Description
The documentation about the brief study of Organisational culture by Edgar Schein.
Edgar Schein
A brief study of Organisational Culture
3/13/2009 Goa Institute of Management
Submitted byKanishka Belani – 2008017 Mariam Noronha – 2008021 Neha Gupta – 2008026 Parikshit Bhinde – 2008028 Soutik Sarkar – 2008052 (Group – 8A)
Table of Contents
Biography...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Organizational Culture .................................................................................................................................. 3 Cultural Paradigms.................................................................................................................................... 4 Levels of culture by Schein........................................................................................................................... 4 A Given Group.............................................................................................................................................. 6 Strength of a Culture ................................................................................................................................. 6 Invented, Discovered of Developed .............................................................................................................. 7 Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................ 14
List of Tables
Table 1 : Basic Underlying Assumptions around which Cultural Paradigms Form (Schein E. H., 1984) ... 4 Table 2 : Problem Solving Cycle (Schein E. H., 1984) ................................................................................ 9 Table 3 : Internal Integration Issues (Schein E. H., 1984) ........................................................................... 9
2|Page
EDGAR SCHEIN
BIOGRAPHY Edgar Schein was educated at the University of Chicago, at Stanford University where he received a Masters Degree in Psychology in 1949, and at Harvard University where he received his Ph.D. in the filed of social psychology in the year 1952. Currently, Schein is Sloan Fellows Professor of Management Emeritus and works part time as a Senior Lecturer at the Sloan School. (MIT Sloan, 2006) One of his achievements is that he the Founding Editor of "Reflections" the Journal of the Society for Organizational Learning. (MIT Sloan, 2006) Schein has been a prolific researcher, writer, teacher and consultant. Edgar is the author of fourteen books including Organizational Psychology (3d edit., 1980), Career Dynamics (1978), Organizational Culture and Leadership (1985, 1992, 2004), and Process Consultation Vol. 1 & Vol. 2 (1969, 1987, 1988), and The Corporate Culture Survival Guide (1999) and Process Consultation Revisited (1999). (MIT Sloan, 2006) ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
According to the conventional definition, “Culture is a set of shared meanings that make it possible for a group to interpret and act upon the environment.” (Schein, 1984) A look at Schein’s Expanded Understanding states that “Organizational Culture is the pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and that have 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, 1984) Organizational culture is visible at several levels. The first being “Visible artefacts” which comprises the organization architecture, technology, manner of dress, visible behaviour patterns, employee orientation stories etc. It is easy to see behaviour patterns but difficult to see why a group behaves the way it does. Analysis of the behaviour of members is done by observing the values that govern their behaviour. Values actually form second level of the model. Values are hard to observe directly, hence it is often necessary to infer them by interviewing key members of the organization. Values represent accurately only the manifest or espoused values of the culture. The underlying reasons for people’s behaviour remain concealed or unconscious. (Schein, 1984) (Schein E. , The Art of Managing Human Resources, 1987) To really understand a culture, it is important to delve in to the underlying assumptions. Such assumptions are themselves learnt responses that are originated as espoused values. When values lead to a certain behaviour & as that particular behaviour starts solving the problem which had prompted it initially, the value is gradually transformed into an underlying assumption about the existing state of
3|Page
things. Also, when the assumption is increasingly taken for granted by the members, it falls out of awareness (Schein, 1984). The values can be broadly classified into – 1. Critical, non-debatable values which are taken for granted and are described more appropriately by the term assumptions. (Schein, 1984) 2. Values which are explicit, espoused and debatable for which the term values is more applicable. (Schein, 1984) CULTURAL PARADIGMS
Due to the human need for order & consistency, assumptions translate into pattern which may be termed cultural paradigms. Eg. If the group follows the assumption that every productive idea or product is a result of an individual’s effort, it can’t presume at the same time that groups can be credited for the success of the results or the individuals will treat group loyalty on a high priority basis. Alternatively, even if a group presumes that conquering the nature and manipulation of its environment is the way to survive, it cannot simultaneously assume that the most desired sort of relationship among group members is one that emphasizes passivity and harmony. If people have a cognitive need for consistency and order, then one can easily assume that all the groups will evolve certain assumptions which are compatible and consistent in the long run. (Schein, 1984) 1. The relationship of organization with its environment – Evaluation of the assumptions about the relationship between humanity and nature, one can assess whether the important members of the organization look at the relationship as dominant, submissive, harmonizing, figuring out a suitable niche. 2. The nature of reality and truth – The linguistic & behavioural rules that state what is real and what is unreal, what is a fact, how truth is to be ultimately determined, and whether truth is revealed or discovered; basic concepts of time as linear or cyclical, mono-chronic or polychromic, basic concepts such as space as limited of infinite and property as communal or individual; and so forth. 3. The nature of human nature – What does it mean to be humans and what attributes are considered intrinsic or ultimate? Is nature of human being neutral, good or evil? Whether human beings can be developed into perfect beings or not? Which among the two is better: Theory X or Theory Y? 4. The nature of human activity – What is the correct action for human beings based upon the above assumptions about the reality, the environment, and human nature: to be active, passive, self-developmental, fatalistic, or what? Both, work & play have to be distinguished. 5. The nature of human relationships – What is accepted as the correct way for people to relate with each other, and to distribute power and love? Is life essentially competitive or co-operative; individualistic, group collaborative or communal; based on traditional linear authority, law, or charisma or what is it?
