Modelos de Enrejado

There are different theoretical assumptions or paradigms used to analyse organisational culture. Smircich (1983) argues that these assumptions and conceptions give rise to different interests and questions in analysing organisational culture. This reflects distinct social-scientific realities of the concept. The paradigms, in this study, are classified into three ontological positions: objectivity, subjectivity and critical reflexive perspective for easy comprehension3_{. Each}

perspective reflects researchers’ position in organisational culture analysis. 2.4.1 Paradigms on Objectivity: Organisational Culture as a Variable

The paradigms classified within this unit, such as functionalism and structural-functionalism, were based on theorists’ detached stance in analysing organisational culture. These perspectives predominantly assume the nature of organisational culture is basically an objective entity that is out there to be explored. On this basis, proponents of functionalism perspective analyse organisational culture as a variable that could be regulated and controlled (see Burrell and Morgan 1979). Allaire and Firsirotu (1984) argues that functionalists perceive culture as an instrumental apparatus within a sociocultural system. These functionalists, Smircich (1983)

2 _{Further discussion on organisational culture management is presented in chapter 3.}

3 _{There are other key paradigmatic approach towards analysing organisational culture such as Martin's (1992)}

three perspective framework; and Alvesson's (2002) three cognitive interests. The perspectives within these frameworks or interests partly reflect the predominant paradigms presented in this section, and thus was not included as a main focus in this analysis. For further analysis see Ehrhart et al. (2014).

21

suggests, then analyse culture as what an organisation has, existing in measurable and quantifiable ways (see also Brewis and Jack 2009). The focal point is to decipher from an objective standpoint, the functional aspects of organisational culture in contributing to the need and stability of the organisation. The emphasis is to uncover organisational culture’s ability to attain social integration, order, consensus, cohesion and solidarity (Burrell and Morgan 1979) amongst organisational members. Basically as Cunliffe (2010) noted, this perspective in analysing organisational culture, observes symbols, behaviours, and physical structures to identify norms, values, rituals and traditions with the intention to determine the effect of culture on organisational performance and goals.

Proponents of structural-functionalism, such as Parsons (1956), argue that analysing organisations (culture) as fixed variables of "influence and authority is too simple an approach to take" (Hassard 1993, p. 26). Parsons's (1956) study concentrated on understanding organisations as social systems in which its central value system must be adaptable and consistent with societal values. Thus, proponents of structural-functionalism proffers an analysis of organisational culture through assessments of internal goals and structures, in relation to problems of integration with its environment (Parsons 1956; Radcliffe-Brown 1952). In reaffirmation of structural-functionalists’ argument, Allaire and Firsirotu (1984) noted that within this perspective, culture in organisations is perceived as subcultural systems of a comprehensive socio-cultural system. The extent of integrating with the socio-cultural system, they argue, is prerequisite to legalise organisations’ goals and objectives. Smircich (1983) study indicates that with this functionalism approach, culture is positioned as a key lever by which managers can influence the course of organisations.

While this functionalists’ perspective of organisational culture offers a systematic approach to understand the concept as a variable or subsystem of an organisation subject to control, it has been criticised for analysing organisational culture as a tool for effective managerial action

22

(Alvesson 2002). Its focus on resolving managerial defined problems without considering the intersubjective perceptions and experiences of organisational members, is perceived to proffer myopic analyses of organisations (Burrell and Morgan 1979; Hassard 1993). Moreover, its surface level analysis aimed to attain order and stability through distinct and static representations of organisations, would not reflect the emergent, uncertain and constant shifting nature of organisations (Hatch and Cunliffe 2006; Chia 1995). Thus, it has been criticised as a theoretical short cut to understand organisational culture without considering the notion of organisations (culture) as emergent, and the ongoing underlying patterns and deep structures that constitute organisational culture (Sulkowski 2014). Its functional and simple approach to analyse organisational culture, void of these other considerations, resulted in the application of alternative paradigmatic approaches to study culture in organisations. This includes the subjectivity and critical perspective amongst others.

