(Principles of Management) In the main organizational culture, employees accept the values that the organization promotes; it is deeply embedded into the ways a business or organization does things.
Many large organizations have several "sub-cultures" that exist within the overall organizational culture. Sub-cultural differences exist because of differences between tasks, expertise and professions. If an employee is transferred from one department to another, s/he may find that it is almost like working for some other organization.
Yes, definitely an organizational main culture has several sub-cultures, developed by the workers there. The employees accept the values that the organization promotes and make them a part of their life. Several "sub-cultures" within the overall organizational culture have their own culture which depends on their tasks, expertise and professions. Slowly the workers get so much acclimatized to the culture that it becomes a part and parcel of their identity. A change in that may disturb their emotional and psychological being.
Large Organisations have a culture that is independent of the culture of their employees. Indeed, employees have their own cultures, individuals cultures, group socialisation cultures, cultures linked to functional areas...etc. We may regard those as sub-cultures co-existing within the the wider organisational culture, but this does not mean that cross-fertilisation between the sub-cultures and the main organisational culture is always possible. Organisational culture is more inclined to influences linked to fads trends and megatrends than the cultural influences of its employees. Here I argue from the perspective of a large organisation, or a Multinational corporation (MNC). I guess an SME would have a different dynamic. Furthermore, I believe management style and organisational structure can also have an impact on organisational culture and sub-cultures.
What we have seen that large corporations have a culture that permeates down depending upon the top person in place. Of course there will be some local cultures within small groups depending upon the pool of people present in that group. But rarely that translates upwards into the corporation. Most of the time is top down. These small group cultures could be very diverse depending upon the involved employees. Thus it is possible that it will take some time for an employee to adjust to the culture that he/she is transferred to.
It is not necessary that an organization HAS several sub-cultures as Jaya says. I do not agree with her,
But different sub-cultures are probable in an organization with multiple units. As you know, your question is about a COMPANY, and not about a plant, or an office of an establishment. i was part of one of the two management institutes owned by the same group of owners. Both had different cultures. That was due to the influence of the two directors--the way they wanted their institute to be run. They influenced the culture through command and control. So for the group of owners that was a sub-culture.
It depends about the leadership whether it allows different sub-cultures to develop in different departments. And, the departmental heads MAY shape a different culture than that of the whole organization. But surely the culture in two different units of the same COMPANY is very likely to be different.
Since the strategy today is to promote shared values and shared vision, still sub-culture could develop in different units of a company or in different departments of the same unit; that might relate to issues that do not disturb the shared values efforts of the top leadership, or may even be anti-thetical to the shared values, and may need correction.
Of course, the administration of any organization always draw the overview strategy providing wide limits that all employee should work within, and that would be the main culture. On the other hand, every department (for example) will work under sub culture depending on differences in tasks and professions, but all the sub cultures should never cross the headline limits of the major strategy.
I think no only an organizatinal main culture has several sub-cultures, but, moreover, it is necessarry and desirable that it be like that. Provided, of course, that we talk about intelligent organizations.
Non-intelligent organizations are monolithic and stiff - and there prevails a mian and therefore unique general culture - wthout any subculture, whatsoever.
Culture is an emergent property of organizational systems. It is not fixed. It evolves as the different parts of an organization interact with each other and with the (national/regional/local, technological, social, economic, educational, natural, industry, knowledge) environment. The different parts of an organization (whether they are organized around processes or functions or product lines or regions) are systems which are part of a larger system. They have a different mix of components and environment, and therefore the culture that emerges from the mix will reflect this differences.
However, culture is also a glue that binds organizations together because it is based on "accepted" or "shared" ways people do things and on the ways they plan and organize themselves to do them. Therefore, all "local" cultures in a healthy organization will look like family members, with many traits in common and some differences.
The problem is that- as the pace of environmental change increases- the need to increase internal variety also increases (in order to adapt and to have solutions for new problems or requests). As internal variety increases, internal cultures evolve and the pressure on integration increases. In order to manage this increasing diversity and the augmented adaptation needs, organizations need strong leadership to reinforce common adaptive values and rituals and to develop the new necessary myths/legends.
