Corporate Culture and Organizational Symbolism: An Overview [reprint 2010 ed.] 9783110874310, 9783110121544

Citation preview

de Gruyter Studies in Organization 34 Corporate Culture and Organizational Symbolism

de Gruyter Studies in Organization Organizational Theory and Research

This de Gruyter Series aims at publishing theoretical and methodological studies of organizations as well as research findings, which yield insight in and knowledge about organizations. The whole spectrum of perspectives will be considered: organizational analyses rooted in the sociological as well as the economic tradition, from a socio-psychological or a political science angle, mainstream as well as critical or ethnomethodological contributions. Equally, all kinds of organizations will be considered: firms, public agencies, non-profit institutions, voluntary associations, inter-organizational networks, supra-national organizations etc. Emphasis is on publication of new contributions, or significant revisions of existing approaches. However, summaries or critical reflections on current thinking and research will also be considered. This series represents an effort to advance the social scientific study of organizations across national boundaries and academic disciplines. An Advisory Board consisting of representatives of a variety of perspectives and from different cultural areas is responsible for achieving this task. This series addresses organization researchers within and outside universities, but also practitioners who have an interest in grounding their work on recent social scientific knowledge and insights. Editors:

Prof. Dr. Alfred Kieser, Universität Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany Prof. Dr. Cornells Lammers, FSW Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands Advisory Board:

Prof. Anna Grandori, CRORA, Universitä Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milan, Italy Prof. Dr. Marshall W. Meyer, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, U.S.A. Prof. Jean-Claude Thoenig, Universite de Paris I, Paris, France Prof. Dr. Barry A. Turner, Middlesex Business School, London, GB Prof. Mayer Zald, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, U.S.A.

Mats Alvesson · Per Olof Berg

Corporate Culture and Organizational Symbolism An Overview

W DE

G Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 1992

Dr. Mats Alvesson Stockholms Universitet, Företagsekonomiska Institutionen, Stockholm, Sweden Dr. Per Olof Berg Ekonomihögskolan vid Lunds Universitet, Företagsekonomiska Institutionen, Lund, Sweden With 10 figures and 1 table

«> Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Alvesson, Mats, 1956 Corporate culture and organizational symbolism ; an overview / Mats Alvesson, Per Olof Berg. p. cm. — (De Gruyter studies in organization ; 34) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 3-11-012154-9 (alk. paper) ISBN 3-11-013607-4 (pbk.) 1. Corporate culture. 2. Symbolism in organizations. I. Berg, Per Olof, 1946 - II. Title. III. Series. HD58.7.A47 1992 302.3'5 — dc20 91-27140 Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Alvesson, Mats:

Corporate culture and organizational symbolism : an overview / Mats Alvesson ; Per Olof Berg. - Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter, 1992 (De Gruyter studies in organization ; 34 : Organizational theory and research) ISBN 3-11-012154-9 (geb.) ISBN 3-11-013607-4 (brosch.) NE: Berg, Per Olof: ;GT © Copyright 1992 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-1000 Berlin 30 All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany. Typesetting and Printing: Buch- und Offsetdruckerei Wagner GmbH, Nördlingen. - Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer-GmbH, Berlin. - Cover design: Johannes Rother, Berlin.

Acknowledgements We want to acknowledge all those friends, colleagues and anonymous reviewers who have helped us in writing this book, as well as all organizations, institutions and research councils which have given us the institutional and financial support necessary to carry out our work. First, we want to thank SCOS (The Standing Conference on Organizational Symbolism), the research network which has probably meant most for the development of contacts between researchers in the field of culture and symbolism, not only in Europe but also globally. After originally being an anarchistic, avant-garde movement within the European organization science tradition, SCOS is today an institution in its own right. Its approach is well expressed by Gagliardi (1990 a: VI) who writes that SCOS was set up ... on the basis that the study of organizations, as human and social phenomena, requires an authentically inter-disciplinary approach, using methods, concepts, and metaphors taken from anthropology, linguistics, history, psychoanalysis, and the other life-sciences, and not just those of sociology and/or social psychology. The basic assumption was that any disciplinary paradigm will tend to restrict the creative interpretation of organizational and social phenomena, and that such paradigms - together with the types of social control operating in any institutionalized scientific context will tend to smother expressiveness and hinder intellectual exchange. For these reasons SCOS has developed as an informal network asserting the values of tolerance, expressiveness, and critical awareness of social control mechanisms on intellectual progress in organizational science.

The intellectual openness and spirited climate characterizing the numerous SCOS conferences have been an ideal breeding ground for culture and symbolism research. It is also in this tradition that this book has come into being, offering yet another contribution to the previous SCOS publications edited by Turner (1990) and Gagliardi (1990a). We are thus deeply grateful to those members of SCOS who have given the research field their energy, enthusiasm, time and even financial support over the years, e.g. Vincent Degot, Pasquale Gagliardi, Kristian Kreiner, Rein Nauta, Antonio Strati, Barry Turner, Bob Witkin and many others. We also wish to take this opportunity to express our appreciation for the constructive views on an earlier version of this book put forward by our colleagues

VI

Acknowledgements

Barbara Czarniawska-Joerges (Lund), Kristian Kreiner (Copenhagen), Leif Melin (Linköping) and Howie Schwartz (Rochester). It is also important for us to recognize all the support we have had from our close colleagues at the Department of Business Administration at Lund University. In connection with the first international conference on corporate culture and organizational symbolism at Lund in 1984, the research group SCIL (Studies in Symbolism and Culture at Lund) was formed and it is obvious that without the numerous and lengthy discussions within SCIL this book would never have been written. We therefore thank the members of the group cordially for all personal support and constructive points of view. Later on the SCIL group was transformed into the research program MOPS (Management and Organization in Postmodern Society). To all colleagues and friends in MOPS we extend our warmest thanks for their unending support also during difficult and straining times. Thanks are also due to the various bodies which, by means of grants, have given us the possibility of carrying out projects which preceded or ran parallel with the completion of this work: The Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences, The Swedish Center for Working Life, The Swedish Work Environment Fund and Jan Wallander's Foundation for Scientific Research. Finally, special thanks to Inga Collin who did a skilful job in writing the first (Swedish) edition of this book. David Canter also did a much appreciated job in translating the Swedish version of the book in a remarkably short time. Alexandra Bellinetto has also assisted us in translating, editing and "de-lousing" the manuscript with great exactitude, competence and a never-ending enthusiasm for her work. It is also appropriate to acknowledge those publishers who have given us permission to use previously published material in this book. Chapters 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 principally originate from a book published in Swedish in 1988 by Studentlitteratur, and for those chapters we are jointly responsible. The additional chapters have all borrowed their main ideas from previously published articles and chapters in books. Chapter 2 is based on the article by Alvesson "On the Popularity of Organizational Culture" in Acta Sociologica in 1990. Chapter 7 has borrowed its main ideas from an article by Berg entitled "Symbolic Management of Human Resources", first published by Human Resource Management in 1986. Chapter 8 con-

Acknowledgements

VII

tains material from an article by Berg first published in Frost et al. (1985) with the title "Organization Change as a Symbolic Transformation Process". The main part of Chapter 10, finally, first appeared in an article by Berg (1989 b) entitled "Postmodern Management", published by the Scandinavian Journal of Management in 1989. Stockholm and Lund, January 1991 Mats Alvesson, Per Olof Berg

Contents

Acknowledgements

V

Part I: The Research Field: Development and Status 1 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3

The Emergence of the Culture Concept Purpose and Outline of the Book The Birth of the Dragon How to Pursue a Dragon The Outline of the Book The Development of the Research Field The Growth of the Field The Early Development of the Field Comments

3 3 3 4 7 8 8 11 16

2 2.1 2.2

19 19

2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.5

Why is Organizational Culture so Popular? Introduction On the Theoretical Reasons for the Rise of Organizational Culture Research The Marketing of Organizational Culture A Note on Markets and Submarkets The Product and how it is Sold The Customers Producers On the Dynamics of the Field The Context of Organizational Culture Economic Changes Social and Cultural Changes Summary and Conclusion

21 24 24 25 30 31 34 35 36 37 41

3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2

The Research Field Today The Theoretical Status of Culture Research The Empirical Foundations Object Levels, Phenomena and Conventions Previous Reviews of the Research Field Our Own Approach

45 45 49 52 52 54

X

Contents

Part II: Different Theoretical Perspectives 4 4.1 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.2.7 4.3

Object Levels The Need to Distinguish Between Different Object Levels . Review of Culture Studies on Different Levels Culture in Societies and Nations Regional and Local Cultures The Cultures of Industries and Social Sectors Organizational and Corporate Cultures Functional Subcultures at the Organizational Level Social Groups in the Organization Professional Cultures The Importance of Focusing on the Level Problem

61 61 64 64 65 66 67 69 70 72 73

5 5.1 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7

Cultural Phenomena in Organizations Culture Corporate Culture as an Entity Collective, Clan and Tribe Artifacts Collective Mental Frameworks Collective Action Patterns Symbols and Symbolism Ideology Climate and Spirit Image Identity and Character Conclusions

75 75 78 79 80 81 83 85 87 88 89 90 91

6 6.1 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.2.4

Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field Conventions and Perspectives The Culture Convention Corporate Culture Culture as a System of Values and Beliefs Cultural Cognitivism Organizational Culture as a Symbol System (Cultural Artifacts) Meaning Construction Organizations as Shared Meanings Organizations as Constructions and Destructions of Meanings

6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2

93 93 96 97 100 101 103 105 106 108

Contents

6.4 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.5 6.5.1 6.5.2 6.6 6.6.1 6.6.2 6.7 6.8

Ideology Corporate Ideology Political Ideology Psychodynamics Corporate Culture as Shared Fantasies Organizational Cultures as Archetypes Symbolism Symbolic Particularism Symbolic Universalism Comments A Summary and Comparison of the Perspectives

XI

109 110 113 114 115 117 118 120 122 124 127

Part III: Culture and Symbolism in Practice 7 7.1 7.1.1 7.1.2 7.1.3

Managing Organizational Cultures 135 The Need for a Cultural Approach to Management 135 Strong Culture as a Competitive Advantage 136 Cultural Control 139 Corporate Spirit and Commitment - Culture as a Means of Exploiting Human Resources 141 7.1.4 Cultural Compatibility 142 7.1.5 Expressing Strategy - Corporate Identity, Profile and Image 144 7.1.6 Comments on the Context for the Practical Need for a Cultural Approach 146 7.2 How to "Manage" Cultures 148 7.2.1 Corporate Culture Management/Cultural Engineering . . . 148 7.2.2 Symbolic Management 152 7.3 Brief Summary 154 8 8.1 8.1.1 8.1.2 8.1.3 8.1.4 8.2 8.2.1 8.2.2 8.3

Symbolic Management Management from a Symbolic Perspective Strategic Management Human Resource Management Corporate Communication Organizational Change and Development The Symbolic Management Paradigm Utilizing Symbolic Resources Principles of Symbolic Management The Added Value of Culture and Symbolism for Practice . .

155 155 156 157 159 164 166 166 168 169

XII

Contents

Part IV: Discussions and Conclusions 9 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 10 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.3.1 10.3.2 10.3.3 10.4 10.4.1 10.4.2 10.4.3 10.4.4 10.4.5 10.5 10.5.1 10.5.2 10.5.3 10.5.4 10.5.5 10.6 10.7

The Current Debate New Theoretical Contributions or Opportunistic Pop Research? The Omnipotence Syndrome Culture and Corporate Performance Realism Versus Romanticism Emancipation and Manipulation Symbolic Pollution Clarity Versus Ambiguity Conclusions, Perspectives and Speculations On the Very Problem of Drawing a Conclusion An Added Value? Organizational Culture - A Mature Metaphor Organizational Culture as a Counter Metaphor Culture as a Metaphor of the Collective Comments on the Future of the Cultural Metaphor The Symbolic Perspective From Metaphor to Perspective The Logic of Ambiguity Symbols as the Link Between the Objectively Perceived and the Subjectively Experienced Emphasis on the Expressive Future Developments of the Symbolic Perspective Towards a Postmodern Discourse? Resisting Culture and Symbolism From the Ambiguous to the Arbitrary Imagery Instabilities Credibility Organization Research in a Postmodern World FinalWords

References Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

177 177 182 184 187 190 192 194 197 198 200 202 202 204 207 209 209 210 211 213 213 215 218 219 221 222 223 224 226 229 255

Parti The Research Field: Development and Status

1 The Emergence of the Culture Concept

1.1 Purpose and Outline of the Book 1.1.1 The Birth of the Dragon The illustration on the cover of this book, of a dragon breaking out of the formal frames of the organization, appeared for the first time in 1984 at the international conference on corporate culture and organizational symbolism in Lund. At the time, the dragon image was meant to symbolize the ambiguity of corporate or organizational cultures1. On the one hand, there was the terrifying, collective "beast" lurking below the smooth corporate surface (like the dragon in Western mythology) - on the other hand, the dragon was to symbolize the ancient und inherited wisdom, built into social structures and artifacts (like the five-toed imperial dragon in Chinese mythology). What we were not aware of at the time was that the dragon we had created would assume a life of its own and that the image of the dragon would soon become the symbol of corporate culture and organizational symbolism as a scientific field. Eventually it became the SCOS hall-mark and starting with the SCOS conference in Lund the dragon - in various forms and shapes - has been used as a conference logo at the succeeding SCOS conferences. The dragon has also been used on the front cover of Dragon - the journal published by SCOS in the mid-80's. It has even been found worthy of its own scientific "draconological" discourse by Sievers (1990: 223) who states among other things:

From now on we will be using the concepts corporate culture and organizational culture when referring to cultural phenomena in organizations, and to organizational symbolism when referring to a symbolic perspective on organizations. We see corporate culture and organizational culture as similar concepts, but in accordance with most academic authors' language we view corporate culture as managerially oriented while organizational culture has a slight sociological flavour. We will not, however, stress this distinction (see also chapter 5).

4

1 The Emergence of the Culture Concept What the dragon in the SCOS-logo is supposed to symbolize for our contemporary institutions and our work enterprises, in particular, is a different metamyth from the glittering and sterile pseudo-reality as it is expressed in the best-selling soap operas on corporate culture and the related search for excellence. ... The dragon tearing down the organization-chart may thus, e.g. help us to perceive our history of industrialization from a new tradition, i.e. the repression and imprisonment of that part of reality which cannot be counted and measured.

The above quotation clearly illustrates the ambitions to use the culture metaphor and the symbolic perspective to break away from the confinement of the more traditional organization sciences in order to open up organizations to a truly cross-disciplinary perspective. In this way the dragon also came to represent our own motives for working within the culture and symbolism field. At that time - in the early 80's - we did not only see ourselves as pioneers in breaking new land in the organization sciences but also as revolutionaries in our attacks on the predominant positivistic research methods. Like the dragon, we wanted to erase the confines of organization research and open up the organization to a more challenging, meaningful and - not least - fun scientific discourse.

1.1.2 How to Pursue a Dragon However, apart from being used as a symbol for the particular cultural aspects of organization life, the dragon can also be used as a metaphor of the research field as such. Like the dragon, the field has expanded without inhibitions and in its development it has consumed just about everything in its path (concepts, theories, methodology, etc.), regardless of the scientific discipline to which the consumed prey belonged. Like the dragon, too, the field has hitherto evaded to be captured. Various futile attempts have been made at categorization, systematization and classification. Despite persisting efforts the knowledge of the anatomy of the "worm", i.e. the structure and the nature of the theories, the models, the concepts and the observations, is rather poor. The efforts made at creating an overall field structure diminished with new approaches developing and old ones disappearing. (At times we have had the feeling that we were dealing with a multi-headed dragon.) One of the key questions we have had to face in our endeavour to get an overall view of the research field is, in fact, how

1.1 Purpose and Outline of the Book

5

to capture something that evolves so fast and - at least initially - so erratically. Obviously we are amazed at this rapid development but also somewhat uneasy. How should we interpret this development to which we ourselves have contributed over the years? Should we see it as a significant and important contribution to our understanding of organizations (and thus to our possibilities of managing them) - or should we see the whole business of corporate culture as a giant marketing trick, strongly supported by management consultants and pseudo-academics in order to legitimate their roles as corporate wizards possessing a "true" knowledge of organizational reality? These questions started to haunt us with increasing intensity and eventually forced us to disassociate ourselves from the field and take a more critical look, not only at the corporate culture and organizational symbolism concepts as such, but also at the way in which the scientific field developed and the way in which the knowledge is used. Our own problems in seeking clarity with regard to concepts and in being able to evaluate unsubstantiated statements in the literature and the shortage of qualified empirical research have also convinced us that an overall and classificatory contribution is necessary to help students, researchers and qualified practitioners to study this research field in depth. Thus, in this book we are not only interested in the cultural or symbolic phenomena as such, but also in the very research field as a fascinating/ confusing phenomenon worthy in itself of being studied (at a safe distance), discussed and debated. With this perspective in mind, everything that takes place around this field, the criticism directed against it, its practical usefulness, the theoretical gaps it fills, etc. will be as important as the development and structure of the field. Why this rapid development is taking place just now, what reactions the field has aroused in scientific circles and what ideas support the field today are some of the questions we have raised and to which we shall try to find answers in this work. In this sense, this book should be seen primarily as an effort to review and systematize the overall understanding of a very complex research field. We have the ambition to provide the reader with a rich set of clues and guide-lines, thus facilitating the orientation within the brushy landscape of organizational culture and symbolism research and, to a more limited degree, practice. The book should also be seen as a constructive critique on the field as such, with the explicit purpose of uncovering, deciphering

6

1 The Emergence of the Culture Concept

and exposing the unique contribution of the culture metaphor and the symbolic perspective on organizations. Underlying this second objective is our suspicion that culture and symbolism in many instances have been used not to add new and important knowledge to our understanding of organizations but rather to mystify organization reality and to mask important aspects of organizations, such as power and conflicts. However, let us make it clear from the beginning that we are in no way suffering from a St. George complex with a desire to slay the dragon by means of violent criticism, cynical theoretical hairsplitting or methodological declarations of impotence. Nor is it our aim to tame the dragon, to make it dance around in the "scientific ring" like a circus dog. In our view, there have already been too many attempts at taming the dragon or at turning the field into a pet dragon in a scientific Disneyland visited by management consultants or to quote Sievers (1990: 227): . . . we have not seriously enough started not to fool the dragon; on occasion it appears to me that there are just still too many tricksters around and that the stories and images which are presented about the dragon, i.e. about "the ugly face" of our contemporary organizations, are far away from an attempt to elucidate where, how, and to what an extent "our organizations are killing us" (Morgan 1986: 274). Much too often these contributions seem to repeat the title of one of the children books "There's no such thing as a dragon" (Kent 1986).

However, even if certain confusion, suspicions and dissatisfactions enumerated above have contributed to our writing this book, we should not disguise the fact that in our mind the field of organizational symbolism has given us a genuine possibility of "operationalizing" and conceptualizing the subjectively experienced and ambiguous elements in organizations. This has filled the gap between the "hard" structures and systems and the "soft" experiences and feelings shared by individuals and groups. Thus, this book will hopefully come to serve as it was intended, i.e. as an overview of the field and a scientific critique, bringing out the strength and weakness of one of the more important fields of the organization sciences today.

1.1 Purpose and Outline of the Book

7

1.1.3 The Outline of the Book The book contains ten chapters divided into four main parts: an overview of the research field, an analysis of the current theoretical perspectives, the practical implications of organizational culture and symbolism and, finally, some concluding notes on the current debate as well as on the role of culture and symbolism in the so-called postmodern age. In the first part of the book, we have attempted to outline the historical development of the field (chapter 1) and to discuss some possible reasons

Part I

1. The Development of the Culture Concept

The Research Field: Development and Status

2.On the Popularity of Organizational Culture 3. The Research Field Today

Part Π

Different Theoretical Perspectives Part ffl

Culture and Symbolism in Practice

4. Levels of Culture and Symbolism

5. Cultural Phenomena

7. Managing Organizational Cultures

Part Ν

Discussions and Conclusions

6.Conventions and Perspectives

S.Symbolic Management

9. Pros and Cons in the Current Debate

I

10.Perspectives and Speculations

Figure 1.1: Overview of the book

8

1 The Emergence of the Culture Concept

for its exceptional growth (chapter 2). Finally, we make an attempt at summarizing the "scientific status" of the research field today (chapter 3). In the second part of the book we are taking a closer look at the concept of culture used at different levels in organizational analysis (chapter 4), and the different concepts used to capture cultural and symbolic phenomena in organizations (chapter 5). The main objective of our overview of existing approaches to the study of corporate culture and organizational symbolism is to dissect a number of research conventions within this field of research (chapter 6). An extensive review of a large part of the literature in the field is provided. The third part of the book illustrates the practical implications of the corporate culture metaphor and the symbolic perspective. We look for arguments in favour of using a cultural perspective in managing organizations (chapter 7) and we present the symbolic management approach from a critical point of view (chapter 8). In the fourth and final part of the book we review contemporary debates and also express some personal views on the field and on its theoretical and practical contributions besides making reflections on its future development. Here we take up current attempts at linking up with postmodernism and discuss the culture theme in relation to this.

1.2 The Development of the Research Field 1.2.1 The Growth of the Field As mentioned in the introduction, few concepts have had such an impact on organizational and corporate management research in recent years as that of organizational culture. When we started to use the corporate culture and organizational symbolism concepts in the late 70's (see, for example, Berg 1980), neither of us could dream of the impact these concepts later would have on the discourse of organizations. At that time, the organization sciences - including subfields such as organization theory, organization behaviour, organization sociology and organization development - were mainly concerned with repairing and patching up its "contingency" framework with no or little concern for the "softer side of the organization" (with the exception of organizational behaviour

1.2 The Development of the Research Field

9

research, but here the focus is normally on individuals and groups rather than on organizations as large collectives). We thus saw ourselves as pioneers who "dared" to challenge the conventional, rationalistic view of organizations. As such we were often attacked for not being rigourous enough in our use of concepts or criticized of scientific opportunism. Today the picture is completely different with corporate culture and organizational symbolism appearing - for good and for bad - as a distinct and partly "institutionalized" field of research within the broader area of organization sciences. (The problem of rigour to some extent remains.) Let us start our overview of the research field by accounting for its very growth in terms of published material. One such rough quantitative estimate of the number of studies published is given by Barley et al. (1988) who, through a computer search based on six bibliographic data bases, came up with a total of 192 papers on organizational culture published in 78 different outlets up to 1986. In a somewhat broader overview, also including the concept of organizational symbolism, we ourselves identified 281 specialized publications in the corporate culture field, issued between 1942 and 1986. (Of these 39 were books or doctoral theses.) In order to produce an up-to-date count of publications, we carried out an ABI data base search in December 1990, using "corporate culture", "organizational culture" or "organizational symbolism" as search words. This search resulted in no fewer than 2550 hits! distributed over the years according to figure 1.2 below. No doubt the scientific legitimacy of the field has also increased thanks to a number of "special issues" by leading scientific journals, such as Administrative Science Quarterly 1983 (3), Journal of Management 1985 (2), Journal of Management Studies 1986 (3), Organization Studies 1986 (2) and International Studies of Management and Organization 1987 (3). Furthermore, the number of books with more or less specific scientific ambitions have increased dramatically since 1982, for example Frost et al. (1985), Gagliardi (1990a), Kilmann et al. (1985), Pondy et al. (1983), Sathe (1985), Schein (1985) and Turner (1990). It is also interesting to note that the field of corporate culture and especially organizational symbolism seems to have attracted particularly strong attention by European scholars. The foundation of SCOS in 1981 is one example of the institutionalization of the field. SCOS, which is an international network of organization scientists, has conducted annual confer-

10

1 The Emergence of the Culture Concept No. of 3000 Studies 2500

1

1

2000

1500

500 0 >1980 ΘΟ

81 82

83

84 85

87

ιI1 1 88

89 90 Year

Figure 1.2: The figure shows the cumulative growth of the number of publications that have dealt with corporate or organizational culture or organizational symbolism as concepts since the early 80's. In fact, almost half of the items listed as using these concepts have been published between 1988 and 1990 (1174 out of a total of 2550).

ences since 1982 on special themes, attracting a large number of participants. However, it is not only in terms of research that the field has expanded but also in terms of practical applications of the culture and symbolism perspectives. The first ones to recognize culture and symbolism were managThe table shows the locations and themes of the SCOS conferences. 1982 1983 1984 1985 1985 1986 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991

Exeter Groningen Lund Antibes Trento Montreal Hull Milan Istanbul Fontainebleau Saarbr cken Copenhagen

Corporate Culture Rites and Rituals Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture Corporate Image The Symbolics of Skill Cultural Engineering Metatheory of Symbolism The Symbolics of Corporate Artifacts Organizational Culture in Different Civilizations The Symbolics of Leadership The Symbolics of Technical Innovation Reconstructing Organizational Culture

1.2 The Development of the Research Field

11

ers and consultants. Randall (1962), Cleverly (1971), Page (1974) and Handy (1978) are all examples of books written by business practitioners who attempted to understand what was "really" happening in the companies where they worked. This increasing interest, primarily in the corporate culture concept, is also demonstrated in a flood of contributions in the more "popular" management press, such as Organization Dynamics, The Executive, New Management and similar journals. The culture concept has also been utilized in modern management. For example, a Swedish pharmaceutical company, Pharmacia, set up a "Personnel and Business Culture Department" as early as in 1983 and many other companies have conducted "culture development programmes" for many years. It is also common today to find references to corporate culture in annual reports and other corporate documents, and managers gladly present "corporate culture" as a crucial factor in their method of operations and an essential contribution to their success. The culture concept thus seems to have gotten a foothold in many companies and can thus influence attempts at controlling corporate operations. To sum up, from being a research topic of virtually no interest to serious organization and management scientists, corporate culture and organizational symbolism today constitute a distinct, densely populated and partly institutionalized field of research. Nevertheless, much of the development we are experiencing today has its roots in work carried out as far back as in the forties and fifties, and in the next section of this chapter we intend to take a closer look at some of these early contributions.

1.2.2 The Early Development of the Field In a paper advocating a symbolic approach to organizations Dandridge et al. (1980: 77) noted that: A survey of major texts within the field of organizational behaviour establishes clearly that there are virtually no references to the phenomenon that is the subject of this paper. For all practical purposes it is as if the phenomenon did not exist or was not important. Most of direct references are to superficial forms such as the thickness of carpets in executive suites or special keys to executive washrooms.

12

1 The Emergence of the Culture Concept

Our own search for the roots of corporate culture and organizational symbolism, however, not only resoundingly exploded the myth that research with a corporate culture orientation did not exist before 1980 but also showed that the above authors were fundamentally wrong in their judgement of the quality of some of the work produced! Claiming that a research field is unexplored is often nothing but a sign of ignorance, and even though the concept of corporate culture was not very often employed prior to 1980, cultural phenomena were frequent objects of study much earlier. What probably made it difficult to trace the roots of culture research was the fact that corporate culture stems from many different, not necessarily interrelated, scientific disciplines. We have no ambition to provide a comprehensive overview of earlier studies on such phenomena, but only want to point to a number of important examples. One of the most distinct research traditions with a profound impact on later culture research is what is often referred to as the Tavistock School. Within this psychoanalytically oriented school there seem to have been two lines of thought which later influenced research on culture. The first argued that there existed a close link between social (technical) and psychic structures (e.g. Jaques 1951, 1953, 1955; Menzies 1960; Redl 1942). Jaques (1953) in fact claimed that he was studying "cultural phenomena in companies". Although he was operating in a psychoanalytical tradition, his concept of culture is largely based on an anthropological theoretical framework which regards acquired customs and traditions as the basis of culture. The main message in his study of Glacier factory in Britain, which is now a classic, is that "... life in a company is an uninterrupted interaction between structure, culture and personality, where changes in one area call for changes in another area" (page 253). Later, Jaques's example was followed by several researchers at the Tavistock Institute (e.g. Menzies 1960; Miller/Rice 1967; Rice 1965). A second line of thought was the assumption that unconscious, collective processes interfered with "work processes", thus reducing the efficiency of the work carried out (Bion 1961). Berne (1963), who initially worked within the psychodynamic tradition, to some extent illustrated the cultural or symbolic aspects of management in his book "The Structure and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups", for example in the form of an "apotheosis" which groups and organizations project onto their leaders (heroes). Concepts such as "basic assumptions", "shared fantasies", "col-

1.2 The Development of the Research Field

13

lective defence mechanisms", etc., were coined to describe the dynamics of the group. It is also interesting to note that recently the psychoanalytical perspective has been employed to discuss the very basis of the "deep structures of culture" e.g. on the basis of Bion's (1961) theories about "basic assumptions" (Kets de Vries/Miller 1984 a; Kets de Vries/Miller 1984b; Kets de Vries/Miller 1986 and partly also in Schein 1985). Another important early source of inspiration are the institutionalists and paramount among them Selznick (1957). His organizational character concept has been most important for our understanding of institutionalization processes and has also similarities with the culture concept. Some of Selznick's ideas about institutions as integrated, historically conditioned, dynamic phenomena have since been picked up and further developed by the neoinstitutionalists (Meyer/Rowan 1977; Meyer/Scott 1983). The term "institutionalist school" here refers to the broad orientation which concentrates on how infrastructures occur and the social context in which a historically stable character is formed and established. Sometimes, an institution is regarded as a "rationality context", i.e. a collection of rules and principles which determine the action space. An institution is based on ideas, concepts and values which are taken for granted and not questioned. This has further reinforced links with the cultural perspective. By considering institutionalized rules "myths" and by emphasizing the way in which the formal organizational structure signals changes in values and attitudes to members and to the environment (see also Kreiner/Christensen 1986), the links to the culture concept are emphasized. The SI AR (Scandinavian Institute for Administrative Research) school of strategic management that emerged in Scandinavia in the 1970's has also strong links with Selznick. Emphasized here was the central role of the value system (Stymne 1970) and of language and systems of symbols (Rhenman 1973). Normann (1975), one of the leading proponents of this tradition, did, in fact, speak about dominating ideas and "the growth culture" of the company, i.e. the properties in a company which affect the company's growth pattern. In the mid-70's, the interest in myth as a phenomenon was remarkable in Scandinavia. However, there was hardly much consensus or precision in the utilization of the concept. Initially, the myth concept seems to have been employed as a collective designation for the social logic behind rational collective action. The myth was seen as a controlling - but basically erroneous or at least debatable - idea about the construction of reality shared by a group of people. One of the more well-known examples is

14

1 The Emergence of the Culture Concept

Westerlund and Sjöstrand's book on organizational myths which was published in 1975/79. Somewhat later, contributions by Jönsson and Lundin (1977) appeared on the subject of organizational myths and these have some relevance for our understanding of how fundamental ideas about the nature of the environment control behaviour in organizations. This kind of research emphasized the stabilizing function of the myth in the organization, but the approach was not characterized by a clear culture theory inspiration. In the intervening years, there has been continued interest in the myth concept and its control function, e.g. Broms and Gahmberg's works (1979, 1983, etc.) where there are strong links to semiotics. The corporate culture was also approached from an ethnographic perspective in the 60's, for example, in a number of popular management books. Examples of such works are Randall's (1962) "The Folklore of Management", Brooker's (1967) "Magic in Business and Industry", Cleverly's (1971) "Managers and Magic" and Page's (1974) "The Company Savage". However, as the titles suggest, these authors were more fascinated by the sensational aspects of comparing organizations with "primitive" cultures controlled by superstition and irrationality than by serious research ambitions. In other words, these books have limited scientific value and generally only demonstrated corporate cultural phenomena, without attempting any deeper analyses or interpretations. In parenthesis, it is interesting to note that anthropologists and ethnologists with academic ambitions have not been interested in the corporate culture concept to any great extent, despite the obvious possibilities inherent in the concept. The few studies which we have identified have tended to focus on specific, well-defined phenomena or have studied "worker cultures" with a proclivity for factory environments (e.g. Ehn 1981), and often with a clear pro-worker perspective (e.g. Burawoy 1979). An anthology by Jones et al. (1988), with studies of corporate cultures undertaken in an ethnographic perspective, is an exception. Some researchers who do not formally adhere to these disciplines have also undertaken similar studies (e.g. Linstead 1985; Young 1989). However, the ethnographic perspective has met with a renewed interest in corporate culture, e.g. through van Maanen (1988), Jones et al. (1988), Kunda (1991) and Conradson (1988). Another branch of culture and symbolism research in organizations is various versions of sociological perspectives represented by authors such as Clark (1972), Olsen (1970) and Turner (1971) and by a few an-

1.2 The Development of the Research Field

15

thropologists. The organizational culture field has also been tangential to social psychology. Within the human relations tradition since the 1930's, and in the 1940's and 1950's some sociologists conducted case-studies which closely resemble today's culture studies (e.g. Gouldner 1954). Nadler (1969) was probably one of the first authors to focus on the value of the cultural approach by arguing that organizations should be regarded as microcultures. However, his contribution did not attract much attention, but with the penetrating scientific contributions of Turner in 1971 the culture concept got a firm foothold in the organization sciences. Turner spoke about "the industrial subculture", maintaining that a subculture is a distinct set of perspectives shared by a group of people whose behaviour differs from that of society at large. Turner thus, on the one hand, linked the culture concept with certain social groupings in society and the company (the basis of the subculture concept) and, on the other hand, emphasized the function of the culture in establishing meanings. At about the same time, Clark published a study of the development of a college in the United States and coined the concept of the organization "saga" (Clark 1970, 1972). In using the term saga, Clark referred to a system of collective understanding of unique events and achievements which were shared by a formally established group. This paved the way for a number of studies on the importance of the "living history of a company", described in the form of legends and stories (e.g. Martin et al. 1983; Wilkins 1979). Perhaps it is possible to claim that this was the real start of modern organizational culture research within the organization sciences. If Clark's work on organizational sagas opened the door for culture research in organizations, then Pettigrew's article in the Administrative Science Quarterly paved the way for later work on cultural phenomena by presenting and legitimizing the very concept of organization culture for the first time. Pettigrew (1979: 579) defined organizational culture as the system of generally and collectively accepted meanings which operate for a certain group on a certain occasion. This slotted the pieces of the puzzle into position, as Galas and Smircich (1987) point out. Another interesting feature of Pettigrew's contribution is his emphasis on the symbol concept, referring to White (1949) and Cassirer (1953) and his introduction of concepts such as language, ideology, belief, ritual and myth. The late 1970's were also to see a number of contributions on organizational socialization - the adoption of values, norms and beliefs - which

16

1 The Emergence of the Culture Concept

certainly was an important aspect of culture even though the latter concept was not explicitly focused (van Maanen 1979). The increased legitimacy of the culture concept in organization research in the late 70's gave rise to a considerable number of North American contributions to the culture perspective, for example in the form of doctoral theses (Dandridge 1976; Wilkins 1978) and a few other competent empirical studies. At about this time a number of studies advocating a symbolic perspective on organizations also appeared. Dandridge et al. (1980) claimed for example that a symbolic perspective would open up the field of organization science to softer aspects of the organization, and in a more managementoriented article Peter (1978) argued that the leader's main function is to produce and work with symbols. Apart from the early "academic" contributions enumerated above, it goes without saying that the exceptional growth of the field was inspired not by the intellectual power inherent in the culture concept, but rather by the rapid adoption of the culture concept by management writers, journalists and, later on, management consultants. What probably sparked off this enormous interest in corporate culture among practitioners in the early 80's was the assumption that corporate culture could actually be managed and thus used as a competitive advantage in business. This assumption was manifested in four American books which were published within a short period of time (Deal/Kennedy 1982; Ouchi 1981; Pascale/Athos 1982; Peters/Waterman 1982). In their books the authors used a lot of anecdotes and illustrative examples (from Japanese management to "excellently" performing companies) and, in the case of Deal and Kennedy (1982), freely borrowed concepts and models from a number of scientific disciplines. Concepts such as "clan", "tribe", "ritual", "myth", "saga", "chief" and "ceremony", which were used to describe organizations and organizational phenomena, were rapidly picked up by the popular press and quickly became part of the management jargon.

1.2.3 Comments To summarize, we can note that the culture concept has been transformed and utilized in the most varied contexts and given widely differing mean-

1.2 The Development of the Research Field

17

ings. The academic disciplinary background of the researchers and the specific economic and cultural conditions in the country where the researchers operated seem to have affected the evolution of the concept. It is difficult, for example, to escape the suspicion that at one time the Swedish research was more influenced by the SAS-example (which claimed that a "cultural revolution" contributed to drastically improved corporate performance) than by scientific discussions within the discipline! Thus corporate culture is today a truly interdisciplinary field of research, borrowing concepts, perspectives, models and methods from a wide variety of disciplines, spanning from ethnography (Jones et al. 1988) to accounting (Mouritsen 1989). However, in this book corporate culture will be seen in the context of the organization sciences. Ouchi and Wilkins (1985) observed that organizational culture research has its primary roots in sociology but is above all

Corporate Culture and Symbolism

Figure 1.3: The scientific field of research

18

1 The Emergence of the Culture Concept

carried out by individuals working in management schools. Even if many studies are inspired by closely related disciplines (sociology, psychology, anthropology, linguistics, semiology, folklore studies, etc.), they are basically linked to an overall organization theory framework. It is also interesting to note that some of the leading organizational researchers, such as Feldman/March (1981), Pettigrew (1979), Pfeffer (1981 a), Schein (1985) and Weick (1985) early contributed to the culture and/or symbolism concept and tied it more closely to the organizational theory framework. It is therefore possible to maintain that organization theory, and to some extent organizational behaviour, constitute the very basis for the conceptual construction which is taking place today in this research field. However, it is possible that the concept of a theoretical basis is too strong an expression (especially in view of the conceptual confusion which characterizes this area today). Perhaps it would be better to speak of organization theory as the "context" in which theoretical development takes place (and on the basis of which it is evaluated).

2 Why Is Organizational Culture So Popular?

2.1 Introduction It is remarkable that organizational culture and symbolism theory have very rapidly attained tremendous popularity and also the greatest academic respectability. As Stablein and Nord (1985: 22) say: "Probably never before in organizational studies has an innovative area been given such attention so rapidly". Thus, accusations of sluggishness and resistance to change sometimes levelled at the academic world do not seem to apply in the case of corporate culture and organizational symbolism. The question that then remains to be answered is: why? This is an important question since the social context of a theory influences its development, extension and to some extent its content. We do not understand social phenomena in a social vacuum. It is important to devote time and energy to how this context influences a conceptualization of a research object (such as organizations) in order to be more aware of what is "behind" a researcher's seemingly autonomous choices of focus. "Corporate culture" can be seen as an answer to problems and worries some of which are not that self-evident - of a certain time and of certain socio-cultural conditions, which are to be explored in this chapter. The organizational culture literature seems to be devoid of a real interest in the question why organizational culture so rapidly became a hot issue. Many authors who suggest that the topic is important for the functioning of organizations do not seriously question the underlying reasons for its current popularity, or why it was previously neglected (e.g. Kilmann et al. 1985; Schein 1985). Frost et al. (1985), however, devote some attention to the issue and propose three sets of problems "... that necessitate investigating organizations and their milieu from a cultural perspective" (page 14). One set of problems covers economic difficulties, productivity decline and competition problems with Japanese corporations. The success of the latter is normally interpreted as having something to do with specific cultural features. Culture then becomes singled out as a possible tool for achieving

20

2 Why is Organizational Culture so Popular?

performance. Secondly, there are social forces which lead to a growing tendency for people to want more from their work than a simple paycheck. The quality of work has become more important. Thirdly, there is widespread dissatisfaction with the knowledge achieved in organization theory. Quantitative approaches are seen as inappropriate in this type of research and are alleged to produce superficial and irrelevant results. These factors are commonly mentioned by writers commenting on the causes of the rapid development of organizational culture literature. In addition, some people point to the success of beststellers like Peters and Waterman (1982) and Deal and Kennedy (1982), as elements contributing to the heating up of the field. This is not very helpful, however, since the popularity of books like these also has to be explained. The intrinsic qualities of these books do only explain their popularity to a limited degree. However, without trying to give a final, complete answer to this complex question, we would like to focus on two important sets of aspects. The first concerns the structure of the market for academic products in this field, the second the general social and cultural conditions in western society over the last fifteen or twenty years. Our basic argument is that corporate culture and organizational symbolism have been formulated and presented by pragmatically-oriented academics and popular writers in a way which strongly appeals to managers. The success of this appeal is contingent upon broad economic, technological and socio-cultural changes that make culture appear as critical, vital and uncertain in current western business and societal contexts. In other words, the promise of organizational culture can be understood as a result of the combination of various factors which create a general readiness for some kind of "cultural message" and corporate culture authors who are timing and communicating this message in a market-oriented way. Before concentrating on the way culture has been sold and the background to the strong demand for the "corporate culture product", we shall be saying something about fundamental explanations for the development of scientific theories.

2.2 Theoretical Reasons

21

2.2 On the Theoretical Reasons for the Rise of Organizational Culture Research Generally, there are two types of explanations for the rise and growth of theories: the internal-scientific and the sociological. (When it comes to organization and management theory, the practical use of a theory will also have a significant impact on the theory's growth. This aspect will be touched upon as part of a sociological explanation, but will be discussed at length in part III of this book.) The intra-scientific perspective assumes that knowledge develops autonomously, i.e. through its own, inner logic. The sociological explanation suggests that scientific views and theories are socially determined. A number of different opinions are located somewhere between the two extremes. There is probably only consensus about the very imprecise idea that scientific theories have at least some degree of independence, a "relative" autonomy, while societal conditions influence what problems are to be researched, what paradigms (paradigmatic assumptions) dominate the field and also what theories fall on such good soil that they are stimulated and expand. (See Brante (1980) for a detailed overview of the development of science in relation to the theoretical and societal levels.) Roughly speaking, it might be argued that the extension and popularity of a theory or a school depend partly on its intellectual/theoretical qualities (ability to convince the research community about such qualities), partly on the degree of correspondence to the "needs" or interests of important social groups (elites) and/or a general market for academic knowledge (which could be seen as a function or an aspect of the "Zeitgeist", the spirit of the time). It is customary that, while the representatives of a discipline or an orientation stress the process of scientific evolution, students of sociology of knowledge and epistemology are often more sceptical claiming that ideological and other societal conditions influence the theoretical content in a way that makes it difficult to speak of a clearcut development towards "better" theories. (A kind of a middle form proposes that the social scientific theories are developed to include and mediate increasingly advanced ideologies) (Alvesson 1987 a; Anthony 1978.) Especially within the field of organizational research, extra-scientific forces have always been of great importance. Researchers have been sensitive to the perceived interest of business, as regards both practical and

22

2 Why is Organizational Culture so Popular?

ideological issues. From Taylor and onwards, external economic and social forces have had a significant impact on the research questions asked and on the theories which have become popular. Organization theory has to a large extent bent itself to meet the expectations of the captains of business and industry and given priority to "usefulness" and practical relevance. This, of course, is not necessarily inconsistent with the view of a progressive theoretical development, but it throws doubts on whether such a development is linear and nonambiguous. Proponents of organizational culture research naturally stress the theoretical advantages of their approach as a force which underlies its expansion and current popularity - the theory's intrinsic qualities are said to account for its success. And for a long time there has certainly been a strong need for alternative approaches and methods within the collective of organizational researchers, maybe particularly in North America with its strong positivistic tradition. Many people have felt a powerful discontent with earlier theories which focused upon the structural and "objective" aspects of organizations. Traditional research has been considered to have failed to capture central dimensions that have to do with the informal side, or with "culture" (Dandridge et al. 1980; Louis 1981 etc.). This discontent has also applied to traditional research methodology, which has emphasized the measurement and quantification of organizational variables. There has been strong criticism of traditional views on organizations since the late 1970's (see, for example, Burrell/Morgan 1979; Morgan 1983, 1986; Reed 1985). The retreat of positivism, from a close to hegemonic position in American organization theory to its present status as a dominating, but still only one of a number of possible research approaches, is closely connected to the rise of culture studies. This retreat has facilitated the expansion of the interpretive approach which cultural studies must resort to - according to many of its proponents (Smircich 1983 c). At the same time, the breakthrough of culture has contributed to the weakening of the objectivistic position in organizational research. It should be noted, however, that cultural studies do not necessarily imply an interpretive or ethnographic approach. Quantitatively oriented organizational research does indeed exist (and appears to be more common, especially in the USA) in corporate culture research, even though it is not typical of the culture and symbolism area. In the introduction to a collection of articles, Gagliardi (1986 a) suggests that the symbolic perspective signals the end of the "rationalistic" tradi-

2.2 Theoretical Reasons

23

tion in organization theory. The symbolism and culture perspective(s) is considered, at least by its proponents, to make "deeper" studies possible and brings a richer understanding of various organizational phenomena. Like other proponents of organizational culture, we believe that there are good theoretical and methodological reasons for this argument. However, in this chapter we will not stress the theoretical virtues of culture/symbolism as a major determinant behind the expansion of this research field but rather examine the social context in which this expansion has taken place. We will argue that this primarily calls for a sociological investigation of the social context, not a theoretical study of intrascientific aspects. The emphasis on the former calls for a somewhat sceptical attitude towards the persuasive force of the intellectual qualities of the theories in themselves. It would be naive to believe that dissatisfaction with positivistic approaches would suffice to account for the broad interest in culture theory during the 1980's. This interest extends to much larger groups than management researchers and organizational sociologists. As Turner (1986: 102) remarks: Such internal realignments among sociologists, however, rarely have major impacts on the remainder of the world, and we have to look elsewhere for the more important thrusts of activity which have generated an interest in organizational culture and symbolism.

Instead, it is the contextual factors surrounding a research field that account for its friendly reception. To sum up, a large part of what is written on culture has little to do with theoretical progress, and there are other perspectives and metaphors with equal merits which do not receive nearly as much attention (cf. the other non-traditional metaphors besides culture mentioned by Morgan (1980, 1986). See also the overview of new trends in organizational analysis by Berg (1982), Morgan (1983), Reed (1985), and others). Irrespective of the strong internal merits of the culture literature, the most important factors cannot be found in intra-scientific explanations. Instead, attention will now be directed to non-theoretical or sociological aspects.

24

2 Why is Organizational Culture so Popular?

2.3 The Marketing of Organizational Culture We will discuss the rise and rapid expansion of studies on organizational culture by using an analogy with a market, talking about sellers/producers of theory, (i.e. researchers and consultants), customers, (i.e. primarily managers), and the product, (i.e. organizational culture knowledge including books, courses and consultancy service on the topic). The knowledge producers, at least those with consultancy aspirations, can be seen as "merchants of meaning" (Czarniawska-Joerges 1988 a). By using this kind of metaphor we illuminate some key aspects of the conditions and dynamics of the distribution and extensions of culture as a knowledge product. We will say something about what characterizes this market and its dynamics. Finally, we will discuss the general context in which the particular features of this market (in the 1980's and in the early 1990's) are being formed at present.

2.3.1 A Note on Markets and Submarkets It is, of course, possible to divide the whole field into a number of more or less separated (sub)markets, with specific products, customers and types of cultural and technical competencies which the writers who operate on them must possess. Two positions on the market might be of greatest significance: one academic and one pragmatic (popular) (Barley et al. 1988). It might be argued that these positions belong to different markets with their respective producers, customers and products. When it comes to the most extreme academic and pragmatic products, of course the transaction types differ a great deal. But the majority of the studies are interested in both a certain minimum level of academic respectability and practical relevance. Many authors in the field would probably agree with Kilmann et al. (1985) that, within the organization and management sciences, the two communities of researchers and practitioners need each other and in that the organizational sciences are irrelevant without a client to serve. There are, of course, a number of approaches which address themselves only to one of these two audiences, but we do not have to take these into account to grasp the crucial aspects of the research field. The products offered to a more academic or to a more pragmatic submarket must be modified in package and content in order to meet the demands of the

2.3 The Marketing of Organizational Culture

25

segment in question, but in many cases writers on organizational culture seem to operate in both areas without major difficulties. Many of the contributions to a book by Kilmann et al. (1985) primarily intended for practitioners come from authors who are mainly known for their typically academic work (e.g. Lorsch, Louis, Mitroff, Schein, Trice and Beyer). A clearcut distinction between the "good" (solid, serious, reflective) research field and the "bad" (superficial, antitheoretical, opportunistic) consultancy-oriented literature - something which academics occasionally attempt - is thus not easy to accomplish, even though there are tremendous variations in the writings on culture in terms of academic "weight". Recognizing the difficulties in strictly distinguishing between the pragmatic and academic markets, our interest in this chapter is in academics operating (also) in the pragmatic area. The practitioner market is the most important motor behind expansion in the field.

2.3.2 The Product and how it is Sold As indicated above, we will here not address the inherent qualities of the "product", i.e. culture/symbolism theory (concepts, models, recipes, etc.), but concentrate upon aspects of its marketing. Of course, it is not easy to distinguish between the content of a theory and how it is sold. In presenting a theory, its benefits are also explained in order to persuade the reader. As the philosophers and historians of science teach us, theoretical progress is basically a matter of persuasion of the (conservative) research community (Kühn 1970; Bernstein 1983). Recently, postmodernists have also drawn attention to the rhetorical and seductive elements in research texts (Caläs/Smircich 1988). Below, we will touch on some aspects which have little to do with a careful argumentation of theoretical benefits but rather with the necessity of "selling the stuff' - by indicating its far-reaching relevance and what it can achieve. Exaggerated promises and other type of sales-oriented elements will be taken into account. Organizational culture seen as a product can be discussed in terms of different levels of the product-like features of literature and research in the area. We can then distinguish between 1. The words, which do not necessarily have a very precise content; 2. The recipes, i.e. suggestions for successful actions and arrangements;

26

2 Why is Organizational Culture so Popular?

3. The concepts, i.e. words that have a precise or a generative meaning and which might facilitate reflection and new understandings; 4. The models, which at least to some extent draw upon the concepts, pointing to patterns and relationships; 5. The theoretical perspectives that provide the basic frameworks, the conceptualizations of the objects of study and which inform interpretation. These five levels are more or less significant for understanding different versions of culture as a product. On the whole, the first levels are more salient in the culture product adapted for the practitioner market, while academics who are, of course, not interested in this, produce and "market" concepts, models and perspectives as major product qualities. Our interest in work which aims to combine academic respectability and an appeal to the pragmatic market makes it difficult to single out any levels as especially significant in terms of selling culture. But the last level is primarily of intra-academic interest and therefore not salient in sales efforts which also include the practitioner market. The general idea of organizational culture and its influence on employee performance, is apparently expressed by many authors in a way that appeals to the dominating elite in business and other types of organizations. The conceptualization of organizational culture, and the way the message of culture as a key dimension behind behaviour is formulated make it appear to be of the greatest relevance to people with controlling ambitions and duties in organizational life. There are obvious elements of sales ambitions in many of the writings and presentations. It is of course necessary to convince the readers that one has something new and important to say. The target group for such sales efforts are managers, which is hardly surprising, but also academics, especially those interested in knowledge which might be assumed to have practical relevance. Many of the authors are obviously looking for success in this market in order to sell their consultation services and books. Within the literature, there appear to be different rhetorical strategies for attaining broad interest and legitimacy. We will illustrate two such strategies. The first is typical among organizational symbolism writers, the second tends to characterize the more pragmatic corporate culture writers. (People emphasizing symbolism are often academically oriented. Those talking about culture can either be academics or pragmatics. Authors focusing on corporate culture are rather often management oriented.)

2.3 The Marketing of Organizational Culture

27

The organizational symbolism authors stress that deep, symbolic meanings exist in all sorts of organizational phenomena and argue that if these are not understood, then what is going on in an organization is very poorly grasped. The argumentation sometimes runs as follows: A. At first it is claimed that the earlier understanding of organizations is superficial and one-sided. Criticism is directed towards the narrow (positivistic) methodology and the focus is on other, obvious and measurable variables of the predominant approaches. B. The alternative is the orientation in organization theory that focuses on symbols and cultures in organizational contexts. This is claimed to be a new and radically different orientation. This is confronted by the traditional approaches, which are dismissed somewhat loosely (see, for instance, Dandridge et al. 1980; Daft 1983). Even though "positivistic" organization research was (and, to a minor extent, still is) the most common at least in North America, qualitative approaches have increased somewhat in the 1970's and 1980's. These are sometimes neglected in argumentation for a radically new approach to organizational analysis. Many influential organization researchers of the past 15 years can hardly be seen as targets of this criticism (e.g. Argyris, Benson, March, Perrow, Silverman and Weick). This is however, not mentioned or quickly dismissed. C. The research on organizational symbolism and culture promises to give a new and richer understanding of how organizations really work. For the observer/actor who is uninitiated in symbolism and culture theory, a hidden reality can be exposed through understanding symbolism. Because the symbolic meaning is presented not as a marginal phenomenon but even The idea of changing homes, jobs, or even families may symbolize a deeper concern to change oneself, to be born again, to fulfill some distant dream or ambition (Morgan et al. 1983: 10).

Thus, symbol and culture theory are portrayed as having a very broad potential in providing radically new understandings, and it is indicated that symbolism and culture theory can be applied to almost all kinds of (organizational) phenomena. D. In the absence of an adequate unterstanding of the culture and symbols of the organization, a manager is walking on unsafe ice. The symbolic is central to the functioning of the organization and any manager who does

28

2 Why is Organizational Culture so Popular?

not understand myths, rituals, rites, material symbols, stories, etc. does not really know what is going on in the organization. (We will discuss these concepts at some length in chapter 5.) The range of his or her management is limited. The idea that the manager does not know what is going on below "the surface" and that another field of powerful leadership exists (symbolic management) makes the message of the symbolism theorists appealing to managers (and to academics interested in the latter). Elements in at least some areas of the symbolic and cultural organization theory should be well-suited to appeal to these ambitions, partly by activating uncertainty. This appears to be partly achieved by generous presentations of a flora of ambiguous and fantasy-provoking concepts, such as rites, rituals, ceremonies, customs, metaphors, acronyms, sagas, stories, legends, lore, artifacts, etc. E. In some cases the organization researchers openly address the interests of management and indicate what services they can provide: Within an organization, as within a culture, the myth is believed or the ritual enacted usually without participants' forethought or awareness of the functions being served. It is often through the perspective of an outsider that rational intentionality in the choice and use of symbols is seen. This lack of conscious choice is not inevitable, as organization members do not always have to be victims of myths and rituals, permitting these symbols to continue without awareness of their impact and without preplanning (Dandridge 1983: 114).

Here it is indicated that the helpout of an outsider - probably a researcher or a consultant - can take organization members from a state of unawareness and lack of conscious choice to "rational intentionality". While the organizational symbolism approach often focuses on awareness and indicates the possibility of "saving" managers from being "the victims of myths and rituals", most corporate culture writers concentrate their efforts not on the lack of awareness so much as on the extreme behaviourgoverning force of the "culture". It is often indicated that "corporate culture" is the most important determinant of behaviour and, to the extent that it is the key to organizational effectiveness, culture then becomes a crucial factor (or perhaps even the crucial factor) for organizational performance and a key area for manage-

2.3 The Marketing of Organizational Culture

29

rial activity. This is heavily stressed by authors such as Deal and Kennedy (1982) and Kilmann (1985), but a person like Schein (1985) who is normally more cautions also tends to give organizational culture the status of the thing rather than one important aspect: In fact, there is a possibility - underemphasized in leadership research - that the only thing of real importance that leaders do is to create and manage culture and that the unique talent of leaders is their ability to work with culture (page 2).

Most researchers dealing with corporate culture also say that culture or parts of it might be managed, controlled and intentionally changed. It is, for example, promised that four phases might bring about cultural change (Allen 1985), that five steps can close the gap between actual and wanted culture (Kilmann 1985) or that it is possible to choose between six organizational rites to change culture (Trice/Beyer 1985). According to popular rhetoric summarized by Kunda and Barley (1988: 21), "Culture enhances social integration; social integration eliminates the need for bureaucracy, and increases levels of investment which, in turn, enhance performance and productivity. Thus, by manipulating culture, substantial increments in profitability should accrue". An interesting aspect of the persuasiveness of the culture message is pointed at by Alvarez (1989), who discusses how the book that has spread this kind of message most widely, Peters and Waterman's In Search of Excellence (1982), fits well with American/Western mythology: If we study in detail the content of this book we can find in it certain characteristics that are usually found in myths: first; an imperative character, composed of expressions defined more by intention than by content ('Excellence'); second, a natural, innocent vision of reality that ignores the complexity of situations (the criticism of the extreme simplicity of the book were quite serious); third, the fact that the myth - 'excellence' as a tradition and, at the same time, as a goal - is not completely arbitrary or false; fourth, the fact that the primary relationship between 'consumers' of the myth . . . and the myth itself is established more in terms of usefulness than in terms of truthfulness; and finally, that the myth transforms historical personalities into archetypes and makes permanent use of tautological formulas (page 17).

