Organizational Culture Edgar H. Schein I I I I II I II .docx

Organizational Culture
Edgar H. Schein
I I I I II I II
ABSTRACT: The concept of organizational culture has
received increasing attention in recent years both from
academics and practitioners. This article presents the au-
thor's view of how culture shouM be defined and analyzed
if it is to be of use in the field of organizational psychology.
Other concepts are reviewed, a brief history is provided,
and case materials are presented to illustrate how to an-
alyze culture and how to think about culture change.
To write a review article about the concept of organiza-
tional culture poses a dilemma because there is presently
little agreement on what the concept does and should
mean, how it should be observed and measured, how it
relates to more traditional industrial and organizational
psychology theories, and how it should be used in our
efforts to help organizations. The popular use of the con-
cept has further muddied the waters by hanging the label
of"culture" on everything from common behavioral pat-
terns to espoused new corporate values that senior man-
agement wishes to inculcate (e.g., Deal & Kennedy, 1982;
Peters & Waterman, 1982).
Serious students of organizational culture point out
that each culture researcher develops explicit or implicit
paradigms that bias not only the definitions of key con-
cepts but the whole approach to the study of the phe-
nomenon (Barley, Meyer, & Gash, 1988; Martin & Mey-

erson, 1988; Ott, 1989; Smircich & Calas, 1987; Van
Maanen, 1988). One probable reason for this diversity of
approaches is that culture, like role, lies at the intersection
of several social sciences and reflects some of the biases
of eachwspecifically, those of anthropology, sociology,
social psychology, and organizational behavior.
A complete review of the various paradigms and
their implications is far beyond the scope of this article.
Instead I will provide a brief historical overview leading
to the major approaches currently in use and then de-
scribe in greater detail one paradigm, firmly anchored in
social psychology and anthropology, that is somewhat in-
tegrative in that it allows one to position other paradigms
in a common conceptual space.
This line of thinking will push us conceptually into
territory left insufficiently explored by such concepts as
"climate," "norm," and "attitude." Many of the research
methods of industrial/organizational psychology have
weaknesses when applied to the concept of culture. If we
are to take culture seriously, we must first adopt a more
clinical and ethnographic approach to identify clearly the
kinds of dimensions and variables that can usefully lend
themselves to more precise empirical measurement and
Sloan School of Management,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
I I [ Illll
hypothesis testing. Though there have been many efforts
to be empirically precise about cultural phenomena, there
is still insufficient linkage of theory with observed data.
We are still operating in the context of discovery and are
seeking hypotheses rather than testing specific theoretical

formulations.
A H i s t o r i c a l N o t e
Organizational culture as a concept has a fairly recent
origin. Although the concepts of "group norms" and
"climate" have been used by psychologists for a long time
(e.g., Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939), the concept of
"culture" has been explicitly used only in the last few
decades. Katz and Kahn (1978), in their second edition
of The Social Psychology of Organizations, referred to
roles, norms, and values but presented neither climate
nor culture as explicit concepts.
Organizational "climate," by virtue of being a more
salient cultural phenomenon, lent itself to direct obser-
vation and measurement and thus has had a longer re-
search tradition (Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974; A. P. Jones
&James, 1979; Litwin & Stringer, 1968; Schneider, 1975;
Schneider & Reichers, 1983; Tagiuri & Litwin, 1968).
But climate is only a surface manifestation of culture,
and thus research on climate has not enabled us to delve
into the deeper causal aspects of how organizations func-
tion. We need explanations for variations in climate and
norms, and it is this need that ultimately drives us to
"'deeper" concepts such as culture.
In the late 1940s social psychologists interested in
Lewinian "action research" and leadership training freely
used the concept of "cultural island" to indicate that the
training setting was in some fundamental way different
from the trainees" "back home" setting. We knew from
the leadership training studies of the 1940s and 1950s
that foremen who changed significantly during training
would revert to their former attitudes once they were back
at work in a different setting (Bradford, Gibb, & Benne,

1964; Fleishman, 1953, 1973; Lewin, 1952; Schein &
Bennis, 1965). But the concept of"group norms," heavily
documented in the Hawthorne studies of the 1920s,
seemed sufficient to explain this phenomenon (Homans,
1950; Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939).
In the 1950s and 1960s, the field of organizational
psychology began to differentiate itself from industrial
psychology by focusing on units larger than individuals
(Bass, 1965; Schein, 1965). With a growing emphasis on
work groups and whole organizations came a greater need
for concepts such as "system" that could describe what
could be thought of as a pattern of norms and attitudes
February 1990 • American Psychologist
Colrytight 1990 by the American Psycht/ogical Association,
Inc. 0003-066X/90/S00.75
Vol. 45, No. 2, 109--119
109
that cut across a whole social unit. The researchers and
clinicians at the Tavistock Institute developed the concept
of "socio-technical systems" (Jaques, 1951; Rice, 1963;
Trist, Higgin, Murray, & Pollock, 1963), and Likert (1961,
1967) developed his "Systems 1 through 4" to describe
integrated sets of organizational norms and attitudes. Katz
and Kahn (1966) built their entire analysis of organiza-
tions around systems theory and systems dynamics, thus
laying the most important theoretical foundation for later
culture studies.
The field of organizational psychology grew with the
growth of business and management schools. As concerns

with understanding organizations and interorganizational
relationships grew, concepts from sociology and anthro-
pology began to influence the field. Cross-cultural psy-
chology had, of course, existed for a long time (Werner,
1940), but the application of the concept of culture to
organizations within a given society came only recently
as more investigators interested in organizational phe-
nomena found themselves needing the concept to explain
(a) variations in patterns of organizational behavior, and
(b) levels of stability in group and organizational behavior
that had not previously been highlighted (e.g., Ouchi,
1981).
What has really thrust the concept into the forefront
is the recent emphasis on trying to explain why U.S.
companies do not perform as well as some of their coun-
terpart companies in other societies, notably Japan. In
observing the differences, it has been noted that national
culture is not a sutficient explanation (Ouchi, 1981; Pas-
cale& Athos, 1981). One needs concepts that permit one
to differentiate between organizations within a society,
especially in relation to different levels of effectiveness,
and the concept of organizational culture has served this
p u ~ well (e.g., O'Toole, 1979; Pettigrew, 1979; Wilkins
& Ouchi, 1983).
As more investigators and theoreticians have begun
to examine organizational culture, the normative thrust
has been balanced by more descriptive and clinical re-
search (Barley, 1983; Frost, Moore, Louis, Lundberg, &
Martin, 1985; Louis, 1981, 1983; Martin, 1982; Martin,
Feldman, Hatch, & Sitkin, 1983; Martin & Powers, 1983;
Martin & Siehl, 1983; Schein, 1985a; Van M a a e n &
Barley, 1984). We need to find out what is actually going
on in organizations before we rush in to tell managers
what to do about their culture.