Since that there are multinational organisations that use workers of various nationality, then that organisation could have some subculture. However every worker has to be in harmony with the way the organisation is working. In this way the existence of subcultures seem not to play any crucial role.
Dear Mahfuz
Yes
Although the culture of an organization is representative of the company as a whole, there are also many smaller subcultures within this structure. As an example, consider the Department of Defense of a country as the organizational culture and the different military branches, such as the Army, Navy, and Air Force as organizational subcultures. Each subculture has its own set of characteristics that make it distinguishable from other subcultures, but together, they still work as a whole is striving for the same general purposes
Yes. I agree there may be many sub-cultures running within the "mother" culture of teh organisation. These sub-cultures could be function based or process based. Each functional unit within an organisation , say Marketing, may habe its own set of beliefs, values and gossips that are evolved over a period of time. All these sub-cultures may be united by the common belief, value system and the gossip that the entire organization may have.
These sub-cultures may have implications for
a) design of an incentive system
b) The way people are tied together, and
c) the way people get motivated !
Dear Mahfuz, if I can imagine one corporation with many branches wide world as for ex. McDonalds I can agree then - Yes, it is possible that there are many different organizational cultures contained in one comprehensive domain - original culture as McDonalds in US. In fact around the world there are many of such organizational cultures. I observed, there may be different perceptions and attitude towards such organizational cultures as McD. in different countries. Of course language is different. Logo, values, image is almost one, rituals close to origin but rules and time are probably different.
Yes if iti is a big company.
For a small one, it would be better to have one culture.
For a big one, different departments have different work and environments and thus sub-cultures are viable.
I strongly agree that an organizational culture has different sub-cultures within it.
It is same as said that people build a society.
In same way culture of an organization is built up by working people. And every one has its own nature and culture. It is proven that there exist a lot of cultural difference between people of even same society.
That's why it is true that every organization has many sub-cultures but the main prevailing culture of an organization depends upon influencing people.
@ Debi, agree with you with reference to one point that the organization has to be big in order to it having diverse cultures which probably may not be possible with a small organization. But with a large one, I will stick to my point that each unit develops its own culture, within one parent culture.
I believe this depends on the size of the organization, the scope and number of departmentalization. the heterogeneity of its members and the level of satisfaction of the members with respect to their condition in the organization. Sub-cultures exist when the situation if the organization allows its existence and proliferation. There are also sub-cultures that actually support the organizational culture.
Dear Mahfuz heterogeneity of organization is not related to its size but to its function and if utilized probably can lead to success
@MJ: Thanks for sharing the question
A premier organization will have one culture only . When so many sub-cultures are there then the cohesiveness of the organization is lost.
I can say with my experience at my institute, when it was housed in a royal palace and inbreeding of scientists was a common thing then we had a unique culture of the institute - a productivity oriented family feeling. But when we stopped inbreeding and moved to new modern campus, I have noticed that productivity oriented family feeling is dying or rather disappeared and so many sub-cultures are evolving.
It is conmen for any organisation to have subcultures that in total they form the dominating culture of the whole organisation. These subcultures, usually related to certain departments or functions (e.g. engineering, auditing, sales etc.) all have to some extent a unique culture. These subcultures usually influences by the profession ( ethics, code of conduct , standers etc.). while these subcultures should be fully understood by top management and consultants when making any changes to the existing norms of doing business, changing them is not possible sometimes nor it is advisable to do so.
Yes, organizations can have several relatively strong sub-cultures. For example, in one firm in which I have been previously employed, we had at least four sub-cultures of which I was aware. The firm was a vertically integrated electrical power producer, transmitter, and distributor. The nuclear generation division had a predominantly "safety-first" culture (for rather obvious reasons) that made the transition to that division for relatively cavalier thermal (coal) generation division employees difficult. The distribution division had a culture that exuded a very strong customer service focus, something that appeared absent from all the other divisions. Finally (and this may characteristic of many large firms), the head office or "corporate" culture was more aloof and focused on external relationships than any of the other divisions.
Agree with Mr Herman van den Berg.
