<;;^C8^
Z
UB&AmES
>>
^<
0-
J^/^-S3
,
ALFRED
P.
WORKING PAPER
SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE:
A DYNAMIC MODEL
EDGAR H. SCHEIN
WP#1412-83
FEBRUARY 1983
MASSACHUSETTS
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
50 MEMORIAL DRIVE
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139
c.-r^^ ^
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE:
A DYNAMIC MODEL
EDGAR H. SCHEIN
WP#1412-83
FEBRUARY 1983
ly 18/83
0086H
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE:
A DYNAMIC MODEL^
Edgar H. Schein
Sloan School of Management
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
January, 1983
-1-
Introductlon
purpose
The
model
organizational
of
learning
this
of
and
group
paper
Is
which
culture
dynamics.
describe
to
1
built
is
will
present
argue
and
on
for
dynamic
a
formal
a
organizational culture and then elaborate each element
of
formal
a
model
of
definition
of
definition
the
as a way of explicating the implications of this way of thinking.
My
purpose
conceptual
in
approaching
foundation
for
the
concept
analyzing
in
manner
this
organizational
is
cultures
to
lay
which
a
will
make it possible for different observers and students of organizations to
The approach
begin to use a common frame of reference.
taken here
falls
into what Sanday (1979) would call the "holistic" approach, as distin-
guished from the "semlotic" or "behavioral," though
taking
a
dynamic
evolutionary
point
of
view
useful way all three of these approaches,
I
I
hope to show that by
incorporate
can
one
in
a
am making the assumption that
one needs to know more than the "shared understandings" which the semlotic
view advocates, in that even if we understand an organization well enough
to live in it, we do not necessarily understand how an organization got
be that way, or where
begin
it
is headed in the
manage
change
future.
I
also believe that we
organ<zational
culture
cannot
really
have
model of culture which is based on learning theory,
a
to
or
to
until we
and until we
understand the dynamic evolutionary forces which govern how culture grows
and changes.
Organizational Culture; A Formal Definition
Organizational culture is the pattern of basic assumptions which
given
with
group has
its
problems
invented,
of
discovered,
or
developed
external adaptation and
in
Internal
Learning
to
integration,
a
cope
which
-2-
have
worked well
enough
considered
be
to
valid
therefore,
and,
,
taught to new members as the correct way to perceive,
to
be
think, and feel
in
relation to those problems.
Pattern of Basic Assumptions
1.
Organizational culture can be analyzed at several different levels,
—
starting with the visible artifacts
the
constructed environment of the
organization, its architecture, technology, office layout, manner of dress,
visible or audible behavior
employee
orientation
analysis
Is
Interpret.
what
materials,
"tricky"
We
behavior
because
etc.,
patterns
are
etc.
data
the
describe how
can
public documents
patterns,
a
are
Fig.
easy
to
among
charters,
level
of
hard
to
but
environment,
Its
members,
the
as
This
1)
obtain
constructs
group
discernible
(See
such
we
but
and
often
cannot understand the underlying logic, the "why" of what we observe.
- Insert Figure 1 about here -
To begin to deal with the question of why members behave the way they
do, we often look for the "values" which govern behavior,
in Figure
us
to
1.
Values are harder
to
observe directly.
Interview key members of the organization or
content
analyses
of
artifacts
Siehl, 1981) in order to infer
such
as
documents
the second level
Often they require
to
fairly
do
charters
and
complex
(Martin
&
Once we have identified such values
them.
wc often note that they represent accurately one level of the culture, the
level
the
that
Is
manifest and espoused
,
by
which
I
mean what people say
reason for their behavior, what they ideally would
to be, and what are
where
the
"true"
like
those
Is
reasons
often their rationalizations for what they have done,
reason
or
"latent
functions"
unconscious (Merton, 1957; Argyris, 1982).
of
the
behavior
remain
-3-
The model ol culture for which
us
to go still deeper
to
am arguing
I
paper
this
In
requires
underlying patterns of assumptions which are
the
typically unconscious but which actually determine how group members perceive, think about, and feel about things, and which,
therefore, determine
both values and overt behavior in a more complete fashion (Schein,
such unconscious assumptions are themselves
As will be spelled out below,
learned
values.
the
responses,
But,
as
a
and,
value leads
motivated it
problem which
earlier
an
at
1981).
to behavior,
In
and
first
the
will
time,
as
have
that
place,
the
been
espoused
behavior solves
gradually
value
becomes transformed into an assumption about how things really are and, as
it is increasingly taken for granted, drops out of awareness.
As a value becomes
into an
transformed
debatable and confrontable.
assumption
it
ceases
to
be
Thus we know we are dealing with an assump'J
tion when we encounter
or
up.
when
they
consider
In this sense,
Informants a refusal to discuss something,
in
our
us
"Insane"
the notion
or
"Ignorant"
bringing
for
something
that businesses should be profitable,
that
schools should educate, that medicine should prolong life, are assumptions
even though they are often stated as if they were "merely" values.
Or,
to
put the matter another way, the domain of "values" can be divided Into
I)
ultimate,
"assumptions"
non-debatable,
is
more
taken-f or-granted
appropriate,
and
values
for
debatable,
2)
which
the
term
espoused
overt,
values for which the term "values" is more appropriate.
In making the distinction In this manner
the distinction between "physical"
believe
domains.
tely a
that
assumptions
and
I
am deliberately ignoring
reality and "social"
values
in
the
above
sense
reality because
operate
In
I
both
In fact, what is defined as physical is itself in part ultimamatter
given culture.
of
what
assumptions
we
make
and,
therefore,
a
part
of
a
-4-
In stating that basic assumptions are unconscious
that
this
is
a
result
repression,
of
motivational and cognitive processes are
they drop out
arguing
am
I
repeated
am not arguing
I
that
and
certain
as
continue
work,
to
They can be brought back to awareness by a
of awareness.
certain kind of focused inquiry process of the sort which anthropologists
use with their informants, but such surfacing always requires
the efforts
of both an insider who is making the unconscious assumptions and an outv\
slder who helps to surface them by asking the right kinds of questions.