Table 1 : Basic Underlying Assumptions around which Cultural Paradigms Form (Schein E. H., 1984)
LEVELS OF CULTURE BY SCHEIN Ed Schein addresses the difficulty of deciphering, changing/adapting an organization's culture. Culture is present everywhere and it is imperative to understand how it is created, developed, manipulated, 4|Page
managed, embedded and changed over time. Understanding the culture is tantamount to understanding one’s organization. (Schein, 1992)
Figure 1 : Levels of Culture and their Interaction (Schein E. H., 1984)
He approaches this issue through his three levels; He argues that the pattern of basic underlying assumptions can function as a cognitive defence mechanism for individuals and the group, as a result culture change is difficult, time consuming and anxiety provoking. Cultures are deeply rooted in an organization, they are pervasive and quite complex which makes it very difficult to unravel these underlying assumptions. Edgar also uses the classic three step approach proposed by Lewin to discuss any change – unfreezing the status quo, bring about cognitive restructuring and refreezing the change. (Schein, 1992) He has a lot to say about leadership and culture. The primary issue for the leaders is that they must firstly be marginal in their own culture to an adequate amount in order to recognize any mal-adaptive assumptions and to learn novel ways of thinking by themselves as a pre-requisite to unfreezing and altering the organization. (Schein, 1992)
5|Page
Culture is customs and rights and the organizations 'own way', its norms, values, behaviour patterns, rituals, traditions, implies structural stability and Patterning and integration. It stems from a shared history, changes over a period of time and adaptation for the same which are impossible without making the alterations that impact the culture. It is mostly irrational. The large organizations usually face issues regarding the creation of subcultures within the organisation and the integration of fresh employees into it. For merging organizations, there are issues on how to create a new culture in a relatively artificial environment. (Schein, 1992) Edgar Schein believes that culture permeates all aspects of organisational life and yet is essentially invisible. Application of a specific process can turn the invisible into visible and identify the culture of a given environment quite accurately. It should be kept in mind that an organisation does not have only one culture; there will be numerous subcultures and sufficient consideration should be given to this factor within the context of any new initiative. (Hank Sohoto) A GIVEN GROUP
There cannot be a culture unless there is a group that owns it. Culture is embedded in groups as the creating group must always be clearly identified. We must be careful not to define the group in terms of the existence of the culture however tempting that may be, because we then would be creating a completely circular definition. It is not possible to identify a group’s culture unless a definable set of people exist who have a shared history. (Schein, 1984) According to Schein, a given group is a set of people (Schein, 1984) ? ? ? Who have been together long enough to have shared significant problems. Who have had opportunities to solve problems and to observe the effects of their solution. People who have introduced new members in the group. (Schein, 1984)
The transfer of solutions to the members newly introduced in the group is required as per the definition of culture because the decision to pass on something signifies an important test of sharing of a given solution and whether it is perceived as valid or not. If a group passes on with conviction elements of a way of perceiving, thinking and feeling, we can assume that the group have had enough stability and has shared enough common experiences to have developed a culture. If a group has not faced the issue of what to pass on, it has not had a chance to test its own consensus and commitment to a given assumption. (Schein, 1984) STRENGTH OF A CULTURE The strength of a culture can be defined in terms of – 1. Homogeneity and stability of group membership (Schein E. H., 1984) 2. The span and amount of the shared experiences of the group (Schein E. H., 1984) If a group has had a very long, varied and intense history, it’ll have a strong and highly differentiated culture. On the other hand, if a group has had changing membership or has been together for a short span of time and not faced difficult issues, it is likely to have a weak culture. Members of such a group may 6|Page
have strong individual assumptions but the group as a whole would not have enough shared experiences. Company such as IBM and Bell Systems thus have a strong culture whereas young companies with high turnover of key executives would be judged as weak culture. (Schein, 1984) If an organisation has a strong culture and if the dominant coalition of leadership remains stable, the culture can survive high turnover at lower ranks. An elite military unit would be an example of the same. (Schein, 1984) It is very important to recognise that cultural strength may or may not be correlated with effectiveness. The substantial content of the culture and the extent to which the solutions are helpful in the problems posed by the environment look like the critical variables over here, and not the strength. (Schein, 1984) If a total corporation consist of stable functional, divisional, geographic or rank based sub-groups then that corporation would have multiple cultures within it. It is possible for multiple cultures to be in conflict with each other. On the contrary, if there has been shared corporate experience, then one could have a strong corporate culture above the various sub-cultures existent in the organisation. The deciphering of a given company’s culture then becomes an empirical matter of their locating where the stable social units are, what culture each of those stable units have developed and how those separate cultures blend into a single whole. (Schein, 1984) Cultural assumptions in an organisation can also come from the occupational background of the members of the organisation. This enables the development of a managerial culture, an engineering culture separately, a science culture etc. (Schein, 1984) INVENTED, DISCOVERED OF DEVELOPED