Culture is a social phenomenon. It can not exist without a society or a community. Organization is a community. If an organization's structure implies existence of more than one community, there may be more than one sub-culture. A good example is given by the colleagues who mentioned that departments could have their own sub-cultures, and it's true. For instance, salesmen, maintenance engineers and R&D workers have different values and behavioral models in their functional departments due to the difference in their tasks, conditions, success factors, backgrounds, KPIs, typical personalities etc. Sometimes these sub-cultures contradict.
Another point is that organizational culture is developed by leaders who define values and behavioral models through encouragements and censures. Departments, divisions, subsidiary companies have their own leaders whose personalities affect the sub-cultures, and it's quite natural that they differ, and natural to be changing due to leaders turnover.
Yes, organizations do have a number of subcultures (or cultural dimensions) that can be measured in addition to the overall measurement of organizational culture. You may want to download my publication entitled "The Measurement and Interpretation of Organizational Climate" (2011), in which this topic is discussed at some length.
Yes, However it happens main main culture is not able to encompass all the employees. such cultures are very difficult to establish since individuals are heterogeneous in behavior.
Upananda
Based upon my experience, it is not unreasonable to find sub-cultures within an organization. I have found the drivers for these sub-cultures tend to be one of three 'generic' factors: (1) differences between management styles (2) different professions and (3) geographic separation.
Yes, I do agree with Robert Starinsky on the three variables he cited. To this list can be added diversity issues. With firms now transcending national borders that can be fertile ground for subcultures to emerge. I worked very briefly with a construction firm where the workforce was diverse: British, Japanese and African. In units where British dominated and especially headed by a British the culture was different. I noticed that the units had different climates based on the type of leader altogether. I strongly believe that leaders of units can modify, to some extent, where they are. I'm currently considering carrying a study on how organisational culture and climate impact overall organisational energy scores.
I will quote from an actual experience: working for a multi-national where a number of companies within that organisation shared a site. Each company had a marketing department and the target market for the different company products differed. The different marketing strategies attracted (and needed) employees with different characteristics and the culture of each company and marketing department was entirely different - ranging from highly conservative to youthful and trendy. However, although there were common values, for example a strong work ethic, an employee from one would have found it extremely difficult if not impossible to succeed if they were transferred between these units.
A useful sociological theory to explore some of the reasons subcultures exist and develop is Bourdieu and his exploration of 'habitus'. While this is about individuals not organisations, the interaction of our innate tendencies and experiential learning to develop our own decision making frameworks is very relevant. Also, Lipsky's Street-level Bureaucrats would be useful.
Hello All.
A very interesting discussion. Thank you!
Many of us probably work in universities and business schools. We are aware of the subcultures that exist in these: e.g. where we expect marketing researchers and practitioners to interact in styles distinct from engineers or statisticians. Similarly, members of each 'discipline' are likely to emulate these styles of communication and interaction beyond the organisational / university boundaries to fellow academics in their field: the subcultures transcend the boundaries of any one organisation / university; the discourse of a conference on accounting would differ from that common to a conference on biotechnology.
In addition to the many interesting suggestions made already in this thread, I suggest we look at culture / subculture as something negotiating in the formation of relationships. Hence, the predominate culture of an organisation is likely to be shaped heavily and top-down by those who claim to 'lead' that organisation: i.e. by prescribing 'normal' or expected behaviours and values among organisational members.
Hence, one way to begin identifying and distinguishing between cultures /subcultures is to examine how relationships are structured and negotiated within a defined space ('organisation' / 'team'). In research terms, this relationship-oriented focus suggests a more emic approach than the etic approach inherent in many general models and theories of 'organisational cultures' / OB.
The subculture and main culture are supporting to one another. However, the local practices, values, and behavior of employees in one location of the organization will differ from another location of the organization.
yes, a team culture will contain compassionate culture, supportive and help culture. Culture having so many subculture. What big culture determines how many sub culture one do have in main culture.
The main culture has symbolic meaning.
A company comprises groups with different interests and values. Thus, conflicts are conservation and subcultures are common. To achieve cooperation and form an identity of "one" company, any company needs a main culture to provide identity and make conflict less salient.
A company also needs an image to the public. The public tends to categorize a company into a specific "culture."