I will summarize this quick historical overview by
identifying several different research streams that today
influence how we perceive the concept of organization~
culture.
Survey Research
From this perspective, culture has been viewed as a prop-
erty of groups that can be measured by questionnaires
leading to Likert-type profiles (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Edgar
H. Sehein, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts
Institute of
Teehnolngy, 77 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139.
& Bond, 1988; Kilmann, 1984; Likert, 1967). The prob-
lem with this approach is that it assumes knowledge of
the relevant dimensions to be studied. Even if these are
statistically derived from large samples of items, it is not
clear whether the initial item set is broad enough or rel-
evant enough to capture what may for any given orga-
nization be its critical cultural themes. Furthermore, it
is not clear whether something as abstract as culture can
be measured with survey instruments at all.
Analytical Descriptive
In this type of research, culture is viewed as a concept
for which empirical measures must be developed, even if
that means breaking down the concept into smaller units
so that it can be analyzed and measured (e.g., Harris &
Sutton, 1986; Martin & Siehl, 1983; Schall, 1983; Trice
& Beyer, 1984; Wilkins, 1983). Thus organizational sto-

ries, rituals and rites, symbolic manifestations, and other
cultural elements come to be taken as valid surrogates
for the cultural whole. The problem with this approach
is that it fracfionates a concept whose primary theoretical
utility is in drawing attention to the holistic aspect of
group and organizational phenomena.
Ethnographic
In this approach, concepts and methods developed in so-
ciology and anthropology are applied to the study of or-
ganizations in order to illuminate descriptively, and thus
provide a richer understanding of, certain organizational
phenomena that had previously not been documented
fully enough (Barley, 1983; Van Maanen, 1988; Van
Maanen & Barley, 1984). This approach helps to build
better theory but is time consuming and expensive. A
great many more cases are needed before generalizations
can be made across various types of organizations.
Historical
Though historians have rarely applied the concept of cul-
ture in their work, it is clearly viewed as a legitimate aspect
of an organization to be analyzed along with other factors
(Chandler, 1977; Dyer, 1986; Pettigrew, 1979; Westney,
1987). The weaknesses of the historical method are similar
to those pointed out for the ethnographic approach, but
these are often offset by the insights that historical and
longitudinal analyses can provide.
Clinical Descriptive
With the growth of organizational consulting has come
the opportunity to observe in areas from which research-
ers have traditionally been barred, such as the higher levels

of management where policies originate and where reward
and control systems are formulated. When consultants
observe organizational phenomena as a byproduct of their
services for clients, we can think of this as "clinical" re-
search even though the client is defining the domain of
observation (Schein, 1987a). Such work is increasingly
being done by consultants with groups and organizations,
and it allows consultants to observe some of the systemic
effects of interventions over time. This approach has been
110 February 1990 • American Psychologist
labeled "organization development" (Beckhard, 1969;
Beckhard & Harris, 1977, 1987; Bennis, 1966, 1969;
French & Bell, 1984; Schein, 1969) and has begun to be
widely utilized in many kinds of organizations.
The essential characteristic of this method is that
the data are gathered while the consultant is actively
helping the client system work on problems defined by
the client on the client's initiative. Whereas the researcher
has to gain access, the consultant/clinician is provided
access because it is in the client's best interest to open up
categories of information that might ordinarily be con-
cealed from the researcher (Schein, 1985a, 1987a).
The empirical knowledge gained from such obser-
vations provides a much needed balance to the data ob-
tained by other methods because cultural origins and dy-
namics can sometimes be observed only in the power
centers where elements of the culture are created and
changed by founders, leaders, and powerful managers
(Hirschhorn, 1987; Jaques, 1951; Kets de Vries & Miller,
1984, 1986; Sehein, 1983). The problem with this method

is that it does not provide the descriptive breadth of an
ethnography nor the methodological rigor of quantitative
hypothesis testing. However, at this stage of the evolution
of the field, a combination of ethnographic and clinical
research seems to be the most appropriate basis for trying
to understand the concept of culture.
Definition of Organizational Culture
The problem of defining organizational culture derives
from the fact that the concept of organization is itself
ambiguous. We cannot start with some "cultural phe-
nomena" and then use their existence as evidence for the
existence of a group. We must first specify that a given
set of people has had enough stability and common his-
tory to have allowed a culture to form. This means that
some organizations will have no overarching culture be-
cause they have no common history or have frequent
turnover of members. Other organizations can be pre-
sumed to have "strong" cultures because of a long shared
history or because they have shared important intense
experiences (as in a combat unit). But the content and
strength of a culture have to be empirically determined.
They cannot be presumed from observing surface cultural
phenomena.
Culture is what a group learns over a period of time
as that group solves its problems of survival in an external
environment and its problems of internal integration.
Such learning is simultaneously a behavioral, cognitive,
and an emotional process. Extrapolating further from a
functionalist anthropological view, the deepest level of
culture will be the cognitive in that the perceptions, lan-
guage, and thought processes that a group comes to share
will be the ultimate causal determinant of feelings, atti-
tudes, espoused values, and overt behavior.

From systems theory, Lewinian field theory, and
cognitive theory comes one other theoretical premise--
namely, that systems tend toward some kind of equilib-
rium, attempt to reduce dissonance, and thus bring basic
categories or assumptions into alignment with each other
(Durkin, 1981; Festinger, 1957; Hebb, 1954; Heider, 1958;
Hirschhorn, 1987; Lewin, 1952). There is a conceptual
problem, however, because systems contain subsystems,
organizations contain groups and units within them, and
it is not clear over what range the tendency toward equi-
librium will exist in any given complex total system.
For our purposes it is enough to specify that any
definable group with a shared history can have a culture
and that within an organization there can therefore be
many subcultures. If the organization as a whole has had
shared experiences, there will also be a total organizational
culture, Within any given unit, the tendency for integra-
tion and consistency will be assumed to be present, but
it is perfectly possible for coexisting units of a larger sys-
tem to have cultures that are independent and even in
conflict with each other.
Culture can now be defined as (a) a pattern of basic
assumptions, (b) invented, discovered, or developed by a
given group, (c) as it learns to cope with its problems of
external adaptation and internal integration, (d) that has
worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore
(e) is to be taught to new members as the (f) correct way
to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.
The strength and degree of internal consistency of
a culture are, therefore, a function of the stability of the
group, the length of time the group has existed, the in-
tensity of the group's experiences of learning, the mech-

anisms by which the learning has taken place (i.e., positive
reinforcement or avoidance conditioning), and the
strength and clarity of the assumptions held by the
founders and leaders of the group.
Once a group has learned to hold common assump-
tions, the resulting automatic patterns of perceiving,
thinking, feeling, and behaving provide meaning, stability,
and comfort; the anxiety that results from the inability
to understand or predict events happening around the
group is reduced by the shared learning. The strength
and tenacity of culture derive, in part, from this anxiety-
reduction function. One can think of some aspects of
culture as being for the group what defense mechanisms
are for the individual (Hirschhorn, 1987; Menzies, 1960;
Schein, 1985b).
The Levels of Cul tu re
In analyzing the culture of a particular group or organi-
zation it is desirable to distinguish three fundamental lev-
els at which culture manifests itself: (a) observable arti-
facts, (b) values, and (c) basic underlying assumptions.
When one enters an organization one observes and
feels its artifacts. This category includes everything from
the physical layout, the dress code, the manner in which
people address each other, the smell and feel of the place,
its emotional intensity, and other phenomena, to the more
permanent archival manifestations such as company re-
cords, products, statements of philosophy, and annual
reports.
The problem with artifacts is that they are palpable
but hard to decipher accurately. We know how we react
to them, but that is not necessarily a reliable indicator

