'Organization culture is a variable that can be controlled and manipulated like any other organizational variable'. Critically discuss this view of culture and organization.
'Organization culture is a variable that can be controlled and manipulated like any other organizational variable'. Critically discuss this view of culture and organization.
In order to examine culture change, it is important to define what "culture" is. Unfortunately, there is some confusion as to its modern meaning. Schneider and Rentsch (1987) make a clear distinction between "climate" and "culture" (climate meaning the ways things are done in the organisation and culture being why they are done that way). Deal and Kennedy (1982) take the more pragmatic view that culture is simply 'the way we do things around here'. But there seems to be no consensus on the definition of culture. Indeed, it has been noted that in organisation theory, there are as many definitions of culture as there are experts on the subject (Ogbonna, 1990).
The most clear cut explanation found, defines culture as the interweaving of the individual into a community and the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes members of one known group from another. It is the values, norms, beliefs and customs that an individual holds in common with members of a social unit or group. (Burrell and Morgan, 1979; Smircich 1983). Members of an organization soon come to sense the particular culture of an organization. Culture is one of those terms that is difficult to express distinctly, but everyone knows it when they sense it.
The concept of culture is particularly important when attempting to manage organization-wide change. Practitioners are coming to realize that, despite the best-laid plans, organizational change must include not only changing structures and processes, but also changing the corporate culture as well. The position of an organization is determined in part by the business or industry the organization is in. Elements of the culture also related to a number of other 'hard' characteristics of the organization. These lead to conclusions about how organization cultures can be and cannot be managed.
Organization cultures should be distinguished from national cultures. Cultures manifest themselves, from superficial to deep, in symbols, heroes, rituals and values. National cultures differ mostly on the values level; organization cultures at the levels of symbols, heroes and rituals, together labelled 'practices'.
Identifying organisations with particular cultures is a relatively new phenomenon that was only really considered since the late 70s. Traditional organizational research takes a scientific approach and assumes that methods are objective. The original move to the cultural metaphor was based on the observation that there is more going on in organizations than completing tasks. Early approaches to organizational culture sought to understand how organizational life is accomplished through communication. Culture focuses on stories, vocabulary, rituals, and other aspects that reveal how organization members interpret organizational life. This early view of culture is what Eisenberg and Goodall (1989) call organizational symbolism.
Since discovering the relative importance of individual culture to particular organisations, it has come under much debate, as to whether culture can be manipulated in addition to other forms of control. A number of arguments have been put forward as to whether or not culture is a variable which is not solidified within a particular organisation, and that it can be controlled to the benefit of the particular firm.
There's been a great deal of literature generated over the past decade about the concept of organizational culture; particularly in regard to learning how to change organizational culture. Organizational change efforts are rumoured to fail the vast majority of the time. Usually, this failure is credited to lack of understanding about the strong role of culture and the role it plays in organizations. That's one of the reasons that many strategic planners now place as much emphasis on identifying strategic values as they do mission and vision.
This essay looks at whether culture is a manageable variable within an organisation. In order to discuss this, it is important to recognise what role culture plays and how much emphasis is placed upon culture within an organisation. The manageability, or otherwise, of culture hinges on the perception of whether culture is something an organisation has or something an organisation is. (Smircich 1983). When viewed as something an organisation has, culture becomes a powerful organisational tool, as it shapes behaviour. But for those researchers who see culture as what an organisation is, the concept is inseparable from the organisation. Weick (1995) illustrated this point by saying 'organisations don't have cultures, they are cultures, and this is why culture is so difficult to change.'
Many researchers do believe though, that culture is something an organisation has, and can therefore be manipulated for the company's benefit. Berger and Luckman (1966) explain that 'culture, like reality, is a social phenomenon which depends on human action and interaction.' But it is also important that employees understand and are fully aware of an existence of culture within that organisation, in order for it to change in the first place. It does not matter what management's intention was when policies were set up, 'The critical issue is how messages are perceived by employees.' (Lebo, 1997). Since every ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Many researchers do believe though, that culture is something an organisation has, and can therefore be manipulated for the company's benefit. Berger and Luckman (1966) explain that 'culture, like reality, is a social phenomenon which depends on human action and interaction.' But it is also important that employees understand and are fully aware of an existence of culture within that organisation, in order for it to change in the first place. It does not matter what management's intention was when policies were set up, 'The critical issue is how messages are perceived by employees.' (Lebo, 1997). Since every person has a unique world view, every employee will perceive these messages in a slightly different way (Brown, 1995). This makes it harder for all to have the same indication of the existing culture, and for that to view to be changed. Before any organisation can attempt to change its culture, it needs to examine, identify and understand its existing culture in detail (Mathew-Juechtre, Fisher & Alford, 1998).
Assuming that collectively, the employees of an organisation did fully recognise that there was a clear culture presence, it is then necessary to evaluate how change of that culture could be implemented in order to examine whether change is possible. Therefore, it is important to look at which factors in an organisation are affected by culture and how that can be manipulated.