Because
human
the
of
need
optimal
an
for
stimulus
and
load
consistency, assumptions come to be patterned into what we might think of
as
cultural
man,
which
"paradigms"
nature,
activities.
and
together
tie
the
basic
assumptions
a
given
culture
understand
To
about
means
to
understand the paradigm, and the pattern of basic assumptions.
To do that
The
categories
one
needs
presented
original
some
in
categories
Table
research,
1
for
based
are
and
analyzing
are
assumptions.
Kluckhohn
on
elaborated
Strodtbeck's
useful
more
be
to
specifically about organizational phenomena:
and
in
(1961)
thinking
2
- Insert Table 1 -
A given organization's basic assumptions will ultimately derive from
two sources:
1)
the prior assumptions of organization
and members based on their own experience
and
2)
the
actual experiences which
in
that
the
founders,
parent or host culture,
organization has
with its external and internal problems (as described below).
ing
\
of
organizational
culture
is
never
from
ground
zero,
as
interrelated
Paradigms .
assumptions
which
A
cultural
form
a
paradigm
coherent
it
copes
The learnbut
combination of prior assumptions and new learning experiences,
Cultural
leaders,
is
pattern.
always
a
v/
a
set
Not
of
all
-5-
assumptlons are mutually compatible or consistent.
Hence,
there
if
is
a
cognitive drive for order and consistency, one can assume that groups will
learn
sets
example,
of
if
group holds
a
through individual effort,
is
function
a
consistent
with
of
the
assumption
the
that
group
from
assumption
that the correct way for members
seek harmonious
that
ultimate
the
relationships.
to
it
nature,
of
concept of time
view
of
contrast,
some
way,
to
seek
based
relationships,
competitive
a
good
For
comes
more
assumption
an
good
comes
from
group
Kluckhohn
a
an
&
nature
as
harmonize with
Important than the
it
and
way
this
and
resources as
oriented toward
infinite,
In
perfectible.
nature
in
the
group
view
other,
monochronic
linear,
ultimately
and
each
passively
to
Individualistic
orientation.
space
neutral
is
exemplify
Stodtbeck
oriented,
"future"
Eastern cultures are
other
tends to be oriented toward the
active
1959), a view of
(Hall,
human
on
cannot simultaneously assume
to each
relate
of thinking by noting that Western culture
and
ultimate
the
consensus,
aggressively manage its environment,
mastery
consistent.
and
cannot easily hold the assumption that truth
it
derived
or
compatible
are
If a group assumes that the way to survive is to conquer nature,
harmony.
i.e.
which
assumptions
Individual, are "present" or "past" oriented,
as polychronic and cyclical, view space and resources as very
a
passive
as
more
see
time
limited, and
see reality as based more on revealed truth than empirical experimentation.
Organizational
culture
broader cultural paradigms.
paradigms
will
be
For example. Dyer
adapted
(1982)
versions
identifies
of
such
one
such
paradigm in a company by noting that it operates on the interlocking assumptions that truth comes ultimately from Individuals,
pragmatically determined only by "fighting"
people
are
responsible,
motivated,
and
things
capable
of
out
that truth can be
and
testing,
governing
that
themselves.
-6-
and that the members of the organization are
each
of
which
other,
makes
safe
it
"family" and will take care
a
and
fight
to
be
competitive
around
organization
which
ideas.
By
operates
way
on
contrast,
of
paradigm
the
observed
have
I
truth
that
another
ultimately
comes
older,
from
wiser,
better educated, higher-status members, that people are capable of loyalty
and discipline in carrying out directives, that relationships are basicalthat each person has a niche which Is his or her
ly lineal and vertical,
territory, and that the organization is a "solidary unit" which will take
care of all Its members.
Needless
to
say,
manifest behaviors
the
organizations are totally different,
in
two
these
behavioral differences do
those
but
observes
one
not make any sense until one has discovered and deciphered the underlying
To stay at the level of artifacts or values is to deal
cultural paradigm.
with the manifestations of culture, but not the actual cultural essence.
2.
Given Group
unless
culture
There cannot be any
Is
a
group which
"owns"
Culture is created by groups, hence the creating group must always be
it.
clearly Identified.
must
be
able
to
we want
If
locate
group
a
to
define
which
group in terms of
the existence
cultural unit,
a
Independently
Is
creator, host, or owner of that culture.
the
there
therefore, we
defined
as
the
We must be careful not to define
culture,
of a
however
tempting
that
may be, because we then would create a completely circular definition.
A given group is a set of
people who
enough to have shared significant problems,
to
solve
attempts
those
and
3)
problems
have
and
taken
to
in
observe
new
the
members.
have
1)
2)
been together
long
to have had opportunities
effects
In
other
of
their
words,
solution
we
cannot
-7-
determlne whether or not
a
group has a culture unless we have a definable
set of people with enough of a shared history to have solved problems and
have had the opportunity to pass on those solutions to new members.
The passing on of the solutions to new members
required
Is
definition because the decision to pass somethinf, on to
Itself
very
a
the
whether a
of
If a group has not
perceived as valid.
in
test
Important
given
solution
new
the
member
shared
is
is
and
faced the issue of what to pass on
it has not had a
process of socialization,
a
In
own
chance to test its
consensus and commitment to a given belief, value, or assumption.
On the
other hand, if we observe a group passing on, with conviction, elements of
Its
way of
perceiving,
thinking,
feeling,
and
we
can
assume
that
that
group has had enough stability and has shared enough common experiences to
have developed
a
culture.
be defined in terms of
of
the
group;
2)
1)
the
assumptions on the group;
The "strength" or "amount" of culture can then
the strength of the assumptions of the founders
degree
and
3)
to
which
founders
the
imposed
their
the amount and intensity of shared group
experience.