One reason for calling many of the texts emphasizing the possibilities of controlling culture sales-oriented is that they present an exaggerated view of what might be accomplished with the culture concept. From an aca-

30

2 Why is Organizational Culture so Popular?

demic-theoretical or anthropological perspective, which does not allow culture to be defined in a superficial and instrumentally oriented way, the effects of culture, how and to what extent it can be affected and its general practical relevance, are very hard to determine (Alvesson 1992 b). Great care must be taken before making statements on this matter. There are, to briefly mention one of the themes we will develop later in this book, good reasons for the use of the culture metaphor from a theoretical perspective, but its practical usefulness is difficult to evaluate. Statements on the effects of culture very often contain tautologies - so that what is a part of a culture is seen as an outcome of it or that the culture bringing about certain behaviours are deduced from the latter (Alvesson 1992 b; Pennings/Gresov 1986). As Westley and Jaeger (1985) say, it seems as if the greater the theoretical value, the less practical the relevance in the organizational culture literature. When the academics in this field try to argue not only for the theoretical value of organizational culture, but also for its far-reaching practical relevance, then the latter appears to be less founded on intellectual than on commercial motives. (Some authors trying to contribute to the practical usefulness of the culture concept, however, acknowledge the difficulties and avoid crude and optimistic statements of its practical benefits, e.g. Krefting/Frost 1985; Lundberg 1985.)

2.3.3 The Customers To understand the impact of the product on the market (i.e. the impact of knowledge on organizational culture in certain forms), the features of the target group must be understood. The target group here is managers. We are not concerned here with academics who might, of course, be seen both as producers and consumers of theory. While the interest of managers is crucial for "the culture boom", academics as customers are not central for understanding the extra-scientific aspects of this boom. Considered as a group, the managers in western societies might be characterized as eager to be - modern and up-to-date, enlightened and educated (Bourdieu 1973), - efficient and rational (which, among other things, means that sources of "irrationality" are counteracted and attempts are made to rationalize them as far as possible) (see Gustafsson 1983; March 1976), and - on top of the situation, in control of the organization and the subordinates (Argyris 1982).

2.3 The Marketing of Organizational Culture

31

Professional managers are probably especially sensitive to the culture approach (in its sales-oriented form), for example in the fields where social competence and the impressions made are the key to success, rather than strictly technical qualifications. The trend to reduce the emphasis on technical qualifications and competence in favour of cultural capital as a basis for a beneficial behaviour in modern, complex organizations is being embraced by professional managers. The culture approach, with its peculiar concepts (myths, rites, rituals artifacts, folklore, etc.) and their ambiguous meanings, is likely to induce tension and interest from this group (cf. Gagliardi 1986 a). The amount of cultural capital in these terms, with their scholarly connotations but also a large area of direct and understandable applications ("this meeting is a ritual"), seems to be great. In other words, the cultural capital of mastering the organizational culture idea or the symbolic values of having knowledge of organizational symbolism, is significant. At a corporate level, having a distinctive "culture" of its own appears to have a symbolic value for corporations eager to appear progressive, modern and keen on having a good public image.

2.3.4 Producers We believe that the occurrence of this type of strategy and message in large areas of the organizational literature in the field, has strongly contributed to the popularity and rapid extension of the organizational culture research. It would, however, be very unjust to characterize the whole direction, or even the majority of the academic literature, as primarily sales-oriented. Much of the research is more shaded and self-critical and downplays the theoretical as well as the practical range and usefulness of organizational culture research and knowledge. This holds good for most contributors to the leading academic issues on the subjects. Smircich, for instance, writes: Some, however, genuinely question whether organization culture is indeed manageable. Much of the literature refers to an organization culture, appearing to lose sight of the great likelihood that there are multiple organization subcultures, or even countercultures, competing to define the nature of situations within organizational boundaries. The talk about corporate culture tends to be optimistic, even messianic, about top managers molding cultures to suit their strategic ends. The notion of "corporate culture"

32

2 Why is Organizational Culture so Popular? runs the risk of being as disappointing a managerial tool as the more technical and quantitative tools that were faddish in the 1970s. Those of a sceptical nature may also question the extent to which the term corporate culture refers to anything more than an ideology cultivated by management for the purpose of control and legitimation of activity (Smircich 1983 a: 346).

The intellectual culture researchers want to stress their distance from "the 'managementcentric' motivation in corporate culture research" (Gregory 1983: 362). These "cultural purists", as Martin (1985) calls persons who view culture as something deap-seated and emerging and which neither could nor should be "managed" or controlled, comprise a minority while the majority of the authors have at least some pragmatic interests. Within the overall group of organizational culture authors three categories might be identified: purists, pragmatics and academic pragmatics. The first category is exemplified by people like Smircich and Gregory. The pragmatics are the consultants and other popular authors, like Deal and Kennedy (1982). These people normally have some academic ambitions but these are not the most important objectives. What we term "academic pragmatics" are people based in Academia, with academic standards, but at the same time they have a clear "management-centric" interest in the field, i.e. want to produce knowledge on how to manage and control (aspects of) culture. Examples might be Lundberg (1985), Schein (1985) and Trice and Beyer (1985). It is, of course, sometimes difficult to clearly distinguish between these three groups (positions). (A single person can also move between them.) The general relations between the groups and basic orientations are illustrated by figure 2.1. We are here primarily using the market metaphor to address the popular and managerial market and its overlapping with the academic market. (The most extreme pragmatics, e.g. consultants writing sales promotionoriented short articles for business magazines, are excluded from analysis and from our reference list.) In the academic market of management and organization research, there is a substantial interplay between the intellectual and practical technical poles. The interest in culture and symbolism is not unaffected by what characterizes the popular market. Barley et al. (1988) show that the latter, including pragmatic concerns about culture, over time has had a stronger influence on academic writings on the topic than the other way around.

2.3 The Marketing of Organizational Culture

33

Practitioner market

Purists

Τ Λ Academic ( Λ V ) Pragmatics

Pragmatics

Academic market Figure 2.1: Orientations in organizational culture studies

Despite the intellectual orientation of some research on culture and symbolism and relative independence of demands for practical use of the results, the rapid growth and great popularity of this intellectual orientation in academic circles is related to extra-scientific determinants. This is achieved in two, internally related ways. Firstly, the consulting and slogan-oriented literature (e.g. Deal/Kennedy 1982; Peters/Waterman 1982), since it appeals to the interests of the elite and sections of the layman population, also brings with it the non-pragmatic, intellectual, more genuinely academic research within the overall direction. The interest and the generating of resources that the popular stream produces also benefit the "intellectualistic" variant, especially for the academic pragmatics. "Culture" as a research area becomes focused outside the academic world which directs the attention of students and scholars to it. People become very conscious about the existence of "culture", in addition to traditionally acknowledged phenomena - and this affects their research. The pragmatics benefit from the academic orientation since this gives status and legitimacy to organizational culture and symbolism. Through the sales-oriented approach, a common interest is focused upon symbols, cultures, etc., and a number of researchers are drawn to these concepts like bees to a honey pot. The whole field becomes illuminated and perceived as a both profitable and (academically) legitimate area. In other words, one can talk about a snowball-effect, where the possibility of selling the theory to managers and partly to laymen brings with it a number of researchers, including those who earlier talked about norm systems, ideologies, organizational climates, etc., but who now often modify their approaches and/or use new concepts. Besides attracting read-

34

2 Why is Organizational Culture so Popular?

ers, some authors seem to have used culture as a key word in their writings in order to facilitate publication in special issues of academic journals or books on the subject. After having read most of these special issues and major readers, our estimation is, in fact, that a significant number of the studies with the word culture in the title would do as well or even better without it. Even if the accusation that there is nothing new in the field is unjust on the whole, there is a substantial minority of texts which deserve criticism for simply wrapping up old knowledge without adding anything new to it. On the practical-technical level, with more or less optimistic suggestions for what methods and techniques to use in order to manage and change cultures, it is especially evident that much of what is proposed is not entirely new (Nord 1985). We will come back to this in chapter 9 of this book.

2.3.5 On the Dynamics of the Field An interesting aspect of organizational culture theory is that it has captured the interest of both the academic and pragmatic extremes of the management knowledge field (which includes researchers, business journalists, consultants, etc.). Quite often, management theory is caught in a contradictory position between, on the one hand, academic criteria and scientific requirements and, on the other hand, demands of being of practical value and relevance. The organizational culture idea, however, at least until it is defined in a precise way, has both academic respectability and practical relevance. This is of course partly a result of the fact that the literature in this field contains a very wide spectrum of different approaches, but it might also be seen as something that reinforces a trend. The fact that simultaneously, around 1978-1980, both academic and popular publications which focused on organizational symbolism and culture started to appear reinforced interest in the field. Because of its many meanings and its relevance for various contexts and situations, the culture concept is frequently used and this, of course, fuels general interest in it. The ambiguity and large numbers of meanings of the concept make it difficult to grasp and "look through", which stimulates debate and maintains tensions and energy in the field.

2.4 The Context of Organizational Culture

35

Another aspect of this market concerns changes in fashion. Within the management area, there are changes in terms of popularity between different promises of "quick fixes". Various ideas, more or less theoretically grounded, on leadership style, policy making or how to motivate personnel, attain and lose popularity at a rapid rate. These ideas are sometimes evaluated as fads after they have gone out of fashion. The field of managers, and writer/consultants supporting the former with ideas, proposals, literature and consultancy services, can be seen as buyers and sellers on a market where fashions change quickly. This is an important aspect of the rapid rise of corporate culture in organization theory. It does not, however, give the whole explanation for the extension of culture/symbolism theory. Some aspects of the latter are, as already mentioned, very academic in their orientation and even though this academically oriented area of the field has been fuelled by all the publicity and public interest in culture as some sort of tool for dealing with corporate problems, this orientation was on the move before the large interest of the market started to peak in the early 1980's.

2.4 The Context of Organizational Culture Above, we have stressed a marketing-oriented explanation of the extension of the symbolism/culture approach, where selling and buying of theories are central issues. To understand the rapid extension of corporate culture and organizational symbolism literature, we must go beyond the market metaphor and the way the "sellers" of theory appeal to the practitioners and look at the context of management in the 1980's. Here we can identify two main types of contexts of relevance: the business and organizational situation, and the current social and cultural characteristics. Both contribute to determining the market for organization and management theory. It is not possible here to treat these two complex issues at length and in depth, including major coverage of the economic, social and cultural development of late capitalistic/postindustrial society. The following text should therefore be seen as expressing tentative suggestions and illuminating a few vital aspects.

36

2 Why is Organizational Culture so Popular?

2.4.1 Economic Changes Important features of the economic situation for large sectors of industry in western countries since the late 1970's are hard competition and productivity problems. Crises have been frequent (or at least talk about crises). Doubts about the old, planning-oriented management style have become widespread. This has led to a receptiveness to new ideas which indicate new solutions for corporate problems. Executives and managers felt a need for better methods of coordinating, managing, motivating and hence utilizing the human resources in companies. As Kunda and Barley (1988: 26) write "... the culture movement grew directly out of dissatisfaction with neo-rationalism's inability to fully utilize the productive potential of an uncommitted labor force". The increasingly international nature of modern corporations, including the frequent interactions with customers, suppliers and partners from different cultures, has made people more aware of the cultural variations in the world. For many companies that "go international", the cultural contrasts within the company appear just as problematic, and the idea of an overall corporate culture is appealing since it reduces the national differences between various corporate units. The success of Japanese companies (which is viewed partly as a result of their cultural peculiarities) has also drawn a good deal of attention to the significance of culture. This has resulted in an interest in the use of team spirit, corporate pride and work morale as important competitive tools. Other relevant factors are the increased size of corporations and turbulent environments which in many cases have led to decentralization and interest in new forms of control mechanisms which counteract the risk of disintegration. Culture is relevant here because, in the sense of a shared set of core values, whenever you have what appears to be successful decentralization, if you look more closely, you will discover that it was always preceded by a period of intense centralization where a set of core values were hammered out and socialized into people before the people were turned loose to go their own 'independent', 'autonomous ways' (Weick 1987: 124).

Using culture as a social glue which keeps the company's activities together makes it a most valuable managerial concept in a rapidly changing environment. Of equal relevance might be changes in the structure of the economy, involving an expansion of the business service sector and an

2.4 The Context of Organizational Culture

37

increase in the number of professionals and semi-professionals in many organizations. In service companies the personal style of the employees is an important part of the economic transaction - the quality of the service is dependent on the pleasantness of the personnel. Services are "personality intensive" (Normann 1985). Formal types of control might here be insufficient and cultural manipulation is perhaps a more appropriate means of affecting the personal appearances of employees. Kunda and Barley (1988) finally suggest that the use of high technology led to an increasing number of professionals whose ties to occupational communities threatened their loyalty and compliance in business organizations. During the 1970's these new professional workers and many of their blue collar contemporaries were less willing to accept the legitimacy of institutional authorities or to view work as a central interest. Consequently, a high level of commitment on the part of a most significant group of employees could not be taken for granted. The promise of a corporate culture, with cognitive and emotional orientations benefiting the organization, was thus highly appealing. In chapter 7 we shall comment further on the reasons for managers to engage in efforts to "manage" corporate culture.

2.4.2 Social and Cultural Changes On a more general, societal level, there are some aspects of the present socio-cultural situation of western, late-capitalistic/post-industrial society which are of relevance to the extension of organizational culture research. Today's society seems to be a basis for thinking and perspectives that harmonize with the focus and concepts of symbolic/cultural organization theory. To illuminate this, we can start from the research on socialization in the present societal culture which analyses social and psychological conditions on the basis of social psychological and psychoanalytic narcissism theory. According to many authors, rapid cultural changes have taken place for the last twenty years in western, advanced industrial societies (Lasch 1980, 1984; Ziehe/Stubenrauch 1982). Earlier patterns of Protestant work morality, restricted sexuality, paternalism, strict sex roles, pronounced authority relations and class differences have faded away and been replaced by less homogeneous cultural patterns. (Of course, behind these changes there are basic economic and technological lines of development, for example changes of occupation, economic growth and increased

38

2 Why is Organizational Culture so Popular?

greater opportunities for consumption which pave the way for hedonistic orientations and rapid changes which make authoritative relationships inside and outside the family less rigid and stable. There is no need to go into the material basis for these socio-cultural changes in this context.) The weakening of the impact of national and regional cultures, patriarchy, religion, etc. in favour of international exchanges and trends, mass media, fashion, mass consumption and various movements (such as "youth cultures") produces less stable, rigid and homogeneous cultural patterns. This goes partly hand in hand with the weakening of the nuclear family and its partial replacement (as the primary socialization force) by a large number of socialization agencies, such as schools, authorities, professional expertise, day care personnel and the mass media (cf. Lasch 1980, 1984; Ziehe/Stubenrauch 1982). What earlier characterized man and woman, i.e. a strong superego, an explicit work discipline and a tendency to voluntary subordination to authority figures - as a result of early internalized authority (father-child) relationships - has had to give way to a more hedonistic psychology with a weaker but also more flexible identity. This corresponds well with observations made by students of work, organization and management of a gradual decline of authority in organizations, including a loss of the traditional authority of the boss due to changed orientations and values of employees and citizens (Heller 1985). Accounting for and discussing the complex societal, cultural, socialization and psychological patterns which characterize these changes are beyond the scope of this book. We will, however, point at some relevant outcomes in the present context, and their impact on interest in culture and symbolism. One significant result of socio-cultural development is that the need to have one's subjectivity confirmed and to become emotionally involved is considered to be typical of the character type that has become increasingly prevalent in recent decades (Ziehe/Stubenrauch 1982). In the "Culture of Narcissism" the need to feel rather than to think, and the expansion of a "subjectivistic" and emotionally unrestrained way of relating to matters is pronounced in a manner quite different from that of a few decades ago and for the social character typical at the time (Lasch 1980). The predominant psychology of this societal culture facilitates an interest in theories emphasizing "subjectivity" that are expressed in, for instance, the following way: Culture as a root metaphor promotes a view of organizations as expressive forms, manifestations of human consciousness. Organizations are under-

2.4 The Context of Organizational Culture

39

stood and analyzed not mainly in economic or material terms, but in terms of their expressive, ideational, and symbolic aspects. Characterized very broadly the research agenda stemming from this perspective is to explore the phenomenon of organization as subjective experience ... (Smircich, 1983 a: 347-8)

As this quotation illustrates, in contemporary organizational analysis, as in large areas of social science in general, there is a strong tendency towards more interpretive, subjective approaches. This is illustrated by Morgan (1983) who uses chapter titles such as "Research as Engagement: A Personal View" and "In Research, as in Conversation, we Meet Ourselves". Ebers (1985) suggests that the cultural/symbolic perspective shares features with the 19th century Romanticism orientation. The world-view of this movement ... was a holistic one, with symbols, myths and metaphors as its counters of meaning ... (rejecting) rationalism - it was also a subjective world-view ... aiming to overcome the split between subject and object, the self and the world (Ebers 1985: 52-54).

There is thus a closeness between what authors like Lasch (1980) and Ziehe and Stubenrauch (1982) describe as characteristics of current social psychology in a society characterized by "the culture of narcissism" (Lasch) and "Kulturelle Freisetzung" (Ziehe/Stubenrauch), and the organizational culture/symbolism authors focusing on "the organization's expressive and affective dimensions in a system of shared and meaningful symbols" (Allaire/Firsirotu 1984: 213) and the emphasis on man's character "as emotional, symbol-loving, and needing to belong to a superior entity or collectivity" (Ray 1986: 295). It might also be argued that the present preoccupation with corporate culture can be seen as a result of a general trend towards cultural fragmentation and social disintegration, affecting, among other things, people's work morale, relationships to authorities and their general compliance in organizations. Previously, corporations could benefit from a culture which, at least in Protestant countries, influenced the workers in terms of high work morale, sacrifice and subordination to authority figures. The modernization of traditional morality, partly driven by the development of hedonistic mass consumption, means that the cultural reproduction of corporate life no longer goes on automatically, but calls for specific attention and systematic actions aiming at dealing with the norms, values and attitudes of the employees. It has become important to "manage" the

40

2 Why is Organizational Culture so Popular?

personnel's feelings and meanings. The subjectivity of the workers can no longer be taken for granted or ignored. This trends goes hand in hand with an increased emphasis on the "subjectivity" of people's lives, producing a background for the intellectual interests in interpretive approaches and cultural studies. An interesting paradox is that the development of society that has generated the interest in the culture/symbolism approach has brought with it a decrease in most social contexts of the frequency and importance of the phenomena that this approach has focused upon. As Ziehe and Stubenrauch (1982) say, the expansion of goal-rational systems and a functional division of labour between different social areas, in other words an increased technocratization of social life, meant that "specifically symbolic", i.e. ceremonies, rites, rituals, myths, etc. have been reduced in scope and importance. In modern life, many rituals have become less common and influential. A typical example might be religious rituals. Other traditional symbolic events, like weddings, military parades, Ph. D. disputations and 50th birthdays, seem to have lost some of their former strong symbolic meaning, at least in parts of Europe (Ziehe/Stubenrauch 1982). In modern society, and especially in modern organizations, the "purely" technical, instrumental and functional has taken command and reduced the space available for what is "typically symbolic". A comparison between what an anthropologist like Geertz (1973), studying less modern societies, and the current organizational symbolism authors come up with, indicates that the latter have less to offer in terms of richness in their analyses of rites, ceremonies and so on. There are possibly unsatisfied social needs for the specific symbolic that might account for an increased popularity of the symbolic features of, and events in, social life in contemporary thought. Attention to explicit treatment of, and efforts to "manage" symbolism - e.g. by inventing new symbols - might fall onto fertile soil at the present period. It is, however, ironic that organizational research is placing its theoretical focus on symbolism at a time when the purely symbolic elements spontaneously developed in organizations are probably less salient than ever before as a result of the expanding technocratization of social life and the domination of instrumental reason over human affairs. This, however, is not an argument against the fruitfulness of organizational symbolism theory. The increased rationalization of the modern life

2.5 Summary and Conclusion

41

style has not, of course, eliminated all events of a primarily symbolic nature and symbolic meanings can be found in all sorts of phenomena even the most seemingly "rational" ones. Man is a cultural being and the idea of "homo symbolicus" certainly captures a key feature of people's general functioning, including when they are in organizations. The cultural or symbolic perspective on organizations has a clear value. As will be indicated later, a number of studies with this orientation have certainly produced interesting ideas and results.

2.5 Summary and Conclusion In this chapter, some social, i.e. extrascientific determinants behind the rapid rise and current expansion of organizational culture theory are discussed. In order to understand these phenomena a number of economic, social, cultural and intellectual aspects have been treated. These factors, and some of their key features, are briefly summarized below proceeding from the market metaphor that has been utilized in the chapter. The product: organizational culture theory. This exists in many variations, of which some appear to have very little value on the general market for best-selling books or consultancy assignments. Still, organizational culture theory is often presented in a way that makes it appear to be of crucial importance for understanding what is going on in organizations and how to control them. A typical title would be "Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture" (Kilmann et al. 1985). The broad area of relevance and application of culture concepts in organizations - concepts that are mystical and fantasy-provoking - are important features of this type of knowledge. It is assumed to provide a formula through which the nonconscious in organizational life might be turned into the conscious (of managers) and the field of values or norms comes under the control of management, thereby improving the "rationality" of managerial action and of what is going on in organizations. The customers: The message of organizational culture knowledge provides (or has provided) a thrill and makes sense for the main audience (outside Academia): professional managers. The content of organizational culture texts touches a sensitive point for managers: It appeals in a positive or worrying way to cultural attributes such as modernity, education and cultural capital. Managers in positions not primarily determined by technical

42

2 Why is Organizational Culture so Popular?

demands and other "substantial" circumstances, but working in the service sector where the image of the corporation is especially important might be assumed to be particularly inclined to buy the culture package. In chapter 7 we will return to the customers and their practical reasons for an interest in corporate culture and symbolism. The producers. Here we have both academically oriented writers and more pragmatically interested knowledge-developers. A large number of persons have both aspirations. This group of "academic pragmatics" is of primary interest in understanding the growth of organization culture as a research area. The culture concept is perceived as containing possibilities for both academic respectability and practical relevance. From an academic perspective, the culture approach seems to be a way out of the "intellectual strait-jacket" of positivistic methodology, which to some extent has controlled mainstream organization theory (especially in the U.S.A.) thus providing little space for qualitative approaches. The intellectually progressive function of organizational culture theory in North America was strong in the 1980's. The market place. The market for academic products on management normally changes rapidly. Various ideas and quick fixes are in vogue which often turn out to be fads. The speed of the market increases the rapid expansion of a product that is "selected" for (temporary) success (in terms of sales). A contradictory characteristic of this market is that its goods should be knowledge that contains both practical relevance (promises for solutions to problems) and academic respectability (some connotations of "science"). This is not easy to combine, but the area's contradictions in relationship to these two ideals are not too easy to analyse. The context of this market in 1980's: The business situation. Of importance here are the economic problems of many western corporations which make for a readiness to look for something new. The success of the Japanese, often interpreted as having something to do with cultural features, stimulates a sensitivity to "culture" among executives in the West. Tendencies towards decentralization in large corporations and the expansion of the service sector may also serve to increase interest in culture as a social glue in companies. The cultural context of organizations in the 1980's: The general social situation. Social psychologists and cultural theorists describe a broad trend towards increasingly felt needs for involvement, subjectivity, expressive-

2.5 Summary and Conclusion

43

ness, meaning and social togetherness. In previous historical periods, strong socialisation agencies, e.g. the family and the church, have lost ground and the space for new socialisation agencies has increased. The corporation's role in this regard then comes into focus. The compensatory functions of organizations in terms of cultural integration and socialization have gradually attracted more attention. We conclude that both the general societal and cultural context of the development of organizational culture theory and the interest, strategies and other characteristics of the writers who provide the goods, are important factors behind the development, extension and current popularity of organizational culture studies. The present status of the culture approach cannot be seen simply as the product of an independent sphere of knowledge-producers nor as a response to the "system's needs" in the economy. Instead, the relationship between contextual factors and the internal characteristics and dynamics of the market for "academic pragmatics" is crucial. So far, we have not commented much upon the academic reasons for the expansion of culture theory during the 1980's. Even if they are not the major determinants behind the "culture boom", these reasons are of course those of greatest interest for an evaluation of the merits of organizational culture research. In the next chapter we will take an overall look at this research area today and in the following chapters we will look at various dimensions of this field in depth.

3 The Research Field Today

What we have argued in chapter 2 is that a number of different market forces have influenced the growth of the organizational culture research field. We have also shown that some of these market forces seem to have more to do with the possibility of "selling" the concept to managers and consultants than with pure theoretical merits. As a result it is not easy to single out either the theoretical foundation of the research field or the empirical foundation upon which it rests. As we also will show in this chapter, as well as later in chapter 9, the lack of a clear and agreed upon theoretical framework has also had a negative influence on the academic status of the field. The most salient weak points of organizational culture research may well be the lack of theoretical consistency and poor empirical underpinning. It is, however, important not to take criticism of the field ad notam, but rather examine the area as such without prejudice, looking at both the consistency of its concepts and theories and the solidity of the empirical foundation upon which the corporate culture and organizational symbolism perspectives rest.

3.1 The Theoretical Status of Culture Research The first problem we are facing when addressing the question of the theoretical status of corporate culture research is that of defining the field as such! For example, in 1982 the concept was still not included in the index of some ten leading international textbooks dealing with organization theory and corporate management (Berg/Faucheux 1982). Although the field has since then matured considerably at a theoretical level, its internal structure is still not fully developed. As we have already heavily emphasized, culture research hardly constitutes a paradigm within organizational and management theory in the commonly accepted sense of the concept, that is to say a theoretically well-structured, broad and extensive research orientation, with a common view of the world, methodological approach, definition of the research object and common theoretical ancestors and sources of inspiration. Instead, the research field is characterized

46

3 The Research Field Today

by a multitude of approaches and perspectives where the links between concepts, models and theories are not always clear and unambiguous. It is also difficult to establish a distinct demarcation line between cultural research and other types of organizational and management research, as well as to distinguish between the various theoretical approaches. The rapid expansion of the research field has also resulted in a large number of somewhat dislocated and hasty statements, definitions and analyses appearing in print. Frequently, one gets the sensation that authors have included words such as "culture", "symbol", "myth", etc., in their titles and text to attract the public's attention to their works rather than because the subject matter dealt with areas which were appropriately described by these words. The rapid expansion also makes it difficult to obtain an overall perspective. This implies that any overview of the subject runs the risk of being partly obsolete even before it is published. (We are definitely also aware that this may be the case of this book!) A second problem we are facing concerns the very definition of what is meant by "research" in the area of organizational culture. At our most depressed moments during our work with this book, we got the feeling that the corporate culture field had become a common meeting-place for anyone wanting a legitimate reason to do sloppy research as well as for those "misunderstood" academics convinced they had found the all-embracing theory of organizations. At more optimistic moments the impression was rather that almost all interesting contemporary organization research can be related to the culture and symbolism camp. What makes the situation even more difficult is that the early developments of the field seem to have been characterized by the opinion that "anything goes", as long as it is fun, witty or contains concepts such as culture or symbol. As we have outlined in chapter 2, it is also obvious that much of what has been done and is being done in the field may be characterized as "popresearch", resulting, for example, in broad and imprecise approaches which take into account everything and nothing, making unrealistic promises about what can be achieved. The problems above can probably be connected to the very character of the organizational culture concept. The culture concept can be given so many different meanings that it may be difficult to distinguish culture from other phenomena. It is possible to find some rudiments of a culture perspective in practically all social science and in most aspects of organizational research (cf. Allaire/Firsirotu 1984) which makes the delimitation of

3.1 The Theoretical Status of Culture Research

47

a strictly culture research field virtually impossible. A great variety of definitions is thus both possible and a matter of life. It falls well beyond the scope of this book to account for the use of the culture concept in the various cultural disciplines outside organization theory. (See, for example, Ehn/Löfgren 1982; Hannerz et al. 1982; Keesing 1974; Ortner 1984 and Schweder/Levine 1984 for overviews of anthropological, ethnological and other non-organizational theory culture research.) The fact that concepts such as corporate culture, business culture, company spirit, corporate climate, company identity, etc., are increasingly employed in the non-scientific world today, has probably contributed to the criticism. Even though the multitude of expressions and the intensity of the debate indicate that the field is currently considered important, this does not necessarily lend it academic prestige. The free use of terminology from the corporate culture field outside the research community may in fact have a negative influence on the reputation of the field, as it confirms sceptics' suspicions of a badly founded theoretical framework. The more reflective researchers' concepts of culture are contaminated by the more sloppy users of the word. Many academics interact with practitioners and are influenced by the mass media which hardly contributes to conceptual clarity. Thus, there is considerable confusion of concepts within the research field. Not only are there currently no common theoretical foundations, but there is also a lack of generally accepted clear definitions of many of the concepts which are used. This would not really present such a problem if the various authors/schools of thought were prepared to clarify and better anchor their use of concepts in the disciplines which have developed them, such as anthropology (Helmers 1991). Finally, and maybe most important, there is a confusion between organizational culture as an object (i.e. the character, structure and phenomena characterizing a particular social system) and a cultural (or rather symbolic) perspective on organizations. In the first case, it is often taken for granted, not only that the organization has a culture (a cultural subsystem alongside the administrative and technological subsystems, which are traditionally recognized), but also that it only has a single culture (Smircich 1983 a). It is then felt to be a duty to understand, explain and change this culture on the basis of what may often be normative foundations. In the latter case, where a cultural or symbolic perspective is utilized, the phenomena which are studied are often traditional organizational or managerial issues such as strategy, decentralization, control or structure, to

48

3 The Research Field Today

which an alternative theoretical frame of reference is applied. The confusion between these two fundamentally different theoretical approaches has definitely not made it easier to find a common theoretical ground to which new contributions could be meaningfully connected. Let us, however, after this rather violent attack on the theoretical foundation of culture and symbolism research present a somewhat different argument, starting not from the premises of traditional discipline-centered research, but from the very cross-disciplinary character of the culture concept as such. What we actually want to argue is that the multitude of perspectives, definitions and theories existing in the field, and the loose coupling of these concepts to each other, is a strong theoretical advantage when it comes to research on cultural phenomena in organizations. In fact, culture is as rich as life itself, and simply reducing it to a rigid framework or precise and absolute definitions would seriously reduce its inborn complexity. Another argument that could be put forward in support of the very character of the field today is that at an intuitive level, many of the cultural concepts seem to have been helpful in illuminating organizational phenomena which are difficult to grasp in a more precise manner with the help of traditional theoretically more well defined concepts. It may suffice to mention the way in which the clan concept has been used in the transaction cost theory (Alvesson/Lindkvist 1990; Wilkins/Ouchi 1983), how gender relations have been illuminated by the culture and symbolism concepts (Alvesson/Billing 1992; Mills 1988), or how the theoretically difficult concepts, rituals and ceremonies have been applied to shed light on certain aspects of decision-making processes (e.g. Trice/Beyer 1984). Thus, in conclusion, we may note that corporate culture and organizational symbolism are still relatively undeveloped fields of research. While this is obviously a deficiency which influences the scientific status of the field, it also indicates that this is a field with considerable development potential, which has not yet been trapped in its own structures. The possible advantages of a loosely coupled theoretical framework should, however, not discourage us from looking for possible links and common features in the various approaches. Quite the contrary, we assume that finding these links between various concepts, models and perspectives is one of the most pressing issues in culture and symbolism research today. However, in order to give a fair picture of cultural research, it is equally important to examine its relationship with closely associated fields of re-

3.2 The Empirical Foundations

49

search. As we see it the culture field cannot be criticized on the basis of its own premises until a clear picture of the research field and the existing meta-theoretical and conceptual limitations have been established. At present, the critics often batter at open doors and, to some extent, the debate is peripheral to the connection with the real research field.

3.2 The Empirical Foundations In an overview of contributions within the corporate culture field, Berg and Faucheux (1982: 27) commented as follows: The vast majority of studies are either non-empirical (lack explicit references to cases, field studies, data sources etc.), consist of one or a few, often very brief and superficial cases, or consist of anecdotes from one or more companies. In fact, only 14 of the studies (of a total of 87; our comment) account for an empirical base which is not essentially narrative. Of these, only 9 make an explicit account of the way in which data are collected and processed.

Their study was based on material published before 1982, but an overview of more recent sources indicates that the percentage distribution between narrative and speculative contributions and methodologically more weighty empirical materials has not changed radically, even if some increase in empirical content may be observed. As a curiosity, Bob Witkin's (one of the leading figures in the SCOS research network) said at an international conference in Antibes in 1985 that he was "deadly tired of all these anecdotes, all these loose theories and meaningless abstract quarrelling over how to define concepts. What we need, and need badly, is more solid empirical data, based on sound and proven scientific methods". Apart from Ornstein's (1986) experiment with symbolic interpretation there are virtually no other examples of a more stringent research methodology (in the traditional sense of the word). We do not see this as a serious problem. It is partly in the nature of a cultural approach to go beyond the restrictions that follow from a "rigorous" research design. The major problem is rather that, on the whole, there are not that many comprehensive studies in depth of organizational cultures. The empirical studies are mainly represented by works which do not illustrate "whole" cultures in any detail, or even major chunks of organizational reality, but instead tend to focus on limited, not to say narrow aspects of such cultures - for example

50

3 The Research Field Today

jokes, stories, ceremonies and rites. (See Alvesson's (1992 b) critical comments on "coffee drinking studies".) There are also studies which concentrate on a specific group in an organization and quite a few others which are contented with a relatively superficial view of the organizations studied. But some depth is required in approaching the culture phenomenon. What makes the picture even more complicated is the fluid borderline between research and consultation which seems to characterize the field. It appears to be more a rule than an exception that the researcher has gained access to his data in his role as a consultant rather than as a researcher. This applies especially to the earlier studies, e.g. Goodstein (1979), Page (1974) and Silverzweig and Allen (1976) but also to later works, e. g. Deal and Kennedy (1982), Peters and Waterman (1982) and Schein (1985). To summarize, the absence of conscientious empirical research seems to be particularly characteristic of the culture field. There is therefore some reason to regard the corporate culture field as a giant with clay feet - full of concepts, models, theories and speculations, but with a relatively weak empirical basis. In the light of what has been said so far, it is tempting to agree with the critics that the research field is empirically immature or at least empirically unexplored. Some critics regret that culture has not yet, to any great extent, been the subject of "rigorous" studies (e.g. Pennings/ Gresov 1986). However, what is meant by "rigorous studies", or by "sound and proven scientific methods" can of course be discussed. Neither Witkin in the quotation above, nor we consider that quantitative, statistical and procedurally correct methods have a monopoly, or are even useful, here. The weakness of the field is the lack of competent interpretive and ethnographical studies addressing the more "holistic" aspects of organizations. Neither must we forget that it is the very criticism of existing methodological approaches that has been one of the most important elements in the growth of culture and symbolism research (e.g. Dandridge et al. 1980). It would thus be unfair to judge this new field purely on the basis of the method and the scientific approach which representatives of this field of research criticize. As we see it the problem is not the lack of conventional methods, but rather the inability to communicate the alternatives which are said to exist to the research community at large. There are, however, some exceptions to this rule, for example Sanday's (1979) argumentation for the ethnographic research method, Kunda's (1991) ethnographic study

3.2 The Empirical Foundations

51

of a large computer company and Czarniawska-Joerges' (1990) book on organizational anthropology. Readers who are interested in methodology can also be referred to e.g. Agar (1986) and Rosen (1989). The emerging question is thus what kind of research method competent culture research requires. The majority of the more serious writers within the field emphasize that in-depth studies, in which the researcher comes close to the subject of his investigation, are to prefer. Participant observations, conducted over a relatively long period, in-depth interviews, studies of physical and mental artifacts (documents, material symbols, thoughtstructures, etc.) are some examples of methods used to collect data, and content analysis of texts and interpretation of in-depth structures seem to be major ingredients in analysing data. Naturally this puts extremely high demands on the researcher and the research process, not least in terms of access and time. It is of course possible to carry out less extensive studies of corporate cultures, but then there is a considerable risk that the deeper cultural dimensions are not penetrated and that the researcher, instead, will have to be content with investigating superficial values and behavioural norms. This implies no new contributions in qualitative terms or improvements on earlier traditional or "non-traditional" studies. There have been experiments which have focused on patterns of action which express culture (rites, ceremonies, etc.) in a symbolic form as a kind of snapshot (e.g. Trice/Beyer 1984). However, there is considerable risk of misunderstandings and poor validity, although also relatively limited empirical studies guided by some kind of cultural perspective can provide indicative illustrations of various types of organizational phenomena. Despite criticism and warnings, we would still wish to maintain that it is highly probable that the narrations, metaphors and images which researchers describe are of vital importance in order to empirically capture cultures and symbolic phenomena. It is probably easier - if not completely problem-free - to approach these phenomena by participating (as a consultant or a member of the organization) in the organization in question over a relatively long period of time. To be close to the empirical object is of vital importance. Thus, what we need is not primarily (and as an end in itself) a transition to "objectivistic" methodology, but rather an open presentation and testing of the techniques and methods which are used today in practice. Not least is an awareness required of the foundations of the study in terms of scientific philosophy in a field which is so difficult to

52

3 The Research Field Today

capture. The ideal situation is naturally that the assumptions and the methods for empirical studies can be made explicit as far as possible. However, in the case of cultural research this presents problems since "the essence of cultural analysis consists primarily of creative forces" (Ehn/ Löfgren 1982: 122). No matter what we do, creativity and interpretative ability are more important than following rigid procedures.

3.3 Object Levels, Phenomena and Conventions Many writers have justifiably maintained that the introduction of the corporate culture concept has led to a spider's web of definitions, concepts, theories and models which are both vaguely formulated and unrelated. Of course, it is easy to understand how this rich flora of concepts has arisen as a product of the crossing of various scientific disciplines (anthropology, management, sociology, psychoanalytical theory, folklore studies, linguistics, economics, political science), but this does not excuse the inadequate theoretical positioning of concepts which many authors employ. In many cases, the culture concept appeals to the imagination and this, in turn, has resulted in the utilization by researchers of exciting and challenging concepts borrowed from, for example, anthropology, without any clear theoretical support. In order to create some order amongst the concepts, it is important to systematize the various foundations. Let us start by taking a closer look at some attempts made at reviewing the research field.

3.3.1 Previous Reviews of the Research Field The systematizations in the specialized texts are based on rather different foundations, which makes it difficult to directly compare the classification systems that have been developed. The simplest procedure is to assemble similar concepts in taxonomies of concepts, cultural behaviours, etc. (e.g. Dandridge et al. 1980; Ott 1984). There are also plenty of pure listings of cultural concepts, e.g. sagas, rituals and myths, without any attempt to analyze the deeper meaning of the phenomena they represent. Kilmann et al. (1985) and Ulrich (1984) are two (depressing) examples of authors who have defined culture without any fundamental theoretical framework by indiscriminately listing a number of cultural manifestations.

3.3 Object Levels, Phenomena and Conventions

53

Another approach focuses on more precise definitions and on relating existing definitions to each other or to a particular model. However, the problem with the definition method is that any author with any degree of self-respect seems to have developed his own definition of the key concepts. The concept of corporate culture is, for example, sometimes regarded as "a collection of shared norms, beliefs and value structures" or even simply as "shared values" and "joint conceptual frameworks", although sometimes a considerably more ambitious definition is applied (see subsequent chapters). Although loosely defined concepts may have some advantages - they are often, for example, highly metaphorically loaded and of a generative character - there is still the same need for a theoretical positioning of concepts. And if there is no such positioning, it can be impossible to create meaningful categories. Other authors have used the main scientific discipline as basis for their categorizations. Ouchi and Wilkins (1985) have, for example, adopted a relatively simple method of structuring which distinguishes between macro-analytical (i.e. sociological) and micro-analytical (psychological) theoretical studies, holistic empirical studies (ethnographical works), semiotic studies (with focus on language and symbolism), quantitative studies and prescriptive work on planned change. This structuring principle means that many debatable cases which are difficult to place are avoided. On the other hand, the reader is given little real help in achieving theoretical clarity as regards the many alternatives which characterize the research field. Another method of structuring the research field is to emphasize on different theoretical orientations based on the various approaches related to basic dimensions and assumptions of a paradigmatic nature. Martin and Meyerson (1988), for example, assume three "paradigms" in organizational culture research: integration, differentiation and ambiguity. The first of these paradigms is characterized by an assumption of unity and consensus as typical characteristics of organizational cultures. The second paradigm "stresses inconsistencies, delineates the absence of organization-wide consensus (usually in the form of overlapping, nested subcultures), and stresses non-leader sources of cultural content" (page 110). The third paradigm assumes that neither clear, consistent nor inconsistent patterns are normal, for "consensus, dissensus, and confusion coexist, making it difficult to draw cultural and subcultural boundaries" (page 117). The basis of classification is interesting and significant but the focus on clarity/ambiguity and consensus/conflict invokes only two dimensions.

54

3 The Research Field Today

A further principle which can be utilized to provide an overall picture of the field is to use basic epistemological criteria, i.e. the cognitive or knowledge-constitutive interest which guides research. Following Habermas (1972), it is customary to distinguish between technical, historical-hermeneutical or emancipatory knowledge-constitutive interests, i.e. the idea behind the knowledge contribution is that it should provide a basis for increased steering and control, general understanding of the importance of traditions and cultures for the functioning of human/societal institutions or stimulating liberation from external dominance and false forms of consciousness. Organizational culture and symbolism research has been reviewed by, for example, Filby (1990), Knights and Willmott (1987) and Stablein and Nord (1985) on the basis of this categorization. One problem in using this principle is that the categories are of a relatively general nature. Finally, it is possible to follow Smircich (1983 a), Morgan et al. (1983) and Allaire and Firsirotu (1984) in assuming fundamental intellectual traditions such as social science paradigms or anthropological schools of thought when defining the organizational culture concept. This appears to be logical but experience in the social sciences indicates that different authors often arrive at highly individualistic paradigm catalogues (Eckberg/Hill 1980). Another problem with the latter approach is that it has a tendency to create post factum constructions, in which the author refers to anthropological traditions which perhaps s/he has never heard of her/himself (Allaire/Firsirotu 1984).

3.3.2 Our Own Approach Maintaining that the very character of corporate culture and organizational symbolism makes it difficult to use one dimensional taxonomy or well-established theoretical framework to structure the field, we need to present an alternative approach. Let us start by arguing that - in reality - most research in this field is not based on stringent, theoretically pure perspectives, concepts and schools of thought (Turner 1986). This is clearly illustrated in Smircich's (1983 a) overview, in which the author distinguishes five cultural concepts and relates various organizational researchers with these concepts. Some of the writers Smircich refers to, including herself, are represented by works which are based on varying cultural concepts. (This is not necessary a

3.3 Object Levels, Phenomena and Conventions

55

problem and should not be interpreted as criticism of Smircich or of ourselves, since similar approaches can be found in our categorization of different perspectives. Instead, it is an illumination of the fact that the research field is difficult to interpret unambiguously. This also applies to many other fields of research.) Instead, we have chosen to build our analysis on three independent systems of classification: the object level (the level of analysis), the phenomenon on which the study focuses and, finally, the conventions and perspectives adopted by the author. Object levels indicate the selection of the object within range or the level of enlargement which can be used in approaching a given phenomenon. Normally, such levels of analysis are the society/nation, region/industry, company/organization, societal macrogroups (e.g. professions), groups in organizations, etc. In using the term phenomenon, we refer to items or aspects of a given object of study which are of interest. On the basis of an organizational culture perspective, it is possible to illustrate practically everything which can be imagined as the object of organizational research, for example, strategy, technology, organizational structure, personnel policy and administrative systems and routines. However, we have been content with focusing on some common objects of study in organizational culture research - for example, image and identity, climate and spirit, corporate ideology and philosophy, symbols in organizational contexts, rites and rituals. Finally, in referring to conventions, we were interested in more or less explicit theoretical school formations in the field. It is here a question of main concepts and relatively broad frames of reference (consisting of postulates, concepts, arguments, basic assumptions and explanations as to how reality is connected and can be understood) which various researchers and groups of researchers adhere to. However, the conventions may easily be confused with phenomena. What is experienced out in the real world is mixed up with the theoretical frame of reference which has been developed to capture the phenomenon in question. As we have already pointed out, this has contributed to confusion in the research field. This is quite natural, since many key concepts can denote both a phenomenon and a theoretical perspective. Since making a certain (complex) phenomenon into an object of study is not unconnected with theory, there is a certain overlapping between the object and the theoretical perspective. However, for analytical reasons, it is important to distinguish between them.

56

3 The Research Field Today

But, what complicates the picture is that within each convention a wide range of perspectives is applied to capture the phenomenon in question. Take the ideology convention for example. On the one hand, there are researchers who regard the system of values from a political perspective and, on the other hand, there are those who view the system of values as a politically neutral corporate philosophy. It has therefore been necessary also to present some of the more crucial perspectives within each convention. The conventions can then be said to constitute the additional school formations (in some cases - as with ideology - rather loosely assembled orientations) which exist within the field today, while the perspective represents more narrowly composite theoretical orientations which are the controlling factor behind the various studies. Levels of analysis, key

Conventions and Perspectives

Symbolism Psychodynamics Ideology Meaning construction Culture Phenomena to Study Civilization/ Nation /Reaion Industrial Sector Profession

Culture (myths rites and rituals sagas heroes core values ideologies etc.) Symbols Climate/Spirit Identity Image etc.

Figure 3.1: Overview of the analysis. The figure shows the five conventions (culture, meaning construction, ideology, psychodynamics and symbolism) and the range of levels of analysis and some phenomena to study within each level.

3.3 Object Levels, Phenomena and Conventions

57

concepts and conventions can be combined relatively freely. Certain combinations seem natural and are most common, but in principle the majority of phenomena at most levels can be studied on the basis of almost all conventions and perspectives. A summarized picture of the various elements utilized in the continuation of the analysis is presented in figure 3.1. In the following, levels of analysis and phenomena aspects are dealt with in chapters 4 and 5, while the perspectives/conventions are covered in detail in chapter 6.

Part II Different Theoretical Perspectives

4 Object Levels

4.1 The Need to Distinguish Between Different Object Levels The first obvious difference between various studies on organizational encounters is that they seem to address culture at different levels. We have, for example, the bulk of studies dealing with cross-cultural management, we have the rapidly growing number of studies dealing with cultures in the company as a whole, there are studies emphasizing professional and functional subcultures within an organization and there are even examples of studies dealing with primarily individual level phenomena under the cover of the organizational culture label. Thus there are good reasons for us to start our analysis by discussing the object levels as well as the levels of analysis chosen in organizational culture research, not only because it provides a good "natural" structuring of the field as such, but also because of the apparent lack of awareness of the problems associated with mixing concepts from different levels of analysis with different object levels. There are particularly three reasons why it is so important to understand what object levels the various authors have chosen to study and use as a basis for their conceptual framework. Firstly, one of the major problems with our research field is the common confusion between different levels of analysis. Sarup (1976) observes, for example, that there must be an agreement between the level for which the conceptual framework was developed and the level of the object under study. It is not obvious, for example, that psychological models developed at the individual level can be transferred to the organizational level or vice versa. The problem seems to be particularly pronounced for the organizational behaviour-oriented studies on corporate cultures, in which the culture at best is treated as a context for individual action, and at worst as an aggregate of individual characteristics. There is also a tendency to see the organizational culture as a reflection of the founder's beliefs and values "the founder writ large" - which often appears simplistic and misleading (Alvesson 1992b; Martin et al. 1985). As we see it, the main advantage of the organizational culture concept is that it allows us to treat larger social

62

4 Object Levels

systems as collectives - not as aggregates of individual characteristics or actions! (This will be further elaborated in chapters 6 and 10.) For the sake of justice we should note, however, that the majority of studies on culture express more interest in the collective than in the individuals in the organization. As a result, we have chosen in the following discussion not to include studies at the individual level. Strictly speaking, individuals are only of interest when directly related to a larger collective (culture), e.g. through an exceptionally strong position, for example the founder of a company and certain chief executive officers. But, even here, it may be more interesting from a culture perspective to focus on groups who permit themselves to be influenced by central actors and study collective frameworks, values and emotions. Similarly, it may be difficult to use an anthropological culture concept designed to illustrate small and closed societies to do justice to a modern, open organization (see Morey/Luthans 1985). Berg and Faucheux (1982) have called this the "folkloristic trap", i.e. the tendency to uncritically borrow ethnographic concepts and apply them to various organizational phenomena. One of the problems in doing so, is that an organization is not always only a community - a Gemeinschaft - but also a company (or another type of goal-rational entity) - a Gesellschaft - with a particular mission to accomplish and with a particular structure to accomplish this mission. Goals and instrumental arrangements and actions patterns are thus central. Thus the introduction of ethnographic concepts tends to over-emphasize the community aspects while neglecting the reality of the business world as expressed, for example, in notions of corporate performance and efficiency. The anthropological concepts may be very well suited when studying cultural phenomena on the national level (e.g. as in cross-cultural management), but not necessarily equally relevant when it comes to the company level. The other reason is that management's cultural characteristics (the management culture) tend to be treated as equivalent to "the organizational culture" without discussing the latter's possible existence and probable content at lower organizational levels or even the absence of distinct, organization-related cultural patterns. The simplified assumption that management culture is identical with corporate culture ignores the possibility of several cultures in a company - possibly competing at different levels. In addition, the object of study itself is automatically reduced to the management group/the dominant coalition, while the nature of the wider collective(s)/the total organization is avoided. What we actually

4.1 The Need to Distinguish Between Different Object Levels

63

intend to show in this chapter is that one must not take for granted that the organization has a unitary culture, but rather realize that simultaneously there might exist a multitude of overlapping cultures at different levels and sectors of the organization. The third, and perhaps the most important reason for separating the different object levels, concerns the basic theoretical assumptions which apply to each level. For example, take studies which are based on a simple aggregation of data from individuals, or at best groups, without any attempt at searching for collective or common social patterns at the organizational (or other appropriate larger) level(s). Attempts at finding patterns in more or less randomly generated populations, without regard to the historical, political or structural contexts in which the individuals who are being studied found themselves, is another example. We ourselves are firmly convinced that concepts and theories can not just be grabbed and used without considering the theoretical and above all empirical context from which they once emerged. We should also note that many of the authors who have approached the culture field have also observed that culture phenomena occur and may be studied at several different levels. Fombrun (1983), for example, distinguishes culture into three different object levels: societal culture (e.g. the difference between various national cultures), industrial culture (almost identical with our industry culture concept based on the products, the nature of the technology, the industrial structure, etc.) and corporate culture (see also Hofstede et al. 1990 and Whipp et al. 1989). However, in most cases, researchers refer to the levels at which the cultural phenomena are manifested, rather than the object level as such. Schein (1985), for example, speaks of three cultural levels in a company (artifacts, values and fundamental assumptions, of which the latter is the deepest level and also the most difficult to understand). Let us now proceed to review some of the more important organizational levels at which corporate culture research is carried out. We feel that we have been able to identify and distinguish seven different principal types of object levels within current culture research. These levels and their mutual relationships are illustrated in figure 4.1 below.

64

4 Object Levels Civilizations /National culture Regional and Industrial culture Company-Managerial culture Professional culture Department culture Worker culture

Figure 4.1: Levels of culture

4.2 Review of Culture Studies on Different Levels 4.2.1 Culture in Societies and Nations This is one of the corporate areas which under the label of "cross-cultural management" has attracted the greatest attention for some years. The focus here is on cultural phenomena at a macro-level, (i.e. behaviour, values and beliefs which are specific to the manner of doing business or managing companies, for example in the Western world). There are various bases for such studies, for example, the interaction between management style and national character (Beck/Moore 1983; Ouchi 1981; Pascale/Athos 1981; Stewart 1984), national manager characteristics in multinational companies (Adler 1980; Hofstede 1980; Joynt/Warner 1985; Laurent 1982), national myths and organizational situations (CzarniawskaJoerges 1988 a), relationships between organizational structures and national culture (Weinshall 1977) and the relationship between strategy formation and national culture (Haiss 1990; Schneider 1989). Developments in this field also point to some interest in the actual interaction between various national, cultural contexts, as in the cultural communications field

4.2 Review of Culture Studies on Different Levels

65

(Gudykunst et al. 1985) and in the interaction between national systems of beliefs and organizational behaviour (Aktouf 1985). One problem which many of the studies carried out within this field is, however, that they tend to use nations as "natural" boundaries of a culture. Given recent developments in Europe in particular, with the emergence of strong ethnic and economic regions across national boundaries, the concept of national cultures needs to be complemented with other macro-concepts of culture. In the future we can expect more studies on the particular cultural characteristics of regional cultures. A relatively new and interesting field of study is civilizations (e.g. Western or Asian civilizations) from a cultural or symbolic perspective (Hall/Xu 1990; Singh 1990). One of the fundamental ideas in this context is to include the deeper historical, religious and cultural patterns in the analysis of organizations which are primarily treated as a reflection of overall cultures. Positioning an organization in a broader symbolic context will probably have a greater impact in future research as a result of the internationalization process. Cultural expressions at the corporate level, stemming not only from national differences but also from more fundamental "supra-national" cultural patterns (e.g. neo-capitalistic, Asiatic) are important (Alvesson 1991 b). (The 1988 SCOS conference in Istanbul, for example, dealt with "corporate cultures in different civilizations") (Giritli/ Sözen et al. 1988.) A further object of study which may possibly be traced to this level is the increased interest in social, cultural and economic shifts in society and their affect on the organization and its actions. Our analysis in chapter 2 may be partially related to this level, as is also the case for Alvesson's (1990) study of the increasing tendency to focus on images as a means of control in companies. The recognition of the "postmodern age" as a highly expressive mass-society has also been treated from a cultural and symbolic angle (Berg 1989 a, 1989b) (see also chapter 11).

4.2.2 Regional and Local Cultures Studies of regional and local cultures' relevance for the corporate phenomenon have attracted an increased interest in recent years. The study of cultures within a certain geographical (territory), administrative (jurisdiction), commercial (market) or ethnic (country) area is the main field of interest.

66

4 Object Levels

Examples of such studies are analyses of the cultural networks behind the "Gnosjö spirit" - the propensity to adopt a high degree of entrepreneurship in a particular Swedish municipality (Gustafsson 1986) or the local image in a particular Swedish city (Hansell 1984). Various studies of companies in Silicon Valley also link in with this category (e.g. Gregory 1983). One basic assumption in such studies appears to be that a particular region, district or town establishes a sense of identity or a special way of thinking or acting within its geographic area. This may then explain, for example, (the apparently irrational) opposition to changes or why precisely one particular district has been successful in establishing new, small companies. A further development is increased interest in local and regional profiling (Berg/Olsson 1990), where regional identity is the very starting point for joint strategic action in a district. This type of research is perhaps what comes closest to the traditional domains of the ethnographers and the cultural geographers, but it seems as if the proponents of these types of research have not been particularly interested in transferring their methodological concepts to organizational phenomena of various types.