February 1990 • American Psychologist 111
of how members of the organization react. We can see
and feel that one company is much more formal and
bureaucratic than another, but that does not tell us any-
thing about why this is so or what meaning it has to the
members.
For example, one of the flaws of studying organi-
zational symbols, stories, myths, and other such artifacts
is that we may make incorrect inferences from them if
we do not know how they connect to underlying as-
sumptions (Pondy, Boland, & Thomas, 1988; Pondy,
Frost, Morgan, & Dandridge, 1983; Wilkins, 1983). Or-
ganizational stories are especially problematic in this re-
gard because the "lesson" of the story is not clear if one
does not understand the underlying assumptions be-
hind it.
Through interviews, questionnaires, or survey in-
strumeuts one can study a culture's espoused and doc-
umented values, norms, ideologies, charters, and philos-
ophies. This is comparable to the ethnographer's asking
special "informants" why certain observed phenomena
happen the way they do. Open-ended interviews can be
very useful in getting at this level of how people feel and
think, but questionnaires and survey instruments are
generally less useful because they prejudge the dimensions
to be studied. There is no way of knowing whether the
dimensions one is asking about are relevant or salient in
that culture until one has examined the deeper levels of
the culture.
Through more intensive observation, through more

focused questions, and through involving motivated
members of the group in intensive self-analysis, one can
seek out and decipher the taken-for-granted, underlying,
and usually unconscious assumptions that determine
perceptions, thought processes, feelings, and behavior.
Once one understands some of these assumptions, it be-
comes much easier to decipher the meanings implicit in
the various behavioral and artifactual phenomena one
observes. Furthermore, once one understands the under-
lying taken-for-granted assumptions, one can better un-
derstand how cultures can seem to be ambiguous or even
self-contradictory (Martin & Meyerson, 1988).
As two case examples I present later will show, it is
quite possible for a group to hold conflicting values that
manifest themselves in inconsistent behavior while having
complete consensus on underlying assumptions. It is
equally possible for a group to reach consensus on the
level of values and behavior and yet develop serious con-
flict later because there was no consensus on critical un-
derlying assumptions.
This latter phenomenon is frequently observed in
mergers or acquisitions where initial synergy is gradually
replaced by conflict, leading ultimately to divestitures.
When one analyzes these examples historically one often
finds that there was insufficient agreement on certain basic
assumptions, or, in our terms, that the cultures were ba-
sically in conflict with each other.
Deeply held assumptions often start out historically
as values but, as they stand the test of time, gradually
come to be taken for granted and then take on the char-
acter of assumptions. They are no longer questioned and
they become less and less open to discussion. Such avoid-

ance behavior occurs particularly if the learning was based
on traumatic experiences in the organization's history,
which leads to the group counterpart of what would be
repression in the individual. If one understands culture
in this way, it becomes obvious why it is so difficult to
change culture.
Deciphering the "Content" of Culture
Culture is ubiquitous. It covers all areas of group life. A
simplifying typology is always dangerous because one may
not have the fight variables in it, but if one distills from
small group theory the dimensions that recur in group
studies, one can identify a see of major external and in-
ternal tasks that all groups face and with which they must
learn to cope (Ancona, 1988; Bales, 1950; Bales & Cohen,
1979; Benne & Sheats, 1948; Bennis & Shepard, 1956;
Bion, 1959; Schein, 1988). The group's culture can then
be seen as the learned response to each of these tasks (see
Table I).
Another approach to understanding the "content"
of a culture is to draw on anthropological typologies of
universal issues faced by all societies. Again there is a
danger of overgencralizing these dimensions (see Table
2), but the comparative studies of Kluckhohn and Strodt-
beck (196 I) are a reasonable start in this direction.
If one wants to decipher what is really going on in
a particular organization, one has to start more induc-
tively to find out which of these dimensions is the most
pertinent on the basis of that organization's history. If
one has access to the organization one will note its artifacts
readily but will not really know what they mean. Of most
value in this process will be noting anomalies and tl~ngs
that seem different, upsetting, or difficult to understand.

If one has access to members of the organization one
can interview them about the issues in Table I and thereby
gee a good roadmap of what is going on. Such an interview
will begin to reveal espoused values, and, as these surface,
the investigator will begin to notice inconsistencies be-
tween what is claimed and what has been observed. These
inconsistencies and the anomalies observed or felt now
form the basis for the next layer of investigation.
Pushing past the layer of espoused values into un-
derlying assumptions can be done by the ethnographer
once trust has been established or by the clinician if the
organizational dieut wishes to be helped. Working with
motivated insiders is essential because only they can bring
to the surface their own underlying assumptions and ar-
ticulate how they basically perceive the world around
them.
To summarize, if we combine insider knowledge
with outsider questions, assumptions can be brought to
the surface, but the process of inquiry has to be interactive,
with the outsider continuing to probe until assumptions
have really been teased out and have led to a feeling of
greater understanding on the part of both the outsider
and the insiders.
I 12 February 1990 • American Psychologist
II ̧ I ] II I I I
Tab le 1
The External and Internal Tasks Facing All Groups
External adaptatk)n tasks Internal integration tasks

Developing consensus on:
1. The core mission, functions, and primary tasks of the
organization vis-&-vis its environments.
2. The specific goals to be pursued by the organization.
3. The basic means to be used in accomplishing the
goals.
4. The criteria to be used for measuring results.
5. The remedial or repair strategies if goals are not
achieved.
Developing consensus on:
1. The common language and conceptual system to be used,
including basic concepts of time and space.
2. The group boundaries and criteria for inclusion.
3. The criteria for the allocation of status, power, and
authority.
4. The criteria for intimacy, friendship, and love in different
work and family settings.
5. The cdteria for the allocation of rewards and punishments.
6. Concepts for managing the unmanageabie--ideology and
religion.
Note. Adapted from Organizational Culture and Leadership (pp.
52, 56) by E. H. Schaln, 1985, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Copyright 1985 by Jossey-Bass.
Adapted by permission.