Though these are variables which may be difficult to measure, it
Is
crucial that they be conceptualized as independent of the direct measures
of
cultural "strength"
and evolution of
empirically
a
the
order
variables.
group evolves;
the
group;
4)
Such
founding members
personality and cultural origins;
the
make
to
it
possible
to
treat
the
growth
culture as a dependent variable predictable from other
observable
homogeneity of
in
3)
degree
2)
of
variables
the
may
group in
be
1)
degree
terms
of
their
of
own
degree of stability of membership as
of homogeneity
of
new members
acquired by
intensity and number of significant experiences shared by
group members In their coping with external and internal problems;
and 5)
-8-
degree of homogeneity of those experiences In the sense of the degree
to
which all members shared the identical experiences.
The
point
to
directly is not
emphasized
be
only
is
that
measure
to
"cultural
strength"
probably also more difficult
conceptually weak but
than to identify the factors which would create a strong culture and then
to what extent
to determine
history.
would
those factors are
present
In
a
given group's
One would then hypothesize that given sets of shared experiences
lead
to
elements
cultural
"strong"
and
check
whether
not
or
one
finds such elements.
3.
Invented, Discovered, or Developed in Learning to Cope
Cultural elements are defined as learned solutions
to
problems.
I
will detail the nature of those problems in the next several sections and
concentrate in this section on the nature of the learning mechanisms which
are
involved.
Structurally
that require solutions:
1)
there
are
two
types
situations
learning
of
positive problem solving efforts which produce
positive or negative reinforcement. In terms of whether the effort worked
or
not;
and,
2)
anxiety
avoidance
efforts
negative reinforcement in terms of whether
the
which
produce
positive
or
response does or does not
avoid anxiety.
In practice these two types of situations are intertwined, but they
are structurally different and need to be carefully distinguished.
positive, problem solving situation the group tries out various
In the
responses
until something works and then will be more likely to continue to use that
response until It ceases
to work.
Once
It
no
works,
longer
forcing
group to try different responses,
the data will clearly show that
solution
By
situation,
Is
no
once
longer
a
working.
response
is
contrast,
learned
because
in
tlie
it
anxiety
the
the old
avoidance
successfully
avoids
-9-
anxiety. It Is likely to be repeated indefinitely.
The reason is that the
learner will not willingly test the situation to determine whether or not
cause
the
the
of
anxiety
by a need to avoid a
Thus
rituals
all
and
feeling which may originally have been motivated
thinking or
patterns of
operating.
still
is
anxiety provoking situation are going to be
painful,
very stable, even if the causes of the original pain are no longer acting.
To
grasp
fully
importance
the
anxiety
of
reduction
in
culture
formation, we have to consider, first of all, the human need for cognitive
1954) which serves as
order and consistency (Hebb,
for
common language and shared categories of
other
words.
the
In
absence
such
of
shared
the ultimate motivator
In
perception and thought.
cognitive
maps
the
human
an
organism experiences a basic existential anxiety which is intolerable,
anxiety
which
one
observes
only
in
extreme
situations
of
Isolation
or
captivity (Scheln, 1961),
Beyond this cognitive level, humans experience the anxiety of being
exposed to hostile environmental conditions and to the dangers inherent in
unstable social relationships,
both
external
only point
to
internal
and
be
forcing groups to learn ways of coping with
problems
which will
be
detailed
made here Is that the ultimate motivator
for
below.
this
The
level
of coping is also anxiety.
At
a
more
Immediate
we
level,
can
Identify
the
anxiety
associated
with certain occupational roles such as coal mining and nursing, where the
Tavistock
socio-technical
structure
and
operation
studies
of
the
have
group
shown
can
be
clearly
that
conceptualized
the
best
social
as
a
"defense" against the anxiety which would be unleashed if work were done
in another manner (Trist & Bamforth, 1951; Menzles, 1960).
-10-^
If an organizational culture is composed of both types of elements,
designed
those
anxiety.
necessary
becomes
It
problems
positive
solve
to
interested in changing any of
analyze
to
which
situation one need only find a better
which
Is
In the
elements.
those
designed
those
and
solution
one
if
is
learning
positive
problem;
the
to
avoid
to
the
in
anxiety avoidance situation one must first find the source of the anxiety
and
then
show
learner
the
that
exists,
longer
no
it
provide
or
an
alternative source of avoidance, either of which is more difficult to do.
•J
In
will be more
this
stable
stability
mechanism
and
stability
to
anxiety
cultural
words,
other
will
on
the
than
those
rest
on
fact
giving
which
based
both
the
human
that
cognitive
avoid
reducing,
elements
nature
systems
cultural
problem
need
And
solving.
reduction
certain amount
a
Stability
sorts
all
of
reduction
anxiety
the
of
anxiety.
elements
anxiety
on
positive
on
social
and
based
are
itself
of
is
anxiety
an
reduction function.
Where do solutions initially come from?
new groups and organizations come
those
organizations
one of advocacy of
(Pettlgrew,
founders and early leaders of
from the
1979).
Most cultural solutions in
Typically,
process
the
would
be
certain ways of doing things which are then tried out
and adopted or rejected in terms of how well they work out.
Initially the
founders have the most Influence, but, as the group ages and acquires Its
own experience, group members will find their own solutions and these will
with
compete
discovery
always
the
will
play
problem and,
a
be
key
ones
a
advocated
more
role
therefore,
at
so
interactive
those
that
shared
moments
ultimately
one.
where
But
the
must develop new responses
the
to
leadership
of
will
a
new
situation.
