Читать книгу Cultural Reflection in Management - Lukasz Sulkowski - Страница 12

When undertaking analysis of the development of the cultural trend in organisations and in management discourse, one has to make a few assumptions. First and foremost, the picture presented will be simplified, and thus will only include the dominant themes of the afterthought and ideas quickly gaining popularity in the management environment. For reasons of clarity, the less-known concepts which complicate the chronological sequence of successive stages in management of cultural afterthought will be omitted. This simplification results in the narrowness of the views of many researchers, who are known more for their most important works than for evolving any contemporary views. For example, E. Schein is usually associated with the birth and development of the concept of organisational culture, as based on functionalism, although his later views would evolve in the direction of the interpretative approach¹. Furthermore, one has to bear in mind that the development of the cultural concepts of the organisation and management are a part of broader thinking on the study of culture in the social sciences and humanities. There are a lot of very complex interdependencies between management and other disciplines examining the culture. Research into organisations draws from the achievements of sociology, cultural anthropology, social psychology, history, development economics, as well as behavioural economics, cultural expertise, linguistics and many other disciplines. At the same time, representatives of other disciplines use the ideas and research which fall within the remit of cultural discourse in management. The picture is further complicated by the division into theoretical and practical topics of cultural afterthought. Theoreticians tend towards research on the complex primary issues of culture in management, such as paradigms and research methodology, while practitioners look for simple solutions which can be translated into managerial actions and organisational techniques. One of the proposed solutions to these issues is a simplified analysis of the development of the cultural trend in management, which can be linked to the development of cultural thought in general. On one hand, the historical background which is the subject of this subchapter will serve the purpose. On the other hand, the placement of the concept of culture in ←15 | 16→management in the broad scheme of social sciences paradigms is simultaneously developed in this monograph.

The cultural afterthought has its roots in the eighteenth century, when the philosophers of romanticism began to take an interest in the development of civilisation, national cultural ideas and the culture-nature antinomy. The catalyst for the development of the concept of culture was the controversial philosophy of J.J. Rousseau, who took a critical look at the Enlightenment’s civilisation ideals glorifying the natural state. Rousseau’s arguments were challenged by the representatives of German and British romanticism, such as J.G. Herder, W. von Humboldt and A. Bastian. The latter proposed understanding culture as the ‘psychological unity of mankind’, which grouped universal ideas (Elementargedanken) with local ludic ideas of national culture (Yólkergedanken)². M. Arnold defined culture in terms of the order of civilisation by contrasting it to anarchy, which was a reference to T. Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’.³ In the second half of the nineteenth century, the Social Darwinism approach dominated views on culture. The philosophy of H. Spencer and F. Galton and L.H. Morgan’s idea of cultural evolution, as well as the evolution of religion, represented a distorted picture of the development of culture from primitive to sophisticated forms, an obvious example of which had to be the enlightened, white European belonging to the ruling elite⁴. In the twentieth century, the cultural topic becomes the core problem of the social sciences and humanities, which remains unchanged at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

The beginning of the twentieth century saw fast development of the cultural idea and, at the same time, the birth of the idea that management could be understood as a science. Cultural issues were not essential to management in the first stages of their development. Representatives of the schools of scientific management and administration neither studied culture nor theorised about it. Actually, both F.W. Taylor and H. Fayol adopted only some pre-suppositional cultural assumptions which, according to critics, included the consolidation of structure and social order (status quo) around a new ruling class, i.e. the technocratic stewards (supervisors, managers)⁵. It pointed towards the nineteenth-century ←16 | 17→concept of elite culture, and contemporarily, it is often the subject of critical – but at the same time – not always balanced assessment⁶. F.W. Taylor, for that matter, began The Principles of Scientific Management with a patriotic appeal to work on ‘national productivity’, and thus indirectly associated management categories with the national community and its cultural values⁷. H. Fayol went even further in the direction of cultural variables, describing among his management principles the esprit de corps – the ‘team spirit’ – which was supposed to be a source of harmony and cooperation. It seems that the concept of esprit de corps can be regarded as the precursor of the organisational culture trend, and is therefore a pre-cultural idea in management⁸.