4.2.3 The Cultures of Industries and Social Sectors We have noted that Turner (1971) drew attention to the industrial subculture in society at an early stage. From a corporate or organizational perspective, this subculture then becomes virtually a macro-culture. After having been relatively quiet for some years, there now seems to be renewed interest in studying culture and symbolism phenomena at the societal sector level. One example is Mac Donald's (1986) study of the growth and development of industrial culture. (In this context, it should be emphasized that the industrial concept is employed in a very broad sense to cover the setting up and organization of the entire production apparatus.) The interesting feature in Mac Donald's contribution is that he attempts to establish psychological structures and expressions at a societal level (e.g. in the form of cognitive structures - ideas, concepts and values). However, there is no attempt to establish direct links with specific companies. There is also a relatively recent renewed interest in studying "industries" or industrial and other sectors from a culture perspective. One example is an analysis of the culture of the consultancy industry and, in particular,

4.2 Review of Culture Studies on Different Levels

67

the values and beliefs (fundamental myths) behind the industry's political/ institutional logic (Berg et al. 1988). Whipp et al. (1989: 573) draw attention to "the shared assumptions" and "the generally held, long-term beliefs" by manufacturers in the automobile industry which both assist and constrain individual companies. Interest in the "soft" aspects of industry logic also reappears in the new view of industry development (Normann et al. 1989) and industry management which is currently emerging. An important element in these ideas is to regard industries as business or professional "contexts" rather than supply or demand markets or inter-organizational networks. Boisot's (1986) transaction cost analytical study of the relationship between a company's culture and the nature of the market on which the company operates may also be tied in at this level. We imagine that many companies/organizations in the same industry/sector - e.g. automobile companies, schools, universities or hospitals - have much in common when seen from a cultural perspective. On the whole, research in the cultural field has concentrated on individual organizations, while the sectoral level has been somewhat neglected.

4.2.4 Organizational and Corporate Cultures Corporate and organizational culture is a collective designation for research which is oriented towards culture in an organization as a whole. The main part of the research at this level is descriptive to its character, focusing on the characteristics of culture in individual organizations. There are in fact very few empirically founded comparative studies on corporate cultures, i.e. the type of studies that seems to be common practice in most ethnographic studies on folk cultures. Instead, what is emphasized is the uniqueness of the organization, unrelated to other organizations in the same industry or society. What above all seems to characterize research at this level is the attempts to find concepts that can capture the culture as a whole - as a collective phenomenon. One way to capture these collective properties is to use metaphors from anthropology. "Tribe" is an example of a concept that has been been employed by many writers (e.g. Deal/Kennedy 1982; Page 1974; Symons 1986). "Clan" is another concept which is used by Ouchi (1980) and Wilkins and Ouchi (1983). In this context, earlier studies also

68

4 Object Levels

used concepts such as the "character" of the organization (Harrison 1972; Selznick 1957 and later also Wilkins 1989), the organization's "identity" (Albert/Whetten 1985; Olins 1989) its "personality" (Bernstein 1984) or even its "soul" (Göranson 1984). However, for the most part researchers simply speak of corporate culture or organizational culture when referring to the cultural characteristics of the organization as a whole. But as we have already noted, there have been very serious attacks on the assumption that the culture of organizations constitutes a really appropriate object for study. For example, it has been maintained that it is not always meaningful to say that organizations have one culture. There are many - and probably an increasing number of - authors who claim that it is unusual for an organization to have a single composite and readily identified culture (Alvesson/Sandkull 1988; Martin/Meyerson 1988; Smircich 1983 a; van Maanen/Barley 1984, 1985; Wilkins/Ouchi 1983). Another source of conceptual confusion is linked to the willy-nilly use of concepts like "corporate" culture, "organizational" culture, "management" culture and "business" culture. The corporate culture and organizational culture concepts, which are the most widely used, have, for example, over time become "labels" for a great deal of culture and symbolism research at different object levels, rather than being scientific concepts signifying the culture in the organization as a whole. Not infrequently, the corporate culture concept is also used with a management bias, i.e. with a focus on the ideas, methods of thinking and values of strategically important groups. The concept of corporate culture is thus frequently used when dealing with culture in a managerial perspective or even when dealing with the company in a particular business context. However, we are inclined to accept the opinion that in such cases one should not speak of corporate or organizational culture, since, strictly speaking, the company/organization does not constitute the object level, but rather a certain level of the organization (management) or a certain sector of industry (business). The concepts of management and business cultures are seldom used in the literature, but can be treated either as functional subcultures at the organizational level or as professional subcultures in a larger social context (see next section). In conclusion it may be maintained that the concept organizational culture (which has not yet become conceptually exhausted) may be a better concept for capturing phenomena at the organizational level. In our opinion, there might be a possibility that the organizational concept is regarded by

4.2 Review of Culture Studies on Different Levels

69

practitioners as limiting the field of study to institutions, public activities, nonprofit organizations, etc., with no direct connections with corporate activities, but this should of course not restrict academics' terminology. Thus, in this book we will - as said in chapter 1 - use the concept organizational culture in a general sense to refer to the research field as such, but also use the concept to signify the very character of the culture when studied at the overall organization level. Thus, the concept is used in different ways, but given the traditions that have developed and the elusive nature of the field, this can hardly be changed. Hopefully, it is clear when organizational culture is used as an umbrella concept and when it implies a demarcated object of study (the organization).

4.2.5 Functional Subcultures at the Organizational Level In addition to overall organizational culture studies, there are also functional subcultures which have been studied at the organizational level. When we are referring to functional subcultures in this context, we are thinking of a certain aspect or function of the culture, e.g. its view of, or method of doing business (business culture), the interaction between culture and technological factors (techno-culture) or links between the culture and the management system (management culture). Generally speaking, the basis for the function which is emphasized is the organization. When people speak of management culture, they generally emphasize the cultural system which affects the corporate business orientation. Here the researchers, often without much reflection, or at any rate implicitly, assume that the management (the elite or the dominating coalition) culture is the same as an overall corporate culture, common to all personnel. The basic thought here is that the ideas, beliefs and values of the management group (regarding the orientation of operations and the management system) characterize the organization's behaviour (Deal/Kennedy 1982; Kilmann et al. 1985; Sathe 1985) and success (Peters/Waterman 1982; Vaill 1982). The business culture concept has also been used to describe management culture in companies (Dahlgren/Witt 1985). However, this concept does not seem to be popular in research, possibly because it is associated with an aspect which is rather limited from the perspective of the total organizational collective, and perhaps also because it can be confused with the industry culture concept which has already been presented.

70

4 Object Levels

From the level point of view, this category is characterized by studies which normally occupy an intermediate location between the primary objective of considering management and business questions and examining the organizational culture in its totality. Not infrequently, one feels that authors with this orientation are oscillating between a desire, on the one hand, to emphasize business aspects and the corporate managementculture system and, on the other hand, to include the total organizational culture - lock, stock and barrel - in the analysis. Many studies which claim to be concerned with corporate culture, for example in relation to corporate strategies, cover relatively limited aspects which are tangential to a given corporate function. (Despite everything, ideas about a company's overall orientation are a limited part of the general culture pattern which characterizes the company.) The interaction between technology and company culture and how this influenced innovation propensity and the initiation of new technology has also been studied by a considerable number of authors (e.g. Casey/Dunkerley 1983; Granstrand 1979). One of us has also used the concept "techno-culture" to capture the interdependency between culture and technology (Berg 1985 b). In addition, there are narrative contributions describing techno-cultural phenomena (e.g. Kidder's "The Soul of a New Machine", 1982). Finally, there are also studies that we - after some hesitation - feel concern particular "areas" or functions of organizational life, for example the interest in political aspects on cultures in the organization (e.g. Cobb/ Elder 1976; Riley 1983) or absenteeism culture which concerns itself with absenteeism at the place of work (Nicholson/Johns 1985).

4.2.6 Social Groups in the Organization This category of studies is based on the cultural characteristics of social groups, rather than on the organizational functions they fulfil. Obviously there are glaring overlaps, but a study of, for example, a management group as a social unit can illustrate aspects which are not designed to be captured when focusing on cognition, values and affective attitudes in relation to strategic processes or cost control, for example. Thus, the social group and the function represent different points of departure. One example of such a subunit study is Realm's (1985) study of the clash between managerial and professional cultures in organizations.

4.2 Review of Culture Studies on Different Levels

71

Interestingly enough, there appear to be few studies of managers as social groups in organizations, except for those in which functionality is placed in the foreground in a very restrictive manner. (One exception is Smith/ Peterson 1988.) On the other hand, there are far more studies of collectives at lower levels in corporations. Studies of worker cultures often obtain their inspiration from worksociological or ethnological frames of reference and focus on the culture patterns which have "spontaneously" emerged on the factory floor. Lysgaard's study of worker collectives (1961) and the studies conducted by Burawoy (1979), Ehn (1981), Molstad (1989) and Young (1989) of informal shop floor cultures and Liljeström's (1979) discussion on worker cultures are examples to this effect. Many of these researchers consider that the opposing interests of the worker collective and corporate management are a necessary condition for, or at least have an influence on, the establishment and development of the worker culture. The workers' concrete situation - at the bottom of the corporate hierarchy and often with demanding and frustrating working conditions - provides the basis of a collective attitude. The cultural patterns achieve their form and character as a result of the tension implicit in the worker-management relation, in which workers define themselves as antithetical in relation to the management's and the senior executives' interest in control and exploitation. The values and ideas of the worker collective are thus assumed to have their origins in social conflict, or at least to be strongly influenced by such conflicts. Another category of studies in this field has its roots in folklore research where, for example, the same conflict is described as two culture cycles: "management-lore" and "workers-lore" (Hemmersam 1984). The debate between the more management-oriented folklorists (e.g. Raspa 1986) and the more worker-oriented folklorists (e.g. Hemmersam 1983) or critical organizational researchers (Aktouf 1985) is also of interest. There are also a number of examples of ethnologically inspired studies of office cultures, e.g. Holm-Löfgren's study of people in the office culture (1980) and Conradson's ethnological depiction of office staff (1988).

72

4 Object Levels

4.2.7 Professional Cultures Professional culture studies describe how various occupational groups think, act and function. The organization is then considered to be of secondary interest for the simple reason that a profession is not limited to the framework of a given organization, but goes beyond the boundaries of the organization. Determinant factors which are external to the organization are crucial. This type of study often emphasizes the difference in behaviour and beliefs between various professional groups within a given organization - for example salesmen, technicians and development personnel (Nilsson/Edlund 1982), within a particular industry (Björklund 1984; Bursell 1984; Jaques 1951; von der Lippe 1985) or within a particular occupational group (van Maanen/Barley 1984). Van Maanen and Barley, who have perhaps made the most interesting contribution in this field, regard "occupational communities" as central bearers of cultural patterns in working life. They consider that phenomenological criteria must be employed to define these communities. The decisive factor is thus people's own ideas and experiences about which values, forms of understanding and aims are shared and who people identify with (group belongingness). This research has mainly been devoted to the profession as such, that is to say irrespective of the organizations in which the professionals operate. The organizations are of subordinate interest and are mainly dealt with as arenas in which the professional and work groups happen to find themselves. (In the organizational context, interesting interaction and dynamics between various groups, including management, might take place. The arena is thus not necessarily uninteresting.) This is the major difference between studies which are discussed in the section and those which have been dealt with previously, where the functioning of social groups and subcultures within the framework of the organizational context was the main focus of interest. There is an interesting inconsistency in the treatment of the significance of cultural relationship for the consensus/conflict theme in organizations. Conventional understandings of culture say that it is accompanied by consensus and harmony. (For a characterization of this integrative view on culture, see, for example, Martin/Meyerson 1988). Van Maanen and Barley (1985) consider, in contrast to the main stream of thought within the corporate culture field, but in accordance with a growing emphasis on subcultures, that occupational communities are normally a more signific-

4.3 The Importance of Focusing on the Level Problem

73

ant determinant of people's values, norms, etc. than the company (formal organizations). Since organizations generally cover several professions/ occupational communities, there is often cultural multiplicity - something which may easily give rise to conflicts and antagonism. Culture would then be followed by conflict rather than consensus and harmony.

4.3 The Importance of Focusing on the Level Problem It might appear that there should be no major problem in determining at what level a particular research approach or written text operates. But it is frequently not that simple. It is often difficult to clearly distinguish different groups with different cultures since the group and cultural ties may often overlap each other. If, for example, a given cross section (selection) of a corporate collective proves to have certain common characteristics, is this the result of some common corporate sense of belonging or does it depend on some other factor, for example, that members of the company belong to the same nation or industrial sector, the same part of the company (for example the same division or the same level in the organizational hierarchy) or because they have a similar occupation? It is often difficult to distinguish corporate-specific culture characteristics from, for example, national or industry-specific characteristics. Phenomena which are regarded as organization-specific or organizationally determined may often, in fact, be linked with circumstances outside the organization in question and may be common for a considerable number of companies. To some extent, the research field suffers from the fact that most approaches have tried to focus solely on those culture characteristics believed to be unique to a particular organization, while neglecting those which are common to corporate management, organizations, working classes, etc. within an industry, region or nation, or even globally. (Everett et al. 1982 speak, for example, of an international managerial culture.) It is even possible to maintain that variations in organizations may be tracted to the more superficial levels, while deeper characteristics, for example basic values, ways of thinking and ideas which are taken for granted, are more widespread within the framework of the same macro culture (societal typ) (Alvesson 1992b; Hofstede et al. 1990). Feldman and March's (1981) observation that information is considered to be important in an organizational context on the basis of what it symbolizes

74

4 Object Levels

(ideas and rationality, reliability, etc.) is more a question of generally accepted culture patterns in the Western world than a question of what characterizes individual organizations. To sum up the discussion in this chapter, it is reasonable to maintain that the possible coexistence of multiple cultures at different levels demands a high degree of awareness of at what (or which) level(s) the study is performed, as well as from what (which) level(s) the concepts, models and theories origin. If not, researchers run the risk of producing misleading results. In addition, communication between researchers will be very difficult, and the joint efforts for the advancement of knowledge - which is the core element in any science (even though, of course, there is no guarantee of straightforward progress) - will not be forthcoming.

5 Cultural Phenomena in Organizations

The second major distinguishing element within organizational culture research is the actual choice of what phenomena to study. With cultural phenomena we mean the apparent or experienced manifestations of culture in its various forms. In our overview we have chosen six different groups of phenomena which have a more or less central position within the research field; culture, symbols, ideology, climate (and spirit), image (and profile). Now, all these words are concepts under which we will group a number of phenomena addressed in corporate culture research. It is here important to distinguish between cultural phenomena as something which is linked to empirical reality and the concepts that are used to designate those experiences and put them into the context of a scientific framework. It is, for example, possible to use many different concepts, linked to different frameworks to describe the same phenomenon. The problem we have faced in our review of the relevant literature is that this distinction between the phenomena and the concepts used to capture those phenomena is often blurred, and this eventually leads to misconceptions and to treating concepts as real phenomena without recognizing that they are mere metaphors used to simplify and capture a complex and enigmatic reality. Our ambition in this chapter is to try to sort out the phenomena and the concepts used to portray those phenomena. Thus this chapter is a portent of the more theoretically oriented review of conventions/perspectives in the next chapter.

5.1 Culture Culture is obviously the focal concept in this study. As we have already shown it is used in many different ways and frequently in a very broad sense. This naturally leads to misunderstandings and problems. In the following, we shall present a few common definitions, but first a few general points that hopefully will provide a useful introduction.

76

5 Cultural Phenomena in Organizations

The culture concept can be said to contain two basic and partially conflicting meanings: one stabilizing-regulatory, i.e. as an important element in social control, and one evolutionary, i.e. as the driving force behind (social) development. In the first sense, culture is seen as an element in ordering reality in societies, thus contributing to mutual regulation and control. It is also important to note that this cultural ordering not only covers the "geography" of the culture (i.e. its extension in space expressed in terms of subcultures, departmental spirit, monocultures and multiple cultures, etc.) but also takes place hierarchically, through status symbols, patterns of classifications, etc. This differentiated aspect of the culture concept enables us to distinguish between more or less unique or idiosyncratic cultures. In the second sense, the culture concept can be traced to the original meaning of the word - to "cultivate" (from Latin "colere"). Emphasized here is the evolutionary potential in culture, i.e. its role in social development over time - the diachronic dimension. This means, in purely definitional terms, that culture can refer to both the very "character" of a civilization, its characteristics, construction, contents, etc. and to the way in which the character of a civilization grows, develops, is refined and matures over time. Thus, the concept of culture is also linked to the deepest qualitative aspects of human life, that is to say not only the cognitive dimensions but also emotional, aesthetic and ethical dimensions - in other words the more "cultivated" (read: refined or developed) aspects of human existence. However, the culture concept, as with many other concepts in this field, is extremely difficult to define in a manner which provides an unambiguous and delimited meaning. Formal definitions of a few lines only give a hint at what is involved. Generally, authors in the organizational culture field argue that an organizational culture has to do with assumptions, priorities, meanings and values shared by the organizational members - i.e. patterns of beliefs are shared by the organizational collective. Sometimes there is an emphasis on culture's influence on how people organize - or order their experiences of the environment. Organizational culture is also concerned with how people develop sensitivity when faced with the demands, expectations and situations emerging at their place of work. Culture is then seen as a kind of social glue in a company or in parts of a company (e.g. a department or a management group). So far, we have been considering a rough categorization of the phenomena which various culture researchers are concerned with. But there are many variations within this framework.

5.1 Culture

77

The definitions of culture found in the relevant literature differ not only as regards what should be included in the definitions but also as to where the main emphasis should lie. Is it a questions of cognitions, perceptions, emotions, behavioural norms, symbolism, philosophies or what? The definitions cover everything from cultures as "common systems of values, beliefs and norms" (which is perhaps the most popular solution) to the view of cultures as "shared social knowledge", from cognitive and perceptual dimensions to emotive-expressive dimensions. There is a multitude of variations as to the combinations of elements included in definitions of culture. Let us take a couple of examples: Deal and Kennedy (1982) refer to Webster's dictionary, according to which culture is "the concepts, habits, skills, art, instruments, institutions, etc. of a given people in a given period". Culture thus includes most things, which makes the concept clumsy and unusable. Since 1957, anthropologists have observed that it is wiser to limit the cultural concept to ideational phenomena. Geertz (1973: 145), for example, views culture as a "system of symbols and meanings" and thus explicitly excludes behaviour patterns and social structures as such from any cultural analysis: Culture is the fabric of meaning in terms of which human beings interpret their experience and guide their action; social structure is the form that action takes, the actually existing network of social relations.

However, the most popular view of culture in organizational culture research highlights on common values. Attitudes, beliefs and norms are thus seen as closely related phenomena, while relatively little attention is paid to the symbolic dimension (Kilmann et al. 1985; Saffold 1988). Studies of corporate or organizational culture, i.e. studies in which these concepts describe the phenomena studied, are of dominant importance in the research field for obvious reasons. An organizational culture is thus seen as a phenomenon which can be given a narrow or a broad meaning. In the narrow sense, it is usually regarded as a subsystem which contains values, norms, basic ideas and an approach to operations which is more or less deeply rooted in the collective. The cultural subsystem is seen here as a phenomenon which exists parallel with, and at the same level as, other subsystems, for example the social, technical, administrative and formal subsystems. The cultural subsystem is considered more or less unique in comparison with the societal culture or the cultures of other companies. A broader interpretation of the culture concept means that the whole company is seen as a culture. In other words, a cultural dimension is

78

5 Cultural Phenomena in Organizations

considered to permeate the operations of the entire organization. As a rule, researchers who conceptualize culture in this way do not primarily see culture as an object of study, but rather as a theoretical perspective or a metaphor (Morgan 1986; Smircich 1983 a). This means that the cultural dimension can be found in - and not "alongside" - formal organizational structures, administrative systems, technologies, strategies, etc. (see, for example, Alvesson 1992 a; Berg 1985 a; Smircich/Stubbart 1985). (We will return to this theme in the next chapter.) In order to make some sense in the conceptual confusion we use organizational culture as an overall label for a number of cultural phenomena in an organization. These phenomena may in turn be roughly grouped into four categories: culture as a collective entity, artifacts, collective mental frameworks and collective action patterns (figure 5.1 below). 5.1.1 Corporate Culture as an Entity The organizational culture concept is, as we have already shown, used as a means to designate the organization as a collective entity, i.e. a whole that cannot easily be broken down into smaller parts. Thus, regardless of all attempts to delineate, narrow down and restrict culture, it is bound to be a very extensive phenomenon indeed. Not unreasonably, the culture concept has therefore been linked with a number of subordinate concepts which indicate aspects or parts of the culture. Pettigrew (1979), for example, sees the culture concept more as a collective designation for a family

Corportate culture as an entity

Artifacts

Physical'/ artifacts / Visual' artifacts

Collective mental frameworks and manifestations

Sagas/ Epoches

Myths

Legends

Stories

Collective action patterns

Rites Rituals

Celebrations Ceremonies

Figure 5.1: Some key concepts covering various cultural phenomena

5.1 Culture

79

of concepts, consisting of symbols, language, ideology, beliefs, rituals and myths. The typical feature of most of these concepts is that they have been borrowed from anthropology in an attempt to capture the collective character of the organization. Such concepts are often used in different ways by different authors. It is difficult to give them a precise meaning or to apply them in a stringent manner, even if there is somewhat more consensus as to their use than is the case with the culture concept. In an organizational context, it is often difficult to arrive at a clear demarcationline between what should be considered "real" cultural phenomena - for example myths or rites - and "artificial" symbolic features, lacking, depth, duration and collective meaning. Restrictiveness in the use of concepts is a wise policy, although it may be tempting - and sometimes rewarding - to use concepts intuitively to explain complicated and ambiguous organizational phenomena. Unfortunately, we have seen many of our colleagues fall into the "folklore trap" when they have uncritically utilized concepts and theories taken from an anthropological framework to explain occurrences in modern organizations (cf Helmers' (1991) critique of organizational culture authors for their superficial use of anthropological concepts). Loosely formulated and imprecisely positioned concepts are not only handicapped by a limited explanatory value in the long run, but also reduce the credibility in the research. However, let us briefly present a few other theoretical culture concepts used to capture the organization as a collective, and the phenomena they are supposed to describe.

5.1.2 Collective, Clan and Tribe These concepts are all examples of metaphors which are used to capture the very character of the culture (or rather the collective), and especially the ties which exist between various members of the organization. Ouchi (1980), for example, speaks of clans in relation to formal hierarchies (bureaucracies), while Deal and Kennedy (1982) refer to tribes as a characterization of social groups with a common behavioural pattern. There have also been attempts to introduce concepts such as sects, families, communities, societies, corps, etc. However, as we have already pointed out, capturing a totality of this kind is often difficult and even the most ambitious approaches risk treating only a part or a certain aspect of

80

5 Cultural Phenomena in Organizations

the total picture (Alvesson 1987 b; Pettigrew 1979). Pettigrew's view that the culture concept lacks "analytical bite" should perhaps give many authors reasons to ponder. However, what all these concepts seem to have in common is the ambition to capture the very character of the collective as a whole. The basic problem is finding concepts which correspond to the requirement of providing an adequate description of the totality, without therefore reducing members of the organization to parts of a population or an aggregate. A few important concepts illustrate various aspects of this totality. Concepts such as myths are used to denote the character of shared ideational frameworks, the organizational sagas and legends to characterize the relativistic aspects of the corporate history and rites, rituals and ceremonies to demonstrate the many levels of meanings which can be ascribed to collective actions within companies. However, a problem rarely treated concerns the importance of avoiding over-emphasis on the collective character, in the many cases of organizations in which the members are not particularly closely united. If, for example, the term "tribe" is to constitute a satisfactory metaphor, there must be a considerable degree of social integration and common beliefs in the organization.

5.1.3 Artifacts The concept of artifacts is generally used to describe "physical vestiges of human activities" in an organization (Berg 1987), in the form of buildings, equipment, products, etc. Although artifacts are the most concrete element in a culture, surprisingly little research has been done on the interaction between, for example, the architecture of the buildings and the corporate spirit or climate (Gagliardi 1990b). Most of existing studies are either of a relatively popular-scientific nature or treat artifacts as marginal phenomena, e.g. Davis' (1984) article about the importance of office design on behaviour and Seller's (1984) argument that architecture should describe the purpose of the company. Another example is Holm-Löfgren's (1980) description of how office interiors communicate status and tempo in organizations. Status symbols, in the form of private parking spaces, access to corporate private jet planes, the size of offices, etc. have also aroused some interest (e.g. Industry Week 1974). There is, however,

5.1 Culture

81

an increased interest in the way in which buildings are transformed (or coded) into "symbolic resources", e.g. as in corporate architecture (Berg/ Kreiner 1990). A special type of visual artifacts - the graphic artifacts (trademarks, names, logos, etc.) - are considerably more fully documented but somewhat irrelevant for our review of organizational culture. However, an exception to such descriptive studies is represented by Grafton-Small's (1985) discussion on how architecture and design are used to make what is abstract concrete and Schwanzer's (1986) study of the importance of architecture for corporate identity. A number of contributions of high quality have recently been published in a collection of articles edited by Gagliardi(1990a).

5.1.4 Collective Mental Frameworks We have already noted that a key assumption in much of the literature is that a main function of organizational cultures is to enhance social order by providing a collective mental framework. Berg and Faucheux (1982) have argued that this ordering takes place in two dimensions: in time (synchronically) by an institutionalized belief structure manifested in corporate myths and stories, and over time (diachronically) by a narrated saga consisting of more or less interlinked legends. Let us take a closer look at some of these phenomena. The organization's saga or epos is employed either to denote the "living (or narrated) history" of the company, i.e. continuously repeated stories (Clark 1972; De Marco 1984; Pettigrew 1977,1979; etc.) or the recounting of sagas in organizations as a phenomenon (Westerlund/Sjöstrand 1975). It is assumed and to some extent confirmed that companies with a living narrative tradition often have a "strong" culture (Smith/Steadman 1981) and demonstrate several characteristics which denote what some authors regard as "excellent" (Peters/Waterman 1982) or "high achieving" companies (Vaill 1982). The sagas also contain legends (Wilkins 1979, 1983; Wilkins/Martin 1979), that is to say special events, limited in time, which are often linked to heroes (Berne 1963; Bunke 1976; Deal/Kennedy 1982; Swanson 1974). These hero figures symbolize norms or values, which are desirable or not desirable (the scapegoat syndrome, e.g. Bonazzi 1983; Eagle/Newton 1981).

82

5 Cultural Phenomena in Organizations

The myth is one of the concepts which is most difficult to capture within organization research. There seem to be at least three fundamental ideas which people who discuss myths in organizations apply. First, some authors see myths as fundamental but erroneous, or at any rate dubious and untested, assumptions about the character of reality (Randall 1962; Westerlund/Sjöstrand 1975; etc.). An alternative conception is to see the myth as an "unquestioned belief about the practical benefits of certain techniques and behaviours that is not supported by demonstrated facts" (Trice/Beyer 1985: 394). Meyer and Rowan (1977) seem to use the myth concept in this sense when they explain the emergence of certain formal organizational structures which appear to have little to do with organizational efficiency. Finally, some authors see the myth either as an expression of natural, deep, archaic (Mitroff et al. 1974), ideological (Abravanel 1983), social (Dale/Spencer 1977; Kolarska 1981) or cognitive (Jönsson/ Lundin 1977) patterns which influence/are influenced by the organization's structure or strategy or which legitimize contradictions in organizational practice. In contrast with the saga, the myth does not necessarily have any links with the "real" history of the company (Berg/Faucheux 1982). Most organization theorists actually do not relate the myth to history or tradition at all. It is often regarded, instead, as a shared collective belief which explains how the world functions - a mental, global picture which establishes the degree of freedom (parameters) for the organization's actions (Gagliardi 1986 b). Stories are often seen as closely linked to the myth (and can actually be seen as an expression of the myth). Such stories may be horror stories, success stories, etc., which are recounted by the employees (Martin 1982; Martin/Powers 1979, 1983 a, 1983 b; Martin et al. 1983; Mumby 1988; Smith/Steadman 1981). The recounting of these stories, accompanied by jokes (Boland/Hoffman 1983) and jargon (Hirsch/Andrews 1983), contributes to the establishment and reinforcement of fundamental ideas which provide as basis for the organization's operations. Another way of capturing the collective mental fabric in the organization is to see cultures as consisting of values, beliefs and norms which support ideas about what is reality in the organization. Concepts such as corporate philosophy and organizational ideology are currently widely used to denote such phenomena in cases where values and beliefs are made explicit and form a virtually systematized totality. There are also some evidence of

5.1 Culture

83

organizational belief systems being influenced by corporate performance and environmental factors (Björkman 1989). Norms and values in companies and other organizations involve collective ideas about what is positive, important and desirable in the organization. It may be a question of studying relatively simple and superficial behavioural norms, but often what is considered most interesting are the stable patterns of deeply internalized priorities as to what should be achieved and what ideals and norms should be aimed at. The concept of value is thus of crucial interest and it is often defined as: "A value is an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence" (Rokeach, quoted by Wiener 1988: 535). It is claimed that organizations become characterized by systems of values which have evolved over a certain time, become disseminated, institutionalized and furthered, for example by recruitment and promotion policies, which means that those who deviate from the "correct" values will fail to make significant progress in the organization. Value structures and norms are considered to establish parameters for the actions and changes which are possible over time. It should be noted, however, that there is evidence indicating a much looser connection between values and action than what seems to be commonly assumed (Swidler 1986).

5.1.5 Collective Action Patterns We call the last group of cultural phenomena studied collective action patterns. They tend to stay relatively stable over time. What also characterizes these patterns is that they have a relatively "high" symbolic content and that the way in which they are performed may be as important as, or even more important than, their instrumental output. (This is a truth to anyone who has ever participated in a formal meeting.) In fact, rites, rituals, ceremonies and celebrations can be seen as general denotations of what could be called symbolic behaviour in organizations or, more precisely, a historically conditioned collective action pattern which expresses and reinforces collective beliefs and values and which is considered to be important for the survival of the organization (Berg 1983; Trice/Beyer 1984, 1985). The fact that the concepts of rites, rituals and ceremonies are used indiscriminately is a major problem in corporate culture research. Sometimes the term rite is used to denote a collection of rituals. Sometimes ceremonies are used to denote concrete actions which are regulated

84

5 Cultural Phenomena in Organizations

by rituals and sometimes rites are synonymous with rituals. The following distinction between concepts (from Berg 1983 and later elaborated by Berg 1991 a) can be made in order to distinguish the different types of particularly significant collective symbolic action in the organization. Rites are genuine collective activities with a low degree of formality which often initiate or conclude a given phase of events. The development rite denotes an activity in which the organization (or parts of it) attempts to achieve insights into itself and its role and function in the world. Examples of activities which sometimes take the form of development rites are the management group attending a strategic development seminar led by an external consultant, a management training programme in which departmental objectives are formulated, etc. One interesting example of a development rite is Raspa's (1986) description of the Saturn project at General Motors, where hundreds of employees from different levels were freed from their normal tasks for a considerable time to study strategic futurological issues. Trice and Beyer (1985) have produced a typology of rites and distinguish between rites of passage, degradation, enhancement, renewal, conflict reduction and integration. In contrast to the rite, the ritual confirms and reproduces given social patterns. The best example is the traditional "meeting" with an appointed chairman, agenda and schedule, where the objective of the meeting is clearly stated and its logic is determined in advance. A meeting of this type is not only used as an instrument to make - and legitimize - (joint) decisions but it also contributes to the maintenance of given power structures and ideational frameworks. Much of the research on symbolic behaviour has focused on precisely this aspect. Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo (1983) distinguish between personal, task, social and organizational rituals (using the latter word so that it partly overlaps rite). Personal rituals are carried out by an individual person, but become significant only when related to the role of this person as a key organizational actor. Task rituals are connected to work and might be individual or social. Social rituals are carried out by a "natural" group, while organizational rituals are connected to the (formal) organization. The ceremony is of a solemn and formal nature, often expressing a feeling of tradition and historical consciousness. Jubilees, anniversaries, the launching of a ship and the opening of a new factory are all examples of ceremonies which denote time. The ceremony is also the occasion when

5.2 Symbols and Symbolism

85

the members of the organization can take part of the company's "honourable history" and when there is an opportunity to make the acquaintance of an older generation of organizational members (pensioners, personnel celebrating anniversaries, etc.). Related to the ceremony, but of a more mundane character, are celebrations. Somewhat more marginal collective symbolic activites are jokes, games and workplace humour (e.g. Collinson 1988; Dandridge 1986; Linstead 1985). For further discussions of the concepts treated in this section see, for example, Allaire/Firsirotu (1984), Berg (1983), Dandridge et al. (1980) and Trice/Beyer 1984.

5.2 Symbols and Symbolism In the previous section we have touched upon the concepts of symbols and symbolism which are central to many authors concerned with culture. We will now treat them more explicitly. The symbol concept is used in the literature, on the one hand, to characterize certain types of organizational phenomena and their manifestations at different levels (Dandridge et al. 1980; Pondy et al. 1983; Turner 1971; etc.), and, on the other hand, to denote a function, for example the expressive/symbolic aspects in relation to what is instrumental (Daft 1980, 1983; Pfeffer 1981 a, etc.). Symbolism is also used to denote a certain theoretical perspective (Krefting/Frost 1985; Smircich 1983 a), but this aspect will be dealt with in more detail in chapters 6 and 8. Symbols are, as mentioned, often related to cultures. A culture can be regarded as a system of symbols (cf. Geertz's definition above). But symbols and symbolism can also be noted as more limited phenomena without introducing the totality which culture constitutes into the picture. Although there are different ways of utilizing the symbolism concept, fundamentally there seem to be certain characteristics in this concept which many researchers have embraced, for example the symbol's power of combining various elements into a whole (sym - ballein = to throw/ combine). In contrast with diabolic processes (dia - ballein = to move apart/split), symbols are thus regarded as instruments to create order and clarity out of chaos.

86

5 Cultural Phenomena in Organizations

Another common element is the symbol's representative function, that is to say a symbol always represents something different or something more than itself. The idea is that symbols capture complex relationships (or phenomena of a cognitive, emotional, aesthetic or ethical nature) in an economic and comprehensive manner which is difficult or impossible to express or communicate directly. Symbols are also necessary tools when it comes to combining concrete experiences with abstract conceptions, thus constituting the very basis of mental manipulations and communications (see, for example, Cassirer 1944,1953). Many authors who have studied a system of symbols speak of organizations as collective or symbolic representations of reality. The third major element is the assumption that symbols, or rather symbolic reality, follow their own logic (semiology - the discipline of the logic of symbols). This logic can then be expressed in the symbol's condensed (metonomy) or expanded (metaphor) function, that is to say its inherent generative power (e.g. Krefting/Frost 1985; Pondy 1983). An additional aspect of the symbolism concept is that it is the subjective significance which an individual or a collective applies to a certain object which is decisive. If an action, a physical object or a word is to be a symbol, one or more persons for whom the object has symbolic significance are required. Thus, that which is symbolic occurs in the interaction between an individual (or a collective) and a given object. As a result, the understanding of symbols and symbolism requires interpretations of their deeper meanings. Symbols may vary considerably. A commonly used classification involves action symbols, verbal symbols and material symbols (Dandridge et al. 1980). Action symbols consist of meetings and behaviours which transmit a meaning which goes beyond the obvious and superficial meaning. Verbal symbols can very well be slogans (e.g. "IBM means service"), stories, jokes and special expressions (e.g. "Blut und Boden"). Material symbols may be a question of architecture, statues, interior design and decoration, clothings, size of rooms, etc. Other categorizations distinguish between cognitive, emotional and pragmatic symbols (Ortner 1973; Sköldberg 1990). Symbols of differing types thus fulfil major functions in organizations (Dandridge 1983) and are utilized more or less consciously by managers at various levels. Symbols also vary as regards their complexity and diffusion (Morgan et al. 1983). The corporate logo and special parking spaces for top-management

5.3 Ideology

87

are simplistic symbols. Meetings, which apart from their instrumental, decision-making function, express complex social relationships, values and priorities (which are carefully hidden from the people involved) can illustrate a more complicated type of symbolism. Alvesson (1992 a), in a case study, demonstrates that a company's specifically formulated business concept may constitute a highly multifaceted symbol. Symbols may range from the private to the virtually universal (Morgan et al. 1983). In an organization context, the symbolism which is specific to one company, or parts of this company, attracts most interest. But symbols which are widespread through the Western world of organizations are also important for organization research. In some cases, personal (psychological rather than social) symbolism may also be significant in an organization context - for example when a powerful individual gives a certain phenomenon a high degree of significance and impact and this has consequences for the organization. However, in the main, interest focuses on collective (cultural) symbolism.

5.3 Ideology The collection of linked and more or less explicit values, beliefs, descriptions and ideals which many authors define as ideology is sometimes treated as equivalent to corporate culture (Alvesson 1987 b; Westley/Jaeger 1985). On the whole, ideology is by most authors considered to denote something less than a culture - it illustrates certain limited aspects of culture. However, ideology as a phenomenon does not need to be explicitly related to culture. Ideology is important enough as an object of study to be worth investigating for its own sake. Like many of the concepts which we are struggling with, there are several ideas about what ideology should represent. Czarniawska-Joerges (1988 a: 9) makes an excellent proposal as to how ideology should be utilized in relation to other major concepts: One could say that ideology is a world view enriched by a vision and prescription for action. Value systems are more static, less concrete, and less visible than ideologies. Ideologies are presented openly and propagated; value systems can be inferred from ideologies, or revealed in an emergency or as a response to a challenge. In a dynamic perspective, ideologies can be seen as the result of a discrepancy between a world view and a value system.

88

5 Cultural Phenomena in Organizations On the other hand, ideas or norms lack the systemic character; they can be separate and disconnected. Additionally, they do not deal so much with a description of reality as with a desired state: an idea of a product that will sell, a norm describing what is decent behavior towards a competitor.

Some studies of ideologies focus exclusively on corporate-specific ideologies (e.g. Abravanel 1983; Beckerus, Edström et al. 1988; Harrison 1972; Meyer 1982), while other authors relate ideological structures in organizations to broader societal conditions and ideologies which are more or less generally applicable to a type of society, a nation or a social class (e.g. Alvesson 1987 a; Mumby 1988; Rosen 1985). The latter category of authors emphasize that ideologies are neither politically neutral, nor do they reflect real or desirable conditions. Ideologies often lead to a distorted view of social reality, it is felt. There are some similarities, but also obvious differences, between the ideology and the myth. The myth is politically neutral, while the ideology is based on an ideal or an idea which is related to certain social (special) interests. Contrary to the myth, the ideology is at least partially conscious, more or less clearly formulated and can be questioned. We will return to various ideas about ideology in the next chapter.

5.4 Climate and Spirit Climatic studies have a well-established tradition in the organization theory field. (See, for example, Ashforth 1985; Baklien 1983 and Ekvall 1985 for overall perspectives in this field.) Climatic studies are based on the assumption that organizations can be regarded as delineated zones with certain emotional, social, structural and cultural characteristics. Previously, much of the work done in this field has been focused on the development of instruments to measure these characteristics, but today there is also increased interest in a general discussion of "soft" and more existentially conditioned variables (e.g. Ekvall 1985). The great difference between studying a company's culture and its climate is that, in the first case, the focus is on the mechanism behind the construction of the corporate collective's pictures of the world, while in the latter case there is a concentration on the experiences which culture - and/or other organizational circumstances - produce in individuals. Thus, climate is comparatively close to experience, and is superficial and readily accessible. It

5.5 Image

89

concerns attitudes rather than (deeper) values. A considerable proportion of what is currently regarded as corporate culture could benefit from being characterized as corporate climate instead. The company spirit concept is frequently employed in business administration discussions at a popular level, and often with reference to a general qualitative condition amongst the company's human resources. There appears to be a special reference to positive identification with the company, its goals and the employees' own jobs. Concepts such as the plant spirit and the small-company spirit are sometimes used for this purpose and there is also a strong link with discussions about Japanese management philosophy. Concepts which are often associated with climatic studies are motivation, job satisfaction, corporate pride and professional pride, loyalty and morality. In parenthesis, it might be noted that the concept of commitment, which is closely linked with the corporate spirit concept, is now increasingly replacing the motivation concept in modern management research.

5.5 Image Image studies focus on how the company is experienced as a whole (as a culture), often from an external perspective (Bernstein 1984; Olins 1978, etc.). The phenomenon studied is thus the image of the company that the general public, and to some extent, the employees, have, and how this image influences the company's actions. The idea is that this image corresponds with the company's unique character/culture as reflected in the events and situations which the company meets and has met (Bernstein 1984; Olins 1978). Another approach is to treat a corporate image as an organizational "aura" (Kreiner/Christensen 1986), i.e. as a projection of an institutional form that legitimates the organization in its institutional environment. The image may also be a result of deliberate efforts of a company to affect the perceptions of its environment. In recent developments, especially in Scandinavia, considerable attention has also been directed at the relationship between corporate identity - the organizational members' perception of the company - and image - external perceptions of the company, including its culture (e.g. Alvesson 1990; Normann 1985).

90

5 Cultural Phenomena in Organizations

The main difference between image and corporate culture, apart from the fact that the latter refers to something considerably more complex, is thus that the company's image is regarded as the impression the culture makes on its environment (Berg 1984; Berg/Gagliardi 1985). Some closely associated key-concepts in this context are: profile, character and style.

5.6 Identity and Character The identity concept differs from the image concept since it is aimed at the organization's perception of itself. Here there are a number of studies on how the character (Harrison 1972) and style of the organization (Hedlund 1978) generate a feeling of belongingness and unity among organizational members (e.g. Alvesson 1992 a). The interesting point about these studies is that they attempt to achieve a total perspective on the organization in order to facilitate a classification and evaluation of the organization's most central and distinctive features. Selznick (1957) was an early adherent of the idea of the organization's fundamental character as a phenomenon in itself. Later, he has had several disciples amongst the "institutionalists" (Scott 1987). Perhaps the most salient contribution to our understanding of organizational identity has been produced by Albert and Whetten (1985) who did an overview of the identity concept and the phenomena it represents. Their conclusion is, on the one hand, that there are often multiple competitive identities in an organization and, on the other hand, that identity changes during the organization's span of life. There have also been attempts to capture the company's fundamental character from quite different perspectives. Within organization theory there are, for example, studies which try to capture the corporate "mind", that is to say its cognitive structure (Heirs/Pehrson 1972; Sims/Gioia et al. 1986; etc.) or its very character (Wilkins 1989). In marketing, people are interested in how it is possible to capture the "soul of the company" (Göranson 1984) and transmit this soul to the environment. (This of course, is coming very close to the idea of the corporate image.) The corporate profile concept is sometimes used interchangeably with identity. A possible distinction between these two concepts is that, while identity implies the totality of what the organization expresses internally,

5.7 Conclusions

91

the profile represents what the organization consciously expresses externally. The strategic profile concept is often used to emphasize those characteristics of the organization that management wishes to promote in order to position the organization in the market. Once again we are getting close to the image concept.

5.7 Conclusions Hopefully, our overview has contributed somewhat to the clarification of central concepts and objects of study. However, in our view it is more important to stimulate thought and awareness of one's own and others' choice of concepts than to try to achieve universal unity about, and unity in, the use of concepts - which is probably not possible anyway. We must emphasize that while it has been our ambition to draw upon and clarify common use of concepts, the lack of concord in the field means that there are considerable variations in language use and many exceptions to be found to the suggestions made in this chapter. A good rule might be to consider whether what is being dealt with really is best described as culture before one decides to use this popular but often misleading word. Terms like ideology, climate and system of values are often more appropriate. Thus, in conclusion, we may note that studies of companies and organizations can occur at different levels and can focus on considerably different organizational phenomena. In the next chapter we shall look more closely at the theoretical basis for the various approaches which have been used to study these phenomena at different levels. As we have previously mentioned, it is often difficult to clearly distinguish between objects (concepts) and theoretical perspectives. It is often a question of hair-breadth distinctions. Nonetheless, objects and theoretical perspectives are not the same thing. One and the same object can be studied from different theoretical perspectives. (This is also true if the object partially changes character, according to which perspectives are applied.) The difficulties in clearly separating the object of study from theoretical perspectives mean that some statements in the next chapter may overlap the above overview. However, what may seem to be repetitions may actually be something different, when seen at a deeper level, since the concepts and similar explanations of concepts apply at different

92

5 Cultural Phenomena in Organizations

levels, that is to say (empirical) objects and (theoretical) perspectives and methods of understanding. In other words, in what follows we are moving to a new ontological level, where concepts and approaches involving understanding "reality" are the central features, and not symbols, cultures and other aspects of "reality" itself.

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

We have already noted the limitations in working with overall definitions of the culture concept, in view of both the breadth of the research field and the multitude of approaches with varying theoretical and methodological assumptions. We shall now try to analyse what distinguishes, rather than unites, the various perspectives and conventions. The uniting factors will be covered in chapter 10. As regards the actual delimitation of the field, we pursue a liberal approach within organizational culture research (refraining from omitting things which might be excluded in a stricter perspective). A considerable proportion of the literature included in anthologies, special issues in journals and reviews on organization culture and symbolism does not refer explicitly to culture or symbolism (e.g. Allaire/Firsirotu 1984; Smircich 1983 a). Nonetheless, such literature is considered to represent the culture perspective on organizations in some sense. We accept this. In other respects, we have mainly chosen to base our analysis on an overview of the literature which explicitly uses the conceptual framework described in preceding chapters and which dominates current research in the culture and symbolism field. This provides a general guide-line as to what should be included, but there are many cases where assessment proves difficult. Sometimes, the culture concept is employed where it is not the central focus of the analysis. This has probably to do with the considerable popularity of the word. On the other hand, culture concepts are sometimes not employed even if the analysis involves cultural phenomena.

6.1 Conventions and Perspectives The basis of our classification is research conventions which currently dominate the field. Apart from conventions, we also speak of perspectives. While the former indicate the main approach, the perspective concept indicates the theoretically and conceptually more precise content in the various approaches.

94

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

We define a convention as a more or less explicit agreement between a group of researchers as regards the general character and construction of the object of research. This includes what overall aspects of the field in question worth researching and what scientific concepts should constitute the cornerstones in the body of knowledge to be achieved. Such conventions, which can sometimes be traced to a given scientific discipline, are manifested and substantiated at conferences and symposiums and other meeting places for the research world, where scholars exchange experiences and, it is to be hoped, advance the frontiers of research. A similar function is fulfilled by certain anthologies and special issues of scientific journals. The convention concept thus emphasizes the social aspects of the research. It also implies the dependence of the research world on what is considered to be of interest, important and legitimate to study at a given point in time. There are certain advantages in using the convention concept (instead of different definitions or schools, for example). Firstly, the convention concept points to an overall classification in which central orientations are stated. Secondly, a convention provides general basic rules which specify the frameworks in which definitions can be formulated, while a definition is based on an absolute determination of the character and characteristics of the concept. A third advantage is that links with the social roots in the research world are emphasized. This seems to be important nowadays, especially within the social sciences. We are thinking particularly about the debates on paradigms, knowledge-relativism, the considerable difficulties in (or even the impossibility of) achieving "objectives" or "neutral" knowledge, the researchers' relations with various groups of interested parties, etc. Within a research field such as organizational culture/symbolism, where the social dynamics - including current fashionable trends - obviously influence research or at any rate its extremely rapid development, it is especially important to take note of this dimension. One disadvantage of the convention concept, however, is that it de-emphasizes the purely theoretical/intellectual dimension of the research which we are concerned with. The convention concept points to a more general approach and use of concepts, rather than a strictly formulated, precise and thoroughly worked out theoretically and empirically based source of knowledge. This is an important aspect, especially in theoretically mature and well delineated fields of research, where the theoretical positioning developed is an important part of the research contribution. However, our research field has only achieved this maturity and consis-

6.1 Conventions and Perspectives

95

tency to a limited degree and we consider that this situation is better described by the more development-oriented convention concept. But we hope that our choice of concepts does not lead to the idea that the various conventions are exclusively or mainly a matter of social norms without clear links to a theoretical content. A convention contains a theoretical core - like the related but considerably more comprehensive paradigm concept. Another disadvantage is that the convention concept is not very helpful in denoting all the approaches which we consider. Some variations are not of a clear convention nature. For example, they have not been manifested at conferences or in "special issues" of professional journals. In addition, the link with current trends and what is socially accepted at a given point in time may be weak. Thus, the convention concept is at times difficult to apply. In order to provide as good a picture as possible of what we are concerned with, we will take up, and sometimes emphasize in our discussions, the various perspectives within each convention. Thus, these perspectives refer to nuances within a given convention. In this way, the convention becomes a collective designation for a group of perspectives. We identify twelve perspectives which can be categorized into five conventions. These conventions indicate the main approach used in studying the area: culture, meaning construction, ideology, psycho-dynamics and symbolism. In our overview, we discuss first what characterizes the various conventions and then deal with the subordinate perspectives in more detail. Presentations of various theoretical orientations within a field of research can rarely or never be made on the basis of a classificatory system, implying that many, or even all concrete studies, fall into different categories. Many studies wind up half way between two orientations or are associated with several different categorized perspectives. The advantage of overviews of our type is not that they create a system of classifications which can encompass all possible studies. This is neither possible nor desirable. The idea is rather to give a serious and nuanced illustration of possible theoretical approaches in a pure form. Thus, it is a question of an account of "ideal types". In practical research and in published texts, it is rather unusual to stick to narrow coherent perspectives - instead there is often an association with a range of literature with greater or smaller contrasts. This applies perhaps, particularly to empirical work with case studies. It

96

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

often appears as if the ambiguity of empirical "realities" "softens up" the theoretical stringency which is more easily maintained in conceptual texts. Sometimes, writers mainly stick to one perspective, sometimes they associate themselves with a few or several related perspectives. Sometimes mixtures of relatively differing perspectives can be noted, and this is not always successful. This is something which must necessarily be borne in mind when examples of studies applying to different perspectives are presented in this book. Frequently a study which is referred to under the heading of a particular perspective in this chapter includes other perspectives, which we are not attempting to exemplify in the section concerned. In most cases, however, one perspective dominates, but sometimes other perspectives may be present. Thus, we are inclined to agree with those readers who find examples of studies in which it is not obvious to which fundamental perspective the study in question can be referred.

6.2 The Culture Convention There is no doubt that the convention which has attracted most attention and which is also the most extensive, to judge by what has been produced on the subject (especially in popularized form), is what we term organizational culture. Studies within this convention usually assume that each company has a culture (often with an emphasis on a). However, today there is a clear tendency to emphasize the multicultural nature of organizations more strongly. As indicated in previous chapters, culture is interpreted in different ways. A common, relatively simple definition is to regard a culture as a whole, consisting of common norms, values and fundamental ideas about the organization. A considerably more advanced definition describes an organization's culture as its expressive and affective dimensions, forming part of a system of shared and meaningful symbols, manifested in myths, ideology and values and in multiple cultural artifacts (rites, rituals, customs, metaphors, language, slogans, etc.) (Allaire/Firsirotu 1984). Many writers concerned with culture place particular emphasis on the meaning of symbols or values. They regard culture as a system of symbols or as an ideology. However, in the case of the writers discussed in this section,

6.2 The Culture Convention

97

ideology, symbols and symbolic aspects are seen as subordinated to culture which is regarded as the main focus of interest. Under the collective designation of culture, we consider four different perspectives: corporate culture, value and belief systems, cultural cognitivism and symbol systems (cultural artifacts). It is not easy to satisfactorily categorize all the various studies which discuss organizational cultures, and there may be some objections to our classification. The first two perspectives, for example, resemble each other rather closely, while the fourth perspective sometimes borders on the symbolism perspective (which is dealt with later). The perspectives treated below are all characterized by an attempt to arrive at the totality which the culture concept refers to. A functionalist orientation, a view of culture as a subsystem in organizations and the assumption of consensus also characterize the four perspectives, although to varying degrees.

6.2.1 Corporate Culture The corporate culture perspective is characterized by the extreme emphasis on culture as a variable or a subsystem, alongside technical, economic, social, administrative or other subsystems. Culture is undoubtedly diffuse, informal and difficult to observe, but in principle it is assumed to have the same ontological status as organizational structure, technology, etc. Culture is thus seen as an object of study which can be delimited, as something which exists "out there" in the corporate reality, rather than as a concept or a metaphor created by researchers to illustrate a phenomenon. Within this perspective, definitions are often based on a listing of concepts which are considered to cover the phenomenon which is termed corporate culture. One example of a "typical" definition of culture is: . . . the common philosophies, ideologies, values, assumptions, perceptions, expectations, attitudes and norms which bind a group together (Kilmann et al. 1985: 5).

However, in many cases only limited aspects of the culture are actually dealt with (according to this definition) and a discrepancy between the definition of the concept and the actual utilization of the concept can often be noted. Sometimes, behavioural norms are in focus (e.g. Kilmann 1985). (It is precisely differences of this type which greatly hinder our

98

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

efforts to create clarity as regards different perspectives and conventions within the area.) There are also clear links between this perspective and organizational behaviour (OB) and the organizational development (OD) area. This applies especially to American research within the field. One example in this context is the definition of culture which Lorsch (1985) uses, where culture is regarded as the beliefs which management in a company shares as to how to manage themselves and the other employees and look after their business. This view, like many others, expresses a rather modest and perhaps even trivializing view of corporate culture as a phenomenon. A (potentially) rich concept is given a nondescript connotation. Authors in the corporate culture field often emphasize opportunities of influencing and changing the culture (e.g. Baker 1980), even if culture is considered to be the part of the organization which is the most accessible. This approach is thus considerably more optimistic as regards management's opportunities to create, influence and change cultures than expressed by the proponents of other conventions - and also of other perspectives within the culture convention. The founder's and management's importance for how the culture is moulded, developed and changed is heavily emphasized. Sometimes there is talk of "cultural engineering" and "cultural design", expressions which few proponents of other perspectives use, for theoretical or political reasons. Representatives of the corporate culture perspective quite often relate the culture concept to the company's strategy and structure. Just as survival and success require a proper strategy and an organization structure which permits internal efficiency and supports the strategy, an appropriate corporate culture is also required - that is to say a culture which means that the personnel are adequately covered by norms which give priority to behaviour which is in line with the company's oganizational structure, objectives and strategy. The fundamental problem for researchers who make this assumption is to understand how a harmonic fit between the three variables - strategy, structure and culture - can be achieved (Boje et al. 1982; Bourantas et al. 1990; Kilmann 1982; Scholz 1984; Schwartz/ Davis 1981; etc.). Culture is here often regarded as a potential source of sustained competitive advantage, at least if it is "valuable, rare and imperfectly imitable" (Barney 1986). A large number of books and articles have been centred around these assumptions. The authors most frequently quoted in this context are Deal

6.2 The Culture Convention

99

and Kennedy (1982), Kilmann et al. (1985), Peters and Waterman (1982) and Sathe (1985). The characteristic feature of adherents of this convention is that they often have an extremely instrumental view of different culture phenomena. Thus, culture is something which can be measured or registered (e.g. Harrison 1978; Kilmann 1985), controlled and steered. Rituals and rites are regarded as instruments of change and the recounting of sagas is regarded as a major aspect in the process of socialization. Buildings and product design are thought to be an important part of the communication of the corporate strategy. De Marco (1984), Smith and Steadman (1981) and others even claim that the revival of the history of the company is a valuable strategic instrument for change! The idea is that cultural and other components in organizations can be influenced and controlled so that a desirable cultural outcome can be achieved, for example, what corporate management regards as the right values and norms. One criticism which has been directed specifically at this perspective is that, by reducing culture to just another organization variable, the theoretical advantages of the culture approach, whose major contribution is the total, overall view, are reduced. Rather it is primarily the somewhat superficial aspects of culture which are the centre of interest. This perspective is also criticized because it has not contributed very much to research, but has instead established new concepts for phenomena which can be explained with the help of existing theories, for example, within the organizational behaviour and organization development traditions. Galas and Smircich (1987: 18) write, for example: Those who comprise the Corporate Culture theme have done an excellent job of staying within "positive/functionalist" assumptions while using the rhetoric of "myth", "rituals", and qualitative methods.

The corporate culture perspective has also been severely criticized as regards the frequently implicit assumption of a community of interest, harmony and consensus (Alvesson 1987 a). Few postulates within organization research have received so much criticism as consensus, harmony and common goals as characterizing companies and other organizations (e.g. Pfeffer 1981 b; Zey-Ferrell/Aiken 1981). To sum up our discussion above, one could argue that most of the criticism of culture research is directed at the corporate culture perspective, while other perspectives have been the object of less explicit debate and criticism.