I
Two Case E x a m p l e s
It is not possible to provide complete cultural descriptions
in a short article, but some extracts from cases can be
summarized to illustrate particularly the distinctions be-
tween artifacts, values, and assumptions. The "Action
Company" is a rapidly growing high-technology manu-
facturing concern still managed by its founder roughly
30 years after its founding. Because of its low turnover
and intense history, one would expect to find an overall
organizational culture as well as functional and geo-
graphic subcultures.
A visitor to the company would note the open office
landscape architecture; a high degree of informality; fre-
netic activity all around; a high degree of confrontation,
conflict, and fighting in meetings; an obvious lack of status
symbols such as parking spaces or executive dining rooms;
and a sense of high energy and emotional involvement,
of people staying late and expressing excitement about
the importance of their work.
If one asks about these various behaviors, one is told
that the company is in a rapidly growing high-technology
field where hard work, innovation, and rapid solutions
to things are important and where it is essential for ev-
eryone to contribute at their maximum capacity. New
employees are carefully screened, and when an employee
fails, he or she is simply assigned to another task, not
fired or punished in any personal way.
If one discusses this further and pushes to the level
of assumptions, one elicits a pattern or paradigm such as

that shown in Figure 1. Because of the kind of technology
the company manufactures, and because of the strongly
held beliefs and values of its founder, the company op-
erates on several critical and coordinated assumptions:
(a) Individuals are assumed to be the source of all in-
novation and productivity. (b) It is assumed that truth
can only be determined by pitting fully involved individ-
uals against each other to debate ideas until only one idea
survives, and it is further assumed that ideas will not be
implemented unless everyone involved in implementation
has been convinced through the debate of the validity of
the idea. (c) Paradoxically, it is also assumed that every
individual must think for himself or herself and "do the
right thing" even if that means disobeying one's boss or
violating a policy. (d) What makes it possible for people
to live in this high-conflict environment is the assumption
that the company members are one big family who will
take care of each other and protect each other even if
some members make mistakes or have bad ideas.
Once one understands this paradigm, one can un-
derstand all of the different observed artifacts such as the
ability of the organization to tolerate extremely high de-
grees of conflict without seeming to destroy or even de-
motivate its employees. The value of the cultural analysis
is that it provides insight, understanding, and a roadmap
for future action. For example, as this company grows,
the decision process may prove to be too slow, the indi-
vidual autonomy that members are expected to exercise
may become destructive and have to be replaced by more
disciplined beha,bior, and the notion of a family may break
down because too many people no longer know each other
personally. The cultural analysis thus permits one to focus
on those areas in which the organization will experience
stresses and strains as it continues to grow and in which

cultural evolution and change will occur.
By way of contrast, in the "Multi Company," a 100-
year-old mnltidivisional, multinational chemical firm, one
finds at the artifact level a high degree of formality; an
architecture that puts great emphasis on privacy; a pro-
liferation of status symbols and deference rituals such as
addressing people by their titles; a high degree of politeness
in group meetings; an …
Page 1 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
Week 5: An Integrative Framework for Understanding
Organizational Culture Change
Learning Objectives:
5.1 Introduction to the dynamics of culture change
Culture change in organizations is often taken for granted as it

is neither an easily
comprehensible process nor could it be perceived as a tangible
outcome like other qualitative
variables, such as performance, integration or rapport.
Therefore, it is important for every
organization to adopt a particular theoretical framework, which
would allow the planning and
implementation of a potential culture change, once the necessity
for change has been
established. In the reading of Week 2, we referred to the
‘competing values framework’ (CVF)
as the most representative psychological model of
organizational culture in the literature
(Cameron & Quinn, 2006). Indeed, the CVF was chosen because
it offers an organizational
culture taxonomy, which is widely used in the literature
(Ostroff, et al. 2003). However, the
theory underpinning the CVF suggests that different culture
types are associated with
indicators of organizational effectiveness as a function of basic
cultural assumptions, values
and structures.
Having presented the model of cultural dynamics in Week 4’s
reading, we are now enabled

to explore the dynamics associated with cultural change, which
involve the gradual integration
of ‘competing values’ and their corresponding culture types, as
depicted in the CVF. The
• Understand the dynamics of culture change
• Understand the applicability of the ‘competing values
framework’ in the
understanding of culture change
• Explore an integrative dynamic framework for organizational
culture change
approach will aim to capitalise on the four processes involved
in the cultural dynamics model
of organizational culture, i.e. manifestation, realization,
symbolization and interpretation.
5.2 Understanding cultural change using the ‘competing values
framework’
According to the CVF, ‘trading-off’ values is an essential

mechanism towards the
formation of organizational culture. The way in which the most
influential group of individuals
within the organization accepts certain values and rejects others
becomes the driving force
towards the formation of the prevailing culture type within the
organization. To this end, when a
different ‘trading-off’ process of values seems more appropriate
according to the changing
beliefs of the members of that group, culture change presents
itself as an organic necessity.
Stated differently, when the prioritization of values changes, the
CVF offers a way to observe
and explore the emergence of a new culture type (please refer to
Week’s 2 reading and Figure
2.1 in order to remind yourselves of the CVF).
Therefore, the CVF is used in order to diagnose and initiate
culture change. In order to
identify what needs to change within an organization, a specific
diagnostic instrument may also
be used. Such an instrument will help reveal aspects of the
organization’s culture that cannot be
identified or be articulated, otherwise, by the senior members of
the management team.

Although there is no consensus in the literature as to what sort
of diagnostic instrument may be
most effective, in this regard, the Organizational Culture
Assessment Instrument (OCAI), was
repeatedly found to be a valid and reliable tool for diagnosing
the necessity of cultural change
(Cameron & Quinn, 1999). For this reason, we adopt the OCAI
for the purposes of this reading
in an attempt to explore the dynamics underlying the emergence
of a new culture profile within
an organization. The OCAI is a six-step instrument which starts
with the diagnosis of the
necessity for change, moves on to the designing of a cultural
change strategy and ends-up with
the implementation of cultural change. The OCAI is presented
in Figure 5.1. The worksheet for
scoring the OCAI is provided in Figure 5.2.

PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
Figure 5.1 The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument
(OCAI)
1. Dominant Characteristics Now Preferred
A
The organization is a very personal place. It is like an extended
family.
People seem to share a lot of themselves.
B
The organization is a very dynamic entrepreneurial place.
People are
willing to stick their necks out and take risks.
C
The organization is very results oriented. A major concern is
with

getting the job done. People are very competitive and
achievement
oriented.
D
The organization is a very controlled and structured place.
Formal
procedures generally govern what people do.
Total
2. Organizational Leadership Now Preferred
A
The leadership in the organization is generally considered to
exemplify
mentoring, facilitating, or nurturing.
B
exemplify

entrepreneurship, innovating, or risk taking.
C
exemplify a
no-nonsense, aggressive, results-oriented focus.
D
exemplify
coordinating, organizing, or smooth-running efficiency.
Total
3. Management of Employees Now Preferred
A
The management style in the organization is characterized by
teamwork,
consensus, and participation.

B
individual
risk-taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness.
C
hard-
driving competitiveness, high demands, and achievement.
D
security of
employment, conformity, predictability, and stability in
relationships.