2.4.2 Paradigms on Subjectivity: Organisational Culture as a Root Metaphor

Contrary to the functionalist approach that perceives organisational culture as a variable, something that could be possessed and controlled, researchers taking a subjective perspective conceptualise organisational culture as a root metaphor, something an organisation is (Smircich 1983). Culture is perceived as an inclusive dimension that permeates the entire organisation (Alvesson 2002). The interpretivism, cognitive, symbolic and structural schools of thought share this broad focus in exploring organisational culture as socially shared intersubjective experience from organisational members; and examine the patterns that constructs the cohesive totality of culture formation (Smircich 1983; Alvesson 2002).

Proponents of this perspective base their research theories on the subjective experiences of individual actors involved rather than the detached standpoint of a functionalist’ researcher (Burrell and Morgan 1979; Sulkowski 2014). In analysing organisational culture, as something

23

an organisation is, these theorists presume knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon is derived from the perceptions and explanations of organisational members who work in the organisation and live its culture (Hatch and Cunliffe 2006). In line with this precept, range of meanings from different context are employed to discover in-depth analysis of organisational culture. This includes exploring shared cognitions, knowledge and meanings from organisational members (cognitive); through analysing symbols and artefacts (symbolic) in situations and contexts they naturally occur, allowing organisational members to use and discuss about them in their normal disposition. The principle interests of this perspective is to focus on the interpretation and description of knowledge constructed about social reality (interpretivism) without any enquiry on the functional or emancipatory capacity of culture.

This paradigmatic approach, in comparison to functionalist perspective, have been noted to offer thick descriptions of culture in organisations, indicating multiplicity of meanings which could be contradictory, yet illuminating in providing more empirical understanding to the concept of organisational culture (Hatch and Cunliffe 2006). However, it’s predominantly subjective and context specific approach raise the issue of legitimisation amongst critics, contesting the validity, reliability and generalisability of its research process. For instance, Sulkowski (2014) noted that such perspective in analysing organisational culture is criticised for its "individual descriptions, which depart from scientific discourse because of lack of generalisations" (p. 63). Schultz's (1992) analysis, from a postmodern perspective, refutes meanings derived from this approach, denoting such meanings as seductive truths. Interestingly, advocates of this subjective approach make no claims to present an objective and generalised knowledge about organisational culture. This is based on the notion that there are no single objective truth to the study of social reality but rather truths; and that "meanings, sense making, and knowledge are relative to the time, place and manner in which they are

24

constructed" (Cunliffe 2010, p. 656). Thus, the subjective approach focuses on providing in- depth contextualised understandings of organisational culture in its analyses.

2.4.3 Critical Reflexive Approach

Critical approach to organisational culture analysis concentrates on means through which the concept manipulates and control individuals in organisations (Willmott 2003; Sulkowski 2014). Ogbor's (2001) study, based on the collective philosophy of members of the Frankfurt school, argues that proponents of this perspective:

…see social practices and discourses, including organisational and managerial, as mirroring Western traditional ways of social-political domination of others (p. 590).

Critical theorists thus take a reflexive analysis on the concept with the intent to discover and expose "situations of domination, disempowerment, and undemocratic practices associated with corporate culture in the management of organisations" (Ogbor 2001, p. 591). Based on the foregoing, radical humanism, radical structuralism, postmodernism and poststructuralism perspectives are categorised within this approach. The inclusion of postmodernism is on the basis that it gives voice to the "silences and absences of organisational life" (Schultz and Hatch 1996, p. 540) such as those suppressed and marginalised; besides seeking for multiple and different meanings of organisational culture.

Theorists, taking a radical humanism perspective, hold a subjective orientation that individuals’ consciousness creates their social reality; and assumes this consciousness is dominated, impinged, and distorted by ideological super structures within which it is embedded (Burrell and Morgan 1979). The result is a false consciousness in individuals’ mind which inhibits true human fulfilment. Burrell and Morgan (1979) argue that the radical humanist intent is to critique and change this alienated state of human rather than devising means to understand the modes and processes of such cognition and consciousness as in the subjective approach. This

25

ideology applied in organisational analysis, perceives organisations as "alienating intermediaries" that mystifies individuals in their attempt to understand their work environment (Burrell and Morgan 1979, p. 311). Analyses of organisational culture, from this perspective, therefore focus on exposing issues of repressions to liberate individuals’ subconscious mind from domination and distortion.

