The dichotomous typologies of organisational cultures described here are only the examples which most often appear in literature. In reality, there are many more typologies, based on more dichotomies than just these. Other examples include a culture of risk vs. avoiding uncertainty109, flexible vs. inflexible cultures, changes vs. status quo. However, it seems that many of these dichotomies share common elements, which is why the analysis included seven classifications of organisational culture that are quite often used in one-dimensional research.
2.5 Multidimensional typologies of organisational culture
A consequence-modelled culture is another, different type of classification, and includes multidimensional typologies. The best known classifications of this type are by R. Harrison and C. Handy, T. E. Deal and A. A. Kennedy, T. J. Peters, O’Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell. These are mostly models which use the functionalist approach, oriented towards research into the relationships between an organisation’s effectiveness and other internal variables. Another important issue concerns the strength of organisational culture and its influence on the integration of the system and its employees. One advantage of many Polish cultural analyses is the adjustment of concepts and methods of managing organisational culture to local specifics, an example of which is the large body of comparative research into organisations in Poland, as well as the descriptions of practical methods for managing organisational culture, given by the researchers mentioned.
The divisions proposed by R. Harrison and C. Handy are one of the earliest and, at the same time, the most popular multidimensional typologies of culture. The concepts of both authors were created separately but cover very similar values. R. Harrison listed four types of organisations, which form specific ←59 | 60→cultures. These are organisations oriented towards power, roles, tasks and people. Each of them prefers a specific normative system related to the core value. The system of values shared by employees determines the convergence between the interests of the organisation and its employees, and shapes the enterprise’s ability to deal with the environment. Organisations rarely include all four types ←60 | 61→of culture in their pure form, but most enterprises have a tendency to focus on a given system of values. The description of the types of cultures proposed by R. Harrison and C. Handy is presented in Tab. 12.
Using the popular definition of corporate culture as the way people act within a company, T. E. Deal and A. A. Kennedy applied two criteria to the description of culture with reference to an organisation’s functioning. These concern the risk level of the activity and how soon the results of its actions are visible. The combination of these two criteria allows us to distinguish four cultures110.
1. The culture of the tough macho. Dominated by young, educated, brilliant heroes. They are dynamic and have lots of ideas. The atmosphere at work is youthful; there is a climate of quick action and risk-taking. The organisational culture is characterised by fighting and individualism. Success is what counts.
←61 | 62→
2. Culture focused on the company. The organisation’s heroes are people who persistently fulfil their plans. They are mature and act calmly. They are a kind of mentor. They assume that the environment is a source of threat to the organisation, so it is better to make good, well-thought-out decisions. Orientation towards group actions and partnership. Hierarchy is of significance, and attention is paid to the order of meetings and speeches given during them. A scientific and technical atmosphere prevails.
3. ‘Work hard, play hard’ culture. The heroes are active people, devoted to work. They think one has to work hard and have some fun. In this case, personal contact is of great importance. Many meetings and events are held, and the people celebrate together. Many people believe that the organisation’s environment is full of opportunities, which should be skilfully used.
4. A culture of process. An organisation is dominated by the subordination to rules, impersonality and minimalism. What counts at work is stability and fulfilling tasks based on rules and procedures. Heroes are hard-working people who appreciate stability and make no mistakes, even in difficult situations. The role of a hierarchical order and formal positions occupied by individual members is emphasised. In this case, interpersonal relationships are of an artificial character.
Because of the need to shape a pro-effective culture, it is necessary to examine the concepts distinguishing the types of cultures favouring changes. One of the models which allow us to analyse the convergence between culture and the possibilities of changing it is N. H. Snyder’s model. It distinguishes two dimensions: (1) orientation towards the organisation and