Total
4. Organization Glue Now Preferred
A
The glue that holds the organization together is loyalty and
mutual trust.
Commitment to this organization runs high.
B
The glue that holds the organization together is commitment to
innovation and development. There is an emphasis on being on
the
cutting edge.
C
The glue that holds the organization together is the emphasis on
achievement and goal accomplishment. Aggressiveness and
winning

are common themes.
D
The glue that holds the organization together is formal rules and
policies. Maintaining a smooth-running organization is
important.
Total
5. Strategic Emphases Now Preferred
A
The organization emphasizes human development. High trust,
openness, and participation persist.
B
The organization emphasizes acquiring new resources and
creating new
challenges. Trying new things and prospecting for
opportunities are

valued.
C
The organization emphasizes competitive actions and
achievement.
Hitting stretch targets and winning in the marketplace are
dominant.
D
The organization emphasizes permanence and stability.
Efficiency,
control and smooth operations are important.
Total
6. Criteria of Success Now Preferred

A
The organization defines success on the basis of the
development of
human resources, teamwork, employee commitment, and
concern for
people.
B
The organization defines success on the basis of having the
most
unique or newest products. It is a product leader and innovator.
C
The organization defines success on the basis of winning in the
marketplace and outpacing the competition. Competitive
market
leadership is key.
D

The organization defines success on the basis of efficiency.
Dependable delivery, smooth scheduling and low-cost
production are
critical.
Total
Figure 5.2 A Worksheet for Scoring the OCAI
NOW Scores
1A 1B
2A 2B
3A 3B

4A 4B
5A 5B
6A 6B
Sum (total of A responses) Sum (total of B responses)
Average (sum divided by 6) Average (sum divided by 6)
1C 1D
2C 2D
3C 3D
4C 4D
5C 5D
6C 6D
Sum (total of C responses) Sum (total of D responses)

PREFERRED Scores
1A 1B
2A 2B
3A 3B
4A 4B
5A 5B
6A 6B
Sum (total of A responses) Sum (total of B responses)
1C 1D
2C 2D
3C 3D
4C 4D
5C 5D
6C 6D
Sum (total of C responses) Sum (total of D responses)

In order to understand the dynamic aspects of culture change, an
integrative framework
involving the combination of the cultural dynamics model
(Hatch & Schultz, 2002) and the
‘competing values framework’ (Cameron & Quinn, 2006) will
be explored. The exploration
involves the following three stages:
(i) Diagnosing the necessity for culture change;
(ii) Employing the CVF in order to understand the preferred
culture profile for the
future; and
(iii) Exploring an integrative dynamic framework in cultural
change
These stages and their combined operation are described in the
next section.

5.3 Culture change using an integrative dynamic framework
(i) Diagnosing the necessity for cultural change
Τhe first stage of culture change involves the identification of a
set of individuals within
the organization who have experience, not only on a particular
division but also on the overall
operation of the organization. These individuals will form the
change team and they must
generate a consensual view of the current and preferred
organizational culture in terms of
certain representative characteristics associated with the values
of the organization, a purpose-
specific perspective about organizational leadership, the
management strategy of employees,
the principles that hold the organization together
(organizational ‘glue’), strategic emphases
and criteria of success.
The interesting part of this stage is the encouragement of
experienced employees to
participate in the decision-making process of the organization
and the effort made in order to
discuss controversial topics and aim to reach a consensus on

those. For example, aspects
associated with management strategies and behaviours, the
growth trajectory, rituals and
symbols, etc. (Denison & Spreitzer, 1991). This process is
expected to enable the participants
to identify potential problems with the existing culture, such as
the lack of consistency with
technological innovation, ongoing societal values, ethical
dilemmas; the lack of clarity on the
growth or expansion strategy, etc. The identification of those
problems will essentially form
the basis for establishing the necessity of change.
In addition to the above, the same group of individuals need to
consider the preferred
culture for the future. They must consider aspects associated
with the future vision of the
organization in terms of success prospects, current trends in the
sector, productivity, growth
and performance, areas of underdevelopment, customers’
expectations, competitors’ strategies,
the future prospect as an influential player in the industry, etc.
The comparison between the
“current culture” and the “preferred culture” profiles will
provide the information needed in

order to diagnose the necessity, or lack thereof, for change.
(ii) Employing the CVF in order to understand the preferred
culture profile for
the future
Having established the necessity for change, the group of
people, who get together in order
to discuss organizational culture change (change team), is ready
to understand what potential
changes will and will not mean for the organization. In order to
explore this aspect, we employ
the CVF, as portrayed in Figure 2.1 (Week’s 2 reading). We
reproduce it here for convenience
(Figure 5.3).

Flexibility and
Discretion
Internal
External
Focus and
Focus and
Integration
Differentiation
Stability and Control
Figure 5.3 Cameron & Quinn’s Psychological Model of
(The Competing Values Framework (CVF))
(Reproduced by Cameron & Quinn, 2011)
Clan culture

(collaborate)
Market culture
(compete)
Hierarchy
culture (control)
Adhocracy
culture (create)
Firstly, the change team must utilise the OCAI in order to
derive average scores for each of
the six major topics covered in the instrument (refer to Figures
5.1 and 5.2). Subsequently,
those scores will be used in order to plot the current and
preferred culture profiles
schematically using the CVF (refer to Figure 5.3). Once the
graph is completed, the team must
compare the two profiles and decide which type of culture (out
of the four available) must be

emphasized or de-emphasized. In other words, the comparison
would start revealing the details
of the organizational necessity to change based on the
identification of new cultural directions.
In this respect, the team must attempt to understand those
details and aim to agree upon what it
means, and what it does not mean, placing additional emphasis
or reducing existing emphasis
on a particular type of culture.
It should be obvious by now that this stage of culture change
silently involves the (implicit)
comparison of the ‘trading-off’ processes between values
associated with the existing culture
and values associated with the preferred culture for the near
future. Aspects to consider include
specific attributes of each type of culture; the set of symbols or
values that, although they
belong to a different than the preferred type of culture, are still
important for the organization
and must somehow be preserved; the set of assumptions, values,
artifacts and symbols
characterising the new culture profile, etc. Nonetheless, the
implied ‘trading-off’ process will

initiate a debate among the members of the change team in
order to reach a consensus on the
key factors which would define the change of the organizational
culture. The aim is to create a
broad consensual vision about what the preferred culture and its
representative attributes will
be.
Furthermore, the ‘trading-off’ process and the resulting debate
are expected to help the
change team identify certain core characteristics of the
organization, which are associated with
its history and uniqueness, and aim to preserve those. It is
important to note that, although such
characteristics may be falling within a less-emphasised quadrant
of the CVF (refer to Figure
5.3), they must still be preserved as indicative of the
organization’s corporate character.
However, the characteristics of the preferred culture for the
future must not be simply
identified and be recognised through lists and change strategies.
They must also be
communicated to the employees of the organization using a
familiar means of communication.
One powerful means of communication, which is often used in

