Stereotypes are simplified, evaluative images of reality which function in the social awareness66. Social actions are to a large extent carried out thanks ←38 | 39→to stereotypes, as they respond to the elementary rule of economy in the decision-making process. Most human perceptions and interpretations are made with the use of assimilated stereotypes, the medium for which is culture. These offer simple, normative regulations concerning all elements of the social reality, and are stereotypical answers to questions related to identity, employee relationships and cooperation with the environment, reflected in other elements of the organisational culture (stories, rituals, language, etc.) and the whole organisation (mission, vision, strategic goals and organisational structure). Leaving functionalism aside, stereotypes in organisational culture can be compared to the patterns proposed by S. G. Harris. He defines patterns as knowledge structures drawn from experience and used in order to act in analogous situations. Harris describes several types of such patterns rooted in organisational culture. For example, ‘me in an organisation’ determines the relationships between individual and collective identities, while ‘personality in an organisation’ integrates personal ideas and memories with the expectations of the other organisation’s members67.
A symbol is a thing, person, object or image being a sign of something, associated with a notion and bringing to mind certain – usually deep – meanings. In the case of organisational culture, symbols are signs that reflect cultural values. Functionalism is dominated by a narrowed understanding of symbols as logos, trademarks or colour patterns, while in interpretivism, this understanding is very broad, as actually everything in an organisation can have a symbolic meaning (words, events, situations, figures etc.).
Customs, similarly to traditions, include behaviour, actions and the ways of doing certain things established in a given society. In organisational cultures, customs and traditions are a kind of repeatable and ossified social practice, similar to rituals. The difference is that the usefulness of a given social action is maintained in the collective awareness. For example, an organisational custom could be the ‘group coffee’ shared by employees in the mornings. This has some ritual aspects because it is ossified, but on the other hand, employees correctly recognise its meaning and purpose. Contrary to rituals, customs are usually not as ossified and are more oriented towards individuals.
Organisational heroes are important figures who have left their mark on the organisation. Organisational heroes always include the founders, whose personality, ideas and creativity are usually the original source of the organisation’s ←39 | 40→culture. Other heroes may be managers, directors and charismatic employees. Narratives about heroes and the customs and symbols they created can have a large influence on the directions of an organisational culture’s development. The subject literature offers many publications about ‘organisational personality’ and the link between organisational culture and the people who create it68.
A taboo is a notion drawn from depth psychology, and earlier from Freud’s psychoanalysis and cultural anthropology. It is a topic or social activity which is on the one hand hidden and unmentioned, and on the other, important to an organisation – it can even be a time-honoured custom69. Taboos are located within the interests of functionalists70 and the representatives of alternative paradigms71. For example, they are often used in relation to the issues of discrimination and stigmatisation of disadvantaged groups in organisations72.
Cultural patterns are most often interpreted from the perspective of one of the most popular anthropological books, R. Benedict’s Patterns of Culture73. In the case of organisational culture, these are relatively well-established ways of action, common to all of an organisation’s members, being a manifestation of its configuration of values. Cultural patterns concern all activities, including both the ways of proper behaviour in the organisation and the ways of communication.
Artefacts are notions drawn from anthropology and archaeology, which in the case of organisational culture, mean visible manifestations of the organisational culture’s functioning. These can be physical (spaces, buildings, architecture), behavioural (greeting gestures, non-verbal communication) and lingual (language conventions, forms of addressing each other). The notion of artefacts was popularised in organisational culture by E. Schein, but it entails a ←40 | 41→large degree of ambiguity. On the one hand, similarly to archaeology, its understanding seems to be limited to the visible, mostly material manifestations of culture, but on the other, following the example of cultural anthropology, artefacts can be understood as all manifestations of the basic assumptions and values of organisational culture. An additional challenge is the use of artefacts both in functionalist and interpretative paradigms74.
Subcultures are social groups within organisational culture, which build their integration upon opposition to the dominant organisational culture (counter-cultures), or upon looking for autonomy. Subcultures usually crystallise around values that are not thoroughly consistent with the culture of the whole organisation75. Examples include the professional subcultures in hospitals, amongst doctors, nurses, managers and others. Subcultures and counter-cultures are key notions for the understanding of culture in the symbolic-interpretative paradigm76.
It is easy to see that even a superficial analysis of culture elements reveals they are inseparable. For example, the meanings of norms, cultural patterns, and artefacts to a large extent overlap. All elements of organisational culture described are systemically interdependent, but hierarchically ordered. The reasons and original constituents of culture are values and basic assumptions. Other elements of organisational culture are often considered to be the only manifestations of these deeper elements.
An advantage of this canon of elements is the analytical approach, allowing us to operationalise and study organisational practices and make a consistent division, according to which cultural elements can be separated from other organisational subsystems, such as organisational strategy and structure. A disadvantage of this functionalist division is its incompleteness and the overlapping of culture elements. It seems quite obvious that a mission or structures of power are of a cultural character. Mission reflects values and organisational identity, while the structure of power is the dominant cultural pattern. However, in the case of the functionalist-systemic approach, these two elements should be ascribed to organisational strategy and structure, respectively.
←41 | 42→
Some proposals for the analysis of culture elements, trying to omit these disadvantages of the ‘canon’ of culture elements, are based on an understanding located on the borderline between functionalism and interpretivism. In response, G. Johnson proposed a division into culture elements which is not disjunctive and which places the elements of strategy and structure among culture’s constituent parts. This proposal includes the following elements of organisational