The two types of learning situations defined by Schein are – 1. Positive problem solving situations that produce positive or negative reinforcements in terms of whether the attempted solution works or not (Schein, 1984) 2. Anxiety avoidance situation that produce positive or negative reinforcements in terms of whether the attempted solution does or doesn’t avoid anxiety. (Schein, 1984) In the positive problem solving situation, the group tries out various responses until something works. The group will keep on using this response until it ceases to work. The information that stops working anymore is visible and clear. By contrast, in the anxiety avoidance situation once the response is learned because it successfully avoids anxiety, it is likely to be repeated indefinitely. The reason behind this is that the learner will not himself test the situation willingly to find out whether the cause of anxiety is still operating. Thus all rituals, patterns of thinking and behaviours that may be originally have been motivated by a need to avoid an anxiety provoking situation are going to be repeated even if the causes of the original pain are no longer acting because the avoidance of anxiety itself is positively reinforcing. (Schein, 1984) The human need for cognitive order and consistency serves as the ultimate motivator for a common language and shared category of perceptions and thoughts. When such shared cognitive maps are absent, the human being experiences an intolerable existential anxiety. Secondly, humans experience anxiety 7|Page
associated with the exposed to hostile environmental conditions forcing groups to learn ways of coping with such external problems. (Schein, 1984) If an organisation culture is composed of both types of elements – those designed to solve problems and those designed to avoid anxiety – it becomes necessary to analyze which is which if one is concerned about changing any of the elements. In positive learning situation, innovative sources are used to find a better solution of the problem whereas in the anxiety avoidance situation, one must determine the source of the anxiety and either show the learner that it no longer exists or provide an alternative source of avoidance. (Schein, 1984) Cultural elements that are based on anxiety reduction will be more stable than those based on positive problem solving because of the nature of the anxiety reduction mechanism and the fact that human system needs a certain amount of stability to avoid cognitive and social anxiety. (Schein, 1984) Most cultural solutions in new groups and organisations originate from the founders and early leaders of those organisations. The solution process is an advocacy of certain ways of doing things that are tried out and either adopted or rejected depending on how well they work out. As the group grows over a period of time and acquires its own set of experiences, its members will devise their own solutions. Eventually, the process of determining new solutions will be an outcome of interactive shared experiences. One of the key functions of leadership is to provide guidance in those situations when habitual ways of doing things cease to work. (Schein, 1984) “PROBLEMS OF EXTERNAL ADAPTION AND INTERNAL INTEGRATION” (SCHEIN E. H., 1984)
According to Edgar H. Schein as discussed earlier, the culture is the solution of the problem faced by the groups. He has tried to understand the nature of the problem which he distinguished as (1) SOCIO-EMOTIONAL PROBLEM: Problems related to basic survival which is also called as the mission of the group, and (2) GROUP BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE PROBLEM: Ability of the group to perform as a group. The External and Internal problems though can be distinguished but at the same time are very interrelated. “EXTERNAL ADAPTION PROBLEMS” (SCHEIN E. H., 1984) These problems are directly related to the survival of the group in the given environment. According to Schein the group because of previous experiences perceives the environment in certain way but each new environment has new elements which are beyond the control of the group. The responses to such environmental conditions determine the future of the group. To be able to survive these conditions Schein designed what he called as “Problem-Solving Cycle1”. (Schein E. H., 1984). Table
1
Problems of External Adaption and Survival
Schein has discussed the Problem-Cycle in his work “Process Consultation”,1969
8|Page
Developing agreement on core mission. (Schein E. H., 1984) Developing agreement on Goal synchronized with the core mission. (Schein E. H., 1984) Means for Developing agreement on the means to accomplish the goals. (Schein E. H., 1984) accomplishing goals Developing agreement on the measuring criteria. (Schein E. H., 1984) Measuring Performances Developing agreement on remedial solution required. (Schein E. H., 1984) Correction Strategy Goals
Table 2 : Problem Solving Cycle (Schein E. H., 1984)
The core mission and the above stages of problem solving cycle in the beginning of the group will be directly related to the basic assumptions of the culture from where the creators of the organisation have come from. It’s only after the experience and co-existence in different environmental conditions the group/organisation grows and develops new and apt group goals. Thus, each stage of the above problemcycle has a solution which has come from the experience of the group and the way the group has evolved which latter will become the major factors on which the culture of the group will depend. “INTERNAL INTEGRATION PROBLEMS” (SCHEIN E. H., 1984) The most basic factor for all the above growth and problem solving cycle is the existence of the group itself. “The group cannot survive if it cannot manage itself”. (Schein E. H., 1984). Schein calls the external and internal environment as “two sides of the same coin” (Schein E. H., 1984)and outlines the major issues of Internal Integration as Language, Boundaries, Power & Status, Intimacy, Reward and Punishment and Ideology. According to Schein each organisation will have its own form of solution but face similar issues and develop solution of the problem. But the experiences of the members and the biases which have developed because of their previous results will be reflected in the solutions and most likely each organisation will have its unique way of solving the issues though the underlying issues will be similar. Table Language Boundaries Power & Status Intimacy Reward & Punishment Ideology Problem of Internal Integration Common language between the group members Agreement between members on the membership in the group Who is who in the group? Agreement on the relations between peers, sexes with respect to the tasks Clear rules for reward and punishment Agreement on response to unexplainable events
Table 3 : Internal Integration Issues (Schein E. H., 1984)
ASSUMPTIONS TO WORK ENOUGH TO BE CONSIDERED VALID
Culture goes beyond the norms or values of a group in that it is more of a final outcome, based on recurrent success and a steady process of taking things for granted. In other words, to us what makes something “cultural” is this “taken for granted” quality, which makes the fundamental assumption virtually undiscussable. (Schein E. H., 1984)
9|Page
