Organisational culture model by harrison 1993

Organisational Theory

26 August 2014

INTRODUCTION

For the past number of decades, most academics and practitioners studying organizations suggest the concept of culture is the climate and practices that organizations develop around their handling of people (Schein, 2004). Organizational culture is the basic pattern of shared assumptions, values, and beliefs considered to be the correct way of thinking about and acting on problems and opportunities facing the organization. According to Wilson (2014), it is a rationale for people’s behavior, a guideline for action, a cause for condemnation or praise, a quality that makes a company what it is. In relation to the preceding definition, Arnold (2005) indicates that organizational culture is the distinctive norms, beliefs, principles and ways of behaving that combine to give each organization its distinct character.

A clear understanding of organizational culture is virtually imperative in the organisation, as it will help management to understand what the real issues as pertains to the organisation’s operations are, which areas need attention and what can be done to address the identified gaps. There is a need for management to understand the concept of organization culture to better synergy and performance. Social scientists have explored the notion of organizational culture as a perspective in organizational theory over the past decades. According to Zheng (2014) current interests in organizational culture stems from at least four different sources: climate research, national cultures, human resource management and from conviction approaches which emphasize the rational and structural nature of the organization to be unable to offer a full explanation of organizational behaviour.

The origin of organizational culture from a national culture point of view is based, among others, on the work of Deal and Kennedy (1982). According to this view organizational culture is seen as being central to organizational success rather than factors such as structure, strategy or politics. As a result the attention shifted away from national cultures and focused more on organizational culture. Interests in organizational culture from the human resource management and performance point of views stems from the fact that organisational culture was perceived to be offering a non-mechanistic, flexible and imaginative approach to understanding how organizations work (Zhang, 2014). Consequently, organisational culture is considered to be the great “cure-all” for most organisational problems (Wilson, 1992). Other theoretical development of the concept organisational culture includes studies conducted within the field of organisational theory. These studies focused on the description and understanding of the concept organization culture by using typologies or classifications, which include the following:

i. Deal and Kennedy (1982) identified four generic types of cultures to describe organisational culture, namely the tough-guy/macho culture, the work-hard/play-hard culture, the bet-your company culture and the process culture.

ii. Handy (1985) described organisational culture by using four types of classification, namely power, role, task and person cultures.

iii. Schein (1985) used three levels to explain organisational culture, namely artefacts, values and basic underlying assumptions.

iv. Scholtz (1987) identified five primary culture typologies, namely stable, reactive, anticipating, exploring and creative.

v. Hampden-Turner (1990) used four types of culture to describe organisational culture, namely role, power, task and atomistic cultures.

vi. Hofstede (1991) highlighted that cultures differ based on five dimensions, namely power distance, individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity and confusion dynamism.

vii. O’Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell (1991) presented seven primary characteristics to describe organisational culture, namely innovation and risk-taking, attention to detail, outcome orientation, people orientation, team orientation aggressiveness and stability.

The mentioned typologies of organisational culture provide broad overviews of the variations that exist between theorists in their description of this concept. The variations and differences have mainly evolved over time.

The theoretical development of organizational culture has more often than not been characterized by consequent growth of perspectives that form the foundation for organizational culture (Schein, 2004). Because of the various theoretical developments that the concern has had, each idea as prescribe above tends to have its own individualistic look at the perspectives in which organizational culture revolves. However for the purpose of this study I focused on Hofstede’s culture dimensions primarily because of his inclusion of a crucial fifth dimension that pivots an undue bias in favour of his study. There are however particular perspectives that are discussed in the organizational culture theoretical circles that amalgamate all the metatheoretical approaches of the dimensions and they are; Historical perspective, Functional perspective, Symbolic-Interpretive perspective and Modernist Perspective. Notwithstanding the fact that there are other perspectives the study will focus on the modernist perspective and the symbolic-interpretive perspective. These two perspectives are competing perspectives; whereas the modernist perspective takes culture as a variable the symbolic-interpretive perspective chooses to look at culture as a root- metaphor.

