I am doubtful whether characterising an organisation's culture by fitting it into one or more of these four "ideal types" would produce any very useful insights. For what purpose could such a survey be used? The problem is the immense complexity of cultures. I suggest that you take a look at some of the work of one of the great scholars of this subject, Andrew Pettigrew, for example Pettigrew AM (1979) On studying organisational cultures, Administrative Science Quarterly 24(4): 570-581, and Whipp R, Rosenfeld R and Pettigrew AM (1989) Culture and competitiveness: evidence from two mature UK industries, Journal of Management Studies 26(6): 561-585.

Maybe I am complicating things, but my first reaction to your question is:

what do you want to know, what are you interested in?

The choice of what to measure and which type of culture dimensions to use depends very much on what you want to know. Your choice of Clan, Market, Hierarchy, Adhocracy may be the right one. It may be the measure is well received by important journals, but that is not the primary reason for choosing your measurements. It may be prestigious to use such a prominent thing and it may perhaps enhance your status as a scientist, but would it help you to unravel the problem you want to tackle?

Of course, if you are primarily interested in furthering your scientific status, using a well-researched theory and method may be a good choice.

However, I would certainly want to study several different approaches first, before choosing. The four dimensions you refer to are not the only ones that are interesting, Organisational culture is not one thing; it has many aspects and it depends on what happens to be important. And that again depends on the type of organisation, the culture of the people employed, the general culture of the country they live in and so on.

There is a vast literature on organisational culture. I mention for instance:

Schein, E.H. (1985), Organizational leadership; a dynamic view. Jossey-Bass;

Hofstede, G.H. (2000), Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage Publications.

Both publications are a bit old perhaps, but they are really enlightening on the subject. I am sure there will be several works of a more recent date that might help you make up your mind. But in my opinion: start with what you want to know and proceed from there.

I wish you good luck with your research. Doing research is an interesting and stimulating adventure, although it can be boring at times.

Best wishes,

Laurens ten Horn

Assalamu'alaikum ukhti.

The Cameron and Quinn (2005) Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) is a widely used measure of organizational culture and has been cited in numerous academic publications across various disciplines. The instrument has been used to study organizational culture in a variety of contexts, including healthcare, education, and business.

While the Cameron and Quinn (2005) OCAI is a well-established measure of organizational culture, there are other measures available that also tap into the four types of organizational culture dimensions (Clan, Market, Hierarchy, and Adhocracy). For example, the Competing Values Framework (CVF) developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) is another widely used measure of organizational culture that also includes these four dimensions. Other measures include the Denison Organizational Culture Survey and the Organizational Culture Profile.

When choosing a measure of organizational culture, it is important to consider the research question and context in which the measure will be used. Researchers should select a measure that has been validated in the relevant population and that aligns with the theoretical framework being used to guide the research. In addition, researchers should consider the strengths and limitations of the different measures, as well as the ease of administration and the availability of normative data.

Overall, the Cameron and Quinn (2005) OCAI is a well-established measure of organizational culture that has been widely used in academic research. However, there are other measures available that also tap into the four types of organizational culture dimensions, and researchers should carefully consider their options when selecting a measure for their study.

Hi Rawia,

When you see models of anything to do with human nature limited to 4 or 5 Constructs, you have to understand that it is an over-simplification. I have to think that by posting your question, that you are somewhat aware of this. The best delineation of Cultures is that of Schwartz which itemized 10 types. Linan and Fernandez-Serrano (2014) then ordered these 10 as they correlated with GDP across a host of countries, and a number of researchers found the same correlation applied to organizations, e.g., Porto and Ferreira (2017).

I know that this is self-promotion, but I have just published through Routledge, the first two of a series of four volumes presenting Unitary Developmental Theory as equally valid for people, organizations, societies and economies as micro, meso, and macro socio-economic systems. It has 7 Levels and 15 Phases and also shows 15 corresponding patterns of Habituation, and the ten Cultures map onto the UDT hierarchy which – as it does with models across each domain – completes the Schwartz model. So now Culture, which has been defined in terms of personal attributes such as Assumptions, Beliefs and Values, can be re-defined as Habituated Stage of Maturation.

So, it depends what you want to use your model for, but if it has anything to do with assessing an organization objectively, then the smaller models are pretty useless as shown in the high failure rates for culture change as shown in 5 dense pages in the bible of Change Management (Burnes, 2017, pp. x-xiv).

That is because only Maturity is any use in assessing an organization and the example is given of Apple in the 1980s and the Maturity analysis answers the question re. why was it so easily overtaken. It was a cutting-edge organization and reflected Level 6 Innovation, etc., but in terms of Maturity, it was missing Levels 5 and 4 insofar as it did not have a dynamic-learning relationship with the environment or market and was not a well-formalized system, while its ultimate nemesis had these, as well as having a drive to take charge of its emerging market (7).

Chapter 4 of Vol. 2 covers all of this, and an early version of this chapter is accessible on my Researchgate page, although the writing is poor and there are a number of omissions corrected in the final publication, but at least it will add to your understanding of Culture and your study. I could help you prepare a simple Questionnaire of 7 or 15 Questions in an approach that has been used in a Resilience Study through the pandemic, although obviously, if you are looking for the more established modelling, I would choose the Schwartz – Linan & Fernandez Serrano modelling, and you could use UDT to give it some context.

Market and adhocracy sound similar, unless adhoc is the same thing as authoritarian capitalism, where workers get (under) paid to obey. Look at the Cultural Theory of Douglas and Wildavsky. In the book Culture Matters, there is an essay by Dennis Coyle that you will find helpful.

The main axes are group and grid (prescription). I operationalize these as Responsibilities and Rights. Especially if Adhocracy is a polite term for authoritarian. Capitalism is not hierarchy, not even for management, if the boss is always right. In hierarchy, members have rights and responsibilities. Markets are individualistic and have neither. There is only the deal. Egalitarianism is voluntary, but with group rights. Authoritarianism is all responsibility and no group rights.

I will leave it to you to operationalize the variables. I differ from others on whether fatalist are stuck in authoritarianism. Rather, they constantly fear getting fired. Lots of rules, no due process.

Feel free to cite me and good luck dealing with the blowback. Speaking the truth is a dangerous thing.

Thank you so very much for all the great answers given! So much appreciated! Given that my survey is conducted online, my co authors and I decided to go for an easier short phrased measure that taps into similar domains of Cameron and Quinn (2005), it's Sarros et al. (2005) adopted from O'Reilly's. Once again, I really appreciate your efforts and time in answering my question :)