Читать книгу Cultural Reflection in Management - Lukasz Sulkowski - Страница 15

The differently interpreted models, elements and types of culture remain of key significance to the functionalist understanding of organisational culture. Thus, for the purpose of the conducted analysis, I propose to assume that the elements of a functionalist organisational culture are not other organisational sub-systems, such as strategy or organisational structure, but the strictly cultural variables, including values, basic assumptions, norms, artefacts and so on. A model could include those correlations between important variables describing organisational culture allowing us to predict the states of culture. This would fulfil the neopositivist postulates of causative relationships between variables and verifiability. This means that the model would offer the possibility of generating hypotheses concerning culture, and then, with the use of research methods, to reliably verify or at least potentially falsify them. Another consequence of creating a cultural model would be the generation of typologies (classifications) of the types of organisational culture, distinguished by significant criteria. Having made these assumptions, one can begin with the analysis of elements, move on to models and finish with the types of organisational culture and the methodology of studying them.

Values, norms and cultural models that are developed and spread in a given social group can be considered the fundamental elements of culture. ←36 | 37→In the case of organisational culture, the group which is based on the community of values, norms and cultural patterns is organisation. The elements of organisational culture were first distinguished by E. Schein, P. Bate, A. Pettigrew and other authors in the 1970s. Culture elements are of key importance to the neopositivist-functionalist-systemic paradigm because their assumptions are of a systemic and analytical nature. Naturally, this does not mean that the elements of culture are not used in other paradigms. Interpretative, critical and even postmodern cultural studies selectively include cultural elements. As certain divisions have been established in the subject literature, and cultural analysis has been adapted to business practice, it is worth pointing to the ‘canonical’ elements of organisational cultures, including:

• Cultural values,

• Basic assumptions,

• Social and organisational norms,

• Ways of communication, stories, narratives, myths and metaphors,

• An organisational stereotypes,

• Rituals,

• Symbols,

• Customs, traditions,

• Organisational heroes,

• Taboos,

• Cultural patterns,

• Cultural artefacts,

• Subcultures.

In most cases, a culture’s essence is formed by values or basic assumptions which include fundamental questions concerning the attitude towards an organisation (identity), the people in an organisation, the nature of the environment and other existential questions. Values give rise to social norms, understood as the rules of shaping an organisation’s members’ behaviour, which take the form of orders or prohibitions. An important element of organisational culture is the means of communication, which can be described with the use of stories, narratives, myths and metaphors. The first three of these are spread by employees, and are informal, oral descriptions of real – in the case of myths – unreal realities of the organisation from the past, rendering its ‘spirit’ (esprit de corps). Well-documented research shows that the human cognitive apparatus is well prepared to absorb, remember and even intuitively value narratives, especially those that ←37 | 38→are highly emotional⁶³. Probably this is why stories about the unusual activities of an organisation’s leaders, important events or dramatic situations are so well-rooted in the organisation’s ‘collective awareness’. The rhetorical construction of these stories is usually simple, although they often make use of paradoxes, antimonies and metaphors. The humorous elements are also of importance, and are often reflected in suspense and original punch lines.

The fourth important element of communication in organisational culture is metaphor, which also reflects the organisation’s essence. Metaphors are deeply rooted in the minds of managers and other employees, and so influence the way the whole organisation, its social relationships and relations with its environment are perceived. For example, the use of the mechanistic or organic metaphor by managers should have an effect on the number of manifestations of organisational life⁶⁴. The situation is similar to using war metaphors in relation to the free market and competitors.

Analyses of the next element of organisational culture – rituals, have been taken directly from cultural anthropology and sociology. Rituals are routine, ossified ways of action established in an organisation. Rituals are the carriers of the cultural tradition, which is manifested by the symbolic, repeatable activities of people⁶⁵. The most important rituals include initiation rites (the way new employees are treated), rites of passage (action in the face of changing roles), integration (actions supporting employees’ identification with their organisation) and degradation (the ways a loss of prestige is manifested). Rituals serve very important social functions, as on one hand they are statements, and on the other they establish behavioural norms. Regulation is a very significant aspect, as it provides employees with ‘correct’ actions, without the need to think and make decisions in every situation. An organisational behaviour that is not in accordance with the established rituals can be a source of cultural confusion and lead to disintegration of the organisational routine.

Stereotypes are simplified, evaluative images of reality which function in the social awareness⁶⁶. Social actions are to a large extent carried out thanks ←38 | 39→to stereotypes, as they respond to the elementary rule of economy in the decision-making process. Most human perceptions and interpretations are made with the use of assimilated stereotypes, the medium for which is culture. These offer simple, normative regulations concerning all elements of the social reality, and are stereotypical answers to questions related to identity, employee relationships and cooperation with the environment, reflected in other elements of the organisational culture (stories, rituals, language, etc.) and the whole organisation (mission, vision, strategic goals and organisational structure). Leaving functionalism aside, stereotypes in organisational culture can be compared to the patterns proposed by S. G. Harris. He defines patterns as knowledge structures drawn from experience and used in order to act in analogous situations. Harris describes several types of such patterns rooted in organisational culture. For example, ‘me in an organisation’ determines the relationships between individual and collective identities, while ‘personality in an organisation’ integrates personal ideas and memories with the expectations of the other organisation’s members⁶⁷.

