Culture and Subcultures: An Analysis of Organizational Knowledge
Sonja A. Sackmann
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 1. (Mar., 1992), pp. 140-161.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28199203%2937%3A1%3C140%3ACASAAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2
Administrative Science Quarterly is currently published by Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/cjohn.html.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org
Tue Dec 11 09:58:32 2007
Culture and
Subcultures: An
Analysis of
Organizational
Knowledge
Sonja A. Sackmann
Management Zentrum St.
Gallen, Switzerland and
University of Konstanz,
Germany
O 1992 by Cornell University.
0001-8392/92/3701-0140/$1.OO.
.
I am grateful to the president of BIND
and all the people who have given me so
much of their time. Many thanks to Dick
Goodman and Maggi Phillips, whose
comments and stimulating discussions
have helped to sharpen my research,
thinking, and writing. The suggestions
made by three anonymous ASO
reviewers and Gerald Salancik. Associate
Editor of ASO, were very helpful in
revising the earlier versions of this
manuscript.
This study investigated the potential existence and
formation of subcultures in organizations, using an
inductive research methodology to study the extent to
which four different types of knowledge were shared by
organization members. Fifty-two interviews were
conducted in three different divisions of the same firm.
These were content-analyzed and compared with data
obtained from observations and written documents. A
number of cultural subgroupings were found to exist in
regard to two kinds of cultural knowledge, while an
organization-wide cultural overlay was identified for a
different kind of cultural knowledge. The implications for
the concept of culture in organizational settings and
future research on this topic are discussed..
INTRODUCTION
Research on culture in organizational settings faces two
major interrelated problems. First, little empirical knowledge
is available about the concept in the context of organizations
to guide research efforts. Second, the existing conceptual
diversity makes it difficult to operationalize culture. Existing
research on organizational culture has explored its
components and structure primarily on theoretical grounds or
empirically with deductive reasoning. While both approaches
have their merit, some questions about culture remain
unanswered. Is culture homogeneous (e.g., Davis, 1984;
Schein, 1985)? Is it heterogeneous (e.g., Gregory, 1983;
Martin, Sitkin, and Boehm, 1983; Van Maanen and Barley,
1985)? Or is it both (Martin and Meyerson, 1988)? If the
latter is the case, which aspects of culture are
homogeneous and which are heterogeneous? If culture is
composed of subcultures (e.g., Handy, 1978; Louis, 1983;
Jamison, 1985), where do they emerge and what triggers
them to emerge? Given the sparseness of empirically based
knowledge of organizational culture, an inductive research
approach can provide valuable insights at this stage into its
complexity (Van Maanen, 1979a). This paper describes one
such inductive approach.
Conceptualizing Culture in Organizations
The concept of culture has been adopted primarily from the
field of anthropology, where it has been defined in many
different ways and from different perspectives (Kroeber and
Kluckhohn, 1952). These have found their equivalents in the
organizational literature (Smircich, 1983). Despite the
different perspectives on culture in organizations, the focus
on cognitive components such as assumptions, beliefs,
values, or perspectives as the essence of culture prevails in
the literature (e.g., Gregory, 1983; Dyer, 1985; Schein,
1985). Such an exclusive focus on cognitive components has
its shortcomings (Martin and Meyerson, 1988: 96). Given
that organizations are purposive, the manifestations of ideas
in practices are important. Comparing expressed ideas and
actual practices as perceived by others can provide valuable
information about the world view of organizational members
and its degree of overlap with reality as perceived or
experienced by others. In a study of culture, observations of
manifestations such as artifacts and behaviors can therefore
be used as sources of data to "triangulate" with information
obtained about cognitive components.
140/Administrative Science Quarterly, 37 (1992): 140-161
Culture and Subcultures
Definitions of culture vary, however, in their use of a central
concept. The central concept in use may include ideologies
(Harrison, 1972), a coherent set of beliefs (Baker, 1980;
Sapienza, 1985) or basic assumptions (Wilkins, 1983;
Phillips, 1984; Schein, 1985), a set of shared core values
(Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Peters and Waterman, 1982),
important understandings (Sathe, 1983), the "collective will"
(Kilmann, 1982: I),
or the "collective programming of the
human mind" (Hofstede, 1980: 25). These concepts are
either used from a functionalist or an interpretative
perspective, with culture being something that an
organization "has" as compared with something an
organization "is" (Smircich, 1983; Sackmann, 1989). In
addition, different authors tend to use these concepts in
different ways, creating some conceptual confusion and
ambiguity (cf., Brown, 1976; Deal and Kennedy, 1982;
Peters and Waterman, 1982; Davis, 1984; Schein, 1985). At
this stage of theory development, it is unclear which one or
which combinations of these frequently used concepts
represent culture best. Instead of adding to this conceptual
confusion by using one or several of them, I sought more
generic constructs that would capture the essence of culture
from an interpretative or cognitive perspective while
reflecting the commonalities underlying the various concepts
in use.
In the tradition of the interpretative or cognitive perspective,
the mechanisms for collective sense making are of particular
interest. At the individual level, sense making is an activity in
which individuals use their cognitive structure and
structuring devices to perceive situations and to interpret
their perceptions (Seiler, 1973). Important cognitive
structuring devices are (1) the labels used to describe or
name things or events, (2) explanations about an event
structure, (3) "lessons," in the form of recipes and
prescriptions for repair, and (4) reasons for the causation of
events (Heider, 1958; Spradley, 1980). These four cognitive
structuring devices, which I refer to here as cognitions, do
not exist in isolation. Instead, they form an integrative and
interconnected gestalt that has been variously labeled a
scheme (i.e., Piaget, 19541, a plan (Miller, Galanter, and
Pribram, 1973), or a cognitive map (Tolman, 1948).
What differentiates collective sense making or cultural
cognitions from individual ones is that the former are
commonly held by a group of people in a given organization,
even though members of the same cultural group may not
be aware in their daily activities of what they hold in
common. In the process of enculturation, cognitions become
rooted in the group and ultimately exist independently of an
individual group member, even though individuals are the
carriers of culture (White, 1959).
Similar to the individual cognitions that accumulate over time
in the form of different kinds of knowledge (Schutz and
Luckmann, 1975). commonly held cognitions accumulate in
the form of cultural knowledge. Based on the structure
described above, four different kinds of cultural knowledge
can be differentiated and labeled: (1) dictionary knowledge,
(2) directory knowledge, (3) recipe knowledge, and (4)
axiomatic knowledge.
141/ASQ, March 1992
Dictionary knowledge comprises commonly held
descriptions, including labels and sets of words or definitions
that are used in a particular organization. It refers to the
"what" of situations, their content, such as what is
considered a problem or what is considered a promotion in
that organization. As such, it reflects the semantics or
signifiers (Broms and Gahmberg, 1987) that are acquired
step by step (Schutz and Luckmann, 1975) in a particular
cultural setting. While behaviors are located at Schein's
(1985: 14) level of artifacts and creations, their attributed
meanings are at a deeper level. One may therefore observe
similar issues or manifestations in different cultural contexts
with different descriptions, or similar descriptions may
signify different issues, events, or manifestations when
found in a different context.
Directory knowledge refers to commonly held practices. It is
knowledge about chains of events and about their
cause-and-effect relationships. Directory knowledge
delineates the "how" of things and events, their processes,
such as how a specific problem is solved in a given
organization or what people actually do to be promoted. It is
similar to Fritz Heider's "Alltagstheorie" (everyday theory) or
Argyris and Schon's (1978) theory of action. Directory
knowledge is descriptive rather than evaluative or
prescriptive.