Every Culture is unique and is highly customized with PEOPLE - TIME RELEVANCE... further its nature is HYBRID with inputs from various groups (sub-cultures). Culture gets infected by leaders through their followers who capitalize under the umbrella of leadership. The irony is GOOD CULTURE takes time to propagate while the BAD CULTURE spreads as WILD FIRE and devastates...
Eg in Organizations... Proxy attendance punching, Tail gate of employees for recess break etc.
Large companies could last more homogeneous cultures in their Human Resources. This was due to several factors: a) lower average level of academic training in general; b) traditional view that if the company was with good results and someone was with good goals in the organization, he/she will be there until his retirement; c) fewer external sources to the organization to train people and provide them information.
None of these conditions occurs today. Soon, large corporations are less rigid, less endowed with strong culture than in the past, and full of sub-cultures.
A few references that might help explore some of the issues around sub-cultures and their origin include Lipsky's "Street-Level Bureaucrats", aspects of public choice/political economy field and, interms of how cultures develop there is, of course, Goffman's "Asylums". For dimensions that may affect organisational culture and subcultures, take a look at Hofstede's "Culture's Consequence". As for how tehse change over time and the organisational size, it might be useful to look at Schein's model of culture.
Imagine a very large, mechanistic, bureaucracy like the US Department of Defense (whose military members again ranked highest in the Gallup poll of respected institutions in America), and the many sub-cultures within: very diverse people -- still aligned with values of public service -- and yet divided into many populations by function , skill levels, etc. We have found it to be fertile ground for research about trust, organizational adaptation, decision-making, etc. And we have indeed observed sub-cultures going almost "rogue" in their varying processes -- and even mission shifts, to better serve the needs of the parent org or "customer" within the larger group. Dr. Kathryn Aten and I just wrote a report that documents such observations, whereby sub-cultures took it upon themselves to change roles in order to respond to urgent needs.
I take the opportunity of this debate to present the abstract of a my recent article refers to a model of organizational cultures. Title: 'A model of organizational cultures predictive of wellbeing: from the organization of work to broader social'.
Abstract:
A model of organizational cultures that for many years explained effectively the organizational behavior is that of the Italian authors Bellotto & Trentini (1989). This model is particularly suited to the Italian organizational and social reality and continues to implement its descriptive and explanatory capability. The four cultures derived from the model are characterized by well-defined variables for each culture, and which can be made operational. That also enables you to apply the method of quantitative research as well as the more usual method of qualitative analysis. The model also expresses specific figures of trainers in the classroom for every type of culture and, ultimately, these cultures were made in connection with the model of ‘organizational pathologies’ of Kets de Vries & Miller (1992). In this regard, the most frequent combination of cultures and the different weight which they assume within the same organization are able to provide important signals of the level of organizational wellbeing.
-----
I also take this opportunity to ask if anyone can suggest me a journal interested in the subject to which to send my article.
Thank you.
Claudio Palumbo
The above citation of Bellotto & Trentini (1989) is commendable...For any organization it is inevitable to have sub-cultures....each clique affects other groups, the common behavioral practice is reflected as the culture of the organization....
As a result of doing transdisciplinary work, I have developed increased awareness of different "professional" attitudes towards organizational culture. In my experience (which may be different from yours) psychologists seem to consider organizational culture "as a given"- something to be respected; while managers seem to consider it as work in progress- something to build upon/construct. This difference can have big consequences in organizational settings.
As managers, we can have a more proactive perspective towards organizational culture. If you do not like it, help it change. It may sound irrespectful, but almost everything that management does helps build culture- in wanted and unwanted ways. So, the "spread" in organizational culture can be acted upon.
Culture hopefully develops to help organizations adapt to and deal with their environments. Since the different parts of the organization are in contact with different local environments (made up of providers, customers, communities of practice and interests, management, neighborhoods, etc) it is normal to develop differences. But there also should be a feeling of belonging to a larger whole and some common values and policies. And it is up to management to decide how much is good enough and take steps to reach the desired state.
I think that social scientists not only must be able to know what is going on, but should also help society and organizations find (better) ways to solve problems. I believe organizational culture development is one of those issues.