In
group
the
process
faces
fact, one of the crucial functions of leadership is to provide guidance at
-11-
preclsely those times when habitual ways of doing things no longer work,
or when there has been a dramatic change In the environment which requires
new responses.
Leadership must then not only Insure the Invention of new and better
solutions, but must provide some security to enable the group to tolerate
the anxiety of giving up old,
and
In
tested.
"unfreezing
must
framework,
change
Lewln'ian
the
stage"
stable responses while new ones are learned
Involve
enough
both
dlsconf Irmatlon
psychological safety to permit
change and enough
means
this
Scheln
1961;
the
motivate
to
Individual
the
to pay attention to the dlsconf Irmlng data (Scheln,
that
group
or
it
Bennls,
1965)
A
Problems of external adaptation and Internal integration .
.
If culture is a solution to the problems a group faces, what can we
say about the nature of those problems?
distinction
useful
to
is
separate
Most group theories agree that a
those
problems
which
deal
with
the
group's basic survival, what has been variously labeled the primary task,
basic function, or ultimate mission of the group from those problems which
deal with the group's ability to function as a group, what have often been
labeled
problems
soclo-emotlonal,
(Rice,
distinguishes
Bales,
1963;
between
building
group
the
1950;
external
maintenance,
and
Parsons,
system
and
or
1951).
the
integration
Homan.s
Internal
system
notes that the two are reciprocally Interdependent, highlighting
that one can conceptually distinguish
the external and
(1950)
the
and
fact
internal problems,
but that in practice both sets are always highly Interrelated,
External Adaptation Problems .
those
problems
environment.
which
While
Problems
of
ultimately
determine
the
must
granted
that
it
be
external adaptation
group's
a
part
survival
of
the
In
are
Its
group's
-n-
envlronment
"enacted,"
ie
predisposes members
to
sense
the
in
perceive
prior
that
cultural
experience
environment in a certain fashion and
the
even to control that environment to some degree, there will always be some
external environment which is clearly beyond the control of the group and
which
will,
weather,
to
certain
a
natural
determine
degree,
such
circumstances
the
fate
economic
as
resources,
other
and
—
group
the
of
political upheavals, etc. (Weick, 1979; Van Maanen, 1979).
How one categorizes
problems
the
matter of arbitrary choice.
I
the problem solving cycle
that
in
prefer
survival
of
set
a
is
categories
of
group
organization will
or
problems shown In Table
The
founders
of
develop
in
part
as
the
culture
culture of
The
solution
the
to
the
which
the
extent
the
-
- Insert Table
2
assumptions
of
organization come will
the
mirrors
2
underlying
basic
which
a
survival, maintenance and growth of any
open system Is like a perpetual problem solving process.
the
degree
some
to
determine
to
a
from
large
initial formulations of core mission, goals, means, criteria, and remedial
strategies,
in
those
that
ways
of
things
doing
own
life
assumptions
of
experience
it
"parent"
its
may
begin
culture.
the
only
ones
with
But as an organization develops
which the group members will be familiar.
its
are
modify
to
For
to
example,
a
some
extent
the
young
company
may
begin by defining its core mission to be to "win in the marketplace over
all competition," but may at a later stage find that "owning its own nlclie
in
the
silent
marketplace,
partner
to survival.
in
an
"co-existing with other companies,"
oligopolistic
Industry"
is
a
or
even "being a
more workable solution
-13-
survive
If
Problems ,
Integration
Internal
manage
cannot
it
itself
A
as
a
group
organization
or
External
group.
cannot
survival
and
internal integration problems are, therefore, two sides of the same coin,
The categories presented In Table 3
totally intertwined with each other.
draw
heavily
group
on
theory.
Again,
they
presented
not
are
necessarily the correct set, but as a first approximation to
a
as
useful set
to help classify cultural data.
- Insert Table 3 -
These
categories
provide
major
the
areas
which
around
cultural
While the nature of the solutions will vary from
solutions must be found.
one organization to another, by definition every organization will have to
Because the
face each of these Issues and develop some kind of solution.
nature
current
events
of
that
will
solution
leaders,
the
experienced.
experiences
prior
is,
It
reflect
therefore,
biases
the
of
and
group members,
likely
founders
the
of
actual
organizational
each
that
the
and
culture will be unique, even though the underlying Issues around which it
is formed will be common.
3
At the theoretical level one can ask whether,
and
evolve,
there
is
an
inherent
cultural
trend
as organizations grow
such
as
one
sees
in
developing societies from more of a community, personal type of system to
more of a bureaucratic, impersonal type of system.
number
of
overarching
nature
of
organizations
causal
the
organization,
we
determinants
technology
the
can
size
of
of
determine
the
whether
organizational
underlying
the
Once we study a larger
or
cultures
organization,
organization,
the
not
nature
culture within which the organization evolves, and so on.
the
of
there
are
such
as
the
age
of
the
the
parent
-14-
Worked well enough to be considered valid
5.
The
norms or values of
what
and
culture
organizational
between
difference
crucial
has
what
being
Is
previously
defined
thought
been
here
as
of
as
the
group is that culture is a more ultimate outcome,
a
based on repeated success and a gradual process of
coming to take
things
To me what makes something "cultural" is this "taken-
for granted.
for-granted" quality which makes it virtually undlscussable.
