1. Leaders tend to have far reaching visions for their organizations. Discuss how the visions
of the founder can impact culture years after the company is founded:
An argument may be made that a leader’s “charisma” (Schein, 2010, p. 235) may be
regarded as the catalyst that shapes an organization’s culture. Nevertheless, Schein (2010)
contends that as much as charisma may be appraised as an “important mechanism of culture
creation” it is not “a reliable mechanism of embedding or socialization because leaders who have
it are rare, and their impact is hard to predict” (p. 235). Instead, Schein (2010) proposes a more
transparent and precise methodology composing of “six primary embedding mechanisms” (p.
236) that facilitates the influence of leaders in an organization’s culture. These six primary
embedding mechanisms are energized by six “secondary articulation and reinforcement
mechanisms” (Schein, 2010, p. 236) that are “more formal… [and]…support and reinforce the
primary messages” (Ibid).
Primary Embedding Mechanisms
Schein (2010) observes that the most significant manner by which leaders impact culture
is through “what they systematically pay attention to” (p. 237). This would include “anything
from what they notice and comment on to what they measure, control, reward, and in other ways
deal with systematically” (Schein, 2010, p. 237). Here the central operating principle must be
the systematic nature of the leader conduct where “Even casual remarks and questions that are
consistently geared to a certain area can be as potent as formal control mechanisms and
measurements” (Schein, 2010, p. 237). In the organizational environment, if leaders are
cognizant of what they systematically pay attention to “a powerful way of communicating a
message” is created “especially if leaders are totally consistent in their own behavior” (Schein,
2010, p. 237). However, if leaders are not self-“aware” (Schein, 2010, p. 237) of what they

2. systematically consider as important or “are inconsistent in what they pay attention to,
subordinates and colleagues will spend inordinate time and energy trying to decipher what a
leader’s behavior really reflects and will even project motives onto the leader where none may
exist” (Ibid). What promotes leader behavior to a level of possessing a significant impact is the
systematic and consistent pattern of that conduct. A primary example of this embedding
mechanism transpires in “planning and budgeting” (Schein, 2010, p. 238) meetings where “In
questioning subordinates systematically on certain issues, leaders can transmit their own view of
how to look at problems” (Ibid). On a higher psychological plain “an even more powerful signal
than regular questions is a visible emotional reaction-especially when leaders feel that one of
their important values or assumptions is being violated” (Schein, 2010, p, 239). On the other end
of this scale, what leaders do not consider as significant, “pay attention to” (Schein, 2010, p.
241) or “react to” (Ibid) become important influencing mechanisms that impact organizational
culture. Furthermore, when leaders communicate “contradictory messages” (Schein, 2010, p.
242), on occasion subordinates “tolerate and accommodate” (Ibid) this inconsistent behavior
since leaders “are too powerful to be confronted” (Ibid) or the leader is considered “a creative
genius who has idiosyncrasies” (Ibid). In other instances, leaders are either forced out or
“buffering layers of managers” (Schein, 2010, p. 242) and other “subcultures ” (p. 243) are
created in order to “protect the organization” (Ibid).
How leaders react to important situations and “organizational crises” (Schein, 2010, p.
243) also leaves a significant impact on organizational culture. Here, the reaction of a leader
“reveals important underlying assumptions and creates new norms, values and working
procedures” (Schein, 2010, p. 243). In the creation of organizational culture, crises occupy a
special place since “the heightened emotional involvement during such periods increases the

3. intensity of learning. Crises heightens anxiety, and the need to reduce anxiety is a powerful
motivator of new learning” (Schein, 2010, p. 243). The additional element here that may add
longevity and endurance to the learning process is illustrated when organizational actors
experience the state of crises “collectively” (Schein, 2010, p. 243) and consequently are “more
likely to remember what they have learned and to ritually repeat that behavior to avoid anxiety”
(Ibid). Here, one must keep in mind that the very definition of what is a crisis may be in and by
itself a subjective matter “defined as a crisis by founders and leaders” (Schein, 2010, p. 243).
Here, leader reaction “reveals some of their assumptions about the importance of people and
their view of human nature” (p. 244). The manner by which leaders process crises in matters of
“internal integration” (Schein, 2010, p. 244) such as “acts of insubordination” (Ibid) also impact
culture, since organizations are structured by “hierarchy, authority, power, and influence” (pp.
244-245).
Donaldson & Lorsch (1983) have found that “leader beliefs about the distinctive
competence of their organization, acceptable levels of financial crisis, and the degree to which
organization must be financially self-sufficient strongly influence their choices of goals, the
means to accomplish them, and the management process to be used” (as cited in Schein, 2010, p.
245). These aforementioned values and assumptions concerning the expenditure of “resources”
(Schein, 2010, p. 245) subsequently act as cultural parameters that control “decision making in
that they limit the perception of alternatives” (p. 245). Leaders impact organizational culture
also through “their own visible behavior… [that]…has great value for communicating
assumptions and values to other members, especially new comers” (Schein, 2010, p. 246) with
“informal messages” (Ibid) being the more “powerful teaching and coaching mechanism” (Ibid).
The manner by which leaders convey “their own priorities, values and assumptions” (Schein,