In a study of change efforts of two companies, Harris and Ogbonna (1998b) found there are a number of responses by employees to cultural change. These responses were found to be dependent on the strength of the existing subculture and the willingness of the employees to change. Active acceptance and active rejection represent the two extremes of employee responses discovered. Acceptance obviously being the most desirable while rejection is the least desirable response. Other responses were reinterpretation involving employees translating the new culture according to the existing culture; Reinvention involving employees recycling the old culture, disguised as the new culture and dissonance where employees are unsure of what culture they should adopt.
The given reactions illustrate how employees need not necessarily actively resist change in order to thwart a change effort. Even by acting innocently they may be defeating the whole purpose of culture change, providing yet another difficulty to culture change.
Within organisations, generally, management is the dominant culture. Management needs to focus on breaking down any resistance to change. Five major steps have been identified as vital to overcoming the initial employee resistance. Firstly, it is important to recognise the changes that are going to take place. This is not as easy as it first appears and is actually very time consuming and complex. Secondly, management should be caring towards the emotional impact that the changes may have on their. Thirdly, support should be shown for the change from the highest levels of management. This requires unmistakable involvement from senior management. Fourth is the need to create enthusiasm for the change amongst the employees. This is best achieved by discussing the changes with those involved. Fifth is to offer the support of management to those involved in the change (Markham & Benjamin, 1991). Change can be demanding on resources and employees alike and management needs to show an understanding of this at all times.
The projection of employees within a firm has a great deal to do with culture, and their attitude towards the organisation can often indicate what kind of rituals take place. In Casey's article, she talks about a firm named Hephaestus Corporation, and their movement towards a new culture. There is much emphasis from the company to achieve a corporate cultural reconstruction via the employees. The cultural change described, claims it was designed to gain 'employee involvement; to improve productivity and increase customer satisfaction in order to create a culture of excellence and achievement.'
The way Hephaestus describe they wish to achieve this, is by inventing 'a new Hephaestus employee' who would believe that their self development, their source of fulfilment and identity were to be found in working for their organisation. (Ouchi, 1981, Peters and Waterman, 1984).
Clearly this shows that the image projected by the workers is important in signifying the culture and way of business for that particular organisation. There is clear indication here, that employee participation with less emphasis upon hierarchical structures and influence from managers could create a better atmosphere and encourage more participative decision making processes. This would then strengthen employees' sense of responsibility, and feelings of identification and attachment.
The information and communication system within the organisation also needs to be supportive of the desired culture. The importance of informing employees of the desired change in culture is emphasised. A practical example of this is provided by Allied Dunbar, where prior to changing the culture of its administrative unit all the employees in the section received written statements detailing the desired values (Carby, 1985). In the situation of cultural change, importance of communication cannot be understated. If the information is not effectively or sufficiently communicated, it will tend to diminish the attention the employees would otherwise devote to the subject, and this may seriously affect the effectiveness of cultural change. Managers should also try and filter out any negative information about the change and promote all positive aspects. If employees feel they may benefit, they will place more emphasis upon the culture transition, even if it is only for personal well being.
Goldberg (1992) explains, change cannot occur simply by focusing on the individuals, but should be focused at larger groups. This is logically true, as when examining most organisations it is clear that there are definite subcultures which are frequently related to social movements both within and outside of the organisation (Jones, 1997). Within these social groups, there are "peer leaders" who are seen as role models by other staff members, regardless of whether management approves or not. It is for this reason that the culture of these sub groups need to be changed as a whole, rather than as individuals.
Another major focus in the changing of the culture within the organisation rests upon its leadership. Leaders are heavily involved with the control of culture, and many organisations depend upon a strong approach to leadership in order for culture to be managed effectively. Much of the research upon culture and leadership was put forward by Schein (1985), who believed 'that ability to perceive the limitations of one's own culture and to develop the culture adaptively is the essence and ultimate challenge of leadership.'
There are a number of implications with accordance to leadership or management with culture. Since the managerialist perspective sees culture as something that an organisation has, it assumes that it is capable of being modified by organisational founders and corporate leaders. Therefore, 'changing organisation culture is an outcome of transformational leadership which impacts on followers' level of effort and performance'. (Bass and Avolio, 1990). Culture has prompted new arguments over good leadership skills, as often a weak or strong culture is linked to those in charge, and in turn implies how managers can turn their company's culture from the former to the latter. The level of efficiency within the organisation's culture also comes under scrutiny, as a good leader would emphasise a high level of productivity for example.
Just as children learn the norms and values of the societies they are born into by watching their parents, so to do employees learn the culture of the organisation for which they work, by watching those in authority over them (Chittenden, 1997). Yet it is, surprisingly, those in positions of authority within organisations who are frequently the most resistant to cultural change (Schein, 1992; Brown, 1995). This is, however, understandable when one considers that, conservatively, it is the leaders who have been with the organisation for the longest period of time and its norms, values and systems have become embedded in them (Brown, A 1995).
It would be unfair to say, however, that all those in positions of authority are averse to leading organisational change, as there are many who accomplish this admirably and indeed, the fault may not lie with them should the change fail. In many cases it is the leader who implements the change in the culture and this is especially true when a new leader takes over as they are often tied to a new style of leadership which often involves a new culture. Silverzeig and Allen (1996) argue that since new leaders influence the behaviour of their subordinates, they should be perceived not only to be preaching behavioural change but also practising it too.
