Cultural Reflection in Management. Lukasz Sulkowski

climate. This type of culture is dominated by creativity, the broadening of knowledge and the development of the skills and qualifications which are most useful to the fulfilment of its tasks. Management focuses on achieving the best results possible, encouraging its employees to be active and creative. Organisations of this type adjust flexibly to the different tasks and requirements of their environment. With the motivation of security, the striving for minimising physical and social threats creates a bureaucratic climate. This is clearly oriented towards stability, based on norms, rules and procedures. The management protect themselves by avoiding unforeseen events and risky ventures. Hierarchy plays an important role here, and internal organisation is formalised. Employees are passively subject to strict rules of action, which they have no influence on, while their development consists mainly in the assimilation of rules, regulations and skills that are formally certified. From the point of view of an informal climate, ←66 | 67→being part of a group is of key importance. This climate favours the ability to establish relationships and work in a team, while employees are equal partners who shape their activities together. The dominant value in an organisation is being accepted by the environment. Management focuses on the smoothing out of the influences of different employees, the development of social sensitivity, and the habit of helping and supporting others.

      C. Sikorski divides organisational cultures by the attitude of the organisation’s members to cultural dissonance. Cultural dissonance is related to the existing differences between the ways employees think and behave in organisations, which are the most common reasons for conflict and misunderstanding. Cultural dissonance hinders the organisation’s functioning, especially in the case of multicultural organisations, international corporations and organisations including a number of different subcultures. The attitude towards this phenomenon is an important feature of organisational culture, which should be treated as a separate criterion for the typology of organisational cultures.

       Tab. 14: The division of cultures according to C. Sikorski. Source: Based on C. Sikorski, Kultura organizacyjna, C. H. Beck, Warszawa 2002, pp. 51–154.

	Acceptance of cultural dissonance	Lack of acceptance of cultural dissonance
Antagonistic relations	Culture of rivalryAn organisational culture characterised by strong rivalry. Its members believe that it is necessary to prove their superiority. There is a need to participate and have team achievements. A collectivist culture, focusing on the roles played by people. A heterogenic culture. There is a clash of different cultural patterns. Presence-oriented.	Culture of dominanceA characteristic feature of this culture is its members’ belief that they are superior. It is a homogenous culture, which includes models of behaviour in accordance with tradition. There is a tendency to subordinate the organisation’s activity to models of national culture and a strong need for security, and in consequence, avoiding uncertainty. A collectivist culture. A paternalist management style. Past-oriented.
Non-antagonistic relations	Culture of cooperationThis culture is characterised by routine activities in a competitive environment, focusing on the quality of bonds and dialogue between people. A heterogenic culture. The rules of autonomy, equality, respect for differences. The rule of harmony with the environment. In the case of activities, a larger emphasis is placed on the customers’ needs than on the competition. Identification with culture. A feminine culture – avoiding conflicts and rivalry. Democratic management style.	Culture of adaptationA culture oriented towards non-routine activities in a competitive environment, focusing on the quality of bonds and dialogue between people. This culture is homogenous in the area of values. Subordination to the formal aims of the organisation. Emphasis on the customers’ needs and one’s own professional development. A strong need for achievements and internal motivation. A large tolerance for uncertainty. Short power distance (a partner-like nature of relationships). Individualist orientation towards achievements, combined with an objective assessment of everyone’s needs and aims. Future-oriented.

2.6 A 3D model and typology of organisational culture

      The proposed model of organisational cultures I used in my research is based on three dichotomous dimensions borrowed from G. Hofstede and other researchers. Although Hofstede proposed studying organisational cultures according to other dimensions of values than in cultures of whole societies, there are numerous authors who think his model is more general, and so apply it to organisational cultures too. It seems that three out of five dimensions proposed by Hofstede can be used as a basis for such multidimensional models and typology. I am also in favour of this approach, as I believe that three of the dimensions included in Hofstede’s model are of a universal character, whether they concern individuals, organisational cultures or social cultures. The model, based on the combination of the dimensions of individualism/collectivism, power distance and tolerance for uncertainty, sets these three dimensions in the area of fundamental, ‘existential’ assumptions of individuals and human communities (Tab. 15). The dimension of individualism/collectivism determines the basic assumptions about the degree of attachment to a social group¹¹⁴. The dimension of power distance reflects a universal feature of human nature that can be found in all communities in the form of the attitude towards power in a ←67 | 68→social structure. And finally, the tolerance for uncertainty can be derived from a skill characteristic only of people, which is planning for the future, together with an intuitive evaluation of the probability of their success. There is no agreement among researchers as to the dimensions of organisational culture, but regardless of their opinions, most can see the relationships between the dimensions of ←68 | 69→culture proposed by G. Hofstede, such as individualism vs. collectivism, power distance, and corporate culture¹¹⁵.

Tab. 15: Three dimensions of G. Hofstede, on the level of individuals, organisational culture and social culture. Source: Own work.

      From among the many dimensions of values, I distinguished three which appear in numerous concepts and research into the influence of culture on organisation (proposed by G. Hofstede, A. A. Trompenaars and C. Hampden-Turner, R. D. Lewis, and E. Marx). Together, they form consistent configurations of cultures, and are linked with other subsystems (strategy and structure). All values studied largely diversify organisational cultures. The model of organisational culture developed includes as few of the most important diversifying values (dimensions) as possible. Naturally, it is possible to create typologies of other dimensions, including (more or less) values. Some of the dimensions of values assumed by other concepts were not included in this model at all. It was therefore assumed that they do not concern the level of culture or are of a secondary ←69 | 70→character. Dimensions distinguished here were recognised as primary, so it is also possible to derive secondary dimensions from them, used in other concepts and research. In most cases, secondary dimensions can be derived from the primary with an analysis of the given dimension’s semantic contents. The three distinguished values are as follows bellow.

1 Hierarchy – equality

      The favouring of hierarchisation is linked with a belief that people differ, and that an organisation should reflect this diversity. Thus, organisations should include a number of management levels, and there should be a significant diversification of rights, privileges and benefits among different groups of employees. Special significance should be attached to maintaining discipline and strengthening the authority of power. Hierarchical organisations