The basis of radical structuralism is to analyse, explain and criticise, from an objective and revolutionary stance, issues of inequalities, power, and structures that emanate from class systems of control. In organisational culture analysis, Jaynes (1997) argues that this approach conceives culture as a management control mechanism used to dominate employees’ values and beliefs. It perceives the existence of different subcultures in organisations distinct from managerial imposed culture. It therefore offers a mode of organisational analysis that permits the identification of major dialectic oppositions that constructs culture (Morgan 1990).

Postmodernism and poststructuralism perspectives dispute the ideology of the existence of an objective truth that could be sought out systematically and rationally (Schultz 1992). The argument is on the premise that human knowledge about reality is context, experience and language driven (Hatch and Cunliffe 2006). In the event of any identifiable truth on social realities, both perspectives presuppose such truth as grand narratives which reflect the ideology of the powerful elite. Both perspectives therefore focus on continuous reflexive analyses of the formation of meanings attributed to these metanarratives to identify multiple representations of truths previously not considered within the metanarratives than attaining specific truths (Hassard 1993).

In this process, postmodernism approach in organisational culture analysis disputes objectivists’ construction of culture as a variable tool; and subjectivists’ conception of culture as a root metaphor (Schultz 1992). This is on the premise that both aim to attain meaningful

26

actions through assumptions of a unified culture and cultural depth of organisations. With the assumption that there are no fixed meanings, irrespective of subjective meanings and depth of culture, proponents of postmodernism attempt to offer multiple, alternative and discontinuous fragments of meanings of organisational culture through the process of deconstruction (Schultz and Hatch 1996; Hassard and Wolfram Cox 2013; Schultz 1992).

Proponents of the abovementioned critical analytical approach accept the notion that organisational culture is an area of conflict that is linked with inequality and power. Thus, they advocate projects of emancipation culture, "characterised by egalitarianism, inclusiveness and orientation towards humanist values, instead of the economic" (Sulkowski 2014, p. 70). Ogbor (2001) argues that this approach aids the exploration of resistance to change by offering insights into the means through which power and authority are institutionalised in organisational practices. In addition, he contends that it aids in discarding existing modes of cultural domination and cultural imposition to create forms of emancipation in attempts to bring about changes within organisations. However, as Schultz and Hatch (1996) noted, its school of thought, such as postmodernism, challenges other theoretical and methodological suppositions without establishing any theory. They perceive it as "a critical movement rather than a consistent theoretical framework" (p. 539). The critical analytical approach does not acknowledge sense of order and stability in organisations, and in this process overlooks any predefined guidelines towards these process (culture).

Interestingly, the above analysis indicates that each paradigmatic approach contains elements of imperfection in analysing the concept of organisational culture. In addition, each approach offers different and beneficial analytical contributions. Objectivist/ functionalism approach with the perception of organisational culture as a variable would better represent research on "the efficacy of one production process over another" and subjectivist/ interpretivism approach would better explain research on the "social construction of cultural norms" (Gioia and Pitre

27

1990, p. 587). Critical perspective is suitable for studies that seek to understand the repressive and exploitative power and domination of organisational culture. In view of the contributions of each paradigmatic perspectives to organisational culture analysis, this study adopts the subjectivity paradigm with a focus on understanding, interpreting and describing the meanings of organisational culture from organisational members; through an exploration of both cognitive and symbolic expressions. Since this study focuses on analysing the implications of organisation-host community relationship on organisational culture management, an interpretivism approach is employed to understand individuals’ interpretations of the relationship implication.

The benefits of this approach is that it offers rich descriptions of attempts towards managing organisational culture. In-depth descriptions through verbatim symbols, language and pictures of interacting individuals’ experiences and opinions of their social reality in their natural setting, provides the likelihood of uncovering unexpected events as it emerges, giving more empirical understanding to the concept, organisational culture. Its multiplicity of meanings promotes appreciation for heterogeneity, paradox and ambiguity. This generally offers a more broadly self-reflective approach to analyse organisational culture (This aspect is further discussed in chapter 5 on research methodology). The objectivity and critical reflexive approaches that assume a functionalist and emancipatory approaches to analyse organisational culture respectively, were not considered as both perspectives were deemed unsuitable to attain the research objectives.

28