When Lord King was appointed s the new chief executive of British Airways, it was said to be a key factor behind the change in culture that followed (Thomas, 1985). This was similar when new managing director of Rank Xerox UK was credited with the success of the company's change programme (Chapman, 1988). By implication, organisations wishing to change their cultures should consider hiring new leaders and both new and existing leaders should be encouraged to lead by example with the hope that their subordinates will emulate their behaviours.
As Chittenden (1998) points out, the manager (or leader) must serve as a link between the decision to make the change, and the employees. In order to be effective in this role, everyone within the organisation should have access to the manager, thus reinforcing the idea that organisation(s) are networks of relationships (Sieler, 1998)
In order for organisational culture to be changed, there are a number of other factors that need to be considered in order to successfully bring about a new sense of transformation. One critical factor to the success of the change programme is aid to be performance and reward systems. The behaviours that are appraised, and the factors that are recognised and rewarded provide a good indication to employees in what actions they should take, and what changes they should make in line with the new culture. To encourage employees' favourable disposition towards a desired change in organisational culture, reward systems must be set in context and matched with the desired culture. The recent increases in the use of performance related pay schemes by companies attempting to change their cultures reflect the perceived importance of the reward system in changing culture.
Another influential factor that may be reason for culture to change is the recent movement towards new technology and innovation. In the workplace, there have been significant changes to the organisation and management of work enabled by advanced technologies (Casey, 1996). New innovations, along with global marketplace competition have significantly influenced throughout the 1980s and 1990s creating a movement of reorganisation and cultural reconstruction. It could then be argued that cultures need to change in order to stay in line with other more modern companies who have the ability to do things quicker and more efficiently via IT and globalisation.
An additional factor that hinges on whether culture is a variable that can be changed is the existing level of culture within that organisation. If there is a strong element of culture that already exists and has been present for a long period of time, then this could be much harder to transform. Mercer, an IBM employee, explains how IBM's strong culture made it difficult for the management to manage the organisation in a changing environment. He described the example when IBM's managers tried to modify its belief system to promote the importance of being a low cost producer. This was resisted by many though, because it was perceived to contradict its fundamental philosophy of being a quality conscious company. Bates (1984) made a similar point, arguing that culture is capable of locking people into their own problems due to an unchangeable culture exiting.
Changing the existing culture of an organisation has been successful in some companies. Turnstall's (1983) provides an account of AT&T's successful movement towards a new style of culture in response to environmental pressures beyond the company's control. He indicated that for the company to have not hit disaster, it was necessary that they evaluated logical, operational and organisational obstacles. This was then achieved by a clear change in the culture of the company. This indicates that in some cases, a company may have little choice but to attempt to manage their culture in order to keep the organisation running smoothly.
Changing culture is a process that raises many obstacles for those within the changing organisation. These obstacles stem from basic difficulties in defining, understanding, measuring and managing culture and from resistance to change by both the employees and managers at many levels and in many ways. Because of these various barriers to change it has been said that: "conscious management of organisational culture is at worst an impossibility and at best extraordinarily complex" (Harris & Ogbonna 1998). There is much debate about this; Brown (1995) contends that subtle attempts to change culture may produce results.
It seems there is much emphasis upon cultural change with regard to a new style of leadership in order to highlight that change. A new leader may simply show employees that a fundamental change has been made and more will follow. But new leaders face a hard task when entering an organisation. They must be distant enough so as not to see things through the eyes of their predecessors, yet they must understand the organisation and its politics well enough to be able to develop alternative directions. (Ogbonna, 1998). This paradox sums up the difficulty in changing culture.
Overall it seems that cultural change is a highly complicated experience for those who have to endure it. Clearly there are ways of controlling and managing culture in an organisation, but this is not as easy to achieve as with many other organisational variables. Deal and Kennedy, two of the leading experts in organisational culture, conclude that 'cultural change is still a black art' and that many aspects of an organisation have to be understood for cultural change to create a useful response.
Whether culture can be managed, or is simply left to manage itself, it is an important part of an organisation. It must be understood that culture often needs to change for the organisation to be successful, but this does not create the need for radical change. If some parts of the organisation are redefined and manipulated over time than culture can be moulded for positive benefit.
Bibliography
* Buchanan, David & Huczynski, Andrzej; (1997), Organizational Behaviour, an introductory text, third edition, Prentice Hall.
* Casey, C. (1996) 'Corporate Transformations: Designer Culture, Designer Employees and Post-Occupational Solidarity' Organization 3:3, pp. 317-339
* Anthony, P. (1994) Managing Culture. Bucks: Open University Press
* Deal, T. and Kennedy, A. (1982) Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life
* Linstead, S. and Grafton-Small, R.A. (1992) 'On Reading on Organizational Culture', Organizational Studies 13 (3): 331-55
* Ray, C. (1986) 'Corporate Cultures: The Last Frontier of Control', Journal of Management Studies 23,3: pp. 287-97
* Ogbonna, E (1998), Managing Organisational Culture, Cardiff Business School Publication