4. 2010, p. 247) is also determined by how “rewards and punishments” (Ibid) are correlated to the
desired “behavior” (Ibid). Here, a faithful application of leader’s “values and assumptions”
(Schein, 2010, p. 248) may be implemented when such leader mind set and conduct are
promoted in “a reward, promotion, and status system that is consistent with those assumptions”
(Ibid). An accurate determination of “underlying assumptions” (Schein, 2010, p. 249) may be a
complicated matter that may only be verified “by observing actual promotions and performance
reviews” ((Ibid). A further embedding mechanism that through which leaders impact
organizational culture is reflected in practices relating to the hiring of “new members’ (Schein,
2010, p. 249) and patterns having to do with “who does or does not get promoted, who is retired
early, and who is, in effect, excommunicated by being fired or given a job that is clearly
perceived to be less important” (Ibid).
Secondary Articulation and Reinforcement Mechanisms
Schein (2010) observes that “once an organization has matured and stabilized” (p. 250)
the respective characteristics of “design, structure, architecture, rituals, stories and formal
statements” (Ibid) act as “constraints on future leaders” (Ibid). These six aforementioned
secondary mechanisms maybe considered as “cultural artifacts” (Schein, 2010, p. 250) who act
as formidable re-enforcers that are “very strong in perpetuating the assumptions even when new
leaders in a mature organization would prefer to change them” (p. 251). Schein (2010) holds that
the design of an organization in early stages, that is “how product line, market areas, functional
responsibilities, and so on are divided up” (p. 251) is intertwined with “powerful assumptions
about internal relationships and with theories of how to get things done” (Ibid) related to the
“founder’s background” (Ibid). These intellectual and practical design oriented pre-suppositions
found in founders’ basic assumptions represent distinct approaches by the leader in order to

5. promote “maximum effectiveness” (Schein, 2010, p. 251). In some organizations, structure is
based on a “tight hierarchy and highly centralized controls” (Schein, 2010, p. 251), in others the
structure is “a highly decentralized organization that pushes authority down as low as possible”
(Ibid). Still others believe in creating organizational structures where employees “negotiate their
solutions with each other” (Schein, 2010, p. 251) (Ken Olsen in DEC). Here also, some
organizations are designed by leaders so as to reduce unit “interdependence” (Schein, 2010, p.
251) and others are structured in such a fashion in order to promote “checks and balances so that
no one unit can ever function autonomously” (Ibid). All these structural designs and “periodic
reorganizations” (Schein, 2010, p. 252) allow “founders and leaders to embed their deeply held
assumptions about the task, the means to accomplish it, the nature of people, and the right kinds
of relationships to foster among people” (Ibid).
Leaders also “formalize” (Schein, 2010, p. 253) what they regard as crucial in “paying
attention” (Ibid) to by creating “systems and procedures” (Ibid) that are the “daily, weekly,
monthly, quarterly, and annual cycles of routines, procedures, reports, forms, and other recurrent
tasks that have to be performed” (p. 252). These systems and procedures bestow “structure and
predictability to an otherwise vague and ambiguous organizational world” (Schein, 2010, p. 252)
mitigating “ambiguity and anxiety” (Ibid) and promoting the “assumptions” (Ibid) of leaders and
founders. Rites and rituals (Schein, 2010, p. 253) are additional secondary re-enforcing
mechanisms that maybe utilized to promote the assumptions of leaders in organizations only if
“those assumptions are made clear by the primary embedding mechanisms” (p. 254). As an
example in DEC, the ritual of “monthly Woods meetings devoted to important long-range
strategic issues” (Schein, 2010, p. 254) was in line with primary embedding mechanisms of
“informality, status equality and dialogue” (Ibid) promoted organizationally by Ken Olsen. The

6. physical attributes of an organization such as the buildings, facilities and the space may also be
regarded as “an accurate reflection of deeply held assumptions” (Schein, 2010, p. 255) provided
that they “reinforce the leader’s messages” (Ibid). These secondary articulations may represent
the organization’s and the leader’s “basic assumptions of how work gets done, how relationships
should be managed, and how to arrive at truth” (Schein, 2010, p. 255). A further secondary
mechanism that could potentially “reinforce assumptions” (Schein, 2010, p. 255) are
organizational myths, legends and stories although these articulations must be accompanied with
a correct and comprehensive “understanding” (p. 256) of the respective culture. An additional
secondary articulation that may reinforce some “aspects of the leader’s philosophy” (Schein,
2010, p. 256) are “formal statements” (pp. 256-257) although these instruments do not
comprehensively describe an “organization’s culture” (p. 257). Rather, these secondary
mechanisms annunciate or emphasize “those aspects that leaders find useful to publish as an
ideology or focus for the organization” (Schein, 2010, p. 257). An important point must be made
here that in mature organizations, secondary reinforcing mechanisms act as “primary
maintenance” (Schein, 2010, p. 257) vehicles promoting “institutionalization and
bureaucratization” (p. 257) and functioning as “criteria for the selection of new leaders” (p. 258).
These particular organizational dynamics enhance the prominence of “what has worked in the
past, not what may be the primary agenda of the current leadership of today” (Schein, 2010, p.
258).
References:
Donaldson, G., & Lorsch, J. W. (1983). Decision making at the top in E. H. Schein,
Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

7. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.