Interesting discussion. I think that an organization must built its main culture and working tradition at which must adhere the employees whatever their cultures. Sub cultures should be disclosed and solved in the main culture to disable ethnic groups formation. The main focus should be the standards that the organization should meets
I fully agree with the statement in the question.
The present fad on management is that big organizations must have values and culture, emblazoned in some motto, chart, even garments, supposed to btong unity and dedication. Of course this is mainly bullshit. From my personal experience in such multinational private company, a good management solution is feudalism : you build netwroks, you aknowledge full authority of some managers (usually by country butnot necessarily) against their loyalty : you will protect them and their people against the silly rules of the higher management, and they will support you against their misdeeds. It works if you share at least the basic understanding that the purpose of a company is to make money, which is not usually the goal of CEOs, which care only for themselves.
Culture and values are not slogans, or a management fad either. Culture and values are the foundations of everyday decisions, which does not mean that people are necessarily concious about them.
The values that organizations claim to have are not necessarily real, but what these organizations think it's useful to convince you to do business with them. That`s what marketing is all about. But it is not necessarily well done- or ethical.
Dear Maria,
If we mean that culture means shared customs, practices, relationships, it is true that we can find a culture, and subcultures, in organizations, companies or public services. They must be accounted for in any attempt to change these organizations. But from my personal experience (as civil servant, director and manager of international companies) they are weaker than usually assumed. I have had a real experience, taking the responsability of a factory in the Check Republic in the 1990s. I succeded in changing a true socialist kind of organzation into a standard, international organization. Of course I would not be successful if had not been aware of what was the starting point, but the key was to understand the present motivation of the people (workers as well as managers), with simple goals, some public (meeting ISO2001 standards) and some less so (sending women spend some months to work in Sweden). My experience is that individuals are more important than what any organization want them to be.
It takes strong leadership to have a strong organizational culture. This is the reason why family businesses seem to have stronger cultures than corporations. And this is also the reason why generational change is so difficult in family firms.
There are also strong leaders that can provide vision and leadership to even international corporations or countries. Steve Jobs was one of them.
I agree Krishnan Umachandran's statement. Every organization have a strong culture for their vision and mission. It split as sub-culture where the organization expand their business like long term, short term. Moreover the organization change their sub-culture due to some reasons. Like goal-oriented, Effective leadership and etc.
Dear Kalpana R.,
I am interested to publish my article about organizational cultures on an Indian journal. Can you help me?
Thank you.
Here is my abstract.
Title: 'A model of organizational cultures predictive of wellbeing: from the organization of work to broader social'.
Abstract
A model of organizational cultures that for many years explained effectively the organizational behavior is that of the Italian authors Bellotto & Trentini (1989). This model is particularly suited to the Italian organizational and social reality and continues to implement its descriptive and explanatory capability. The four cultures derived from the model are characterized by well-defined variables for each culture, and which can be made operational. That also enables you to apply the method of quantitative research as well as the more usual method of qualitative analysis. The model also expresses specific figures of trainers in the classroom for every type of culture and, ultimately, these cultures were made in connection with the model of ‘organizational pathologies’ of Kets de Vries & Miller (1992). In this regard, the most frequent combination of cultures and the different weight which they assume within the same organization are able to provide important signals of the level of organizational wellbeing.
-----
Claudio Palumbo
Organisational culture is composed of several components. It incorporates beleives, values, attitudes of employees, stories, heroes, success stories, sign, symbol, etc. There are subcultures within organisations. Since deifferenct departments can have differenct such cultures. For example, IT department may willing to adopt technological changes than other departments.
There appears to be a dichotomy of perceptions here. One view is that culture is 'imposed' by strong leadership espousing specific values, goals and aims; the other view is that it is what can be seen by observers and is composed not only of the values and attitudes but also the signs, symbols and heroes within the company.
A challenge to the first view is what happens when you don't have strong ;leadership? Do you have an absence of culture? The signs, symbols and heroes within the company or organisation still exist but may appear differently, e.g. the hero may be the person who manages in the absence of strong leadership.