100

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

6.2.2 Culture as a System of Values and Beliefs Authors who speak of cultures as systems of deeper values and beliefs emphasize the common ideas which are embraced by the people who form the culture. Schein (1985: 9), for example, defines culture as a pattern of basic assumptions - invented, discovered, or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration - that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.

It is the depth structures of organizations which are in focus. Schein, who is one of the most important proponents of this approach, assumes three principal levels: basic assumptions, values and artifacts. In this context, artifacts are regarded as materialized expressions of values and basic assumptions, while basic assumptions are regarded as historically moulded depth structures, stored in the organizational members' almost unconscious ideas about man's relations with nature, with reality, with human relations and with the character of operations. Schein (1985:6) emphasizes the importance of studying culture as ... the deeper level of basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an organization, that operate unconsciously, and that define in a basic "taken-for-granted" fashion an organization's view of itself and its environment.

Schein, like other authors with this orientation, for example Dyer (1985) and Lundberg (1985), thus considers that culture must be understood at several different levels but that at the same time the basic assumption level should receive some priority. The idea behind this approach is that the deeper, to some extent unconscious, ideas which are shared by members of the organization are of special importance in realizing problems, allocating priorities and in taking action. Authors who prefer to regard organizations as built up around belief systems present a variation on this idea (e.g. Eoyang 1983; Nyström/Starbuck 1984; Walsh/Fahey 1986) where such beliefs control the actions and behaviour of members of the organization. Advocates of this perspective often have considerably more advanced and deeper views of culture than the corporate culture proponents. This means, for example, that there is a strong de-emphasis on opportunities to change and also to partially control a culture as an act of will. Further

6.2 The Culture Convention

101

examples of authors who represent this view of culture are Bate (1984), Kinnunen (1990), Schall (1983) and Wilkins/Patterson (1985).

6.2.3 Cultural Cognitivism In this approach, an organization is seen as something which contains a system of cognitions (which is common to the members) and shared forms of knowledge and problem solving. In this case, culture is roughly similar to collective, cognitive systems, a corporate mind or a thinking organization (see, for example, Heirs/Pehrson 1972; Sims et al. 1986). A definition of an organization based on this perspective on culture might be a set of rules and principles for perception and mental organization and the processing of material and social phenomena, actions, behaviour, emotions and social relationships. The members of an organization, or part of an organization, thus have a common mental frame of reference. This does not necessarily mean that they have common norms and values or that the culture contains a common deeper meaning of an affective-expressive nature. In principle, the people in the organization can have values and commitments to the organization which are relatively disparate. Instead, the decisive factor is certain generally accepted principles for thinking and a common volume of knowledge as to how one should act and how one should approach major questions. Mention is made, for example, of collective cognitive maps (Weick/Bougon 1986), corporate scripts (Gioia 1986), organizational frames of reference (Shrivastava/Schneider 1984; Shrivastava et al. 1987) or of social cognition (Gioia/Sims 1986). Other authors speak of organizations as paradigms in order to describe the phenomenon in question (Brown 1978; Pfeffer 1981 a). Another variation is speaking of local social knowledge (Wilkins/Ouchi 1983) or, as Wilkins and Dyer (1988: 523) to express matters more precisely, defining organizational culture as . . . socially acquired and shared knowledge that is embodied in specific and general organizational frames of reference.

In this context there are also a number of contributions (in the best cases popular-scientific and in the worst cases quasi-scientific) to what one might call corporate consciousness. One of the least successful examples is Ingvar and Sandberg (1985) who naively attempt to apply a biological metaphor to the company's perception of reality and its methods. There

102

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

are also some examples of authors who discuss the structure and consequences of collective consciousness from anthroposophical (Lievegoed 1978) and even transcendental perspectives (Treutiger 1990). In the cultural cognition perspective, culture is regarded as something which paves the way for mutual understanding (as regards knowledge rather than sympathy and common values), as a basis for communication and as a condition for the handling of information. It means that people can act and cooperate with each other in a relatively unambiguous and predictable manner. A culture also has a stabilizing effect and counteracts the excessive questioning of people's view of the world. One advantage of cultural cognitivism is that it does not postulate consensus, harmony and common values in organizations. Instead, there is an emphasis on the cognitive logic in social systems as a basis for common (organized) actions. However, a weakness of the cognitive approach is that it only deals with certain areas of the possible aspects of organization culture and does not emphasize the deeper, subjective meanings which are ascribed to the phenomenon and which, alongside cognitive aspects, also include emotional and affective aspects. Another problem is how common shared frames of reference, mental maps, etc. are within the framework of the total organization. Perhaps the debatable feature of postulating an organizational culture is one of the most difficult features in relation to the cognitive aspect. Other aspects, such as values and emotions, can probably be more easily dealt with by broader groupings, despite vertical and horizontal division of labour. However, the division of labour in most organizations means that frames of reference, information processing, memory, knowledge, etc. will become somewhat divergent. It may be suspected that the space for a common organizational culture with cognitive contents would often become limited in this case. Another problem in much work on organizational cognition is a failure to adequately grasp the collective level. Concepts from individual cognitive psychology are applied, without being integrated with organization and culture theory (e.g. Gioia 1986).

6.2 The Culture Convention

103

6.2.4 Organizational Culture as a Symbol System (Cultural Artifacts) This perspective emphasizes organizations as systems of cultural expressions in which actions, structures, material and verbal expressions have a wider sense than their external, manifest forms or that they, in parallel with their concrete functions, contain some forms of symbolism (Allaire/ Firsirotu 1984). In other words, organizational cultures are regarded as containing their own symbols, such as jokes or heroic figures, which only have a meaning for members of the organization concerned. Here, organizations are regarded as cultural units or as "culture-bearing milieux" (Louis 1983) which contain more or less manifest symbols and symbol systems which are shared by members of the organization and which bind them together. It is assumed that different phenomena, for example actions and statements, express a broader, deeper and more expressive meaning than what is manifest, obvious and narrowly functional. What is significant in this context is, for example, rites, rituals, ceremonies, myths, stories, jokes, logos, corporate architecture and other materialized symbols. Emphasis on the function of symbols in relation to the organizational totality characterizes this approach. Jokes are regarded as a means of "easing the social pressure", stories felt to be a means of communicating basic values (Martin/Powers 1983 a, 1983b), and the way in which myths organize reality in organizations is observed (Kolarska 1981). Within this perspective, there are also strong links to "corporate artifacts", in the form of buildings, products, logos, etc. (Gagliardi 1990a; Schneider/Powley 1986). In this context, artifacts are seen as something linking the affective, expressive and cognitive dimensions to the concrete level (materialized phenomena, such as physical objects and patterns of behaviour). In this approach, organizations are loaded with symbolic structures, actions and situations which influence people's motivations and orientation. Meaning and values are created, reinforced, maintained and communicated through the artifacts. Authors who speak of organizations as cultures in this sense generally emphasize that the symbolism in the artifacts is specific to the organization. The artifacts express the deeper cultural circumstances of the company in question. Each company and each organization is considered to have symbols with meanings which are associated with the company/organization itself. Even where there are symbols of a more general character, for example, room sizes in relation to hierarchical position, the nuances involved in the symbols are related to the organization in question.

104

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

Thus, the idea is that, by studying different types of cultural artifacts and other symbols, it is possible to have a grip on the core of the culture, its emergence and above all its functioning. Increased interest in various "expressive strategies" in companies, in the form of corporate advertising, design, architecture, etc. has also meant that people have started to search for symbols which both capture the organization's identity (a building, a logo, a name, etc.) and communicate internally (in order to reinforce the corporate spirit) as well as externally (in order to achieve a positive image) (Berg 1991 a). This view of organizational culture is very similar to the symbolism perspectives as regards the common interest in symbols and symbolism. However, a typical feature of organizational culture as a symbol system (cultural artifact perspective) is that symbols and artifacts are believed to form a cohesive unit (i.e. culture), which is clearly delimited from the environment. In other words, symbols and artifacts are subordinate to organizational culture in its totality and are regarded as components which are required to comprehend the organization's culture (e.g. Trice/Beyer 1984). As we will demonstrate later, the symbolism convention is based on the fact that the symbol aspect is given a superior status. The culture phenomenon in companies is therefore the result of several overlapping and interacting symbol systems (e.g. national, industry-specific, etc.). Organizational culture as a symbol system perspective is based on the idea that symbol systems in companies develop over time to become more or less idiosyncratic in character and they form a distinct organizational culture vis-ä-vis the environment. It is assumed that organizations develop symbol systems that are unitary and unique. A possible criticism of this perspective concerns first and foremost the difficulties in making clear links between the symbolic elements and the entire culture. Many authors seem to have been imprisoned by the phenomena they have studied and have not been able to link the phenomena with the culture concept as a whole. For example, studies of rituals, stories or corporate jokes may well become amusing and full of insights, but without the links to the totality which proponents of this perspective claim to achieve (Alvesson 1992b). It is difficult to understand both specific symbolism and the organizational totality. Pettigrew (1979), who may himself be considered an adherent of this perspective, says that there is a risk that the culture concept loses its "analytical bite", that is to say its theoretical focus and precision.

6.3 Meaning Construction

105

6.3. Meaning Construction Many organizational researchers have tried to understand how social reality is constructed (meaning construction) and how such constructions of reality affect organizational actions. In this context, we are speaking of an (organizational) theory which emphasizes the sense or meaning which various individuals in companies and other organizations place on various phenomena, actions and events. The significant point is that it is man's subjective and intersubjective attitudes which are of decisive importance for what characterizes the organization. Different structures and behaviours exercise and influence via the organizational members' interpretations of the structures and behaviours. The approach has similarities with the symbolism perspective but it differs chiefly in that its representatives do not regard (pure) symbolism as interesting or important. In this view, the precise meaning or sense of a special phenomenon does not need, as the proponents of the symbolism perspective would maintain, to refer to anything more than the manifest attributes of the phenomenon (just as a cheque symbolizes a certain value) or to some broader context of meaning (e.g. that the assessment of a certain work achievement becomes an assessment of the quality of human being, that is to say the value of the former symbolizes the individual's personality and intrinsic worth). Common and conflicting, permanent and changing definitions of various phenomena (for example, management, products, strategies, objectives and roles) are essential in this approach. It is assumed that the manner in which members of the organization give things a meaning and a sense determines their actions. This convention also has clear links with the philosophy of science approach represented by the phenomenologically inspired work of Berger and Luckmann (1966) and Silverman (1970). The social-constructivist link also means that culture, as such, is of limited interest. The central features are the processes by which meanings are constructed and built up, rather than the actual character of the meaning construction as such. In the following, we identify two different perspectives within this convention.

106

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

6.3.1 Organizations as Shared Meanings Some authors base themselves on collectively shared meanings as a central category in organizational analysis. They consider that the way in which members of the organization define their situation and various organizational circumstances is of decisive importance for what happens. One of the foremost representatives of this view is Smircich (1983 b) who regards shared meanings as the basis of the collective action, which is the core of organizations. The main thesis is that the reality shared by members of the organization constitutes the basis of the organization. These "shared meanings" are held in common (shared by a collective), they are historically generated and they tend to be durable. However, the meaning perspective does not imply that organizations are regarded purely as if they were cultures. Among other things, there is no claim that the unity, comprehensiveness and durability which characterize organizational cultures according to most proponents of the culture convention exist. The shared forms of understanding can apply to delimited objects (e.g. the business concepts, the success formula, relations between high and low, communication in a group) or more general structures of meaning which establish the collective's idea of reality. According to this social constructivist view of reality, reality only exists as a common construction, on the basis of which we see, interpret and act. An objectivist picture of reality is rejected. Applying this view, a company can be regarded purely as shared concepts of reality, in which the physicalobjective circumstances only comprise the basis of its ideas but in other respects are of minor importance. In contrast with the cultural cognitivists, it is not assumed that there is any generally agreed upon stable, cognitive structure. Instead, it is believed that reality is always created as the result of the confrontation of differing frames of reference. Thus, the characteristic feature of all these frames of reference is that they are more focused on mental (cognitive and to some extent affective) structures than on, for example, the political-material parameters. Another way of conceptualizing shared meanings is to see them as "myths" (e.g. Bowles 1989; Jönsson/Lundin 1977; McWhinney/Batista 1988), i.e. as more or less institutionalized meaning structures that order perceptions and actions. On the basis of this approach, management can be regarded as "management of meaning" (Smircich/Morgan 1982). Strategy is seen as a matter of developing a shared definition of the environment and of the

6.3 Meaning Construction

107

company's role in this regard (Smircich/Stubbart 1985). By building up new - shared - meanings (e.g. in the form of a changed objective/mission for operations), it is thus possible to change action in the company (e.g. Grönhaug/Haukedal 1988). The perspective which is discussed here has certain similarities with the cultural cognitivist perspective. However, it is important to see the difference between the cultural cognitivist perspective, which has been mentioned previously, and the perspective which is in focus in this context. Cultural cognitivists strongly emphasize principles and rules for thought, while meaning researchers stress how all phenomena are loaded with meaning beyond the strictly cognitive, and that meanings do not have a systematic character, but emerge. This can be illustrated by looking at various views of management. For cognitivists, management is basically a question of "transferring ideas" from a management group to a wider collective. For meaning researchers, on the other hand, management is a question of establishing a common understanding of a situation or action. The difference is not one of fine distinctions, but actually indicates two totally different philosophies of management: an instrumental and systematic or a participative and collectively based philosophy. Meaning researchers emphasize that collective patterns emerge from the bottom up. However, the problem is that this management method is not particularly easy to operationalize. The main criticism which can be directed against the meaning constructivists is that their approach, in itself, is interesting and theoretically well founded, but not particularly "useful", either in theory (difficult to generalize) or in practice (difficult to operationalize). Finally we shall note a variation in this perspective which comprises studies which focus on the metaphorical and metonymic character of the structure of meaning, that is to say its ability to expand and condense the complicated reality in the organization. Frost and Morgan (1983), Krefting and Frost (1985), Pondy (1983) and to some extent Berg (1986) have indicated the significance of this quality. The metaphor approach has also acquired a certain practical application, for example in the problem-solving area (Stevrin 1983). It should also be noted that studies in corporate language and texts from a semiotic perspective (e.g. Broms/Gahmberg 1983; Fiol 1989) could be seen as belonging to the meaning construction paradigm.

108

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

6.3.2 Organizations as Constructions and Destructions of Meanings The second variation of the meaning construction convention breaks more radically with the culture idea. Here, organizations are regarded as constructions and destructions of meanings (Gray et al. 1985). The culture concept is explicitly rejected because it is too static and consensusoriented. Organizations are seen as dynamic entities, full of contradiction, where external and internal pressures for changes in operations and internal conflicts and opposition give rise to the interpretation and reinterpretation of different phenomena. A given definition of a particular object does not survive without being challenged over time, but is re-examined. Thus, lack of clarity and ambiguity are important aspects to which attention should be paid. The process character of an organization is in focus in this approach, as are the political aspects of organizations and definitions of reality. In contrast with the main line of organizational culture research - which is consensus-oriented - a pluralistic conflict view of the organization in presented. This research perspective thus permits links with political approaches. One implication of this approach is that opportunities for managing and controlling definitions of reality in organizations are dramatically de-emphasized. The complexity and multiplicity of various forces which pull in different directions limit management's influence. On the basis of this perspective, for example, management of meaning appears to be a possible goal, but hardly a fully possible result, at any rate not in the long term. Meanings are difficult to manage and control. Gray et al. (1985), Czarniawska (1986) and to some extent Smith and Simmons (1983) and Donnellon et al. (1986) represent examples of this variation of the meaning perspective. Certain ideas in Martin (1987), Martin and Meyerson (1988) and Siehl and Martin (1990) also agree with the construction/destruction perspective. The difference between this and the preceding perspective is, however, not so marked. It is debatable whether the type of research, which is strictly linked to the construction and deconstruction perspective, has a place in a overview of organizational culture research. Since interpretations, meanings and ideas are considered to be central in the functioning of organizations, this perspective fits well within the framework of the culture and symbolism research field. It also seems to be common that the former is represented in special issues of journals and in anthologies on organizational culture or organizational symbolism and therefore we also consider the orientation to be fully motivated in the present context. It even appears to be espe-

6.4 Ideology

109

cially justified, since it clarifies the range and the heterogeneity within what is often combined into one and the same approach within organizational research.

6.4 Ideology Many authors maintain that a structured set of basic values and ideas is the very foundation of what we call corporate culture and that the structure of these values supplies the parameters within which the organization can be developed (Gagliardi 1986 b). Ideology normally refers to a collection of ideas and values as to how the social world appears and how it should function. An ideology denotes things in a way which means that certain positions and actions appear to be correct. The ideology encourages its adherents to act in a particular manner. It has a legitimizing function. Corporate philosophy and organizational ideology are concepts which are widely used today to define the more or less consistent and cohesive systems of values, beliefs and norms which are represented by the dominant coalition in an organization (e.g. Abravanel 1983; Meyer 1982). The following aspects which are associated with an ideology are often emphasized: - It is a question of a more or less delimited and structured set of norms, ideas and ideals. - It is covered by a group. - It says something about what the world looks like at the moment and implies how things ought to be, i.e. ideals. - It encourages action and legitimizes certain relationships and behaviours. Social order and social integration are often related to ideology. The ideology contributes to the cohesion of a group and to the fact that this group does not question the basis for its operations. Many of the authors who speak of culture see ideology as an important component in the culture. However, in this context we are primarily considering those who use ideology as a central concept and a superior category of analysis, and do not regard ideology as one amongst many cultural elements, (e.g. rites, myths, material symbols). We divide the relevant literature into two areas: a corporate ideology or philosophy perspective

110

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

and a political ideology perspective. These two differ as regards the fundamental view of the nature of reality, where the political ideology perspective is associated with a more radical approach and emphasizes conflicts and antagonisms, while the corporate philosophy supporters often represent a predominantly consensus view of organizations.

6.4.1 Corporate Ideology The corporate ideology or philosophy orientation discussed first in this section is based on the stability and durability of values, and thus on their ordering or organizing function. It is assumed that this ideational sluggishness contributes to the production of actions with a certain orientation. Proponents of this approach also speak of the values which are associated with an idea, a picture of how business should be conducted (business philosophy) or how management should function (management philosophy). In this way, values and beliefs become a logical result of the fundamental idea. Thus, what primarily interests these researchers are the links between existing values and systems of values, the manner in which these order reality, and, finally, the company's actions. The corporate ideology view emphasizes the conscious, thought-out and explicit elements in the value system. This causes it to differ, for example, from culture as a value system perspective (e.g. Schein 1985) when the focus is on the deeper and partially unconscious levels. Another difference is that the ideology concept is narrower than the culture concept. (There is room for different ideologies within a culture.) The corporate ideology view also emphasizes ideology in a neutral or positive sense, in contrast with ideology in a political or critical sense. The latter denotes that ideology is in some way a problem from the point of view "truth" or interested parties. Authors in the corporate ideology field consider that the dominant ideologies which are found in an organization constitute the key to their method of functioning. The ideology inspires people to act in a particular manner. It indicates what is right, true, sensible and good. CzarniawskaJoerges (1988 a: 51) considers, for example, that an ideology contains a representation (description) of a certain cross-section of reality, a vision of what this might optimally look like and a programme (indications of direction) which suggests how one should act to achieve this good situation. The ideology exercises pressure on people to adjust themselves in accord-

6.4 Ideology

111

ance with the ideology. The strength of this force depends, amongst other things, on how well people have internalized the ideology, that is to say how deeply they have absorbed the ideology. It is possible to imagine several different types of ideologies in an organization. One type of ideology, for example, is tied to the organization's overall purpose and strategic orientation, while another type can be concerned with social relations. One advantage of using the ideology and philosophy concept rather than culture is that it is more appropriate for referring to different, delimited phenomena (Alvesson, 1987 b). It is true that it is possible to speak of different cultures in relation to different kinds of matters and aspects, but this is in conflict to some extent with the culture concept's idea of dividing up culture into a number of subcultures. The central idea is seeing culture as a totality, and it is difficult to illustrate rather different phenomena on the basis of one and the same totality and to link up with something delimited and specific (e.g. recruitment policy or choice of strategies) on the basis of something which is overall and general. Naturally, this is not accepted by all writers. Sometimes the culture concept is used in a very narrow fashion. Nicholson and Johns (1985) speak, for example, of "absence cultures" in which the content of the culture is reduced to a question of one group's view of absenteeism from work. Perhaps it would be better to speak of a work ideology. According to Westley and Jaeger (1985), a considerable proportion of the current literature on corporate culture actually concerns ideology. Various reasons, for example the popularity of the culture idea in the 1980's and the political connotations of the ideology concept, may seem to lie behind preferences for the choice of concept. Culture is a new and (apparently) non-political concept and there are therefore commercial advantages in employing it. A great deal of the literature explicitly deals with organizational ideology, even though the concept appears to be less commonly used after the culture boom. Beyer (1981), Harrison (1972), Hartley (1983) and Meyer (1982) can be cited as examples of authors who choose to speak of ideology in this sense. Beckerus, Edström et al. (1988) refer to corporate doctrine, implying a generally formulated, slowly emerging overall framework of ideas about management. Thus, the doctrine is management ideology anchored in broad areas of industry, rather than in the individual, unique company.

112

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

One variation on this corporate ideology/philosophy convention is what is known as mythological structures or corporate myths (Broms/Gahmberg 1983; Jönsson/Lundin 1977). (As has emerged in the overview of concepts in chapter 5, this myth is, however, sometimes used in a sense which is rather different from that of ideology.) According to these authors, a successful strategy reflects the institutional rules or myths on which reality in society is constructed (Meyer/Rowan 1977; Meyer/Scott 1983). Such neo-institutionalists have later reintroduced concepts such as legitimization to characterize the links between the organization and its institutional environment (see also Karlsson 1984). The myth also functions as a "patterning device", which brings order into complicated processes and which communicates meanings between members of the organization. At least according to some authors, the myth is thus similar to the ideology, since both provide a direction for operations and protect members from the harmful influence of the environment (Gagliardi 1982). Weiss and Miller (1987) have criticized corporate ideology researchers because they neglect two aspects of ideology which are emphasized by the sociology of knowledge tradition which is considered to carry some weight in the study of ideology and which many corporate ideology authors claim to refer to: the material and socio-structural background of ideas and their links to interests and conflicts of interest. Weiss and Miller consider it symptomatic that Beyer (1981) quotes Apter (1964: 16) as defining ideology as a generic term applied to general ideas potent in specific situations of conduct . . . it is the link between action and fundamental belief.

In fact, according to Weiss and Miller, Apter was not referring to just any type of ideas and ideals, but he was exclusively concerned with political ideas and ideals. He considered (1964: 16) that "ideologies may be viewed as lending a more honorable and dignified complexion to social conduct" or as "a cloak for shabby motives and appearances". While corporate ideology research is happy to ignore such aspects, representatives of the other ideology perspective are not.

6.4 Ideology

113

6.4.2 Political Ideology The second perspective within the ideology convention has a critical foundation. While proponents of the above perspective concentrate on the positive aspects of ideologies, here we find that ideologies are used in an almost pejorative sense. The ideologies which can be identified in organizations are associated with the interests of the different parties and express the interested parties' definitions of reality and the goals which should be achieved. For example, ideologies are considered to legitimize the position of the various interested parties, and especially the interests of the dominant groups. In other words, the political dimension of ideology is in focus. It is considered that conflicts and antagonism between groups occur (at least latently) and there is an emphasis on the importance of the ideology in eliminating or stimulating conflicts, etc. The political ideology convention is inspired by the pluralistic, radical or critical perspectives within organizational research (for overviews see Burrell/Morgan 1979; Reed 1985; Zey-Ferrell/Aiken 1981). The dominant ideologies in organizations are regarded as expressing special interests and are often related to concepts such as alienation and (latent social) conflicts. It is considered that they often produce distorted communication, that is to say a dialogue between actors in which takenfor-granted ideas, preconceived ideas and the unequal distribution of opportunities of defining the real, correct and the good characterize conversations, the understanding of reality and decision making (Forester 1983; Habermas 1970; Thompson/Held 1982). The knowledge interest in this type of ideology research is emancipatory, aiming to provide intellectual contributions to emancipation from social domination and ideologies which are opposed to questioning and critical reflection. Empirical studies within this perspective can often be characterized as critical ethnographies. One example is Filby (1990), who has studied professionals in a public bureaucracy in a cultural light. Here culture is understood through material, political and existential processes. Another example of a study with this orientation is Rosen (1985), who critically interprets an annual lunch party at a major advertising agency. The ceremony in question contains, apart from an expression of community and reinforcement, elements which reinforce the hierarchical order in the company in a symbolic form and which communicate the director/owner's view of matters. This view, in its turn, is based on overall capitalist ideology.

114

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

Some ideology-critical studies are of a meta-theoretical scientific critical nature, demonstrating ideological elements within the mainline of organizational culture and symbolism research (Alvesson 1987 a, 1991). One variation of this view emphasizes that ideology has a contradictory relationship with everyday practice. The general ideology which dominates an organization and which indicates the orientation of action in general terms, is a problem in daily operations, which are primarily concerned with practical problem-solving. Abravanel (1983) terms the mechanism which is developed and utilized within organizations to avoid confrontation between the ideology and this conflict element in concrete action "mediating myths". Mediating myths explain away, in an emotionally satisfying manner, the contradictions in the organization and contribute to a situation in which members of the organization do not need to be disturbed by obvious discrepancies between ideals and reality. Further examples of researchers who use the ideology concept in the manner described above, and who are associated with culture research, are Deetz (1985), Filby/Willmott (1988), King/Fitzgibbons (1985) and Mumby (1988).

6.5 Psychodynamics The more psychodynamically oriented theories have a somewhat different orientation from the conventions and perspectives mentioned above. Instead of emphasizing the instrumental ordering of the culture, the culture phenomenon is related to unconscious and primitive aspects of people's functioning. Cultural elements are conceptualized as a protection against anxiety or the aggressive impulses of the collective. In the early pages of this book, we noted that some of the initial contributions to the corporate culture and organizational symbolism field came from psycho-analytically oriented researchers. Works by such authors and their disciples are: Redl's (1942) analysis of the group climate surrounding various leader figures, Jaques' (1951, 1953, 1955) and Menzies' (1960) studies of collective defence mechanisms for coping with individual anxiety and, later, De Board's (1978) and Moxnes' (1978) analysis of deep psycho-dynamic organizational processes. All these researchers study the collective fantasies which constitute the organizations' methods of coping

6.5 Psychodynamics

115

with difficult or contradictory situations and the defence mechanisms which have been developed over time. In this context there is also a clear allocation of priorities to unconscious emotional structures, rather than cognitive or political-material parameters. The cultural patterns which these researchers indicate are normally remote from what can be consciously controlled and steered. Instead, interest lies in the border between the emotional and the cultural (Lutz/White (1986) speak, for example, of "the anthropology of emotions"). Thus, what characterizes this cultural convention are solid theoretical foundations, based either on the Freudian or Jungian conceptual framework and modern lines of development of at least the former, where the organization can be regarded as "a psychic prison" (see Morgan 1986), partially constructed by the members themselves as a protection against their own internal tensions (Denhardt 1981; Kets de Vries/Miller 1984 a) or consisting of complete, collective archetypes which restrict thought and behaviour (Mitroff 1983). Today, there are two distinct perspectives within the psycho-dynamic convention: One with clear Freudian or Kleinian denotations, based on thoughts about collective projections and shared fantasies, and a Jungian inspired approach based on the assumption of social archetypes and deep symbolic structures.

6.5.1 Corporate Culture as Shared Fantasies The modern proponents of this perspective also base themselves on classic and modern psycho-analytical theory. A classic example is Kets de Vries and Miller's (1984 a) organizational typology, which is partly based on Bion's (1961) ideas about "basic assumption groups". According to this perspective, culture - although the concept is seldom used explicitly - is a result of the organizational members' projections of their own experiences onto the organization and various organizational phenomena. This process is both a defence against inner impulses and against difficult or contradictory external situations. The problem is that the result of these projections itself generates anxiety amongst the members, in some cases due to the occurrence of a deadlocked situation (Moxnes 1978).

116

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

However, one functional aspect should not be forgotten, namely the ordering function of the shared fantasy. A shared fantasy, regardless of whether it is a matter of the formation around a leader figure (Redl 1942) or whether it is concerned with identification with an organization (Larcon/Reitter 1979), creates a mutual understanding amongst those involved and thus a predictable action, even when faced with complex phenomena which cannot always be verbalized. One positive aspect is that satisfactory collective adherence and action can be achieved (Kets de Vries/Miller 1984 a, 1986). But in terms of functions the influence of these kinds of phenomena is, at best, double-edged. Schwartz (1987) has pointed to the potential for anti-social action that can emerge out of a strong commitment to an organization where the identification with the collective affects the superego. Anti-social action can be taken, morally legitimized by being for the benefit of the organization. On the whole, however, this perspective is better when it comes to understanding "negative", i.e. problematic, aspects of organizational life. One interesting example is Schwartz' (1988) study of the Challenger disaster, where strong narcissistic fantasies about perfection and omnipotence at NASA led to the denial of warning signals on technical problems. Kets de Vries and Miller use the metaphor of neurosis to illuminate organizational cultures, i.e. the organization is viewed as for example obsessive, depressive or paranoid. An additional aspect is the psycho-analytical view of object relationships, especially cultural artifacts as transitional objects (Winnicott 1958). One example is Morgan's (1986) account of how dead objects are filled with meaning and become significant symbols in the organization's world. A manual typewriter is not only a tool but can also be regarded as a symbol of stable, secure and safe aspects in the age of the PC. There are also several examples of studies attempting to capture deeper emotional structures in organizations without explicitly utilizing culture or climate terms, for example Kets de Vries and Miller (1984 b) and Selznick (1957). Another example is the study by one of us (Berg 1979) of emotional collective structures in a company. In this study, manifested organizational structures and patterns of behaviour are considered to have their origins partly in collective emotional patterns of a primitive and unconscious nature. The main criticism which can be levelled at the psycho-dynamic perspective is that it easily focuses far too much on the influence of leader figures and ignores the historical process which gives culture its form and content.

6.5 Psychodynamics

117

Certain contributions are also biased in an individualistic and grouppsychological direction. Often, the perspective primarily captures only "irrational" ideas and phenomena. In addition, this perspective often suffers from inadequate links with other organizational phenomena, for example strategy and control systems, which means that it cannot take into account anything but limited organizational aspects. However, an attempt to associate psycho-dynamic views with, for example, strategy and structure variables has been made by Kets de Vries and Miller (1984 a).

6.5.2 Organizational Cultures as Archetypes The main difference between the psycho-dynamic perspective which we have described and the Jungian-inspired approach is a question of the actual nature of the fantasies shared by members. While proponents of the Freudian approach regard defence and projection mechanisms as the central features, the Jungians focus on the actual nature of the fantasy (or the symbol). There is a continuous attempt to seek the resultant inner meaning of symbols by studying symbols and patterns in a broader context, for example, in art, literature and religion. The basic idea seems to be that the common fantasy - expressed with the help of a symbol, a picture, a story, etc. - expresses something fundamentally human in the organization and its way of acting. Another concept of considerable importance for the Jungians is the myth concept, which they regard as a "blue-print" for general human actions which comply with laws. On the whole, these researchers see symbols, pictures, myths, etc, as archetypes or, according to Mitroff (1983: 163), as "stakeholders of the organizational mind". Mitroff maintains that: Examination of the deepest layers of the human psyche reveals that there is a very special set of stakeholders, known as archetypes, which has been almost totally ignored in modern theories of organization but which nonetheless exerts a considerable hold on the behavior of individuals, groups, organizations, and even whole societies.

Bird (1989) is inspired by Jungian thought when she makes use of the Hermes/Mercury diagram - which is strongly characterized by the archetypal pattern of transition and transformation - to describe entrepreneurs. Krefting and Frost (1985) also draw upon the archetype concept in order

118

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

to shed light on the "cultural blinders" inherent in the unconsciousness of organizations. Mitroff and Kilmann (1975) utilized the archetype concept to analyse leadership by examining the stories recounted by managers. However, the value of the archetype concept for organizational research is debatable. Mitroff's thesis above has been heavily criticized (e.g. Obert 1984). It has been claimed that there is no evidence at all of the type of statement quoted above and the practical value of the perspective has also been questioned. It might also be possible to maintain that there are often good reasons why organizations keep deep, unconscious structures and patterns hidden, irrespective of the good intentions researchers and consultants may have.

6.6 Symbolism The concept of organizational symbolism was first used in 1980 in an article by Dandridge et al. (1980). This article was soon followed by several more and ultimately a book with the same title was published (Pondy et al. 1983). Right from the start, what characterized the symbolic approach was that its supporters maintained that a new picture of reality was being established - the symbolic picture - in contrast with the objectivistic or phenomenological concepts of reality. However despite several ambitious attempts (for example by Frost et al. 1985; Morgan/Smircich 1980; Smircich 1983 a), proponents of this view have not been particularly successful in establishing a basis for any such new, alternative picture of reality. If the various contributions are analysed, it is found that they have considerable similarities with the social-constructivist approach which emphasizes meanings and with certain variations of the culture conventions (primarily culture as a system of symbols). There seem to be some significant differences, however. Firstly, the symbolists do not base themselves on the assumption that there is a culture in a company but instead they study organizations from a symbolic perspective. Thus, there are no requirements that the symbols should be shared by all or most of the members of the organization or even that there is a well-defined and unambiguous symbol system (which is often considered to be the basis of the organizational culture concept).

6.6 Symbolism

119

Nor is the exact meaning of different symbols always associated with the local context (the organization, the subculture within an organization) which it forms part of, but rather it may range from private to universal. Another important difference from the culture-cognitivist convention is the emphasis on the subjective and emotional element in the meaning which organizational members place on objects and phenomena (in contrast with an emphasis on what is cognitive and bounded rationality). In companies and organizations, meetings, leadership, planning, control, information, informal meetings, etc. may not only be regarded as manifest, explicit and taken-for-granted by personnel, but also as something deeper, where human subjectivity and methods of ascribing these circumstances with a special, non-explicit meaning are of major importance. The symbolists also differ from many culture researchers in their emphasis on the aesthetic, ethical and emotional dimensions of human life, instead of simply considering cognitive and axiological dimensions. Thus, there is greater interest in the very character of existence or reality behind the direct cognitive, rational and describable aspects. It is characteristic of the symbolists that the difference between the subjective and the objective is dissolved and linked together by symbols, images, metaphors, etc. - "the mythic mode of symbolling" (Witkin/Berg 1984). Finally, the symbolists appear to assume that there are clear and insurmountable parameters within which reality can be moulded. Even if there seems to be considerable lack of unity as to the actual character of these parameters, (are they political structures, psycho-dynamic archetypes, semiological patterns or something else?) they constitute the frameworks of the perception of reality. These parameters then reflect the natural formation-of-meaning patterns which have resulted from attitudes which have emerged historically and which have been communicated across generations and cultural frontiers and which express relationships to other human beings, to the purpose of existence, to nature, etc. Thus, there is an opening here toward the teleological aspects of social systems, that is to say an attempt to find the fundamental mechanisms which mould organizations and societies over time. In the following, we will describe two perspectives within organizational symbolism research.

120

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

6.6.1 Symbolic Particularism The basis for this perspective is that different actions, statements and structures are thought to exist between two extreme poles: an instrumental and a symbolic one. The instrumental pole means that something gives rise to a concrete, clear effect which can be influenced. Instrumental action is thus reflected in physical, observable results. On the other hand, symbolic actions are not primarily aimed at changing external conditions. In the symbolic extreme pole, influence only affects the inner world of human beings - feelings, values and definitions of the social world, attitudes, commitment, etc. When, for example, a faithful employee receives his gold watch at pensionable age, after a lifetime of service, when an individual celebrates mass or when a troop of soldiers parades before a foreign visiting head of state, it is a questions of actions of an exclusively symbolic nature. The ceremony for the faithful employee is not aimed at giving the person in question feed-back to improve his achievements, administering holy communion is not designed to ease the hunger of the participants and the purpose of the military parade is not to give the visitor military protection. A good example of the symbolism approach is Feldman and March's (1981) study of information in organizations where they observe that it is common to collect and transmit considerably more information than is required. This can be explained by the symbolic significance of the information. It is thus the surplus of information, which from a strict point of view has no function, which can be explained in terms of a symbolism approach. Considerable quantities of such information denote rationality, knowledge, security and "a free run". In modern bureaucracies, as represented by most companies and other organizations of appreciable size, such values are considered praiseworthy. The actual nature of the relationship between what is instrumental and what is symbolic (expressive) has also been dealt with by several authors (e.g. Daft 1983; Pfeffer 1981 a). Most phenomena in organizations are located somewhere between the two extreme positions. At any rate, most complex relationships contain both instrumental and symbolic elements. Leadership is partly a question of planning, coordination, steering and control (i.e. instrumental elements) and it is partly a question of functioning as a model, transmitting the right values and attitudes in action and, through symbolic actions, influencing primarily attitudes and the conception of reality (i.e. exercising symbolic leadership). It is also

6.6 Symbolism

121

possible to speak of the function of symbols, that is to say what they are used for in practical terms in organizations. In this context, there has been special interest in the latent or "deep" functions which are linked with the use of symbols. Many organizational phenomena are considered too complicated, ambiguous, painful or full of conflicts to be described or handled openly and the symbol system then functions as a communication system. We also need to distinguish symbolic particularism from the perspective we call symbolic universalism. What the particularists are primarily concerned with are the special symbols (actions, materia, words, structures of an emotional, cognitive and/or pragmatic character) which can be defined as such without claiming to be connected with more general, symbolic patterns. Instead, the inner system of symbols is emphasized and the logic and functioning of this system. In this view, there is a tendency to employ typologies within organizational research. A popular typology identifies three main forms of symbols: material symbols (artifacts), actions and verbal symbols (Dandridge et al. 1980). As mentioned above, corporate artifacts may be said to constitute an organization's "physical vestiges, that is to say the sediments of human activity which facilitate (and limit) organized actions" (Berg 1987). Examples might be the thickness of the carpet in the manager's room, the specific design of the building in which the Board of Directors is localized and the furnishing, decorations and objects of art in the conference hall. Recently, corporate managements have more or less consciously attempted to influence the attitudes of the general public and the employees towards the company by creating and, above all, interpreting and communicating concrete symbols, for example in the form of buildings, product design and graphic decor (see for example Karlsson 1991). The other important group of symbolic manifestations are action symbols. One of the earliest studies in this field was Kreiner's (1976) doctoral thesis on the symbolic or ceremonial functions of the building site meeting, in contrast with its instrumental intentions. There are also several studies of rituals, rites, ceremonies and celebrations (Alvesson 1992 a; Berg 1983; Dandridge 1986; Rosen 1985; Trice/Beyer 1984), that is to say powerfully, symbolically loaded actions with more or less specific aims. In more general terms, an action symbol might be a situation in which the president of the company makes a tour of the plant and speaks to the employees, primarily to present himself but also to show the personnel that he cares

122

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

about their work, indicating, as a result, that they are important to the company ("management by walking around"). Finally, verbal symbols may be slogans, different types of jokes and brief stories. It is obvious that slogans such as "the personnel is the company's most important resource" should be treated as symbolic rather than taken literally, in view of the financial difficulties which many companies which took such statements in all seriousness would soon be facing. Another important symbol is accounts in organizations, taking the form of legends and stories. It is assumed that stories which survive in organizations over a considerable period of time have an influence on how members of the organization relate to the company and its operations (e.g. Martin/Powers 1983a; 1983b; Wilkins 1983). An approach to dialectic organizational symbolism theory, which contrasts with the harmonious thinking which otherwise dominates symbolism research, can be found in Sköldberg (1990). Morgan et al. (1983), in an overview of organizational symbolism based on Burrell and Morgan's (1979) paradigm model, demonstrate how organizational symbolism can be related to different kinds of philosophy of science and social-theoretical assumptions.

6.6.2 Symbolic Universalism The second approach within this symbolism convention regards organizations as a symbolic unit, linked to other symbolic units. Man is considered a being who functions in accordance with different symbols and symbol systems, for example concepts and languages which have attributed a further, subjective meaning to all objective structures. Cassirer (1953) speaks, for example, of man as a symbolic animal (animalum symbolicum). Langer (1957: 42) emphasizes that "the material furnished by the senses is constantly wrought into symbols, which are our elementary ideas". The result is that the organization is seen as an integrated system of manifestations of deeper, underlying symbolic patterns. (A hierarchic model describing the organizational construction of culture has also been described by Schein (1985), but without focusing on the symbolic aspects.) Pure symbolism is based on the assumption that organizations can be regarded as symbolic fields (Berg/Faucheux 1982) which can be described both diachronically (i.e. historically - over time) and synchronically (i.e.

6.6 Symbolism

123

as a structure - in time). Berger and Luckmann (1966: 95) describe this symbolic universe as "composite representational units which integrate different areas of meaning and which include the institutional order in a symbolic totality". Thus, in this view, everything, including new technology and strategic planning, may be seen as an expression of organizations as symbolic units. While the particularists tend to divide reality into features which may be regarded as symbols and matters which can be categorized of "non-symbols", for the universalist there is in principle no such latter category (Tompkins 1987). What distinguishes the symbolists from the social constructivists is, for example, the method of regarding the symbolic universe in which the organization exists. Underlying symbolism, there also appears to be an idea of a symbolic rather than a social reality (Berg/Faucheux 1982). The basic idea is that organizations (collectives) are linked to the cognitive, emotional, aesthetic and ethical aspects of human life and thus are subject to deep patterns of a symbolic/mythological nature (Witkin/Berg 1984). In contrast with the social constructivists, it is maintained that regularity in behaviour and pictures of the world, found in different cultures and different environments, reflect these deeper, archaic and symbolic patterns. The symbolists also maintain that these underlying symbolic patterns have emerged historically, exist at several levels (from deep, existential/religious ideas to superficial patterns of behaviour which are unique for an industry or a company) and are manifested both in artifacts (products, buildings and behaviour), beliefs and values. Thus, the symbolists believe that there are natural limits for actions and beliefs and that meaningful and powerful actions can only take place within frameworks for the symbolic reality which exists. Thus, one conclusion is that symbolists regard the structure of symbolic reality as mystical, that is to say that the organization has a tendency to order impressions and experiences so that they comply with the collective structures of thoughts which have emerged over generations. In this world of collective fantasies, images and metaphors, an action becomes a heroic deed, the leader becomes a hero (or a scoundrel/scapegoat) and a story becomes a saga or legend, in accordance with ancient, predetermined patterns. As a result, ancient cultural patterns are often employed, for example, epic myths or sagas to describe modern organizational phenomena.

124

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

One example of this approach is Berg's study of "Organization change as aο symbolic transformation process" (1985 a) (see chapter 8). However, Aredal's (1986) study of how an old epic myth - the Procrustes myth - can be used to interpret a major institutional change (the Swedish dental reform) is a (debatable) contribution within this area. The symbolists can (with some justice) be accused of a romantic attitude towards organizations. There is always the risk of farfetched interpretations, and there is a tendency towards reductionism: everything becomes a symbol, while material reality and external, "objective" classifications disappear from view.

6.7 Comments As the initiated reader will notice, the conventions and perspectives vary as regards both centrality and range within the research field in question. The corporate culture school, the culture as a symbol system perspective and the symbolic particularism perspective are most widely supported, while the meaning construction, psychodynamic and ideology conventions seem to be less favoured. To some extent, the popularity of the different perspectives is reflected in the space we have allocated to each of them in the preceding pages. It is also possible to see that, on the basis of purely theoretical content aspects, greater similarities between different contributions within different conventions may sometimes be observed than within a single convention. For example, the corporate culture and corporate ideology perspectives have certain similar characteristics. The question is now, how can we use the classification we have arrived at. Obviously, overviews of this type are fraught with considerable problems. It is hardly possible to provide a "true" or uncontroversial picture of such an extensive and heterogeneous research field with its number of conceptual problems. This is illustrated by the multiplicity of differing structuring principles in other overviews of the research area dealt with in chapter 3. At best, typologies provide good guidelines which can be used for orientation; however, they obviously do not replace individual thoughts and individual adoption of positions as to how it may be possible to relate to different areas and approaches within relevant research areas which are tangential to each other in the best possible way.

6.7 Comments

125

It is important to note that, although we consider it wise to start from a reasonably well delimited and precisely defined perspective, there is nothing which prevents one from working with several perspectives, possibly in a synthesized form, both in theoretical and empirical work. The purely theoretical perspectives which are outlined in the overviewed may, for example, be seen as (proposals for) basic elements in the approach, which may later develop different forms in concrete projects and texts. Jackson and Carter (1986: 5) propose, for example, that organizational symbolism as "a coherent theoretical discipline" should be seen as having at least the following three axioms: ... that symbols are symbols of something, invoking the signifier/signified relationship from semiotics, that the relationship between signifier and signified is not particularly at the conscious level, invoking the concept of the unconscious from psycho-analysis, and that there are aggregations of such relationships whose meaning is commonly shared by particular groups of people, which can be understood as culture, invoking the more anthropological sciences.

There are different views about the relationship between theoretical purity/stringence and eclecticism/breadth in research. In this book, we attempt to argue for the former ideal. However, an interesting variation involves working with several different theoretical perspectives in order to be able to describe the object of research in somewhat different ways and from different aspects. Ehn and Löfgren (1982), who have produced interesting and fruitful results, are advocating this approach. Their method involves working with somewhat different culture concepts and perspectives, each of which, however, is distinct and relatively sharply focused. This approach achieves precision and multiplicity. Several different perspectives are utilized in Alvesson (1992 a). This was partly because management in the object under study utilized "corporate culture" as a central management instrument and because the personnel's understanding of the organization was very much a question of the company's unique "culture", while the author himself supported an alternative culture concept in which symbolism was the central feature. For this reason, it was difficult to completely avoid the corporate culture perspective being used in the analysis and the relationship between, for example, organization structure and corporate culture was studied. At the same time, a symbolism perspective was employed which was directed towards phenomena which lay "outside" what was regarded as "culture" within the company and what representatives of the "corporate culture" perspective would have re-

126

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

garded as the cultural subsystem. One possible function of our classification of a relatively large number of distinct perspectives may thus be to make it easier for researchers to think through various subperspectives which may be employed. Another task of our classification is to provide possibilities of increased precision in the theoretical determination and to clearly illustrate the range of approaches within the field. These and several other differences are naturally, to some extent, linked with the researcher's "free" choice of approach in producing accounts of the field. The actual texts in the field naturally restrict the approach, but the complexity of hundreds of texts within the field and the lack of clear stratification does not make such restrictions excessively and unambiguously compelling. This might also explain the differences between Smircich's classical overview (1983 a) and what is presented here. When Smircich wrote her article, there were relatively few approaches which explicitly employed culture, symbolism and associated concepts. Today, there are many more approaches along these lines. There are more perspectives and the variations are perhaps slightly clearer. This is reflected in our classification and our overview. In conclusion, it may be noted that various perspectives within the overall culture and symbolism research field have a number of common central dimensions which may be regarded as a complicated and ambiguous description of the manner in which a collective organizes reality with the help of some forms of common conceptual products, for example, values, ideas, meanings, affective attitudes, cognitive principles or symbolic manifestations. The various conventions and perspectives which are usually referred to as culture and symbolism research cover the elements mentioned above to a greater or lesser extent and thus differ in emphasis and exact meaning. The culture concept is a complex collection of various elements with overlapping as well as diverse teleological and ontological consequences. In point of fact, it is this complexity and theoretical density which make the culture field so useful and exciting. At the same time, it is obvious that the complexity and general nature of the concepts mean that they can stimulate research approaches with at least as many mutual differences as similarities. We hope that this overview will contribute to a better overall picture and increased theoretical awareness of the nature and status of culture and symbolism research some years after its establishment.

6.8 A Summary and Comparison of the Perspectives

127

6.8 A Summary and Comparison of the Perspectives In the above overview, we have indicated the similarities and differences between various variations within this somewhat broadly defined field of research. To some extent, the differences have been emphazised. This is to counteract the tendency in some areas of culture research to utilize a broad and unmanageable definition of culture. One way of summarizing the common denominators for the perspectives dealt with and to contrast the differences with other research approaches is to take the following nine elements/aspects as starting points: — -

norms, attitudes, values, emotions, cognition, meanings, assumptions (taken-as-given ideas), fantasies (the unconscious), symbols.

We assume that the reader has a reasonably good understanding of these concepts. At this stage, we do not wish to enter into any detailed descriptions, but one problem in employing these terms is that it is difficult to avoid overlaps. In our opinion, as already revealed, a typical feature of the culture field is an interest in these phenomena/aspects. Thus, most of the conventions/ perspectives dealt with are at least of some interest for the functioning of all or some of these fundamental aspects of human beings and collectives. The differences between the perspectives are partly a question of certain theoretical assumptions in the view of organizations and collectives in such organizations and partly a question of how strongly and deeply each of the elements/aspects is emphazised. (It should be noted that a certain aspect not only has different weights, but also somewhat different meaning when seen from different perspectives. For example, an emotion is not exactly the same for a psycho-dynamicist as for someone working with shared meanings or symbol perspectives.) Let us once more illustrate and summarize our classification by commenting on the importance of each of the nine fundamental aspects in our

128

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

twelve different perspectives. It has already become clear that the corporate culture perspective has a comprehensive and superficial grasp of diverse organizational phenomena and has fleeting contacts with most of the aspects listed. See, for example, the definition we quoted on page 98. A great deal is included, and this affects the theoretical focus: weak and fuzzy. But perhaps it is sufficient to be used as a basis for giving good advice to practitioners and to understand some linkages between organization and strategic change. The variation which we have (somewhat longwindedly) called "culture as a system of values and beliefs" is primarily concerned with values and assumptions, and to some extent cognitions, emotions and meanings. But, on the other hand, it does not normally explicitly deal with symbolism. The same largely applies to the rather more superficial phenomena attitudes and norms. Culture cognitivism is of course primarily concerned with cognitive phenomena. Apart from "purely" mental operations - ways of achieving an overview, of reasoning, of dealing with information, etc. - various types of assumptions are also of interest in this context. Meanings and ideas also enter into the picture. In addition, in certain variations symbolism is also of interest to some extent. Here, the focus is on the cognitive (clarifying) aspects, rather than the expressive dimensions. The organizational culture as a symbol system perspective like the corporate culture perspective, has a broad orientation but aims to achieve greater depth. Thus, the breadth of the approach does not prevent proponents of this perspective from having the ambition of trying to get to the bottom of things on the same lines as some of the other variants. In this case, symbolism is of central importance and so are meanings and, in most cases, emotions - the expressive dimension of organizations is of considerable interest. But the organizational culture as a symbol systems perspective does not directly emphasize fantasies, cognitions or the superficial aspects. Naturally, the two meaning construction perspectives place an emphasis on the meaning dimension: the creation of a meaning for existence by individuals and groups. Here the focus is on social reality as an expression of collective construction processes. Both cognitive and emotional aspects are involved. Frequently, symbolism is taken rather seriously. However, primary interest is not necessarily attached to particularly strongly symbolically-loaded situations or other phenomena (words, objects, etc.).

6.8 A Summary and Comparison of the Perspectives

129

Similarly, assumptions and perhaps values and imaginations may be taken into account. However, less attention is paid to the more superficial aspects such as attitudes and norms. Hence, it can be said that meaningconstructivist authors are characterized by a fairly deep approach. The corporate ideology perspective emphasizes the great importance of values, norms and to some extent assumptions. Ideas and ideals are in focus. The proponents of corporate ideology tend to emphasize what is explicit, what the leaders believe and what legitimates a certain course of action. It is thus a question of relatively superficial phenomena. Attitudes are also important in this approach. Most authors associated with the political ideology perspective have a somewhat more complex view of matters. In particular, assumptions of a taken-as-given character are of central importance, as are to some extent, meaning determinations and values. Because it is important to deal with what stands in the way of a clear view and independent thought and action, the proponents of the political ideology perspective are of the opinion that research should centre on the non-explicit ideologies which people are influenced by, but which they are not clear about. The psychodynamics perspective is characterized by a relatively narrow focus in analysis on emotions and fantasies. Other phenomena can be derived from these emotions and fantasies and are therefore, in themselves, not particularly interesting. The Jungian archetype variation of this perspective is, however, interested in a certain type of symbolism covered by the research - which is not quite the same as "normal" organizational culture. Not surprisingly, our two symbolism perspectives are concerned with symbols. But they are, of course, also concerned with meanings. The interesting point about symbols is what they denote and signify. Naturally, this can be related to values, norms, attitudes, etc. but this is not the primary point. Possibly there is a tendency for symbolistic particularism to be more concerned with the clearer and more easily accessible symbol phenomena than the universalistic variation (which sees symbolism in everything). However, both types of symbolism adopt a relatively deep approach even if there are quite considerable variations. It is, for example, quite possible to concentrate on relatively simple events, leadership behaviour, such as management by walking around, or slogans and regard these as symbols. Such phenomena are not particularly interesting per se; only if they can be interpreted at a deeper level.

130

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

This concludes this part of the summary/systematic comparison. We hope that the reader will not react too negatively to our simplifications and shortcuts. No doubt will be difficult to avoid in the next section. In order to provide additional views of our twelve perspectives, we will now relate these perspectives graphically to Burrell and Morgan's (1979) influential model describing paradigms in the social sciences and organization theory. The model is based on two dimensions: sociological assumptions about consensus/conflict and scientific ideas about objectivism/subjectivism. Burrell and Morgan consider that all theory is based either on more or less extreme ideas that social order, common values, extensive satisfaction of needs and common interests between individuals/groups are normal or that conflict, antagonism, dominance relationships, alienation and frustration, pressures working against fundamental change, etc. ultimately characterize societies (organizations) which essentially characterize social systems. Thus, social theory is more or less consensusoriented or conflict-oriented. Social theory is also based on assumptions about reality and the fundamental nature of the formation of knowledge. These assumptions may differ considerably. On the one hand, we have objectivism, where it is assumed that social reality is objective, robust, concrete and can be measured, or at any rate, captured by objective methods which can be formalized and reproduced on the basis of scientific knowledge and methodology, permitting rational research activities. On the other hand, we have subjectivism which emphasizes that social reality is different in character from the research objects of natural science, that ideas, beliefs, concepts, social constructions, etc. are of central importance to societies and organizations and that social science research is a matter of subjective projects, involving the researcher's personality, interests, ideology, etc. and that interpretations, experiences, etc. are the essence of such research. Burrell and Morgan (1979) combine these two dimensions and thus achieve four paradigms: the functionalistic (which is objectivist/consensusoriented), the interpretative (which is based on the consensus assumption and which is subjectivist) the radical-humanist (which emphasizes social conflicts and dominance relationships on the basis of a subjectivist perspective) and the radical-structuralist paradigm (which is based on the existence of objective social antagonism as a central aspect of society and its institutions, including companies and other organizations).

131

6.8 A Summary and Comparison of the Perspectives

In parenthesis, it could be said that the culture theory boom has meant somewhat of a lapse from the central path of organization theory, from an extremely functionalistic position (especially in the USA) to something closer to the interpretative paradigm. But functionalism still dominates in organization theory and its "soft" version is represented by the more popular perspectives in organizational culture research. We have tentatively placed our twelve perspectives in Burrell and Morgan's model reproduced below. Of course, it is not possible to achieve any great degree of exactitude in a special categorization of this type. Our placement indications reflect what we regard as typifying the authors who

Regulation (Consensus) Interoretative Paradiam /"Culture as Value Λ /CorpomteN Vand Belief systems^ AOraanizational CultureA V Culture j /^ —=-> tnroncN x Vos_A[chetypes J ' f O r g . Cu Systems/ V Symbol /Corporate^ Cultural Λ ^ SyniDO ij c Λ ^Ideology ) VCognitivisiy ^ParticularismJ^hnrBri \ VMeoningsJ^Sharea Λ

Functionalism

^

Avmhnlir in '> υ α>

ii \

Hnntrirlnr

/

\VLEDiH^£sy

VUniversolismy f Construction and Λ Destruction of l^Meaning J

JO"

0

U1

'> Ϊ 'S ω

/Pout COT\ Video ogyy

Radical Humanism

Radical Structuralism Radical change (Conflicts)

Figure 6.1: The figure shows the 12 different perspectives we have discussed in relation to Burrell and Morgan's classification scheme. Please note that we have purposely exaggerated the differences between the perspectives. In reality it could be argued that most approaches belong to the interpretative paradigm within the organization sciences.

