Although there has been a growing body of research in the field of
organizational culture, especially since the late 1970s, there would appear to be no single agreed definition. Deal and Kennedy (1982) provide what is perhaps the simplest and most succinct definition of organizational culture by suggesting it is ‘the way we do things around here’. As a prominent author in this academic field, Edgar Schein seeks to provide a fuller definition, suggesting that it should be considered as follows. It is this definition that is adopted for the purpose of this study:
Definition adopted for this study: organizational culture
Organizational Culture is “a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems of external
adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well
enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in
relation to those problems”. Schein (2010, p.18)
Schein’s definition is complemented well by Wilson (2001) when he argued that culture refers to patterns of established behaviours, and to durable, stable systems within organizations. Tierney (1988, p.3) had also reflected upon the importance of culture, observing “it is reflected in what is done, how it is done, and who is involved in doing it”. It can perhaps be argued therefore that culture has an enduring and organization encompassing importance.
Research has been undertaken that seeks to consider the multiple dimensions or attributes that define the building blocks of organizational culture. Indeed as
reported when considering Innovation and Creativity, there is a large number of determinants for such activities that authors have defined as being cultural (for example risk taking propensity, rewards and reinforcements and support for change, to name but a few). Hofstede et al (1990, p.287) suggested that most authors at the time agreed it had a number of characteristics that supported cultural development, namely: “holistic; historically determined; related to anthropological concepts; socially constructed; soft; and difficult to change”. This is however a single view at a point in time and a wider review of the organizational culture literature has identified a range of components of culture being suggested by researchers over the intervening years. Whilst these are in many cases quite wide-ranging, when mapped by the researcher in Table 2 there are some strong similarities and themes that can be observed clearly and these are now considered.
There would appear to be some agreement that clear and ‘lived’ organizational values, beliefs and ideologies are important. Sadri and Lees (2001) expound the importance of having corporate values that are consistent with
organizational purpose, which align with the values of individuals within the organization, and which may be implemented consistently and supported by management to direct the way activities are undertaken. Likewise Kuratko et al (2011) report that organizational values can help shape what employees think is important or worthwhile doing.
Barney (1986) meanwhile identifies that values can help shape how an organization deals with its internal and external stakeholders Furthering this discussion, Kotter and Heskett (1992) cited in Lee and Yu (2001) make the observation that values need not be set in stone, suggesting that ‘adaptive values’ (that is values that have been adapted to meet changing requirements) are associated strongly with performance over a long time frame.
Table 2: Elements of organizational culture highlighted during this review Au th ors M y th s V a lue s , Bel ie fs & ide olog y S a ga s & S to rie s Le ge nds &H e roe s M e taphor & s loga ns Ritu a ls & Ro ut ine s Art e fac ts & logos Structu re s Co nt rol & S uppo rt S y s tem s Cu ltura l ne twork E nv ironme nt Le a de rs h ip Ass umpt ions Fle x ibil ity Jermain (1991) Johnson (1987 / 1992) Deal et al (1982) Wilson (2001) Schein (1995) Barney (1986)
Martin & Terblanche
(2003)
Sackman (1992)
There is some evidence to suggest that organizational myths, stories and legends have a role to play in the development of cultures. Johnson (1987, 1992), Jermier et al (1991) and Kuratko et al (2011), all highlight that the stories and legends developed and retold internally are linked with the building of organizational culture, reinforcing what people believe to be the way things get done. Greenberg and Baron (1997) (Cited in Sadri and Lees, 2001)
propose that such stories help make elements of organizational culture tangible and can have a role in perpetuating it for the future; helping to develop an enduring culture built over a period of time. Similar to myths and stories, a number of authors agree on the importance of organizational rituals and routines. These can range from the formal (e.g. internal training programmes, selection and promotion processes (Johnson, 1987) to the informal (e.g. the Christmas party and retirements, (Kuratko et al, 2011)); building upon a picture of how an organization wishes to operate.
A recurring component in organizational culture literature is the systems and structures in place across an organization. Authors suggest these range from what may be perceived to be control or management systems such as those highlighted by Johnson (1987, 1992), to the formal organizational or internal power structures discussed by Wilson (2001), Barney (1986) and Martin and Terblanche (2003). Such control systems can pervade all areas of an
organizations operation, such as payroll, reward systems, planning, and affect how resources and activities are planned and so doing, having a direct effect on what is prioritized. In addition to the most commonly reported components there are many others that researchers have proposed have an impact upon
organization culture. These include, but are not limited solely to: the importance of the external business environment (Deal and Kennedy, 1982); leadership of the organization (Wilson, 2001); the basic assumptions of the organization (Schein, 1995 and Sackman, 1992); the collective will of the individuals within the organization (Sackman, 1992); and informal socialization processes (Wilson, 2001).
With so many possible components of culture having been identified within the literature it can be argued that organizational culture is a multi-faceted and therefore complicated construct to develop and understand. It is perhaps also
important to highlight that authors such as Edgar Schein, Alan Wilson and Michael Denison are amongst the many researchers whose research has revealed that organizations may possibly have multiple cultures or cultures that manifest themselves at different levels, such as at the visible and the less visible (sub-conscious level). Indeed Jermier et al (1991, p.172) state “apart from public impressions, an organization usually does not have a singular monolithic culture”. Sadri and Lees (2001) report that although organizations may have a strong ‘dominant culture’ there will also be sub-cultures; noting the imperative that these should be aligned as far as possible. The possibilities of multiple or multi-layered cultures within the same organization raises interesting questions for research, and these are considered later.
Having discussed organizational culture it is important to pause briefly to consider organizational climate, the two constructs being used apparently interchangeably and in parallel in a number of research articles. Ahmed (2005) and Denison (1996) outline similar views when they state that whilst
organizational culture refers to deeply held beliefs, assumptions and values, climate refers to the observable practices and policies of an organization. Denison further argues that climate may be thought of as ‘temporal’, and is something that can more easily be influenced and controlled than organizational culture. Sims and Lafollette (1975) espouse that climate is a set of
characteristics that may be used to describe an organization, which are
enduring, and “influence the behavior of people in the organization”. This latter definition is perhaps striking in its similarity to how some researchers have sought to describe organizational culture. Given the areas of convergence identified by researchers, it is perhaps unsurprising that debate can be found that queries whether culture and climate are indeed different or, as Denison (1996) eloquently summarizes, are they very similar and related phenomena that are simply explored by researchers from different perspectives. Setting this debate to one side having identified what culture and climate are, this review turns to considering how this may affect creativity, innovation and
entrepreneurship (therefore returning to the exploration of the relationship between these dimensions).
3.4.2. Cultural factors that support innovation, creativity and