There are (or rather must be) differences in organizational culture in different sectors or industries across the public, private, public, and third sectors (even if similarities will be fund). Although it is hard to find large organizations that have formal mechanisms to assess culture, staff (or employee) engagement surveys can surely unearth much relevant data and information, even if they understandably naturally measure other variables and are based on other models.

In Organizational Culture and Leadership, Schein made abundantly clear that, even though an organization's artifacts (its visible—almost palpable—structures and processes) and espoused beliefs and values (its no less visible philosophies, goals, and strategies) attract the lion's share of attention, it is an organization's basic underlying assumptions (its unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs, perceptions, thoughts, and feelings) that are the first and last founts of differentiation and action.

Inevitably, the content of organizational (or occupational) culture aims to address the vital questions that every group confronts, viz., how to deal with the external environment and how to manage the internal integration of the organization so the organization may survive, adapt, and perhaps thrive within that. This said, beyond this immutable conundrum, each organization's assumptions can be expected to vary to reflect different readings of reality and truth; time and space; and human nature, activity, and relationships; this is because an organization's assumptions are the particularized antennae with which it interprets the external environment.

According to Schein, then, the assumptions that an organization makes vis-à-vis its external environment relate—in sequential order—to (i) mission and strategy, (ii) goals (derived from the mission), (iii) means (to achieve goals), (iv) measurement (of results), and (v) correction (the remedial and repair strategies with which to effect changes). The assumptions it develops for the purpose of internal integration have to do with (i) common language and context, (ii) group boundaries and identity, (iii) power and status, (iv) intimacy, (v) rewards and punishments, and (vi) ideology (and religion). Schein deems these two external and internal sets to be universal.

Past these two primary tools of the trade things become more complicated but less central to success, their character owing essentially to human idiosyncrasy, not fundamentals. What is reality and truth? Across organizations, on the word of Schein, a slew of tailored "takes" on reality tell members of a group how to determine what is relevant information, how to interpret that, and how to determine when they have enough of it to decide whether or not to act and what action to take. Different levels include external physical reality, social reality, and individual reality, each shaped by ambient macroculture (be that high-context or low-context, moralistic or pragmatic, with variations over what is to be understood as "information"). What is the nature of time and space? Organizations can also differ in their orientation towards the past, the present, and the near and distant future; in their conception of time as monochronic or polychronic; in their regard of time as "planned" or "developmental"; in their use of time horizons; and in the pacing of activities, rhythms, and cycles. On top, they can display dissimilar approaches to space impacting intimacy distance, personal distance, social distance, and public distance. The use of space can be symbolic too, for example by attributing the best views and locations to higher-ups. And, they may have norms about body language and time, space, and activity interaction. What is the nature of human nature, activities, and relationships? The assumptions organizations make about human nature may vary as well: persons can be considered rational economic actors, social animals, problem solvers and self-actualizers, or complex entities. Assumptions about appropriate human activity may differ too, with distinct emphases on doing, being, or being-in-becoming; this may also affect organization–environment relations. Last, organizations may vary in terms of the assumptions they make about the very nature of human relationships, as suggested by such as Hofstede and some of his six dimensions in Culture′s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations, notably power distance and individualism versus collectivism.

Thank you for sharing your thouhghts on the topic. Do you know any researh on this?

I have no specific information on some results of organizational culture surveys. There are numerous examples of questionnaires on organizational culture, many of which are available online, for example at https://www.ocai-online.com/; however, most organizations keep the results of surveys for themselves. (I mentioned earlier that staff engagement surveys, about which I have written at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254582894_Engaging_Staff_in_the_Workplace, may provide some overlap; however, the difference between staff engagement surveys and surveys of organizational culture is that the first are about "I" and the latter are about "We." In any case, organizations also keep the results of staff engagement surveys to themselves.) It might be worth looking into Hofstede's work; he too has developed a methodology; but, there again, however, I suspect that the results of actual surveys will be kept under wraps. For comparison purposes, the surveys would have to be repeated; this adds another level of difficulty to actually getting hold of corporate results.

That's what I thought - I've been trying to find some research, but no success. Thanks again. Mirna

My article "The NHS: Sticking fingers in its ears humming loudly" looking at the culture in the UK National Health Service might be of interest to you.

Article The NHS: Sticking Fingers in Its Ears, Humming Loudly

Some underlying assumptions are identified in the findings

Rachael

Thanks a lot Rachael. Mirna

Yes, each organization has different organizational cultures. Public and private each bring unique background that influence the way people to be led. The followers may have their own values and norms

I have been doing a long-term study of "hidden events" things that are widely experienced, but seldom reported. There might be some interest in my paper "Social Intelligence About Hidden Events" which was published in Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion and Utilization 1982. Parts of the study have been extended to child abuse (Catholic Church, Jimmy Savile), UFOs, spontaneous human combustion, ball lightning, etc. Back to Mina's question about culture types. On my scale of organizational cultures, pathological cultures have some unique features that allow them to hide bad acts. The "fear and intimidation" that goes with pathological cultures is an excellent hiding place for disgusting and horrific actions.

There are tremendous differences, but these may also be Country specific. If you are interested, please search in the India context, you will be sure to get some works.

Thanks Emmanuel.

Yes. There are difference