Culture is continually being formed in the sense that there is constantly some kind of learning going on about how to relate to the environment and to manage internal affairs. But this ongoing evolutionary process does not change those things that are so methodically learned that they come to be a stable element of the group’s life. Since the basic supposition that make up the organization’s culture serve the derived function of stabilizing much of the internal and external environment for the group, and since that stability is sought as a defence against the concern which comes with uncertainty and confusion, these deeper parts of the culture either do not change or change only very slowly. (Schein E. H., 1984) TAUGHT TO NEW JOINERS
Because culture serves the function of balancing the internal and external environment for an organization, it must be taught to new joiners. It would not serve its function if every generation of new joiners could establish new perceptions, language, thinking patterns, and rules of interaction. For culture to serve its purpose, it must be supposed as correct and valid, and if it is perceived that way, it automatically follows that it must be taught to new comers. (Schein E. , 1992) It cannot be ignored that new joiners do bring new ideas and do produce culture change, especially if there are brought in high levels of the organization. It is yet to be proven empirically whether and how this happens. For example, does a new employee have to be socialized and accepted into a central and powerful position before he or she can begin to affect change? Or does a new member bring from the beginning, new ways of perceiving, thinking, feeling, and acting, which produce repeated changes through role innovation? Is the manner in which new joiners are socialized influential in determining what kind of innovation they will produce? Much of the work on innovation in organizations is puzzling because often it is not clear whether elements often considered “new” are actually new assumptions, or simply new artefacts built on old cultural assumptions. (Schein E., 1984) In sum, if culture gives the group members with a paradigm of how the world “is”, it is obvious that such a paradigm would be passed on without question to new joiners. It is also the case that the very procedure of passing on the culture provides an opportunity for testing, endorsing, and reaffirming it. For both of these reasons, the process of socialization (i.e., the passing on of the groups culture) is tactically an important process to study if one wants to decipher what the culture is and how it might change. PERCEIVE, THINK, AND FEEL
The final element in the definition shows us that culture is pervasive ubiquitous. The basic assumption about nature, humanity, relationships, truth, activity, time, and space cover virtually all human functions. This is not to say that a given organizations culture will develop to the point of wholly “controlling” all of its members perceptions, beliefs, and feelings. But the procedure of learning to manage the external and internal environment does involve all of one’s cognitive and emotional elements. As cultural learning develops, more and more of the person’s responses will become involved. Therefore, the longer we live in a given culture, and older the culture is, the more it will influence our perceptions thoughts and feeling. (Schein E. H., 1984)
10 | P a g e
By focusing on perceptions thoughts and feelings, I am also stating the significance of those categories comparative to the category of overt behaviour. Can one speak of the culture in terms of just the explicit behaviour patterns one observes? Culture is manifested in explicit behaviour, but the idea of culture goes deeper than just behaviour. Indeed, the very reason for elaborating a conceptual notion like “culture” is that it is too difficult to explain, what goes on in an organization if you stay at the descriptive, behavioural level. To put it another way , behaviour is, to a large extent a joint function of what the individual brings to the situation and functioning situational forces, which to some degree are erratic. To understand the cultural part of what the individual brings to the situation (as contrasted to the idiosyncratic or situational portions), we must examine the individual’s pattern of observation, thoughts, and feelings. Only after we have reached an agreement at this inner level have we uncovered what could be cultural. (Schein E. H., 1984) THE STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
Organizational culture as per its theoretical definition is difficult to study. However, it is not as complicated as studying a different society where customs and beliefs are so different that one needs to live in the society to get any feel for it at all. Organizations live in a parent culture, and much of what we find in them is derived from the assumptions of the parent culture. But different organizations will sometimes accentuate or amplify different elements of parent culture. For example, in the companies previously mentioned, we find extreme version of the individual freedom ethic, and an extreme version of the authority ethic, both of which can be derived from U.S. culture. (Schein E. H., 1984) The problem of determining an organization’s culture is a matter of underlying assumptions, which will be identifiable once they have been revealed. Alien forms of perceiving, thinking, and feeling are difficult to unearth if the investigator has the same parent culture as the organization which is being investigated. On the other hand, the particular example of assumptions, which we call an organization’s cultural paradigm, will not reveal itself easily because it is taken for granted. (Schein E. H., 1984) How can we gather the data and decode the paradigm? Essentially, there are four approaches that should be used in combination with one another: 1. Analysing the process of socialising of new joiners: By interviewing the “socialising agent”, such as the supervisor and older members, one can identify some of the important areas of the culture. But some essentials of the culture won’t be revealed by this method as these characteristics of the culture are not exposed to newcomers or lower members. (Schein E. H., 1984) 2. Analysing responses to crucial incidents in the organization’s history: By developing a careful “organisational biography” from documents, interviews and even surveys of present and past members, it is possible to identify the main periods of culture formation. For each crisis or occurrence identified, it is then necessary to find what was done, why it was done, and what the outcome was. To infer the fundamental assumptions of the organisation, one would then look for the major reasons given for the actions taken. (Schein E. H., 1984)
11 | P a g e
