ANÁLISIS Y EVALUACIÓN DE LAS SESIONES

Subcultures are often created amongst groups with similar task dependencies, objectives, personal interactions and/or a physical closeness that regard them as similar. They operate across horizontal and vertical organizational structures (Hatch, 1993). Subcultures engage members from other subcultures, differentiated by their membership of a particular group.

Subcultures were defined by Van Maanen and Barley as:

“A subset of an organization’s members who interact regularly with one another, identify themselves as a distinct group within an organization, share a set of problems commonly defined to be the problems of all and routinely take action on the basis of collective understandings unique to the group.” (J. Van Maanen & Barley, 1985:38).

Subcultures form because of personal interactions of individuals within an organization that require physical closeness among people who perceive each other as similar (Hatch, 1993). The physical closeness results from staff with similar reporting relationships, shared facilities or task interdependencies which bring staff together as members of different groups, or subcultures, each differentiated by their membership of clearly identifiable groupings. This means that a single staff member may be identified as a member of several subcultures based, for example, on tasks to be executed, reporting

65

relationship and social groups. Therefore, early investigations of organizational identity focussed on multiple identities. That is, members had identities associated with their subculture, the organization as a whole as well as their own identities and consequently, have more than one identity.

The question of multiple organizational identities has been explored since organizational identity was first considered (Corley, 2004). Corley cites Whetten as explaining that the subject of multiple identities was considered originally as an “ideographic multiplicity of identities” (more than one identity held by different groups within a single organization) or as “a holographic multiplicity” (more than one identity held by all people within a single organization) (Corley, 2004:1148). Both concepts of multiple identities fit with the concept of subcultures because a single subculture can hold an identity that fits the cultural group (the ideographic multiplicity) whilst the all subcultures can hold values which are the same despite being in different cultural groups (the holographic multiplicity). Therefore, not only must the subcultures be recognised and managed but so too must the multiple identities that also emerge within them.

Whilst, research on organizational culture and identity differentiates between functional groups, organizational units and professional disciplines, one area that is under- researched is the influence of hierarchy (Corley, 2004). Schein provides a basic framework for analysis by his breakdown of organizational culture down into subcultures along hierarchical lines. Subcultures can then have their identity explored at the same time as their impact is assessed. Further, the hierarchy of the organization was recognised as fundamental to the organization’s performance (Mintzberg, 1999). Schein identifies cultural groups within organizations that function along hierarchical lines, which he terms the “Three Cultures of Management”. The three cultures are known as the “Operators”, the “Engineers” and the “Executives” and each has a role in either reinforcing or changing basic underlying assumptions in an organization (Schein, 1996:235). Hence, managing subcultures is critical because they enable change to be effected within an organization by changing assumptions. Hofstede (1998) also emphasises the importance of identification and separation of the subcultures so that top management decisions reflect the requirements of the subcultures to avoid internal conflict. Schein’s hierarchical subcultures, as with Corley’s multiple identities that work at the same hierarchical levels, operate silently within organizations and the

66

inbuilt conflict between them across organizational boundaries has to be resolved for an organization to become a reliable learning system capable of change. Moreover, Corley (2004) found that the hierarchical subculture levels were also the means through which hierarchical identities were expressed and differentiated. The junior management subculture of “Operators” sees identity as a cultural expression, whilst the senior management subculture of “Executives” sees identity as a strategic tool. The middle management subculture of “Engineers” who act as a bridge, ensure communication between the most senior and junior enabling Hofstede’s (1998) anxieties to be addressed. The cultural differences between Operators, Engineers and Executives are discussed below.

2.5.7.1. Operators

Operators deliver the product or service that fulfils an organization’s fundamental undertaking. This group determines the general interdependencies of parts of an organization and how they function and are usually the targets of plans to improve an organization. “Good” managers are recognised by their ability to manage operators. Schein puts a strong emphasis on the subservient role of operators as a reason for an organization being unable to learn and therefore, unable to change. Schein’s concern is that any innovations and ideas they have are not disseminated to the more senior engineers and executives because the senior groups’ restrict, and fail to interact with, operators. In the context of this research project, the operators are represented by the players, trainers, junior office, administrative and secretarial staff.

2.5.7.2. Engineers

Engineers design the core technology of the organization, for example, software programmers in an information technology organization. Engineers share an occupational culture, which revolves around problem solving and does not require people for their implementation. They may design systems, routines and rules that are mechanistic and undertaken automatically. According to Schein, engineers often thwart upward diffusion of ideas and innovation from operators by placing technical obstacles in their way. The engineers’ equivalent within sporting organizations is the coaching staff. They are responsible for the development of systems and resources, and in the context of FFC, will develop routines to improve players’ strength, speed, skill, decision-making and overall playing ability.

67 2.5.7.3. Executives

Executives are a cultural grouping that are characterised by their accountability to shareholders and other stakeholders and their ability to make difficult decisions, relying on sometimes imperfect information. They rely on systems, rules and procedures to manage the people in their club, which requires them to abandon any of the problem solving ideas they may have retained from the operators’ culture.

In sporting organizations, they are represented by the Boards of Directors, Boards of Management, the CEO and senior management staff.

2.5.8. Summary

This section drew together the critical aspects of the literature that discussed the relationship between organizational culture, identity and performance. Thus far, the focus has been on what culture and identity are and how they could be investigated within the research project. This section suggested that there is a link between culture, identity and strategy and between strategy and performance. It also found that it is important to not only have a strong culture and identity, but also that the culture and identity is appropriate to the organization’s context and environment. It was also noted how culture and identity can be an obstacle to change within an organization, and addressed how change can be achieved through the management of subcultures and an organization’s multiple identities.

68