Organizational Culture

In the past 25 years, the concept of organizational culture has gained wide acceptance as a way to understand human systems. From an "open-sytems" perspective, each aspect of organizational culture can be seen as an important environmental condition affecting the system and its subsystems. The examination of organizational culture is also a valuable analytical tool in its own right. This way of looking at organizations borrows heavily from anthropology and sociology and uses many of the same terms to define the building blocks of culture. Edgar Schein, one of the most prominent theorists of organizational culture, gave the following very general definition: The culture of a group can now be defined as: A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved 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. (Schein 373-374) In other words, as groups evolve over time, they face two basic challenges: integrating individuals into an effective whole, and adapting effectively to the external environment in order to survive. As groups fi nd solutions to these problems over time, they engage in a kind of collective learning that creates the set of shared assumptions and beliefs we call "culture." Gareth Morgan describes culture as "an active living phenomenon through which people jointly create and recreate the worlds in which they live." For Morgan, the three basic questions for cultural analysts are: y y y What are the shared frames of reference that make organization possible? Where do they come from? How are they created, communicated, and sustained? (Morgan 141)

Elements of organizational culture may include: y y y y y y y Stated and unstated values. Overt and implicit expectations for member behavior. Customs and rituals. Stories and myths about the history of the group. Shop talktypical language used in and about the group. Climatethe feelings evoked by the way members interact with each other, with outsiders, and with their environment, including the physical space they occupy. Metaphors and symbolsmay be unconscious but can be found embodied in other cultural elements.

Morgan proposes four essential strengths of the organizational culture approach: y It focuses attention on the human side of organizational life, and finds significance and learning in even its most mundane aspects (for example, the setup in an empty meeting room). It makes clear the importance of creating appropriate systems of shared meaning to help people work together toward desired outcomes. It requires membersespecially leadersto acknowledge the impact of their behavior on the organizations culture. Morgan proposes that people should ask themselves: "What impact am I having on the social construction of reality in my organization?" "What can I do to have a different and more positive impact?"

y y

It encourages the view that the perceived relationship between an organization and its environment is also affected by the organizations basic assumptions. Morgan says: We choose and operate in environmental domains according to how we construct conceptions of who we are and what we are trying to do. . . . And we act in relation to those domains through the definitions we impose on them. . . . The beliefs and ideas that organizations hold about who they are, what they are trying to do, and what their environment is like have a much greater tendency to realize themselves than is usually believed. (Morgan 149)

According to Edgar Schein, cultural analysis is especially valuable for dealing with aspects of organizations that seem irrational, frustrating, and intractable. He writes, "The bottom line for leaders is that if they do not become conscious of the cultures in which they are embedded, those cultures will manage them." (Schein 375) It is significant that Schein uses the plural "cultures." Using open -systems concepts, we know that members of a group culture may also belong to subcultures within an organization. Since organizations do have a shared history, there will normally be at least a few values or assumptions common to the system as a whole. But sometimes, as in many orchestra organizations, the subcultures have had different experiences over time, and their group learning has produced very different sets of basic assumptions. Organization members interpret the behavior and language of others through their own cultural biases. Each members (or subsystems) set of beliefs, values, and assumptions becomes their unquestioned "reality"; they then perceive behavior inconsistent with their own biases as irrational, or even malevolent. The organizational culture model suggests reinterpreting such conflict as a product of different sets of experiences. Instead of looking at conflict as "right" versus "wrong," this approach suggests that subsystems examine the assumptions underlying their behavior, honor the experiences and learning that led to those assumptions, and then investigate whether those assumptions still work well in the present. This is an exemplary application of "double-loop" learning, a term coined by Chris Argyris of National Training Laboratories in Washington, D.C., and now i n general use among organizational theorists. In contrast with "single-loop" learning, or the process of solving problems based on an existing set of assumptions, double -loop learning also involves becoming aware of a groups underlying assumption set and continually inquiring whether it is still useful for the task at hand. Because culture is so deeply rooted in an organizations history and collective experience, working to change it requires a major investment of time and resources. Help from a change agent outside the system is often advisable. Without such help, it is difficult for insiders to view their "reality" as something theyve constructed, and to see meaning in things they normally take for granted. Next time, we will take a look at ways some organization change practitioners have taken on the challenge of culture change in the corporate world, as well as in the orchestra field. Stay tuned!