Increased interest in the cultural processes came from the school of social relations, the creator of which, as is commonly believed, was E. Mayo. Using the results of the famous Hawthorne experiment, Mayo saw the importance of management: the staff team, understood as a group based on social relationships, the communication feedback between subordinates and superiors, effective and personalised leadership⁹, sensitivity towards the emotions of employees and soft skills training¹⁰. A focus on the values in the social group and the social nature of the management process links Mayo’s and Roethlisberger’s concepts with the cultural trend. In the Hawthorne experiment, employees adapted their pace of work and dedication less to their individual remuneration, and more to mutual social relationships and professed values and norms. Mayo also noticed that management is not a purely technical process (social engineering), but above all, constitutes social and psychological interaction. This was a criticism of the tough school of scientific management which marginalised the social sphere of the organisation¹¹. The school of social relations also covers more compromising positions. H.S. Dennison developed the concept of linking managerial control, drawn from scientific management, with the needs of employees and social group ←17 | 18→dynamics, which is the subject of the school of social relations. Ideas similar to those found in organisational culture began to appear in the interwar period in the works of psychologists and sociologists unrelated to the school of social relations¹², such as K. Lewin, R. Lippitt, and R.K. White (social climate)¹³, suggesting that the issue was then mature enough for deeper analysis.

The maturation process of the cultural issue in management in the period before World War II took place against the rapid development of the functionalist and interpretative theory of culture. In the twentieth century, as a result of that second tragic historical experience, the simplified and racist vision of culture in the form of Social Darwinism, derived directly from the nineteenth century, was rejected. Cultural anthropology resulted from universalist perspectives in cultural studies, but gradually came around to cultural relativism. A similar process, sometimes called the ‘linguistic breakthrough’ or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, took place in linguistics and sociology¹⁴. The second epistemological axis of analysis was the problem of the universality of culture. Some researchers, mainly from the school of F. Boas, and then R. Benedict and M. Mead, supported the position of particularism, which was in line with the assumptions of symbolic interactionism, which argued that cultures form an entirety in themselves (gestalt16) and cannot be generalised in research¹⁵. The line of the cultural universalists was developed by the functionalist schools, and later by the schools of structuralism seeking universals of culture. The most important representatives of structural functionalism were B. Malinowski, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and E.E. Evans-Pritchard¹⁶. Thus, in the social sciences, two opposing epistemological perspectives were formed before World War II: interpretivism, which postulated ←18 | 19→relativism and cultural particularism, and functional structuralism based on universalism and cultural realism. This opposition lingered on in the antinomy of the following decades, taking the form of structuralism (C. Levi-Strauss, T. Parsons¹⁷) versus post-structuralism (R. Barthes, J. Lacan, and M. Foucault¹⁸). As the 1960s gave way to the 1970s, cultural anthropology was dominated by the paradigm of the interpretative-symbolic and post-structuralism perspective, reflected in the statement by C. Geertz that ‘man is an animal entangled in a web of meanings he wove himself’, and that the study of culture is ‘an interpretive science involving the search for meaning’¹⁹. Relativism and particularism in the cultural sense take precisely the form of post-structuralism, and later on, postmodernism, finding expression in the development of cultural studies. In the 1970s, S. Hall²⁰ and R. Williams²¹ crystallised a critical neo-Marxist approach to cultural studies, based on the assumptions of radical structuralism. It utilises the intellectual base of the Frankfurt School, P. Bourdieu’s sociology, A. Gramsci and L. Althusser’s Neo-Marxism and radical feminism, thus developing a method of critical cultural studies which involves the ardent analysis of culture as a source of inequality, violence and the means of preservation of an unjust status quo²².

One of the key sources of development of the theory of culture was the increase in the importance of intercultural relationships that came with the development of communication technologies, as well as the ongoing process of globalisation. Many organisations, working on an international scale, were facing specific issues of intercultural management. The huge cultural challenges facing them in the second half of the twentieth century included decolonisation and globalisation. Therefore, even as far back as the 1930s, cross-cultural comparative studies were beginning to quickly develop for pragmatic purposes, namely ←19 | 20→to reduce communication problems and conflicts in social communication. G.P. Murdock was the pioneer of cross-cultural research, carrying out the first comparative statistical study of cultural behaviour²³, while E.T. Hall was a key figure in the development of the pragmatic approach to cross-cultural studies, achieving his competencies while doing consulting work for the U.S. government²⁴. The concepts of cultural dimensions and distances²⁵ became the subject of further study, leading to the fundamental projects in cultural trends in management directed by G. Hofstede and other researchers, who took the cross-cultural perspective into account²⁶.