Culture
being
perpetually
is
formed
in
sense
the
there
that
is
\l
constantly some
kind
environment
to
should not
and
be
learning
of
going
Internal
manage
confused with
on
how
about
affairs.
the
group's
culture
the
stable
things
element of
The basic assumptions which make up an organization's
life.
serve
a
the
process
those
outcomes,
which are so thoroughly learned that they come to be
to
ongoing
this
But
already existing
the
relate
to
secondary function of stabilizing much of
and external environment for
the
group, a stability which
the
internal
sought as a
is
defense against the anxiety which comes with uncertainty and confusion,
Taught to new members
6
Because culture serves the function of stabilizing the external and
environment
Internal
members.
members
rules
It
would
for
not
an
serve
perceived
interaction.
as
automatically
newcomers.
correct
follows
For
and
that
new
of
new
patterns
and
it
must
be
function
If
every
generation
its
could bring in new perceptions,
of
to
taught
organization,
culture
valid,
those
and
to
if
language,
serve
it
thinking
its
is
perceptions,
perceived
etc,
it
must
be
that
way,
it
taught
to
function
must
be
-15-
But we know
new Diembers bring In new Ideas und
Lliat
remains
whether
empiricaLiy
settled
produce culture
how
and
this
change.
It
happens.
For example, does the new member have to be socialized first and
be
to
accepted into a central and powerful position before that person can begin
to
change
things,
1971)?
the manner
Is
determining
Schein,
what
bring
which
produce
new members
in which
kind
innovation
of
Much
1979)?
members
acting
and
feeling,
thinking,
new
do
or
of
work
the
ways
immediate
perceiving,
of
changes
(Schein,
socialized influential in
are
will
they
on
new
in
produce
Innovation
Maanen
(Van
organizations
in
&
is
confusing because it is not clear whether the elements that are considered
as
"new"
are
new elements
culture,
the
of
simply new versions of
or
old
And what makes it difficult to be clear about this
cultural assumptions.
is the fact that we have not had clear ways of specifying what
the present
culture of an organization is.
To summarize,
of how
be
the
the world
if
culture provides the group members with
"is,"
it
goes without saying that
passed on without question
very
process
testing,
of
ratifying,
passing
and
new members.
to
the
on
reaffirming
process of socialization.
I.e.
culture
it.
For
provides
both
passing on of
the
paradigm would
such a
Is
It
of
the
also
an
paradigm
a
the
case
that
opportunity
for
reasons,
the
these
group's culture.
strategically an Important process to study If one wants to decipher
Is
wliat
the culture is and how it might change (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979).
7
Perceive, think and feel
.
The
pervasive
nature,
final
and
element
ubiquitous.
humanity,
in
the
The
relationships,
definition
basic
truth,
reminds
assumptions
activity,
us
which
time
that
we
and
culture
is
make
about
space
cover
-16-
vlrtually all of human
functioning.
This
not
Is
say
to
organization's culture will have developed to the
point
environment does
Involve
will
and
culture,
what
older
progresses,
that
and emotional
cognitive
the
of
Involved,
become
the
all
learning
cultural
responses
given
am trying
I
the process of learning to manage the external and Internal
to say Is that
as
any
"controlling"
of
all of its members' perceptions, thoughts, and feelings;
that
that
is,
more
and
longer
The
culture
more
have
we
more
the
of
elements
will
it
person's
the
lived
so
in
given
a
influence
our
perceptions, thoughts, and feelings.
focusing on perceptions,
By
a
statement
about
the
thoughts, and feelings
importance
category of overt behavior.
of
Can one speak of
the overt behavior patterns one observes?
manifested
In
than behavior.
behavior,
overt
but
try
culture
In
the
to
terms
just
of
idea
of
culture
deeper
goes
Indeed, the very reason for elaborating an abstract notion
explain
to
a
relative
My view is that the culture Is
the
that
Like "culture," is that we find It
to
categories
those
am also making
I
what
goes
too difficult or lacking in credibility
on
in
organizations
we
if
stay
the
at
descriptive behavioral level.
Or,
function
to put it another way,
of
what
the
know what
"cultural"
that
as
portion
of
opposed
to
brings
Individual
situational forces which are,
to
behavior is,
what
to
the
to a
to
some degree,
individual
the
large extent,
a
situation
and
unpredictable.
brings
perceiving,
reacting to various situations.
It
is
thinking about,
and
how individuals define
that leads us to the cultural components, not what they,
the
we want
situation
Idiosyncratic or situational, we must
individual's pattern of
the situation.
the
to
If
joint
look
is
Into
emotionally
situations
In the end,
do In
-17-
Impllcatlons for the Study of Organizational Culture
Organizational culture as defined here is difficult to study.
not
difficult
as
studying
as
different
a
society
where
It is
language
and
customs are so different that one needs to live in the society to get any
Organizations exist in
feel for it at all.
what
we
find
them
derivative
is
from
assumptions
the
parent
culture,
more a matter of surfacing assumptions which we will be able
is
recognize
once
they
surfaced.
are
thinking,
perceiving,
and
feeling
will
We
the
If
not
find
Investigator
particular
pattern
assumptions
of
which
forms
from
to
of
same
the
On the other hand,
here
has
alien
Is
parent culture as the organization being Investigated,
the
the
of
The problem of deciphering a particular organization's
culture.
then,
in
parent culture, and much of
a
been
called
an
organization's cultural paradigm will not reveal itself easily because it
is so taken for granted.
How then do we gather
basically
data
decipher
and
four
approaches which should be used
The
process
paradigm?
the
There
are
combination with each
in
other:
1)
content
and
socialization
of
new
of
members
.
By
interviewing socialization agents and new members both in an openended,
and
a
Integration Issues,
culture.
But
manner
focused
some
one
identify
can
elements
of
external
around
some
the
the
of
important
will
culture
adaptation-internal
not
be
areas
of
revealed
the
to
newcomers, hence cannot be discovered by this method.
2
Analysis
organization's
of
responses
the
history .