132

6 Conventions and Perspectives in the Research Field

can be related to the various perspectives. In some cases the perspectives allow for considerable variations in relation to the various paradigms. As Morgan et al. (1983) suggest, it is, for example, possible to utilize a symbolism perspective based on different paradigms. However, taking this reservation into account, we consider that our attempt to provide further illumination of the various variations in the culture field provides a reasonably good picture of certain aspects of the research situation - that is to say how proponents of the various perspectives normally position themselves in many cases in relation to fundamental philosophy of science and social scientific assumptions.

Part III Culture and Symbolism in Theory and Practice

7 Managing Organizational Cultures

While in chapter 2 we discussed the broader social trends behind the interest in organizational culture and symbolism, in this part of the book we will treat the more immediate consensus of practitioners explaining their reasons for jumping on the culture bandwagon. Let us start by stating that it is not an easy task to separate the loose arguments and unsubstantiated claims put forward by managers and consultants from hard facts, or, at least, more carefully grounded observations and evaluations, that can scientifically motivate the practical use of an organizational culture metaphor or symbolic perspective. We have decided to carry out the discussion in two steps: first, a review of the general arguments and claims put forward in support of a broadly defined cultural perspective (chapter 7) and, second, a discussion of the culture and symbolism concepts as applied to traditional fields of management (chapter 8).

7.1 The Need for a Cultural Approach to Management In the current debate on management methods, corporate culture is obviously a question of great concern to practitioners as well as researchers. Few new fields within the organization and management sciences have been so willingly adopted by practitioners as that of organizational culture and, to a more limited degree, symbolism. Without doubt the argumentation for including organizational culture and symbolism concepts in the management practice has been very successful, which Peter Vaill (1989: 144), editor of one the more important academic-pragmatic journals in the field, gives proof of when writing: As editor of Organization Dynamics I can personally testify that organizational culture has been the most common topic among articles submitted in the past three years. Changing the company culture is on everyone's lips.

Evidently the culture concept has filled a void in the dictionary of management terminology, and the corporate language of today is stuffed with

136

7 Managing Organizational Cultures

concepts such as business culture, information culture, worker culture, etc., etc. Supported by our review of the field, as well as by our contacts with managers and consultants, we have come up with five main arguments that seem to spur the argumentation for a cultural perspective in organizations and management: That a "strong" and idiosyncratic culture can give the organization a competitive advantage; that cultural control mechanisms complement, and sometimes are superior to, other forms of corporate control; that corporate culture enables a more efficient exploitation of the human resources in the organization; that efficient management of different units requires compatible organizational cultural patterns and, finally, that organizational symbolism gives an opportunity to a simultaneous integration and focusing of multiple managerial and organizational practices.

7.1.1 Strong Culture as a Competitive Advantage Perhaps the most frequent claim made in support of the cultural perspective is that an idiosyncratic and strong corporate culture will give an organization a competitive advantage over other organizations within the same industry. To assume that social or organizational innovation is the key to corporate competitive strength also seems to be shared by many practitioners. In fact, today there seems to be a commonly shared assumption that there is a direct and positive relation between a strong organizational culture and corporate performance in terms of profit, productivity and creativity. More precisely, this assumption has been formulated in the "strong culture hypothesis" (Denison 1984) which states that in order to boost performance, a culture needs to be both strong and distinctive. Apart from "strong culture companies" (Ouchi/Price 1978), concepts such as "high commitment cultures" (Sherwood 1988), "excellent companies" (Peters/ Waterman 1982), "positive culture companies" (Wilkins 1984), "high performing systems" (Vaill 1982) and "distinctive cultures" (Saffold 1988) are used to delineate this assumed culture-performance relationship. In our experience it is this very assumption of a strong and coherent culture being a prerequisite of "excellence" or "high performance" that has caused so many companies to initiate "culture development" pro-

7.1 The Need for a Cultural Approach to Management

137

grammes or to attempt "cultural revolutions" or "cultural turn-arounds". We have also witnessed how company executives, inspired by the books mentioned above, have "ordered" the personnel manager "to see to it that the company gets a strong culture - and fast". Below follows one example from real life: In the early 80's, just after Christmas, I was phoned by a desperate personnel manager of an international service company. He said that the president of the company had received "In Search of Excellence" as a Christmas gift and that after having read it he had immediately ordered a copy for each member of the board of directors. The board was then summoned to a meeting during which the president declared, pointing at the book: "I want an excellent and competitive company with this kind of a culture within six months". Then he looked at the distressed personnel manager adding: "And you are the one to do it!"

Let us now closely examine the possible motives behind statements like the one above. In our view, there are three main lines of arguments to be advanced in support of creating strong corporate cultures: One concerns the very "quality" of the human resources within the company, another deals with the external "image" of the company as a reflexion of its culture and a third stresses the environment as becoming a larger part of the company context. According to the first intra-organizational line of reasoning, "excellent" or "high-performing" organizations have a "competent" and, above all, "committed" work-force, generally expressed in terms of a strong culture, good company spirit, a powerful corporate identity, etc. In the wake of the corporate culture boom, it has also been argued that the full utilization of human resources requires a high degree of individual commitment and identification with the company. This is probably particularly important in the service industry where the competence, attitudes and behaviour of the "front line" personnel are the key to the quality of the service delivered (Normann 1985). A strong corporate culture is also of vital importance to keep professional service companies (consulting companies, accounting firms, etc.) and other know-how companies together (Alvesson 1992a). In this type of companies, in which "the corporate assets leave the office at five o'clock", the "esprit de corps" is one of the most important mechanisms of unity. Another similar argument is that as standardized production processes reduce the competitive advantages of technology, corporate identity becomes a more important discriminating factor (Berg/Gagliardi 1985).

138

7 Managing Organizational Cultures

A strong culture is also assumed to increase the employees' trust in the company. To increase the trust in the organization's justification of itself, in its rightful and legitimate role in society, in its general task (mission), in its fundamental values, etc. will thus become one of the most important elements in the managerial process. As a matter of fact, the mission will constitute the organization's raison d'etre which legitimates the existence of the organization and its activity, not only in the eyes of its employees but also to society at large. The other basic assumption shared by the proponents of a cultural perspective on management is that the organizational culture has a strong impact on the company's image, i.e. "the cogent imprint that the organization has made on an audience" (Berg/Gagliardi 1985). Since organizations increasingly rely on the cooperation of customers and clients to perform their tasks, they have a strong need to bring customers "closer" to the company, not only by building up automatic services (e.g. banking transactions, delivery systems of oil, gas, etc.), creating clubs (e. g. Club Mediterrane, Herz No. 1 Club), considering customers "members" rather than consumers, but also by developing and projecting strong corporate identities for the customers to identify with (Berg 1989 c; Normann 1985). For many organizations the image of the company seems, in fact, to be more important than the content or substantial value of the goods and services provided. The point here seems to make customers not only positive to the company products and services, but also dedicated to the basic company goals, values, and strategies or as one company expressed it: "It is no longer enough for a company to have many customers, but they need many friends" (Berg 1989 c: 201). Finally, as the boundaries between the organization and the environment grow more diffuse and ambiguous (in terms of organizational membership, exchange relations, transactions, etc.), there is also an increased need for a strong corporate identity - fostering distinct and competent human resources. In other words the weaker or fuzzier the technical core of the organization, the stronger the need for a cultural core (Berg/Gagliardi 1985). As indicated above, this seems to be particularly important in the service industry where "the moment of truth" is in the face-to-face meeting with the customers (Carlzon 1987; Normann 1985). In this meeting the behaviour attitudes and style of the employees become an important part of the service delivered and thus of the quality perceived (Berg 1989 c).

7.1 The Need for a Cultural Approach to Management

139

7.1.2 Cultural Control Another theme, when advocating the use of organizational culture and symbolism perspectives in managerial practice, is "control" and particularly what is generally referred to as "third order control", i.e. control directed at people's minds, such as values, beliefs, ideologies, etc. (Perrow 1979; Wilkins 1978). The main argument here seems to be that while previous forms of corporate control systems are limited in scope (based on inspection, certification or various motivational devices), cultural control systems operate on many levels and in many dimensions, spanning from the cognitive (belief structures) and ethical aspects (norms, values and ideologies) to aesthetical (taste) and emotional ones (pride, loyalty and commitment). While earlier forms of control focused on "objective" reality and on behaviour, culture exerts influence through people's minds. According to this line of argument corporate culture is the prime means of creating social order in the organization. Thus, "control" by ideologies or values (Czarniawska-Joerges 1988 a), by processes of socialization or enculturation (van Maanen/Schein 1979), by language and social drama (Rosen 1986), by artifacts (Grafton-Small/Linstead 1986) or by cultural communication (Gudykunst et al. 1985) ensures, in the first instance, not only a certain behaviour but also a particular way of thinking and even feeling about the company and its actions. It is then assumed that these cognitive and emotive ordering patterns will affect behaviour in a desired direction. There are, however, different perspectives as to how this ordering takes place (cf. chapter 6). One perspective implies that cultural ordering is primarily a cognitive process, whereby a mental fabric is collectively constructed and imposed on the organization. Concepts like scripts (Angelmar/Schneider 1987; Gioia 1986; etc.), belief systems (Nystrom/Starbuck 1984), and cognitive maps (Weick/Bougon 1986) are used to capture this aspect. Another argument, well-known since the Hawthorne studies, is that cultural control takes place through small group pressures, e. g. peer group pressure forces workers to contribute more than a reasonable share of work to a company in which they work. Norms are then the crucial factor. The identification and support of the organization as a community (Westley/Bird 1989) includes efforts to influence group norms as well as feelings of "Gemeinschaft" and commitment to the organization. This can be referred to as collective control (Alvesson 1993). Culture as a means of

140

7 Managing Organizational Cultures

attaining a collectivity feeling is thus supposed to make the employees less egoistic and instrumental and more willing to work for the best of the company. Another opinion of what is essential in cultural control stresses the role of feelings. Managerial efforts in dealing with the felt involvement and attachment of organizational members can thus be referred to as emotional control (van Maanen/Kunda 1989). Many authors stress that cultural control - regardless of its exact definition - is especially significant in certain situations. Ouchi (1980), for example, argues that when the transaction situation is complex and ambiguous, a set of common values and beliefs is especially important as a regulatory mechanism. He refers to this as clan control. Clans differ from bureaucracies, i. e. hierarchical forms of control, in that they are built around shared frameworks of evaluation. Performance evaluation takes place "through the kind of subtle reading of signals that is possible among intimate coworkers but which cannot be translated into explicit, verifiable measures" (page 137). Ouchi believes that "common values and beliefs provide the harmony of interests that erase the possibility of opportunistic behavior" (page 138). Given the variety in opinions on what is the core of cultural control, and the even greater variation in conceptualizations of the culture concept (explored in chapter 6), it is not surprising that the suggestions as to what significant tools are used in exercising cultural control vary considerably. The literature within this field expresses the entire spectrum - from highly symbolic means to pure behaviour modification and model learning (Peters 1978; Sathe 1985; etc.). The idea of influencing culture by affecting behaviour comes from the observation that when people change behaviour, they also tend to change values and beliefs so that these are in harmony with and legitimize that behaviour. Encouraging people to act in a new way can thus be part of a set of efforts to affect "culture" in a desirable direction (Sathe 1985). Regardless of how third order control operates, or what explanation is used, all the perspectives seem to share the assumption that cultural control is a "higher order" control, i.e. it operates on the conditions or preconditions for a certain behaviour, rather than on the behaviour per se. Thus, it operates indirectly by framing the ways in which the members "voluntarily" relate to the world.

7.1 The Need for a Cultural Approach to Management

141

Finally, we would like to counter the arguments advanced above with the possibility that the link between the foci of these collective control systems, e.g. beliefs, values, scripts and behaviour patterns, is not as evident as is often assumed. In fact, much of the present knowledge about organizations is based not only on a decoupling of decisions from actions (e. g. March/Olsen 1976), but also on an assumption of a loose coupling of values, beliefs and actions (Swidler 1986). Values do not affect behaviour in a simple and straightforward manner. Our suspicion is, in fact, that the "hard economical, political and physical reality" in many cases cuts through corporate ideologies and belief systems when it comes to concrete action, at least in the short run. (But, of course, the interpretation of "hard reality" is also affected by ideologies, beliefs and meanings, and "reality" is often ambiguous.)

7.1.3 Corporate Spirit and Commitment - Culture as a Means of Exploiting Human Resources Although it is rarely openly stated, there seems to be an underlying assumption that the culture and symbolism approach to management can be used to "exploit" or to better utilize the human resources in an organization. It is assumed that a strong culture not only puts group pressure on its members - which eventually might result in a better utilization of the manpower available - but also taps hitherto unexploited human potential in the organization. Thus culture is not only or mainly a means of controlling people, but also of bringing out the "best" in them. One concept often used to capture the overall character of the individual members' identification with the company is that of corporate spirit. The argument advanced is that a strong corporate spirit - esprit de corps elicits collectively desired actions, i.e. actions which are not necessarily in line with what is best for the individual members. To "stand up for the company" illustrates these ideals which are fostered by hero myths and war stories. We can also witness how the concept of commitment has partly come to replace that of motivation within the field of organizational behaviour (Lewicki 1981; Saunders 1984). While the concept of motivation is linked to the individualistic and task-centred reward systems, commitment seems to be linked to the identification with a collective, i.e. in terms of professional or corporate values and norms. In other words there seems to be a

142

7 Managing Organizational Cultures

strong trend in management today to make the employees not only accept or like but also "love" the organization they are working for (Ferris 1988). This is of course not an easy - and in our view not even desirable - task! Thus, there appears to be an ever-increasing ambition in organizations today to make the employees part, not only of the operation of the business but also of the company's long-range or strategic planning as well as of its fundamental ideology or value system. In this perspective, management becomes a question of creating commitment to the organization and its mission and goals far "above" the ambitions and goals of the individual employees. Thus, management today seems no longer merely to be a question of giving orders, but also of creating a shared vision and a sense of direction to the people operating in the company (Berg 1989a). Finally, it is also argued that a strong positive image of the company will be reflected in the degree of pride that the organization members show for the company. Particularly in the Japanese managerial tradition corporate pride seems to be an important element in the managerial equation. In the service industry a sense of pride will have a direct impact on the behaviour of the employees and consequently on the outcome of the various transactions. It is also striking to note how many service organizations (e. g. McDonald's, Scandinavian Airline Systems) stress the need to be proud of what they are doing, even when addressing employees far down in the corporate hierarchy. Kanter (1983) gives examples of how high-tech manufacturing companies develop "a culture of pride", i. e. a culture built on collective self esteem through a system of praise and recognition. Somewhat drastically we could thus conclude that today's management is not only exploiting manpower, but also thoughts and feelings - mindpower. It does not seem to be enough to work for the company. The aspirations of many companies are higher. The employees are also encouraged to think and feel in line with the company and to be loyal to its purpose and actions, and it is in this perspective that the concept of culture has come to play an important rule.

7.1.4 Cultural Compatibility Maybe the oldest and most apparent argument in favour of a cultural perspective of organizations comes from the need to assess the cultural compatibility of organizations. To merge two organizations, to close down

7.1 The Need for a Cultural Approach to Management

143

a plant or not, to move operations from one country to another, to acquire an organization or not are all examples of decisions where organizations need to be assessed as whole, on-going entities populated by human beings of flesh and blood and not just as instrumental constructions around more or less abstract business opportunities. The problem of cultural compatibility has been addressed in many ways, e. g. as "cultural constraints on the transfer of technology across nations" (Kedia/Bhagat 1988), as acculturation in mergers and acquisitions (Nahavandi/Malekzadeh 1988) and, maybe above all, in a large number of studies of cross cultural management, dealing, for example, with the possibility of applying a Western management framework on a country in the Far East. Due to rapid internationalization, interest in cross cultural issues has increased drastically. Even though there seems to be a more or less sharp dividing line between studies of organizational culture and studies of national cultures, recent developments indicate an interest in closing the gap between the two main areas. The main controversy, and the key issue around which much of the debate turns, seems to be whether the corporate culture or the national culture tends to dominate the structuring and performance of an organization. While proponents of the corporate culture perspective argue for corporate determinism, i. e. that corporate norms and values dominate national cultural patterns at the organizational level, others claim national determinism, i. e. the relative strength of national cultural patterns over corporate value patterns and belief structures (e. g. Hofstede 1980; Laurent 1985 a). Others, finally, argue that the solution to this dilemma is what is often referred to as "cultural synergy", i. e. to take the best of national and corporate culture and blend it into a mix that is unique for the company and country in question (Adler 1980). Closely related to the national culture issue is the question of cultural mergers, i. e. the process of linking two corporate cultures to each other, as happens in mergers, acquisitions, takeovers, etc. (e. g. Dahlgren/Witt 1988). In fact, a quick review of the popular literature reveals that this is one of the instances when the culture of a company is most frequently referred to. There is also an emerging number of studies of "the human side" of mergers and acquisitions, in which the culture concept is one of the main concepts used to grasp what happens in the merger-transition period (Buono/Bowditch 1989).

144

7 Managing Organizational Cultures

A number of methods have been developed to diagnose corporate cultures, such as Kilmann's "culture gap survey" (1982), Edgren's (1990) "commando model", De Marco's (1984) value analysis based on the corporate history and Laurent's (1985 b) metaphoric analysis, and they might be of particular relevance in facilitating decisions about mergers and acquisitions.

7.1.5 Expressing Strategy - Corporate Identity, Profile and Image The instrumental use of organizational culture can be seen in many other ways, e. g. its impact on strategy (Kilmann 1982), its relation to innovation (Feldman 1988), its close relation to technology (Berg 1985 b), its relation to creativity (Vedin 1985) and organization change (Wilkins 1989). It has also been assumed that a strategic paradigm, based on corporate culture activities, would be the salvation for many of the problems which are haunting industry today. "Culture change", for example, is considered a solution to the efficiency and service level problems in the public sector (at least in Scandinavia). Cultural (or identity) awareness is also used as a means of increasing the "service-mindedness" among the first line employees, and internal marketing activities are assumed to increase the commitment and motivation of the organization members on various levels. The last, and maybe most evident, argument advanced is that culture can be used to express previously neglected competitive dimensions of an organization. This is reflected in the replacement of "culture" by similar but more instrumental concepts, such as corporate identity, character and profile. These competitive advantages include among other things the company's identity, its strategic profile and its image, i.e. the overall imprint that the company has left on its internal (identity) and external (image) audiences. It is, in fact, argued that a powerful culture, fraught with expressive events and symbols, could be used to market the organization, its products and services to customers and clients, assuming that the culture contains a number of "soft" characteristics of the organization which are crucial to what is offered and delivered but difficult to communicate in traditional sales terms. Some examples are servicemindedness, reliability, status/prestige, overall quality and customer orientation. With this perspective, the culture can be seen as an expression of the corporate strategy in which the

7.1 The Need for a Cultural Approach to Management

145

idiosyncrasy of the organization becomes a key element in the corporate profile. It has, in fact, been argued that the introduction of the corporate culture concept has led to a "new management paradigm" based on strategic management (business policy), the implementation of strategic decisions (organizational behaviour) and, finally, external market relations (marketing). Corporate identity is the concept that the marketing professionals use to capture the visible manifestations of the organizational culture. It is essentially considered a collective property, a commonly shared understanding of what the organization stands for and how it should operate (see for example Olins 1989). A strategic advantage of the corporate identity concept which is often pointed out is that it is linked to the historical dimension of the organization. This dimension is often neglected in the synchronically oriented strategy-structure discussions that seem to characterize mainstream strategic thinking. Another important advantage seems to be that the identity concept has strong links to "individuation", i. e. the process by means of which a social system develops its potential and reaches qualitatively higher levels of functioning. This is particularly important in that one well-recognized disadvantage of the present strategic paradigm is its lack of qualitative appreciation for corporate functioning (most strategic models focus on strength and growth rather than on the somewhat imprecise quality of "excellence"). Another way in which the culture perspective is introduced into managerial thinking is through the concept of corporate profile. The profile of the company incorporates the conscious attempts of the management to support certain aspects of the corporate identity. In developing the profile, the company draws attention to particular aspects of its identity that are considered to be important for its existence and legitimization in society at large. Compared with the traditional strategy concept, the profile includes not only the business philosophy (and business logics) but also the management philosophy of the company. The corporate image, finally, is introduced as a way of capturing an audience's perception of a company (Bernstein 1984). It is assumed that successful efforts to affect the company profile also will have an impact on the company's image. However, the image is often different from the profile that the company tries to project on the outside world. It is not only a distorted projection but also a contextually loaded image, a

146

7 Managing Organizational Cultures

metaphor, which has borrowed properties from other companies in the same industry or from unintended public exposures, scandals, hero or success stories, etc. Again, when we speak about corporate image, we refer to the symbolic construction made by an external audience (Normann 1985). Maybe the extensive use of the image concept in contemporary writings and practices reflects an increased awareness of the symbolic dimension of organizational environments. This then holds the future promise of not treating environments as passive projective screens only, but rather as consisting of active symbol-processing audiences.

7.1.6 Comments on the Context for the Practical Need for a Cultural Approach In the sections above a number of arguments have been advanced in favour of a "cultural approach" to management. However, the arguments used to support these assumptions of a close link between culture and performance are basically weak and empirically unsupported. The main argument seems to be that culture serves as a unifying force in the organization or that it creates a particularly advantageous organization environment in which human resources are better utilized. However, there is no clear "scientific support" for a strong correlation between culture and performance, although there seem to be some indications of a significant relation between culture and employee satisfaction. (In chapter 9, we will more thoroughly discuss the link between organizational culture and performance.) Thus we need to look also for other explanations of the managerial interest in culture. As suggested in chapter 2, the overall societal context can partly explain this development. Consultants, academics and other people in the wordselling business (Czarniawska-Joerges 1988b) have contributed to the fact that culture and symbolism were considered the overall "answer" to contemporary worries. However, we should not forget that there are other competing frameworks too, such as ideology, climate or social integration, which could have equally well inspired the proposed solutions, especially since these approaches are similar to the broad stream of solutions presently to be witnessed under the heading "culture". We will not repeat our sociology of knowledge-inspired analysis of the culture boom from chapter 2, but merely add some views in order to relate this analysis to the one of the present chapters, which is more practically oriented.

7.1 The Need for a Cultural Approach to Management

147

In many regards the efforts to manage corporate culture can be seen as a proactive strategy, where management puts forward its positions, exercising a more advanced and far-reaching influence over both the personnel and the market. (Whether this development is progressive or manipulative will be discussed in chapter 9.) Some of the reasons for stressing cultural themes in management are, however (as discussed in chapter 2), of a defensive nature, originating from problems in the development of work and companies during recent decades. The relationship of individuals to the business organizations for which they work has been loosened and their commitment to these organizations has declined as a result of all of the following developments: the growth in size of many businesses as well as the creation of divisionalized structures; the reduction in the skills required for a number of positions due to increased technological developments; the increased mobility of workers; the seeming arbitrariness of many personnel decisions; the increasing emphasis on personally expressive leisure time activities at the expense of work (Westley/ Bird 1989: 3).

Of course, this development makes the utilization of the workforce more difficult than before and hampers employee commitment. The increasing number of white-collar organizations and companies with a relatively high proportion of professionals in particular, also implies that symbolic manipulation is becoming more significant. The competitive advantage of a "strong culture", the benefits of cultural control and the value of culture when it comes to increasing commitment and exploiting human resources can be understood in this light. An interesting paradox emerges if we relate the assessment of cultural compatibility and the management of corporate identity, profile and image to the use of "culture" in personnel management. It is to some extent the turbulence in business, including a high frequency of mergers and acquisitions, the fragmentarization of companies (divisionalization and other forms of decentralization), changed work technologies (making man less attached to machines - as well as to the company) and various other structural changes during recent decades that account for loosening the ties between individuals and their organizations. The subsequent decrease in "natural" or "spontaneous" commitment will eventually lead to a need for managing the values, beliefs and feelings of the employees. Consequently, the same forces that trigger off a need for the assessment of cultural compatibility and the regulation of identity, profile and image, open up for the central role of managing culture in order to attain compel-

148

7 Managing Organizational Cultures

itive advantages, control and exploitation of human resources. In other words, changes in the economic structure contributes to make commitment precarious, thus making it a strategically significant "variable". Let us now leave the causes of and reasons for management's careful interest in culture and proceed to treat some aspects of the meaning of "managing culture".

7.2 How to "Manage" Cultures The large number of theoretical perspectives treated in chapter 6 have also important implications when it comes to "managing" organizational cultures, e. g. by means of cultural artifacts, beliefs and values, ideologies and shared fantasies. When it comes to the practical application of culture and symbolism, however, there seem to be two main approaches dominating the present debate: corporate culture management which tends to focus on the contingencies between corporate culture and various other aspects of corporate life, such as strategy, organization, leadership and technology - and symbolic management which tends to focus on the manipulation of "deeper" (and sometimes more superficial) symbolic layers of the organization, through artifacts, action symbols, etc. It should be noted that these two approaches each contains a number of the perspectives accounted for earlier in chapter 6. Corporate culture management can, of course, be equated with the corporate culture perspective, but also ideas from the other culture perspectives and corporate ideology are drawn upon (see chapter 6). The symbolic management is primarily containing ideas from the two symbolism perspectives, but to some extent also from the meaning constructionists. Although there are substantial overlaps, and the dividing line between the two perspectives treated here might be somewhat fuzzy ideas about application are less rigorous than "pure" theoretical perspectives - there are some fundamental differences between them which we will explore below.

7.2.1 Corporate Culture Management/Cultural Engineering According to the corporate culture perspectives, the culture as a culture (as a whole) - whether it is referred to as culture, clan, tribe or community

7.2 How to "Manage" Cultures

149

- can actually be managed! Thus, in its most simple form - as in most of the popular accounts of cultural change - the corporate culture perspective starts from the assumption that there is one culture in the organization that can be described, assessed (maybe even measured) and consciously managed. A quick review of the host of popular accounts of organization culture also reveals this "instrumentality" in perspective. Concepts such as corporate culture development, culture turn-arounds, merging corporate cultures, creating business cultures, how to create a strong organization culture, etc. all show a preoccupation with the purposive, rational aspects of the culture. The key problem is thus "moving a collective", be it a culture, a tribe, a clan or whatever, from one position to another to make it "fit" the particular strategic market or technical requirements the organization is facing or to "create" a climate that fosters certain attitudes and a desired behaviour. One of the main characteristics of this perspective is, in fact, to match strategy and culture. Subsequently, when the strategy deviates from the culture, this can be seen as a "cultural risk" (Schwartz/Davis 1981) that should be minimized or avoided, possibly by means of an elaborate corporate culture diagnosis (Kilmann et al. 1985). Thus one should not be surprised to find that the concept of "cultural engineering" is used in a somewhat pejorative way by critical organization scientists to denounce the possibility of manipulating a culture at will. Management of cultures is thus often described as "cultural engineering" (Berg 1985 a), "engineering values" (Martin/Meyerson 1986) or of manoeuvring the social system in a strictly neutral, rational and scientific sense (Brissy 1986). What above all characterizes this approach to "managing cultures" is that it presupposes a split between strategy and culture, thus focusing on the implementation of change, with little or no reference to the way in which change emerges as a result of the character of the culture. The culture is in this sense yet another variable - albeit covering a complex phenomenon in the organization equation, to be measured, manipulated and changed more or less at will. Although most proponents of corporate culture management realize that planned cultural change is a difficult project, they tend to be optimistic about it. This has been criticized by those authors who claim that culture is not a variable open to instrumental manipulation of the same type as structure or strategy (e.g. Smircich 1983 a) and that it

150

7 Managing Organizational Cultures

is impossible to separate culture from strategy (Berg 1985 a). As should be clear from chapter 6, the different views on this subject partly depend on the fact that the authors have somewhat different phenomena in mind. Another feature of the organizational culture perspective is that of "metamanagement". Rather than directly influencing the individual members of the organization (i.e. by issuing orders), management now becomes a question of creating (cultural) conditions for collective action. This is done by affecting values, beliefs, norms and other types of collective cognitive structures and, through these, developmental frameworks and third order control systems. The assumption is here that dominant groups within the organization develop powerful symbols, with the help of which they can control or manipulate the organization or the context in which it exists (e.g. by means of language, categorizations or "sacred" objects). This manipulative or seductive aspect of managing culture is probably partly giving rise to the increasing criticism of the use of the corporate culture metaphor in organizations. Here we have the principal reason why the labour unions have been "cold" in their reception of the corporate culture concept (see also chapter 9). Nevertheless, it is quite possible that it is exactly this persuasive power of the symbols and metaphors embedded in a culture that accounts for the rapid adoption of the culture concept among practitioners. The current debate has also acknowledged the manipulation-efficiency dilemma and the present stand-point seems to be to stress that the manipulation of corporate cultures has to be an "open and visible process" following clear ethical rules. (In the reader Organizational Culture by Frost et al. (1985), three out of twenty-two articles deal with ethics!) The cultural management perspective also stresses the need for diagnostic tools. From the beginning corporate cultures were diagnosed in order to get a quick and impressionistic account of what characterized a particular culture, e. g. in relation to other cultures (Deal/Kennedy 1982), in relation to national cultures (Laurent 1985 a), as a reflection of internal value systems and shared visions (Wilkins 1989) or just as an impressionistic account of the corporate soul (Edgren 1990). Recent developments within the cultural engineering traditions, however, have changed the conception of culture, and the question at the moment seems to be not one of "assessing" but actually one of "measuring" a culture. Today many proponents of the cultural engineering perspective actually claim that the corporate culture could be "objectively" determined with the help of more or less elaborate quantitative scales and instruments. These measures are later

7.2 How to "Manage" Cultures

151

used in the diagnosis of the organization with the help of more or less absolute scales. This is evidently an attempt to give an impression of rigour and credibility and to make believable that by replacing perceptions and interpretations with numbers that can be processed, scientific rigour and accuracy will increase! Many authors in the "cultural engineering" tradition also tend to reduce culture to concepts that are supposedly easier to handle, e. g. "basic values" (Peters/Waterman 1982), "shared understandings" (Sathe 1985), "normative systems" (Silverzweig/Allen 1976), and "norms" (Allen 1985; Kilmann 1982, 1985). This tactic involves both advantages and theoretical problems. The great benefit here is that the culture concept is cut down in size and clearly demarcated. Expecially in relation to managerial practice this might be wise. The problem is that the narrow concepts suggested above give little guidance how to change the culture as a whole. Another problem according to Meek (1989: 469) is that: There has been a tendency for some researchers to treat organizational culture as a 'variable' that can be controlled and manipulated like any other organizational variable. Culture as a whole cannot be manipulated, turned on and off, although it needs to be recognized that some are in a better position than others to attempt to intentionally influence aspects of it. The tendency to assume otherwise results, at least in part, from the selective way in which the concept of culture has been borrowed from anthropology and sociology. The basis of the argument presented in this paper is that culture should be regarded as something that an organization 'is', not as something that an organization 'has': It is not an independent variable, nor can it be created, discovered or destroyed by the whims of management.

As the holistic perspective of organizations is one of the major advantages of the cultural approach, such a "reduction" of the whole drastically diminishes the value of the approach as such. Our own position is that the exploration of "cultural change" in organizations should use an approach that takes corporate culture concepts seriously rather than reducing them to the scope of traditional organizational behaviour variables. The theoretical and ethical problems involved in the corporate culture perspective should, however, not lead to a rejection of the possibility of "managing" cultures or to a dismissal of the perspective as theoretically useless. Probably the concrete social constructions created by happy cultural engineers can teach us more about the problems and possibilities of cultural change in organizations than the most elaborate theoretical analysis using more sophisticated perspectives. Because, after all, the cultural

152

7 Managing Organizational Cultures

engineers try to bring about change, and the best way to learn about reality is to try to change it.

7.2.2 Symbolic Management The other main perspective used in the management of organizational cultures is often referred to as "symbolic management" (Berg 1986). What is managed here is not the culture per se but symbols connected with a cultural context. Thus, symbolic management, as opposed to the corporate culture perspective, does not presuppose the existence of a unitary culture, but can be applied to a wide range of organizational phenomena with no or little connection with the culture metaphor (cf. the symbolism convention in chapter 6). In fact, the practical utilization of the symbolism perspective entices a number of managerial fields, such as organization change and development, business policy and strategic management, corporate communication and human resource management. The symbolic management perspective does not presume that organizations necessarily have a culture, and certainly not a unitary culture. What is of interest are symbols and symbolic patterns at different levels of the organization. These symbols give meaning to the organization and its activities as well as to the environment (context) in which the organization operates. The interest is here focused on understanding the structure of the symbolic patterns that rule the organization's actions and perception of reality and on conveying meanings with the help of symbols. Symbolic management thus becomes a "management of meaning", i. e. a coding of the corporate reality in a way that the significance of particular activities and events will appear, through the use of symbols. Some authors even claim that it is in this meaning-constructing aspect only that management matters (Pfeffer 1981 a). In the literature this is expressed in concepts such as "changing meaning patters", "refraining social realities" and "creating collective imagery". The essential task of a manager is considered to be creating and managing unifying symbols that give meaning to the organization members and impel them to take action according to the overall strategy of the company. Thus, management in the symbolic management perspective is not essentially a question of changing either "structures" (whether they are formal or normative) and processes, or tasks and relationships. Its concern is rather the mental or symbolic fabric that constitutes the reality in/of the

7.2 How to "Manage" Cultures

153

organization. In this view, organizations are seen as "living metaphors", i.e. symbolic fields maintained and changed by symbolic operations and guided by ethos. Proponents of the symbolic management approach also use the culture concept sparingly, and when they do, they do not assume that culture is something easily observed or assessed or "objectively" measurable. They rather claim that it is important to translate or "interpret" the "experience" of the organization. The advocates of the symbolic management perspective have also a much humbler view of the possibilities of changing and controlling organization cultures (e.g. Smircich 1985). The issue is, thus, to understand the "meaning" of a planning meeting, a greeting ceremony, jargon, jokes, etc. To do this, it is necessary to dig deeper and to use different methods than we are used to in the organization sciences. The culture is experienced as much with the "heart" and "stomach" as it is sensed by the mind (Berg 1987). Thus, if one tries to "measure" corporate culture with the help of traditional quantitative "measures", the results are often superficial, not leading to any deeper understanding of the phenomenon as such. Having no direct access to the culture, the basic idea is to develop a methodology which is rich enough to capture the essential elements in this culture in a way that conveys to us a sense of what it is all about. Another important characteristic of the symbolic management approach is the assumption that symbols will more likely facilitate the communication of complex or difficult interrelationships. By communicating with the help of symbols and imagery, even complex corporate phenomena can be made understandable. In fact, the real advantage of symbolic management is that it makes it easier for the environment to become a part of the corporate sphere of interest. Conscious management of symbolic resources might also imply the matching of cultural traits with the image needed to perform a difficult task. Finally, according to the symbolic management perspective the manager's ability to create and convey a powerful and uniting symbolic representation of the company, its mission and the context in which it exists, is as important as his rational decision-making capability. To manage "valuedriven" organizations requires an "art" of management, while controldriven organizations need managerial engineers or bureaucrats. (With control we thus refer to its traditional conceptualizations and not to cultural or symbolic control.) Beck and Moore (1983) support this statement

154

7 Managing Organizational Cultures

in a study of high-performing Canadian bank managers. Their study shows that there is a clear link between managerial performance and the quality of the imagery managers use. The view of the manager as an "artist", operating with various kinds of symbolic representations to interpret a complex world and to convey powerful messages, is also supported by Pfeffer's (1981 a) arguments that management matters most when it comes to creating sentiments, beliefs, attitudes and commitment of the organizational participants.

7.3 Brief Summary We have now discussed the differences between two practically oriented approaches to management informed by the cultural and symbolic perspectives. To sum up, the corporate culture version "singles" out culture as a specific area for influence, while symbolic management tends to emphasize the symbolism and meaning aspects in all areas of management. The "singling" out of corporate culture means that it is treated as a variable, covering not too "deep" aspects of organizational reality. Management of symbolism, on the other hand, may also be targeted at the explicit level ("open doors") but may as well concern the deeper aspects of strategies and technologies, i.e. manipulating cultural meanings where it is not expected. In the next chapter we will closely examine symbolic management in practice. In the concluding section of the chapter we return to the corporate culture view on management in a summarizing evaluation of its practical contributions.

8 Symbolic Management

The aim of this chapter is to take a closer look at how the culture and - in particular - symbolism concepts have been applied to some areas of management. At the end of the chapter we will argue that symbolic management allows us to deal with strategies, markets, and human resources simultaneously. This means the identification of symbolic resources inside or outside the organization or the creation of "new" symbolic resources, the internal development and utilization of these resources and, finally, the external use of these resources in relation to the environment.

8.1 Management from a Symbolic Perspective We have already indicated that culture and symbolism have been rapidly adopted concepts in many managerial fields, e. g. strategy, technology and information, and the list of possible application areas could be made much longer. As it is not possible for us to discuss the full range of management practices, we have selected some fields where the influence of culture and symbolism has been particularly strong, i.e. strategic management, human resource management, corporate communication, organization change and development. We are also well aware of the fact that within each of the managerial fields we screen, there are other possible applications of the cultural and symbolic perspective(s). However, our intention here is to illustrate the applicability of the concepts, not to give a full account of their implications and use.

156

8 Symbolic Management

8.1.1 Strategic Management Strategic management is probably the managerial field most influenced by the culture metaphor and the symbolism perspective. To start with, the concept of environment becomes somewhat of a problem when a symbolic perspective is applied. It is evident that the traditional market, domain, and niche concepts will no longer adequately cover the "symbolic" character of the organization-environment interface. In business policy, environments are also increasingly treated as "contexts" (e. g. Whipp et al. 1987; Quinn et al. 1988) and business "concepts" are today used to capture the strong ideational links between a particular segment of the market, a product (or brand) and a custom-made delivery system. It is also evident that the concepts of structure and strategy no longer sufficiently capture the symbolic character of the strategic change process. Neither is it adequate to add culture as a third element to the structurestrategy formula. The structure that counts, in this perspective, is not the physical, administrative or authority structure described in an organization chart or in plant outlines, but the collective mental structures existing in the mind of the organization's members - the symbolic field. In the same way, the strategy in a symbolic perspective becomes nothing but a conscious formulation of (a part of) the underlying corporate myth. A strategy is not seen as a plan but as a collective image that can be acted upon (e. g. Broms/Gahmberg 1983). For a long time we have been aware that organizations create their own environments (Starbuck 1976), but we have not been very successful in showing how. What is suggested is that this takes place by means of "contextual re-definitions", i.e. that the organization re-defines the domain or niche in which it exists. This could explain why some organizations experience changes in the environment as a serious threat, whereas others (in the same industry) might perceive them as golden opportunities. As a result, rather than speaking of environments, the research community has to an increased degree chosen to speak of contexts. The contexts are "the parts of an environment that surround an organization and give meaning to its character and action" (Berg/Gagliardi 1985: 6). The context is the "framing" of the company, and the problem of strategic change becomes mainly a question of reframing (Davis 1982), of creating a different context. "Contextual dependency" essentially means that the view of

8.1 Management from a Symbolic Perspective

157

the organization and what it stands for (its mission and vision), its identity (its character and properties), is dependent on the context in which it is seen. If, for example, a company moves from a national to an international context, the national-cultural character of the company (which previously was completely neglected) will be of utmost importance. Thus, a focal issue is that of contextual choice, the conscious construction and/or selection of the background against which the company projects its strategic profile. This does not mean that environmental restrictions can be defined away, but rather that the mission and vision of the company may be seen in another light when changing the context. Consider the traditional example of the company that changed its purpose from making watches (a product) to measuring time (function). Such a re-definition of the context in which one exists, from the watch-producing to the time-measuring business, will have a profound impact not only on the way in which the company structures or segments the market (moving into all types of time-measuring businesses as the space industry, laboratory equipment, etc.), but also in terms of the products that are created.

8.1.2 Human Resource Management The interest in corporate cultures can also be seen as an indication of the importance assigned to the strategic management of human resources. In this perspective organizational culture can be seen as a useful way of describing the collective characteristics of human resources (e. g. in terms of patterned behaviour, underlying value and belief structures or human artifacts). Another way of expressing this is that management of human resources in a strategic perspective is essentially the strategic "framing" of corporate cultures. This is close to what Vaill (1982) has called "the purposing" of an organization. The more distinct or "stronger" the culture, the more cogent the symbolic field of the organization and the easier for the corporate members to orient themselves and to model their behaviour in a, for the company, desired direction. Whereas management of human resources previously basically was a question of personnel planning and control of work — to get the maximum amount of manpower out of the employees - it is today to a higher degree a question of increasing the strategic corporate competence and competitive power by mobilizing and exploiting the full range of human potential,

158

8 Symbolic Management

including man- and mindpower as well as enthusiasm and creativity. In reviewing recent contributions in the popular management press, it is also obvious that it is not only the amount of work produced by an employee or the skills involved in performing a task that have to be taken into account today, but also his commitment and loyalty to the company and, finally, his overall contribution to the company's ideas and goals. These aspects are central at least in the modern sectors of the economy, such as technologically advanced companies. To put it bluntly, this development indicates that it is no longer enough for the employee to perform tasks or obey orders, but he has to "believe" in the company and what it stands for and "feel" for what he is doing. This movement from bureaucratic or technical control to value-driven organizations (or from man- to mind-powered organizations) shows that not only is a more complex view of man emerging, but also a shift from the individual to the collective level of management. Thus, the challenge is how to strategically manage collectives as compared to managing individuals or other types of corporate resources. It is in this perspective that the corporate culture and organizational symbolism perspectives have become important. To start with, corporate culture provides a valuable metaphor by means of which it is possible to capture the deeper characteristics and underlying qualities of the human resources as a whole. Thus, it helps management to put words on what it wants to attain with training and development programmes and what it wants to accomplish with its elaborate recruiting systems and socialization procedures. However, the culture and symbolism concepts have not only been important in terms of the structuring of the human resources in the company but maybe even more when it comes to the mobilization of personnel. To mobilize human resources essentially implies that the organization consciously attempts to inspire and incite its work-force by means of training programmes, market or product compaigns, etc., in order to commit and strategically focus its actions, and to position itself in accordance with the overall corporate strategy. Task-forces or ad-hoc groups, set up by companies to look into and plan for the future, are interesting examples of corporate mobilization projects. General Motors' Saturn project, with more than 99 people from different levels of the organization, constituted a team to look into the future mission, strategy and organization. Raspa (1986:7) writes:

8.1 Management from a Symbolic Perspective

159

They played, "Let's pretend we have all the money and time needed to create the ideal organization, and let's also pretend that we are all equal." Composed of forty-four United Auto Workers (UAW) and fifty-five salaried and managerial employees who made up the seven sub-committees, the Committee of 99 journeyed over two million miles investing 50000 hours of work to discover the perfect corporation. From February to May of 1984, they travelled together, lived together, and operated on a concept of shifting leadership. To find out how the Saturn Corporation should be organized, they went wherever they wished all over the world and talked to whomever they pleased or could get into see.

One can argue that the imagery that emerges from such a collective discourse is more powerful and contains more meaning than prefabricated images or structures, regardless of their aesthetic, emotional or cognitive qualities.

8.1.3 Corporate Communication Berg/Gagliardi (1985: 9) have claimed that: Corporate communication can be seen as an externally oriented, corporate expressive strategy, through which the organization lets itself be known to the outside world by depicting itself (or certain aspects of itself) or by delineating opinions, values and beliefs that are considered desirable.

This definition indicates that corporate communication is not only a question of marketing products and services but also a question of building a "corporate image" in order to increase the organization's attractiveness to customers as well as its legitimacy in society. Essentially, the "image" of the organization is, as treated in chapter 7, "the holistic and vivid impression of a company, held in common by a group and expressing and orienting their basic feelings and attitudes towards the company" (Berg/Gagliardi 1985: 13). Managing images thus means the "fabrication of public impressions" (Bernstein 1984: 13) in order to support strategic action. Images are thus symbols organized in patterns. Where a symbol stands for the linking together of meanings and their representations, the image stands for the outcome of the symbolization process in the form of a vivid, complex representation of an object, person or other type of more concrete phenomenon.

160

8 Symbolic Management

Other attempts to capture the essence of the "image" is to describe it as the "corporate aura" (Kreiner/Christensen 1986) or as a "placebo effect" - both conceptions indicating the character and potential power of the total corporate impression. The power of such "holistic" impressions is that they respond to man's built-in tendency to form and comprehend complex, condensed, emotionally as well as aesthetically loaded "Gestalten" of reality. Several authors have claimed that influencing people's images is a potent way to increase the control on the environment. Normann (1985), for example, notes that images are mental models that guide behaviour regardless of to what extent it represents reality. Obviously, corporate communication is one of the management areas most influenced by the corporate culture and symbolism perspectives. Communication is not only the main tool through which management can impart the core character of an organization to external audiences, but it is also an important element in developing and maintaining a sense of identity inside the organization. The increased emphasis on corporate identity as a basis for the communication of important messages to the markets as well as to the members of the organization is shown in the following statement from a Volvo corporate vice president (quoted from a presentation made by Blanking Advertising Agency in Sweden): At the corporate board meetings today, the issues dealt with are investments, corporate identity, strategic management and executive recruitment.

This can be expressed in a similar way with an argument taken from a periodical discussing the present role of advertising agencies. What makes today's development so interesting is that it goes beyond the advertising world. The advertising has stepped one step up the hierarchy, and the advertising agency is by now welcome also in the boardroom (Euroworld 1985: 38).

Let us start with the first aspect, i. e. how organizations use corporate communication externally. Recently a host of books on this subject have cropped up, predominantly on corporate advertising (see Garbett (1981) for a full account of this concept). The main purpose seems to be to "sell the soul of the company" (Göranson 1984), i. e. to influence the image of the company held by a given audience (Bernstein 1984). Thus, the art in

8.1 Management from a Symbolic Perspective

161

corporate advertising is to find a catchy and accurate way of capturing the corporate personality (Olins 1978) or identity (Olins 1989). Corporate advertising is, however, not the only tool used in corporate communication. Another example is the visual corporate identity programmes developed by many companies, i.e. the attempt at unifying the graphic corporate expressions in the form of logotypes, trademarks and colour schemes on plants and equipment (Bernstein 1984; Napoles 1988). In this case a unified visual appearance is assumed to strengthen the overall impression that the company gives to the outside, at the same time as giving a feeling of unity and identity to those inside the organization. A more particular type of market communication is when, through corporate design, the company uses the physical artifacts to convey the very essence of the company - its culture - to the customers (Gagliardi 1990b). It is interesting to note that recent developments within the design field have come to stress the close link between corporate culture and the design of products and services. Even the most solid of all corporate artifacts - the buildings - have been used to express the corporate culture and strategy (Berg/Kreiner 1990). To sum up, corporate communications are, to an increasing extent, using cultural features of the organization in their external communication. It might well be true that "companies today do not sell products and services - they sell themselves"! The other main aspect of corporate communication deals with the impact corporate expressions have on the human resources inside the organization (its identity). The company's attempt to symbolically frame the context of its activities can, thus, be seen as an indirect but potentially very efficient way of influencing the human resources in the company. By producing a cogent image, the company evokes a specific reaction in the environment, forcing the members to act in a certain way (Boulding 1956: 68). In fact, producing a directed or even "partly false" image might also be one way of purposely changing corporate behaviour. Normann (1985: 73), for example, writes as follows: In certain circumstances management may choose to create a deliberate mismatch between reality and image, in the hope that a strongly projected image will actually create behaviour of such a kind that reality is re-shaped. This is a dangerous strategy which is often used in the wrong way; but we have also seen it being used creatively by skilful and innovative managers.

162

8 Symbolic Management

A good example is SAS (the Scandinavian Airlines System) which early on in the change process launched a major corporate advertisement campaign to back up the changing behaviour of the personnel. Another example is the director of a business school who said: I always give the outside a picture of the school as I want it to be rather than as it is. In this way the pressure will build up from inside to conform with the expectations from outside. Thus, I don't have to push them, but just sit there and wait for my future to be realized.

However, as Schneider and Powley (1986: 17) state in their account of AT & T (American Telephone & Telegraph): There remains however the lurking suspicion that although behaviour may change in terms of performance at the individual as well as organizational level, changes in culture still need to be demonstrated. Changing images is most likely important but not sufficient.

The stronger the corporate image, the more willing the context to "attribute patterned meanings to the corporate behaviour in spite of deviant individual behaviour of members" (Berg/Gagliardi 1985: 17). Thus, the corporate image, i. e. the outcome of the expressive strategy, is a powerful coercive device. The projection of the image on the public is also a source of "pride" to the employee, i. e. the way the company is seen and recognized in the outside world will foster cohesion and commitment inside the organization. Corporate pride is essentially a positive feeling, often connected with loyalty and commitment. It is also a foundation of defensive action, i.e. the company is worth defending when questioned or attacked by outsiders. Companies attempt to increase this "corporate pride", e.g. by means of producing and distributing gadgets with the company name, logo, colours, etc. These appear as decalcomanias on cars, logos printed on jogging suits, badges, cuff links, pencils, pins, etc. Corporate pride also seems to be particularly strong in companies which have experienced and survived difficult situations or turn-arounds, i. e. when the personnel has experienced hardship together and come out on the other side. A particular form of highly symbolically loaded communication is internal marketing, the communication the company has with its employees in order to increase business or market consciousness, motivation, and loyalty at all levels of the organization. Arndt and Friman (1983: 53), for

8.1 Management from a Symbolic Perspective

163

example, postulate that the emphasis of internal marketing is to "mobilize the human resources in the organization in order to improve the external marketing and the strategic adaptation". This is accomplished in various ways, e. g. by the distribution of pamphlets containing the "basic business values" of the company, production and discussions of video tapes on the corporate mission, large sales or personnel meetings. In a way internal marketing is one of the more important tools for the internal legitimation of strategic actions. By framing the strategic choices made, i.e. by outlining the threats (e.g. from technology) or by marking out the territory (by market segmentation), the work-force is mobilized and the company's actions become legitimate. By "framing" the company and its context, and by communicating the mission to the employees, a framework for action is created. Internal marketing is also aimed at creating a sense of cohesion - "we belong to the same tribe" - having the same totem and the same basic values. This "totemistic" aspect can be very dangerous, however, as it might create a "false" boundary not only between the organization and its environment, but also between different groups inside the company (Moscovici 1981). Strategic marketing inside the organization can also be seen as corporate propaganda - an attempt to influence the minds of the people by manipulating their perceptions of the world rather than by means of traditional reward systems, support structures and the like (Alvesson 1990; Martin/ Powers 1983 b). To sum up, the core of corporate communication is to create a strong and condensed image of the company that can be expressed to the public and imprinted on the context in which the organization chooses to exist. In this way, the organization is attempting to "frame" the context of its actions. The presentation of the image to the outside world clarifies corporate values and preferences and provides the members with a holistic view of the organization and its activities. To project an image to the outside world is thus an important part of the legitimation process of a company in a given context as well as an important source of corporate pride.

164

8 Symbolic Management

8.1.4 Organizational Change and Development It has been argued that theories of organizational change are essentially "different ways of describing theories of action in organizations, not different theories" (March 1981: 563). Thus, whether we look at theories of "natural" organizational change processes or of planned change, each of them are connected to a particular conception of organizations. A cultural or symbolic perspective in organizations will thus influence the way in which change and development are conceptualized and carried out. A substantial part of the interest in organizational culture and symbolism has also concerned corporate culture development issues (see, for example, the review by Strandgaard Pedersen 1989). A large number of articles, for example, have appeared in the daily and weekly press, using the concept of culture, cultural revolution or cultural change and development. However, there is a painful lack of theoretical reflection and depth in parts of the organizational culture literature that addresses planned cultural change. There are today few examples or studies of organizational change seen in the perspective of organizations as symbolic realities (an exception is Broms and Gahmberg (1979) who study the relation between strategic change and the underlying symbolic-mythological structure). This is surprising as many consulting organizations claim that they are involved in corporate culture change activities and as there is much talk of organizations having carried out "cultural revolutions". In many cases the corporate culture development concept has also come to replace that of OD or strategic management without any significant change in the content of the programmes or their underlying theories. If organizational change is studied in a traditional strategic management perspective, the major question in the strategy/structure/culture relationship will concern the fit between these variables, and the culture will be reduced to basic values, norms, assumptions and the like. If, on the other hand, one starts from a symbolic perspective on organizations, the focal issue will be that of "transformation" - i. e. the way in which so-called instrumental aspects of a culture, such as the structure and strategy, are changed in form and/or content. In this perspective, the strategy and structure of the organization are seen as more or less conscious means of stressing certain aspects of corporate culture in a given business context and not as ends (instruments for attaining formal goals) in themselves.

8.1 Management from a Symbolic Perspective

165

Thus, the main argument advanced here is that organizational change can be seen as a symbolic transformation process whereby the form and/or content of the deeper symbolic patterns of the organizations are altered. It is then assumed that this alteration of symbolic patterns will give new meanings to corporate phenomena, thus leading to changed behaviour. In this perspective organizational change becomes an issue of redefinition (if it concerns the content of the symbolic field) or reframing (if it concerns the form of the field). By redefinition is meant a change in the meaning assigned to concepts, objects, categories and historical persons, as well as the introduction of new symbols, without changing the form of the overall symbolic field. By reframing is meant "a change in the conceptual and/or emotional setting or viewpoint in relation to which a situation is experienced, and the placing of it in another frame that fits the facts of the same concrete situation equally well or even better and thereby changes its entire meaning" (Watzlawick et al. 1974). A change programme can also been seen as a symbolic operation of a highly ritualistic character. If correctly performed it is a "rite of renewal" by which the organization attempts to gain insight into the very reasons for its existence and to collectively reaffirm or renew itself (Berg 1983). By introducing the concept of rites of renewal, three factors in the strategic process are emphasized. The first is the collective character of the activity. A significant rite is always a collective process, an activity in which a number of people participate simultaneously. If strategic change, when seen in a symbolic perspective, essentially calls for a change in shared images (or symbols), then involving collective processes is a necessary step for such change. Thus it is a collectively performed undertaking in which members from different parts of an organization can participate. The second factor is an emphasis on the strong link between what emerges from the change process and the identity of the organization. A rite of renewal is thus founded at the very core of the company, and the resulting strategy is expressed as root values or basic beliefs rather than as operationalized plans for actions. The third point is that the rite is not a simple forecasting process but an undertaking that questions the corporate mission and vision. Thus the rite also challenges the social and political system in a company. The outcome of a rite cannot be entirely predicted, and a serious strategic change programme is therefore an exploration of the unknown, where traditional frameworks and maps do not suffice.

166

8 Symbolic Management

However, it should be noted that many authors (e. g. Berg 1985 a; Collin 1987; Fitzgerald 1988; Meek 1989) seriously question the possibility of influencing a deep-rooted organizational culture.

8.2 The Symbolic Management Paradigm In the previous section of this chapter we have tried to show that taking the culture concept seriously implies a questioning of many of the traditional managerial concepts, and not just adding the corporate culture concept as yet another variable in the organization equation. Let us now try to elicit some of the underlying assumptions upon which the symbolic management "paradigm" rests and the principles of symbolic management that gradually have emerged.