According to Symbolic-Interpretive perspective, it describes how people give meaning and order to their experience through interpretive and symbolic acts, forms and processes. This perspective believes that we cannot know external existence but only what we agree exists in our environments. It therefore resembles society in words and symbols, focuses on actions and interactions between people; it is more than knowledge based, focuses on interpretation, random events transforming something common into something special; underlying many studies of culture engineering is the assumption that workers are completely controlled by the organization. Thompson and Ackroyd (1995) point out that this has led to an almost complete absence of accounts of resistance in the context of new employment practices, thereby forming the assumptions that management forms the culture, however, this perspective debunks this assumptions. From this perspective, culture grows and is spread partly via narratives, theories, symbols, metaphors and drama, but in a bigger part, it is through experience and naturally/instinctively. From this perspective, organizational culture cannot be easily changed by management as it comes as a natural phenomenon (Wilson, 2014). Culture is actually impossible to change due to its complexity and being deeply intertwined into the deeper core of the organization

According to the Modernist Perspective, methods and techniques of organizational control, favors rational structures and routine practices are driven by objectives despite external influences of their environment. There is a hierarchical application of typologies to maximize information available in set sequential dimensions in an organization. Norms can be studied, measured, bound and observed physically, Concentration of people in cities, hierarchical linear orientation. It is focused on control, Mass production, routine manufacturing output, Specialization of task and jobs, skilled labor, now due to this aspects culture can change depending on the prevailing environment. From this perspective, management has a lot of influence on the culture of the organization such that they can manipulate it to their own preference (Clegg et. al. 2011). According to the argument postulated in the piece ‘Inside the World Bank’, there are clear ideas that perspectives tends to vary in the banking industry, however, what is evident is that this perspectives being employed are more of the modernistic perspectives. A notable example being the culture where bank staffs are now protected by open- ended contract systems.

The modernism perspective can be countered with the symbolic interactive perspective to give us the following comparative arguments; in the modernism perspective, knowledge is gained through the five senses and can be confirmed through replication of procedures. On the other hand, in the symbolic interpretive perspective knowledge is gained through the five senses and forms of experience that lie outside of five senses, as do emotion and intuition(Clegg et. al. 2011). The modernism perspective argues that, truth is discovered through valid conceptualization and reliable measurement that allows testing of knowledge against an objective world; knowledge accumulates, allowing humans to progress and evolve; this they call positivism. The symbolic Interpretive perspective on the other hand feels that all knowledge is relative to the knower and can only be understood from the point of view of the individuals who are directly involved; truth is socially constructed via multiple interpretations and shifts and changes through time.

According to the modernism perspective, Organizations are Real entities operating in a real world. When well-designed and managed they are systems of decision and action driven by norms of rationality, efficiency and effectiveness for stated purposes. On the other hand, symbolic interpretive perspective argues that Organizations are continually constructed and reconstructed by their members through symbolically mediated interaction. Organizations are socially constructed realities where meanings promote and are promoted by understanding of the self and others that occurs within the organizational context.

Modernism perspective is all about focus of organization theory. Finding universal laws, methods and techniques of organization and control; favors rational structures, rules, standardized procedures and routine practices. Symbolic interpretive perspective on the other hand would argue that focus of organizational theory is about describing how people give meaning and order to their experience and within specific contexts, through interpretive and symbolic acts, forms and processes. A good example to portray the two perspectives would look like this, for the modernism perspective, the best Example would be a case scenario: when the Employees are physically present. Modernists will say that an employee is working when he or she is physically present. This would be the only way to really measure if an employee is performing their jobs.

There are different descriptive models that attempt to diagnose organisational culture in the field of organisational development. Harrison (1993) presents a theoretical model for the purpose of diagnosing organisational culture which is adopted in this study. Harrison (1993,) states that, though the model is intended to be descriptive rather than evaluative, there is a tendency to perceive it in evaluative terms. This descriptive model creates an awareness of the culture gap between the existing and preferred cultures in an organization (Harrison, 1993). Furthermore, this model maintains that organisational culture can be diagnosed in four cultural dimensions, namely power-oriented culture; role- oriented culture; achievement-oriented culture; and support-oriented culture (Harrison, 1993).

The organisational culture model presented in figure 2.1 indicates that the four dimensions of culture orientation are measured within two modes of operation, which are formalization and centralization (Harrison, 1993). Both modes of operation can be measured on a scale of low or high levels. According to Martins and Martins (2003), high formalization in an organization creates predictability, orderliness and consistency. In other words, a strong culture can serve as a substitute for formalization. This suggests that the organization’s formal rules and regulations which act to regulate its members’ behaviour can be internalized by organisational members when they accept the organization’s culture; this takes place without the need for written documentation (Martins & Martins, 2003). Therefore, low formalization of rules and regulations could reflect a weak organisational culture.