Recipe knowledge, based on judgments, refers to
prescriptions for repair and improvement strategies. It
expresses "shoulds" and recommends certain actions, how
a particular problem should be solved or what a person
should do to be promoted. Recipe knowledge contains
prescriptive recipes for survival and success, is closely
related to norms, and is similar to Argyris and Schon's
espoused theory.
Axiomatic knowledge refers to reasons and explanations of
the final causes perceived to underlie a particular event. It
represents premises that are equivalent to axioms in
mathematics in that they are set a priori and cannot be
further reduced. Axiomatic knowledge is about the "why"
things and events happen, why a particular problem
emerged, or why people are promoted in a given
organization. Axiomatic knowledge is similar to Schein's
(1985: 14) basic assumptions, but unlike Schein's levels of
culture, these four kinds of cultural knowledge are all part of
culture's essence or its core. Artifacts or behavioral
manifestations are part of the culture network, not its core
(Sackmann, 1983).
Together, dictionary, directory, recipe, and axiomatic
knowledge form a cognitive culture map. Within this
perspective, artifacts and behavioral manifestations are
considered expressions of culture located at a surface level.
They are of interest in terms of their attributed meanings.
These may reflect the underlying collective sense-making
components accurately, but they may also be part of
outlived routines that belong to a past era whose meanings
are no longer relevant to the dominant group of
organizational actors. In either case, the interpretation and
understanding of their attached meanings in a given cultural
1421ASQ. March 1992
Culture and Subcultures
context requires an inquiry into the underlying processes of
sense making (Schutz, 1962; Goodenough, 1971; Fetterman,
1989).
The above-described framework of cultural knowledge was
applied and refined in a study designed to give new insights
into how culture is structured in organizations: whether it is
homogeneous or heterogeneous, consisting of subcultures,
or both, and where any existing subcultures might be
located.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Rather than hypothesizing about subcultures and their
locations a priori, an inductive research methodology was
chosen so that unknown groupings could emerge. This
method permits better understanding of complex
phenomena (Van Maanen, 1979a) from an emic, or insider's
perspective (Evered and Louis, 1981).
Using the above framework of culture, the methodology of
choice needed to, first, reveal insiders' cognitions and
cultural knowledge and, second, identify cultural groupings
that might exist. Combined ethnographic (Van Maanen,
1979b). phenomenological (Husserl, 1975; Ihde, 1977;
Massarik, 1977). and clinical methods (Schein, 1987) were
used for data gathering. The methodology combined four
components: (1) the method and sampling process derived
from Diesing's (1971) method successive comparisons,
which allowed the range of information collected to be
successively narrowed to the final investigation of an
emerging hypothesis, (2) the focal method for data collection
consisted of interviews, which were complemented by
observations in the research setting and by secondary data
analysis, (3) theoretical (thematic) content analysis at an
individual level and at a group level was used for data
analysis, and (4) the results from the thematic content
analysis were validated by comparing and contrasting them
with data obtained from secondary data analysis and
observations and by testing their validity with selected
informants. An emerging hypothesis about cultural groupings
was further examined by a focused replication of the
research in an additional site. All data were objectified
through dialectical discussions with two colleagues and by a
reanalysis one month later.
A mid-range methodology was developed to elicit
culture-specific knowledge meaningful to insiders, but within
a reasonable period of time (Sackmann, 1992). The core
method for data collection was an open interviewing
technique with an issue-focus (Dutton and Duncan, 1987).
The issue-focus was chosen for three reasons: (1) to serve
as a stimulus for eliciting culture-specific cognitions, (2) to
channel and narrow the potentially broad exploration, and, (3)
to introduce a reference point for respondents so that the
information could be compared across time and events for
each individual and across individuals. It is difficult to ask
members directly about what they think their culture is. The
issue-specific exploration served as a projective device to
elicit context-specific cognitions. The selected issue had to
have a broad connotative meaning to leave room for
143/ASQ, March 1992
culture-specific interpretations, be relevant to organizational
members, and avoid systematic response biases. A
discussion with organizational members about different
issues, such as decision making, communications,
leadership, or innovationlchange, indicated that the issue of
innovationlchange qualified best. Pilot interviews revealed
that it was perceived as relevant to most organizational
members, that it was customarily defined, leaving room for
culture-specific interpretation, and that it was unlikely to
evoke systematic response biases at an individual level.
To permit intraindividual comparisons, each person was
asked to name the three major innovations/changes that
had occurred in the company during the last five years.
The reasons for and characteristics of the named
innovationslchanges, including the related processes, were
then explored in detail. After some warm-up questions
about the person's work history, the exploration of
innovationlchange started with a broad, open-ended
question, followed by triggering questions (Spradley, 1980)
that fit into the flow of the interview determined by the
informant (Massarik, 1977). Simultaneously, I paid attention
to the body language, gestures, or physical expressions and
responded to them if there was a discrepancy or if they
suggested urgency. During each interview, the following
questions were asked and explored: Which three
innovationslchanges that occurred during the past five
years in the company do you consider most important?
This broad question allowed informants to define (a)
innovationslchanges, (b) relevancelimportance, and (c) their
identity (function, division, firm, etc.). Then for each of the
named innovations/changes: Why do you consider the
mentioned innovationlchange important?; What was the
context of the particular innovation?; Who was involved at
what time and how?; What caused the innovationlchange?;
Who and what aspects promoted the innovationlchange?;
Who and what aspects presented obstacles in the process
and how?; What shouldlcould have been done to improve
the innovation?; What would you do differently in the future
to make it better? I tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim
all interviews to gain in-depth knowledge of the data.
Research Sites
Three different sites of a medium-size conglomerate (BIND)
were chosen for the study: the corporate headquarters and
two divjsians. At the time of the study, the firm consisted of
twenty-nine divisions located in different regions of the U.S.
It had $300 million in sales and $12 million in profit. The
criteria of choice for the divisions were as follows: (1) all
sites had to be located in the same region of the same
country, to control for regional and national effects; (2)
headquarters (corporate officers) would be included so that
leaders' possible influence on organizational culture could be
studied; (3) the selected divisions had to differ in terms of
their business so that potentially similar cultural knowledge
would not be attributable to the specific work or industry; (4)
the two divisions had to employ a similar number of people,
to rule out the influence of size, which influences the
amount of contacts between people within and across
hierarchies; and (5) the two divisions had to have belonged
144/ASQ, March 1992
Culture and Subcultures
to the company for several years and approximately the
same number of years so that the same amount of cultural
knowledge could have developed.
Corporate headquarters (HQ) employed twenty-five people,
including eight executive officers, one of whom worked at a
division in a different region. It is considered a division
because people in the firm perceived it as a division
rendering services to the other divisions of BIND. The PC
division manufactured precision components, predominantly
for computers and airplanes. It employed seventy-two
people at the time of the study and had been a division of
BlND for nineteen years. The GA division distributed graphic
and art supplies, including large photo and copying
machines. It employed eighty-two people and had been a
division of BlND for sixteen years.
Data Collection
A total of fifty-two interviews were conducted over a period
of four months with informants chosen either randomly or
purposefully (Patton, 1980). The purposefully collected
sample consisted of all of the seven executive officers who
were regularly present in HQ, to account for a potential
leader influence, and twelve informants who were selected
from the GA division to investigate a hypothesis that
emerged during the study (see below). Thirty-three of the
interviews were conducted with individuals randomly
selected across hierarchical levels and functions from the
headquarters and from the PC division. The random sample
permitted groupings to emerge from the data without the
bias inherent in any stratification approach.
A total of thirty interviews were conducted in the corporate
headquarters and in the PC division. I obtained a good feel
for the two divisions and their members' concerns through a
grand-tour participant observation (Spradley, 1980) during the
first visit in each site, the first interviews, and participant
observations. I tested these early impressions during the
interviews and in casual discussions while visiting the
research sites.