Sensu stricto, the birth of the theory of organisational culture took place after World War II. E. Jacques used the term with reference primarily to analysis of atmosphere in the workplace (‘organisational climate’)²⁷. In the 1950s and ’60s, research on culture in management was far and few between, and constituted a rather marginal problem. Mainstream research relates to the relationship between a culture and the changes in organisational development, leadership and human resources management²⁸. For example, while analysing this organisational change, A. Bavelas also relates it to ‘culture-specific organisations’, distinguished by other rituals that affect the process of adaptation of new employees²⁹. For two decades, the cultural issue in management has thus developed in two separate ways. On the one hand, it has tended towards a functionalist, narrow understanding of culture as an organisational climate³⁰, and on the other, the comparative studies ←20 | 21→of cultures have developed³¹. Even at this stage, the epistemological afterthought on management emerges, which leads to the conclusion that there is a plurality and inconsistency in the theory of culture and organisation³².

The development of comparative cross-cultural studies, which most significantly relate to management issues, began at the start of the 1970s. In particular, there was a rapid increase in the number of publications after 1980, which was the year the first book on the results of comparative studies of cultures by G. Hofstede was published. These results were then widely deployed in management practise³³. There are a number of cross-cultural comparative studies projects that investigate various aspects of organisations, from the connection of culture with efficiency, through leadership, to change management. Started by E.T. Hall, the pragmatic approach to cross-cultural management results in a number of methods improving competences and training programmes³⁴. In addition to research papers, there is an increase in the number of business guides which take cross-cultural issues into account³⁵. All comparative studies are based on functionalist assumptions and use standardised and representative survey methods. Even today, this is a very important trend in cultural studies, both in management and other social sciences. The most important researchers in this area are G. Hofstede, A. Trompenaars, Ch. Hampden-Turner, R. House, and R. Inglehart. Currently, the key issues for cross-cultural comparative studies are globalisation and multiculturalism.

The beginning of the 1980s also saw a significant increase in the role of the concept of organisational culture. This was likely due to many reasons related both to the logic of the development of cultural discourse in management ←21 | 22→itself, and to external factors. The rapid growth of interest in cross-cultural comparative studies drew the attention of many management researchers and practitioners to the growing role of cross-cultural communication. Globalisation and the opening up of many national economies which so far had autarchic tendencies contributed to a great interest in cultural issues faced by managers. G. Hofstede recognises the confrontation of the American and Japanese models of conducting business – with all their cross-cultural consequences – as one of the causes of the huge expansion of interest in the issue of organisational culture³⁶. An important experience for American business came in the shock caused by the competitiveness of Japanese products on the US market. Even though the Japanese had radically different management models, which were based on collectivism as opposite to the American individualism, they achieved spectacular success in business. Thus, the American myth of management understood as one best way collapsed, and was gradually replaced with the awareness that an organisation is culturally conditioned. Another reason for the interest in organisational culture was the growing popularity of cultural studies in the social sciences and humanities, which embraced new, sometimes radically different views on understanding the culture (e.g. post-modernism and sociobiology). The systemic view of organisation and management was slowly running out of options, as originally it did not include culture as a subsystem. Initially, many management specialists thought that culture would become a remedy for the issues of the theory and practice of management. Research and publications which assumed a broad functionalist understanding of organisational culture became very popular among both theorists and practitioners. Among the large number of authors taking this approach to organisational culture as an internal variable, one can name E. Schein, Ch. Handy, T. Deal, A. Kennedy, P. Bate and A. Pettigrey³⁷, with G. Hofstede as the key representative of the comparative cross-cultural studies approach. Some of the concepts of organisational culture, such as the ‘iceberg model’³⁸ or G. Hofstede’s ‘onion model’, became so popular ←22 | 23→that they even permeated the general public via guides and textbooks³⁹. T. Peters and P. Waterman’s bestseller, which put the value of the organisation at the centre of the proposed 7S model, reached the heights of popularity⁴⁰. The dominant functionalist perspective towards culture assumed that it could be radically changed by means of organising techniques, and in practice, this optimistic approach to cultural change was indeed verified. But many culture transformation programmes of the time gave unpredictable results. With time, even in the opinion of some of the functionalism researchers, culture had become too amorphous and too poorly understood to provide a basis for a theory of management understood in the neopositivist sense.