cultural change is story telling.
The change team must identify two or three incidents or events
that illustrate the key
characteristics they want to permeate the future organizational
culture and aim to communicate
those using eloquent stories. To achieve this, the change team
will aim to hear all different
stories associated with the core characteristics of the new
culture in order to decide which ones
actually articulate and convey the preferred attitudes and values
of the new culture.
Subsequently, the team must reflect upon and derive lessons
from those stories, which could,
in turn, be presented as moral messages to the employees of the
organization.
(iii) Exploring an integrative dynamic framework in culture
change
So far, we employed the CVF, which allowed us to identify the

details of the preferred
culture for the future and, perhaps, the more effective way in
which the new elements of
culture may be communicated to the employees of the
organization. However, we are yet to
identify an action plan and an implementation plan of cultural
change. In order to do this, we
return to the cultural dynamics model, presented in Week 4’s
reading (Figure 4.1). The
approach we are going to follow is to attempt to integrate the
scores derived from the OCAI
with the CVF outcomes provided by the previous stage and the
mechanics of culture re-
emergence offered by the cultural dynamics model. We call this
approach an integrative
dynamic framework.
Firstly, a strategic action plan must be devised to guide actions
and behaviours associated
with cultural change. The action plan must involve the
following three questions:
1. What should we do more of?
2. What should we start?

3. What should we stop?
The idea of those questions is to guide the decisions which must
be taken in order to identify
the particular details associated with the actions to be taken.
For this reason, in order to
delineate the details of the new culture profile, it is important to
be able to recognise what
should be started, what should be stopped or what should be
continued in terms of policies,
strategies or decision-making procedures. For example, the new
cultural profile might require
new ethical policies to be introduced; wasteful, redundant, non-
value-adding or attention-
deflecting activities to be terminated; certain new symbols,
metaphors and rituals to be
introduced in order to represent the new culture; new processes
or systems to be redesigned;
new means of communicating effectively the new cultural
values to be devised; etc.
Τhe three questions must be carefully considered in the context
of the OCAI’s six
themes, as specified in Figure 5.1 above, i.e. the dominant
characteristics of the new culture,
the organizational leadership, the management strategies of the

employees, the organizational
‘glue’, the strategic emphases and the criteria of success. These
six themes must guide the
answers to the three questions stated above. Furthermore, the
answers to the questions must be
sought for all four types of culture specified in the CVF, i.e. the
clan culture, the adhocracy
culture, the hierarchy culture and the market culture.
However, it is by no means easy to ensure the validity and
applicability of the final
action plan. The following aspects were proposed by Cameron
& Quinn (2006) and they are
considered to be meaningful ways in terms of deriving
actionable points associated with
cultural change:
(a) Identification of small wins. It is important to find
something easy to change, change it and
celebrate it with all the employees of the organization. This will

inspire a spirit of trust and
help cultivate belief in the new culture type.
(b) Generate social support. Making the effort to listen to the
views of those who will be
affected by the upcoming change is critical. It is meaningful to
allow them space and time
to have their voice heard, feel understood and valued by the
people who will be leading the
cultural change within the organization.
(c) Design follow-up and accountability. An action plan without
specific time frames for the
different stages of cultural change might cause anxiety and
insecurity. Therefore, it is
important to develop mechanisms for ensuring that all
individuals involved in cultural
change will follow through on commitments and assignments
within specific time frames,
so that change actually occurs timely.
(d) Provide information. In the absence of information, people
involved with the process of
cultural change might make up their own. Therefore, it is
important to aim to provide
information on a regular basis.

(e) Devise measures. The different stages of cultural change
must be accompanied by certain
measures/indicators based on a specified set of criteria and
specific data analysis methods.
For this reason, any data analysis must be associated with a
clearly-defined data collecting
mechanism, so that people have access to the primary data
associated with change.
(f) Create readiness. As discussed previously, change will most
certainly be accompanied by
a degree of resistance – at least in the beginning. For this
reason, it is important that all
individuals of the organization are aware of the possible
advantages of the future cultural
profile, potential disadvantages of the current culture, the
identified gaps between current
performance and potential future performance without the
change, availability of resources
for implementing change and the upcoming rewards mechanism

associated with the
achievement of specific cultural change milestones.
(g) Explanations. Providing explanations to the people involved
with cultural change or those
who will be directly affected by it is necessary in order to
alleviate stress and reduce
resistance. Sometimes, senior managers believe it is not
necessary to provide a lot of
explanations as a means of circumventing possible anxiety
associated with upcoming
changes. However, research in communication indicates that
this is not the right strategy
because lack of explanation actually reinforces resistance to
change (Chan & Lin, 2007).
(h) Celebrate the past. The transition from the existing culture
to the future culture might
invite certain questions about “what went wrong” that instigated
the change. Therefore, it is
necessary to communicate the positive aspects of the previous
culture, whose impact could
be reinforced with the introduction of the new culture.
Similarly, it would be meaningful to
criticise the negative aspects of the current culture, whose
impact could be reduced with the

introduction of the new culture. By linking the past, present and
future in terms of the
prospect of cultural development to enable better and more
effective organizational
performance is expected to help people who may be sceptical
with cultural change.
(i) Change the symbols. In the previous reading, we discussed
the importance of symbols in
terms of embracing a particular culture. Therefore, it is highly-
meaningful to identify new
symbols that will signify the new culture and offer people a
means of interpreting values
and artifacts associated with it. This is expected to enable the
individuals of the
organization to start building a collective consciousness around
the set of values that
characterise a common professional identity.
(j) Focus on processes. Cultural change requires time. For this
reason, emphasis must be
given to the different processes involved in cultural change. For
example, core business
processes, such as designing, manufacturing, delivering,
advertising, etc. must be changed.

Similarly, processes associated with the professional
development of employees must also
be emphasized, such as the recruitment process, the appraisal
process, the system of
rewarding performance, etc.
The above list is by no means exhaustive. However, it indicates
the usefulness of an action
plan in terms of ‘translating’ the complexity associated with
cultural change into a set of
clearly-defined activities.
In the final step of the integrative framework, the actionable
points must be
implemented. Therefore, an implementation plan seems
necessary. The implementation plan,
must be designed around the different aspects of cultural
dynamics associated with cultural
change. These are identified below:
(i) The ‘trading-off’ process of values