Analysis
Two thematic content analyses, an individual and a group
analysis, were conducted to analyze the interview data for all
thirty interviews (Carney, 1972).
Individual analysis. I analyzed each interview separately to
identify emerging themes (equivalent meanings attributed to
situations or events) across the three innovationslchanges
that were named by each individual. I developed a system
for condensing the interview data that was based on the
four types of cultural knowledge and on a preanalysis of the
thirty interviews. This system was further adapted during the
subsequent data analysis.
Each innovationlchange was analyzed separately by first
marking the text and then by listing phrases that the
individual used. I listed my inferences in brackets. Appendix
A lists the rules I applied to the analysis of the interviews
and gives an example of how the text of one individual
was condensed, according to those rules, for innovation1
145/ASQ, March 1992
change #2. Appendix B gives an example of the condensed
format of the other two innovationslchanges given by that
same individual. The condensed data on all three innovation1
changes were then compared across innovations to arrive at
more general statements, which were listed on a separate
page and included emphasis, special concerns, and general
attitudes (see Appendix B). Verbal expressions, tone of
voice, and the frequency of mentioning a certain aspect
were taken as indicators for emphasis. Each interview
transcript, which averaged twenty-five single-spaced pages,
was condensed in this way to relevant statements and
organized into a few pages.
The emerging themes or patterns were validated by (1)
comparing the information on the three innovations for each
individual, (2) comparing the emerging themes with the
information obtained through observations and secondary
data analysis of documents of and about the firm, and (3)
checking the validity of the choice of themes with selected
informants. Two additional procedures ensured that the data
analysis was not entirely subjective: (1) I had hours of
detailed discussion of themes with two colleagues who met
with me for two to three hours twice a week during the
period of the research project. Due to our different training,
three different perspectives (strategic, technological,
behavioral) were used dialectically to question the
preliminary analysis, and (2) A reanalysis of a random sample
of interview data was done one month later. No significant
changes were found between the first and the second
analysis.
Group analysis. In a second step, the themes that emerged
in each individual interview were compared across
individuals to identify cultural (commonly held) themes that
were held simultaneously by different people in the
organization. Individuals were grouped together if (1) for
similar reasons, they considered the same innovations1
changes important ones (dictionary knowledge), (2) the ways
in which the mentioned innovationslchanges had happened
(origin, and facilitating and hindering factors) were basically
the same, regardless of the specific innovation (directory
knowledge), (3) the improvement strategies or
recommendations for innovationlchange were the same
(recipe knowledge), and (4) the basic premises that governed
their thinking, behavior, and feeling in their role as
organizational members were the same (axiomatic
knowledge).
In this way, groups were created for each category of
knowledge separately. In assigning individuals to groups, the
first decision-rule was the "existence or not" of information.
A group was initially created from respondents who had
reported information in the same category. In regard to
dictionary knowledge, respondents were grouped together if
they had at least two innovationslchanges in common. For
the other three kinds of cultural knowledge, two broad cutoff
or threshold figures were used initially: one was 70 percent
in common and the other was 50 percent. Thus, in the latter
case, some people could be identified as members of an
additional group. The actual data analysis showed, however,
that the mentioned information was either very similar or
146/ASQ, March 1992
Culture and Subcultures
very different. For this reason, no additional, more
sophisticated techniques were used for clustering the data.
The observations made in the research site were used as
complementary data for the grouping decision. The
observations included such things as work- and
nonwork-related interaction patterns, verbal inclusions in or
exclusions from a group ("we" vs. "they"), and nonverbal
inclusions in or exclusions from a group, such as similar or
different ways of dressing. These cultural themes were then
validated and objectified in the same way as described
above for the individual analysis.
Validating Themes
As a last stage, ten additional interviews were conducted at
HQ and at the PC division to collect further information and
to probe for the themes that had emerged in the content
analysis. These interviews were also used to investigate
further the discrepancies that had emerged from the data in
the previous stage. These data were analyzed like the other
interview data.
During this stage, a hypothesis emerged from the data that
cultural groupings may form according to functional
differentiation. This hypothesis was subsequently tested by
selecting a functional sample (marketinglsales) from a third
division (GA) in which no interviews had yet been
conducted. Twelve people were randomly chosen from this
purposive sample (Patton, 1980) for interviews. The resulting
data were analyzed, validated, and objectified as described
above.
One month later, a random sample of twelve full-length
interviews was drawn from all interview transcripts. Each of
them was reanalyzed for themes in dictionary, directory,
recipe, and axiomatic knowledge. No significant changes
emerged between the first and the second analysis.
FINDINGS
Altogether, nine cultural groupings were identified across the
four kinds of cultural knowledge. Seven cultural
subgroupings surfaced in regard to dictionary knowledge.
Only one cultural grouping was found in regard to directory
knowledge. This grouping spans all three divisions. Another
grouping, which is restricted to the top-management group,
was identified in regard to axiomatic knowledge. The
information obtained about recipe knowledge did not clearly
reveal any cultural groupings.
Subcultures Formed around Dictionary Knowledge
I identified seven cultural groupings that formed around
dictionary knowledge, the "what is" of things and events.
The analyses of the interviews as well as the observations in
the research sites suggest that these cultural groupings exist
according to functional domains, defined as the totality of
functions for which people considered themselves
responsible. Functional domains are tied to people's
professional role perceptions and perceived responsibility in
their professional roles rather than to such structural
manifestations as departments or prescribed roles in an
1471ASQ. March 1992
organization chart. One of these seven groupings was
temporary. with a membership that shifted according to the
problems at hand. Most of the members that formed this
temporary grouping were also members of one of the four
groupings found in the same location.
The specific interpretations of a group's functional domain
tended to be influenced by hierarchy, by divisional identity,
and, especially at lower levels, by the nature of the work or
task. Functional domains that were located at a higher level
of the company's hierarchy had a more general and strategic
or design orientation than the functional domains located at
a lower hierarchical level, which were specific and execution
or implementation oriented. Across divisions, the same
functional domains were, to some extent, enacted differently
by the members of different divisions. The data also suggest
that corresponding functional domains of different divisions
are more similar than different functional domai!s within one
division. The two groupings of the same functional domain
across divisions had more in common than the different
functional domain groupings found within one single division.
The seven functional domain groupings found within the
three sites of BIND were as follows: a design and control
grouping at the top-management level; two managerial
marketing groupings (one in the PC and one in the GA
division); a coordination grouping, and three different
production groupings in the PC division. Table 1 shows the
number of members in each grouping and the percentages
they represent of the division, of the total sample, and of the
people performing that particular function in their division.
Organizational design and control grouping. The design
and control grouping consisted of seven members who were
located at the HO division. Interviews revealed that their
major innovations/changes dealt with strategic and control
issues, such as to "build and maintain a successful
company" through internal and external "controlled
profitable growth." As such, the design elements of the
"corporate structure" were important to them, such as the
"computer system," "standardized accounting and human
resource systems," "autonomy of the divisions," the
"operations group," or "centralized finances." Of importance
Table 1
Cultural Groupings by Dictionary Knowledge*
Cultural grouping
Design and control
Production (Electronics)
Production (Shopfloor)
Production (Inspection)
Marketing PC Division
Marketing GA Division
Coordination grouping
* Sample:
Size of
group
% of
division
% of total
sample
% of people
performing
that function
7
5
7
5
3
9
6 10
28.00
6.94
9.72
6.94
4.17
10.98
13.46
9.62
13.46
9.62
1.92
17.31
11.54-23.81
87.50
83.33
23.33
83.33
100.00
75.00
-4
-t
HO, N = 10; PC Division. N = 30; GA Division. N = 12: total N = 52. t The percentage cannot be computed, since group members may come from different divisions. *The percentage cannot be computed, since people from other divisions perform this function but they are not part of this grouping.