The development of the interpretative-symbolic view expressed the growing scepticism with regard to the functionalist approach to culture. Researchers such as G. Morgan, G. Burrell and L. Smircich offered a look at organisations through the lens of interpretively understood culture⁴¹. This approach made use of the achievements of the symbolic interactionism paradigm in sociology, cultural anthropology and other social sciences, to describe the phenomenon of organisational culture. It meant that the focus was on anthropologically understood, individual, non-generalised case studies, the aim of which was to capture the meaning of ‘organisation’. Researchers utilizing the concepts of the interpretative understanding of cultural trends include L. Smircich⁴², N. Brunsson, J. Van Maanen, M. Pacanowsky, G. Morgan, M.J. Hatch, I.L. Mangham, M.A. Overington, C. Eden, C. Ouellet, and P. Cossette⁴³. Over time, the interpretative trend became very diverse in its interests, using the achievements of organisational researchers who had not focused on the theory of culture in management before, such as K. Weick⁴⁴.

←23 | 24→

Another cultural trend which appeared in management studies and was inspired by the humanities was postmodernism. Postmodernists took a far-reaching critical look at the functionalist, universalist and objectivist cultural approaches. They proposed the concept of non-fundamentalist discourse based on methodological anarchism. Flagship postmodern ideas, such as deconstruction, simulacrum and metanarration, have gained favour in management. Some authors also used strong metaphors from organisational culture, such as theatre, rhizome and the panopticon⁴⁵. Following the precursors of postmodernism and postmodern philosophers such as M. Foucault, P. Feyerabend, R. Rorty and J.F. Lyotard, a critique of objectivist efforts at cultural research was undertaken and, simultaneously, the ideas of cultural imperialism of modern science were highlighted. Postmodernism is an anti-methodological trend and of the few attempts to use postmodern methods, deconstruction and gloss were found to be essay writings rather than works of science. Some authors, previously interested in anti-functionalist, non-fundamentalist approaches to organisational culture, became postmodernists, including S. Clegg, G. Burrell, R. Cooper, B. Czarniawska-Jorges, M. Kostera, M.J. Hatch, P. Engholm, D.M. Boje, R.P. Gephart Jr and T.J. Thatchenkery⁴⁶. In addition, many researchers and practitioners used metaphors and other concepts embedded in postmodernism. From the point of view of management sciences, postmodernism as a whole has not become a major trend. Nonetheless, it is worth noting its presence in management’s cultural trends. Postmodernism in management is often confused with the interpretative approach and the critical trend. However, the differences are very significant and affect both the epistemological and the methodological sphere, and there will be more discussion of the distinction between non-functional paradigms in cultural studies in subsequent chapters. Radical postmodernism has been sharply criticised, yet in most cases with a well-founded critique on the part of the scientific community of its irrationalism, epistemological relativism, lack of scientific ←24 | 25→rigour and vagueness of the concept⁴⁷. The result of this is the slow fading away of postmodernism in science, including the cultural discourse. Some researchers believe that the loss of importance of post-modernism also marks an increase in the importance of the realistic approach to culture in management⁴⁸.

The most recent research approach to cultural processes in the organisation is the critical view (Critical Management Studies – CMS), although of course its roots can be traced back to the ancient past. In the nineteenth century, Karl Marx described the capitalist exploitation of workers in factories and the bourgeois culture created around it. CMS representatives derive the achievements of the Frankfurt School and radical feminism directly from neo-Marxism. When presenting the metaphor of organisation, G. Morgan interprets it as a ‘mental prison’ and mentions a number of topics critical to the dominant culture of business: opposition to dehumanisation, the lack of responsibility, the exploitation of poorer countries by richer countries, as well as the utilisation of natural resources in a predatory manner and the destruction of ecosystems⁴⁹. According to the representatives of the critical trend, all these problematic cases of the exploitive culture of modern business are systemically conditioned and not purely pathological. Culture in the view of the radical trend is a tool for wielding power. The first author to write about the issue of organisational culture from the critical point of view was H. Willmott, who in 1993 described organisational culture as a kind of ideology, a ‘false consciousness’, psychomanipulation and social engineering aimed at maintaining the status quo in the form of the exploitation of workers⁵⁰. Since then, publications by M. Alvesson, D. Knights, J. Brewis, J. Gavin and A. Prasad have further developed this critical look at culture in management⁵¹.