3. Analysing beliefs, values and assumptions of “Culture Creators or Carriers”: When interviewing founders, leaders, or culture creators, one should make an open-ended chronology of each person’s history in the organisation – his or her goals, modes of action, and evaluation of outcomes. The list of issues found in Tables 2 and 3 can be used as a checklist later in the interview to cover areas more thoroughly. (Schein E. H., 1984) 4. Jointly Exploring and Analysing with Insiders the Anomalies or Puzzling Features Observed or Uncovered in Interviews: It is the joint inquiry that will help to disclose basic assumptions that help determine how they may interrelate to form the cultural paradigm. (Schein E. H., 1984) The insider must be a carrier of the culture and must be interested in disclosing his or her own basic assumptions to test whether they are in fact cultural prototypes. This process works best if one acts on observations that puzzle the outsider or that seem like anomalies because the insider’s assumptions are most easily surfaced if they are compared to the assumptions that the outsider holds about that is observed. (Schein E. H., 1984) While the first three methods mentioned should improve and balance one another, at least one of them should analytically cover all of the external adaptation and internal assimilation issues. In order to discover the fundamental basic assumptions finally to decipher the paradigm, the fourth method is necessary to help the insider surface his or her own cultural assumptions. This is done through the outsider’s questioning and searching. (Schein E. H., 1984) If an organization’s total culture is not well formed, or if the organisation consists of important stable divisions, which have developed subcultures, one must amend the above methods to study the various subcultures. Additionally, the organizational biography might reveal that the organization is at a certain point in its life cycle, one would hypothesize that the functions that a given kind of culture plays vary with the lifecycle stage. (Schein E. H., 1984) IMPLICATIONS FOR CULTURE MANAGEMENT
If we recognize organizational culture - whether at the level of the group or the total corporation – as a deep occurrence, what does this tell us about when and how to develop or manage culture? Firstly, the evolutionary point of view draws our attention to the fact that the culture of a group may serve different functions at different times. When a group is forming and growing, the culture is “glue” or binding thread – a source of identity and strength. In other words, young and growing founder-dominated companies need their cultures as a way of holding together their organizations. The culture changes that do occur in an infant organization can best be described as explanation, enunciation, and elaboration. If the young company’s culture is genuinely inadequate for adaption in relation to the external environment, the company will not survive anyway. Even if someone identifies the required changes, there is a slight chance at this particular stage that one could change the culture. (Schein E. H., 1984) The culture of an organization can be managed and shaped in the midlife, but only after considering all the sources of stability which have been identified above. The large diversified organization probably contains many divisions, geographic and other groups that have cultures of their own - some of which will conflict with each other. Whether the organization requires to augment the diversity to remain 12 | P a g e
flexible in the face of environmental instability, or to create a more homogenous “strong” culture (as some advocate) becomes one of the toughest policy decisions management confronts, especially if senior management is unaware of some of its own cultural assumptions. Some form of outside intervention and “culture consciousness raising” is probably required at this stage to facilitate better strategic decisions. (Schein E. , 1992) Organizations that have attained a stage of maturity or decline resulting from mature markets and products or from extreme internal stability and comfort that prevents innovation may need to change parts of their culture, provided they can obtain the necessary self-insight. Such managed change will always be a painful procedure and will draw strong resistance. However the changes in the organisation may not be possible without substituting large number of people who wish to retain the original culture. (Schein E. , The Art of Managing Human Resources, 1987) No universally applicable model of change exists - Managers can implement change through the use of a variety of techniques, from outright intimidation at one extreme to subtle seduction through the introduction of new technologies at the other extreme. (Schein E. , The Art of Managing Human Resources, 1987) SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
We have tried to define organizational culture in a way which derives from a dynamic way of learning and group dynamics. The definition of organisation culture shows that culture: 1. Is dynamic in nature and is in the process of development and change (Schein E. H., 1984) 2. Encompasses all the existing forms of human functioning (Schein E. H., 1984) 3. Is visible through major issues of external adjustment and internal assimilation (Schein E. H., 1984) 4. Is ultimately personified as an interconnected, ornate set of basic assumptions that deal with concluding issues, such as the nature of civilization, relationships, time, freedom, and the character of realism and exactness itself. (Schein E. H., 1984) If we are to make sense of a given organization’s culture, we must use a multifaceted interview, observation, and joint-inquiry approach in which members of the organization work with an outsider to unravel the unconscious assumptions that are hypothesized to be the spirit of the culture. We believe we need to study a large number of organisations using these approaches to determine the utility of the concept of organizational culture and to relate cultural variables, such as policy, organizational structure and ultimately, organizational usefulness. (Schein E. H., 1984) If research shows this model of culture to be of use, one of the obvious implications will be that the theory of organizational change would need to give more attention to the results that organizational culture provides. Obviously, if culture is as encompassing as Edward Schein argues, it will be simple to make changes that are similar with present assumptions, and very tricky to make changes that are not. In the end, the understanding of organizational culture should become integral to the process of management itself. (Schein E. H., 1984)
13 | P a g e
WORKS CITED
Hank Sohoto. (n.d.). Culture and Values. Retrieved Mar 1, 2009, from Jadhoo Consulting: www.jaadhoo.com MIT Sloan. (2006, 05 16). Biography of Ed Schein. Retrieved Feb 28, 2009, from Official Ed Shein Website:http://web.mit.edu/scheine/www/bio.html Schein, E. (1984). Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture. Sloan Management Review , 3. Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new Awareness of Organisational Culture. Sloan Management Review , 3-16. Schein, E. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. 2nd Edition. Schein, E. (1987). The Art of Managing Human Resources. Oxford University Press.
14 | P a g e
doc_371413812.docx
The documentation about the brief study of Organisational culture by Edgar Schein.