By
to
constructing
critical
a
Incidents
careful
in
the
"organizational
biography" from documents, interviews, and perhaps even surveys of present
and
past
key
members,
it
is
possible
to
Identify
the
major
times
of
-18-
culture
formation.
necessary
to
outcome was.
crisis
each
For
was
Incident
or
why
done,
Identified
was
done,
it
then
is
what
and
the
determine
what
In such a
biography of the organization one would then look
it
for the major themes in the reasons given for actions taken,
c urrent
Such
values,
Analysis of the beliefs,
3)
assumptions
and
founders,
of
leaders, and others identified as "culture creators or carriers."
interviews
person's
action,
history
own
and
initially
should
assessment
organization,
the
in
outcomes.
of
open-ended
be
issues can be used as a checklist
his
The
later
list
her
or
of
the
in
clironoiogies
goals,
external
each
of
modes
and
of
Internal
interview to cover areas
more systematically,
Joint exploration and analysis between outsider and insider of
4)
anomalies or puzzling features observed or uncovered in Interviews
this
joint inquiry process
It
,
Is
that will surface basic assumptions and permit
the exploration of how they might Interrelate, and thus form, the cultural
The
paradigm.
insider must
be
a
culture
carrier,
and
interested
be
in
surfacing his or her own basic assumptions to test whether or not they are
cultural
prototypes.
observations
which
puzzle
works
process
This
outsider
the
assumptions
which
the
outsider
would
if
which
or
because assumptions are most easily surfaced
the
best
seem
through
like
being
Initially
hold
above
should
from
works
one
anomalies,
contrasted
about
what
to
is
observed.
The
first
complement
three
each other,
methods
though
none
mentioned
is
necessary,
so
long as
enhance
one
of
and
the
others has covered all of the external adaptation and Internal integration
issues.
If one is Interested in surfacing the assumptions and eventually
-19-
declphering
paradigm,
the
the
method
fourth
necessary
is
In
that
the help
Insider can only get at his or her own cultural assumptions wltli
ol
the outsider's probing inid bcarclilng (Evcrod A l,ou]^;,
If a given organization's
organization consists of
phenomena
show
to
important
modify
must
one
subcultures,
(Louis,
up
culture
not well
Is
or
have
allow
to
example,
For
1981).
which
methods
above
the
)
1
developed,
subgroups
stable
L'JB
the
If
the
developed
those
for
organizational
the
biography might reveal that the organization is at a certain point in its
life cycle, and one may hypothesize about
functions that
the
the
culture
(Schwartz & Davis, 1981; Kimberly &
plays at that point in the life cycle
Miles, 1981).
Summary and Conclusions
In
this
paper
I
have
attempted
lay
to
out
formal
a
definition
of
organizational culture which derives from a dynamic model of learning and
group dynamics.
process
formation
of
functioning,
internal
change,
and
tends
that
to
culture
cover
is
always
aspects
all
In
the
human
of
learned around the major issues of external adaptation and
is
integration,
Interrelated,
issues
definition highlights
The
and
comes
to
be
embodied
ultimately
an
as
patterned set of basic assumptions which deal with ultimate
such as
nature
the
of
humanity, liuman relationships,
time,
space,
and the nature of reality and truth itself.
If we are
complex
selected
to
decipher a given organization's culture we must
interview,
members
observation,
of
the
group
and
work
joint
with
inquiry
the
approach
outsider
to
use
in
surface
a
which
the
initially unconscious assumptions which are hypothesized to be the essence
of the culture.
I
believe we need to study a large number of organizations
-20-
by
these methods,
utility of
the
able
concept of
the
In
organizational cuLtuLt
cultural variables
relate
to
using similar kinds of variables.
to
other
oruc-r
<and
variables
df. tf. CinJ iie
i.o
ordci
In
such
to
be
rfLr.iUj^y,
i.s
organizational structure, and, ultimately, organizational effecvlveness.
If
of
the
change
such studies show this model of culture
implications
major
will
have
to
give
will
much
be
more
that
our
attention
powerful as
1
am
arguing here
it
will
be
which are congruent with present assumptions,
changes
which
are
not.
As
Schwartz
and
a
theories
opportunities
11
make
to
very
Davis
those assessments.
and managerj- nei
ri
The understand'ag of or^^inl national
become integral to the process of ruanageneni. Its. 11,
cultucr
difficult
(1981)
to
and
Is
Interventions
organizational change proposals need to bt assessed iu term; of
to which they ace counter-cultural
vw
<itic,
organizatjimai
Clearly
easy
and
usoful.
of
the
to
constraints which organizational culture providesas
be
to
Uarii
ctiliurc
to
point
tlif
..tv
make
out,
dfe;^ree
lo
vodl'i
aink(
i.im
-21-
iOOTNOTES
prepared
was
paper
This
1.
Quarterly
Science
Adcilnlstrat lve
j^sue
Kprclal
the
"Culture
on
and
of
r.Ue
Orj^cinizat
ion
The research on which the paper Is based was supported by
Studies,"
453),
Organizational
Naval
Research,
Research
Effectiveness
Arlington,
Virginia,
Division
Sciences
Psychological
Chief of Naval Research,
tlie
for
22217,
Programs,
under
(C r)de
Office
of
Number
Contract
NOOO 14-8 0-C-O 905, NR 170-911.
Special
thanks
go
Maanen, and Meryl Louis
colleagues
to
uy
for
helping me
Lotte
area, and to Glbb Dyer, Barbara Lavrence
St"-'ve
,
through
think
to
John
Ballyu,
Rarlev,
whose research on organizational cultuie has begun Lo
murky
tulE
'in]
i-stct:
Van
}'i.'Cy
Kur
is.
ihe
1
utility of these ideas.
Many ptople'j writings
but,
t(j
ordet
it
to
keep the
have
Inliuei'.ccil
ilow of
the
papti,
theii woik o>iiy in a few key places.
ideas and
these
their
iiipiication
with
[
.noLt
/,
Mnt
tliii;
more
u.-ve
o.{
\-a\\:
CHitpifte
ttior;.uf;b
tlinkirg,
Ci-f < r .-nc»
oCC'cuiL
;.