←25 | 26→

Obviously, this analysis does not exhaust the richness of all schools and topics of cultural discourse in organisations and management. For example, the development of the concept of organisational identity, cognitive organisation, organisational learning and many other aspects of management which can be regarded as cultural has been omitted. They have been assigned to one of the schools by default – for example, organisational identity is an important element of the interpretative understanding of organisational culture. Nor has any analysis of the prospects for the development of the cultural trend been carried out, because it is going to be the subject of the next part of the monograph. Taking into account the simplified nature of the analysis presented, the development of cultural afterthought may still be sorted in the form of eight trends presented below:

1. Preculturalism, encompassing the period from the birth of the management sciences to the creation of the school of social relations, focusing on selected, narrowly understood cultural organisational processes (motivation, esprit de corps), not theorizing on the subject of culture in the strict sense.

2. The school of social relations, which was founded in the 1930s and developed over two decades, which put socio-cultural issues at the heart of the management sciences, yet at the same time did not include explicit afterthought on culture.

3. The work environment trend, developed in the 1950s and 1960s, which grew out of research at the Glacier factory operated by E. Jacques and proposed a narrow understanding of organisational culture in management as a specific ‘organisational climate’.

4. Comparative and cross-cultural communication perspectives, developed in the 1960s, which are also an important area of research contemporarily. These analyse the influence of cultures of different societies on an organisation’s management processes.

5. The universalist understanding of organisational cultural perspectives, related to the huge expansion of research, publications and popularisation of papers in the 1970s, and especially the 1980s, in which organisational culture is understood as an internal variable that affects the efficiency of the organisation and is subject to managerial control through the use of management tools (known as the functionalist paradigm).

6. Cultural interpretivism, developed in the 1980s as a reaction to the universalist trend, which assumed an understanding of culture as a core metaphor.

7. The postmodernism which emerged in management in the mid-1980s, using the assumptions of radical epistemological relativism and cultural relativism.

8. The critical view of culture in management stemming from CMS, which emerged in organisational discourse due to the 1993 publication of H. Willmott’s work and was focused on a critique of the instrumentalist understanding of organisational culture, at the same time proposing the creation of emancipating cultures.

←26 | 27→

Tab. 1: Mainstreams connected with the cultural discourse of organization in chronological order. Source: own work.

←27 | 28→

←28 | 29→

←29 | 30→

A summary of all these trends is found in Tab. 1 above, while the presented cognitive perspectives shall be a subject of analysis in the following chapters.

Analysing the development of the cultural concepts in management sciences, several conclusions may be drawn. The increase in the complexity of the theory and methodology of research is a clear trend. Three identified historical trends (preculturalism, social relations and work environment) have treated the issues of cultural management very narrowly, whereas five of the modern trends have created a very complex and multi-faceted picture of cultural management processes. The increase in the number and complexity of theories is caused both by the ambivalent current results of cultural research in the management sciences, as well as by a rapid increase in the number of schools and paradigms of understanding of management culture in the humanities and social sciences. The cultural discourse in organisations and management draws primarily from other disciplines, which makes the research issue highly interdisciplinary. Currently, in the social sciences (management included), there is no single adopted position on understanding and studying culture. Thus, a reasonable position would be to assume an epistemological and methodological pluralism, which means that it is acceptable to understand the basic concepts in various ways and to use extremely different methods when undertaking cultural research into organisations. At the same time, it is necessary to explicitly define definitions and cognitive and methodological assumptions.

1 E.H. Schein, Culture: The Missing Concept in Organization Studies, Administrative Science Quarterly 1996, 41 (2), 40th Anniversary Issue, pp. 229–240.

2 A. Bastian, Today in Science History, 27 Jan. 2009; A. Bastian, Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, 27 January 2009.

3 A. Matthew, Culture and Anarchy, Cambridge University Press, 1993.

4 W. Raymond, Social Darwinism; John Offer, Herbert Spencer’s Critical Assessment, 2000, pp. 186–199.

5 N. Monin, D. Barry, D.J. Monin, Toggling with Taylor: A Different Approach to Reading a Management Text, Journal of Management Studies 2003, 40, pp. 377–401.