The process to determine what cultural change may mean in
practice involve emphasizing
and de-emphasising characteristics of certain culture types. In
the context of the CVF, this
means moving from one quadrant to the other in Figure 5.3.
However, such movements do not
imply complete acceptance of a new culture type or complete
abandonment of another culture
type. The cultural dynamics involved in the underlying ‘trading-
off’ process of values may,
indeed, lead to many interactive regressions among the different
quadrants, in Figure 5.3, and,
hence, among the different types of culture and the different
degrees of flexibility, stability,
differentiation and integration. This indicates that cultural
change is a highly-complicated
process in which individuals of the organization try to identify
what change actually means in
terms of common values. This, in turn, acts as an influence on
the ‘acceptance’ or ‘rejection’
processes of certain values.
Ultimately, a specific culture type, represented by only one
specific quadrant, will be

determined designating the prevailing culture type of the
organization following change. In
other words, the elements of the new culture type will manifest
themselves through the cultural
dynamics interactions, i.e. through the new wave of the
processes of manifestation, realization,
symbolization and interpretation.
(ii) The personalization of change
Culture change cannot occur without the personal involvement,
commitment and active
support of the individuals of the organization. This is called the
personalization process and it
may be achieved in four different ways, as follows:
- Learning: clarifying the principles on which change will be
based
- Contributing to the action plan: helping put together change-
related actionable points
- Supporting others: helping others understand the possible
impact of change
- Monitoring: helping clarify the key criteria of success
In practice, the above ways were proven to be very effective
mechanisms for creating

readiness for change. This is simply because such mechanisms
are multi-faceted and they
allow individuals to experience change from many different
perspectives/roles. For example,
as learners, as contributors, as supporters or as evaluators of
change. As a result, the
personalization process enables each employee to identify
behaviours and competencies
associated with the new culture that require development or
improvement; something that, in
turn, is expected to help reduce resistance to cultural change
among the individuals of the
organization.
It is important to note that the personalization process, as
described above, suggests that a
series of changing concepts and entities will be occurring
simultaneously. Therefore, the
personalization process is a very dynamic process, whose
ultimate outcome, in terms of each

individual’s degree of commitment, resistance, acceptance,
involvement, etc., cannot be easily
predicted. Waterman, et al. (1980) recommended the “seven S
model” to help us understand
the dynamic character of the personalization process, as
follows:
- Change of structure
- Change of symbols
- Change of systems
- Change of staff
- Change of strategy
- Change of leadership style
- Change of managerial skills
The personalization process requires not only for all seven ‘S’,
as described above, to be
pursued simultaneously, but also be aligned and be coordinated
in order to facilitate change.
The reader must be in a position to observe the consistency of
the OCAI with the dynamic
nature of cultural change, by now. Please refer to Figure 5.3. It
is easy to check that both of the

processes associated with cultural dynamics, as mentioned
above, i.e. the ‘trading-off’ process
and the personalization process are adequately covered by the
six major themes included in the
…
Week 1: Introduction to Organizational Culture
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
• Assess the contribution of each approach to the
conceptualisation of
• Be familiarised with the most representative models of
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.
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:
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).
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.

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.
Figure 1.1 provides Harrison’s organizational culture model.

Figure 1.1. Harrison’s Sociological Model of
(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

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

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
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.
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.

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.
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.

Schneider’s model is shown in Figure 1.3.
Actuality
Personal
Impersonal
Possibility
Figure 1.3. Schneider’s Anthropological Model of
(reproduced by Schneider, 1994)

Collaboration
culture
Competence
culture
Cultivation
culture
Control culture
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.

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 …
Week 4: Cultural Change in Organizations

1.1 The need for organizational culture change
Every author in organizational culture agrees that change is not
optional, its velocity will
increase exponentially in the next 10 years and its influence is
both ubiquitous and
unpredictable (Hannah, et al., 2003). Indeed, technological and
information advancements
created an environment intolerant of status-quo for every
modern organization. If an
organization decides to ignore the necessity of change, market
forces will simply render it
unviable. Therefore, the challenge for modern organizations is
how to succeed in connecting
change with organizational effectiveness.
Quinn (2000) suggested that if we want to ensure that change is
managed in such a way so
to increase effectiveness, one needs to firstly identify the nature
of organizational change.
Stated differently, we must first seek to understand the

characteristics of the intended change
and, subsequently, try to device and implement different
strategies of managing it. Quinn
mentioned three versions of organizational change, which have
been repeatedly validated by
many authors, as follows:
(i) Change as a grand technocratic project
(ii) Change as an organic social movement, and
(iii) Change as the re-framing of everyday life
The three approaches are not contradictory. In fact, it is often
the case that more than one
of those approaches may be in operation in real-time
organizational change.
• Understand that need for organizational culture change
• Understand the concept of cultural dynamics
• Understand the processes involved in the most representative
model of
organizational cultural dynamics

In the first case, organizational change is considered to be a
large-scale cultural
transformation from a particular situation to a new, more
profitable and prosperous one. The
senior management team is considered to be responsible for
initiating the change, as well as
identifying the new cultural form needed. The practical aspects
primarily involve the planning
and resource re-allocation, but also a series of highly-
demanding decisions that must be taken.
Those decisions should cover the following:
- Evaluation and analysis of the status quo culture situation
- Identification of strategic future goals
- Evaluation and analysis of the expected form of the new
culture situation
- Analysis of the observed discrepancies between ‘what is
desired’ and ‘what exists’
- Development of a plan for achieving the cultural
transformation
- Implementation of the plan for cultural transformation
- Evaluation of the magnitude of change needed (containing

cultural change or
continuing the efforts for further change)
The most common means for achieving cultural change could
involve traditional
expansion-related tools, such as new recruitment strategies, new
performance appraisal
systems, promotion of people who share key values of the new
culture, etc. Furthermore, other
management-related tools may also be used, such as a new
leadership style which
communicates the new cultural values to the majority of
employees, new forms of
interpersonal socialization or new training programmes of
continuing professional
development.
Although the above means for achieving change may seem to be
very reasonable, it is
important to consider the operational definition of
organizational culture, as defined in the
reading of Week 2. I reproduce it below for convenience:
“Culture is the collective programming of the mind that
distinguishes the members of one
group or category of people from others based on shared values,

beliefs and assumptions
about how to behave, interact, perform, lead and make
decisions.”
This definition may not involve the word change, but it does
refer to the ‘collective
programming of the mind’ in the sense of collective
consciousness about a specific set of
values, norms or beliefs. This, by its very nature, cannot be a
fixed entity. Given that cultural
values are defined in relation to societal ideologies and
acceptable patterns of behaviour, it is
reasonable to assume that those values will be changing in order
to ensure that, at any given
period of time, they will be representing the majority of the
employees of the organization.
For this reason, the use of new organizational symbols becomes
an important means of
accomplishing organizational change. For example, certain
actions, such as the use of meetings

in a ritual way or the managers’ references to specific topics,
may be used to indicate what is
important in this cultural change. Similarly, the use of very
specific language, such as
intentional slogans, stories or expressions, or the use of
material objects, such as logos, dress
code or corporate architecture, etc., may also be used to
familiarise individuals with the new
cultural values or to highlight the areas of expected change.
In the second approach, organizational culture change is
considered to be an organic,
necessary social movement arising from within the organization
and it is not imposed from the
senior managers. Groups within the organization revise their
thinking, valuing and giving
meaning to ‘phenomena’, spontaneously, and they decide to
follow the flow of new emerging
ideas, which eventually lead to the adaptation or change of
certain values and beliefs. These
groups could be employees, who are able to understand the new
ideas originating in society at
large, or certain groups of people whose external influence of
the organization is significant.
For example, a group of the organization’s customers, a group

