personally I'm quite convinced by the articles and books by Hofstede. Process culture depends on the size of the company and the industry. I think that in government both do coexist. Maybe even coincide to be a bit abusive towards public servants. In SME's I strongly doubt that both labels apply. Process culture from my point of view is a translation of a vertical organisation and numbing effects this can have on peoples minds. Corporate culture is more sectarian. Imposed (American model of people learning the catechism, the lingo and trying to be part of a corporate body) or rooted (eg. BASF, Bayer, Agfa... where workers belong to a certain family and their parents or children often also work or worked within the same corporation. This shows in sports clubs, employee societies etc). When it comes to coexisting one can take for example the color coded shirts within EMC (green, burgundy etc to differentiate between support, R&D and other functions). I think that since lifetime jobs are disappearing the discussion might dissolve after time.

The Kennedy model seems to me a bit too generalizing. Maybe you should have a look at certain sociologists work. Homans, Bourdieu, Putnam, Coleman, Schultz... personally I think that also some work by Merton can be helpfull. My idea is that te exchange theory can shed a light on this problem.

The question is are you looking at the problem from the point of view of the individual within the group or from the point of view of the group dynamics. My feeling is that the Kennedy model is about the mental effects on the individual and the perception from oustiders. I think that concepts as social capital and cultural capital play a very important role in this kind of analyses.

This is why press exploded in the early 20's. The corporation is a system of deferment, a process culture would be a system of references available. I'm not a big fan on neoliberalism though, so look into Transcendental Philosophy. 

Organizational cultural change is the essential driving force in process improvement efforts for strategy implementation. The culture must support the vision, mission objectives, which are the fundamental ideology behind the reason for an organization to exist. Prime objective of the organization is to fulfill all the stakeholders’ expectations.

Process culture for organizational improvement and implementation of strategic change, requires right kind of organizational culture to support it. Creation competitive advantage is essential for stakeholders’ value creations.  Organizational barriers must be eliminated to improve teamwork and create a culture of engagement, empowerment and participation. Building up of proactive management system of risk assessment, in order to achieve excellence will lead to enrichment of process culture.

Therefore, organizational culture and process culture are complementary to each other and both must coexist.

Example - Enron was a corporation that did not allow vital information to be processed down the vertices of market, management & employment. This is happening repeatedly.

Use metaphysics & neologisms all you would like to swivel a corporation's merits, but it comes down to integrity of the organization to change with the climate of culture-shift (in a meaningful way) without using it as a marketing tool.

"Remember, Time is money." Re-member, I like to think.

& why down vote without pure critique? Honestly.

Organizations large and small are all trying to cultivate and instill several initiatives and norms that fostered an effective corporate culture. Management and researchers are actively considering ways in which companies can sustain a winning culture, in hope to sustain growth.

By definition, business processes are the core of the company’s daily operations. If there is sub-culture within the process environment, it need to align and support with the corporate culture.

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/gsb/files/publication-pdf/cgri-closer-look-55-how-important-culture.pdf

is it me or are almost all responses off topic and boiler plate philosophy?

What some refer to is the binds of collaboration & others defer to the processes of institutions - it is a philosophical dispute I believe. There is no consistency in the legal fictions of "the firm" so it's a matter of enlightenment..