Power-oriented culture is a dimension of the organisational culture model. In any given organization there is a need to use power in order to exercise control and influence behaviour. Stokes (2012) defines power-oriented culture as organisational culture that is based on inequality of access to resources. Zheng (2014) states that a power culture has a single source of power from which rays of influence spread throughout the organization. This means that power is centralized and organisational members are connected to the centre by functional and specialist strings (Harrison, 1993).

This type of organisational culture can also be regarded as being rule oriented in the sense that it focuses on respect of authority, rationality in procedures, division of work and normalization (Hampden, 1990). The centre is formal authority and holds the power to control and influence activities within the organization. In this type of organisational culture a dominant head sits in the centre surrounded by intimates and subordinates who are the defendants (Harrison, 1993). In this regard a personal, informal and power management style becomes valued. Normally the organisational structure is a web structure that is hierarchical in nature (Zhang, 2014).

Conclusion

The main function of organisational culture is to define the way of doing things in order to give meaning to organisational life (Arnold, 2005). Making meaning is an issue of organisational culture, because organisational members need to benefit from the lessons of previous members. As a result, organisational members are able to profit from whatever trials and errors regarding knowledge others have been able to accumulate (Johnson, 2008). Organisational culture also determines organisational behaviour, by identifying principal goals; work methods; how members should interact and address each other; and how to conduct personal relationships (Harrison, 1993). Harrison (1993), states the following functions of organisational culture:

i. Conflict reduction. A common culture promotes consistency of perception, problem definition, evaluation of issues and opinions, and preferences for action.

ii. Coordination and control. Largely because culture promotes consistency of outlook it also facilitates organisational processes of co-ordination and control.

iii. Reduction of uncertainty. Adopting of the cultural mind frame is an anxiety reducing device which simplifies the world of work, makes choices easier and rational action seem possible.

iv. Motivation. An appropriate and cohesive culture can offer employees a focus of identification and loyalty, foster beliefs and values that encourage employees to perform.

v. Competitive advantage. Strong culture improves the organization’s chances of being successful in the marketplace.

In addition to the above functions, Martins and Martins (2003) also mention the following as functions of organisational culture:

a) It has a boundary-defining role, that is, it creates distinctions between one organization and the other organizations.

b) It conveys a sense of identity to organisational members.

c) It facilitates commitment to something larger than individual self-interests.

d) It enhances social system stability as the social glue that helps to bind the organization by providing appropriate standards for what employees should say and do.

e) It serves as a meaningful control mechanism that guides or shapes the attitudes and behaviours of employees.

These functions of organisational culture suggest that an organization cannot operate without a culture, because it assists the organization to achieve its goals. In general terms, organisational culture gives organisational members direction towards achieving organisational goals.

Organisational culture can be either weak or strong. Martins and Martins (2003) highlight that in a strong culture; the organization’s core values are held strongly and shared widely. This suggests that when organisational members accept the shared values, they become more committed to them. A strong organisational culture therefore refers to organizations in which beliefs and values are shared relatively consistently throughout an organization (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). Strong organisational cultures have a great influence on the behaviour of organisational members (Martins & Martins, 2003). In other words, a strong culture is a powerful lever for guiding behaviour. Strong organisational culture can enable an organization to achieve high performance.

References

Arnold, K (2005) Human Resource Management - The Rhetorics, The Realities, 2nd edn, London: Macmillan.

Clegg, S., Kornberger,M., and Pitsis, T. (2011) Managing and Organizations, London: Sage.

Deal, M. and Kennedy, A. (1982). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives (2nd Ed.). NY: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, M. & Frost, P. 2008, ‘The organisational culture war games: Sociology of organization structures and relationships, Pine Forge Press/Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif.

Hampden, K. (1990) Field Theory in Social Science, Harper & Row, New York.

Harrison, C. (1993), Organisational Culture, Blagdon, Mendip Papers.

Martins, P. and J.L. Martins(2003) Culture and performance. New York: Free Press.

Schein, E. (2004), Organizational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-

Bass.

Stokes, J. (2012), Leading the Self-Managing School, London, Falmer Press.

Thompson, B. and Ackroyd, L. (1995), Organisational culture and strategic management, London, Paul Chapman Publishing.

Wilson, F. (2014) Culture in Organisational Behaviour and Work.

Zhang, C. & Iles, P. 2014, ‘Chapter 11: Organisational culture' in Rees, Gary & Smith, Paul, Strategic human resource management : an international perspective.