Edgar Schein
A brief study of Organisational Culture
3/13/2009 Goa Institute of Management
Submitted byKanishka Belani – 2008017 Mariam Noronha – 2008021 Neha Gupta – 2008026 Parikshit Bhinde – 2008028 Soutik Sarkar – 2008052 (Group – 8A)
Table of Contents
Biography...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Organizational Culture .................................................................................................................................. 3 Cultural Paradigms.................................................................................................................................... 4 Levels of culture by Schein........................................................................................................................... 4 A Given Group.............................................................................................................................................. 6 Strength of a Culture ................................................................................................................................. 6 Invented, Discovered of Developed .............................................................................................................. 7 Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................ 14
List of Tables
Table 1 : Basic Underlying Assumptions around which Cultural Paradigms Form (Schein E. H., 1984) ... 4 Table 2 : Problem Solving Cycle (Schein E. H., 1984) ................................................................................ 9 Table 3 : Internal Integration Issues (Schein E. H., 1984) ........................................................................... 9
2|Page
EDGAR SCHEIN
BIOGRAPHY Edgar Schein was educated at the University of Chicago, at Stanford University where he received a Masters Degree in Psychology in 1949, and at Harvard University where he received his Ph.D. in the filed of social psychology in the year 1952. Currently, Schein is Sloan Fellows Professor of Management Emeritus and works part time as a Senior Lecturer at the Sloan School. (MIT Sloan, 2006) One of his achievements is that he the Founding Editor of "Reflections" the Journal of the Society for Organizational Learning. (MIT Sloan, 2006) Schein has been a prolific researcher, writer, teacher and consultant. Edgar is the author of fourteen books including Organizational Psychology (3d edit., 1980), Career Dynamics (1978), Organizational Culture and Leadership (1985, 1992, 2004), and Process Consultation Vol. 1 & Vol. 2 (1969, 1987, 1988), and The Corporate Culture Survival Guide (1999) and Process Consultation Revisited (1999). (MIT Sloan, 2006) ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
According to the conventional definition, “Culture is a set of shared meanings that make it possible for a group to interpret and act upon the environment.” (Schein, 1984) A look at Schein’s Expanded Understanding states that “Organizational Culture is the pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and that have 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, 1984) Organizational culture is visible at several levels. The first being “Visible artefacts” which comprises the organization architecture, technology, manner of dress, visible behaviour patterns, employee orientation stories etc. It is easy to see behaviour patterns but difficult to see why a group behaves the way it does. Analysis of the behaviour of members is done by observing the values that govern their behaviour. Values actually form second level of the model. Values are hard to observe directly, hence it is often necessary to infer them by interviewing key members of the organization. Values represent accurately only the manifest or espoused values of the culture. The underlying reasons for people’s behaviour remain concealed or unconscious. (Schein, 1984) (Schein E. , The Art of Managing Human Resources, 1987) To really understand a culture, it is important to delve in to the underlying assumptions. Such assumptions are themselves learnt responses that are originated as espoused values. When values lead to a certain behaviour & as that particular behaviour starts solving the problem which had prompted it initially, the value is gradually transformed into an underlying assumption about the existing state of
3|Page
things. Also, when the assumption is increasingly taken for granted by the members, it falls out of awareness (Schein, 1984). The values can be broadly classified into – 1. Critical, non-debatable values which are taken for granted and are described more appropriately by the term assumptions. (Schein, 1984) 2. Values which are explicit, espoused and debatable for which the term values is more applicable. (Schein, 1984) CULTURAL PARADIGMS
Due to the human need for order & consistency, assumptions translate into pattern which may be termed cultural paradigms. Eg. If the group follows the assumption that every productive idea or product is a result of an individual’s effort, it can’t presume at the same time that groups can be credited for the success of the results or the individuals will treat group loyalty on a high priority basis. Alternatively, even if a group presumes that conquering the nature and manipulation of its environment is the way to survive, it cannot simultaneously assume that the most desired sort of relationship among group members is one that emphasizes passivity and harmony. If people have a cognitive need for consistency and order, then one can easily assume that all the groups will evolve certain assumptions which are compatible and consistent in the long run. (Schein, 1984) 1. The relationship of organization with its environment – Evaluation of the assumptions about the relationship between humanity and nature, one can assess whether the important members of the organization look at the relationship as dominant, submissive, harmonizing, figuring out a suitable niche. 2. The nature of reality and truth – The linguistic & behavioural rules that state what is real and what is unreal, what is a fact, how truth is to be ultimately determined, and whether truth is revealed or discovered; basic concepts of time as linear or cyclical, mono-chronic or polychromic, basic concepts such as space as limited of infinite and property as communal or individual; and so forth. 3. The nature of human nature – What does it mean to be humans and what attributes are considered intrinsic or ultimate? Is nature of human being neutral, good or evil? Whether human beings can be developed into perfect beings or not? Which among the two is better: Theory X or Theory Y? 4. The nature of human activity – What is the correct action for human beings based upon the above assumptions about the reality, the environment, and human nature: to be active, passive, self-developmental, fatalistic, or what? Both, work & play have to be distinguished. 5. The nature of human relationships – What is accepted as the correct way for people to relate with each other, and to distribute power and love? Is life essentially competitive or co-operative; individualistic, group collaborative or communal; based on traditional linear authority, law, or charisma or what is it?
