• Control system: processes aimed at monitoring activities.
• Organisational structures: hierarchies and the division of work.
• Structures of power: who makes decisions, using what prerogatives.
• Symbols: logos and utility models, as well as status symbols indicating power.
• Rituals and procedures: meetings, reports, consolidated more than necessary.
• Stories and myths: narratives about people and events, the aim of which is to spread information about what is valued in the organisation77.
However, it seems that such broadening of the way culture is understood is quite risky in the case of the neopositivist-functionalist-systemic paradigm. Including organisational strategy and structure in culture means that they cannot be treated as subsystems that are organisationally equal to culture. In this case, studying the relationships between subsystems becomes pointless, while the concept moves closer to understanding culture as a ‘root metaphor’, which is characteristic of non-functionalist paradigms.
2.3 Models of organisational culture
Assuming the analytical perspective on the elements of organisational culture, it is worth considering the relationships between them too. The key to understanding culture is answering the question about the cognitive model, with the use of which we can formulate hypotheses concerning the state of culture. Organisational culture models, based on the neopositivist-functionalist-systemic paradigm, are characterised by:
• Systemic nature,
• Analytical nature,
• Reification,
• A striving for statistical balance.
←42 | 43→
A systemic nature is one in which elements of organisational culture, between which causative relationships in a model are described, form subsystems, and so a change in the state of one entails a change in the state of the whole system. An analytical nature is one in which the assumed model of culture can be divided into elements both theoretically and empirically. Thus, the elements of organisational culture described in the previous subchapter are not only a list of elements, but also constituents of a model. Reification means that organisational culture is treated as an extant, real entity, almost an object that can be studied. Understanding of organisational culture as a process is much rarer. And finally, the striving for balance means that functionalist models usually describe the status quo, so they are static.
The subject literature offers a large number of models that have often been used to build typologies, and have been tested with the use of empirical research. The most important, even canonical culture models are those of E. Schein and G. Hofstede, while the most popular modern models were created by K. Cameron and R. Quinn, as well as R. Goffee and G. Jones. Later on, I will present my own 3D model of organisational culture, based on G. Hofstede’s model of dimensions, which I used for research in 2000.
E. Schein emphasises that organisational culture exists to some extent in order to answer two kinds of problems, concerning each organisation: problems with adjusting to the organisation’s environment and problems related to its internal integration78. His model consists of three elements called culture levels, which were distinguished because of their permanence and visibility. This author perceives organisational culture as a collection of dominant values and norms of conduct that are characteristic of a given organisation, supported by assumptions as to the nature of reality and manifested in the form of artefacts – external and artificial products of the given culture79. According to the concept of this author, culture functions on three levels: artefacts can be found on the surface, below which are the values and norms of behaviour, with the lowest level occupied by the main, basic assumptions.
←43 | 44→
Artefacts include logos, the appearance and design of buildings, dress code, status indication, common phrases and mental shortcuts, jargon, mottos, myths, legends, ceremonies and rituals. Norms and values can be divided into the declarative (which declare what is good for the organisation, what is praiseworthy and what is bad and reprehensible), and the followed (which we know about thanks to all kinds of informal conversations and behaviour). The basis and essence of organisational culture are assumptions, or collections of the basic patterns of orientation and ideas, as well as philosophical and worldview assumptions which influence perception and actions.
G. Hofstede proposed a model of organisational culture which orders the elements of culture hierarchically, comparing them metaphorically with onion layers:
Values are located at the core of the onion, rituals and heroes form the middle layers, while symbols form the outermost layer of the model. The last three elements of culture together form a broader category of practices. Symbols include words, gestures, objects and images, which are recognised by the members of a given culture. Heroes are people who symbolise the features most valued in a given culture, becoming role models in the process. Rituals are repetitive activities which express and emphasise the basic values of an organisation. They can be found in gestures, ways of greeting, religious and social ceremonies. Symbols, heroes and rituals form practices, which are clear only to the members of a given culture, while values are the ideas of what is important in a given environment and society. These are often called moral codes. They point to what should be, not to what actually is. The assumed system of values gives rise to an organisation’s cultural norms, which determine what is permissible ←44 | 45→and what is prohibited. These indicate the kinds of behaviour we can expect of the members of a given organisational culture. As G. Hofstede emphasises, the presented structure of culture refers to national and organisational cultures, but in both cases individual elements play different roles. Members of different organisations differ mostly in terms of practices, and not in terms of values. On the national level, differences mainly concern values. As Hofstede claims, the core of organisational culture is the sense of community of practice, which is not common to all values. The values of an organisation’s members depend mostly on external factors, such as nationality and age, and not just membership in the organisation.
A different model of culture, quite often used for the purpose of empirical research, was proposed by K. Cameron and R. Quinn, based on the distinction between two dichotomous dimensions: flexibility vs. stability and internal vs. external orientation. The combination of these dimensions results in four types of ideal organisational culture:
1. Clan culture is inwardly oriented and flexible, and often conditions paternalist management styles.
←45 | 46→
2. Adhocracy is outwardly oriented and flexible, which leads to innovation-oriented leadership.
3. Market culture is a combination of outward orientation and stability, which leads to strong leadership in the context of high competitiveness.
4. Bureaucratic culture is inwardly oriented and strongly structured, the consequences of which are highly formalised management patterns.