Organizational Culture: Change Process

In our installment on Organizational Culture we discussed cultu ral analysis as an approach to organization change. We will now look more closely at the process of culture change. Culture change is difficult and time consuming because "culture" is rooted in the collective history of an organization, and because so much of it is below the surface of awareness. In general, the process of culture change must include the following steps: y Uncover core values and beliefs. These may include stated values and goals, but they are also embedded in organizational metaphors, myths, and stories, and in the behaviors of members. Acknowledge, respect, and discuss differences between core values and beliefs of different subcultures within the organization. Look for incongruencies between conscious and unconscious beliefs and values and resolve by choosing those to which the organization wishes to commit. Establish new behavioral norms (and even new metaphor language) that clearly demonstrate desired values. Repeat these steps over a long period of time. As new members enter the organization, assure that they are surrounded with clear messages about the culture they are entering. Reinforce desirable behavior.

y y

It's clear that culture change is an ongoing process, so its very hard to identify organizations that have "completed" a successful culture change. We can, however, find examples of change-in-progress, in organizations that range from Harley-Davidson to the Pittsburgh Symphony. As we look at several examples, in this installment and the next, we will see some version of the process described above in eacheven in organizations that did not originally set out to change their cultures! Levi-Strauss is a company that did engage in a purposeful culture change process. In 1985, a group of minority and women managers requested a meeting wit h the CEO, complaining of discrimination. The CEO convened a three -day facilitated retreat at which white, male managers engaged in intense discussions with minority and female managers. These discussions revealed that there were, indeed, hidden attitudes in the organization that were in conflict with its espoused values. Since that time, Levi-Strauss has worked hard to generate cultural change. The company developed an "Aspiration Statement" including desired beliefs, attitudes, and behavior. The statement specifies the companys commitment to communication, ethical management practices, employee empowerment, and recognition for those who contribute to the mission of the company. Employees at all levels also participate in training sessions on lead ership, diversity, and ethics. Employee evaluations are based partially on how well they support the "Aspiration Statement." To underscore the fact that changing an organizations culture can take a long time, we would note that at Levi -Strauss, change has not been entirely positive in the lowest tiers of the hierarchy. Increased teamwork and peer evaluation have demanded major adjustments in peoples expectations and behavior, and that has led to increased conflict at times. Symphony orchestra organizations have generally taken a much less direct approach to culture change initiatives. Faced with internal or external challenges, some orchestra

organizations have found innovative solutions; in the process, they have created positive change in at least some aspects of their culture. A number of such cases have been documented in Harmony. For instance, the October 2001 issue of Harmony includes an article about the San Francisco Symphonys efforts to take a new direction in approaching contract negotiations. Although the San Francisco process was narrowly focused toward transforming relations among those involved in negotiations, it clearly included the cultural change steps outlined above. As author Robert Mnookin explained in the Harmony article, the symphony secured grant funding to begin a conflict resolution program using outside facilitators. Important symbolically as a commitment to change was the fact that the grant proposal was submitted jointly by the board, management, and the players committee on behalf of the orchestra. Through a series of training sessions and facilitated discussions, including listening, leadership, and negotiating skills, the symphony did begin to tra nsform its culture. With help from the consultant team, they exposed conscious and unconscious assumptions about the negotiating process. They agreed to a new set of assumptions to be shared by all parties, and they created new behavioral norms based on those assumptions. In the grant proposal, the purpose of the program was described as including goals of improving relations among all parties and creating a more effective, cooperative team. Program activities, including work in cross-constituency groups, helped to make the team metaphor more of a reality. The important point here is that members of the San Francisco Symphony participated in a process designed to foster cultural change. In the conclusion of his article, Mnookin describes the new leadership of the San Francisco organization as being "at the helm," a metaphor that brings to mind a ship under full sail. Metaphor can be a surprisingly powerful factor in culture change (or perpetuation). One prominent organizational theorist, Robert Marshak, writes that metaphors and myths are a primary mental framework for both individuals and organizations. He believes we need to analyze organizational symbolism, and reframe or replace metaphors that are no longer serving an organization well. In Part 2, we will look at ways in which some organizations have used symbolism as one of their tools for change.

Organizational Culture: Metaphor

The metaphors we use when speaking about our organizations provide a rich source of information about organizational attitudes and beliefs. They are also a potent way for those attitudes and beliefs to perpetuate themselves and build organizational culture . Long-standing metaphors can function as emotional anchors: As they are passed on to new members, they help to maintain the sense of "how things are around here," for better or worse. Some theorists and practitioners of organization change believe that we can use metaphor as a powerful point of influence, recreating or reframing less functional imagery so that it aligns with the values and direction of a changing organization.