Table 1 : Basic Underlying Assumptions around which Cultural Paradigms Form (Schein E. H., 1984)
LEVELS OF CULTURE BY SCHEIN Ed Schein addresses the difficulty of deciphering, changing/adapting an organization's culture. Culture is present everywhere and it is imperative to understand how it is created, developed, manipulated, 4|Page
managed, embedded and changed over time. Understanding the culture is tantamount to understanding one’s organization. (Schein, 1992)
Figure 1 : Levels of Culture and their Interaction (Schein E. H., 1984)
He approaches this issue through his three levels; He argues that the pattern of basic underlying assumptions can function as a cognitive defence mechanism for individuals and the group, as a result culture change is difficult, time consuming and anxiety provoking. Cultures are deeply rooted in an organization, they are pervasive and quite complex which makes it very difficult to unravel these underlying assumptions. Edgar also uses the classic three step approach proposed by Lewin to discuss any change – unfreezing the status quo, bring about cognitive restructuring and refreezing the change. (Schein, 1992) He has a lot to say about leadership and culture. The primary issue for the leaders is that they must firstly be marginal in their own culture to an adequate amount in order to recognize any mal-adaptive assumptions and to learn novel ways of thinking by themselves as a pre-requisite to unfreezing and altering the organization. (Schein, 1992)
5|Page
Culture is customs and rights and the organizations 'own way', its norms, values, behaviour patterns, rituals, traditions, implies structural stability and Patterning and integration. It stems from a shared history, changes over a period of time and adaptation for the same which are impossible without making the alterations that impact the culture. It is mostly irrational. The large organizations usually face issues regarding the creation of subcultures within the organisation and the integration of fresh employees into it. For merging organizations, there are issues on how to create a new culture in a relatively artificial environment. (Schein, 1992) Edgar Schein believes that culture permeates all aspects of organisational life and yet is essentially invisible. Application of a specific process can turn the invisible into visible and identify the culture of a given environment quite accurately. It should be kept in mind that an organisation does not have only one culture; there will be numerous subcultures and sufficient consideration should be given to this factor within the context of any new initiative. (Hank Sohoto) A GIVEN GROUP
There cannot be a culture unless there is a group that owns it. Culture is embedded in groups as the creating group must always be clearly identified. We must be careful not to define the group in terms of the existence of the culture however tempting that may be, because we then would be creating a completely circular definition. It is not possible to identify a group’s culture unless a definable set of people exist who have a shared history. (Schein, 1984) According to Schein, a given group is a set of people (Schein, 1984) ? ? ? Who have been together long enough to have shared significant problems. Who have had opportunities to solve problems and to observe the effects of their solution. People who have introduced new members in the group. (Schein, 1984)
The transfer of solutions to the members newly introduced in the group is required as per the definition of culture because the decision to pass on something signifies an important test of sharing of a given solution and whether it is perceived as valid or not. If a group passes on with conviction elements of a way of perceiving, thinking and feeling, we can assume that the group have had enough stability and has shared enough common experiences to have developed a culture. If a group has not faced the issue of what to pass on, it has not had a chance to test its own consensus and commitment to a given assumption. (Schein, 1984) STRENGTH OF A CULTURE The strength of a culture can be defined in terms of – 1. Homogeneity and stability of group membership (Schein E. H., 1984) 2. The span and amount of the shared experiences of the group (Schein E. H., 1984) If a group has had a very long, varied and intense history, it’ll have a strong and highly differentiated culture. On the other hand, if a group has had changing membership or has been together for a short span of time and not faced difficult issues, it is likely to have a weak culture. Members of such a group may 6|Page
have strong individual assumptions but the group as a whole would not have enough shared experiences. Company such as IBM and Bell Systems thus have a strong culture whereas young companies with high turnover of key executives would be judged as weak culture. (Schein, 1984) If an organisation has a strong culture and if the dominant coalition of leadership remains stable, the culture can survive high turnover at lower ranks. An elite military unit would be an example of the same. (Schein, 1984) It is very important to recognise that cultural strength may or may not be correlated with effectiveness. The substantial content of the culture and the extent to which the solutions are helpful in the problems posed by the environment look like the critical variables over here, and not the strength. (Schein, 1984) If a total corporation consist of stable functional, divisional, geographic or rank based sub-groups then that corporation would have multiple cultures within it. It is possible for multiple cultures to be in conflict with each other. On the contrary, if there has been shared corporate experience, then one could have a strong corporate culture above the various sub-cultures existent in the organisation. The deciphering of a given company’s culture then becomes an empirical matter of their locating where the stable social units are, what culture each of those stable units have developed and how those separate cultures blend into a single whole. (Schein, 1984) Cultural assumptions in an organisation can also come from the occupational background of the members of the organisation. This enables the development of a managerial culture, an engineering culture separately, a science culture etc. (Schein, 1984) INVENTED, DISCOVERED OF DEVELOPED
The two types of learning situations defined by Schein are – 1. Positive problem solving situations that produce positive or negative reinforcements in terms of whether the attempted solution works or not (Schein, 1984) 2. Anxiety avoidance situation that produce positive or negative reinforcements in terms of whether the attempted solution does or doesn’t avoid anxiety. (Schein, 1984) In the positive problem solving situation, the group tries out various responses until something works. The group will keep on using this response until it ceases to work. The information that stops working anymore is visible and clear. By contrast, in the anxiety avoidance situation once the response is learned because it successfully avoids anxiety, it is likely to be repeated indefinitely. The reason behind this is that the learner will not himself test the situation willingly to find out whether the cause of anxiety is still operating. Thus all rituals, patterns of thinking and behaviours that may be originally have been motivated by a need to avoid an anxiety provoking situation are going to be repeated even if the causes of the original pain are no longer acting because the avoidance of anxiety itself is positively reinforcing. (Schein, 1984) The human need for cognitive order and consistency serves as the ultimate motivator for a common language and shared category of perceptions and thoughts. When such shared cognitive maps are absent, the human being experiences an intolerable existential anxiety. Secondly, humans experience anxiety 7|Page