An interpretation of the second view which enables an understanding of the challenge to the first is that culture is an emergent property of an organisation. It is born of the people and subcultures within the organisation AND the external forces acting upon it, e.g. government policies, legislation, market drivers and professional disciplines or codes of conduct.
Looking at organisational culture through this lens, we may see that not only CAN and organisational culture have subcultures but, by this definition it MUST have subcultures as they are a part of what develops the comprehensive organisational culture.
This only leaves us to determine whether or not this emergent property is an organisational culture or a description of the internal and external forces acting on the organisation.
I agree with you Norman in that culture is 'imposed' by strong leadership espousing specific values, goals and aims; the other view is that it is what can be seen by observers and is composed not only of the values and attitudes but also the signs, symbols and heroes within the company
I do not think that these are two different views. Culture is an emergent propertyof organizations and there are different contributing factor to its developments. Strong leadership is a contributing factor that acts as "organizational glue" and will help develop a strong culture under a leaders`s sphere of influence. Strong global leaders will help develop strong global cultures in detriment of local cultures- and the opposite may be true, too. So there will always be main cultures and subcultures, which may -or may not- be important due to their relative strength
Since signs, heroes, legends and rituals not only are emergent properties of culture but also are tools for the survival and development of any culture, strong cultures will have an abundance of these(signs,heroes, legends and rituals) whether they are easily visible or hidden to outsiders. However, an observer may -or may not- identify these "elements" of culture, since sometimes they are kept secret to the uninitiated. And the opposite also is sometimes true: the members of a culture may not be aware of some of its "elements" or distinguishing traits (you know, the only ones who do not know that water is wet are the fish who are always in it).
So, I do not think that we are talking about different views (of the "either..... or" type) but of a continuum ("different shades of gray" type) where main culture and subcultures may have different relative strengths.
There still seems to be a prevailing view that 'strong leadership' is an essential part of organisational culture. My point about this is that leadership - strong or weak - exists and influences the culture. A Foucauldian perspective, that power is present everwhere and it is the reltaionships that determine how it is enacted, would support the view that weak leadership has as much of an impact on culture. Whether this is positive or negative would be determined by the outcome. For example, weak leadership would enable a strong, positively dynamic individual to shape the organisation by their actions and reputation, whereas a strong leader may not enable this person to flourish if they are perceived as a threat.
If we define culture as a set of practices, typical behaviors or relationship, hierarchy,...then one can say that in any organisation can appear a culture, and in any subset of this organisation can appear subcultures. Then the main questions in management are : what are the (good or bad) consequences of an existing xulture, how do we deal with them, and is it good to change or to create a new culture.
One key factor in the existence of a structure is the resilience of the organisation : the more resilient the organisation, the stronger the culture can be. It is usually strong in administrations or state owned companies, weak in public owned companies, and in privately owned company it depends if the owner is still the creator.
How one deals with a given culture is an issue to be considered by the management whenever it faces a change (such as in a takeover). My personal experience is that individuals matter more than anything. I used to tell the people that I managed : "You are paid to do your work, nothing more, you can be happy or not with that, but there is nothing else in the contract". Tell anything else would be hypocritical or totalitarian. Of course the job of a manager is to do his best so that each individual enjoys his job, when possible, and certainly to explain what you expect to do and what you expect from then (in the usual assesment procedures) but I doubt that mature individuals can be convinced by the discourse about culture. Take the example of Microsoft, and its announce yesterday that it will lay off 1/4 of the people of Nokia, or the firing of a manager from Firefow because of his personal opininion regarding mariage.
Tosum up : culture is a fact of life to deal with when you are a manager, and never forget that individuals come first
When I talk about leadership, I am not just talking about appointed or formal leaders. Ordinary people can became leaders too due to technical expertise, loyalty to the organization, the amount of knowledge/ information they possess, etc. Sometimes informal leaders can be more powerful than "official" leaders. And I agree that everything that management does (including laissez faire attitudes) make important contributions to the development of cultures.