8.2.1 Utilizing Symbolic Resources At the core of this new management paradigm seems to be the opportunity to develop and utilize symbolic resources in order to accomplish a strategic integration of the corporate identity (i. e. the qualitative and the collective aspects of human resources), the profile (the conscious attempt to strategically outline and express the corporate policies) and the image of the company (the cogent imprint of the company on a particular section of the outside world). Thus the major argument advanced here is that there are indications that companies attempt to manage with the help of symbolic resources in order to frame the collective reality inside as well as outside the organization. Symbolic resources are here seen as symbols, metaphors, concepts, and images which in a condensed form represent complex organizational phenomena that may elicit and guide corporate strategic action. The management of symbolic resources essentially implies finding and strengthening the most effective distribution of meaning and action patterns in the organization to support the overall corporate mission. Thus, the emphasis is here on identifying, developing, and utilizing symbolic representations of reality to guide the collective action of the members. One important point here is that symbolic resources have no "factual" or substantial value in themselves; rather, their value is a matter of meaning.

8.2 The Symbolic Management Paradigm

167

Thus, when we are talking about symbolic resources in any form, we do not only refer to available means or sources of support, but also to a definite additional component - something not previously utilized. Particularly interesting with the symbolic resources is that they are highly generative. They can be used to reframe markets, to mobilize employees and to define business opportunities. Whereas most other types of resources have a value which is fairly easy to establish on a market, symbolic resources are difficult to appreciate and are not for sale on the market like goods and services, but are often referred to as "immaterial" assets. Not only have symbolic resources become more "strategically" important, but, above all, they are claimed to be more strategically potent than most other resources.

Human Resource Management

Figure 8.1: The figure (based on Berg 1984), illustrates recent developments as expressed in three fields of management. The three circles represent major strategic variables (as well as major fields of management studies). Rather than looking at the relation between strategy and structure or between markets and products, the new strategic paradigm postulates an integration of strategy, marketing activities and the management of human resources.

168

8 Symbolic Management

The above picture illustrates how the organization attempts to integrate the various fields of management by "marketing" its strategies, policies and culture to the outside world, increasing the business and market consciousness among its employees and mobilizing the human resources in the organization with the help of symbolic resources. 8.2.2 Principles of Symbolic Management What has been said above can have a strong impact on management thinking and managerial actions. We will now proceed to summarize four of the more important consequences in the form of slogans: You can't change a culture! (but you can facilitate a development of a company's identity). By definition, a corporate culture cannot be forced upon a collective, nor can it be controlled or manipulated at will. A true strategic change programme does not impose anything, but makes people aware of and illuminates certain aspects of the culture in which they exist. In this sense it is also a creative process; by bringing values, principles and different kinds of behaviour to the surface, and by providing people with a framework with which they can interpret what they see, a creative and emancipatory process is started. The step between emancipation and manipulation is, however, not a very long one. The basic difference lies in the quality of the dialogue that is created rather than in the content of the outcome. To interpret a culture requires a dialogue between different levels of an organization. A true dialogue, one in which the parties are really open, even if they are unable to predict what will come out of it, requires risk-taking and courage. It also requires an "opening" (as opposed to open) attitude, a will to go deep into a joint exploration of the company and what it stands for. Issues are smarter than people! This phrase captures the dilemma of strategic corporate culture development in a nutshell. Essentially it means that the corporate symbolic universe follows a logic of its own, maybe more powerful than the intentions of individual members or groups. By framing an issue in a particular way - for example by linking it to powerful symbols in the history of the organization - the collective logic gets activated and the development will follow its course. Thus, the obvious consequences for management will be to focus a lot of attention on formulating and framing strategic issues (rather than developing strategic plans), and to trust that the syntactic logic of these issues

8.3 The Added Value of Culture and Symbolism for Practice

169

will be interpreted and acted upon in a way that is consistent with the corporate culture. In other words, the strategic managerial emphasis will be changed from the management of the formal or objective parts of the organization to the management of meaning. Images are more potent than plans. As mentioned before, Beck and Moore (1983) have shown that there is a direct relationship between the quality of the imagery and managerial performance. This suggests that the manager who has the ability to think symbolically and to develop and use images to convey his or her thoughts will be more efficient than the one who lacks this ability. Strategic images are "broadband" conceptualizations of the future, whereas plans are narrower descriptions of how to get there. By leaving the way open, but by creating a powerful and corporately "grounded" image of a desired state, there are more opportunities for the creative search process to succeed. The image-creating ability is particularly important during periods of organizational change, when the members of a company need a concise sense of the direction in which to move. Manage the symbolic resources! We stated earlier that what is changed is actually the collective mental imagery rather than the political, economic or social structures. Thus, one consequence of strategic change is that the target of change is this mental imagery and the context in which it exists. In this view, strategic plans and new organizational structures are means by which this symbolic collective reframing takes place, and not ends in themselves. At the core of a successful strategic change process there seems to be a clear conception of what the organization is in relation to its wider context (its mission) and what it is aiming at (its vision). Thus the emphasis in strategic management is likely to change from managing people or money to managing "symbolic resources".

8.3 The Added Value of Culture and Symbolism for Practice The purpose of this section is to make an overall evaluation of the contribution of the corporate culture and symbolic management approaches to managerial practice. During the "culture boom" in the early 1980's the corporate culture approach was generally believed to become of great practical importance,

170

8 Symbolic Management

whereas its theoretical contribution was being somewhat questioned. However looking back and judging from the present situation and the immediate future, there is every reason to argue that things have gone in the opposite direction and that the practical implementation of the corporate culture concept (which should be distinguished from a symbolic approach) has been rather disappointing! At an early stage, it was argued that the idea of corporate culture would be of vital importance in connection with major organizational changes when, at the same time, a change of attitude on part of the personnel was desired. The international press bears evidence of these so-called cultural revolutions, e.g. at S AS (Scandinavia), Chrysler (USA), ICI (England) and at Italtel (Italy). However, a close analysis of these radical reorganizations shows not only that the culture influence was not salient but also that the development could actually be better explained by conventional strategic development and management theory. A brief analysis of five major cultural revolutions showed, for example, that in these five "successful" cases the president of the company and at least 10 percent of the board of directors had been replaced and that a great deal of importance had been attached to other types of strategic decisions, e. g. the change of products and market investigations.1 It could even be argued that the value of the culture concept in connection with organizational change is limited to explaining the resistance to change (e. g. Gagliardi 1986). The practical value of such an insight should not be underestimated, however, since a proper assessment of cultural inertia is of great importance before efforts to make strategic changes are made. There were also great expectations as to the culture concept being used as a diagnostic tool. However, the methods which were developed seem to have had rather limited practical use. Admittedly, these tools do give an amusing and sometimes well-informed picture of an organization - however, without offering any guidance how to act. However, what presents the biggest problem, in our view, are not the practical limitations of the culture concept but rather the exaggerated assumptions as to what can actually be done with a culture. We find it naive to believe that it would be possible to radically change a company's 1

These are comments made during a panel discussion at the ISTUD Conference on Creation and Change of Corporate Cultures in 1985 in Belgirate, Italy.

8.3 The Added Value of Culture and Symbolism for Practice

171

culture, which might have taken years to develop, by means of an organization development programme. Furthermore, many of those who claim that they work with corporate culture seem to take for granted that the company has only one culture often seen in a management perspective. We have seen too much washroom and bulletin board graffiti to believe that the management's perception of the world automatically would be shared by the rest of the organization members. To sum up, every promise of new methods and techniques to quickly diagnose and fundamentally change the character of an organization has therefore hardly been fulfilled. Thus, the question still remains whether a cultural approach may be used as a basis for farreaching changes. Applying a symbolic perspective on management issues seems to be a more promising track as it gives an opportunity to link strategy to marketing and human resource management. It is also in this theoretical perspective that we can find the foundation for many of the new strategic concepts that have been adopted by management. There are, however, good reasons to warn against too strong a faith also in symbolic management. If we accept Pfeffer's (1981 a) argument on the weak - or even absence of - link between symbolic management and substantive outcomes (such as profits), partly drawn on the resource dependency-ideas on the generally limited influence of management and leadership, then we must acknowledge that symbolic management mainly affects beliefs, values and sentiments, internally and externally, and has a much weaker and more ambiguous relation to behaviour patterns. We feel that Pfeffer stresses the argument a bit too far, but we still consider it to be a good reminder about the limits of symbolic management and a warning against omnipotent fantasies as to the impact of management. Another, more specific, aspect of relevance for putting the options of symbolic management in a proper perspective concerns the nature of symbolism. It is very difficult to exercise stable, lasting, predictable control through symbolic means. In order for symbolism to function, it must normally be backed up by substantive conditions, at least when it comes to personnel management. Symbols, if they are to guide organizations in their daily routines, must be reinforced by structures of communication and authority, as well as formal rules and regulations, rights and privileges. For enthusiasms to become long-term commitments, they must be grounded in satisfying jobs, decen-

172

8 Symbolic Management tralized organizations, and effective leadership patterns. And structures, if they are to motivate as well as restrict, must be mirrored in symbolic systems (Westley/Bird 1989: 31).

To put it another way, for symbolic management to be successful, it is necessary that the symbolic expressions of the organizations also take material and social forms that clearly support the meanings expressed by symbolism. Here we also have, of course, the criteria for an ethical exercise of symbolic management: The signals expressed are in harmony with actions and structures not primarily intended to affect beliefs and meanings. To conclude, in our view, the greatest practical importance of the corporate culture concept has been its legitimation of including "soft" variables in "hard" strategic analyses. Concepts as "cultural clashes" in connection with mergers, cultural development linked to organizational change or speaking of a company's identity and/or soul all bear witness of an emerging interest in soft data in support of decisions. However, we want to end this chapter by issuing a warning: The main problem closely linked to symbolic management is its proximity to covert manipulation or organization seduction (Lewicki 1981). Lewicki claims that there is a very diffuse borderline between the methods used to elicit commitment from the organization's members and what can be called organization seduction (the company's attempts to make the employee himself choose to act in a certain way, when in reality s/he has no other choice). In this sense symbolic management is close to covert manipulation where the top managers determine the character and degree of cultural or symbolic integrations and overall corporate ideology. Thus, modern managers have learned to operate and control the old "works-spirit" in a conscious way. It can also be argued that symbolic management is based on a "false" conception of reality. It operates through the creation of a pseudo-world which replaces the otherwise complex and confusing reality. This pseudo-world is, however, characterized by its separating the symbol from the substance, giving the symbolic a value in itself, quite apart from what it represents. The dangers inherent in these pseudorealities are clearly outlined by Boorstin (1980) in his account for pseudoevents in America. The central paradox - that the rise of images and of our power over the world blurs rather than sharpens the outlines of reality - permeates one after another area of our life (page 229).

8.3 The Added Value of Culture and Symbolism for Practice

173

Along with the blurring of knowledge, the multiplication and sharpening of images brings the blurring of our intentions and desires (page 232).

There are also strong indications that what we are experiencing today is the beginning of a rapid internationally growing symbolic pollution, where companies need stronger and stronger messages to be heard. This might soon lead to the creation of a pseudo-world in which there is a gap between the symbolic and the substantial, and in which symbolic reality is manufactured and consumed as any other commodity. We will further address this issue in the next chapter.

Part IV Discussions and Conclusions

9 The Current Debate

Like many other research approaches within organization theory, the culture field is sometimes the victim of violent attacks from the outside and internal debates between representatives of the various culture schools. In order to clarify the concepts employed, we have assembled, in the following, some of the arguments for and against the culture perspectives which have been introduced and some of the central discussion within the culture research field. The debate which we describe tends to be of an overall nature and is concerned with culture research in its entirety. This means that there is not much room for nuances. Furthermore, the criticism mainly applies to mainline culture research - especially the corporate culture school and the other directions within the culture convention, but also the symbolism perspectives - and is not greatly concerned with the variations which can be found in the less central orientations within the field (i. e. the conventions of the construction of meaning, ideology and psychodynamics). We have chosen to present the debate on the basis of seven themes which reflect the discussions which have been conducted. As far as possible, we wish to introduce the arguments against (some forms of) a culture and symbolism perspective as well as the arguments in support of the field. It should also be observed that the views which are referred to below are partly documented in written form (e.g. in the form of articles and other published scientific criticism) and partly based on discussions at scientific conferences, seminars and symposiums.

9.1 New Theoretical Contributions or Opportunistic Pop Research? In the long run, what determines the value of a theory or a model is its theoretical and practical usefulness. (However, the value of a theory should not be confused with its acceptance, nor should the theoretical and practical value of an accumulation of knowledge be confused.) Theoreti-

178

9 The Current Debate

cal usefulness is assessed on the basis of the theory's capacity to assemble, interpret and explain observations and, in addition, to generate new directions for knowledge and reflection. Practical usefulness is often assessed on the basis of the theory's capacity to provide directions for normative pronouncements on which principles for problem solving and actions can be founded (if we do this, this will happen). A weaker, and possibly more realistic thesis regarding possible practical utility is based on the idea that it is a matter of providing knowledge foundations for a comprehensive and perceptive understanding of conditions, situations and mechanisms which influence and can influence actors in organizations. Perhaps the culture approach has its greatest practical value if it contributes to actions which lead to planned changes in organizational cultures. (We expressed some doubts about this in chapter 8 and will deal with this issue further in the next section.) The majority of researchers base their argument for studying companies as cultures or for studying them from a culture perspective on the idea that "traditional organization theory does not agree with reality". Thus, a culture perspective can never be worse than the mess we have today! It is obvious that this negative line of argument is based on a deeply felt dissatisfaction with organization models that are more analytical, objectivistic and rationalist (Dandridge et al. 1980; Fine 1984; Frost et al. 1985; Louis 1981). The American "positivistic" organizational research tradition, based on the mechanical testing of hypotheses, has been in the firing line. (See also the discussion in chapter 2.) However, at a deeper level, criticism of traditional organization theory in the last decade, for example system theory and contingency theory (formulated, for instance, by Burrell/Morgan 1979; March/Olsen 1976; Perrow 1979; Pfeffer 1981 a; Silverman 1970) has fundamentally shaken our belief in what can be understood and achieved with traditional organization theory. The criticism of orthodox organization theory is primarily directed at three factors: The first item is the supposed rationality in organizations, where reality, in point of fact, is complex, ambiguous and relative and where various circumstances (e. g. historical, social, emotional and structural) interact. Ideas about the organization as an instrument for the realization of objectives have also been criticized of onesidedness and of denying the existence of conflict-filled views of reality and intentions. It is also claimed that the "subjective" collective features are of decisive importance in human action and thus in the functioning of

9.1 New Theoretical Contributions

179

organizations. Morgan (1986) observes, for example, that the culture metaphor focuses attention on the subjective meaning which the most rational aspects of the organization's structure and functioning also possess. Secondly, criticism is directed at the methodological and theoretical assumptions. There is a reaction against previously widespread ideas that organization research is likely to be best furthered by careful measurements and quantification of organizational phenomena. Methods which imitate the natural sciences are regarded, in this context, as inappropriate for pinning down social phenomena, and the application of concepts and metaphors borrowed from the natural sciences and technology (such as mechanics, systems, organisms and design) has also been criticized because, basically, they fail to comprehend the nature of organizations. Thirdly, more sensitive criticism is directed at the fact that the existing organization models need to be supplemented by theories which take emotionality, irrationality, ambiguity, etc. seriously and which can serve to bridge the gap between what is understood objectively and what is experienced subjectively. Today it is claimed that there is a theoretical noman's land between abstract expressions of thoughts (plan, structure, objectives, etc.) and actions (behaviour, execution, etc.) which cannot be explained by current models. This also means that the culture metaphor permits reinterpretation and rethinking of a considerable number of traditional management and control concepts and processes. Instead of capturing various types of management in terms of the styles of behaviour which they characterize, management can be understood as a way of defining meanings and the influence of pictures of reality. For example, democratic management is, in this view, regarded as a leadership influence which stimulates a method with broader support lower down in the hierarchy of giving meaning and significance to circumstances, issues and work processes (Morgan 1986). A further advantage, in Morgan's view, is that organizational change can be eliminated in a deeper and more multi-faceted manner. Traditionally, change and difficulties in achieving change have been regarded as a question of technology, structures, (in)ability, rigidity and motivation on the part of employees and managers. The culture concept also indicates the importance of deeper dimensions such as values, world views and fundamental ideas and definitions of what characterizes company operations and the functioning of social groups.

180

9 The Current Debate

Arguing against the idea that the culture perspective provides a superior basis for organizational change, compared with earlier views, several sceptical organization researchers, however, raise massive criticism, claiming that the culture approach to planned change is only a fashionable novelty, without any real substance. According to this line of approach, much of the current flood of culture books is only a dressing up of old concepts and theories in a more attractive linguistic clothing. It is striking how a considerable proportion of the basic models have been borrowed from organizational behaviour theory, organization development or marketing theory. Some of the "new" aspects can also be recognized in the institutional school and in other sociological studies of the 1940's and 1950's. Even in cases where the influence of previous approaches is clearly accounted for in organizational culture literature, it is, however, often a question of synthesis which has led to gaining some new knowledge. Culture researchers are criticized for being opportunists who jump on the bandwagon, or they are regarded as straws in the wind, blown along in the pursuit of new leadership or management models (cf. chapter 2). The "culture paradigm" is seen as a "fad" (Casmir 1992). As a counter to above arguments about the depth and realism of symbolism and culture research, there is the fact that it is difficult to find empirical evidence that the symbolism or culture approach is specifically better equipped than other approaches in dealing with the problem of supposed organizational rationality. There are also those who have claimed that the introduction of the culture approach has led to a trivialization of organizational research, where an analysis of fundamental economic, political and social patterns has been neglected in favour of studies of amusing but superficial folkloristic phenomena. However, this criticism is only valid to a limited extent. Despite the existence of a large number of studies focusing on jokes, stories and coffee-drinking rituals, culture and symbolism researchers have also studied highly important phenomena. Those who do argue that the culture perspective clears the way for new "broad band" research methods also cite the fact that there are not very many serious empirical studies of extensive organization phenomena ("whole cultures") in the culture research field. Many seem to feel that culture research places particularly high demands on depth and proximity in relation to the object of study (cf. Schein 1985; Smircich 1983 b). This means that considerable efforts are required, while at the same time the researcher's "subjectivity" in relation to the empirical object can hardly

9.1 New Theoretical Contributions

181

be hidden. The question of a close relationship between culture theory and empirical reality is difficult to prove. It is hardly possible to arrive at "objective" criteria which confirm the value of organizational culture research. However, it may be stated that many suggestions for the reorientation or supplementation of traditional organization theory have a strong meta-theoretical basis (cf. Burrell/Morgan 1979; Morgan 1983). But, organizational culture researchers are not alone in formulating such criticism within organizational theory. In Sweden, positivism within organizational theory has pared the way for non-quantitative approaches for some time. (In the US - undoubtedly the stronghold of organizational theory - the culture and symbolism perspective and the criticism of the hegemony of quantitative methodology have gone hand in hand to some extent.) It may also be mentioned that criticism of traditional approaches does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that research which focuses on culture and symbolism is the sole solution, or even the right solution. There are other responses to the problem (cf. Burrell/Morgan 1979; Morgan 1986; Reed 1985). Obviously, it is not our task to play the role of judges and try to determine which of these positions is the right one as regards the theoretical value of culture research. However, on the basis of our attempt to indicate the heterogeneity of the approaches which are usually associated with a culture or symbolic organizational theoretical perspective, it seems reasonable to maintain that general statements do not hold water as regards the polarity of "genuinely theoretical new additions" - "opportunistic popresearch". Such statements can only be made in relation to specified areas of the field. We maintain that within the area there are theoretical contributions of a serious nature which will no doubt continue to be valuable in the future and which should be included amongst the weighty perspectives in organization theory, while some of the literature from the 1980's will retrospectively appear to be an expression of fashions which regularly sweep the management field, taking with them neighbouring overlapping fields such as organization theory. In conclusion, we may note that the culture approach certainly has considerable theoretical and methodological potential but that there are obvious risks that many applications of the culture perspective may be characterized by theoretical and methodological superficiality. To maintain, as Perrow (1985) does, that myths and symbols should be thrown overboard since such concepts do not contribute anything new to research is, however, in our opinion an example of extreme exaggeration. Regarding or-

182

9 The Current Debate

ganizations as cultures has undoubtedly paved the way for several new insights and the symbolic perspective has contributed to a deeper understanding of a number of organizational phenomena. Culture and symbolism research has also fulfilled a constructive function by operating as a collective and effective opposition to traditional (positivistic) organizational research, which is primarily American.

9.2 The Omnipotence Syndrome Many hopes have been pinned on the practical application of the corporate culture concept (see, for example, Kilmann et al. 1985). It was assumed that, in practice, this concept would have the same impact as the organizational development field had previously, and the same theoretical meanings as the system approach of the 1960's. Unfortunately - or fortunately to some - as we wrote in chapter 8, we have a strong impression that these hopes have not been realized. Despite the massive offerings of specialized literature in the field, much of which is clearly intended to be practically oriented, there is little evidence today that anyone has had any real success in applying the culture concept at a practical level. For example, we have not been able to find any published study describing the design, execution or effects of large scale "cultural development programmes". But we have found a wide range of descriptions of programmes and activities which are claimed to have constituted culture interventions, but which, on closer analysis, prove to be relatively well-known and (trivial) organizational development programmes (for example Kilmann 1985). One of us has also tried to utilize the culture concept in a number of action research projects, but rapidly had to abandon the idea. We even suspect that if the culture concept is taken seriously, it is not actually possible to change a culture in a planned manner! If a corporate culture can be imagined to have developed during the course of a century, if it is maintained perhaps by thousands of thoroughly socialized employees, if it is reborn and transmitted every day by a fine-meshed net of rites and rituals, and if, finally, it can be largely linked to cultural elements (e. g. national belonging, industry characteristics, social classes, etc.) which are outside the direct control of the organization, the thought that a

9.2 The Omnipotence Syndrome

183

change programme would be able to fundamentally change predetermined goals does not appear to be realistic. Another internal scientific argument against the culture optimists is that there is a clear trend towards stressing the multicultural character of organizations. In opposition to the approach which dominated previously, when the integration idea characterized organizations as cultures, many authors today put forward the idea that organizations generally demonstrate differentiation and multiplicity from a cultural point of view (Alvesson/Sandkull 1988; Gregory 1983; Martin/Meyerson 1988; Martin et al. 1985; Louis 1985; van Maanen/Barley 1985). To the extent that this is true, it is obviously even more difficult for managements to control and change cultures. In other words, the culture concept is far too complex to be influenced in the short term by specific development measures. Possibly, some limited aspects of a culture may be influenced and developed. Naturally, culture may be defined in a somewhat superficial manner and this may then permit planned culture change. (The issue of the possibility of planned cultural change is to a large extent a conceptual matter. Our argument proceeds from a "deep" definition of culture, which is called for if the concept is to have any justification and not be trivialized and seen as a "norm system", etc.) As a result, the critics have often maintained that normative culture researchers and consultants suffer from an omnipotence syndrome, that is to say, they ascribe characteristics and opportunities for change to the approach which differ significantly with what may be achieved in practice. However, there are certain indications that the culture concept has been successfully employed, purely descriptively, in describing the organization, its character and function. As we have pointed out earlier, culture diagnoses, culture analyses, etc. obviously have a certain market value. Such approaches may have considerable value in the face of decisions about corporate acquisitions or mergers and as a basis for change programmes with relatively restricted plans which do not include total cultural change. It might, however, be difficult to predict the cultural dynamics triggered off by acquisitions and mergers. As stated in the previous chapters, such diagnoses do not provide satisfactory guide-lines when it comes to action.

184

9 The Current Debate

9.3 Culture and Corporate Performance Many authors have claimed that organizational culture is of the greatest importance for the efficiency and achievements of companies. This view, naturally, has been presented most eloquently by Peters and Waterman (1982). They made it seem probable that extremely successful American companies mistrusted traditional means of control in favour of values, ideals and principles which were soundly anchored throughout the organization. It is presumably this idea of the strong influence of corporate culture on corporate financial results which has had the greatest appeal to managers and other practitioners. (See also the discussion on the strong culture hypothesis in chapter 7.) Within the framework for the overall idea of the beneficial effects of culture on corporate financial achievements, there is a considerable number of more specific arguments as to how culture can contribute to good results. It is maintained that the "right", common and strongly supported cultural values are capable of increasing morale, creating loyalty to the company and involvement at work, getting employees to indulge in the "right" behaviour in unclear situations, communicating effectively, and facilitating decision-making by providing information about what is important and less important, etc. (Baker 1980; Deal/Kennedy 1982; Kilmann et al. 1985; Schein 1985; etc.). The connection between culture and achievement has been formulated in different ways. Apart from a "strong" form, in which the quality of the culture is clearly considered to influence events and can be observed in corporate financial results, there are more cautious variations which do not make such extreme claims and which may be based on the idea that corporate culture has consequences for different aspects of efficiency, without necessarily directly and unambiguously influencing the level of profits or similar measures of results. In this context, we primarily discuss the "strong" thesis of a culture/achievement relationship in which it is assumed that the culture is clearly and directly correlated with the level of profits. This thesis has been presented in at least three variations. The most common variant is that a direct link is proposed from the culture to performance. Certain types of "strong" cultures (cohesive cultural patterns which are well established amongst the organizational members) are thus claimed to lead to superior achievements. The core values in such an

9.3 Culture and Corporate Performance

185

"achievement" culture is often considered to be humanistic values and principles regarding the involvement of employees in the company (Denison 1984; Ouchi 1981; Pascale/Athos 1982; etc.). Another idea is based on influence in the other direction: A successful history of good financial results leads to the formation of the "strong" corporate culture. The third variation assumes contingency thinking, where under certain conditions a particular type of corporate culture is appropriate and creates efficiency. In this case, there is talk of the need for strategy, structure and culture to agree, if the company is to function satisfactorily (e.g. Schwartz/Davis 1981). The trouble with these ideas is that they are extremely difficult to study. Examining the cultural patterns which permeate a major company demands enormous resources - questionnaire studies are not considered sufficiently penetrating at this cultural level. Of course, this has not prevented a number of researchers from making the attempt (e. g. Calori/ Sarnin 1991; Denison 1984), but presumably something else - for example explicit values - are described, rather than the deeper values and ideals "employed". A few interviews with top managers, on the other hand, do not reveal very much about the corporate culture as a whole, especially since it is unlikely that most companies are homogeneous - instead their cultural patterns are often both differentiated and ambiguous. In addition, it may be considered difficult to isolate the "culture variable" and to observe the importance of this variable in comparison with an enormous number of other complex factors which affect corporate achievement. Siehl and Martin (1990) have examined existing attempts to study the relationships between culture and performance, and have also conducted their own studies. They conclude that all three variations of culture/performance linking have very little empirical support. There are considerable methodology deficiencies as regards selection processes and measurement of culture. Siehl and Martin consider that the approach is probably not particularly meaningful and tend to conclude that researchers should not relate the culture concept so closely to corporate performance. An implicit managerial bias leads many researchers to continue to advocate and pursue this relationship in spite of a glaring lack of empirical support and potentially insurmountable difficulties in gathering reliable data... The concept of culture holds too much promise to be sold short as just another intervening variable in existing models of the determinants of organizational performance (page 274).

186

9 The Current Debate

Many authors are content with less deep and ambitious conclusions as to how cultural or symbolic dimensions can affect behaviour, attitudes, etc. which are related to efficiency. Schein (1985), for example, mentions the acquisition of companies and the reorientation of employee attitudes to customers as examples of cases in which the culture prevented a successful merger or the satisfactory handling of a new customer category. (When referring to culture, Schein is primarily considering certain partially unconscious basic assumptions about the organization and its relations with the environment.) Louis (1985: 85) mentions some results of workplace cultures which may also have some relevance for achievements. She writes, for example, that there is . . . lack of a need for structural controls to induce desired attitudes and behavior when strong cultures are operative.

However, it is difficult to demonstrate exactly what is influenced by the culture, and what is determined by other factors. In the case of Schein, it is not certain that culture (in the sense of basic assumptions) is specifically responsible for the problems discussed. The problem of distinguishing between culture and the results of culture is hinted at in the above study by Louis, where she defines culture, amongst other things as the totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns (page 74).

With this definition, it may be difficult to see what effects culture has on behaviour, since culture is precisely this behaviour (Alvesson 1992 b). Counter arguments, challenging various pronouncements making more or less extensive statements about how corporate cultures affect efficiency, are thus, on the one hand that, any such connection is extremely dubious most evidence tends to indicate zero or only weak linkage - and, on the other hand, that it is difficult to isolate culture as an independent variable which influences or is influenced by other variables. As we have attempted to demonstrate in part 3 of this book, the culture dimension is clearly relevant for the functioning of organizations and is of crucial importance in understanding corporate management, influences on people, etc. However, in our opinion, as has been indicated, this is illustrated much more clearly by focusing on the symbolism in various types of actions and patterns of action, rather than by attempting to expose culture as a special factor of influence and stating causal relationships between culture and other "organizational variables".

9.4 Realism Versus Romanticism

187

9.4 Realism Versus Romanticism One of the commonest arguments in favour of a culture perspective on organizations is that it provides a more realistic picture of what actually occurs in the organization. It is maintained, for example, that the culture perspective permits the inclusion of emotional, aesthetic and ethical dimensions in the analysis. Another aspect of realism is the argument that a symbolic approach provides a more intensive picture of reality. Such concentrated pictures of reality, transmitted in the form of metaphors, images or other "powerful" descriptions - "thick descriptions" (Geertz 1973) are contrasted with one-dimensional, superficial interpretations in traditional organization theory. The proponents of this approach consider that culture research thus provides a richer, multi-faceted and living picture of organizations. No doubt, this has contributed to the popularity of the research field, since it probably corresponds with what many people intuitively feel is true and relevant. Pfeffer (1981 a) is one of the researchers who has consistently and stringently argued that organizations should be studied from a symbolic perspective. Pfeffer notes that in the conflict between substantial action levels (in the form of actual limitations of resources and real dependence on power) and symbolic action levels (use of a political language and symbolic actions), the influence of corporate management is largely limited to the symbolic dimension, i.e. non-material aspects such as perception of social phenomena, the view of reality, motivation, etc. Pfeffer thus tries to redefine what corporate management is primarily concerned with. Peters and Waterman (1982), Smircich and Morgan (1982) and many other culture and symbolism researchers have much the same objective. Management is considered to be primarily a matter of how managers influence organizations by means of the ways in which various circumstances are perceived and defined, and the meaning of symbolism within the organization. Regarding, for example, leadership as "management of meaning" is considered to provide a deep and accurate description of what social influence is all about. It can be maintained that traditional leadership research - based on ideas that managers systematically spend their time on planning, coordination and control of others - has met with considerable criticism (see, for example, Kotler 1982). Although this criticism does not unambiguously and exclusively support symbolism and culture research, it opens the way for

188

9 The Current Debate

new perspectives which emphasize informal (non-formalist) aspects. Culture/symbolism theory fits in well in this context. The claims of culture research to encompass greater realism can be matched against another perspective: criticism of what is termed romanticism (Ebers 1985; Jeffcutt 1991), i. e. attempts to depict complicated and sometimes conflict-filled processes and structures in harmonic colours and tones. As with the mainline culture approach, romanticism is said to involve beautiful but vague concepts such as totality, context and unity between subjects and objects and between the individual and the world. The resulting romantic picture of the world is then considered to lead to an uncritical and naive attitude towards organizations and working life, and it denies the existence of conflicts and structural antagonism. There is also considerable risk that the culture perspective, with its emphasis on the totality, the corporate spirit, the involvement of employees, etc. neglects power aspects and denies the political and cultural conflicts which are nonetheless present. Other critics object to the postulate proposed by many organizational culture authors of organizations characterized by "common values, norms and beliefs", and regard the culture idea as an expression of naive consensus thinking (Alvesson 1987 a). The problem of power is seldom dealt with (Knights/Willmott 1987), and the consequences of the manipulation of people's values and beliefs (Whittington 1985) and the political motives which underlie such manipulations, are ignored. This criticism is often directed against the functionalistic paradigm but is also valid for some of the more interpretatively oriented work. A major problem with the interpretative approach is that it ... tends to concentrate on cultural meanings, but fails to recognize how these meanings are legitimised and naturalised through the political processes of cultural reproduction as more powerful actors draw on allocative and authoritative resources (material processes) to secure sectional interests (Filby 1990: 182).

The tendency of functionalists to give the idea of a culture an integrating and conflict-reducing meaning is a rather different problem. One or two authors who favour a culture approach consider (on the basis of the assumption that most organizations consist of, and to some extent break down into various subcultures) that the cultural situation normally leads to conflicts between groups with different world pictures, values and norms (van Maanen/Barley 1985). However, the subculture idea does not com-

9.4 Realism Versus Romanticism

189

pletely solve the problem. Obviously conflicts may also occur within a subculture (AIvesson/Melin 1987/89). However, there are several exceptions - the lack of interest in the power dimension of corporate culture is not universal. Filby (1990), Knights and Willmott (1987), Lucas (1987), Mumby (1988), Riley (1983), Rosen (1985, 1988) and Willmott (1991) have, for example, been interested in culture and power/politics. Moch and Huff's (1983) study of how language-based rituals (meetings) can be used for control and change is another example of this approach. In opposing the assumption that culture research achieves intensified pictures of reality, the critics claim that such pictures actually represent a crude simplification, often based on a deductive discourse without firm empirical anchoring, or on empiricial studies of limited and sometimes trivial organizational phenomena, such as jokes, parties or meetings, which are then used as evidence for statements about entire organizations (Alvesson 1992b). A question which may be asked in this context is why amusing and apt anecdotes or descriptions should create a truer picture of reality than traditional reductionist methods. As we see it, cultural/symbolic reductionism is not necessarily better than any other kind of reductionism. In his criticism of the culture metaphor, Morgan (1986) observes that it is easy to be attracted by the bizarre, unusual and concrete phenomena in culture, while forgetting the fundamental patterns which lie behind these superficial manifestations. It must be pointed out that criticism of "romanticism" in much organizational culture research comes from inside the research field. Thus, the criticism applies to a negative aspect of the main-line approach, rather than culture and symbolism theory in itself. As already mentioned, there is a branch of research which hardly falls into the "romanticism trap" (Jeffcutt 1991). Perhaps this debate could be summarized by saying that culture research has considerable potential for illuminating and describing the depth structures of organizations, but this has not been realized so far to the extent that one would wish as regards circumstances such as power, politics, dominance and conflicts and that warnings against romantic tendencies are motivated.

190

9 The Current Debate

9.5 Emancipation and Manipulation Right from the start of the culture research boom in the late 1970's and early 1980's, there were two main approaches, as we have previously indicated (chapter 2). One approach strives to combine academic and practical aspects, often perhaps at the expense of the former, and with a strong emphasis on the practical significance of culture in companies. Culture is directly linked to achievements and success in organizations. The other main approach represents a more genuine interest in research, regarding culture and symbolism studies as a method of achieving deep and comprehensive understanding of organizations. Whether this understanding then leads to practically useful results or not is of subordinate interest. On the basis of these two fundamental approaches, there is an ongoing debate within the culture field on the practical use of concepts, research results and models (see, for example, SCOS Notework 3, 1985). One question is concerned with whether changing cultures or "manipulating" them with the help of symbols (which to some extent may be assumend to operate at an unconscious level) can be defended on ethical grounds. Another question involves the responsibility of researchers in contributing knowledge and instruments which can, in fact, change conditions in organizations, thus creating improved circumstances for development and meaningful job tasks. At a deeper level, however, the conflict is a question of what is often a narrow and difficult demarcation between emancipation and manipulation. The proponents of different culture and symbolism perspectives maintain that such perspectives (at any rate their own research variation) are naturally positive and in principle nonproblematic, since they provide a truer and deeper picture of reality than other approaches. Potentially, this perspective can contribute to emancipation since it provides increased insights into conditions for change and development. In addition, this perspective reveals the genuine human aspects in companies and counteracts traditional organization theory which prefers "reified" concepts, such as systems, roles, functions, structures, design, etc. It is also claimed that the culture perspective takes more of a humanist view of organizations since it places the human subjetcs (as collectives) in focus, and is based on several dimensions of experience. If emancipation in a more fundamental sense is to be stimulated, it is, however, necessary for the domination relationship to be studied too, something which only propo-

9.5 Emancipation and Manipulation

191

nents of the political ideology perspective have done to any great extent. Having surveyed symbolism literature on the basis of Habermas' (1972) theory of knowledge, Stablein and Nord (1985) observed, however, that the symbolism approach has had extensive practical (hermeneutical) and technical ambitions, but that it hardly took the emancipatory dimension into account seriously! However, Stablein and Nord (1985) have a positive basic attitude and maintain that it is precisely symbolism which can combine the practical and emancipatory research aspects. Alvesson (1987 a, 1992b), Galas and Smircich (1987), Filby and Willmott (1988), Grafton-Small and Linstead (1986, 1987), Knights and Willmott (1987) and Rosen (1985, 1988) are examples of works with such ambitions. Today, however, there is also outside the quarters of critical researchers an explicit fear that the culture approach is used manipulatively. In an article, Boivie (1986: 4), for example, proclaims: Preserve us from corporate culture

and subsequently states that There are many signs which indicate that the employers' "investment in culture" is a question of a highly conscious attempt to achieve indoctrination of employees in order to get them to adopt management's values.

Lewicki (1981) has also examined this manipulative aspect. He regards socialization in a culture as a "seduction process", maintaining that this seduction characterizes the socialization of new members by strong cultures in order to reinforce commitment and loyalty. The critics also maintain that the introduction of the culture concept on certain circles has been employed as a conscious mystification in order to give certain groups increased influence. By describing reality in terms of rituals, sagas, myths and spirits, the importance of the material and economic structures and the power situation is de-emphasized and an opening is created for more or less obscure manipulations of the perceptions of members of organizations. This involves, for example, an exaggerated sense of duty on the part of employees (Smith/Wilkinson 1985) or attempts to create totalitarian corporate ideologies which do not allow nonconformist opinions (Willmott 1991). A comparison is even made with the way in which totalitarian states use symbols and propaganda to create conformity. This fear that corporate culture can be used to achieve a manipulative objective also has

192

9 The Current Debate

characterized the criticism which many European researchers now direct at, for example, American "cultural engineering" traditions, and also other types of culture research and symbolism theory. According to the critics, the problem is precisely what many proponents regard as the great advantage of the culture/symbolism approach: that symbols operate at an affective/expressive half-unconscious level and are thus beyond doubt and argumentation (Alvesson 1987 a). What Lewicki (1981), Smith and Wilkinson (1985) and Willmott (1991) object to is the alleged freedom of choice which the individual has in strong cultures. They maintain that, due to group pressures and the way in which the various alternatives are presented; the individual, in point of fact, has no real choice but is forced into a pattern of behaviour which reinforces the organization's grip on him. Smith and Wilkinson (1985: 48) also argue that apparently totally open and democratic organizations exercise, at a deeper level, an exceptional, almost totalitarian control on their members. It controls not only its members, but the members themselves take an active part in the exercise of this control.

In opposition to this view, it can be said that it is based on the same exaggerated ideas about what attempts at control of cultures can achieve, according to the claims of many culture proponents.

9.6 Symbolic Pollution A further warning has been heard, in connection with increased consciousness of the importance of symbols for the organization - the risk of symbolic pollution. In using this concept, we wish to stress that the increased use of powerful images, metaphors, etc. and intensified efforts to communicate the corporate strategy and identity to employees and the environment can lead to a dilution of the content of the products/services offered, with an escalation of communication as a result. In purely concrete terms, this could mean that the company is forced to make use of more and stronger symbols in order to get its message across in a tougher and more competitive market of symbols, images and metaphors. In this sitution, the risk may be that we create a pseudoworld, without any direct link with reality, where measures which are primarily aimed at influencing the world of attitudes and pseudo-events are given priority (Boorstin

9.6 Symbolic Pollution

193

1980), with a continual need for renewal and development for their own sake. There ist not necessarily any contradiction between being good at something and devoting time, energy and resources to communicating this to personnel and the environment, but it is quite possible to imagine a boom market as regards the communication of a corporate image, which means that the more "substantive" parts of operations become less important (Alvesson 1990). One indication of this may be the nature of the beliefs, "corporate bibles", "ten commandments", etc., i.e. the popularized and synthetized version of the company's business and management's philosophy which is becoming increasingly common in companies. On the whole, these popularized versions are generalized and "positive". According to Berg and Gagliardi (1985), an overview of a number of such efforts shows a considerable degree of consensus, indicating that one is probably dealing with what society accepts as basic principles for good management - a sort of management recipe - rather than a genuine expression of the company's fundamental identity. It is quite clear that companies often present certain values and slogans to create a favourable impression. Siehl and Martin (1990) note that in certain cases strong values are signalled, which do not affect organizational practice. For example, a couple of companies are mentioned which emphasize the importance of social responsibility in their annual reports, but which were previously criticized for environmental pollution. Rhetoric as regards values can thus be primarily aimed at achieving legitimization and does not necessarily correspond to actions - and to some extent may even run counter to actions (Brunsson 1989). Therefore, an interest in the importance of symbols and symbolism for corporate identity, image and culture may result in considerable efforts being devoted to these aspects and phenomena rather than concentrating on basic activities which are connected with the business concept and the main purpose of the company. Naturally, basic changes in industry and society at large may underlie such developments in the corporate culture area, and this may be summarized as a growing split between the substantive and the symbolic (Alvesson 1990; Berg 1989b; Boorstin 1980). The mass media, the complexity of society, large scale operations, considerable distance between leaders and the groups they represent, etc. contribute to this.

194

9 The Current Debate

9.7 Clarity Versus Ambiguity One of the most recent issues discussed is the question, for example, of organizations as total, comprehensive and unified cultures versus organizations which are characterized by ambiguity, inconsistency and complexity from a cultural point of view. Most organizational culture and symbolism literature regards cohesive patterns of fundamental values, basic assumptions, culture manifestations and symbolism as the core of the functioning of organizations. Authors who support the idea that organizations are often characterized by different cultures, sometimes termed subcultures, tend to treat culture in the same way, even if the subculture is seen as of central importance and conflicts between subcultures are taken into account. As a contrast to organizational culture and the subculture view, some authors consider that dialectics, conflicts, ambiguity and inconsistency characterize organizations - from a cultural point of view too. Meyerson and Martin (1987) speak, for example, of three paradigms in culture research: the integration paradigm, the differentiation paradigm and the ambiguity paradigm. The first of these paradigms refers to organizations as a unified culture, the second emphasizes that internal and external sources of cultural influence give rise to organizational subcultures, which, however, are internally homogeneous and cohesive. The third paradigm emphasizes the lack of stability and clarity in social life. Ambiguity and paradox are unavoidable and cannot be "covered over" by a common culture. Sköldberg (1990) uses a similar division and speaks of a harmony, a heterogeneity and a rainbow view on culture. On the basis of the third paradigm, Martin (1987: 4) opposes the current definitions of cultures, which emphasize that: ... within the cultural boundary, all is clarity and lucidity. Ambiguity is banished from the kingdom of culture.

Similar criticism, from other sources, has appeared recently. Alvesson and Melin (1989) see conflicts, contradictions and inconsistencies as central features of organizational cultures and regard heterogeneity and discrepancies as fundamental. Sköldberg (1990) also rejects the idea of cultures and symbols as something static, homogeneous, harmonic and free from interactions. He argues in favour of radical transformations, heterogeneity, conflicts and interactions as important objects for study in a dialectical understanding of organizational culture. Other authors, such as

9.7 Clairty Versus Ambiguity

195

Hennestad (1989), focus on paradoxes in organizational cultures. Galas and Smircich (1987) also question the capacity of research to reflect "external" reality and the view of unambiguous, cohesive, system-like patterns as totalizing illusions. While, as time goes by, an increasingly traditional organizational culture research regards the culture approach as the main route to a rich total picture of the common values, norms, basic assumptions, ideologies, symbols, etc. which form the basis for a common understanding of reality and collective action in organizations, many of the above critics virtually regard this claim as a fiction. Such criticism has advanced furthest in the case of proponents of what is known as a postmodernistic view. This criticism is dealt with in detail in the next chapter.

10 Conclusions, Perspectives and Speculations

Up to now our ambition has been to give an account - as openly and as objectively as possible - of the development that has taken place and of the somewhat acrimonious debate that has been carried on at times. However, an approach of this kind has often the disadvantage of giving a slightly confused picture of the research field. Furthermore, the opinions which have been expressed reflect, on the whole, the current debate and criticism formulated by other authors rather than our personal points of view. (In some cases, however, we have clearly expressed our own evaluations and positions.) After having referred to a number of our colleagues and earlier works by ourselves, we would now like to conclude with some of our thoughts and opinions as of today. Our ambition is to position the research area and ourselves within the organizational research field by examining what we consider important contributions to culture and symbolism research. Each new research area, like new schools, theoretical models etc., claim to contribute new knowledge in order to increase the understanding of organizations. Thus, it is natural for us to start accounting for our view of what culture and symbolism research has contributed in the way of knowledge. Undoubtedly, there has been a break-through as far as knowledge is concerned thanks to culture and symbolism research. A great many important theoretical contributions to the organization sciences can be noted as a more or less direct consequence of culture and symbolism research. An interesting point is that these contributions deal with core issues, such as the very character of the structure of the organization, e.g. connection mechanisms between different organizational units, the problems of ambiguity (which constitute the basis of the irrationality concept) as well as the relation between the instrumental and the expressive elements in organizational operations. However, before examining a few specific contributions, it is important to point out that, while earlier in the book we have emphasized the discrepancies in the different approaches in culture research, we are now underlining the existing overall similarities between most of the perspectives we discussed. We are going to illustrate some important theoretical contributions to organizational research and, at the

198

10 Conclusions, Perspectives and Speculations

same time, the central dimensions characterizing culture and symbolism research which can be said to form the basis of its theoretical legitimacy. However, let us first say something about the problems in drawing conclusions from scientific areas in general, and from that of culture research in particular.

10.1 On the Very Problem of Drawing a Conclusion In this review of corporate culture and organization symbolism we have illustrated the wide variety of approaches, perspectives, concepts, theories and practices that characterizes the field today. This pluralism is something which organizational culture studies share with most current research in the organization sciences. There are, in fact, few scholars today who would stand up and claim a universal "theory" of management or organization - or even a universal truth in individual statements within a theory. Through the development of modern or postmodern antipositivistic social science and philosophy of science - in organization science research represented by the works of Burrell/Morgan (1979), Daft (1980), Morgan (1983), etc. - theories have become a matter of contexts rather than of facts, and theoretical relativity is today well accepted as a natural state in the field of organization sciences (Reed 1985). Theories are not only seen as culturally dependent but also as contingent on the task at hand, on the character of the organization or phenomena studied and even on the scholars' personality. This movement towards theoretical pluralism, and sometimes relativism, also implies a differentiation of management and organization theories in terms of business contexts. This is reflected in the labelling of new fields of research, such as public management, cooperative management, service management, management in know-how companies, etc.). Thus, organization sciences in general, and maybe the culture and symbolism field in particular, are characterized more by their theoretical relativity than by their firm and uncontested conceptual frameworks. No doubt this is a sound development in which the particular characteristics of a certain business and organization context will be taken into account when a theory is formulated. The problem, however, is that this context-specificity of organization and management theories makes it difficult for us to summarize the theoretical development in the field up to

10.1 On the Very Problem of Drawing a Conclusion

199

now. What makes it yet more difficult to draw any conclusions from the material is the fact that the field of research is still young - in fact, hardly more than ten years old. With this short time horizon it is difficult to distinguish between genuine theoretical contributions, opportunism and short-lived fads. As we see it, theoretical maturation in a research area is as much a matter of critical theoretical self-reflection as of conceptual precision and consistency, and this self-reflective capability requires time. Another problem, when it comes to drawing conclusions, is that what we are seeing today - in published form - is what many of us were working on yesterday. Since it takes between one to three years for a preliminary manuscript to become a published book, and somewhat less to turn into an article, much of what is published today is already, in a sense, obsolete! (Which, for that matter, also applies to this book which might be partly out of date by the time it is published). However, what above all makes it difficult to summarize the discussions is that organizational culture and symbolism research still after more than ten years of intensive studies mainly lacks a clear empirical foundation. Theoretical discussions, endless fights over definitions and concepts, anecdotes and other forms of narratives still largeley dominante the field. The existing empirical studies often pick up a very limited aspect of the corporate culture, and there are, in fact, very few attempts to cover the whole culture of the organization (a large spectrum of different aspects of an organization)1. This is particularly remarkable as one of the important advantages with the culture perspective - and one of the main reasons for its growth - is that it allows for a holistic view of an organization. It is a bit embarrassing for us who are working in the field to keep asking for more solid empirical material, more "thick" descriptions of organizational cultures and a larger number of longitudinal studies - with little result (although we should not forget that there are some noteworthy exceptions). Our suspicion, however, is that the reasons for this lack of "thick" cultural descriptions are not primarily conceptual but maybe above all methodological. It simply is not easy for a young researcher (or for an old one for that matter) to make a meaningful account of such a complicated and enigmatic phenomenon as an organizational culture. The study of a whole organizational culture - or using the culture/symbolism 1

Alvesson (1992 a) is an exception, while in his case study of a mediumsize computer consultancy firm a large number of themes ranging from leadership and organizational structure to strategy and business concepts are studied from a cultural perspective.

200

10 Conclusions, Perspectives and Speculations

perspective in interpretations of broader areas of organizational life - is very time consuming2. As organizational culture researchers we are also faced with the same eternal plague as other social scientists, i.e. to accumulate data that have been collected with different types of methods, to draw conclusions from studies performed in different contexts and to integrate concepts that are aligned with different types of theoretical frameworks. This is, however, something we have to live with, and thus we have to find other ways of getting grasp of the theoretical development that has taken place, in order to speculate on what might take place in the immediate future.

10.2 An Added Value? In our view, organizational culture and symbolism have given important contributions at three distinct "levels" of the organization and management sciences. First, by introducing the culture concept, the organization sciences have been provided with a powerful metaphor that captures the organization as a whole - a collective. This means that a new form of basic understanding has emerged which draws attention to shared meanings and values as a basis for organized action. Second - and related to the first point but dealing with a more detailed and precise level - organizational symbolism has meant the introduction of a new scientific perspective which, when applied to organizational phenomena, allows us to describe and explain things that have previously been inexplicable or unperceived. Finally, recent developments within the field have paved the way for a particular (postmodern) discourse of organizations, i.e. a mode of scientific inquiry and analysis that not only governs what we see, but also how we go about doing research and in particular raises doubts about prevailing assumptions about the rationality of conducting research and using language in expressing it. (The reader may note that we do not recognize the view on culture as a new variable as an important contribution to organization and management theory.) 2

We do not recognize studies of corporate culture based on interviews with a few managers. As we have stressed before, culture research demands a depth in method and that the meaning patterns of the entire collective - not just those of leaders - are investigated.

10.2 An Added Value?

201

It is tempting to argue that these three contributions are sequential steps in a "natural" theoretical development over time, e.g. epoches in cultural research (Berg 1989 d; Smircich/Caläs 1987). It has also been assumed that the contributions at these three "levels" are phases in a natural scientific development process. Smircich and Galas (1987) claim, for example, that the exploration of the culture field has taken place during particular epoches. Kreiner (1989) also argues that the discourse of corporate cultures seems to have taken place in three steps: As an explanation to rationalistic anomalies (by adding the symbolic or expressive dimension, it was possible to get hold of otherwise inexplicable behaviours and phenomena), as an expression of hierarchically organized symbolic or cultural patterns and as multiple and partly competing contexts which give meaning to reality. However, our position today is that rather than considering three phases in the development of knowledge on phenomena in organizations, we deal with three "levels" of science that have happened to appear at different points in time. Consequently, there are not three distinct phases in the development of our knowledge of the cultural or symbolic aspects of organizations, but rather three parallel and partly overlapping developments at different levels of organization discourse (figure 10.1 below).

"Level'Of Organizational Discourse

The Organizational Symbolism "Perspective"

The Organizational Culture "Metaphor" Time Figure 10.1: The figure shows the three levels of scientific discourse within the field of organizational culture and symbolism.

202

10 Conclusions, Perspectives and Speculations

10.3 Organizational Culture - A Mature Metaphor 10.3.1 Organizational Culture as a Counter Metaphor The study of corporate culture grew, as we have shown in chapter 2, from a profound dissatisfaction with the existing theories of organizations and management. In fact, it could be argued that the culture boom was started as a resistance movement counteracting the dominating functionalist paradigm (Caläs/Smircich 1987). In this sense culture was used as an alternative metaphor in organizational analysis. What was resisted was above all the dogmatic and dull numbercrunching, US-inspired rationalism which at the time (in the early 1980's) dominated the science market in the organization field. As early as 1974, Mitroff et al. argued that: ... an organization's factual data, no matter how precise or accurate they may be, are not information unless they are integrated into one or more of the key motives which define the symbolic nature of the organization (page 372).

and Dandridge et al. (1980: 78) wrote: Most researchers have concentrated on the objective facts of organization. This emphasis has led to a belief that such data are somehow primary in understanding organizational behaviour. But these objective facts are ultimately founded on intersubjective experience (Kaplan 1964), and consequently, it is this level of experience that gives meaning to our theories. In keeping with our definition, symbols can be seen as subjective elements of organizational life, and a different frame of reference than conventional research topics.

Essentially two things were opposed: the very view of organizations as more or less rational machines and the positivistically oriented research methodologies used to capture organizational life. The main argument advanced seems to have been that "traditional" organization theory not only omitted the emotive, aesthetical and ethical content from organizational analysis (leaving the raw structures to work on only), but also deprived researchers of a meaningful and "fun" research task. Fine (1984: 256) contended, for example, that: The organization culture metaphor emphasizes that organizations are not just settings of instrumental action but of expressive behavior as well. This

10.3 Organizational Culture - A Mature Metaphor

203

second approach developed as a consequence of perceived weaknesses in rational action models of organization behavior.

For many of us who launched studies of corporate culture in the early 1980's, the field was full of promises, and we could see no end to where the organizational culture metaphor could carry us. In a research grant application Berg (1980: 6) wrote for example: . . . a challenging picture of the organization gradually emerges. This picture shows us an organization as a collective, a psychodynamic entity, governed by processes and structures which are only partly conscious to their members. To put it another way, we have started to look at the 'enchanted' world of organizations as expressed in the symbols, myths, ceremonies etc. that form the shared reality of the members. This behaviour might be an opening for us to understand much of what we ordinarily term 'dysfunctional' behaviour in organizations, for example 'social deadlocks' (Dale and Spencer 1977), 'stupid organizations' (Svalander 1979) and Organizational neuroses' (Harvey and Albertson 1972) etc. It may also help us to see the 'logic behind foolishness' (March 1976), the meaning of executive ignorance and selfishness, the reason for power struggles, etc.

Even if many of these expectations never fully came true (at least not up to now), the quotation above well illustrates the basic theoretical driving force behind the culture and symbolism perspective, i.e. that of serving as a conceptual framework by means of which we would make sense of the irrationality and ambiguity that we started to accept at that time as a natural and inseparable part of organizations. It is in the light of this dissatisfaction that the emergence of the organizational culture metaphor has to be seen. Thus the culture metaphor came to serve as a counter metaphor to the rational machine or organismic/systems metaphor that had previously dominated the market of organization theories. It was an opposition under whose banner a lot of people could gather in a constructive criticism of the existing mode of organization discourse. Not only was the culture metaphor extremely rich, providing us with a host of new concepts and ideas to apply to organizations, but it was also a "fun" metaphor to work with. Dull meetings suddenly became intriguing rituals, the dusty history of the corporation turned into a saga with heroes and scapegoats, and market strategies were treated as myths. Thus the discourse of organizations also implied the focusing on playful elements

204

10 Conclusions, Perspectives and Speculations

and humour in organizations, as well as adding more dimensions of human experience to the organization equation. However, those were the heydays not only for qualitatively oriented scientists but also for the management scavengers (e.g. Uttal's article on management consultants entitled "Corporate culture vultures"). Conferences soon filled up, professional networks of researchers in the field were established and the number of articles and books on the subject increased exponentially.