•>!
docaututii' Ion
is currently in preparatior. iu book form,
An application
2.
acr.'ss
be
of
these
ideas
to
the
study
cultuies, as contrasted with the culture
found
in
coDiparlBons
Evan
(1976,
are not
England, 1975,
Cb.
reviewed
15),
In
Other
oi
studie^i
detail here,
of
(;rgr.ni,?,-iti
otj^vinlr.rit I'ii-s
of
e,g,,
cros;i-cu
Hofscerle,
I
I
•
n:;
can
ira J
198'):
-22-
organizations
unique
those
which
that
basic
role
the
determine
to
arise
they
in
will
typological
describes a
suggests
2)
be
whether
or
(1978)
tour
will
eventually
which
Inveatlgatlon as wc
Important area oi
An
3.
typology
organizational
issues
—
structuiing;
here and now issues.
1)
3)
each
fit
whether
study
into
schemes
based
and
efficiency;
are
power
or
(1972)
around
and
4)
also
such
example.
work
revolve
personal connections,
tasks
culture
For
on Harrison's
will
paradigms
categories
certain
suggest.
paradigms
dlilereut
deeper
the
organizational
many
as
Handy
which
one
of
politics;
existential
-23-
REFERENCES
The Executive Mind and Double-Loop Learning.
Argyrls, C.
Organizational Dynamics
Autumn 1982, 5-22,
,
Interaction Process Analysis .
Bales, R.F.
University of Chicago
Press, 1950.
Culture in Organizations;
Dyer, W.G., Jr.
A Case Study and Analysis
.
Sloan School of Management, MIT, Working Paper itw 1279-82, 1982.
The Manager and His Values .
England, G.W.
Ballinger,
Cambridge, MA:
1975.
Evan, W.M.
Organization Theory .
New York:
Wiley, 1976,
Alternative Perspectives in the
Evered, R, and M,R. Louis
Organizational Sciences: "Inquiry from the Inside" and "Inquiry from
the Outside."
The Silent Language
Hall, E.T.
Handy, C.
Academy of Management Review
.
The Gods of Management .
Harrison, R,
Review
Hebb, D.O.
Sept .-Oct.,
1981, 6, 305-395.
New York: Doubltday, 1959.
London: Penguin, 1978,
How to Describe Your Organization.
,
,
Harvard
1972.
Social Significance of Animal Studies,
Tlie
flv!slness
in
Lii"<l^'._y,
Handbook of Social Psycholog y, Readiiig, MA: Addlson~Wt s Ley
Culture's Consequences .
Hofstede, G,
Homans, G.
The Human Group .
Kimberly, J.R.
R.H. Miles
&
New York:
Htverly Hlllb, fA:
Sage,
,
li.
1954.
I'Ji'.O
Harcourt Brace, 1950.
The Organizational Life Cycl e.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1981.
Kluckhohn, F.R.
&
Evanston, IL
F.L. Strodtbeck, Variations in Value Orientations
:
Row Peterson, 1961.
.
-24-
A Cultural Perspective on Organizations.
Louls, M.R.
Management
Martin, J.
1981,
2,
Motors
246-258.
and
Dt-Lorean
Graduate School of Busluebs,
.
Stanford,
CA
:
University
Stanford
I'-'fil.
Social Theory and Social Structure .
Merton, R.K.
r,
Organizational Culture and Counter-culture;
Slehl
& C.
General
.
Human System
ed. Nev York:
R.iV.
Free Press, 1957.
A Case Study in the Functioning of Social Systems
Henzles, I.E. P.
Human Relations
a Defense Against Anxiety.
Parsons, T.
The Social System .
Glencoe, IL
Science Quarterl y, 1979, 24,
5
L3
,
95-121.
Free Press, 195L.
:
On Studying Organizational Cultures.
Pettigrew, A.M.
Rice, A.K.
I960,
.
a.s
Administ rative
70-581.
The Enterprise and its Environment .
London:
Tavistock,
1963.
Sanday, P.R.
The Ethnographic Paradlgm(s).
Quarterly
Scht'ln, E.H.
.
1979, 24, 527-538.
Coe rcive Persuasion .
Scheln, E.H. £ W.G. Bennis
Group Methods .
Scheln, E.H.
Administrative Science
New York.:
Norton,
L961.
Personal and Organizational Change Through
New York:
Wiley, 1965.
The Individual, The Organization, and The Cartnfr:
Conceptual Scheme.
A
Journal of Applied Behavioral Scien ce,
^'71,
7,
401-426.
Scheln, E.H.
Personal Change Through Interpersonal Relationships.
In W.G. Bennis, J. Van Maanen, E.H. Scheln,
Interpersonal Relationships .
Scliein,
R.H.
Homewood, IL
:
&
F.l.
Steele, Essa)f in
.
Dorsey, 1979,
Does Japanese Management Style Have a Message for Americ^.n
Managers?
Sloan Management Review, 1981, 23, 55-68,
-25-
Schwartz, H.
S.M. Davis
&
Organizational Dynamics
Strategy.
Trlst, E.L.
of
Matching Corporatf.- Culture and Business
Bamforth, K.W.
&
,
Summer 1981, 30-48,
Some social and psychological consequen«:;es
long-wall method oi coal gcttini^.
the
Human Rclatlon.s
,
l'.)5!..
A,
1-38.
Van Maanen, J.
&
socialization.
Behavior
,
Van Maanen, J.
Tli^'
L
In Staw, b.
F.I.
Sell,
Welck, K.E.
Research in Qrg.aniz .ut Luaal
the Situation, and the Ruier. of
Relations.
Steele,
XL: Dorsey Press,
(ed.).
Greenwich, Cona.: JAI Fri-ss, 1979,
Vol. 1.
Interpersonal
Scheln,
Toward a theory ui organlzatlon.^l
Scheln, E.H.
In
Essays
W.G.