148lASQ. March 1992
Culture and Subcultures
also were strategic issues such as "selling unprofitable
divisions," "profitable sales," or "expansion of markets."
They were also concerned about the fair treatment of
people, expressed by "provide opportunities," "give
responsibilities," or "promotion from within." In addition,
this group exerted various means of control to ensure that
their intentions were being considered in decision making
and in production-oriented work activities throughout the
entire company.
Production groupings. Production groupings consisted of
various people involved in the production cycle. Three
distinct production groupings were found in the PC division:
Electronics (PE: N = 5), shopfloor production (PSF: N = 7).
and inspection (PI: N = 5). Each subgroup was influenced
by the nature of its particular work. This "local" orientation
also differentiated each group from the others. All three
groupings clearly distinguished between "we" and "them."
This distinction was supported by my observations of ther57:
They dressed differently, and they worked in distinctly
different work spaces that were furnished differently. They
took separate breaks during the day, and the tone in which
they interacted varied in its degree of roughness. Their
d i c t i ~ n aknowledge
r~
in regard to innovations/changes was
tied to their kind of work, their work environment, and to
specific people. The PE group talked about "job security," a
"small company," and "health and dental insurance." The
PSF group talked about "more work," "upgrade of
assembly," and "being in control of the job." Themes in the
PSF group were orientation toward people, growth of the
division/company, and strategy. The PI group mentioned an
"expanded inspection department," "improvements in
quality control," the "quality control system," or
"partnership." Some themes in the group were growth of
the division/company and orientation toward people.
Managerial marketing and managerial sales groupings.
The three members of the managerial marketing group were
concerned with strategy and the marketing of PC division's
products (N = 3). They had "identified a niche" and
accomplished their goal by "identify[ingl new products that
they could produce for customers," by "educating
customers" about the division's capacities, and by "acquiring
new customers" for existing or new products. These were
all expressions of a strategy theme.
At the GA division, the equivalent grouping was more
concerned with selling existing products (N = 9). Their
guiding principle was "offer the customer peace of mind," a
strategy theme. Controlled profitable growth was
accomplished through "creating new opportunities for sales"
by expanding both their services and their existing product
lines.
The members of both groupings showed a strong
entrepreneurial--or, rather, intrapreneurial--orientation that
was reinforced by the divisions' reward structure. The group
members' differences in interpretation of their roles were
due to differences in their divisions' businesses. The PC
division was a job shop producing parts to customer
149lASQ. March 1992
specifications, while the GA division was a distributor for
several manufacturers.
Coordination grouping. A coordination grouping was found
at the PC division. Its membership varied from six to ten,
according to the task or project at hand. It was generally
created around a problem that had emerged as, for example,
buying computer numerical control machines. Thus, it was a
grouping with temporary and shifting membership, and its
members simultaneously belonged to other groups as well.
Usually, the coordination grouping consisted of the general
manager, the plant manager or plant supervisor, one of the
engineers, one of the sales people, and one of the
production control people. Other individuals who could be
part of this group were the vice president in charge of this
division, the controller, the manager of the electronic
subsystems, and/or the quality control manager. This group's
major concerns were to coordinate projects and the
exchange of ideas and information between people with
internal concerns (production) and external concerns
(salespeople, customers). Its foci varied from general
planning and decision making about investments to specific
problem solving. Hence, the members of this grouping had
boundary spanning roles when they acted as members of
this group.
Homogeneity through Directory Knowledge
The same cultural groupings found in regard to dictionary
knowledge did not emerge in the analysis of directory
knowledge, the commonly held cognitions concerning
knowledge about processes. Instead, a homogeneous
cultural grouping emerged across the three divisions that
had the quality of cultural synergy. Every member of the
sample belonged to this grouping.
Four common structural processes were found to underlie
the actions of organization members across the three
research sites, even though they acted independently of
each other and did not know about the behavior of people in
the other divisions, and even despite the fact that the three
divisions were engaged in different businesses and that
informants in all three divisions had a strong divisional
identity, contrasting "us" to "them." They differentiated
their divisions from other divisions on several occasions and
believed that their division was more special than the others,
although I found no evidence to support that. Despite all
these differences, cultural synergy emerged across divisions
in regard to directory knowledge. No matter which
innovations/changes were reported as major ones, the
underlying processes by which these different
innovations/changes were achieved were basically the same
across organizational members, across different cultural
groupings, and across different divisions. The cultural
grouping at this level included all three research sites and
therefore can be hypothesized to be company-wide.
The four culturally based processes were present in the
responses of all respondents, regardless of division, tenure,
function, or hierarchy. These processes were the ways in
which tasks were accomplished, people related to each
other, adaptation and change were accomplished, and new
1 SOIASQ, March 1992
Culture and Subcultures
knowledge was acquired and existing knowledge
perpetuated. To an outsider of BIND, the examples given
below of enactments of these four processes may sound
like cliches. However, to the people in the organization, they
were unique and very real and important, since they
addressed basic questions of their organizational existence.
Accomplishing tasks. Throughout BIND, tasks were
accomplished through both individual and team efforts.
Individual employees made efforts in their own territory or
field of competence and expertise, each contributing his or
her special skills. "Take initiative and see that everything
gets done" was mentioned by most respondents in one way
or another. It served as a guideline for work behavior in
BIND. These individual efforts, in which employees took
pride, were integrated through teamwork to accomplish
complex tasks or projects. Intrapreneurship was
complemented by cooperation and by joint efforts,
exemplified by such comments as "I'm only as good as the
people behind me." In the PC division, for example, people
would help each other out if they perceived a backlog at a
machine. This autonomy created some problem for the
general manager, who was relatively new in his position and
tried to stem what he felt was a loss of control. Despite his
control attempts, however, people sustained their
autonomous team efforts.
Relationships among people. Relationships among people
within BlND and with customers could be characterized as
informal, direct, open, and respectful. One of the informants,
who had experience in other firms and industries, expressed
it as follows:
I know how a lot of companies are run and operate. I know a great
majority of the companies in LA and Orange County just through
my job. BlND is different from most companies. The attitude, the
management style, . . . if you walk in this company and see him
[the president] walk around, you wouldn't get the idea that he is
the president and chairman of the board of a major corporation.
He's a real [strong emphasis] person. . . . In companies of this size
you do not see the president. And many of the VPs are kind of 'off
limits' to most people. The doors are closed, they are in meetings.
In this company it's very different, very casual. . . . Here you can be
your own person. There are open communications. Everyone is
treated equally. . . . I think that's a very innovative policy. . . . I feel
like if I have something to say to anybody I can walk in that door.
Numerous other manifestations could be found in verbal and
nonverbal behaviors such as informal dressing, open doors,
the floor plan at HQ, which was deliberately designed to
invite informal interactions and discussion, which did occur
frequently and spontaneously, the knowledge and use of
first names, or social events on weekends, such as football
games among employees, picnics, luncheons, and trips to
Disneyland and to professional ball games. Verbal promises
were followed by immediate actions. One employee
expressed it as "we are very close, it's like a family,"
another as, "I couldn't ask for a better situation. I love
[strong emphasis] working for this company. I love this
company. It's my family life. I feel real close, good about it."
This family orientation is sustained by the particular hiring
policies. First priority was given to family members and
acquaintances of employees, because those people already
151/ASQ, March 1992
had some knowledge of BIND. This family orientation was
also validated by outsiders who worked with BIND, such as
suppliers and customers, and by my own experience in the
company.