The point is how do all these factors inter-relate with each other at the local, regional or global levels? Sometimes environmental factors can also upset statu quo.These include wars/ conflict, droughts, famines, technological developments, government leaders, etc. Oneof these factors that is increasing in importance currently are mobile devices, which bring along a mobile culture and the associated multitasking and reduced cognitive capacity (due to Continuous Partial Attention, CPA)
Dear Laura,
of course leaders (belonging or not in the official hierarchy) can be instrumental in shaping a culture. But then you have deal with these leaders, for the best or the worst. Any experienced manager knows that, and even if a bit of knowledge in sociology helps, you do not need a phD.
One issue in the culture in a company is the change in its organisational chart. From my exprience a given organisation, at a middle level (say one hundred people) does not last longer than 18 months in international public owned companies. And it would be interesting to have a survey about that. In such a moving environment any top-down discourse about culture has a weak credibility.
Short answer, yes. Slightly longer answer: Have a look at Swatch. Overall culture is borderline visionary. Marketing dept is borderline organic. Can be classical if the owners (Hayak) really don't like something.
One organization can definitely have sub-cultures; MNCs are the perfect examples, e.g. host-country can strongly influence the organizational behaviour of the subsidiaries (i've examinded this both theoretically and practically :).
Even within one big domestic organization different departments follow different values, norms and then have different paterns of behaviour; so they have different sub-cultures...
another intersting topic raised here - can culture be shaped and managed (mostly managerial view that it can), or is it sth that is resistant to change and it's a component of organization's deeply rooted identity; we've also investigated that with my colleague and the answer is: it can be even drastically transformed but with a great use of turnover in workforce, otherwise it takes much longer then most managers suspect it would be done
regards
Beata
Dear Beata,
As for the topic you raised - can culture be shaped and managed. I believe that culture is formed by the founders of an organization or the management.
I agree that it usually takes a turnover of workforce to drastically change a culture. However, there are two other options:
One of them is a survival crisis in an organization, which can take place due to different causes- including market changes, political upheaval, natural disasters or war/conflict. When survival is at stake and there is/are strong leader/s, culture changes can emerge quickly ("this is the new way now")
Another type of change emerges from technology change which brings about cultural change in society and in organizations. For example, mobile technology is one of the latest changes, but PCs allowed a digital or cyberculture a few decades ago.
Dear Maria,
I agree with you in general, but it does not take a turnover of workforce to drastically change a culture. There are many ways can be followed to change organizational culture.
Why is organisational culture viewed as something that can be steered, directed or managed? There are a number of managerial "sayings" that can be used to question this view. "Culture eats strategy for breakfast" and "Your policy is what you permit". The former saying suggests that culture "is" - almost independently of the organisation's aims; indeed a business that operates without a vision or mission statement will still have a culture. The second suggests a view that has come to mind recently - that organisational culture is an 'emergent' characteristic of an organisation. The various subcultures that can exist, along with organisational policies and strategies, legislation and professional codes of conduct all play a part in shaping the culture but it 'arises from' the interaction as opposed to being imposed on the workforce. Any thoughts?
Dear Maria,
I agree with you that there are many drastic stituations that could turn human behaviour, and then change their perception, norms and even values they believe in, and this is more probable, when they have a leader to follow.
Norman, THANK YOU, you tackled the issue I raised in my first answer that for managers the organizational culture is sth that can be changed because it's sth the company HAS while for many scientists sharing social or antropological perspective the culture IS the construct that cannot be manipulated by simply aplying - even very sophisticated managerial tools...
I completely agree with you dear Beata. "For managers the organizational culture is sth that can be changed because it's sth the company HAS while for many scientists..".
Organizational culture can be defined as the values, beliefs and norms that stand out as the dominant characteristics of an organization as a whole. The organizational values are representative of what the company believes is most important, such as giving back to its community. Organizational beliefs are representative of deep-rooted ideas commonly held by the company, such as the best ways to meet its goals. The organizational norms are a reflection of accepted behaviors within the company, such as particular leadership styles or work environments.
While the culture of an organization is representative of the company as a whole, many smaller subcultures also exist within its structures. As an example, consider the Department of defense as being the organizational culture, and the different military branches such as the Army, Marines and Navy as being organizational subcultures. Each individual subculture has its own unique set of characteristics, but together, they still operate as a whole striving for the same overall goals.
