Cameron and Quinn proposed linking organisational culture with leadership and effectiveness, and developed a method and a tool for cultural diagnosis they call an Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument, which allows us to identify cultural gaps80. The clan culture is characterised by friendly professional relationships, with the organisation’s members thinking they are part of one huge family. Leaders in this case are perceived as mentors. There is a high level of involvement in the tasks received, as loyalty and tradition bond the organisation’s members together. Emphasis is put on long-term benefits, the organisation is characterised by a striving for agreement, and it is oriented towards interpersonal relationships. The decisive factors are managerial skills in managing teams and developing employees. The culture of adhocracy favours creativity and dynamic development. An organisation’s employees are not afraid to take risks, and they like experimenting. A typical organisation’s leader is an innovator, a visionary. ←46 | 47→The decisive elements include managerial skills related to innovation management, orientation towards the future and managing constant improvement. A culture of hierarchy is typical of formalised organisations. In this case, a typical leader is a coordinator, organiser and observer. Work has to go uninterrupted and has to be done on time. There is a rule, according to which control improves effectiveness. The decisive elements are managerial skills related to assimilation management (clear indication of expectations and standards), a control system and coordination. In the case of a market culture, a typical leader is a supervisor, competitor and producer. A characteristic feature of such organisational culture is achievement of aims and beating the competition. It is important to fulfil the tasks, achieve results and succeed. The decisive factors are managerial skills related to motivating employees and propagating a customer-oriented approach. While the clan culture and adhocracy are flexible and allow freedom of action, the cultures of market and hierarchy value stability and control. The first two cultures are oriented towards internal issues and integration, while the other two are oriented towards the environment and diversity81.
R. Goffee and G. Jones assume that cultural patterns in an organisation can be successfully explained with the use of the dimensions of sociability and solidarity82. In this case, sociability is understood as honest liking between the members of a given community, while solidarity is understood as the ability of an employee group to achieve common goals. Goffee and Jones’s model allows us to distinguish four types of organisational cultures. The combination of a high level of solidarity with an equally high level of sociability results in a community culture. Its characteristic features include maintaining friendly relationships at work and outside work, justice and a reduction of fear in uncertain situations, sharing clearly determined, deeply rooted values, a fair distribution of risk and reward, clearly indicated competencies and a balanced assessment system. An important role is played by social events, which means the culture includes strong rituals. The meeting of a high level of solidarity and a low level of sociability gives rise to a mercenary culture, which is characterised by the seizing of opportunities, quickly and effectively, and effectively dealing with threats. Mistakes and shortcomings are unwelcome in this environment. An important role is played by reports containing specific data. All tasks are a result of top-down decisions, ←47 | 48→and their fulfilment is unquestionable. The personal interests of subordinates often coincide with the organisation’s assumptions. However, in many cases employees are not loyal. Usually they stay in an organisation only as long as it suits their interests. Another kind of culture, distinguished by the above authors, is the network culture. This appears when a low level of solidarity and a high level of sociability are combined. This culture is oriented towards strong personal relations, deepening these relations and omitting formal procedures. Meetings in the office, gossiping and friendly chats are typical of this culture. Unlike the mercenary culture, in this case numerous informal meetings are organised at work, birthdays and Christmas are celebrated together and an important role is played by rituals. The last type of culture, created by a combination of a low level of solidarity and a low level of sociability, is the inconsistent culture. Its characteristic feature is the striving for the achievement of personal goals; it does not include the identification by employees with the goals of the organisation. There is no agreement between the managers on different levels as to strategic aims and development standards. In organisations of this type, showing emotions and attempts at friendly behaviour are unwelcome. Professional life is separate from personal issues. This kind of organisation’s members assumes that all rituals are a waste of time. Resistance to changes and development is emphasised, while people are distrustful and unwilling to share information83.
2.4 One-dimensional typologies of organisational culture
The distinction between models and typologies of organisational culture is quite fluid. However, based on the subject literature, a number of typologies and classifications of organisational culture can be proposed, which can then be divided into the one-dimensional and the multidimensional. Some of these are based on simple dichotomies, which locate organisational culture within the intensity scale of one feature. Others are more complex, two-dimensional or multidimensional classifications. One-dimensional models are presented for example by E. T. Hall, who distinguished high- and low-context cultures84 because of the situational conditions of a communication process (context); R. R. Gesteland, who divided cultures according to the level of transaction concentration (pro-partner and pro-transactional cultures), according to the forms of desired and inappropriate behaviour (ceremonial and un-ceremonial ←48 | 49→cultures), according to the forms of behaviour applied (verbal, non-verbal and para-verbal – expressive and reserved cultures), and according to the approach to time (monochronic and polychronic cultures). It has to be emphasised that using one-dimensional classifications oversimplifies and limits typologies to only two types of culture. On the other hand, multidimensional classifications, which distinguish many types of culture, lead to the blurring of boundaries and the overlapping of descriptions of different cultures. The most popular typologies are two-dimensional, distinguishing four types of culture. Apart from R. E. Quinn’s model, described previously, it is worth paying attention to the characteristics of the cultures of R. Harrison and C. Handy, T. E. Deal and A. A. Kennedy, N. H. Snyder, T. J. Peters, as well as R. Goffee and G. Jones.
The analysis can begin with one-dimensional classifications. Those most often found in the subject literature include the following dichotomies:
1) Weak culture – strong culture.
2) Positive culture – negative culture.
3) Pragmatic culture – bureaucratic culture.
4) Introvert culture – extrovert culture.
5) Conservative culture – innovative culture.
6) Hierarchical culture – egalitarian culture.
7) Individualist culture – collectivist culture.
1 Weak culture – strong culture
The typology of weak and strong cultures is one of the most-often analysed issues of the cultural current in management. The subject literature is dominated by the belief that strong organisational culture prevails. Strong organisational culture is characterised by homogeneity, which means uniformity and common agreement among employees as to key assumptions, values and norms. Strong identification with organisational values is supposed to lead to the greater involvement of employees and, in consequence, to greater effectiveness85.