Adaptation and change. Adaptation and changes required
by the business environment were accomplished through
both conservative and innovative behavior, Innovative
behavior was practiced in adaptation and internal changes,
especially if these changes did not require financial
resources, for example, improving or adjusting production
procedures. Conservative behavior was shown whenever
change or adaptation required substantial financial resources,
as in introducing a computer system. The development of
new procedures or products occurred through controlled and
successive experimentation to minimize risk and instability
within BIND. Changes were tried out and optimized before
they were successively diffused to the rest of BIND.
Acquisition and perpetuation of knowledge. In the
divisions studied, new knowledge was acquired in three
ways: (1) staying informed of changes in the industry by
reading trade journals and by attending trade shows; (2)
hiring people with the desired or necessary knowledge; and
(3) having employees attend specific professional courses.
Existing knowledge was perpetuated in two ways: through
informal learning on the job and through coaching and
mentorship. No formal training programs existed. New
employees were expected to "swim" once hired and to take
responsibility for their own learning. Promising employees
and people in key positions were coached and given
opportunities to learn and progress both personally and
professionally. As one of the corporate officers (and former
general manager) explained: "I'm always trying to plant
seeds and then I'm waiting for people to come around, ah, I
don't mean that in an egotistical sense, but I see that as one
of my roles."
Recipe Knowledge
The information about recipe knowledge-the knowledge
about what should be or should have been done to make
things better-was associated both with dictionary
knowledge and with directory knowledge. The limited data
suggest that two different kinds of recipes existed: recipes
of success or failure and recipes for success or failure. The
former represented lessons learned from past behavior and
strongly recommended continuing to do or avoiding things,
such as "improve whenever you see a need for it" or "avoid
bottlenecks." This kind of recipe knowledge was associated
with directory knowledge in that it was present across the
three divisions.
Recipes for success or failure suggested changes away from
the present state, with mentions such as the desire for a
"larger facility," "more pleasant work environment," or
mentions of specific problem areas. This kind of recipe
knowledge was more closely related to dictionary knowledge
in that it was mentioned within the boundaries of a
functional domain grouping or division. But, in general, too
little information was obtained from the interviews about this
kind of knowledge to identify cultural groupings. When I
152/ASO, March 1992
Culture and Subcultures
explored potential reasons for the few data obtained about
recipe knowledge, the most probable explanation was
BIND'S specific dictionary knowledge. The guideline
"improve whenever you see a need for it" did not allow
much recipe knowledge for success or failure to accumulate.
Instead, people made the necessary changes. Although the
data are limited, recipes seemed to express more personal
than common concerns. These results are therefore the
most tentative ones.
Subculture Formed around Axiomatic Knowledge
Axiomatic knowledge gives insight into why certain things
are the way they are in BIND. It is based on basic
assumptions that cannot be further reduced. Only one
grouping surfaced in regard to this knowledge: the seven
members of the top-management group. Lower-level
employees acted on this knowledge, but they were not
cognizant of it, despite further probing by the researcher.
The content of the axiomatic knowledge focused on five
assumptions that had been explored and negotiated by the
top management during a restructuring phase that had
started fourteen years prior to the study. These assumptions
were based on the past experiences of the people involved
in the planning of the restructuring. The five assumptions
concerned the control of BlND and its business
environment, ways to ensure long-term success, the nature
of the firm's corporate responsibilities, the most appropriate
structure for BIND, and the nature of people who work for
BlND and who are most likely to succeed in its corporate
environment. This axiomatic knowledge defined and framed
the slice of reality in which organizational members behaved
in their role as BlND employees.
DISCUSSION
Although this is a study of a single firm, which limits the
results' generalizability, it makes several theoretical
contributions by shedding light on the complexity of culture
in organizations and by indicating some of the parameters
for the formation of cultural subgroupings. One reason why
the functional domain subgroupings did not surface in regard
to directory knowledge may be found in the content of
axiomatic knowledge. While people took pride in their work
and work-related responsibilities (functional domain
groupings), they had been deliberately selected and hired for
specific characteristics that were enforced by different
structural parameters. The analysis of axiomatic knowledge
revealed that axioms about the "right people" and the "right
organizational structure" served as preconditions. Since the
same preselection and reinforcement conditions existed in
the three divisions, they are likely to be responsible for the
existence of cultural synergy that existed around directory
knowledge. This, in turn, may also explain why only one
functional domain grouping formed around axiomatic
knowledge. This grouping consisted of people who had
actually negotiated the axioms at the beginning of a major
restructuring process fourteen years prior to the study.
Those who could or did not subscribe to the new axioms left
or had to go. Subsequently, people who were hired held
153lASQ. March 1992
personal beliefs in congruence with the negotiated axiomatic
knowledge without knowing the axiomatic knowledge base.
Axioms are therefore not necessarily dropped out of
awareness (Schein, 1985), but one may speculate that they
may only become of existential relevance if violated.
In regard to recipe knowledge, the few data obtained do not
allow me to make any clear statements about the formation
of cultural groupings. Recipe knowledge tended to be
influenced by personal concerns that could potentially lead to
differentiation into other than functional domain groupings. I
explored several potential reasons, such as methodological,
response, and sampling biases, why little information was
obtained here when compared with the other three kinds of
cultural knowledge. Probing questions asking about
recommendations for what to do or what to avoid did not
trigger more information. No systematic response biases
were found in a comparison of data from the interviews and
participant observations. A critical examination of all data
suggested, however, that informants were involuntarily
biased due to the particular cultural context of BIND, which
does not lead to the accumulation of recipe knowledge.
Before recommendations are made or improvement
strategies are developed, people act. Based on my working
experience with other firms, I would speculate that the
presence of a larger amount of recipe knowledge in a firm is
linked to problems of internal integration and/or external
adaptation. Recipe knowledge may be related to delegating
these responsibilities (appropriately or inappropriately) to
others. The existence of extensive recipe knowledge could
indicate a strong sense of boundaries between "we"
who see a need and "those" who have to take care of
that need. A study using, for example, a bureaucracy as an
organizational research site could lead to better
understanding of what kinds of conditions influence the
quantity and quality of recipe knowledge.
The finding that the same functional domains of different
divisions are more similar than different functional domains
within the same division further supports previous findings
that professional groups (Gregory, 1983) as well as
industries (Phillips, 1990) are important influences in the
formation of subcultures. They need to be addressed or
controlled for in future studies as factors that influence
culture in organizations.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the inductive research approach in this study, the
specific findings may serve as hypotheses for studies of
culture using deductive research methodologies. First, one
may wonder if the proposed framework of cultural
knowledge is useful in capturing culture in a particular
setting. Its combination with the inductive yet comparative
research methodology revealed the co-existence of a
homogeneous cultural grouping with different kinds of
independent and overlapping cultural subgroupings. The
notion of culture as complex and even somewhat
paradoxical has been proposed on theoretical grounds (Louis,
1983), without empirical evidence. Existing studies have
either focused on predefined subcultures (e.g., Gregory,
1541ASQ. March 1992
Culture and Subcultures
1983; Martin, Sitkin, and Boehm, 1983) or the
(homogeneous) culture of a firm (e.g., Schein, 1985). By
revealing the simultaneous existence of both, the framework
demonstrates its usefulness for a finer-grained analysis of
culture. Future application of the framework needs to further
investigate the nature of recipe knowledge in different
organizational contexts. What would be also of interest is to
compare these results with the ones obtained in two other
kinds of studies: one that operationalizes and investigates
simultaneously, for example, Schein's (1985) values and
assumptions and one that uses a purely ethnographic
method. Such approaches would help to determine the
usefulness of the framework and methodology developed
for this study.