6 E.A. Locke, The Ideas of Frederick W. Taylor: An Evaluation, The Academy of Management Review, Jan. 1982, 7 (1), pp. 14–24.

7 F.W. Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management, 1911.

8 H. Fayol, Administration industrielle et generale; prevoyance, organisation, commandement, coordination, controle, H. Dunod et E. Pinat, Paris, 1917.

9 J.A. Sonnenfeld, Shedding Light on the Hawthorne Studies, Journal of Occupational Behavior 1985, 6, s. 125.

10 A.J. DuBrin, Human Relations Interpersonal Job-Oriented Skills, 9 ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey 2007, p. 2.

11 M. Anteby, R. Khurana, A New Vision, Harvard Business School,www.library.hbs.edu (28.07.2012).

12 B. Kyle, H.S. Dennison, E. Mayo, Human Relations Historiography, Management & Organisational History 2006, 1, pp. 177–199.

13 B. Kyle, H.S. Dennison, E. Mayo, Human Relations Historiography, Management & Organisational History 2006, 1, pp. 177–199.

14 Sapir, Edward. The status of linguistics as a science. Language 1929, pp. 207–214; B.L. Whorf, P. Lee, S.C. Levinson, & J.B. Carroll, Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, MIT press, 2012.

15 F. Boas, Race, Language, and Culture, University of Chicago Press, 1940; M. Mead, Coming of Age in Samoa, William Morrow and Company, 1928, s. 297; R. Benedict, Patterns of Culture, Houghton Mifflin, New York, 1934.

16 B. Malinowski, A Scientific Theory of Culture and Others Essays, Ch. Hill, N. Carolina, The University of North Carolina Press, 1944; A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, Structure and Function in Primitive Society: Posthumously, 1952; E.E. Evans-Pritchard, A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1940.

17 C. Levi-Strauss, Anthropologie Structural, Plon, Paris, 1958; T. Parsons, Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives, 1st edition, Prentice-Hall, p. 120.

18 R. Barthes, Elements of Semiology, Hill and Wang, New York 1967; J. Lacan, The Seminar XI, The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, (editor) J.A. Miller, (translation) A. Sheridan, W.W. Norton & Co., New York 1977; M. Foucault, Surveiller et punir, Gallimard, Paris, 1975.

19 C. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, 1973, p. 5.

20 S. Hall, P. Walton, Situating Marx: Evaluations and Departures, Human Context Books, London 1972.

21 R. Williams, Problems in Materialism and Culture: Selected Essays, Verso, London 1980, Schocken, New York 1981; R. Williams, Reissued as Culture and Materialism, Verso Radical Thinkers Series, 2005.

22 P. Bourdieu, Language & Symbolic Power, Harvard University Press, 1991; L. Althusser, E. Balibar, Reading Capital, New Left Books, 1965.

23 G.P. Murdock, Ethnographic Atlas: A Summary, The University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 1967.

24 E.T. Hall, The Silent Language, New York, 1959.

25 E.T. Hall, The Hidden Dimension, Muza, p. 204; E.T. Hall, Beyond Culture, New York, 1976.

26 G. Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Fontana, London, 1994.

27 E. Jaques, The Changing Culture of a Factory: A Study of Authority and Participation in an Industrial Setting, Tavistock, London, 1951.

28 F. Friedlander, N. Margulies, Multiple Impacts of Organizational Climate and Individual Value Systems upon Job Satisfaction, Personnel Psychology 22, 1969; R.N. Adams, Personnel in Culture Change: A Test of Hypothesis, Social Forces, Dec. 1951, 30 (2), pp. 185–189.

29 A. Bavelas, Some Problems of Organizational Change, Journal of Social Issues, 1948, 4, pp. 48–52.

30 Ch. Argyris, Some Problems in Conceptualizing Organizational Climate: A Case Study of a Bank, Administrative Science Quarterly, Mar. 1958, 2 (4), pp. 501–520.

31 W. Oberg, Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Management Principles, The Academy of Management Journal, Jun. 1963, 6(2), pp. 129–143; E.T. Hall, W.F. Whyte, Intercultural Communication: A Guide to Men of Action, Human Organization, pp. 5–12.

