer to this question lies with the culture of society
itself. First an idea needs to be distributed and otherwise communicated to the
members of society. Second the society needs to beable to comprehend the idea :
Inventions born before their
time must remain useless until the level of common intellect rises to
comprehend them( Louis Napoleon quoted by Smiles, 1863)[2].
Third, on comprehending the idea, the idea then has to be accepted :
But advancements often appear
to wait until the times are ready. There is something in the environment that
causes certain concepts to flourish. There is a zeitgeist ‑ a climate of
opinion ‑ which admits new conceptualizations[sic]. (Wolf,1974)
During this time of comprehension and acceptance, however, the ideas do
not remain static and independent of cultural influences.
"The canon"[study
of culture in this case] is an ineluctable facet of the dynamics of cultural
change, in a world in which culture is an artifact[sic] and therefore a product
of the social reconstruction of extant reality (Samuels, 1991)[3]'
The ideas get moulded until they are comprehended and accepted by those
groups which find some use in the ideas. Thus one idea may take on as many
forms as there are groups interested in the idea.
5. BORROWING OF CONCEPTS AND THE CONFUSION OF MEANING
When considering this borrowing, moulding and evolution of ideas, to
gain acceptance and comprehension by some other group, it should be noted :
There is a danger that, when
one area of study borrows key concepts from other disciplines, the concepts
become either stereotyped or distorted in the transfer. Also, when concepts are
borrowed from other disciplines, they may not be borrowed in toto: that is
rather than accepting an entire 'package' ‑ which include the historical
debates surrounding 'proper' uses of concepts ‑ people only select aspects of
the concepts that suit their interests and thinking at a particular time.
(Meek, 1988, pp455‑473, cited in Vecchio,Hearn,Southey, 1992, pp587)[4]
Part of the distortion occurs with the meanings of words.
... the semantics of
management are [still] horrible. Terms are used in different senses without
precise definition ‑ eg., organization[sic] can be a noun synonymous with firm,
or company, or it can be a process of management such as organizing[sic] the
management of work. (Wolf,1974)
Now, not only is there confusion as to whether organisation is something
a group : does, has, or is, the various uses of the word 'culture' is now
added. Culture being what a group has, or is. In social anthropology there is
apparent clarity on this point, culture is what a society has.
A society consists of people
interacting in the many tasks necessary for survival. ... Culture is the way of
life a society creates to satisfy its basic needs. There is no human society
that does not have a culture. ... Culture is a total pattern. ... culture
refers to a people's total way of life. (Newhill, La Paglia, 1974)[5]
Given such a seemingly all inclusive description of culture, it is easy
to see why a group with a particular culture is referred to as the culture. And
so the culture, becomes what the society is, rather than what it has. Hence,
Meeks(1998, cited in Vecchio,Hearn,Southey, 1992, pp587) view that 'Culture
should be regarded as something an organization[sic] 'is', not as something
that an organization[sic] 'has' : it is not an independent variable, nor can it
be created, discovered or destroyed by the whims of management.'
6. EVOLUTION OF ORGANISATIONAL‑CULTURE
If organisational‑culture is a concept evolving within a cultural
perspective, then the current confusion of terminology is potentially of little
concern. But is the idea evolving, or is it hidden in some book, lost in a
library, collecting dust ?
It would appear that the concept of organisational‑culture is evolving.
According to Guptara(1992)[6] the idea has
been spread far and wide by Peters and Waterman's book "In Search of
Excellence" . The "zeitgeist" that allowed this was
a time when it[America] was
beginning to doubt its economic pre‑eminence for the first time since the
Second World War : In Search of Excellence provided reassurance that there was
much which was still excellent in America. (Guptara, 1992)
However, whilst the concept is popular and known by many managers, its
usefulness and acceptance is still under question. Since 'the vast majority of
managers who use the word do not understand what 'culture' means ‑ or indeed
how penetrating a way culture provides into the guts of any
organization[sic](Guptara,1992)'.
One of the problems preventing acceptance, is that organisational‑culture
follows in the path of many other management ideas, such as quality circles and
total quality management, all of which were treated as a 'quick fix' to
management problems. Since the 'quick fixes' didn't eventuate, most new
management ideas are considered to be fads.