Second, one may wonder why different cultural
subgroupings emerged in regard to the different kinds of
cultural knowledge. Hypothetically, one single cultural
grouping could have emerged across all four kinds of cultural
knowledge, or the functional domain groupings found in
regard to dictionary knowledge could have existed
consistently across all four kinds of knowledge. The first
hypothesis is consistent with the integration paradigm
(Martin and Meyerson, 1988) and may be expected in
extremely homogeneous settings. It would imply that
organizational members identify with the same unit and
priorities across functions and hierarchies (dictionary
knowledge), that they draw on the same dictionary
knowledge for dealing with their tasks, problems, and
interactions, that they prescribe the same recipes for action,
and that they base their thinking and action on the same
stock of axiomatic knowledge.
The second hypothesis would imply that the identified
subcultures would consistently identify with their group and
its accumulated cultural knowledge for priority setting, for
processes at work (tasks and interpersonal), for
recommendations, and that the different groups would draw
on different axiomatic knowledge. These conditions are most
likely to exist for groups that operate independently of each
other, such as small firms operating autonomously under the
umbrella of a holding structure. These considerations
indicate that the findings of this study are biased by
sampling at the organizational level. In a different
organization, different cultural groupings may have emerged,
formed possibly through other differentiating processes (Van
Maanen and Barley, 1985).
Another question of interest is how the cultural grouping
according to functional domain differs from differentiation
into functions, as suggested in the literature (e.g., Lawrence
and Lorsch, 1967; Van Maanen and Barley, 1985). Two
differences were observed. First, the influence of functional
domain, as found in this study, goes beyond the traditional
notion of function to include boundary spanning and
temporary groupings (the coordination grouping). Second,
the differentiation process observed in this study is primarily
based on professional role perceptions and perceived
responsibilities rather than on prescribed organizational
functions. Both aspects have implications for organizational
theory and design. On the one hand, they support an action
155lASO. March 1992
or social constructionist perspective (e.g., Silverman, 1971;
Weick, 1979), and, on the other hand, they suggest that the
attention given to artifacts such as organization charts or job
descriptions may be less helpful in understanding life in a
particular organization than a focus on perceived
responsibilities. It would therefore be of interest to
investigate if a data-collection method centering around
perceived work and professional responsibilities would be
sufficient to reveal subcultural groupings within an
organization.
The developed methodology was useful in gaining an
understanding of the cultural context of BIND. Furthermore,
it was sensitive to subtle subcultural formation processes
that a more structured methodology may not have detected.
The cognitive bias in studying the essence of culture was
not restrictive, since observations of artifacts and behaviors
were used to triangulate the interview data. The issue of
innovationlchange was appropriate for revealing
context-specific or culturally biased information. Since
innovation has a predominantly positive connotation,
however, future studies could use only the more neutral
issue of change. In addition, it would be of interest to
compare the obtained results with those of a study using an
issue that focuses more on stabilizing rather than adapation
or change processes.
The study's major contribution is a clearer view of the
complexity of culture in organizations. This has not been
addressed in prior studies, and some authors have even
discarded, on theoretical grounds, the notion of culture as
complex and even paradoxical (Schreyogg, 1989). Based on
these findings, theoretical arguments about "strong
cultures" need to be revised. If a more differentiated cultural
perspective is applied, "strong cultures" as described, for
example, by Peters and Waterman (1982), could turn out to
be less consistent, less strong, and less homogeneous than
they appear to be.
REFERENCES
Argyris, Chris, and Donald Schon
1978 Organizational Learning: A
Theory of Action Perspective.
Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Baker, Edwin L.
1980 "Managing organizational
culture." Management
Review, 69: 8-13.
Broms, Henri, and
Henrik Gahmberg
1987 Semiotics of Management.
Helsinki: Enis-Offset Ky.
Brown, Martha A.
1976 "Values-A necessary but
neglected ingredient of
motivation on the job."
Academy of Management
Review, 1: 15-23.
Davis, Stanley
1984 Managing Corporate Cultures.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Deal, Terrence, and Allan Kennedy
1982 Corporate Cultures. Reading.
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Diesing, Paul
1971 Patterns of Discovery in the
Social Sciences. Chicago:
Aldine-Atherton.
Dutton, Jane, and
Robert B. Duncan
1987 "The creation of moment for
change through the process
of strategic issue diagnosis."
Strategic Management
Journal, 8: 279-295.
Dyer, W. Gibb
1985 "The cycle of cultural
evolution in organizations." In
R. H. Kilmann, M. J. Saxton,
and R. Serpa (eds.), Gaining
Control of the Corporate
Culture: 20CL229. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Evered, Roger, and Meryl R. Louis
1981 "Alternative perspectives in
the organizational sciences:
'Inquiries from the inside' and
'Inquiries from the outside.' "
Academy of Management
Review, 6: 385-389.
Fetterman, David M.
1989 Ethnography: Step by Step.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Goodenough, W.H.
1971 Culture, Language, and
Society. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Carney, Thomas
1972 Content Analysis. Winnipeg:
University of Manitoba Press.
156/ASQ, March 1992
Culture and Subcultures
Gregory, Kathleen L.
1983 "Native-view paradigms:
Multiple cultures and culture
conflicts in organizations."
Administrative Science
Quarterly, 9: 259-376.
Handy, Charles B.
1978 "Zur Entwicklung der
Organisationskultur durch
Management Development
Methoden" [Developing
organizational culture with
methods of management
development]. Zeitschrift fur
Organisation, 7: 404-410.
Harrison, Roger
1972 "Understanding your organizational character." Haward Business Review, MayNune: 119-128. Heider, Fritz
1958 The Psychology of
Interpersonal Relations. New
York: Wiley.
Hofstede, Geert
1980 Culture's Consequences:
International Differences in
Work-Related Values. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Husserl, Edmund
1975 Ideas: General Introduction to
Pure Phenomenology. New
York: Collier Books.
Ihde, Don
1977 Experimental Phenomenology.
New York: Paragon.
Jamison, Michael S.
1985 "The joys of gardening: Collectivist and bureaucratic cultures in conflict." Sociological Quarterly, 26: 473-490. Kilmann, Ralph H.
1982 "Getting control of the
corporate culture." Managing,
University of Pittsburgh
Graduate School of Business,
#3.
Kroeber, Alfred L., and
Clyde K. Kluckhohn
1952 Culture: A Critical Review of
Concepts and Definitions.
Haward University Peabody
Museum of Archeology and
Ethnology Papers, 47.
Cambridge, MA: Peabody
Museum.
Lawrence, Paul R., and
Jay W. Lorsch
1967 "Differentiation and
integration in complex
organizations." Administrative
Science Quarterly, 12: 1-47.
Louis, Meryl R.
1983 "Prerequisites for fruitful
research on organization
culture." Unpublished
manuscript, Center for Applie~
Social Sciences, Boston
University.
Martin, Joanne, and Deborah Meyerson 1988 "Organizational cultures and the denial, channeling and
acknowledgment of
ambiguity." In L. R. Pondy,
R. J. Boland, Jr., and H.
Thomas (eds.), Managing
Ambiguity and Change:
93-1 25. New York: Wiley.
Martin, Joanne, Sirn Sitkin, and Michael Boehm 1983 "Wild-eyed guys and old salts: The emergence and
disappearance of
organizational subcultures."
Working Paper, Graduate
School of Business, Stanford
University.