32 K.H. Roberts, On Looking at an Elephant: An Evaluation of Cross-Cultural Research Related to Organizations, Psychological Bulletin, Nov. 1970, 74 (5), pp. 327–350.

33 G. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Newbury Park, Sage 1980.

34 F.E. Fiedler, M.R. Terence, T.C. Harry, The Culture Assimilator: An Approach to Cross-Cultural Training, Journal of Applied Psychology, April 1971, 55 (2); W.B. Gudykunst, M.R. Hammer, R.L. Wiseman, An Analysis of an Integrated Approach to Cross-Cultural Training, Analisis de un enfoque integral al entrenamineto transcultural, Une analyse d’une approche integree a l’environnement transculturel, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Summer 1977, 1(2), pp. 99–110.

35 H.F. Van Zandt, How to Negotiate in Japan, Harvard Business Review, Business School Publication, 1970.

36 G. Hofstede, The Usefulness of the ‘Organizational Culture’ Concept, Journal of Management Studies 1986, 23, pp. 253–257.

37 T.E. Deal, A.A. Kennedy, Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life, Penguin, Harmondsworth 1982; C.B. Handy, Understanding organizations, Penguin, London, 1999.

38 R. Selfridge, S. Sokolik, A Comprehensive View of Organizational Management, MSU Business Topics 1975, 23 (1), s. 46–61; W.L. French, C.H. Bell, Organization Development, Prentice Hall, New Jersey 1979.

39 G. Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Fontana, London 1994.

40 T.J. Peters, R.H. Waterman, In Search of Excellence, Harper and Row, New York 1982.

41 L. Smircich, Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis, Administrative Science Quarterly, September 1983, pp. 339–359; G. Morgan, Images of organization, updated edition, Sage, London, 2006.

42 L. Smircich, Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis, Administrative Science Quarterly, September 1983, pp. 339–359.

43 C. Ouellet, P. Cossette, Les travaux des chercheurs utilisant le concept de cognition en sciences de l’administration: une etude exploratoire, Actes de la 8 Conference Internationale de Management Strategique, Paris, 1999.

44 R.L. Daft, K.E. Weick, Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems, ‘The Academy of Management, Apr. 1984, 9 (2), pp. 284–295.

45 G. Deleuze, F. Guattari, Anti-Oedipus, Trans. R. Hurley, 1972; M. Foucault, Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Vintage Books, New York, 1995.

46 P. Engholm, The Controversy between Modernist and Postmodernist Views of Management Science: Is a Synergy Possible?, Internet, Monash University, May 2001; D.M. Boje, R.P. Gephart Jr, T.J. Thatchenkery, Postmodern Management and Organization Theory, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 1996; M.K. Welge, D. Holtbrugge, International Management under Postmodern Conditions, Management International Review 1999, 39 (4), pp. 305–322; G. Burrell, R. Cooper, Modernism, Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis: An Introduction, Organization Studies 1998, 9 (1), pp. 91–112.

47 N. Chomsky on Post-Modernism, http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-post-modernism.html (10.08.2012); A. Sokal, J. Bricmont, Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science, Prószyński i s-ka, Warsaw, 1998.

48 M. Reed, Reflections on the ‘Realist Turn’ in Organization and Management Studies, Journal of Management Studies 2005, 42, pp. 1621–1644.

49 G. Morgan, Images of Organization, updated edition, Sage, London, 2006.

50 H. Willmott, Strength Is Ignorance; Slavery Is Freedom: Managing Culture in Modern Organizations. Journal of Management Studies 1993, 30 (4), pp. 515–552.

51 M. Alvesson, H. Willmott, Making Sense of Management: A Critical Introduction, SAGE, 1996; D. Knights, H.C. Willmott, Organizational Culture as Management Strategy: A Critiąue and Illustration from the Financial Services Industry, International Studies of Management & Organization 1987, XVII, No. 3, pp. 40–63.J. Brewis, J. Gavin, Culture: Broadening the Critical Repertoire, [in:] The Oxford Handbook of Critical Management Studies, (editors) M. Alvesson, T. Bridgman, H. Willmott, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2009, pp. 234–235; A. Prasad, Postcolonial Theory and Organizational Analysis: A Critical Engagement, Palgrave Macmillan, New York 2003, p. 309.