There is [thus] the
expectation that it is just a matter of time before the culture fad will be
dropped, and a new "hot" management topic will emerge. (Kilmann,
Saxton, Serpa, 1986, cited in Newstrom & Davis, 1989)[7]
Kilmann, Saxton and Serpa(1986, cited in Newstrom & Davis, 1989)
however consider that organisational culture is not a fad and that '... culture
will continue to be studied but will be called something else'. They further
point out that organisational culture is itself related to previous topics of
study in management, such as the human relations movement, participatory
management and democratisation of work.
This relationship to previous topics of management, however, would seem
to be a confusion between organisational-culture and change of culture through
organisational-development. That is to say that culture itself is not dependent
upon participatory management, nor democratic processes, though
organisational-development tends to be. A culture, however, can be either
highly autocratic or democratic.
7. VIEWS OF ORGANISATIONAL‑CULTURE
Most writers on the subject of organisational‑culture frame the subject
in terms of myths and legends about heroes of the organisation, plus the rites
and rituals that all members of the group are expected to carry out (Kreitner[8],
1989; Kreitner & Kinicki[9], 1989; Megginson,Mosley,Pietri
jr[10],
1989). They talk about symbols which allow a person to identify themselves with
the organisation. Such concepts of culture whilst colourful are rather
superficial and trivial. 'Cultural features do not exist merely as badges of
identity to which we have some emotional attachment. They exist to meet the
necessities and to forward the purposes of human life. (Sowell, 1991)[11]'
Others such as Pitre and Sims jr(1987, cited in Newstrom & Davis,
1989)[12]
put culture into a cognitive framework and view it 'as consensual patterns of
thought'. Still others (Kilman, Saxton,Serpa, 1986 cited in Newstrom &
Davis, 1989 ) consider culture as occurring at different levels. Vecchio, Hearn
and Southey(1992), cite these levels has having been identified by Schein(1985)[13],
and that the three basic levels are : artefacts and creations, values, and
basic assumptions.
This seems the most acceptable view of organisational-culture since it
does not ignore the physical world. The technology produced by and used by an
organisation, is not ignored. The importance of technology can be highlighted
by Coombs, knights and Willmott's[14](1992) study
of the introduction of information communication technology (ICT) into the UK
national health service, where they concluded that : 'The study of I.C.T's
[technology] in organisations cannot therefore plausibly be abstracted from the
social practices which imbue their presence and products (e.g.
information)[technology] with meaning.' Further insight to the importance of
technology can be obtained from Turnbull's[15](1992)
study of the containerisation of ships cargo and the consequent decline of the
docker's occupational culture.
8. ORGANISATIONAL-CULTURE
Given that organisational‑culture includes all aspects of organisational‑behaviour
and good deal more besides, organisational‑culture could be considered as
offering little more than a new title for the study‑of‑organisations.
It does however offer more than just a new title, it offers a new
perspective for viewing organisations. Whilst organisational‑behaviour tends to
work from a solid foundation of individual behaviour which is applied to
explaining the behaviour of groups. Culture is a somewhat more vague concept,
in that it argues that individual and group evolve together in total, it has no
identifiable starting point. But culture is not merely the study of behaviour,
it is also the study of the results of behaviour, such as the technology that
it produces, and the consequent affect upon future behaviour. Culture adds
historical, geographical and physical perspectives to the study of
organisations. It allows artificial system boundaries to be either expanded
bringing more of society within the organisational context, or for such system
boundaries and views to be ignored as being totally irrelevant.
Whilst the study of cultures within organisations is new to the subject
of organisational-studies, it is not new to the study of culture.
'Organisations are themselves products of a culture' (Vecchio,Hearn,Southey,
1992, p575) and as such have been studied both, as a microcosm of the greater
culture of society in which they exist, and as a subculture within greater
society.
This greater study of society should not be forgotten, since most texts
on organisational-culture tend to have a rather narrow view of organisational
culture, and may tend to imply that all organisations have a culture, and
further more this culture is founded within the organisation.
This is not so. The problem is that most organisations are not isolated
entities, but are instead a series of overlapping entities. In western culture
these overlapping entities are, at the minimum, the business organisation
that an individual works for and the occupational organisation that the
individual belongs to. And it should be noted that many occupational groups are
dominated by various world cultures. For instance 'we find Jews prominent,
often predominant, and usually prospering, in the apparel industry' (Sowell,
1991). Thus occupational cultures and world cultures tend to be more important
when studying organisations, compared to some notion that the organisation
itself has a culture.
Culture therefore gives an holistic, all encompassing view of an
organisation, to restrict organisational-culture to just a few elements of
organisational-behaviour is to severely diminish the power of 'culture' as a
tool for analysing organisations.