of the organization’s major
competitors, etc. The most important point in this approach is
the differentiation between a
moderate adaptation and a major change of the existing culture.
The former is usually the
result of external pressures to adjust to new working conditions,
such as new technological
equipment, new working relations, new management strategies,
etc. The latter is the result of
institutional pressure to change long-held beliefs, ideas and
values.
The third approach is the re-framing of everyday life. This
approach adopts the view that
organizational culture may change through the re-framing of
certain meanings or values by an
influential actor, either a senior manager or an influential
employee. This re-framing concerns
the way in which certain values are perceived or the different
meanings assigned to them. The
actor engaged in everyday re-framing influences people he/she
interacts with, and these
people, in turn, influence other people they interact with. This
may lead to a chain-effect of
cultural re-framing, which is, ultimately, translated into

organizational cultural change. To this
end, organizational culture change becomes an ongoing informal
activity involving
pedagogical leadership in which an actor exercises a subtle
influence though the re-negotiation
of meaning (Alvesson, 2003).
It is important to note that the three approaches have only been
briefly presented in order
to place emphasis on the complexity associated with
organizational culture change. Indeed, all
three approaches imply that, in order to effectively manage
organizational change, a
sophisticated framework is necessary to guide relevant
strategies and operations. For this
reason, the concept of cultural dynamics will be presented in the
next section. Further
discussion on the theoretical and practical aspects of the
management of organizational culture
will be discussed in the reading of Week 5. The discussion will

aim to utilise key aspects of
cultural dynamics.
1.2 Cultural dynamics
The idea of cultural dynamics arose from the realization that
the emergence of
organizational culture may not be fully understood based on the

assumption that the dominant
values of an influential group of employees is transformed into
a type of culture. The concept
of cultural dynamics refers not only to the final outcome of the
emerging culture, but also the
processes involved in terms of the way in which a system of
values is transformed into a stable
type of culture and its potential change. In other words, cultural
dynamics reveal the dynamic
nature of culture by investigating not only the starting point and
the final outcome, but the
intermediate processes, as well.
Hatch & Schultz (2002) provided a very helpful model of
cultural dynamics in
organizational culture, which attempted to explain the
evolutionary and dynamic nature of
culture. The model is considered to be the most representative
framework for understanding
the notion of cultural dynamics in the literature.

This model is presented in Figure 4.1 below.
Manifestations
Realization
CULTURE
Interpretation
Symbolization
Figure 4.1 The Cultural Dynamics
Model

The first thing we can observe in Figure 4.1 is the four
processes associated with the
emergence of culture. According to the model of cultural
dynamics, organizational culture
cannot be described as a static gradual process. The emergence
of culture occurs while four
different processes are in operation, as follows: manifestation,
realization, symbolization and
interpretation. These processes involve interactions between
cultural assumptions, values,
artifacts and symbols, which continuously operate in specific
ways leading to the emergence of
a stable culture, but also the creation of its inherent change
when the time and conditions are
appropriate. In this context, cultural change is simply the
repetition of the four processes with a
different content and different interactions between
assumptions, values, artifacts and symbols.
Therefore, if we are able to understand the functionality
involved in the emergence of culture
using the cultural dynamics model, we will also be able to
understand the dynamics underlying
organizational culture change.

values
Artifacts Assumptions
Symbols
It is important to mention that none of the four prementioned
processes may be perceived
as a ‘stand-alone’ instrumental mechanism. Each process
requires the other three processes in
order to be meaningful. Stated differently, all four processes are
inter-related and their inter-
dependence is responsible for the understanding of the dynamic
nature of culture. Below, the
four different processes are described, in turn.
The manifestation process refers to the way in which cultural
assumptions reveal
themselves in the emotions, perceptions and cognitions of
organizational members. In other
words, manifestation is the process in which intangible
assumptions are translated into

recognizable values by the individuals of the organization. This
process may occur in two
different ways, as follows: (i) through the potential influence of
assumptions on values; and (ii)
through the effects of value recognition on cultural
assumptions. The two ways are discussed
in further detail below.
(i) Influence of cultural assumptions on values (proactive
manifestation)
Cultural assumptions about certain values create expectations to
individuals about the
importance of those values in their working and personal life.
These expectations, in turn, are
capable of influencing people’s perceptions, thoughts and
feelings about things they like or
dislike about the organization, which they associate with those
values. In this way, cultural
assumptions may easily influence the way in which people
within the organization perceive
certain values. For example, if the cultural assumption is that
employees within an organization
are lazy, the expectations would be that this is a factor of
hindering successful performance.
The perception of laziness, as well as the negative thoughts and

feelings about its possible
effects, could easily be translated into a cultural value of
controlling laziness. Furthermore, the
realization that laziness may compromise the magnitude of
possible effort exerted by
employees would indicate that the value set effort-autonomy
must be replaced by the value set
effort-control. Therefore, an initial assumption of laziness may
easily transform the significant
value of autonomy into the value of control.
(ii) Influence of values on cultural assumptions (retroactive
manifestation)
When individuals within the organization are conscious of the
dominant value system of
the organization, they are able to recognize and personalize
those values, i.e. they are able to
identify elements of those values that manifest themselves in
their everyday working and

personal life. In this case, there is an ongoing alignment
between values and their
corresponding cultural assumptions. Similarly, there is an
ongoing re-affirmation of the
cultural assumptions from which the values emerged.
However, there are occasions in which new values are imported
either by the senior
management team or by external influences, such as a group of
competitors. In that case, the
new values would lead the re-alignment of the cultural
assumptions in order to reflect not only
the old, but also, the new values. The crucial point is that this
re-alignment will only occur if
the new imported values are perceived to be ‘compatible’ with
the existing culture, otherwise
the manifestation process will dismiss them. If, for example, the
new values are perceived to
belong in another type of culture, the manifestation process
would simply ignore them. This
retroactive manifestation process is considered to be more
important than the proactive one
simply because it either solidifies existing culture or facilitates
cultural change through the
clarification and reaffirmation of the cultural assumptions

(Kunda, 1992).
The realization process refers to the transformation of
expectations into social or
material reality and the maintenance or change of existing
values through the production of
artifacts, such as rituals, organizational stories, humour and
symbolic physical objects. There
are two ways in which this realization process takes place, as
follow: (i) through the
transformation of values into artifacts; and (ii) through the re-
affirmation of values by artifacts.
We will examine both of those processes in further details
below.
(i) Transformation of values into artifacts (proactive
realization)
The realization process gives substance to the expectations
created through the
manifestation process. In other words, the realization process
facilitates an activity whose
outcomes allow expectations and the associated values to be
materialized, i.e. be represented in
some form of artifacts. Such activities could include the
production of objects, such as
organizational reports, newsletter, buildings, etc. or the

Organizational Culture Edgar H. Schein I I I I II I II .docx

Organizational Culture Edgar H. Schein I I I I II I II .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Organizational Culture Edgar H. Schein I I I I II I II .docx

Similar to Organizational Culture Edgar H. Schein I I I I II I II .docx (20)

More from amit657720

More from amit657720 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Organizational Culture Edgar H. Schein I I I I II I II .docx