Heres a small-scale, but piquant example. Some years ago, consultant Marty Castleberg was involved in a change initiative at Harley-Davidson. During that process, he met with members of a product-testing division whose windowless, grimy workspace was across the street from Harleys newly renovated headquarters. The product testers performed the last step in the production process and were not involved in corporate planning or decisions. Castleberg writes that his first meeting with them was notable for its atmosphere of sullenness, resentment, and constant griping. A critical point in that meeting came when one of the men said, "Around here we suck the hind titter," a metaphor comparing the group to orphaned calves who are forced to sneak behind cows nursing their own offspring. The orphans get whatever nourishment they can from the rear udders, until the cow discovers them and kicks them away. Castleberg reflected the metaphor back to the group, asking them to look at what it revealed about their image of themselves as a group. From that moment, he says, ". . . they talked about reality differently," and eventually the group reframed their image of themselves. Castleberg doesnt tell us exactly what happened next, but he tells us that this work contributed to a significant change in the groups fortunes. Both their physical environmen t and their emotional environment improved immensely once they chose to let go of the "hind titter" metaphor. Sometimes it may be helpful to introduce an entirely new structural metaphor into an organization, which can lead to new ways of looking at old issues. For instance, most work organizations, including orchestral ones, still retain the conventional structural metaphors of the corporate world, with strongly vertical images of pyramids and ladders. Such metaphors are not a very good fit for orchestra organizations and tend to reinforce the idea that one group is permanently on the bottom. In 1997, the Oregon Symphony began a change initiative with the help of professor Saul Eisen of Sonoma State University. At Eisens suggestion, the Oregon Symphony a dopted a "starfish" metaphor to represent the structure and relationships in an orchestra organization. With its implications of interconnectedness between equally important parts, the starfish became a concrete symbol of the Oregon Symphonys emerging cor e values. The metaphor also dramatized the vital importance of communication: If a starfishs central nerve ring (or the organizations communication system) is severed, its arms will react independently and it wont be able to function at all. (For more about the Oregon Symphonys culture change work, please see the references and links below.) We can even use metaphor as a compelling image for the change process itself. For the past five years, the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra (PSO) has engaged in a change process called Hoshin. Developed in Japan, Hoshin is a highly structured planning process with clearly defined techniques. But it is also a grand metaphor. The word "hoshin" literally means "shining compass needle." This is a rich image, with implicati ons of journeying together toward a desired destination, guided by a navigating instrument that is brilliantly visible to all. In the October 2000 issue of Harmony (available as a PDF on this website), a cross-constituency group from the PSO reported on th eir experience with the Hoshin process. There was evident consensus that the PSOs culture is improving, with higher levels of trust, cooperation, and optimism. As volunteer leader Linda Sparrow said, "Hoshin has become much more than a planning technique for the Pittsburgh Symphony. It has also become synonymous with our culture." (To learn of the PSOs initial journey with Hoshin, please see the references and links below.) In all of the above cases, organizations have moved toward positive culture change by rethinking or replacing older, less functional metaphors and creating new imagery. But what about approaching culture change from the other direction? What about looking for existing metaphors that are constructive and finding ways of expanding their scope? For that matter, why not search for all the most positive aspects of an organizations culture and make plans to develop and perpetuate them?

Culture and organizational behavior were not always two topics that were considered side by side of one another. In fact, this concept which may seem common place, and even common sense now, first gathered steam only a little over twenty years ago. In the 1980s, there was a large push in the area of theory to pay attention to organizational culture as an important factor in individual organizational success. Many experts started arguing that developing a strong organizational culture was essential for maximum success. Most people agree that a solid connection is there, although there remains some degree of argument as to how influential it really is. The behavior found within a successful organization will in part be due to, and continually nourished by, a healthy organizational culture. It's extremely important to know what type of behavior culture has the greatest impact and how culture works to control the behavior of members of that particular organization. The culture will affect the organization, just as the opposite is true. Behavior is a learned habit, and the process of socialization that teaches new employees the habits of those workers already there is one of the major parts of organizational culture. The behavior of individuals within a culture will depend greatly on the behavior that is encouraged by the higher ups, and by the general organizational culture that any corporate entity has. There are always decisions that have to be made about a business that leans the culture, and therefore the behavior of the employees there, one direction of the other (though most fall somewhere in the middle). The following are some examples of the different conflicting emphasis that can clash with each other in determining the behavior of the employees. Social Focus vs. Task Focus. The emphasis here determines whether decisions are made on the condition of improving relationships as the bottom line, or if having the assigned tasks finished is most important. Individual vs. Team. This is pretty self explanatory. Do you encourage team players, or do you only need individual cogs to do their part? Cost Control vs. Happy Customers. This is where many businesses can go wrong. This determines how concerned individual employees and supervisors should care about happy customers and general service as opposed to minimizing operating costs, sometimes at the price of customer service. Power distances. Is the CEO unreachable to all but the other executives? Does your manager have complete power over you, or is she/he like a co-worker who simply has final say? This can change attitudes drastically. These are only a few of the factors of organizational culture that affect organizational behavior and vice versa. The two influence each other, and often times the culture will help to dictate the behavior, and the behavior will come back around to reinforce the organizational culture. The relationship between culture and organizational behavior is undeniable. To the benefit of some, but to the detriment of others.