9. CULTURE AND CHANGE
Organisational-culture generally precedes discussions on
organisational-change and organisational-development in most texts on
management or organisational-behaviour. Why, is not quite clear ? Since the
methods of change given generally ignore cultural perspectives.
To quote Kreitner and Kinicki(1989, p666) 'OD is Value-Loaded. Owing to
the fact that OD is rooted partially in humanistic psychology, many OD
consultants carry certain values or biases into the client organisation'. That
is OD consultants have their own cultural group to which they belong, and
recent research by Schaller(1992)[16] suggests
'that scientists and laypersons alike are prone to motivated biases in logical
and statistical reasoning, thus hiding in-group favoritism[sic] and group
stereotyping behind a dangerous "cloak of objectivity".' Such biases
that OD consultants bring with them being preferences for cooperation,
self-control, and democratic and participative management, none of which is
going to work too well in an autocratic culture.
Thus the use of organisational-development to change organisations is
highly questionable, since it maybe in direct opposition to the culture of the
organisation.
More importantly a culture cannot be changed, a culture is everything
about a people, to change a culture is to change a people. To change something
called corporate style, corporate identity or corporate symbolism is one thing.
But it is not changing culture. Culture evolves, and undoubtably through
deliberate action, but without an overall plan of moving from one cultural form
to another. And it as already been mentioned that cultures are not founded
within organisations, most especially not business organisations.
10. REFERENCES
[1]Wolf, William
B, (1974), 'The Meaning of management thought' in "Contemporary
Management : Issues and Viewpoints" editor Joseph W. McGuire;
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. pp113-115
[2]Smiles,
Samuel(1863) (reprint with foreword by L.T.C Rolt, 1968), "Industrial
Biography : iron workers and tool makers", August M. Kelley
Publishers, New York. p170
[3]Samuels,
Warren J (1992), 'Dynamics of Cultural Change', "Society" Vol
29. No. 1, Nov/Dec 1991, Transaction Publishers pp23-26
[4]Meek, V.L (1988), 'Organisational Culture : Origins
and Weaknesses', "Organisational Studies", 9 (1988) pp455-473.
Vecchio,
Hearn, Southey (1992), "Organisational Behaviour : Life at Work in Australia",
1st Australian Edition, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, Sydney.
[5]Newhill and La
Paglia (1974), "Exploring World Cultures", Ginn and Company(a
xerox education company), Lexington, Massachusetts. pp1-5
[6]Guptara,
Prabhu S,(1992), 'Corporate Culture and Competitive Advantage', in
"HandBook of Management 3rd edition" edited by Dennis Lock, Gower
Publishing Co. pp66-72
[7]Kilman, Saxton
and Serpa (1986) 'Issues in Understanding and Changing Culture' in
"Organizational Behavior : Readings and Exercises" edited by Newstrom
and Davis(1989), McGraw-Hill. pp404-410
[10]Megginson,
Mosley and Petri Jr (1989), "Management : Concepts and
Applications",3rd/edition, Harper & Row Publishers Inc. pp373-399
[11]Sowell,
Thomas (1991), 'A World View of Cultural Diversity', "Society"
Vol 29, No. 1, Nov/Dec 1991, Transaction Publishers. pp37-44
[12]Pitre and
Sims Jr (1987), 'The Thinking Organization : How Patterns of Thought
Determine Organizational Culture'in "Organisational Behaviour :
Readings and Exercises" edited by Newstrom and Davis (1989), McGraw-Hill.
pp411-420
[14]Coombs,
Knights, Willmott (1992), 'Culture, Control and Competition; Towards a
Conceptual Framework for the Study of Information Technology in Organizations',
"Organisation Studies", 13 issue 1, 1992, Walter De Gruyter,
Berlin/New York. pp51-71
[15]Turnbull,
Peter (1992), 'Dock strikes and the demise of the docker's 'occupational
culture' ', "The Sociological Review", Vol 40, No. 2, May 1992.
pp294-318
[16]Schaller,
Mark(1992), 'In-Group Favoritism and Statistical Reasoning in Social
Inference : Implications for Formation and Maintenance of Group Stereotypes',
"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology", Vol 63, No. 1, July
1992, American Psychological Association Inc. pp61-74
11. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bartol & Martin, (1991), "Management", McGraw-Hill.
Rachman, Mescon, Bovee & Thill, (1990), "Business Today 6th/edition", McGraw-Hill.