Massarik, Fred
1977 "The science of perceiving: Foundations for an empirical phenomenology." Working Paper, Graduate School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles. Miller, George A., Eugene Galanter, and Karl Pribram 1973 Strategien des Handelns, Plane und Strukturen des
Verhaltens [Action strategies,
plans and structures of
behavior]. Stuttgart: Klett.
Patton, Michael 0.
1980 Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Peters, Thomas J., and
Robert H. Waterrnan
1982 In Search of Excellence:
Lessons from America's
Best-run Companies. New
York: Harper & Row.
Phillips, Margaret E.
1984 A conception of culture in
organizational settings.
Working Paper #%84,
Graduate School of
Management, University of
California, Los Angeles.
1990 "Industry as a cultural
grouping." Unpublished
doctoral dissertation,
Anderson Graduate School of
Management, University of
California, Los Angeles.
Piaget, Jean
1954 The Construction of Reality in
the Child. Margaret Cook,
trans. New York: Basic Books.
157lASO. March 1992
Sackmann, Sonja A.
1983 "Organisationskultur-die
unsichtbare Einflussgrosse"
[Organizational cultureThe
invisible influence].
Gruppendynamik, 4: 393-406.
1989 "The framers of culture: The
conceptual views of
anthropology, organization
theory, and management."
Paper presented at the
Academy of Management
Annual Meeting, Washington,
n
.
I
p
1992 "Uncovering culture in
organizations." Journal of
Applied Behavioral Sciences
(forthcoming).
Sapienza, Alice M.
1985 "Believing is seeing: How organizational culture influences the decisions top managers make." In R. H. Kilmann, M. J. Saxton, and Roy Serpa (eds.), Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture: 66-83. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sathe, Vijay
1983 "Some action implications of
corporate culture."
Organizational Dynamics,
Autumn: 5 2 3 .
Schein, Edgar H.
1985 Organizational Culture and
Leadership. A Dynamic View.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
1987 The Clinical Perspective in
Fieldwork. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Schreyogg, Georg
1989 "Zu den problematischen
Konsequenzen starker
Unternehmenskulturen" [The
problematic consequences of
strong corporate cultures].
zfbf, 41 : 94-1 13.
Schutz, Alfred
1962 Collected Papers, vol. 1: The
Problem of Reality. Maurice
Natanson, ed. The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff.
Schutz, Alfred, and
Thomas Luckrnann
1975 Strukturen der Lebenswelt
[Structures of the daily world].
NeuwiedlDarmstadt.
Seiler, Thomas B.
1973 Kognitive Strukturiertheit:
Theorien, Analysen, Befunde
[Cognitive structuring:
Theories, analyses, results].
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Silverman, David
1971 The Theory of Organizations:
A Sociological Framework.
New York: Basic Books.
Smircich, Linda
1983 "Concepts of culture and
organizational analysis."
Administrative Science
Quarterly, 28: 339-358.
Spradley, James P.
1980 Participant Observation. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Tolman, Edward C.
1948 "Cognitive maps in rats and
man." Psychological Review,
55: 189-202.
Van Maanen, John
1979a "Reclaiming qualitative
methods for organizational
research." Administrative
Science Quarterly, 24:
52CL526.
1979b "The fact of fiction in
organizational ethnography."
Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24: 539-550.
White, Leslie A.
1959 "The concept of culture."
American Anthropologist, 61 :
227-251.
Van Maanen, John, and
Steven R. Barley
1985 "Cultural organizations:
Fragments of a theory." In
L. R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G.
Morgan, and T. C. Dandridge (eds.), Organizational Symbolism: 31-53. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Wilkins, Alan
1983 "The culture audit: A tool for
understanding organizations."
Organizational Dynamics,
Autumn: 24-38. Weick, Karl E.
1979 "The Social Psychology of
Organizing, 2d ed. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
APPENDIX A: Rules for Condensing the Interview Data:
InnovationIChange #2 Example
Dictionary Knowledge
Descriptions of an innovationlchange were marked and listed as dictionary
knowledge:
Text: "That was number two on my list of things that were innovative
. . . incentive plans have been around for a long time, but this one
is easily measurable by the employees in the shop. It allows
them to make a lot of money if they produce good parts
fast . . ."[a more detailed description of this plan continues].
Condensed as: Incentive plans that are easily measurable by employees.
Inferences: [Process innovationlpeople orientation].
Directory Knowledge
Four different kinds of information were listed as directory knowledge.
These were (1) originlcontext of the particular innovationlchange, (2) how it
had come about, (3) who was involved, and (4) where it had occurred. Only
one example is given for each category:
Text: ". . . which the PC division always had since 1960. . . . It was not
started by me. It was started by Ben. . . ."
Originlcontext: Current presidentlthen-general-manager initiated it. (In 1960,
PC was owned and managed by the current president.)
Text: ". . . [in production] engineering establishes the numbers . . . they
prepare an estimate sheet and that's how we develop our
standards [people cocerned]. Those estimates that are established
go as standards into the shopfloor. The first time around they are
less accurate than they are the second and the third time around,
because the first time is our best guess [constant improvement].
But then we have historical data after that. So when an employee
picks up his route sheet and he sees 10 hours, 100 pieces and he
beats that, great [people orientation]. . . . When we close out a job,
which is done 30 days after the last shipment-the reason we
allow 30 days is for any customer returns, we give our customers
30 days to inspect the parts [relationships with people]-then we
do a closed job report . . . [detailed description how this is
done]. . . . For the employee we sort out by employee and then
every job that the employee worked on every operation inside of
each job whether or not they are ahead or behind standards
[controll. So they get a printout that goes right along with their
paycheck on the weeks that they receive bonus and it says 'Here's
the job you worked on, here's how many hours you earned, here is
how much rework you caused, here is how much rework is
subtracted from your bonus,' and then on their paycheck we
158lASQ, March 1992
Culture and Subcultures
recalculate their new hourly rate . . . " [work efficiently while
maintaining quality].
How?
1. Introduced from the top; adjustments [constant improvements].
2. People concerned were involved.
3. Control system was developed so that its correct use is
rewarded [people orientationlcontroll.
4. People profit from it [people orientation].
5. Work efficiently while maintaining quality.
Who? One general manager started it.
Where? Plan started in one manufacturing facility.
Recipe Knowledge
Recommendations or prescriptions were listed as recipe knowledge:
Text: ". . . [at the PC division w e had] excellent experience [with the
incentivelbonus plan] [controlled experimentationlconstant
improvement]. And w e installed it 1% years ago at the PMC
division and their profit has more than doubled in 12 months. . . .
We are now trying to install that at the CM division. . . . So
hopefully at the end of this year we are able to turn on an incentive
bonus plan. . . . What w e are trying to do now is get into all nine
locations that do some or all manufacturing. We got now two on it
[incentive plan] . . . and we are getting number three and four
hopefully this summer" [controlled experimentation].
Condensed as: Try something new in one location; implement it in other
locations successively if it works and adaptlimprove it in the process.
Inferences: [Controlled experimentationlconstant improvementldon't upset
the entire company at once].
Axiomatic Knowledge
Axioms (basic underlying premises) were tentatively marked, further probed
in the interviews, and later listed as axiomatic knowledge:
Text: " . . . that part I think is happening with every good employee we
have. That's instilled, that's like part of cheerleaders. . . . I think 90
percent is what you are born with, 20 percent is developed. It's just
something that's in your nature, . . . maybe not born but by the
time you are two or three years old, it's just an attitude that you
have. You know, we have employees that come in who are
extremely bright but they don't have that attitude. . . . When I
interview people, I look for those particular traits to see how they
respond to particular questions rather than talk a lot. . . . Usually
within the first five or six minutes you get a real reading . . . what
their attitude is as a person . . . so usually it clicks or it doesn't
click. . . . Our particular type of person, we need to have people
who are self-motivated, you know, initiators, w e need to have
people that are profit oriented, w e need to have people that are
communicators, people oriented, people that are willing to take
responsibility. . . ."