BennJs,
Van
J.
In Inter p ersonr.l
Kanneu,
Dynamics .
1979,
Cognitive Processes in Organizations.
In Staw, B.
(ed.) Research in Organizational Behavior, 1979,
I,
41-74.
E.H.
Homewood,
-26-
Table 1
Basic Undc'ilyJag
Asit.uniption6
Around Which Cultural
Relied
The Orgfinlzatlon't; Relationship to lis Kuvj roumen t:
1.
i-ofm
}'iircidig,ms
ir,g
even more basic assumptions about the relationship of humanity to nature,
one
whether
assess
can
members
key
the
relationship to be one of dominance,
the
of
harmonizing,
submJs.sitn,
view
orjj.aui/atlon
finding;
Jit
ai.
appropriate niche, and so on.
The Nature of Reality and Truth
2.
rules which define what
is
real
and
what
basic concepts
or
of
basic concepts of
polychronlc;
what
not,
is
and whether
truth is ultimately to be determined,
"discovered;"
The Linguistic and behavioral
;
time
linear
as
truth
"fact,"
a
"revealed"
is
iuiiaile,
oi
how
or
aonochronlc
cyclical,
or
limited
space as
is
coi;iiPuual
or Individual property, etc.
The Nature of Human Nature:
3.
does
Wliat
mean
it
Is human nature
and what attributes are considered intrinsic or ultimate?
humans
Nature
The
4.
and
environment,
of
based
do,
to
Human Activity
on
human
nature;
is
The
Nature
the
"right" way
and
love?
Is
for
life
of
What
:
right
it
What
Is
Human Relationships
people
to
relate
cooperative
or
to
:
each
about
work and
Wliat
wliat
In..'
to
I
reality,
1
i
st ic
collaborative or communal, based on traditional lliicaL authority.
charisma, etc.?
the
Is play?
to
distribute
vidua
for
passive,
considered
is
other,
thinj',
active,
be
to
competitive.
"right"
the
is
assumptions
above
the
self-developmental, fatalistic, etc.?
5.
Theory X or Theory Y?
Are humans perfectible?
good, evil or neutral?
'human,"
be
to
,
be
power
rToi p
Lav;,
oi-
-27-
Tablf
2
The Problems of External Adaptation and Suvvival
Developing consensus on
1)
the
and latent functions of the group
Developing
2)
consensus
on
,
primary
t
mission, or
core
a sk,
-jianlfest
e.g. strategy
,
goal s,
goals
such
being
concrete
the
reflection of the core mission,
Developing consensus on
3)
of
the
goals,
e.g.,
division
the
ot
means
be
to
labor,
used
the
in
acconipll shmt at
structure,
organisation
reward
system, etc.
4)
Developing
consensus
on
the
criteria
well the group is doing against Its go als
be
to
aii d
us>:d
tat^^et.'
,
it.
irjeai;>ur
e.i,.,
ing
huw
inior.nation
and control system:,.
3)
Develoring consensus on rinR:dial
finds
tlie
or
rej-^U
'.
tr;.
c
.(^ies
need because it Is not acci/mplithing ItL goals.
as
t.h
.^ii-up
-28-
Table 3
The Problems of Internal Integration
1.
Comm on language and conceptual categories
communicate
with
and
understand
each
other,
—
a
11
members cannot
group
Is
Impossible
by
definition,
2.
a nd
Developing consensus on group boundaries and criteria
exclusion
—
one of the most important areas ol
for
culture
Inrlutjiou
the shared
is
consensus on who Is in and who Is out and by what criteria one determines
membership.
3.
—
Consensus on criteria for the allocation of power and status
every organization must work out its pecking order and its cules for
one gets, maintains,
and
Loses
liow
consensus on how one m-inages one's
power;
feelings of aggrcSKlon.
4.
Consensus on criteria for Intimacy, frieudsliip,
organization must work cut its rules of the game
for
and
relationships between the sexes, and for the
Intimacy
are
to
be
handled
in
ind
tci"
peer
lunriner
context
the
love
—
tv^'^y
relationships,
in
whirl,
of
ni-^ria
openiie.ss
j,
i
tlie
nj^
organization's tasks.
Consensus on criteria
5
for
allocation of rewards and
punishment
every group must know what its heroic and sinful behaviors are,
rewarded with property, status,
power, and what gets punished
!.
—
wii;it
^.ets
the
f.)rm
in
of withdrawal of the above and, ultimately, excommunication,
6
J-
Consensus
every society,
on
faces
Ideology
and
"religion"
unexplainable and
—
every
cr^aulzatlon,
inexplicable events which
like
rnu^a
given meaning so that members can respond to them and ;ivold the anxiety
dealing with the unexplainable and uncontrollable.
tx
oJ
-29-
FIGURE
1.
The Levels of Culture
and their Interaction.
LEVELS OF CULTURE
ARTIFACTS. CREATIONS
Technology
Art
VISIBLE BUT OFTEN
NOT DECIPHERABLE
Visible and Audible
Behavior Patterns
l\
GREATER LEVEL OF
AWARENESS
k
BASIC ASSUflPTIONS
Relationship to
Environment
TAKEN FOR GRANTED
Nature of Reality.
PRE-CONSCIOUS
Time, and Space
Nature of Human Nature
Nature of Human
Activity
495
^
P,
^ ^ Nature of Human
Relationships
INVISIBLE
MIT tIBRARlES
3
TDflD DD4 SfiM
121
Date Due
n^r
W
s;
'm^j
^-T
,M
3019P
s^
:.>:^
DEC 17
1989
l\UG3 12001
MB.21
APR
0^
EP
23
9
m
mv
NOV il
OCT.
Q'
i^;
1992
Lib-26-67
^^{f'CH::€
M
IBui^jt:
eoMeJS'
BASEMtNl-
»^.