Yes indeed, the organizational main culture consists of subcultures.
Dear Joshua,
I agree with you in statement that, "he organizational main culture consists of subcultures".
Joshua
To add to your answer, we also should take into account the variability of individuals' religious beliefs, ethnic background, political viewpoints, work ethics and social influence. These will all have a bearing on how their part of the organisation reacts with and forms part of the overall culture.
Sub culture is modest word for Organizational politics.
Familiarity and string Interpersonal relationship among members, emerge a new way for people preference practices which are unique to that particular set of people.
Initially there may teething problems for people to acclimatise and adjust with the new surroundings and people practices (taking work practices are known to the transferred person).
This is similar or analogous to an Indian social situation such as marriage..where the bride goes and settles in her in-laws place.
Interesting view Krishnan. Organisational politics of the type you describe would certainly be a part of subcultures as there may often be tensions between professional perspectives and practices. Would you consider 'alliances' (for lack of a better word) between people about other common factors, e.g. faith, ethnicity, gender, disability, as another aspect of organisational politics or something different? These are distinctly different from professional practice but I have known there to be such groupings of staff which have then influenced how parts of the organisation function, although often cutting across the professional boundaries.
Sub Cultures. at times are non aligned to organization goals, especially when their interests are not taken care. These are exhibited by Unionized employees during the bonus and Wage settlement periods.
Dear Roy, to look at examples of differing cultures following mergers or acquisitions is very essential.
In as much as culture is about fundamental beliefs, it is a socially constructed property of organizations. It becomes modified as people give it their own interpretations based on their personal experiences and perceptions. Like Maria says it evolves as the different parts of the organization interact with each other and the environment.
Although culture may appear stable and static, deeper analysis will show the subtle differences and adaptations which exist. Like other commentators have said, the existence of subcultures depends on other factors such as the type of organization. Leaders also play a role as they influence certain dimensions of culture, for example openness. In Higher education institutions, a subsection of my research area and in which presumably most of us are involved in, there can be subtle differences in culture across departments and faculties. This may not however be the case in some other organizations.
Hence an organization may have subcultures within the main organizational culture.
Dear Chiamaka,
I completely agree with you that, "Leaders also play a role as they influence certain dimensions of culture, for example openness".
Culture is a braod defined concept and mostly "measured" on the national level (Hofstede) and the organizational level. In some management literature a strong organizational culture is recomended. However, there are also professional cultures. Within the same organization different professionals (e.g., sales, prudction, finance, HR) are working together, but most of the professionals are ingrained with a kind of professionalism that is received during their education and first jobs within a group of professionals with the same background. I view "culture" as an result of the diverse and dynamic interactions between people, a social gesture end response in which "the culture" emerges. Therefore "culture" can not be the same all the time for a nation, an organization, nor a group of professionals. Management and their leadership is just marginal responsible / influencing this procesess of daily interaction dynamics.
Dear Jos, Thank you for your answer which is worded in a professional way. You have said, " Therefore "culture" can not be the same all the time for a nation, an organization, nor a group of professionals. Management and their leadership is just marginal responsible / influencing this procesess of daily interaction dynamics". That is the case.
Published on Universal Journal of Psychology 2 (7): 213-217, 2014 http://www.hrpub.org
DOI: 10.13189 / ujp.2014.020701
my article: 'A Model of Organizational Cultures Predictive of Wellbeing: From the Organization of Work to Broader Social'.
Dear Claudio,
Thank you for your interest in the question that I raised. In fact, I tried to look at the your article, " A Model of Organizational Cultures Predictive of Well-being: From the Organization of Work to Broader Social" , which was published on Universal Journal of Psychology 2 (7): 213-217, 2014, but the problem was that I could not log in.
Dear Mahfuz Judeh,
Thanks for your answer.
I was in Jordan in 2000!
If you cannot download my article, I could send it by e-mail. Let me know.
Best regards,
Claudio Palumbo
I am interested, my dear Claudio, in your article. Could you please send it through my e-mail. Thank you. Hoping to see you in Jordan once again.
Best Regards,
Mahfuz