Inferences: [The nature of people working for BINDlpre-selection].
APPENDIX B: Examples of a Condensed Content Analysis
Listed are condensed quotes from the interviews. To avoid duplication,
condensed content analyses are given here only for InnovationslChanges
#1 and #3: InnovationIChange #2 is the example in Appendix A. The
"General Themes" section, below, however, covers all three
innovationslchanges.
The italicized material contains themes at the group level of analysis. The
numbers indicate the level of generalization, where 1 represents the highest
level of generalization and 3 the lowest level of generalization or the most
specific one.
INNOVATIONICHANGE #1
Dictionary
Technological innovation in terms of sales, profit generation, and creativity
that turns into a process innovation: manufacturing of substrates for
159lASQ, March 1992
computer disk drives in larger quantities at increasingly smaller tolerances
[build successful company (1,Z)lstrategy (I)].
Directory
Originlcontext: Response to outside demand [need-basedaction].
How?
1. BlND was approached to build substrate [customizedR&D].
2. BlND designed and built equipment to reach high tolerances of
accuracy [controlled experimentationl.
3. First, a prototype is developed to see if it can be built; if
positive, the contract is accepted [controlled experimentation).
4. Second, large-scale production with high accuracy [growth
orientation].
5. Third, constant upgrading and improvement of old machinery;
building new equipment [constant improvement].
6. "Diversification": manufacturing of different sizes [building on
strengthslcontrolledexperimentationl.
7. Plant expansion [growth orientation].
Who? Engineers, toolmakers, machinists-everybody.
Where? 1. Where expertise is located, plus cooperation and teamwork
among people involved [individual contributionlteamwork].
2. Later, equipment is moved to Oregon plant; they have technical
expertise there and a good labor market [cost and quality
orientation].
Recipe
1. Be and stay an expert in your field [constant improvement].
2. Use expertise of others [teamwork].
3. Improve constantly; respond to customer needs [strategy].
4. Be more pervasive to accomplish tasks faster.
5. Good management means two-way communication, responsiveness to
employees' needs, competitive benefits and wages.
INNOVATIONICHANGE #3
Dictionary
In-house computer system; could be innovative once it is installed in all
divisions (not yet accomplished) [structure (2)lprocess innovationlcontrolled
experimentation and diffusion).
Directory
Originlcontext: Initiated by internal and external needldemand [need-based
improvement].
1. Internally: old system was not powerful enough.
2. Externally: some good product-line vendors only do business with one
location instead of several.
3. BIND'S computer system should be compatible with the one of their
major product-line vendors [strategy].
How?
1. Engaged several knowledgeable people in research [use
expertiselindividual contribution].
2. Frequent discussions of information and joint evaluation of
different options [teamworkllearning orientation].
3. Implementation process: a three-month pretraining of key
people, then six-month supervision and assistance through
support group [controlled experimentationlpeople
orientationlshift responsibilities downlcontrol
orientationlconstant improvement].
Who? Special task group.
Where? In the corporate office and in data processing.
Recipe
1. Get people involved and prepare them.
2. Persuade people: show advantages; don't force them to do things
beople orientationlindividual contributionlshift responsibilities down].
3. Control, follow-up, and adapt [control orientationlconstant improvement].
4. Watch closely to improve [constant improvement].
160lASQ. March 1992
Culture and Subcultures
General Themes, Assumptions, Concerns/Emphasis, Attitudes:
Comparisons across Innovations/Changes
Dictionary
1. Innovation is something radically new that has not existed before and
that works.
2. Considers the three innovations as borderline situations.
3. As the i n t e ~ i e wwent on, he started to question his own definition of
innovation as radically new.
Directory
1. Try to think of ways to save money.
2. Try to eliminate anything that is a problem.
3. Accept people and opportunities as they are and make the best use of
them.
Recipe
1. BlND needs more future planning; not just six months ahead.
2. Respect the preciousness of time.
3. Be more persuasive so that things happen faster.
4. Get qualified people. Problem: BlND will become more centralized in
certain functions-makes it harder to attract "good" people for divisions
[good = take initiative and responsibilitieslintrapreneurs].
5. He would like to have more people think the way he does.
Concerns/Emphasis
1. Controlled profitable growth.
2. Work efficiency.
3. Try to save money.
4. Eliminate any problems ("bottlenecks").
5. Need people with "right" attitude: these are self-motivated, willing to
take responsibility, communicators, people-oriented,
entrepreneurs-they want to save money and work more efficiently.
6. Provide opportunities for people and let them use their skills, talents.
7. Attract and retain initiators rather than maintainers.
8. Things can always be improved.
9. Business philosophy determines structure.
10. The best organization ultimately depends on market demands
[centralized vs. decentralized-he prefers to be decentralized.
Attitudes toward
Employees:
1. Partnership: We are in this thing together.
2. They need attitude to do things more efficiently.
3. Need "right" people; it "clicks" or it doesn't; self-motivated, willing to
take responsibilities, experts in their field.
Being a businessman:
1. The work of a businessman is art: you need to do everything
simultaneously to achieve controlled profitable growth.
161/ASQ, March 1992
http://www.jstor.org
LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 1 of 2 -
You have printed the following article:
Culture and Subcultures: An Analysis of Organizational Knowledge
Sonja A. Sackmann
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 1. (Mar., 1992), pp. 140-161.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28199203%2937%3A1%3C140%3ACASAAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2
This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from an
off-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Please
visit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.
References
Values - A Necessary but Neglected Ingredient of Motivation on the Job
Martha A. Brown
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 1, No. 4. (Oct., 1976), pp. 15-23.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28197610%291%3A4%3C15%3AV-ANBN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y
The Creation of Momentum for Change Through the Process of Strategic Issue Diagnosis
Jane E. Dutton; Robert B. Duncan
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3. (May - Jun., 1987), pp. 279-295.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0143-2095%28198705%2F06%298%3A3%3C279%3ATCOMFC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L
Alternative Perspectives in the Organizational Sciences: "Inquiry from the inside" and
"Inquiry from the outside"
Roger Evered; Meryl Reis Louis
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6, No. 3. (Jul., 1981), pp. 385-395.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0363-7425%28198107%296%3A3%3C385%3AAPITOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W
Native-View Paradigms: Multiple Cultures and Culture Conflicts in Organizations
Kathleen L. Gregory
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 3, Organizational Culture. (Sep., 1983), pp. 359-376.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28198309%2928%3A3%3C359%3ANPMCAC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M
http://www.jstor.org
LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 2 of 2 -
Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations
Paul R. Lawrence; Jay W. Lorsch
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 1. (Jun., 1967), pp. 1-47.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28196706%2912%3A1%3C1%3ADAIICO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O
Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis
Linda Smircich
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 3, Organizational Culture. (Sep., 1983), pp. 339-358.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28198309%2928%3A3%3C339%3ACOCAOA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D
Reclaiming Qualitative Methods for Organizational Research: A Preface
John Van Maanen
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 4, Qualitative Methodology. (Dec., 1979), pp.
520-526.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28197912%2924%3A4%3C520%3ARQMFOR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6
The Fact of Fiction in Organizational Ethnography
John Van Maanen
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 4, Qualitative Methodology. (Dec., 1979), pp.
539-550.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28197912%2924%3A4%3C539%3ATFOFIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1
The Concept of Culture
Leslie A. White
American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 61, No. 2. (Apr., 1959), pp. 227-251.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7294%28195904%292%3A61%3A2%3C227%3ATCOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R