10.3.2 Culture as a Metaphor of the Collective It is important to note that underlying the approach outlined above is the culture metaphor, i.e. the organization is likened to a culture. Thus culture as a metaphor borrowed from anthropology, ethnology and sociology helped us to underline, categorize and explain things that would otherwise - with other theories - be unclear or inexplicable. This means that from the beginning organizations were not cultures, but were seen as cultures. (Of course, a number of authors, particularly American ones, viewed and still view culture as an organizational attribute - a variable - but we do not discuss this deviation from a more fruitful view on culture here.) What seems to have triggered off the rapid development of this research field - according to the researchers - was the power inherent in the culture metaphor as such, a metaphor that for the first time allowed us to treat the organization as a whole social unit, as a collective, a tribe, a clan, or, shortly, a culture. (Behind these motives and fascinations of academics, we have the basic social, cultural and economic forces as well as the mundane preoccupations of practitioners that we treated in chapters 2 and 7.) It also allowed us to approach the expressive aspects of organizational life, i.e. to experience organizations as "living and lived realities" (Witkin/ Berg 1984). Our underlying assumptions seemed to be that by revealing this culture with all its hidden patterns we would be able to make sense of all the seemingly irrational or inexplicable events that to a great extent seemed to characterize organizational life. An initial assumption when studying organizational cultures has been that there is one underlying cultural pattern or grand narrative that makes sense in the apparently irrational behaviour on the organizational level (The organization is not necessarily the entire company, but can be a

10.3 Organizational Culture - A Mature Metaphor

205

division or a department.) Although this assumption has been vigorously challenged (see chapters 6 and 9), it still appears to be the predominant way of perceiving the culture. This culture is often expressed in terms of underlying belief structures, norms, myths or basic assumptions, and in some of the more elaborate theories these patterns do even exist at different levels (e.g. from basic assumptions to artifacts). It is quite easy to understand an emphasis on the holistic, on the organization as a whole, as a social entity linked together with an intricate pattern of social and symbolic bonds, when seen in relation to the fragmentarization of corporate phenomena that has characterized and, on the whole, still puts its imprints on the organization sciences. The emphasis on the whole was a reaction and opposition to the predominant mode of discourse. Unlike previous theories of organizational behaviour and development, the individual was not considered to be the core element in the organization equation. This switch of focus from the individual or, at best, aggregate to the collective brought about a new approach to the study of organizations in that it marked a change of level of analysis (Berg 1989 b). Thus, one of the most important contributions of the culture metaphor is that it touches the collective nature of the organization, i.e. it sees the organization as a collective phenomenon rather than as a population, a cluster, a system or an aggregate of inter- or intrapersonal behaviours, relations or characteristics. The organization is seen as a whole - as a civilization, tribe or clan with certain characteristics which cannot be reduced to an aggregate of characteristics of the different individuals. Cultures are considered collective meaning structures, commonly shared basic assumptions, generic collective archetypes, symbolic fields, collective cognitive maps, etc. The significance of the individual actors is of minor importance. Only in exceptional cases, and during the early days of the organization, when the founder was able to leave his personal mark on operations, individual actors have had any decisive importance (apart from the symbolic one).3 What is most interesting, from a theoretical point of view, is that this can be seen as an embryo to increased knowledge of the collective logic underlying many organizational phenomena which are difficult to explain or complex, for example the deification of leader figures, social dead-locks and corporate spirit. Running counter to many of the earlier contributions 3

Normally, the collective (culture) defines and constrains the leader. There are clear parameters for the latter's impact.

206

10 Conclusions, Perspectives and Speculations

to collective theory (e.g. Crozier/Friedberg 1977; Moscovici 1981; Olson 1965/1977) culture researchers have developed or borrowed concepts which cover the very collective as a whole (cult, clan, tribe and symbolic fields). Thus, we have achieved increased insight into how organizations as collectives originate, develop, change, are kept together and fall apart. The deep structure in the coupling mechanisms of organizations has also been illuminated by means of the culture and symbolism concepts. The deeper structure within the mechanisms which connect the different parts constituting the collective can also partly be explained from a symbolic perspective. There are indications that people, in fact, are connected in bigger units by means of symbols as well as through emotions, rational thinking, social bonds, etc. (Berg 1987). Research has also illustrated how culture is used to organize (order) the perception of reality within a collective. Obviously, more pronounced basic aspects can later be deduced from this, for example cultural elements as means of power to reproduce hierarchical social relations, or more instrumental aspects, for example culture as a means of communication and information. Nevertheless, the most important contribution is our increased understanding of the dynamics with the help of which organizations reproduce themselves before each new workday or when facing a new generation of coworkers. The increased knowledge of how collective mental patterns originate, develop, stabilize and bring on action has been of great importance and will continue to be so in the future when it comes to our understanding of organizations and our work with and within organizations. It is of utmost importance to understand the key role that symbols and symbolism have in this respect. To embrace the view of organizations as collectives (cultures) might also have a great impact on the more practically oriented management and leadership research. To run a company will no longer merely be a question of planning, organizing, giving orders and making decisions, but quite as much a question of developing an organization identity, creating commitment and bringing about common frames of reference. One area in which culture and symbolism research has given important practical contributions is leadership. Leaderhip is now often considered a matter of cultural influence, such as symbolic leadership or management

10.3 Organizational Culture - A Mature Metaphor

207

of meaning. We have also obtained increased knowledge as to how an organization's history affects today's and tomorrow's behaviour since sagas and legends are important parts of the organization's common perception of reality.

10.3.3 Comments on the Future of the Cultural Metaphor In this section, we will make some final comments on the culture metaphor and briefly speculate about its future. As we have pointed out, organizational culture research, to a great extent, still concerns theoretical discussions, concept development, etc. supplemented with empirical data. Often empirical studies treat a limited aspect of an organizational culture, for example what stories exist (Martin/Powers 1983 a) or in what way ceremonies are performed (Dandridge 1986). More profound studies of organizations will thus have to be conducted going beyond the focusing on a limited group and/or a particular (set of) symbol(s). Such studies might indicate the powers of the culture metaphor to illuminate broader chunks of organizational reality in a novel way. Despite all that has been written about culture, conducting serious, in-depth studies of organizations based on anthropological methods is certainly not a worn-out activity. At best, a development toward more ambitious empirical (ethnographic) work might mean that opportunism within the research field will decrease, providing space for a broad but, compared to earlier organization theory approaches, still distinct and original culture research with good results. Perhaps this is rather an expression of wishful thinking than a prediction of current development trends. Still, there is every reason to believe that the less serious research contributions will decrease once the novelty value of the culture concept wears off and an increased understanding of its field of application is obtained. The progress of the theoreticel and conceptual work with the culture metaphor has continued and we can expect a development from cultural integration to an increasing interest in culturel differentiation. The earlier assumption that corporate culture embraces the majority of an organization's members is being increasingly criticized, at the same time as it is being questioned whether organizations have a specific culture (or a set of subcultures) of their own at all. It seems to be harder and harder for people to stick to the old idea of viewing organizations as "unitary and unique" in terms of culture. The existence of a variety of subcultures in

208

10 Conclusions, Perspectives and Speculations

complex organizations has also become commonly assumed. Obviously, this way of argumentation runs counter to those tendencies within organizational culture research which particularly speak of corporate culture. The theoretical problem we face when accepting an increased differentiation of the culture concept is that we might lose the holistic perspective which is one of the cornerstones within culture research. It could even be argued that the very rejection of the integration concept is a theory revision process in which the culture concept is reduced to an interest group perspective to be better dealt with by means of models of organizational sociology. At the same time it must be emphasized that the culture concepts have, to some degree, improved our understanding of conflicts and power in organizations by pointing to the depth structures and symbolism of power games and domination through combining elements of the culture approach with radical organizational sociology (Alvesson 1992 c; Frost 1987; Rosen 1985). No matter how we look at this problem, the future will probably keep bringing us studies dealing with confined organizational cultures (e.g. office cultures, workplace cultures, cultures of specific professional groups) at the same time as there will be an increasing interest in the relation between these various cultures. Indications to this effect are concepts as cultural conflicts, cultural synergy effects (implying fusions of different cultures), cultural communication, etc. Yet, one plausible tendency is that culture research will, to a certain extent, rid itself of its somewhat one-sided interest in organizational harmony and ethical unison and rather pay increased attention to political aspects and contradictions within the organization. The debate on ambiguity and dialectics in culture theory reviewed in chapter 9 is in line with this thinking. It should be possible to combine an interest in the organization as a whole with a sensitivity for differentiation and fragmentation tendencies within it. We also believe that interest in industry cultures and business cultures, i.e. cultural levels above the individual corporate one, will increase at the same time as the cultural connection between the organization, on one hand, and the society, nation or civilization within which the organization operates, on the other hand, will attract continued attention. However, if we look at the current situation and evaluate main problems of today as we see them, there is a tendency to confuse the culture

10.4. The Symbolic Perspective

209

metaphor with reality and, to some extent related to this, a tendency for quantitative researchers to move in and measure culture. There is a continuing need to remind ourselves that the organization certainly is not a culture (of its own), but may well be seen as a culture4. If we do not watch out, this confusion of reality and the metaphors used to outline that reality might lead not only to a blurred view of reality, but also of the concepts that are used to capture that reality. This reification of the culture concept - seeing it as a reflection of organizational reality rather than as a tool for interpreting this reality - is often most pronounced in quantitative studies. Unfortunately, positivistic researchers have started to invade the culture field, which might greatly jeopardize the richness of the culture concepts5. In our view, the organizational culture metaphor has well served its purpose of awakening the research community and mobilizing research resources for a less presumptuous and more imaginative study of organizations and management, but the integrity and interpretative powers of the approach do not escape threats.

10.4. The Symbolic Perspective 10.4.1 From Metaphor to Perspective Even if the picture is complex and ambiguous, we believe that, in the mid1980's, it was possible to see a gradual shift in research interest - from the culture metaphor with its focus on various "cultural phenomena" to a symbolic perspective on a number of "traditional" organizational and managerial phenomena and research issues. More papers started to appear, illustrating that it was quite possible to detach a symbolic perspective from the culture metaphor (e.g. Frost et al. 1985) and that the symbolic perspective could be applied to the study of all kinds of organizational phenomena - be it decision making, marketing or corporate strucThere is, however, a possibility that smaller, well-defined organizational or professional units inside an organization might develop something that could be seen as a genuine culture (highly idiosyncratic, with strong boundaries) over the years. However, this is not a very common phenomenon. Confusing the culture metaphor with culture as a social phenomenon might lead to too far-fetched conclusions and might also dilute the very concept of culture. Despite our general warning against quantitative studies of culture, we do not rule out the possibility of a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods providing interesting results (see e.g. Hofstede et al. 1990).

210

10 Conclusions, Perspectives and Speculations

tures - with no or little connection with corporate culture or culturerelated aspects. Thus, the fundamental difference between the culturalists and the symbolists lies in the fact that the latter do not take the existence of a culture for granted, but focus on the study of symbolic phenomena in organizations. This distinction between metaphor and perspective is also important in that it somewhat reduces the generative force of the symbolic perspective. While the concept of corporate culture involuntarily leads the thoughts to societies and particular types of collective social phenomena, a perspective only poses a certain point of view, an angle, which might add new understanding to something already seen and mentioned. It is also important to note that symbolism as a scientific perspective has strong roots in some wellreputed and formalized scientific frameworks, such as semiology, ethnomethodology and philosophical ideas by authors such as Cassirer (1953) and Langer (1957). The link to these conceptual frameworks has undoubtedly contributed to the improved status of the research field as such, at the same time as it has facilitated the transfer of knowledge from culture and symbolism to other areas of organizational research.

10.4.2. The Logic of Ambiguity At the very core of the symbolic perspective, and what actually gave it its power, was the assumption that the symbol was in a somewhat ambiguous relation to what it represented. This allowed us to add new and, above all, "deeper" interpretations to the previous (mostly instrumental) obvious ones. Thus, finding the symbolic codes became more important than hunting for overall cultural patterns. Since March and Olsen (1976) published their book in the mid-1970's, ambiguity has been one of the most important concepts within organization theory. It represents a phenomenological, almost relativistic view of reality, where choices, decisions and actions cannot be understood and interpreted in a clear-cut way, but have to be explained from several possible logics. Ambiguity, like concepts such as uncertainty, unclarity and confusion, are all indications of the considerable uncertainty we have to work with when describing organizations. In fact, Martin (1987) points out that before a researcher takes this uncertainty seriously, s/he runs the risk of misunderstanding the research subjects, cheating the readers and deceiving her- or himself as a researcher.

10.4. The Symbolic Perspective

211

The introduction of the symbolism concept might be one way of dealing with the dilemma between, on the one hand, the demand for reliable descriptions and, on the other, the built-in uncertainty and ambiguity in what the researcher tries to capture in his models. The very definition of the concept "symbol" implies "something that in a somewhat ambiguous way represents something else". This ambiguity comes back in various forms in many of the definitions of the symbolism concept and is, as a matter of fact, one of its most important elements (e.g. Cohen 1974). It implies, for example, that a certain symbol, a symbolic action or a set of symbols can be interpreted differently by different individuals/groups but still convey the basic message. In fact, the existence of multiple interpretations might be a prerequisite of the symbol's "collecting" and ordering function. An example of this is the company logo which by the management can be seen as a manifestation of the overall corporate idea, by the employees as a simple way of showing their identity (for example on the warm-up suit) and by the clients as a trade-mark with certain connotations. Not the least, a well-devised company logo can impart - to all three groups - what the company stands for and what it wishes to communicate. Thus, the introduction of the symbolism concept can form the basis of an increased understanding of the logic of ambiguity, i.e. the underlying (symbolic) patterns. Still, there are unfortunately a great many indications that culture researchers might let the symbolism concept, with all its possibilities, slip through their fingers. As appeared from our account of the current debate within the research field, the mainline of culture research (i.e. the culture convention, especially the corporate culture perspective) is criticized for not taking ambiguity and contrasts in organizations seriously. In other words, while the introduction of the organizational culture metaphor provided us with an alternative "grand narrative" in our exploration of organizations, the symbolic perspective helped us in our analysis by relaxing the conditions in which this discourse could be made, by making the relation between the symbol and what the symbol represents, ambiguous. 10.4.3 Symbols as the Link Between the Objectively Perceived and the Subjectively Experienced Perhaps the most important contribution from the symbolism perspective concerns the meaning of symbols, symbolic structures and symbolic ac-

212

10 Conclusions, Perspectives and Speculations

tions in organization. This approach assumes that the capacity to develop and interpret symbols is unique to man. In contrast to homo economicus or homo administratus of conventional organization theory, there is homo symbolicus. To be able to abstract and symbolize a complex reality, to be able to perceive reality different from what it is (in an external sense) is the very prerequisite of a civilization based on accumulation and communication of experiences (Cassirer 1953). We even argue that the introduction of the symbolism concept for the first time enables us to operationalize the subjective aspects of the organization. This is an old problem within organizational research and innumerable attempts have been made at bridging the gap between the objectively perceived and the subjectively experienced. Action theory (Silverman 1970), the so-called actors' approach (Arbnor/Bjerke 1977) together with some current trends within decision theory (Brunsson 1985; March/Olsen 1976) are all examples of such attempts. Less micro-oriented efforts in this direction is structuration theory (Giddens 1979) and various focuses on social practices (Reed 1985). However, with the introduction of symbols, it has become possible to capture both the objective and subjective aspects in the same concept, thereby paving the road for richer and, at the same time, more condensed theory constructions. In other words, we need no longer assume that each situation is unique, is taken place "inside" the individual and is impossible to generalize (as in extreme subjectivism) or that the only interesting structures are the materialized ones (objectivism), but we can content ourselves with the relative stability in symbols and the symbolic systems. In fact, what makes the symbolism perspective so interesting today is that it serves as a point of departure for finding more general, intra-organizational patterns. What has been said above, of course, influences the way in which we look at organizations. For example, organizations need no longer be considered firm, stable and well-connected entities, independent of people's perceptions and consciousness. The human dimension in organizations, and other workplaces' way of functioning, are underlined as well. Also seemingly concrete elements in organizations such as technology, work processes, budgets and plans are regarded as expressions of dimensions at a deeper level. Also material things become influenced by the symbolism developed by a collective. At the same time material things and ways of production in an organization contribute to producing and reproducing culture. The purely objective elements in an organization - according to conventional organization theory - stand out in a different light when

10.4. The Symbolic Perspective

213

perceived in the culture and symbolism perspectives which underline the inter-subjectivistic dimension. The collectively rooted conscience and perception forms are thus given a certain priority by the research area in question, quite independent of the research question. 10.4.4 Emphasis on the Expressive It can also be argued that symbolism meant a revival of the expressive aspects of corporate life. Actually, the symbolism perspective in the study of organizations emerged at the same time as we had an increased interest in all types of cultural expressions - be it graphical, physical or mental ones. A key assumption here seems to be that the deeper symbolic layers in organizations, as well as more profound symbolic dimensions of behaviour embedded in wider social contexts, express more profound human qualities than those explored by traditional metaphors focusing on instrumental aspects of behaviour. The symbolism perspective can give an important contribution to the understanding of the expressive aspects of organizations in two important ways. First, we can point out that many authors have shown an interest from a symbolic perspective - in how managements express their ambitions (e.g. their policy, business strategy and personnel concept) with the help of a host of instruments and methods (from rites and rituals to the design of buildings and products). Symbolic management has, in fact, become an all-embracing concept for these very ambitions of indirect control or third order control on part of the management. Second, the individual organization members' need for the expressive aspects of social relations has been pointed out. Symbolism highlights the affective dimension of organizational life. Furthermore, the rich flora of action patterns, verbal symbolism and materiality embedded in organizations which express drama, energy, emotionality, ethics, aesthetics, etc. have been profoundly mapped out from various culture and symbolism perspectives. We have increased our knowledge both of the importance of the internal expressivism and of how organizations are maintained and subsist over time. 10.4.5 Future Developments of the Symbolic Perspective

Admittedly, the interest in organizations in relation to their environment is not new even in culture and symbolism research (e.g. in the cross-

214

10 Conclusions, Perspectives and Speculations

cultural management tradition) and contributions to this effect keep flooding the organizational culture literature unabatedly. On the other hand, studies manifesting a close connection between an organization seen from a symbolic perspective, and the context in which it is embedded, are as scarce now as in the early 1980's, but we think we can discern an increased interest in the relation between the organization and the environment/context in a symbolic and culture perspective. Hopefully, we will be able to witness increased research in the symbolic environment in which the organization operates. Today, to a large extent, we lack theories, models and concepts depicting the very nature of the relation between an organization seen from a symbolic perspective and the environment or context in which the organization exists. Questions like: How is a company's culture delimited from the larger cultural system of which it is a part? Can a company possibly influence its symbolic environment? and How can the company's symbolic environment be described in a management perspective? have already been discussed (e.g. Berg/ Gagliardi 1985; Fombrun 1983). Perhaps the most interesting development in this field, at present, is emanating from the assumption that organizations are positioned in multiple symbolic contexts (i.e. large contexts giving different phenomena and actions their meaning) on which people have a certain - if limited - influence. A further development of the context can therefore be expected to offer increased insights into the connection between organization and market, at the same time as it will increase our understanding of how industrial sectors, for example, operate. We also believe that the interest in the immaterial characteristics of products as well as of production systems will increase. What distinguishes recent developments from culture constructivism and symbolic particularism is perhaps above all the increased interest in the new generation of management concepts which wish to capture the very connection between the material and the immaterial. Today, for example, we speak of business concepts as a combination of business ideas, product characteristics, market segments and corporate style and of the importance of corporate business contexts rather than branches of industry or environment. We are of the opinion that this conceptual development will accelerate in the early 1990's and most probably lead to a new way of looking at management in the so-called postmodern society. Thus, we tend to agree with Astley (1984) in his arguing that an acknowledgement of the symbolic

10.5 Towards a Postmodern Discourse?

215

perspective can be the very element tying together theory and practice in the organization and corporate management field.

10.5 Towards a Postmodern Discourse? The corporate culture and organization symbolism approach has also opened our eyes to an alternative mode of scientific discourse, i.e. to a particular way of approaching the world and acquiring knowledge. The importance of collective imagery (being part of the contribution from the culture metaphor) and the acceptance of ambiguity (being the foundation of the symbolic approach) have challenged not only the way we look at organizations, but also the very way we look at science and do research. It is, in fact, argued that we need to "resist" all the taken-as-given assumptions underlying the established discourses of organizations and also in our scientific work take into account that we are part of an emerging "postmodernism" (Berg 1989 b; Cooper/Burrell 1988; Daudi 1989; Featherstone 1988; Kellner 1988). This is a fundamental difference from the two approaches mentioned previously, i.e. the one using culture as a metaphor and the other one using symbolism as a perspective. If culture is used as a metaphor, it is assumed that culture can be understood as a coherent picture. Thus the qualities of the culture metaphor are to be found in its ability to resemble the phenomenon it is supposed to capture. The metaphor is then used as the vehicle by means of which that reality is transmitted to the "observing" researcher. In the symbolic perspective the relation between the researcher and what he tries to capture is somewhat more problematic. Here, the perspective is a matter of conscious choice, as are the phenomena to which he applies the study. Still it is assumed that once the perspective is chosen, the parameters are set and the subsequent discourse has to follow its own more or less rigid logic. The postmodern discourse, however, makes the relation between the researcher and his object still more problematic. What counts now is the credibility of the reasoning that is carried out, regardless of the truth of the discourse, the accuracy of the metaphor or the skill with which the perspective is explored. Here it is the ability to reason, to present a credible conclusion and a list of arguments that will make a critical reader accept what is said at one phase of the exploration and thus allows for

216

10 Conclusions, Perspectives and Speculations

another assertion or claim to be made and again evaluated etc. The credibility of the argument can then never be reduced to scientific rigour or be placed outside the researcher but becomes an integrated part of a larger context in which not only the researcher but also the reader is included. As Linstead (1991: 27) expresses it: "Both authors and readers, creators and consumers, are inseparably bound together in and are constituted by the continual process of the emergence of meaning." According to (most versions of) the postmodern discourse, research is not fundamentally different from social discourse in general. (For another, more rigorous view, see Linstead and Graf ton-Small, 1991.) Thus, a scientific study can be seen as "a move on the market" that will be accepted or not by a wider research community, thus leading to new moves and countermoves. The postmodern discourse can thus be seen as a basic ontological and epistemological attitude towards our perception of reality, based on a substantial and insightful criticism of the modern or rational way of doing research. As such, the postmodern perspective will have an impact on our way of understanding methods and on our methodology, which will be reflected in writings in the field of organization and management (Jeffcutt 1991). Postmodernism has evidently become a buzz word in the organization sciences, and titles and headings containing the word "postmodernism" are beginning to appear (Berg 1989 a, b; Caläs/Smircich 1987; Cooper/ Burrell 1988; Daudi 1989; Molin/Schultz 1989). As a periodizing concept, postmodernism is also closely connected to postindustrialism, i.e. the description of the epoch succeeding industrialism. The characteristics of postindustrial society have also been widely recognized in the organization and management sciences. We have observed the changed meaning of work, the impact of information technology on social reality, the reductions in the industrial sector, recent developments of alternative organization forms and an expansion of the service and information sectors (Lash/Urry 1987). However, while most previous attempts to contextualize organization and management theory from a societal perspective have focused on the industrial (technical-economical) or political/institutional aspects of reality, postmodernism focuses on the cultural dimension, i.e. thought and feeling structures and aesthetic experiences. In this sense the postmodern epoch comes to stand for a more loosely coupled pluralistic, affluent and changeable mass society, as com-

10.5 Towards a Postmodern Discourse?

217

pared to the rigidly ordered industrial societies organized around production processes. It is important, however, to recognize that it is an open question to what extent present (or coming) society is in a state of radical transition. As Kellner (1988: 267) writes, postmodern social theory "is exaggerating the break, rupture and alleged novelty in the contemporary socio-historical epoch and is down playing, and even occluding, the continuities". The empirical evidence of such a radical break is relatively weak (Thompson 1991). Nevertheless, the concept sensitizes us to certain trends, whose magnitudes remain to be better clarified. Postmodernism can and also has influenced organization theory without dealing explicitly with culture and symbolism. While postmodernism in social science addresses primarily cultural phenomena such as images, signs and aesthetics, the linkage between organizational culture/symbolism and postmodernism is close. Most organization theorists inspired by postmodernism have a background in culture theory. Below we will account for some aspects of postmodernism more in detail. First, however, it must be stressed that this concept does not refer to a coherent theoretical school. Instead, it is used in totally different fields with quite different meanings: in social science, architecture, literature, philosophy, etc. (Featherstone 1988). Within social science and philosophy there are neo-conservative and Marxist-inspired authors as well as authors interested in postmodernism. Indeed, sometimes one is inclined to suggest that the term should be abandoned because it refers to far too much (a too heterogeneous body of various approaches) and that it brings confusion rather than clarification: Postmodernism is exceptionally difficult to define involving a movement in architecture, in theatre, in art as well as in social theory. The gurus of modernism of course have attempted to suggest that postmodernism is itself an inchoate, fragmented and transitory set of approaches which does not bear the weight of the epithet 'movement' - and in this, as in other things, they have a point (Burrell 1989: 59).

As will be seen in our overview, it is still possible to identify a number of shared orientations among authors by themselves or by commentators referred to as postmodernists: ... the postmodernists in social theory share a common concern which is based upon a mistrust of the notion of rationality, truth and progress. They find the notion of a unity of theory, of history and the subject as very difficult to justify. In place of such notions, dependent as they are upon a

218

10 Conclusions, Perspectives and Speculations belief in the achievement of the Enlightenment, postmodernists suggest that the reversibilities of history, the importance of the contingent, the superficial and the relativities of the world are the key features which social theory needs to address. Postmodernism stands for post 1968 decentralization, the dominance of the image and appearance over 'reality', of parody and nostalgia over realism (Ibid, page 59-60).

In the next sections we will point out a number of the characteristics of the broad and heterogeneous trend called postmodernism that we believe are of particular relevance for organization studies and briefly indicate some implications.

10.5.1 Resisting Culture and Symbolism A postmodern discourse does not intend to offer alternative explanations. In fact, the whole idea behind postmodernism is not to oppose existing views, discourses, tastes or fashions by presenting alternative grand narratives, i.e. systematic theoretical constructions offering broad and integrated explanations (e.g. Marxism, psychoanalysis and functionalism), but to constantly resist all attempts to impose taken-for-granted assumptions about social phenomena (Lyotard 1984). Thus postmodernism is essentially a means of deconstruction (Derrida 1973) or of decomposing the world. It means looking for differences, gaps and instabilities (Lyotard 1984) rather than for similarities and order, thereby releasing the components from the meaning bestowed upon them by these often uncontested grand narratives. This decomposition can take place in time, i.e. by assuming that historical events and periods are not necessarily connected over time (Foucault 1972), in space, by assuming that parts of buildings though adjacent to each other are not necessarily connected (Jencks 1987; Soja 1989) or in texts by assuming that a given text can be coded quite differently using alternative root metaphors. As a result, a postmodern discourse is not out to replace either the corporate culture metaphor or the symbolic perspective but simply to challenge the very foundations upon which these two perspectives rest. At the core of the postmodern discourse is thus the rejection of any grand narrative, i.e. any attempt to try to impose overall explanations to social phenomena. All "explanations" are precarious and partial. Quite contrary to the culture metaphor, which attempts to build a coherent framework, a sense of core culture in which all culture elements - be it

10.5 Towards a Postmodern Discourse?

219

sagas, rites, narratives - are closely linked together, postmodernists attempt to deconstruct such frameworks to explore the paradoxes involved and the rhetoric of the research texts. This is most clearly reflected in the view of the relation between the symbol and what is symbolizes, which in the postmodern view is seen as completely arbitrary. Thus, quite contrary to the culture metaphor which assumes a very clear and definite link between the symbol and the culture that produced it, and the symbolic perspective that assumed a link between an object (a word, an event, etc.) and a meaning - even if the link was of an ambiguous kind - postmodernism makes no such assumptions at all. This means that the symbol has to be taken at face value, and that the discourse (not exploration as in the culture metaphor or interpretation as in the symbolic approach) has to be conducted in the overall context in which the symbol appears. What is important is the way in which the symbol is coded and double-coded in society, and not the original intentions of the creator of the symbol or even its intentional use in the organization. Another aspect of the postmodern perspective is that it does not presuppose ordering in an organization, nor does it look at the disordering aspect as an important element, but rather resists the very notion of culture as ordering devices. What is at stake here, instead, is the deconstruction, the breaking up of ordering systems. Thus the postmodern approach is a profound challenge to the culture metaphor and to the symbolic perspective, in that it treats cultural phenomena and symbols "in their own right", and not necessarily connected in time, in space or logically to an underlying grand narrative or even any kind of coherent system of meaning. 10.5.2 From the Ambiguous to the Arbitrary A postmodern perspective takes us one step further than the acceptance of the ambiguous, the loosely coupled and the irrational, since it postulates that organizations have their own lives that resist the constructive efforts imposed on them. The human agent, for example, is rejected as a taken-as-given explanation of organizational performance (Cooper/Burrell 1988). It has also been claimed that the organization reacts rather than acts, and that the impetus to organizational change comes from "the spontaneous, aggressive, expansive form-giving forces that give new interpretations and directions" (Deleuze 1983: 41). Cooper and Burrell (1988) also question the organization as a valid entity of analysis, replac-

220

10 Conclusions, Perspectives and Speculations

ing it by a deconstructed view of organizations as pockets of activities, as a set of options, as symbolic fields, as mind images, etc. under the influence of regenerative and breaking-down processes. In the postmodern view, the relation between the symbol and what it represents (or, to put it a little differently, between the signifier and the signified) is not ambiguous but arbitrary. This means a denial of taken-forgranted aesthetic, social and moral structures and second-order interpretive systems, such as corporate cultures. It is this distinction between the ambiguous and the arbitrary relationship, between the symbols and what they are assumed to symbolize, that separates a symbolic discourse from a postmodern one. The key difference is that while ambiguity implies a surplus of meaning attached to a particular object, i.e. a somewhat unclear, fuzzy, vague, obscure or enigmatic relation, arbitrariness implies a capricious or willful relationship that cannot be determined by any rule or principle. While an ambiguous relationship means that there is a way of understanding and capturing this relationship and of understanding the inherent way in which the signifier represents the signified, an arbitrary relationship makes no such assumptions. Arbitrary reproductions thus have a significance of their own, regardless of what inherent reason or principle was used when they were originally produced to represent something. Thus, where symbolists look for deep patterns underlying the symbolic manifestations, postmodernists assume that there is no such pattern, but that the image or symbol represents only itself. The purpose of discourse is thus to deconstruct the taken-as-given assumptions between the symbols and what they are assumed to represent. Consequently, the corporate culture and organizational symbolism approaches in the organization sciences cannot be seen as examples of a postmodern perspective. Thus, what we call an organization is nothing but a set of reproductions of inner experiences, reproductions or images that take on a life of their own and eventually become the reality we inhabit. Rabinow (1986) has argued that representations are social facts, but as such they have no connection or only a trivial one - with what they are supposed to represent. What emerges is thus a view of organizations as consisting of loosely and arbitrarily coupled reproductions (images and symbols) of inner tensions and experiences. Consequently a discourse of organizations or management practices is to be seen as a "material force that dissolves and fragments the human world into concepts, categories and divisions" (Cooper/Burrell 1988).

10.5 Towards a Postmodern Discourse?

221

10.5.3 Imagery

Postmodernism also places great emphasis on images, signs and symbols (at least in art and architecture). In fact, goods, things, symbols and images are seen as being organized as a language (Baudrillard 1983) or as a myth (Barthes 1972), thus encompassing the logic we use to bring order into our own lives. It is also the immediate aesthetic experience that counts, not the way in which aesthetics is used to create order and stability. The prime function of the aesthetic experience is thus not to reduce chaos and conflict but to accept the dissonant beauty or disharmonious harmony (Jencks 1987), to make us appreciate the pluralism of world views, the logical paradoxes, the disjunctions and the juxtaposition of tastes. Images and concepts constitute the fabric of reality and these images or reproductions are as important as the original images themselves. The argument seems to be that the world does consist of images, and that it is not meaningful to separate that image from its content. The issue then becomes one of imitation and reproduction rather than one of representation, as the images have no uncontested relation to the original experience that they were once produced to represent. According to this line of reasoning, it is not meaningful to speak about the qualities of the "original". Rather the world has to be treated as it appears in symbols and images, which have a more or less arbitrary relationship with what they once were produced to represent. As a result, reality is seen as consisting of illusions and fictions; the acceptance of ideas and thoughts comes not from coercion or rational argument, but from "credible" arguments that tickle the imagination, the curiosity and the vanity of the audiences. A number of Swedish (or Sweden-based) authors have also recognized a way of controlling and managing organizations by means of manipulating images, metaphors, symbols and other reproductions using a "figurative language" (Daudi 1989). Images become a major "building block"; not only in regulating the market, but also in organizational "design" images are cornerstones (Alvesson 1990). With the help of images and metaphors we construct the world and make meaning of reality. The power of metaphors comes from the fact that linguistic expressions are manifestations of domains of knowledge. Using metaphors is essentially a way of applying an expression from one such domain to say or explain something about another domain. In postmodern society, which is organized around images, metaphors and symbols, the competition between organizations is

222

10 Conclusions, Perspectives and Speculations

not (only) a question of products and prices, but the fight concerns the promotion of meaning in society. The power belongs to those who can "coin a phrase" (Czarniawska-Joerges 1988 b) or "frame an issue" (Berg/ Jonsson 1991: 266). 10.5.4 Instabilities One key feature of postmodernist thinking is the rejection of stable patterns and fixed meanings. Structures and patterns are seen as secondary to processes, inconsistencies and instabilities. Opposite forces - active and reactive, identity and undecidability - are in operation at the same time. These contradictions are hidden by processes of understanding that give privilege to unity, integration and logic. Not only social life, but also language, is notoriously characterized by unrecognized disparity, difference and indeterminacy (Cooper/Burrell 1988). On this point some organizational research of recent decades seems to have contributed with insights parallel to - and in many cases more wellgrounded and clearly articulated than - those of postmodernist authors. One only needs to refer to the recognition of ambiguity, uncertainty, irrationality and complexity as ways of characterizing relationships, and of paradoxes, conflicts, disharmony and dissonances as ways of characterizing the "tensions" within social systems (see chapter 8). Here we have interesting parallels between parts of modern organization theory and the postmodernist stand. One difference is that the latter considers these aspects to be built into the language by means of which we try to capture "external" organizational reality. All these concepts reflect an increasing weariness with the process of finding lucid and unambiguous relationships between cause and effect, between decisions, talk and actions, between phenomena and symbols or, more precisely, between the signifier and the signified in an increasingly complex and chaotic world. Much recent development in the organization and management sciences has been concerned with the development of concepts, models, theories and root metaphors to help us see and make sense of the chaotic and loosely coupled world of organizations. Various attempts have also been made at defining or tracking the systems at a meta-level, where meaning is created by the help of myths, belief systems, codes, second-order language systems etc. In the future we will probably be looking more and more at the ways in which conflicting contexts influence the actions or organizations, and how organizations increasingly attempt to choose or buy into chosen contexts according to their strategic needs.

10.5 Towards a Postmodern Discourse?

223

10.5.5 Credibility In a decomposed world, in which the grand religious, political and naturalscience narratives have been rejected, scientific truth is essentially a question of credibility, i.e. a proposition or argument is judged according to the social support it can gain. This credibility is then seen as a result of a move on the market, i.e. a proposition is made which is then accepted or rejected by the audience addressed. The success of this move (and thus the ability to make a new move or to change the rules of the game) is related to the imagination triggered off by the proposition or the degree of wit that it conveys. How can we ever get a sense of scientific quality, and how can we ever separate superstition from science in a world characterized by such theoretical relativity and extreme methodological subjectivism? This is a world which denies positive truth, a world in which the discourse is seen as part of the reality that it is supposed to embrace. Essentially we are experiencing a new individually and existentially based moralism, quite different from the previous moralism as expressed in religious and ideological dogmas. What then are our methodological guide-lines in an ethically deconstructed world, in which there are no ideological or religious grand narratives, and where truth is a matter of credibility rather than an objective condition? Perhaps the answer to this question, and maybe also to the other concerns raised above, is to be found in the acceptance of the basic principles of the postmodern discourse, combined with a strengthening of the process of collective reasoning, i.e. dialogue. Eco (1986) said for example when interviewed in a Swedish daily: The problem is not to kill reason, but to disarm bad models of reason and to separate the concept of reason from the concept of truth.

Thus, postmodern discourse - if used in the right way - may help us to question the taken-for-granted or given assumptions about the world and to replace them by genuine reasoning. Reasoning is seen here as the logical discourse in which we are not only responsible for what we say but also for making sure that others understand what we say. Reason as opposed to truth implies that the parties involved in the discourse do not only agree upon the rules or logic of the reasoning, but also upon the conclusions drawn from it. Perhaps this will lead us in the direction to what Habermas (1984) calls "communicative action", i.e. a dialogue that involves bigger parts of soci-

224

10 Conclusions, Perspectives and Speculations

ety in the definition of reality. Habermas is, of course, in strong disagreement with the postmodernists (Lyotard 1984; Rorty 1986). We do believe, however, that elements in Habermas' idea - of communicative rationality as proceeding from local discussions aiming at agreement based on the strength of arguments that are found to survive questioning - and the postmodernists' rejection of overall, universal frameworks can provide mutual inspiration6. The possible input from a "soft" and somewhat selective reading of Habermas might, for example, remind us of the relative powers of critical reason. Thus, we can no longer be satisfied with the production of images and reproductions; we also have to produce or develop a new set of values, norms and ethics concerning the principles of image creation and critical evaluations of images and processes of seduction. If we are abandoning the assumption that values are inborn or existing from the beginning, or that they are a "natural" human property, we also need to reproduce social values that can guide us and serve the present needs of society. Morals and ethics are then the outcome of a collective discourse, in which the formulation of problems, issues and claims as well as a spirited public debate are the most crucial elements. In other words, the structural deconstruction of society and its organizations demands a reconstruction of ethical codes and moral norms. We must therefore hope that the organization of the future will be more than a deconstruction of reason. We must hope that it will also produce reason and meaning - precarious, but still - for its customers and for the people who work in it.

10.6 Organization Research in a Postmodern World Essentially this interest in postmodernism reflects an increasing acceptance of chaos and disorder - a "search for instabilities" as Lyotard (1984: 54) puts it - and the final acceptance of the absence of given ethic or aesthetic codes according to which we can guide our actions und upon which we can base our judgements. When seen in this perspective organizational culture and symbolism are but intermediate steps in the discourse of organizations. Necessary steps maybe at the beginning of the ladder, but definitely not at the end. What organizational culture has helped us to 6

There are, for example, a number of authors in organization research that have drawn upon both Habermas and Foucault (e.g. Alvesson 1992 c; Deetz 1992; Hoy 1986).

10.6 Organization Research in a Postmodern World

225

do, is to climb down the ladder to the organization basement, to explore the foundations of the organized fabric that constitutes corporate life. What the symbolic perspective has brought about is an appreciation of some of the hidden rooms in the organization and some of its internal aesthetic qualities. What postmodernism might do, is give us a better understanding of organizational "facades" as realities and as mirrors of fundamental social tensions in organizations and society - and in our ways of understanding, reasoning and writing about these phenomena. Perhaps organizational culture and symbolism and a postmodern discourse have all been necessary steps in the exploration of organizations steps that finally broke the confinements of the rationalist paradigm. To be frank, most frightening in our field of study is not the theoretical wildcatting that has taken place or the opportunism of our maybe less informed colleagues from the consulting business, but the present degree of institutionalization of the field, and the creation of dogmas around organizational culture and symbolism research. It is in this respect that postmodern discourse comes as a counterpoint and, at best, will counteract research operating with a reified concept of culture based upon the idea that organizations "have" unique, unitary and consistent cultural (sub)systems and open up for a more distinct and original study of cultural phenomena. At worst, the problems of grasping the culture as a whole will result in an escape of competent researchers presently involved in culture studies, thus leaving the field open for pretentious and unserious consultants and quasi-researchers. The influence of (different forms of) postmodernist thinking is, however, still weak and the more profound implications for organizational culture and symbolism theory are unclear. In principle, two paths can be pointed out7. One is that people take the ideas of postmodernism thinking seriously and then reject the projects of "traditional" culture and symbolism theory when looking for cultural patterns and symbolic meanings. This would be in line with the ideas of the gurus of postmodernism (Baudrillard, Derrida and Lyotard) and could be seen as a hard postmodernistic approach aiming at the installation of a new convention. A second, softer, path would be that a major lesson from postmodernism concerns "writing 7

A third path would be that postmodernism will have a very limited influence. Given the rather esoteric character of this stream - especially as it appears form the perspective of the mainstream understandings at the business schools that nowadays harbour most of the organization research - it is not unlikely that postmodernism will have a lesser impact on organization theory than culture and symbolism.

226

10 Conclusions, Perspectives and Speculations

culture". Postmodernism raises doubts about representations and interpretations. It calls for a much more self-reflective approach and more careful attention to how texts are produced and consumed. Issues such as the researcher's authority in the text, the selectivity of representations, the arbitrariness of an interpretation and the hiding of alternative ways of describing and interpreting phenomena will then be given much more attention. Recent developments in anthropology, inspired by postmodernism, have led to a strong interest in authorship and the production of texts as a crucial part of research (Clifford/Marcus 1986). The complexities, ambiguities, inconsistencies and indeterminacies of the social world must in this case be given central status. If organizational culture and symbolism authors would take this (more moderate) path, it will not have very far-reaching implications for methodology and theory and will not implicate a total redefinition of the traditional project. Research questions, theories, concepts and empirical work should be modified rather than revolutionized, at least on the theoretical and empirical levels. The meta-theoretical understanding of the work would be different, however. This would give the whole project a new flavour, but above all it would affect writing. More open texts, reflecting ambiguities not only in the social world but also in language, then become the very difficult ideal. (An ideal that far from all postmodernist writers, paradoxically enough, live up to.)

10.7 Final Words Leaving aside the implications of the popularity of postmodernism for a moment and returning to our dragon, what does his future look like in the light of what has been said in this book - particularly in this last chapter? In order to answer that question we must remind ourselves that a dragon is always a dragon... Going back to the cover and the introduction of the book, there are indications of the dragon moving towards a calmer phase of life. From having been, until the end of the 1970's, a very small dragon which gradually grew and, with his roar, dominated parts of the debate within organization theory, he has matured and perhaps even dozed off a bit. Even if organizational culture research continues to expand quantitatively, new major theoretical contributions are becoming more rare. Culture research is still producing new and original results but the young

10.7 Final Words

227

dragon which, at the beginning of the 1980's, aggressively tore apart the traditional concepts, models and categories indigenous to organizational research is today partly devoting himself to reaping the benefits of his victories. In Kuhnian terms - and we are fully aware that they should be applied with utmost care in social science - it could be argued that culture theory has passed the paradigm-revolutionary phase and is now functioning as a basis for puzzle-solving activities within research. Culture theory is joining the club of earlier dominating creations within organization theory - human relations, systems theory, decision-making, contingency theory, etc. - and is at service with concepts, ideas and methods to anyone interested. Compared with the brothers and sisters in the organization theory club, culture theory has still, after its period of Sturm-undDrang, the advantage of being considerably younger and more vital than many of the others. A dragon which has slowed down somewhat is still a dragon. And one never knows exactly what he is going to do next! It will be interesting to see if, and how, the impulses of postmodernism will affect the dragon. Will he - the major body of cultural research - find this new approach too esoteric, speculative and destructive? Will the criticism by the postmodernists harm our hero? Or will the new ideas inspire the dragon and perhaps give him a well needed vitamin injection? In that case, we hope that the dose will not be too strong. Perhaps this "softer" approach, primarily implying self-reflection and writing, would be the best medicine. The hard-nosed alternative would probably mean too strong a dose. And despite all criticism that we have reviewed and contributed with ourselves in this book, we would consider it too harsh a treatment - and a very sad thing indeed - to see the dragon being knocked out.

References

Abravanel, H., Mediatory Myths in the Service of Organizational Ideology, Organizational Symbolism, Pondy, L. R., P. J. Frost, G. Morgan and T. C. Dandridge (eds.) Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press, 1983. Adler, N., Cultural Synergy: The Management of Cross-Cultural Organizations, Trends and Issues in OD: Current Theory and Practice, Burke W. and L. Goodstein (eds.) San Diego, Ca: University Associates, 1980. Agar, M.H., Speaking of Ethnography, Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1986. Aktouf, O., Business Internal Image: Conflictual Representation Systems, A Canada/Algeria Intercultural Perspective, Dragon 1 (1), 104-118, 1985. Albert, S. and D. Whetten, Organizational Identity, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol.8, Cummings, L. L. and B.M. Staw (eds.) Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press, 1985. Allaire, Y. and M. Firsirotu, Theories of Organizational Culture, Organization Studies 5 (3), 193-226, 1984. Allen, R., Four Phases for Bringing About Cultural Change, Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture, Kilmann, R. H. et al. (eds.) San Francisco, Ca: JosseyBass, 1985. Alvarez, J. L., The Role Played by Leadership and its Symbolics in the Development of Organizational Theory. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture, INSEAD, June 28-30, 1989. Alvesson, M., Organization Theory and Technocratic Consciousness, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1987 a. Alvesson, M., Organization, Culture and Ideology, International Studies of Management and Organization 13 (3), 4-18, 1987b. Alvesson, M., From Substance to Image, Organization Studies 11 (3), 373-394, 1990. Alvesson, M., Organizational Symbolism and Ideology, Journal of Management Studies 28 (3), 207-225, 1991. Alvesson, M., Management of Professional Service Companies, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. In press. 1992 a. Alvesson, M., Culture Perspectives on Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In press. 1992 b. Alvesson, M., Communication, Power and Organization, Book manuscript. 1992 c. Alvesson, M., Cultural-Ideological Modes of Management Control, Communication Yearbook 16, Deetz, S. (ed.) Newbury Park: Sage. In press. 1993.

230

References

Alvesson, M. and . D. Billing, Gender and Organization: Toward a Differentiated Understanding, Organization Studies. In press. 1992. Alvesson, M. and L. Lindkvist, Transaction Costs, Clans and Control. Research paper. 1990. Alvesson, M. and L. Melin, Major Discrepancies in Organizational Culture. Paper presented at SCOS International Conference on the Symbolics of Corporate Artifacts, Milan, 1987, revised 1989. Alvesson, M. and B. Sandkull, The Organizational Meltingpot: an Arena for Different Cultures, Scandinavian Journal of Management 4 (3/4), 135-145, 1988. Angelmar, R. and S. Schneider, Cognition and Organizational Analysis: Who's Minding the Store? Paper presented to the Organization and Management Theory Division for the Annual Academy of Management Meeting, New Orleans, 1987. Anthony, P.D., The Ideology of Work, London: Tavistock, 1978. Apter, D.E., Ideology and Discontent, Ideology and Discontent, Apter, D.E. (ed.) New York, NY: The Free Press, 1964. Arbnor, I. and B. Bjerke, Företagsekonomisk metodlära, Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1977. Argyris, C., How Learning and Reasoning Processes Affect Organizational Change, Change in Organizations, Goodman, P. et al. (eds.) San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass, 1982. Arndt, J. and A.Friman (eds.), Intern marknadsföring, Malmö: Liber, 1983. Ashforth, E., Climate Formation: Issues and Extensions, Academy of Management Review 10 (4), 837-847, 1985. Astley, W. G., Subjectivity, Sophistry and Symbolism in Management Science, Journal of Management Studies 21 (3), 259-272, 1984. Baker, E., Managing Organizational Culture, Management Review 69 (7), 8-13, 1980. Baklien, B., Organisasjonsklimat - Et frynsete begrep i organisasjonspsykologien, Nordisk Psykologi 35 (1), 1-13, 1983. Barley, S.R., G.W. Meyer and D.C. Gash, Cultures of Culture: Academics, Practitioners and the Pragmatics of Normative Control, Administrative Science Quarterly 33 (1), 24-60, 1988. Barney, J., Organizational Culture: Can it be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage?, Academy of Management Review 11 (4), 656-665, 1986. Barthes, R., Mythologies, New York, NY: Hill and Wang, 1972. Bate, P., The Impact of Organizational Culture on Approaches to Organizational Problem-Solving, Organization Studies 5 (1), 43-66, 1984. Baudrillard, J., Simulations, New York, NY: Semiotext(e), 1983. Beck, B.E. F. and L. F. Moore, Influence of Corporate Images on Managers' Styles: The Example of Five Canadian Banks. Paper presented at Organizational Folklore Conference, Santa Monica, Ca, 1983.

References

231

Beckerus, A. and A. Edstrom (eds.), Doktrinskiftet, Stockholm: Svenska Dagbladets Förlag, 1988. Berg, P.O., Emotional Structures in Organizations: A Study of the Process of Change in a Swedish Company, Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1979, second edition 1981. Berg, P.O., The Psychodynamics of Organizations: Exploring the Collective Aspects of Organization Life. Research proposal, Department of Business Administration, Lund University, 1980. Berg, P.O., 11 Metaphors and Their Theoretical Implications, Traditions and Trends in Organization Theory (II), Berg, P.O. and P.Daudi (eds.) Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1982. Berg, P.O., Rites, Rituals and Ceremonies as Symbolic Operations. Paper presented at the UCLA Conference on Organization Mythology, Santa Monica, Ca, 1983. Berg, P. O., Corporate Culture Development: The Strategic Integration of Identity, Profile and Image, Krilongruppens ärsbok, 1984. Berg, P. O., Organization Change as a Symbolic Transformation Process, Organizational Culture, Frost, P. J., L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg and J. Martin (eds.) Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1985 a. Berg, P.O., Techno-Culture: The Symbolic Framing of Technology in a Volvo Plant, Scandinavian Journal of Management 1 (4), 237-256, 1985 b. Berg, P. O., Symbolic Management of Human Resources, Human Resource Management 25 (4), 557-579, 1986. Berg, P. O., Products as Artificial Artifacts: The Deprivation of Sensuous Expression in Industry. Research paper, Management Research Institute, The Copenhagen School of Economics and Business Administration, Copenhagen, 1987. Berg, P.O., Ledelse - det (post)moderna managementbegreppet, Ledelselcerens verkstoed, Bakka, J.F. (ed.) Copenhagen: Dafolo, 1989 a. Berg, P.O., Postmodern Management? From Facts to Fiction in Theory and Practice, Scandinavian Journal of Management 5 (3), 201-217, 1989 b. Berg, P.O., Kvalitet i det postmoderna samhället - frän egenskap till koncept, Kvalitetsutveckling iprivata och offentliga tjänsteföretag, Edvardsson, B. and B. Thomasson (eds.) Stockholm: Natur och Kultur, 1989c. Berg, P. O., Deconstructing SCOS?, SCOS Notework 8 (2), 1989d. Berg, P. O., Rites, Rituals, Ceremonies and Celebrations in Organizations. Article submitted for publication, 1991 a. Berg, P.O., Symbolic Management: Corporate Expressive Strategies in Theory and Practice. Book manuscript, 1991 b. Berg, P. O. and C. Faucheux, The Symbolic Management of Company Cultures, Unpublished book manuscript, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, 1982. Berg, P. O. and P. Gagliardi, Corporate Images: A Symbolic Perspective of the

232

References

Organization-Environment Interface. Paper presented at the SCOS Conference on Corporate Images, Antibes, 1985. Berg, P.O. and C. Jonsson, Strategisk leaningpäpolitiska marknader. Opinionsbildning och intern förankring i förvaltningar och folkrörelseorganisationer, Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1991. Berg, P. O. and K. Kreiner, Corporate Architecture: Turning Physical Settings into Symbolic Resources, Symbols and Artifacts: Views of the Corporate Landscape, Gagliardi, P. (ed.) Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Berg, P. O. and L-C Olsson, Kommunal och regional prof Hering. Research report, Dept. of Business Administration, Lund University, 1990. Berg, P. O., H. H. Hansen and F. Poulfelt, From Profession to Industry: A Study of the Scandinavian Management Consulting Industry. Research paper, Management Research Institute, Copenhagen School of Economics and Business Administration, Copenhagen, 1988. Berger, P. and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge, New York, NY: Doubleday, 1966. Berne, B., The Structure and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups, New York, NY: Ballantine Books, 1963, revised edition 1974. Bernstein, D., Company Image and Reality: A Critique of Corporate Communications, Eastbourne: Holt, Rinehardt and Winston, 1984. Bernstein, R., Beyond Objectivism and Relativism, Oxford: Blackwell, 1983. Beyer, J. M., Ideologies, Values and Decision-Making in Organizations, Handbook of Organizational Design, Nyström P. and W. Starbuck (eds.) New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1981. Bion, W., Experiences in Groups, London: Tavistock, 1961. Bird, B., The Mercurial Entrepreneur: A Jungian Look at the Venture Process. Paper presented at The Fourth International Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture, INSEAD, June 28-30, 1989. Björklund, A., Hamnens arbetare. En etnologisk undersökning av stuveriarbetet i Göteborg, Stockholm: Nordiska Museets Handlingar, 101, 1984. Björkman, I., Factors Influencing Processes of Radical Change in Organizational Belief Systems, Scandinavian Journal of Management 5 (4), 251-271, 1989. Boisot, M., Markets and Hierarchies in a Cultural Perspective, Organization Studies 1 (2), 135-158, 1986. Boivie, D., Bevare oss for företagskulturen, Datavärlden, January, 1986. Boje, D., D. Fedor and K. Rowland, Myth Making: A Qualitative Step in OD Interventions, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 18 (1), 17-28, 1982. Boland, R. J. and R. Hoffman, Humor in a Machine Shop: An Interpretation of Symbolic Action, Organizational Symbolism, Pondy, L. R., P. J. Frost, G. Morgan andT.C. Dandridge (eds.) Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press, 1983. Bonazzi, G., Scapegoating in Complex Organizations: The Results of a Comparative Study of Symbolic Blame-Giving in Italian and French Public Administration, Organization Studies 4 (1), 1-18, 1983.

References

233

Boorstin, D., The Image, New York, NY: Atheneum, 1969, revised edition 1980. Boulding, K. E., The Image, Ann Arbor, Mich: The University of Michigan Press, 1956. Bourantas, D., J. Anagnostelis, Y. Mantes and A. G. Kef alas, Culture Gap in Greek Management, Organization Studies 11 (2), 261-283, 1990. Bourdieu, P., Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction, Knowledge, Education and Cultural Change, Brown, R. (ed.) London: Tavistock, 1973. Bowles, M. L., Myth, Meaning and Work Organization, Organization Studies 10 (3), 405-421, 1989. Brante, T., Vetenskapens Struktur och f r ndring, Lund: Doxa, 1980. Brissy, J., Cultural Engineering at Work: the Cult of Complexity in the "New Scientific Management", Dragon, August (6), 24-38, 1986. Broms, H. and H. Gahmberg, Myths and Language in Business Strategy. Paper presented at the Seminar on Strategic Management Practices in Business: Myths, Norms and Reality, St. Maximin Abbey, 1979. Broms, H. and H. Gahmberg, Communication to Self in Organizations and Cultures, Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (3), 482-495, 1983. Brooker, Μ. Α., Magic in Business and Industry: Notes Towards its Recognition and Understanding, Anthropologica (CN) 9 (1), 3-20, 1967. Brown, R. H., Bureaucracy as Praxis: Toward a Political Phenomenology of Formal Organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly 23, 365-382, 1978. Brunsson, N., The Irrational Organization: Irrationality as a Basis for Organizational Action and Change, New York, NY: Wiley, 1985. Brunsson, N., The Organization of Hypocrisy. Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organizations, Chichester: Wiley, 1989. Bunke, H., Heroes, Values and the Organization, Business Horizon 19 (Oct.), 33-41, 1976. Buono, A. F. and J. L. Bowditch, The Human Side of Mergers and Acquisitions, San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass, 1989. Burawoy, M., Manufacturing Consent. Changes in the Labor Process Under Monopoly Capitalism, Chicago, II: The University of Chicago Press, 1979. Burrell, G., Modernism, Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis 2: The Contribution of Michel Foucault, Organization Studies 9 (2), 1988. Burrell, G., Post Modernism: Threat or Opportunity?, Operational Research and the Social Sciences, Jackson, M. C. et al. (eds.) New York, NY: Plenum, 1989. Burrell, G. and G. Morgan, Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, London: Heinemann, 1979. Bursell, B., Anl ggarna. En studie αν yrkesvillkor och yrkeskultur i vag- och vattenbyggnadsbranschen, Stockholm: Nordiska Museets Handlingar, 101, 1984. Galas, M. and L. Smircich, Is the Organization Culture Literature Dominant but Dead? Paper presented at SCOS International Conference on the Symbolics of Corporate Artifacts, Milan, 1987.