A symbol is a thing, person, object or image being a sign of something, associated with a notion and bringing to mind certain – usually deep – meanings. In the case of organisational culture, symbols are signs that reflect cultural values. Functionalism is dominated by a narrowed understanding of symbols as logos, trademarks or colour patterns, while in interpretivism, this understanding is very broad, as actually everything in an organisation can have a symbolic meaning (words, events, situations, figures etc.).

Customs, similarly to traditions, include behaviour, actions and the ways of doing certain things established in a given society. In organisational cultures, customs and traditions are a kind of repeatable and ossified social practice, similar to rituals. The difference is that the usefulness of a given social action is maintained in the collective awareness. For example, an organisational custom could be the ‘group coffee’ shared by employees in the mornings. This has some ritual aspects because it is ossified, but on the other hand, employees correctly recognise its meaning and purpose. Contrary to rituals, customs are usually not as ossified and are more oriented towards individuals.

Organisational heroes are important figures who have left their mark on the organisation. Organisational heroes always include the founders, whose personality, ideas and creativity are usually the original source of the organisation’s ←39 | 40→culture. Other heroes may be managers, directors and charismatic employees. Narratives about heroes and the customs and symbols they created can have a large influence on the directions of an organisational culture’s development. The subject literature offers many publications about ‘organisational personality’ and the link between organisational culture and the people who create it⁶⁸.

A taboo is a notion drawn from depth psychology, and earlier from Freud’s psychoanalysis and cultural anthropology. It is a topic or social activity which is on the one hand hidden and unmentioned, and on the other, important to an organisation – it can even be a time-honoured custom⁶⁹. Taboos are located within the interests of functionalists⁷⁰ and the representatives of alternative paradigms⁷¹. For example, they are often used in relation to the issues of discrimination and stigmatisation of disadvantaged groups in organisations⁷².

Cultural patterns are most often interpreted from the perspective of one of the most popular anthropological books, R. Benedict’s Patterns of Culture⁷³. In the case of organisational culture, these are relatively well-established ways of action, common to all of an organisation’s members, being a manifestation of its configuration of values. Cultural patterns concern all activities, including both the ways of proper behaviour in the organisation and the ways of communication.

Artefacts are notions drawn from anthropology and archaeology, which in the case of organisational culture, mean visible manifestations of the organisational culture’s functioning. These can be physical (spaces, buildings, architecture), behavioural (greeting gestures, non-verbal communication) and lingual (language conventions, forms of addressing each other). The notion of artefacts was popularised in organisational culture by E. Schein, but it entails a ←40 | 41→large degree of ambiguity. On the one hand, similarly to archaeology, its understanding seems to be limited to the visible, mostly material manifestations of culture, but on the other, following the example of cultural anthropology, artefacts can be understood as all manifestations of the basic assumptions and values of organisational culture. An additional challenge is the use of artefacts both in functionalist and interpretative paradigms⁷⁴.

Subcultures are social groups within organisational culture, which build their integration upon opposition to the dominant organisational culture (counter-cultures), or upon looking for autonomy. Subcultures usually crystallise around values that are not thoroughly consistent with the culture of the whole organisation⁷⁵. Examples include the professional subcultures in hospitals, amongst doctors, nurses, managers and others. Subcultures and counter-cultures are key notions for the understanding of culture in the symbolic-interpretative paradigm⁷⁶.

It is easy to see that even a superficial analysis of culture elements reveals they are inseparable. For example, the meanings of norms, cultural patterns, and artefacts to a large extent overlap. All elements of organisational culture described are systemically interdependent, but hierarchically ordered. The reasons and original constituents of culture are values and basic assumptions. Other elements of organisational culture are often considered to be the only manifestations of these deeper elements.

An advantage of this canon of elements is the analytical approach, allowing us to operationalise and study organisational practices and make a consistent division, according to which cultural elements can be separated from other organisational subsystems, such as organisational strategy and structure. A disadvantage of this functionalist division is its incompleteness and the overlapping of culture elements. It seems quite obvious that a mission or structures of power are of a cultural character. Mission reflects values and organisational identity, while the structure of power is the dominant cultural pattern. However, in the case of the functionalist-systemic approach, these two elements should be ascribed to organisational strategy and structure, respectively.

←41 | 42→

Some proposals for the analysis of culture elements, trying to omit these disadvantages of the ‘canon’ of culture elements, are based on an understanding located on the borderline between functionalism and interpretivism. In response, G. Johnson proposed a division into culture elements which is not disjunctive and which places the elements of strategy and structure among culture’s constituent parts. This proposal includes the following elements of organisational culture:

• Paradigm: what the organisation is, its mission and values.

• Control system: processes aimed at monitoring activities.

• Organisational structures: hierarchies and the division of work.

• Structures of power: who makes decisions, using what prerogatives.

• Symbols: logos and utility models, as well as status symbols indicating power.

• Rituals and procedures: meetings, reports, consolidated more than necessary.

• Stories and myths: narratives about people and events, the aim of which is to spread information about what is valued in the organisation⁷⁷.

However, it seems that such broadening of the way culture is understood is quite risky in the case of the neopositivist-functionalist-systemic paradigm. Including organisational strategy and structure in culture means that they cannot be treated as subsystems that are organisationally equal to culture. In this case, studying the relationships between subsystems becomes pointless, while the concept moves closer to understanding culture as a ‘root metaphor’, which is characteristic of non-functionalist paradigms.