La formación del docente a partir de la experiencia de otros La ruptura de paradigmas

A common feature of all four subcultures that emerged from this research, is the degree of support or congruence they exhibit for important organisational meanings. The groups‟ support endures, and does not appear to be diminished or withdrawn, even when some, such as SC1 and SC2, are critical of the organisation‟s orientation to a task

or activity. As discussed earlier, using Martin and Siehl‟s (1983) typology, relationships can be categorised as enhancing, orthogonal or countercultural. There is no data to show that countercultures - groups challenging or threatening the meanings embodied by the overarching culture - exist in this research context. Although there are examples of divergent behaviours among group members these are not manifest in unsupportive or disruptive behaviours.

The nascent SC1, for example, enacted some divergent behaviours, but nonetheless members “simultaneously accept[ed] the core values of the dominant culture and a separate, unconflicting set of values particular to themselves” (Martin &

Siehl, 1983, p. 54), and thus display orthogonal characteristics. This is manifest in group members‟ acceptance of, and willingness to, work long hours in order to achieve

their objectives, despite this type of behaviour being widely discouraged by the organisation.

SC3 and SC4 members, on the other hand, appear to support organisational objectives more fervently than other PD members. The data revealed a high degree of congruence between important organisational meanings, and important subcultural group meanings, such as HSE. Thus, applying Martin and Siehl‟s (1983) typology, the relationship that emerges can be described as an enhancing one.

Categorising the expatriate group is less clear cut, as few visible meanings of their culture remained within the directorate at the time of the research. The results indicate, however, that SC2 members did not adopt a countercultural stance, or the same degree of fervour as SC3. Therefore, it is possible to construe that SC2, like SC1, displays orthogonal characteristics.

Trice (1993), however, questions whether subcultures emerging from a shared or unifying characteristic, such as SC2 and SC4, can display enhancing or orthogonal traits, and thus make a positive contribution to the cultural milieu in which they exist. He notes that shared or unifying characteristics “provide a catalyst to create bonds among organisational members which then “loosen” members‟ commitment to the

organisation, permitting them to generate shared rationalisations that, in turn allow them to violate significant aspects of the [overarching] culture” (p. 143). There is no evidence to suggest this was the case among SC4 or SC2 members, or indeed any of the subcultures identified. Each showed a high degree of commitment for the organisation, manifest in supporting behaviours. Although some divergent behaviours were observed

among SC1 members, they did not represent a lack of commitment to the organisation. Further investigation is needed to identify the extent to which organisational commitment is influenced by the basis of subcultural group emergence.

Enhancing and orthogonal subcultures, such as those revealed among PD subcultures, are perceived to enhance organisational performance (Martin & Siehl, 1983). There is some evidence that this may be the case at ZAOC Norge; the 2008 Annual Report notes that operating units within Norway showed a clearly declining trend in the personal injury rate, dropping 33% from the previous year. Moreover, the severity of the incidents also declined, and no incidents had serious consequences. For an exploration company operating in the high-risk deep-water Continental Shelf environment, this is a successful outcome. It may even be the case that PD members‟ support is currently more pronounced, with both the 2008-9 economic crisis and BP‟s Gulf of Mexico accident putting increased pressure on energy companies to reduce expenditure, while at the same time not compromising standards. Nonetheless, whether or not an enhancing subculture can be directly linked to improving the performance of an organisation in such a way requires further investigation and suggests a rich seam for future research.

The enhancing relationships of SC3 and SC4 with the wider organisation may be a consequence of the groups‟ strength or maturity. Cases have been reported where well-developed or mature subcultural groups have been able to mobilise material and symbolic resources and exert a high degree of influence over both members and the wider organisation. These groups, according to Boisnier (2003), Boisnier and Chatman (2003) and Bellou (2008) are stronger (or better developed) than the main culture, and thus able to influence the perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours of employees to a

greater extent than the overarching culture. Few studies, other than that of Boisnier (2003), identify and explore the relationships between a strong overarching organisational culture, and a strong embedded subculture. This is surely a consequence of the paradigmatically different approaches to the study of organisations and subcultures. Functionalists tend not to accept the existence of subcultural groups, rather perceiving them as a threat to the unity and strength of a single overarching culture, while symbolists rarely consider the existence of a well-developed overarching culture, instead seeing organisations as a collection of subcultures. The results of this study illustrate that it is possible for a well-developed or mature subcultural group to exist within a well-developed single overarching culture, to the mutual benefit of both. There is a clear need for further research that confirms or refutes this result in other sectors and functions.