All About Positive Organizational Culture For Your Team

Organizational culture, sometimes also referred to as corporate culture, is a general term that outlines the collective attitudes, beliefs, common experiences, procedures, and values that are prevalent in an organization and others similar to it. Organizational culture is the phrase much more likely to be used within the corporate world itself, as it also affects shareholders, who may or may not be directly involved beyond ownership of x number of shares of company stock. This philosophy also includes the beliefs and ideas of what the goals should be. The point here is to have individuals think about the collective larger good of the company, since the prospering of the company is going to come around to benefit the individuals who work for it, as well! Because of this, a general standard of behavior is expected, so every worker knows to some extent what is expected out of them before even the first day. This helps to create unity and increase general worker efficiency. Organizational culture helps to establish the expected guidelines, expectations, and rules that will help the company achieve their goals. Organizational culture tends to be the larger shared goals and vision for a company, but that doesn't make it the end all, be all. Within the larger organizational culture will be many smaller sub-cultures that are still dedicated to the larger picture, but have their own system of operating and working to be more efficient in their task, and their part of the larger picture. A classic example of this would be computer tech people. Because of the extremely specialized nature of their expertise, computer technicians are likely to have their own odd behaviors, working conditions, and strategies to getting the job done. Computer language leads to a whole series of terminologies or technologies that many non computer people won't have a clue about--but their organizational sub culture affects the larger organizational culture as a whole, for the better or worse of the company, but hopefully for the better! There are different measures of this as well. A company or corporation that has a staff which responds strongly to organizational values and can successfully pass that on to the workers at every level are considered to be part of a "strong culture." Inversely, if the opposite is true where overly restrictive rules, procedures, and bureaucracy are necessary to enforce the company's vision, then that is definitely considered "weak culture." Weak organizational culture is a detriment to a company for obvious reasons. The extra supervision, rules, and bureaucracy cause the company to be less efficient and less effective. In addition, having these extra layers also tends to be much more expensive, which will obviously show on the bottom line. Weak cultures can not take advantage of an opportunity that demands quick, decisive action. Strong organizational culture tends to be a good thing, but there are also some dangers that have to be watched. For one, if everyone is completely in line with the organizational culture of a company, and hold the same centralized beliefs on how the goals should be

accomplished, then there is a danger of "group think." This is where an entire group thinks in such similar terms that they lose the ability to become innovative or take a unique approach to a problem. To put it another way, they lose their ability to "think outside the box." Organizational culture is still necessary for any company of size, and a strong organizational culture combined with an openness to new creative ideas and problem solving can be the building blocks to something amazing. There is more than one type of organizational culture in the corporate world. This doesn't mean strong versus weak, although those are certainly two general categories for organizational culture. While different theorists and different companies even might have differing opinions on the types of organizational cultures out there, there is a general consensus on four different types of organizational culture. Most companies or corporations in their style or plan can fall into one of these four general types. One type of organizational culture is the "tough-guy culture" or "macho culture." One of the most common aspects of the tough-guy or macho culture is the quick feedback and high rewards. The pace can be break neck at times, but the obvious reward of the action is seen very quickly. From a corporate stand point, this type of organizational culture will be most often associated with really fast financial activities, such as currency trading, and brokerage. This can also apply to organizations such as a police force, or an individual athlete on a sports team. If a receiver catches a touchdown pass, you see the impact right away. This tends to be a stressful type of organizational culture that requires a certain mentality to thrive and succeed. Another type of organizational culture is the "work hard/play hard" organizational culture. This type of an organizational culture that doesn't take a lot of risks, but it does take a few, and all receive fast feedback. This is something most likely to be see in a very large company which is dependant on strong customer service. This type of organizational culture is often characterized by multiple team meetings, specialized jargon, and buzzwords. A third type of organizational culture is the "bet your company culture." This is a type of company where huge decisions are made over high stakes endeavors. In this type of culture, the end results of these decisions may not be seen for months or even years. The most common type of company that would have this type of a culture is one that is involved in experimental projects or searches. Two great examples would be like prospecting for new oil fields and designing experimental military weapons. A fourth type of organizational culture is the "process culture." A process culture is most often fold in organizations where there is actually no feedback. This is rarely a good culture. In this type of a organizational culture people are so obsessed with the process of how things are done that the focus is lost on what the goal is. Process organizational culture is a synonym for bureaucracy. These cultures are overly cautious, obsessed with the letter of the law as opposed to the idea of the law. The only positive argument for this culture is that the consistency of results makes it good for public services.

These are the four types of organizational culture. Most companies will fall into one of these categories. Knowing these organizational types will help in analyzing each company and the organizational culture appropriate for each one.