234

References

Galas, M. and L. Smircich, Reading Leadership as a Form of Cultural Analysis, Emerging Leadership Vistas, Hunt, J. G. et al. (eds.) Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, 1988. Calori, R. and R. Sarnin, Corporate Culture and Economic Performance: A French Study, Organization Studies 12 (1), 49-74, 1991. Carlzon, J., Moments of Truth, London: Ballinger, 1987. Casey, M. and D. Dunkerley, Technological Work Cultures: Conflict and Assimilation Within a Mid-Nineteenth Century Naval Dockyard. Paper presented at SCOS Workshop on Rites and Rituals, University of Groningen, 1983. Casmir, F., The Culture Paradigm: Scholary Pursuit of Knowledge or Fad?, Quarterly Journal of Speech. In press. 1992. Cassirer, E., An Essay on Man, New Haven, Ct: Yale University Press, 1944. Cassirer, E., The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, New Haven, Ct: Yale University Press, 1953. Clark, B., The Distinctive College: Antiock, Reed and Swarthmore, Chicago, II: Aldine, 1970. Clark, B., The Organizational Saga in Higher Education, Administrative Science Quarterly 17, 178-184, 1972. Cleverly, G., Managers and Magic, London: Longman Group, 1971. Clifford, J. and G. E. Marcus (eds.), Writing Culture. The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, Berkeley, Ca: University of California Press, 1986. Cobb, R. and C. Elder, Symbolic Identifications and Political Behavior, American Politics Quarterly 4 (3), 305-332, 1976. Cohen, A., Two-Dimensional Man. An Essay on the Anthropology of Power and Symbolism in Complex Society, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974. Collin, F., Organisationskultur og forandring, Copenhagen: Nyt fra samfundsvidenskaberne, 1987. Collinson, D.L., 'Engineering Humour': Masculinity, Joking and Conflict in Shop-floor Relations, Organization Studies 9 (2), 181-199, 1988. Conradson, B., Etnologiska bilder av livet pa kontor, Stockholm: Nordiska Museet, 1988. Cooper, R. and G. Burrell, Modernism, Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis: An Introduction, Organization Studies 9 (1), 91-112, 1988. Crozier, M. and E. Friedberg, Organizations as Means and Constraints of Collective Action, Organizational Choice and Constraint: Approaches to the Sociology of Enterprise Behavior, Warner, M. (ed.) Westmead: Saxon House, 1977. Czarniawska, B., The Management of Meaning in the Polish Crisis, Journal of Management Studies 23 (3), 313-331, 1986. Czarniawska-Joerges, B., Ideological Control in Nonideological Organizations, New York, NY: Praeger, 1988 a. Czarniawska-Joerges, B., To Coin a Phrase: On Organizational Talk, Organizational Control and Management Consulting, Uppsala: The Study of Power and Democracy in Sweden (Maktutredningen), 1988 b.

References

235

Czarniawska-Joerges, B., Exploring Complex Organizations: A Cultural Perspective, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992. Daft, R., The Evolution of Organization Analysis in ASQ 1959-1979, Administrative Science Quarterly 25, 623-636, 1980. Daft, R., Symbols in Organizations: A Dual-Content Framework of Analysis, Organizational Symbolism, Pondy, L. R., P. J. Frost, G. Morgan and T. C. Dandridge (eds.) Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press, 1983. Dahlgren, G. and P. Witt, Företagskultur - en granskning av forskningen om företagskultur samt presentation av affärskulturbegreppet. Research report 6296, Stockholm, EFI, 1985. Dahlgren, G. and P. Witt, Leaning av fusionsförlopp. En analys av bildandet av Ericsson Information Systems AB. PhD dissertation, The Stockholm School of Economics, 1988. Dale, A. and L. Spencer, Sentiments, Norms, Ideologies and Myths: Their Relation to the Resolution of Issues in a State Theatre Company. Working paper, EIASM, Brussels, 1977. Dandridge, T. C., Symbols at Work. PhD dissertation, Suny at Albany, NY, 1976. Dandridge, T. C., Symbols' Function and Use, Organizational Symbolism, Pondy, L.R., P.J. Frost, G. Morgan, and T.C. Dandridge (eds.) Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press, 1983. Dandridge, T. C., Ceremony as an Integration of Work and Play, Organization Studies 1 (2), 159-170, 1986. Dandridge, T. C., I.I. Mitroff and W. F. Joyce, Organizational Symbolism: A Topic to Expand Organizational Analysis, Academy of Management Review 5 (1), 77-82, 1980. Daudi, P., In Re-Search of Plenitude. Some Epistemological Remarks in the Postmodern Era. Unpublished research paper, Dept. of Business Administration, Lund University, 1989. Davis, S.M., Transforming Organizations: The Key to Strategy is Context, Organizational Dynamics 10 (3), 64-80, 1982. Davis, T, The Influence of the Physical Environment in Offices, Academy of Management Review 9 (2), 271-283, 1984. De Board, R., The Psychoanalysis of Organisations, London: Tavistock, 1978. Deal, T. and A. Kennedy, Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life, Reading, Ma: Addison Wesley, 1982. Deetz, S., Ethical Considerations in Cultural Research in Organizations, Organizational Culture, Frost P. J., L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg and J. Martin (eds.) Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1985. Deetz, S., Democracy in an Age of Corporate Colonization, New York, NY: State University of New York Press, 1992. Deetz, S. and S. Kersten, Critical Models of Interpretive Research, Communication and Organizations, Putnam, L. and M. Pacanowsky (eds.) Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1983.

236

References

Deleuze, G., Nietsche and Philosophy, London: Athlone Press, 1983. De Marco, W., Unlocking the Meaning of a Multi-Billion Dollar Corporation's Culture to Affect Strategic Change: A Case Study. Paper presented at SCOS International Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture, Lund, 1984. Denhardt, R., In the Shadow of Organization, Lawrence: Regents Press, 1981. Denison, D. R., Bringing Corporate Culture to the Bottom Line, Organizational Dynamics 13 (2) 4-22, 1984. Derrida, J., Speech and Phenomena and Other Essays on Husserl's Theory of Signs, Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973. Donnellon, A., B. Gray and M. Bougon, Communication, Meaning and Organized Action, Administrative Science Quarterly 31 (1), 43-55, 1986. Dyer Jr., W. G., The Cycle of Cultural Evolution in Organizations, Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture, Kilmann, R. H., M. J. Saxton, R. Serpa et al. (eds.) San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass, 1985. Eagle, J. and P. Newton, Scapegoating in Small Groups: An Organizational Approach, Human Relations 34 (4), 283-301, 1981. Ebers, M., Understanding Organizations: The Poetic Mode, Journal of Management 11 (2), 51-62, 1985. Eckberg, D. and L. Hill, The Paradigm Concept and Sociology: A Critical Review, Paradigms and Revolutions, Gutting, G. (ed.) Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980. Eco, U., Interview with Umberto Eco in Dagens Nyheter, 1986. Edgren, L., To 'Read' Organizational Cultures and The Commando Model - a Way to Gather and Interpret Cultural Data, Organizational Symbolism, Turner, B. (ed.) Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1990. Ehn, B., Arbetets flytande gränser, Stockholm: Prisma, 1981. Ehn, B. and O. Löfgren, Kulturanalys, Lund: Liber, 1982. Ekvall, G., Organisationsklimat. Teori och forskning, Psykologi i tillampning 3 (1), Lund University, 1985. Eoyang, C., Symbolic Transformation of Belief Systems, Organizational Symbolism, Pondy, L. R., P. J. Frost, G. Morgan and T. C. Dandridge (eds.) Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press, 1983. Everett, I.E., B.W. Stening and P.A. Longton, Some Evidence for an International Managerial Culture, Journal of Management Studies 19, 153-162, 1982. Featherstone, M., In Pursuit of the Postmodern: An Introduction, Theory, Culture & Society 5 (2-3), 195-215, 1988. Feldman, M. S. and J. G. March, Information in Organizations as Signal and Symbol, Administrative Science Quarterly 26 (2), 171-186, 1981. Feldman, S. P., How Organizational Culture Can Affect Innovation, Organizational Dynamics 17 (1), 57-68, 1988. Ferris, R., How Organizational Love Can Improve Leadership, Organizational Dynamics 16 (4), 40-51, 1988.

References

237

Filby, I., Analysing Organisational Culture: A Critical Ethnography of Public Relations and Personnel Specialists Located in a State Bureaucracy. Unpublished PhD thesis, Aston University, Birmingham, 1990. Filby, I. and H. Willmott, Ideologies and Contradictions in a Public Relations Department: The Seduction and Impotence of Living Myth, Organization Studies 9 (3), 335-349, 1988. Fine, G., Negotiated Orders and Organizational Cultures, Annual Review of Sociology 10, 1984. Fiol, C. M., A Semiotic Analysis of Corporate Language: Organizational Boundaries and Joint Venturing, Administrative Science Quarterly 34 (2), 277-303, 1989. Fitzgerald, T. H., Can Change in Organizational Culture Really Be Managed?, Organizational Dynamics 17 (2), 4-15, 1988. Fombrun, C., Corporate Culture, Environment and Strategy, Human Resource Management 22 (1/2), 139-152, 1983. Forester, J., Critical Theory and Organizational Analysis, Beyond Method. Strategies for Social Research, Morgan G. (ed.) Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1983. Foucault, M., The Archaeology of Knowledge, London: Tavistock, 1972. Frost, P. J., Power, Politics and Influence, Handbook of Organizational Communication, Jablin, P.M. et al. (eds) Newbury Park, Ca: Sage, 1987. Frost, P. J., L.F. Moore, M.R. Louis, C.C. Lundberg and J. Martin (eds.), Organizational Culture, Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1985. Frost, P. J. and G. Morgan, Symbols and Sensemaking: The Realization of a Framework, Organizational Symbolism, Pondy, L. R., P. J. Frost, G. Morgan and T.C. Dandridge (eds.) Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press, 1983. Gagliardi, P., Organization Culture as a Resource for Integration and Motivation. Research paper, ISTUD, Belgirate, 1982. Gagliardi, P. (ed.), Le Imprese come Culture, Turin: Petrini Editore, 1986a. Gagliardi, P., The Creation and Change of Organization Cultures: A Conceptual Framework, Organization Studies 1 (2), 117-134, 1986 b. Gagliardi, P. (ed.), Symbols and Artifacts: Views of the Corporate Landscape, Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990 a. Gagliardi, P., Artifacts as Pathways and Remains of Organizational Life, Symbols and Artifacts: Views of the Corporate Landscape, Gagliardi, P. (ed.) Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990 b. Garbett, T. F., Corporate Advertising. The what, the why and the how, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1981. Geertz, C., The Interpretation of Cultures, New York, NY: Basic Books, 1973. Giddens, A., Central Problems in Social Theory, London: Macmillan, 1979. Gioia, D. A., Symbols, Scripts and Sensemaking: Creating Meaning in the Organizational Experience, The Thinking Organization. Dynamics of Organizational Social Cognition, Sims, H. P., D. A. Gioia et al. (eds.) San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass, 1986.

238

References

Giritli, H. and Z. Sözen et al. (eds.), Organizational Culture in Different Civilizations, Istanbul: Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, 1988. Goodstein, L., Maintaining the Organizational Culture: An Experiential Strategy for Socializing New Manager, Group and Organization Studies 4 (3), 287-293, 1979. Gouldner, A., Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy, Glencoe, II: Free Press, 1954. Grafton-Small, R., Making Meaning Concrete: Exchange Processes and the Cultural Determination of Physical Space, CEBES Journal 1 (1), 62-75, 1985. Grafton-Small, R. and S. Linstead, Cultural Engineering: Corporate Design and the Negotiation of Order in an Industrial Society, Dragon, August (6), 9-12, 1986. Granstrand, O., Technology, Management and Markets: An Investigation of R&D and Innovation in Industrial Organizations. PhD dissertation, Dept. of Industrial Organization, Chalmers, Gothenburg, 1979. Gray, ., . Bougon and A. Donnellon, Organizations as Constructions and Destructions of Meaning, Journal of Management 11 (2), 83-98, 1985. Gregory, K., Native-View Paradigms: Multiple Cultures and Culture Conflicts in Organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (3), 359-376, 1983. Grönhaug, K. and W. Haukedal, Environmental Imagery and Strategic Actions, Scandinavian Journal of Management 4 (1/2), 5-17, 1988. Gudykunst, W., L. Stewart and S. Ting-Toomey (eds.) Communication, Culture and Organizational Processes, Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1985. Gustafsson, B- , Entreprenörskultur - självtillit och handling. Research paper, Department of Business Administration, Växjö University, Sweden, 1986. Gustafsson, C., Efficiency and Related Rules for Organizational Action, International Studies of Management & Organization 13 (3), 62-68, 1983. Göranson, J., Att sälja sin själ: En bok om Corporate Advertising, Stockholm: Dagens Nyheter/Blanking, 1984. Habermas, J., On Systematically Distorted Communication, Inquiry 13 (4), 1970. Habermas, J., Knowledge and Human Interests, London: Heinemann, 1972. Habermas, J., The Theory of Communicative Action, Boston, Ma: Beacon Press, 1989. Haiss, P. R., Cultural Influences on Strategic Planning: Empirical Findings in the Banking Industry, Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag, 1990. Hall, R. H. and W. Xu, Research Note: Run Silent, Run Deep - Cultural Influences on Organizations in the Far East, Organization Studies 11 (4), 569-576, 1990. Handy, C., Gods of Management - How They Work and Why They Will Fail, London: Souvenir Press, 1978. Hannerz, U. et al. (eds.), Kultur och medvetande, Stockholm: Akademiförlaget, 1982. Hansell, H., Municipal Pride - an Unrecognized Cost?. Paper presented at SCOS

References

239

International Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture, Lund,1984. Harrison, R., Understanding your Organization's Character, Harvard Business Review 50 (30), 119, 1972. Harrison, R., Questionnaire on the Culture of Organizations, Gods of Management, Handy, C. (ed.) London: Souvenir Press, 1978. Hartley J., Ideology and Organizational Behavior, International Studies of Management and Organization 13 (3), 7-34, 1983. Harvey, J. B. and R. D. Albertson, Neurotic Organizations: Symptoms, Causes and Treatment, Contemporary OD: Conceptual Orientations and Interventions, Burke, W. (ed.) Washington, D. C.: NTL Institute, 1972. Hedlund, G., Managing Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationships as a Matter of Style. Paper presented at EIASM Workshop on Organizational and Individual Change, Brussels, 1978. Heirs, B. and G. Pehrson, The Mind of the Organization, New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1972. Heller, T., Changing Authority Patterns: A Cultural Perspective, Academy of Management Review 10 (4), 488-495, 1985. Helmers, S., Anthropological Contributions to Organizational Culture, SCOS Notework 10 (1), 60-72, 1991. Hemmersam, F., Undervisning i arbejderkultur og 'Grav hvor du star', Nor disk seminar om arbejderkultur og arbejderfolklore, Copenhagen, 1983. Hemmersam, F., The Existence and Functions of Two Cultural Circuits in Organizations. Paper presented at SCOS International Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture, Lund, 1984. Hennestad, B., The Symbolic Impact of Double-bind Leadership. Paper presented at The Fourth International Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture, INSEAD, June 28-30, 1989. Hirsch, P. and A. Andrews, Ambushes, Shoo touts and Knights of the Roundtable: The Language of Corporate Takeovers, Organizational Symbolism, Pondy, L.R., P.J. Frost, G. Morgan andT.C. Dandridge (eds.) Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press, 1983. Hofstede, G., Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, London: Sage, 1980. Hofstede, G., B. Neuijen, D.D. Ohayv and G. Sanders, Measuring Organizational Cultures: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study across Twenty Cases, Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (2), 286-316, 1990. Holm-Löfgren, B., Ansvar, avund, arbetsgladje: en folklivsstudie av människan i kontorskulturen, Stockholm: Askild och Kärnekull, 1980. Horwitch, M., The Emergence of Value-Creation Networks in Corporate Strategy, U.S. -Japan Science and Technology Exchange: Patterns of Interdependence, Uyehava, C. H. (ed.) London: Westview Press, 1988. Hoy, D. C. (ed.), Foucault. A Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.

240

References

Industry Week, Are Your Status Symbols Outdated?, Industry Week, Jan 21, 24-27, 1974. Ingvar, D. and C. Sandberg, Det medvetna företaget, Stockholm: Timbro, 1985. Jackson, N. and P. Carter, Toward a Metatheory of Organizational Symbolism. Research paper, Dept. of Management Systems and Sciences, University of Hull, 1986. Jaques, E., The Changing Culture of a Factory: A Study of Authority and Participation in an Industrial Setting, London: Tavistock, 1951. Jaques, E., On the Dynamics of Social Structure, Human Relations 6, 3-24,1953. Jaques, E., Social Systems as a Defense Against Persecutory and Depressive Anxiety, New Directions in Psychoanalysis, Klein, M. et al. (eds.) London: Tavistock, 1955. Jeffcutt, P., From Interpretation to Representation in Organisational Analysis: Postmodernism, Ethnography and Organisational Culture. Paper, School of Management, University of Stirling, 1991. Jencks, C., Postmodernism. The New Classicism in Art and Architecture, London: Academy Editions, 1987. Jones, M. O., M. D. Moore and R. C. Snyder (eds.), Inside Organizations. Understanding the Human Dimension, Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1988. Joynt, P. and M. Warner, Managing in Different Cultures, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1985. Jönsson, S. and R. A. Lundin, Myths and Wishful Thinking as Management Tools, TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences 5, 157-170, 1977. Kanter, R. M., The Change Masters, London: Unwin, 1983. Kaplan, A., The Conduct of Inquiry, San Francisco, Ca: Chandlers Publishers, 1964. Karlsson, A., Legitimation and Organizations: Some Remarks on the Main Approaches. Paper presented at SCOS International Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture, Lund, 1984. Karlsson, A., Om strategi och legitimitet. En Studie av legitimitetsproblematiken i förbindelse med strategisk förändring i organisationer. PhD dissertation, Lund University, 1991. Kedia, B.L. and R. S. Bhagat, Cultural Constraints on Transfer of Technology Across Nations: Implications for Research in International and Comparative Management, Academy of Management Review 13 (4), 559-571, 1988. Keesing, R., Theories of Culture, Annual Review of Anthropology, 3, 73-97, 1974. Kellner, D., Postmodernism as Social Theory: Some Challenges and Problems, Theory, Culture & Society 5 (2-3), 239-269, 1988. Kent, J., Drachen gibt's doch gar nicht, Ravensburg: Otto Maier, 1986. Kets de Vries, M., The Irrational Executive: Psychoanalytic Explorations in Management, New York, NY: International Universities Press, 1984.

References

241

Kets de Vries, M. and D. Miller, The Neurotic Organization, San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass, 1984 a. Kets de Vries, M. and D. Miller, Group Fantasies and Organizational Functioning, Human Relations 37 (2), 111-134, 1984b. Kets de Vries, M. and D. Miller, Personality, Culture and Organization, Academy of Management Review 11(2), 266-279, 1986. Kidder, T., The Soul of a New Machine, New York, NY: Avon Books, 1982. Kilmann, R.H., Getting Control of the Corporate Culture, Pittsburgh Business School Magazine Fall, 11-17, 1982. Kilmann, R.H., Five Steps for Closing Culture Gaps, Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture, Kilmann, R. H., M. J. Saxton and R. Serpa (eds.) San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass, 1985. Kilmann, R. H. and M. J. Saxton, Culture Gap Survey, Pittsburgh, Penn: Organizational Design Consultants, 1986. Kilmann, R. H., M. J. Saxton and R. Serpa (eds.), Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture, San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass, 1985. King, T. and D. Fitzgibbons, Power, Conflict and Ideology. The Dialectic of Chaos and Order. Paper presented at the Conference on Critical Perspectives on Organizations, New York, NY, 1985. Kinnunen, J., The Importance of Organizational Culture Development Activities in a Primary Health Care Organization, International Journal of Health Planning and Management 5, 65-71, 1990. Knights, D. and H. Willmott, Organizational Culture as Management Strategy: A Critique and an Illustration, International Studies of Management and Organization 13 (3), 40-63, 1987. Kolarska, L., Centralization and Decentralization as Organizational Myth. Paper presented at EGOS conference, Glasgow, 1981. Kotler, J., What Effective Managers Really Do, Harvard Business Review Nov/ Dec, 1982. Krefting, L. and P. J. Frost, Untangling Webs, Surfing Waves, and Wildcatting: A Multiple-Metaphor Perspective on Managing Organizational Culture, Organizational Culture, Frost, P. J., L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg and J. Martin (eds.) Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1985. Kreiner, K., The Site Organization - a Study of Social Relationships on Construction Sites. PhD dissertation, The Technical University of Denmark, 1976. Kreiner, K., The Postmodern Epoch of Organization Theory. Paper presented at CSLMO Conference 18-21 September, EADA, Barcelona, 1989. Kreiner, K. and S. Christensen, Organizational Aura, Corporate Image, and Industrial Renewal, Dragon 1, 83-103, 1986. Kühn, T. S., The Structure of Scientific Revolution, Chicago, II: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Kunda, G., Engineering Culture, Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation, Philadelphia, Pa: Temple University Press, 1991.

242

References

Kunda, G. and S. R. Barley, Designing Devotion: Corporate Culture and Ideologies of Workplace Control. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association's 83rd Annual Meeting, Atlanta, 1988. Langer, S. K., Philosophy in a New Key. A Study in the Symbolism of Reason, Rite, and Art, Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press, 1957. Larcon, J. P. and R. Reitter, Structures de pouvoir et identite de {'enterprise, Paris: Nathan, 1979. Lasch, C., The Culture of Narcissism, London: Abacus, 1980. Lasch, C., The Minimal Self, London: Picador, 1984. Lash, S. and J. Urry, The End of Organized Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1987. Laurent, A., The Cultural Diversity of Management Conceptions. Research report, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, 1982. Laurent, A., The Cultural Diversity of Western Conceptions of Management, Managing in Different Cultures, Joynt, P. and M. Warner (eds.) Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1985 a. Laurent, A., Steps Toward the Diagnosis of Organizational Cultures: A Methodology Based on Actors' Representations. Paper presented at SCOS Conference on Corporate Image, Antibes, 1985 b. Lewicki, R., Organization Seduction: Building Commitment to Organizations, Organizational Dynamics 10 (2), 5-21, 1981. Lievegoed, ., Sociala gestaltningar inom arbetslivet (Original title: Soziale Gestaltungen in der Heilpädagogik), Järna: Telleby Bokförlag, 1978. Liljeström, R., Kultur och arbete, Stockholm: Liber, 1979. Linstead, S., Symbolization and Ambiguity in Organizations: Induction, Humour and the Symbolic Process, CEBES Journal 1 (2), 52-97, 1985. Linstead, S., The Text of Culture: Implications of Post-Modern Thought for the Analysis of Culture in Organizations. Paper presented at EGOS conference, Vienna, July 1991. Linstead, S. and R. Graf ton-Small, No Visible Means of Support: Ethnography and the End of Deconstruction. Paper presented at the 8th International SCOS Conference, Copenhagen, 1991. Lorsch, J., Strategic Myopia: Culture as an Invisible Barrier to Change, Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture, Kilmann, R. H., M. J. Saxton, R. Serpa et al. (eds.) San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass, 1985. Louis, M. R., A Cultural Perspective on Organizations: The Need for and Consequences of Viewing Organizations as Cultural-Bearing Milieux, Human Systems Management 2, 246-258, 1981. Louis, M. R., Organizations as Cultural-Bearing Milieux, Organizational Symbolism, Pondy, L. R., P. J. Frost, G. Morgan and T. C. Dandridge (eds.) Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press, 1983. Louis, M. R., An Investigator's Guide to Workplace Culture, Organizational Cul-

References

243

ture, Frost, P. J., L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C.C. Lundberg and J. Martin (eds.) Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1985. Lucas, R., Political-Cultural Analysis of Organizations, Academy of Management Review 12 (1), 144-156, 1987. Lundberg, C.C., On the Feasibility of Cultural Intervention in Organizations, Organizational Culture, Frost, P. J., L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg and J. Martin (eds.) Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1985. Lutz, C. and G. White, The Anthropology of Emotions, Annual Review of Anthropology 15, 1986. Lyotard, J-F, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984. Lysgaard, S., Arbejderkollektivet, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1961. Mac Donald, D., Industrikulturen fra dannelse til krise, Oslo: Samfundslitteratur, 1986. March, J. G, The Technology of Foolishness, Ambiguity and Choice in Organization, March, J. G. and J. P. Olsen (eds.) Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 1976. March, J. G., Footnotes to Organizational Change, Administrative Science Quarterly 26 (4), 563-577, 1981. March, J. G. and J. P. Olsen, Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 1976. Martin, J., Stories and Scripts in Organizational Settings, Cognitive Social Psychology, Hastorf, A. and A. Isen (eds.) New York, NY: Elsevier-North Holland, 1982. Martin, J., Can Organizational Culture be Managed? Introduction, Organizational Culture, Frost, P.J., L.F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C.C. Lundberg and J. Martin (eds.) Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1985. Martin, J., A Black Hole: Ambiguity in Organizational Cultures. Paper presented at SCOS International Conference on Symbolics of Corporate Artifacts, Milan, 1987. Martin, J. and D. Meyerson, Questioning the Assumptions of Value Engineering: Alternative Views of the Cultural Change Process. Research paper No. 885, Stanford University, 1986. Martin, J. and D. Meyerson, Organizational Cultures and the Denial, Channeling and Acknowledgement of Ambiguity, Managing Ambiguity and Change, Pondy, L., R. Boland and H. Thomas (eds.) New York, NY: Wiley, 1988. Martin, J. and L. Powers, Stories as Proofs. Research report, Stanford University, 1979. Martin, J. and L. Powers, Organizational Stories: More Vivid and Persuasive than Quantitative Data, Psychological Foundations of Organizational Behavior, Staw, B.M. (ed.) Glenview, II: Scott, Foresman & Co, 1983 a. Martin, J. and L. Powers, Truth or Corporate Propaganda. The Value of a Good War Story, Organizational Symbolism, Pondy, L. R., P. J Frost, G. Morgan and T.C. Dandridge (eds.) Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press, 1983b.

244

References

Martin, J., M. S. Feldman, M. J. Hatch and S. B. Sitkin, The Uniqueness Paradox in Organizational Stories, Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (3), 438-453, 1983. Martin, J., S. B. Sitkin and M. Boehm, Founders and the Elusiveness of a Cultural Legacy, Organizational Culture, Frost, P. J., L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C.C. Lundberg and J. Martin (eds.) Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1985. McWhinney, W. and J. Batista, How Remythologizing Can Revitalize Organizations, Organizational Dynamics 17 (2), 46-58, 1988. Meek, V.L., Organizational Culture: Origins and Weaknesses, Organization Studies 9 (4), 453-473, 1989. Menzies, I., A Case Study in the Functioning of Social Systems as a Defence Against Anxiety, Human Relations 13 (2), 95-121, 1960. Meyer, A. D., How Ideologies Supplant Formal Structures and Shape Responses to Environments, Journal of Management Studies 19 (1), 45-61, 1982. Meyer, J. W. and B. Rowan, Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony, American Journal of Sociology 83 (2), 340-363, 1977. Meyer, J. W. and W. R. Scott, Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality, Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1983. Meyerson, D. and J. Martin, Cultural Change: an Integration of Three Different Views, Journal of Management Studies 24, 623-648, 1987. Miller, E. and A. Rice, Systems of Organization, London: Tavistock, 1967. Mills, A.J., Organization, Gender and Culture, Organization Studies 9 (3), 351-369, 1988. Mitroff, 1.1., Stakeholders of the Organizational Mind, San Francisco, Ca: JosseyBass, 1983. Mitroff, 1.1. and R. H. Kilmann, Stories Managers Tell: A New Tool for Organizational Problem Solving, Management Review, July 1975. Mitroff, 1.1., J. Nelson and R. O. Mason, On Management Myth - Information Systems, Management Science 21, 371-382, 1974. Moch, M. and A. Huff, Power Enactment Through Language and Ritual, Journal of Business Research 11, 293-316, 1983. Molin, J. and M. Schultz (eds.), Kaleidoskopiske fortellinger fra en videnskablig verden, Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1989. Molstad, C., The Shop floor Culture of California Industrial Brewery Workers: Leadership via Expertise, Impression Management and Rhetoric. Paper presented at The Fourth International Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture, INSEAD, June 28-30, 1989. Morey, N. C. and F. Luthans, Refining the Displacement of Culture and the Use of Scenes and Themes in Organizational Studies, Academy of Management Review 10 (2), 219-229, 1985. Morgan, G., Paradigms, Metaphors, and Puzzle Solving in Organization Theory, Administrative Science Quarterly 25, 605-622, 1980.

References

245

Morgan, G. (ed.), Beyond Method. Strategies for Social Research, Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1983. Morgan, G., Images of Organization, Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1986. Morgan, G. and L. Smircich, The Case for Qualitative Research, Academy of Management Review 5 (4), 491-500, 1980. Morgan, G., P. J. Frost and L. R. Pondy, Organizational Symbolism, Organizational Symbolism, Pondy, L. R., P. J. Frost, G. Morgan and T. C. Dandridge (eds.) Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press, 1983. Moscovici, S., The Age of the Crowd: A Historical Treatise on Mass Psychology, Cambridge, Ma: Cambridge University Press, 1981, revised edition 1985. Mouritsen, J., Accounting, Culture and Accounting-Culture, Scandinavian Journal of Management 5 (1), 21-47, 1989. Moxnes, P., Ängest och arbetsmiljö - Hur Organisationen paverkar personalen. En fallbeskrivning, Stockholm: Natur och Kultur, 1978, revised edition 1981. Mumby, D., Communication and Power in Organizations: Discourse, Ideology and Domination, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1988. Nadler, L., The Organization as a Micro-Culture, Personnel Journal 48, 949-956, 1969. Nahavandi, A. and A. R. Malekzadeh, Acculturation in Mergers and Acquisitions, Academy of Management Review 13 (1), 79-90, 1988. Napoles, V., Corporate Identity Design, New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1988. Nicholson, N. and G. Johns, The Absence Culture and the Psychological Contract - Who's in Control of Absence?, Academy of Management Review 10 (3), 397-407, 1985. Nilsson, S. Ä. and C. Edlund, Towards the Resolution of the Classical Conflict Between Marketing and Manufacturing: An Interpersonal Perception Study of Departmental Cultures. Unpublished research report, Department of Applied Psychology, Lund University, 1982. Nord, W., Can Organizational Culture Be Managed? A Synthesis, Organizational Culture, Frost, P. J., L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg and J. Martin (eds.) Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1985. Normann, R., Skapande företagsledning, Stockholm: Aldus, 1975. Normann, R., Service Management. Strategy and Leadership in Service Business, Chichester: Wiley, 1985. Normann, R. et al. (eds.), Invadörernas dans - eller den oväntade konkurrensen, Malrno: Liber, 1989. Nystrom, P. C. and W. H. Starbuck, Managing Beliefs in Organizations, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 20 (3), 277-287, 1984. Obert, S., Archetypal Social Systems Analysis: A Reply to Mitroff, Academy of Management Review 9 (4), 757-762, 1984. Olins, W., The Corporate Personality: An Inquiry into the Nature of Corporate Identity, London: Design Council, 1978.

246

References

Olins, W., Corporate Identity. Making Business Strategy Visible Through Design, London: Thames and Hudson, 1989. Olsen, J., Local Budgeting, Decision-Making or a Ritual Act?, Scandinavian Political Studies 5, 85-118, 1970. Olson, M., The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press, 1965, revised 1977. Ornstein, S., Organizational Symbols: A Study of Their Meanings and Influences on Perceived Psychological Climate, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 38, 207-229, 1986. Ortner, S., On Key Symbols, American Anthropologist 75, 1338-1346, 1973. Ortner, S., Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties, Comparative Studies in Society and History 26, 126-166. 1984. Ott, K., Two Problems that Threaten Organizational Culture Research Demonstrated Through an Examination of Business and Communication Literature in the United States. Paper presented at SCOS International Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture, Lund, 1984. Ouchi, W. G., Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans, Administrative Science Quarterly 25 (2), 129-141, 1980. Ouchi, W. G., Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge, Reading, Ma: Addison-Wesley, 1981. Ouchi, W. G. and R. C. Price, Hierarchies, Clans, and Theory Z: A New Perspective on Organization Development, Organizational Dynamics 7 (2), 24-44, 1978. Ouchi, W. G. and A. L. Wilkins, Organizational Culture, Annual Review of Sociology 11, 457-483, 1985. Pacanowsky, M. and O'Donnel-Trujillo, Organizational Communication as Cultural Performance, Communication Monographs 50, 126-147, 1983. Page, M., The Company Savage: Life in the Corporate Jungle, London: Coronet Books, 1974. Pascale, R. and A. Athos, The Art of Japanese Management: Applications for American Executives, New York, NY: Warner Books, 1982. Pennings, J. and C. Gresov, Techno-Economic and Structural Correlates of Organizational Culture: An Integrative Framework, Organization Studies 7 (4), 317-334, 1986. Perrow, C., Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay, Glenview, II: Scott, Foresman & Co, 1979. Perrow, C., Review Essay: Overboard with Myths and Symbols, American Journal of Sociology 91 (1), 151-155, 1985. Peters, T. Symbols, Patterns, and Settings: An Optimistic Case for Getting Things Done, Organizational Dynamics 1 (2), 2-23, 1978. Peters, T. and R. Waterman, In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies, New York, NY: Warner Books, 1982.

References

247

Pettigrew, Α., The Creation of Organizational Cultures. El ASM Working paper, Brussels, 1977. Pettigrew, A., On Studying Organizational Cultures, Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (4), 1979. Pettigrew, A., Examining Change in the Long-Term Context of Culture and Politics, Organizational Strategy and Change, Pennings, J. et al. (eds.) San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass, 1985. Pfeffer, J., Management as Symbolic Action: The Creation and Maintenance of Organizational Paradigms, Research in Organizational Behavior 3, Cummings, L.L. and B.M. Staw (eds.) Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press, 1981 a. Pfeffer, J., Power in Organizations, Cambridge, Ma: Ballinger, 1981 b. Pondy, L. R., The Role of Metaphors and Myths in Organization and in the Facilitation of Change, Organizational Symbolism, Pondy, L. R, P. J. Frost, G. Morgan and T. C. Dandridge (eds.) Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press, 1983. Pondy, L. R., P. J. Frost, G. Morgan andT. C. Dandridge (eds.), Organizational Symbolism, Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press, 1983. Quinn, J.B., H. Mintzberg and R. M. James (eds.), The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, and Cases, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1988. Rabinow, P., Representations are Social Facts: Modernity and Postmodernity in Anthropology, Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, Clifford, J. and G. Marcus (eds.) Los Angeles, Ca: University of California Press, 1986. Raelin, J. A., Clash of Cultures, Managers and Professionals, Boston, Ma: Harvard Business School Press, 1985. Randall, C., The Folklore of Management, New York, NY: Mentor Executive Library Books, 1962. Raspa, R., Creating Fiction in the Committee: The Emergence of the Saturn Corporation at the General Motors, Dragon 4, 7-22, 1986. Ray, C. A., Corporate Culture: The Last Frontier of Control, Journal of Management Studies 23 (3), 287-296, 1986. Redl, F., Group Emotion and Leadership, Psychiatry 5, 573-596, 1942. Reed, M., Redirections in Organizational Analysis, London: Tavistock, 1985. Rhenman, E., Organization Theory for Long-Range Planning, London: Wiley, 1973. Rice, A., Learning for Leadership, London: Tavistock, 1965. Riley, P., A Structural Account of Political Culture, Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (3), 414-437, 1983. Rorty, R., Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986. Rosen, M., Breakfast at Spiro's: Dramaturgy and Dominance, Journal of Management 11 (2), 31-48, 1985. Rosen, M., Christmas Ήπιε and Control: an Exploration in the Social Structure of Formal Organizations, Dragon 5, 51-73, 1986.

248

References

Rosen, M., You Asked for it: Christmas at the Bosses' Expense, Journal of Management Studies 25 (5), 463-480, 1988. Rosen, M., Coming to Terms with the Field: Understanding and Doing Organizational Ethnography. Paper presented at The Fourth International Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture, INSEAD, June 28-30, 1989. Saffold, G. S. I., Culture Traits, Strength, and Organizational Performance: Moving Beyond "Strong" Culture, Academy of Management Review 13 (4), 546-558, 1988. Sanday, P. R., The Ethnographic Paradigm(s), Administrative Science Quarterly 24, 527-538, 1979. Sarup, G., Levels of Analysis in Social Psychology and Related Social Science, Human Relations 28 (8), 755-769, 1976. Sathe, V. (ed.), Culture and Related Corporate Realities, Home wood, II: Richard D. Irwin, 1985. Saunders, G., The Committed Organisation. How to Develop Companies to Compete Successfully in the 1990s, Aldershot: Go wer, 1984. Schall, M., A Communication-Rules Approach to Organizational Culture, Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (4), 557-581, 1983. Schein, E., Organizational Culture and Leadership. A Dynamic View, San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass, 1985. Schneider, S. C., Strategy Formulation: The Impact of National Culture, Organization Studies 10 (2), 149-168, 1989. Schneider, S. C. and E. Powley, The Role of Images in Changing Corporate Culture: The Case of AT&T, Dragon 2, 5-44, 1986. Scholz, C., The Dualism Between Strategic Fit and Corporate Culture. Paper presented at SCOS International Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture, Lund, 1984. Schwanzer, B., Die Bedeutung der Architektur für die Corporate Identity eines Unternehmens, Vienna: Modulverlag, 1986. Schwartz, H. S. and S. M. Davis, Matching Corporate Culture and Business Strategy, Organizational Dynamics 10 (1), 30-48, 1981. Schwartz, H.S., Anti-Social Actions of Committed Organizational Participants: An Existential Psychoanalytic Perspective, Organization Studies 8, 327-340, 1987. Schwartz, H.S., The Symbol of the Space Shuttle and the Degeneration of the American Dream, Journal of Organizational Change Management 1 (2), 5-20, 1988. Schweder, R. and R. LeVine (eds.), Culture Theory, Cambridge, Ma: Cambridge University Press, 1984. SCOS (The Standing Conference on Organizational Symbolism), SCOS Notework (3), 1985.

References

249

Scott, W. R., The Adolescence of Institutional Theory, Administrative Science Quarterly 32 (4), 493-511, 1987. Seiler, J., Architecture at Work, Harvard Business Review 62 (51), 111-120,1984. Selznick, P., Leadership in Administration. A Sociological Perspective, New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1957. Sherwood, J. J., Creating Work Cultures With Competitive Advantage, Organizational Dynamics 16 (3), 4-27, 1988. Shrivastava, P. and S. Schneider, Organizational Frames of References, Human Relations 37, 795-809, 1984. Shrivastava, P., 1.1. Mitroff and M. Alvesson, Sources of Irrationality in Organizational Action, International Studies of Management and Organization 13 (3), 90-109, 1987. Siehl, C. and J. Martin, Organizational Culture: A Key to Financial Performance?, Organizational Culture and Climate, Schneider, B. (ed.) San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass, 1990. Sievers, B., Curing the Monster: Some Images of and Considerations About the Dragon, Symbols and Artifacts: Views of the Corporate Landscape, Gagliardi, P. (ed.) Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Silverman, D., The Theory of Organizations, London: Heinemann, 1970. Silverzweig, S. and R. Allen, Changing the Corporate Culture, Sloan Management Review 17 (Spring), 33-49, 1976. Sims, H. P., D. A. Gioia et al. (eds.), The Thinking Organization. Dynamics of Organizational Social Cognition, San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass, 1986. Singh, J. P., Managerial Culture and Work-related Values in India, Organization Studies 11 (1), 75-101, 1990. Sköldberg, K., Administrationen poetiska logik, Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1990. Smircich, L., Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis, Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (3), 339-358, 1983 a. Smircich, L., Organizations as Shared Meanings, Organizational Symbolism, Pondy, L. R., P. J. Frost, G. Morgan and T. C. Dandridge (eds.) Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press, 1983 b. Smircich, L., Studying Organizations as Cultures, Beyond Method. Strategies for Social Research, Morgan G. (ed.) Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1983c. Smircich, L., Is the Concept of Culture a Paradigm for Understanding Organizations and Ourselves?, Organizational Culture, Frost, P. J., L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C.C. Lundberg and J. Martin (eds.) Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1985. Smircich, L. and M. Galas, Organization Culture: A Critical Assessment, Handbook of Organizational Communication, Jablin, F. M. et al. (eds.) Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1987. Smircich, L. and G. Morgan, Leadership: The Management of Meaning, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 18 (3), 257-273, 1982. Smircich, L. and C. Stubbart, Strategic Management in an Enacted World, Academy of Management Review 10 (4), 724-736, 1985.

250

References

Smith, G. and L. Steadman, Present Value of Corporate History, Harvard Business Review, 1981. Smith, K. K. and V. M. Simmons, A Rumpelstiltskin Organization: Metaphors on Metaphors in Field Research, Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (3), 377-392, 1983. Smith, P. B. and M. F. Peterson, Leadership, Organizations and Culture, London: Sage, 1988. Smith, S. and B. Wilkinson, No Doors on Offices, No Secrets, We are our Own Policemen!, CEBES Journal 1 (1), 30-49, 1985. Soja, E. W, Postmodern Geographies, London: Verso, 1989. Stablein, R. and W. Nord, Practical and Emancipatory Interests in Organizational Symbolism, Journal of Management 11 (2), 13-28, 1985. Starbuck, W. H., Organizations and their Environments, Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dunette, M. D. (ed.) Chicago, II: Rand McNally, 1976. Stevrin, P., Samhälleligproblemlösning - en metaforisk aktivitet. Paper presented at The Sinora Metaphor Seminar, Stockholm, 1983. Stewart, E., American Technology and Deep Culture. Paper presented at SCOS International Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture, Lund,1984. Strandgaard Pedersen, J., Continuity and Change. Cultural Perspectives on Organizational Change. Working paper, Institute of Industrial Research and Social Development, Copenhagen School of Economis, 1989. Stymne, B., Values and Processes, Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1970. Svalander, P-A, Att förnya sjukvärdens organisation. Om organisatorisk inlärning och värdprocessens villkor. PhD dissertation, Department of Business Administration, Lund University, 1979. Swanson, E., System Heroes, General Systems 19, 91-95, 1974. Swidler, A., Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies, American Sociological Review, 237-286, 1986. Symons, G., Coping with the Corporate Tribe: How Women in Different Cultures Experience the Managerial Role, Journal of Management 12 (3), 379-390,1986. Thompson, J. and D. Held (eds.), Habermas. Critical Debates, London: Macmillan, 1982. Thompson, P., Fatal Distraction. Post-Modernism and Organisational Analysis. Paper presented at the "Towards a New Theory of Organization" Conference, Keele University, UK, April 1991. Tompkins, P., Translating Organizational Theory: Symbolism over Substance, Handbook of Organizational Communication, Jablin, F. et al. (eds.) Newbury Park, Ca: Sage, 1987. Treutiger, R., Organisationsmedvetande. En dold resurs for människor och företag, Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1990.

References

251

Trice, H. M. and J. Beyer, Studying Organizational Cultures Through Rites and Ceremonials, Academy of Management Review 9 (4), 653-669, 1984. Trice, H. M. and J. M. Beyer, Using Six Organizational Rites to Change Culture, San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass, 1985. Turner, Β. Α., Exploring the Industrial Subculture, London: Macmillan, 1971. Turner, Β. Α., Sociological Aspects on Organizational Symbolism, Organization Studies 7 (2), 101-116, 1986. Turner, B. A. (ed.), Organizational Symbolism, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1990. Ulrich, W., HRM and Culture: History, Ritual, and Myth, Human Resource Management 23 (2), 117-128, 1984. Uttal, G., The Corporate Culture Vultures, Fortune, October 17, 66-72, 1983. Vaill, P. B., The Purposing of High-Performing Systems, Organizational Dynamics 11 (2), 23-39, 1982. Vaill, P. B., Managing as a Performing Art, London: Jossey-Bass, 1989. Van Maanen, J., The Fact of Fiction in Organizational Ethnography, Administrative Science Quarterly 24, 539-550, 1979. Van Maanen, J., Tales of the Field. On Writing Ethnography, Chicago, II: The University of Chicago Press, 1988. Van Maanen, J. and S. Barley, Occupational Communities: Culture and Control in Organizations, Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, Staw, B.M and L. L. Cummings (eds.) Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press, 1984. Van Maanen, J. and S. Barley, Cultural Organizations: Fragments of a Theory, Organizational Culture, Frost, P. J., L. F. Moore, M. R Louis, C. C. Lundberg and J. Martin (eds.) Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1985. Van Maanen, J. and G. Kunda, Real Feelings: Emotional Expression and Organizational Culture, Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, Staw, B.M. and L. L. Cummings (eds.) Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press, 1989. Van Maanen, J. and E. Schein, Towards a Theory of Organizational Socialization, Research in Organizational Behavior, Staw, B. M. (ed.) Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press, 1979. Vedin, B-Α, Corporate Culture and Creativity Management, Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1985. von der Lippe, L, Profession or Occupational Culture? An Ethnological Study of the Textile Conservators' Working Conditions at the Museums, Stockholm: Almqvist och Wiksell, 1985. Walsh, J. and L. Fahey, The Role of Negotiated Belief Structures in Strategy Making, Journal of Management 12 (3), 325-338, 1986. Watzlawick, P., J.H. Weakland and R. Fisch, Change, New York, NY: Norton Co., 1974. Weick, K. E., The Significance of Corporate Culture, Organizational Culture, Frost, P. J., L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg and J. Martin (eds.) Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage, 1985.

252

References

Weick, K. E., Organizational Culture as a Source of High Reliability, California Management Review XXIX (2), 112-127, 1987. Weick, K. E. and M. Bougon, Organizations as Cognitive Maps: Ways to Success and Failure, The Thinking Organization: Dynamics of Organizational Social Cognition, Sims, H. P. and D. A. Gioia et al. (eds.) San Francisco, Ca: JosseyBass, 1986. Weinshall, T. (ed.), Culture and Management, Hammondsworth: Penguin, 1977. Weiss, J. and L. Miller, The Concept of Ideology in Organizational Analysis, Academy of Management Review 12 (1), 104-116, 1987. Westerlund, G. and S. E. Sjöstrand, Organisationsmyter, Stockholm: Norstedts, 1975. Westerlund, G. and S.E. Sjöstrand, Organizational Myths, New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1979. Westley, F. and F. Bird, Symbolic Leadership and Organizational Commitment: A Critical Review of Classical Theories. Paper presented at The Fourth International Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture, INSEAD, June 28-30, 1989. Westley, F. and A. Jaeger, An Examination of Organizational Culture: How is it Linked to Performance?. Research paper, Faculty of Management, McGill University, 1985. Whipp, R., R. Rosenfeld and A. Pettigrew, Understanding Strategic Change Processes: Some Preliminary British Findings, The Management of Strategic Change, Pettigrew, A. (ed.) London: Blackwell, 1987. Whipp, R., R. Rosenfeld and A. Pettigrew, Culture and Competitiveness: Evidence from Two Mature Industries, Journal of Management Studies 26 (6), 561-585, 1989. White, L., The Science of Culture, New York, NY: Grove Press, 1949. Whittington, R., Strategic Choice: Logiques D'Actions or Corporate Cultures?, CEBES Journal 1 (2), 4-19, 1985. Wiener, Y., Forms of Value Systems: A Focus on Organizational Effectiveness and Cultural Change and Maintenance, Academy of Management Review 13 (4), 534-545, 1988. Wilkins, A.L., Organizational Stories as an Expression of Management Philosophy: Implications for Social Control in Organizations. PhD dissertation, Stanford University, 1978. Wilkins, A.L., Organizational Stories and Third Order Controls. Unpublished research report, Brigham Young University, 1979. Wilkins, A.L., Organizational Stories as Symbols which Control the Organization, Organizational Symbolism, Pondy, L. R., P. J. Frost, G. Morgan and T. C. Dandridge (eds.) Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press, 1983. Wilkins, A. L., The Creation of Company Cultures: The Role of Stories and Human Resource Systems, Human Resource Management 23, 41-60, 1984.

References

253

Wilkins, A. L., Developing Corporate Character. How to Successfully Change an Organization Without Destroying It, London: Jossey-Bass, 1989. Wilkins, A. L. and W. G. Dyer, Toward Culturally Sensitive Theories of Culture Change, Academy of Management Review 13 (4), 522-533, 1988. Wilkins, A. L. and J. Martin, Organizational Legends. Research report, Stanford University, 1979. Wilkins, A. L. and W. G. Ouchi, Efficient Cultures: Exploring the Relationship between Culture and Organizational Performance, Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (3), 468-481, 1983. Wilkins, A. L. and K.J. Patterson, You Can't Get There From Here: What Will Make Culture-Change Projects Fail, Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture, Kilmann, R. H., M. J. Saxton, R. Serpa et al. (eds.) San Francisco, Ca: JosseyBass, 1985. Willmott, H., Strength is Ignorance; Slavery is Freedom: Managing Culture in Modern Organizations. Paper presented at the 8th International SCOS Conference, Copenhagen, 1991. Winnicott, D., Playing and Reality, Hammondsworth: Penguin, 1958. Witkin, R.W. and P.O. Berg, Organization Symbolling: Towards a Theory of Action in Organizations. Paper presented at the SCOS International Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture, Lund, 1984. Young, E., On the Naming of the Rose: Interests and Multiple Meanings as Elements of Organizational Culture, Organization Studies 10 (2), 187-206, 1989. Zey-Ferrell, M. and M. Aiken, Complex Organizations: Critical Perspectives, Glenview, II: Scott, Foresman & Co, 1981. Ziehe, T. and H. Stubenrauch, Plädoyer für ungewöhnliches Lernen. Ideen zur Jugendsituation, Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch, 1982. Äredal, Ä., Procrustes: A Modern Management Pattern Found in a Classical myth, Journal of Management 12 (3), 403-414, 1986.

Index absenteeism 70, 111 action pattern 83-85 - symbol 86,120,121-122 acquisition 143-144 aesthetics 213,217,221 ambiguity 3,194-220 — paradigm 194 anecdote 49,189 anniversary 84 anthropology, anthropologist 18, 40,47,52,67,77,79,204,226 anti-social action 116 anxiety 114 archetype 117-118 artifact, definition of 80-81,100, 103,121 authority relations 37, 38 basic assumptions 12,13, 53, 100,115 behavioural norms 77, 83 beliefs, belief systems 15,82-83, 110,139,193 building 80,99 bureaucracy 29,140 business culture 68, 69,208 business philosophy see management philosophy celebration 83-85,121 ceremony 40,50,83-85,121 change, societal (sociocultural) 20,193 character of the organzation 67, 90

civilization 208 clan 67, 79,140 — control 140 clarity 5, 85,194-195 climate 80,88-89 cognition 70,77 cognitive map and structure 101, 139, 205 collective, collective process 79-80,165 commitment 139,141-142 communication 159-163 community 62,72,79 company see corporation comparative study 67 competitive advantage 137 conflict 6,72-73,194,221 consensus 72-73 consultant 16,50 consumption 38 contingency theory 178 control 47,139-141 conventions 55,94 — in relationship to perspectives 56-57,94-95 corporate advertising 160-161 - architecture 81 — aura 160 - culture management 148, 149-152 — identity see identity - ideology 110-112,129 - mind 90,101 - philosophy 110-112 - pride 142,162

256

- soul 171 critique of organization theory 178-181 cultural cognitivism 107 - engineering 98,148-152 — phenomena and manifestations 12 culture 96-97 — as a social glue 36, 76 — as a variable 97-99 - boom 169-170 - definitions of 33,46,75-78, 215 - development 164 - metaphor 189,200,215,218 — of narcissism 39 — perspective 23, 46 — subsystem 77 customer 30-31,41-42,138 decentralization 47,147 decision, decision-making 48 defence mechanism 13 depth structure 100,189,206 diagnosis of corporate culture 144 dialectics 194 differentiation 194 discourse 200,219 division of labour 102 domination 190-191 dragon 3-4,226-227 economics 52 emancipation 190 emotion 77 emotional control 140 — structure 117 environment 156-157

Index

ethics 150,172,213,214 ethnography, ethnographic perspective 14, 207 excellence, excellent company 136-137 expressive, expressiveness 42-43,213 - strategy 104,160 extra-scientific explanations of the culture boom 24-30 factory 71 folklore 18, 52,71 folkloristic trap 62,79 framing and reframing 156-157, 165 functional subculture 68, 69,188 functionalism 131,188 Gemeinschaft 62,139 Gesellschaft 62 group pressure 139,192 groups 6,32,62 hero 81,123 hierarchy 73 history of a company 15, 99 human resource management 157-159 — resource 158 ideas 108,128 identity 67, 90,144,145-146,193 ideology, definition of 15, 87-88, 107-108,113-114,139 image, definition of 89-90,123, 144,145,159-162,217,221 industrial culture and subculture 15,66 industry and sector 66, 68, 214

Index

257

information, symbolic aspect on 120 institution, institutionalization 13 institutionalists, institutional school 13,90 integration paradigm 194 international management culture 73 interpretation 108 irrationality 14 issue 48 Japanese management jargon 16 joke 50,103,122 journalist 16

16

knowledge-constitutive interest 54 Kulturelle Freisetzung 39 legend 15 legitimacy 26 levels of analysis 61-63 linguistics 18,52 logo 81,86 loyalty 139 management 52, 68,142 — of meaning 106,107 — philosophy 89 "management-lore" 71 market for culture theory 203 marketing 90 markets 156 mass media 38,193 material symbol 121 meaning construction perspective 105-109,128-129

meanings 103,108,128 measuring culture 149 mental framework and pictures 81-83 merger 143-144 metaphor 123,200,209, 221 method, methodology 223-226 mobilization 158-159 motivation 141-142 myths, myth concept 13-14,15, 46,82,88,106,112,221 narcissism 38-39 narratives 199,204,223 nations 64,208 neurotic organization 116 norms 82-83,139 object level 55 objectivism 130-131 occupational community 72-73 office culture 71 omnipotence syndrom 181 opportunism 225 organization 68-69 - as construction and destruction perspective 108-109 — science see organization theory - theory 8-9 organizational culture 3,9, 68, 69, 77, 96 organizational ideology see ideology organizational life 26 - reality 207 — structure 98 paradigm 53,94,130-132 paradox 195 perception 77

Index

258

personality of an organization see character perspectives 95,210 postmodernism 215-224 psychodynamics 12,114-117,129 purists 32 rational, rationality 41 realism 180,187-188 redefinition 165 region 65 relativism 198 resistence to change 168 rigorous research 50-51 rite 40,50,83-85,99,121,165 ritual 15,40,83-85,99,121 romanticism 39,188-189 saga 15,81-82 scapegoat 81,123,203 SCOS V script 139 sector see industry seduction 173,191 seller of culture theory 35 semiology 18,86 service industry 137 services 37 shared fantasies 12,115-116 — meanings 106-107 shopfloor culture 71 strategy, structure and culture 98,156,164 strong culture 136-138,184-185 structure 47,222

subculture 15,72 subjectivism 130-131,223 symbol, symbolism 46,77,118, 123-124,129,152,193,219,221 - definition of 85-87 - system 104,121 symbolic leadership and management 120,148,152,187, 206 - particularism 120-122,166 - perspective 118-119,209 - pollution 192 — resource 166-168 — universalism 122-124 taken for granted idea and assumption 13 taxonomy 52 techno-culture 69,70 totem 163 transaction cost theory 48 transitional object 116 tribe 67,79-80 value, value system 82-83,100, 110,139 value-driven organization 158 verbal symbol 86,122 Western society 37 whole culture 49,151 wizard 5 worker culture 14,71 "workers-lore" 71 Zeitgeist

21