associated with the exposed to hostile environmental conditions forcing groups to learn ways of coping with such external problems. (Schein, 1984) If an organisation culture is composed of both types of elements – those designed to solve problems and those designed to avoid anxiety – it becomes necessary to analyze which is which if one is concerned about changing any of the elements. In positive learning situation, innovative sources are used to find a better solution of the problem whereas in the anxiety avoidance situation, one must determine the source of the anxiety and either show the learner that it no longer exists or provide an alternative source of avoidance. (Schein, 1984) Cultural elements that are based on anxiety reduction will be more stable than those based on positive problem solving because of the nature of the anxiety reduction mechanism and the fact that human system needs a certain amount of stability to avoid cognitive and social anxiety. (Schein, 1984) Most cultural solutions in new groups and organisations originate from the founders and early leaders of those organisations. The solution process is an advocacy of certain ways of doing things that are tried out and either adopted or rejected depending on how well they work out. As the group grows over a period of time and acquires its own set of experiences, its members will devise their own solutions. Eventually, the process of determining new solutions will be an outcome of interactive shared experiences. One of the key functions of leadership is to provide guidance in those situations when habitual ways of doing things cease to work. (Schein, 1984) “PROBLEMS OF EXTERNAL ADAPTION AND INTERNAL INTEGRATION” (SCHEIN E. H., 1984)
According to Edgar H. Schein as discussed earlier, the culture is the solution of the problem faced by the groups. He has tried to understand the nature of the problem which he distinguished as (1) SOCIO-EMOTIONAL PROBLEM: Problems related to basic survival which is also called as the mission of the group, and (2) GROUP BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE PROBLEM: Ability of the group to perform as a group. The External and Internal problems though can be distinguished but at the same time are very interrelated. “EXTERNAL ADAPTION PROBLEMS” (SCHEIN E. H., 1984) These problems are directly related to the survival of the group in the given environment. According to Schein the group because of previous experiences perceives the environment in certain way but each new environment has new elements which are beyond the control of the group. The responses to such environmental conditions determine the future of the group. To be able to survive these conditions Schein designed what he called as “Problem-Solving Cycle1”. (Schein E. H., 1984). Table
1
Problems of External Adaption and Survival
Schein has discussed the Problem-Cycle in his work “Process Consultation”,1969
8|Page
Developing agreement on core mission. (Schein E. H., 1984) Developing agreement on Goal synchronized with the core mission. (Schein E. H., 1984) Means for Developing agreement on the means to accomplish the goals. (Schein E. H., 1984) accomplishing goals Developing agreement on the measuring criteria. (Schein E. H., 1984) Measuring Performances Developing agreement on remedial solution required. (Schein E. H., 1984) Correction Strategy Goals
Table 2 : Problem Solving Cycle (Schein E. H., 1984)
The core mission and the above stages of problem solving cycle in the beginning of the group will be directly related to the basic assumptions of the culture from where the creators of the organisation have come from. It’s only after the experience and co-existence in different environmental conditions the group/organisation grows and develops new and apt group goals. Thus, each stage of the above problemcycle has a solution which has come from the experience of the group and the way the group has evolved which latter will become the major factors on which the culture of the group will depend. “INTERNAL INTEGRATION PROBLEMS” (SCHEIN E. H., 1984) The most basic factor for all the above growth and problem solving cycle is the existence of the group itself. “The group cannot survive if it cannot manage itself”. (Schein E. H., 1984). Schein calls the external and internal environment as “two sides of the same coin” (Schein E. H., 1984)and outlines the major issues of Internal Integration as Language, Boundaries, Power & Status, Intimacy, Reward and Punishment and Ideology. According to Schein each organisation will have its own form of solution but face similar issues and develop solution of the problem. But the experiences of the members and the biases which have developed because of their previous results will be reflected in the solutions and most likely each organisation will have its unique way of solving the issues though the underlying issues will be similar. Table Language Boundaries Power & Status Intimacy Reward & Punishment Ideology Problem of Internal Integration Common language between the group members Agreement between members on the membership in the group Who is who in the group? Agreement on the relations between peers, sexes with respect to the tasks Clear rules for reward and punishment Agreement on response to unexplainable events
Table 3 : Internal Integration Issues (Schein E. H., 1984)
ASSUMPTIONS TO WORK ENOUGH TO BE CONSIDERED VALID
Culture goes beyond the norms or values of a group in that it is more of a final outcome, based on recurrent success and a steady process of taking things for granted. In other words, to us what makes something “cultural” is this “taken for granted” quality, which makes the fundamental assumption virtually undiscussable. (Schein E. H., 1984)
9|Page
Culture is continually being formed in the sense that there is constantly some kind of learning going on about how to relate to the environment and to manage internal affairs. But this ongoing evolutionary process does not change those things that are so methodically learned that they come to be a stable element of the group’s life. Since the basic supposition that make up the organization’s culture serve the derived function of stabilizing much of the internal and external environment for the group, and since that stability is sought as a defence against the concern which comes with uncertainty and confusion, these deeper parts of the culture either do not change or change only very slowly. (Schein E. H., 1984) TAUGHT TO NEW JOINERS
Because culture serves the function of balancing the internal and external environment for an organization, it must be taught to new joiners. It would not serve its function if every generation of new joiners could establish new perceptions, language, thinking patterns, and rules of interaction. For culture to serve its purpose, it must be supposed as correct and valid, and if it is perceived that way, it automatically follows that it must be taught to new comers. (Schein E. , 1992) It cannot be ignored that new joiners do bring new ideas and do produce culture change, especially if there are brought in high levels of the organization. It is yet to be proven empirically whether and how this happens. For example, does a new employee have to be socialized and accepted into a central and powerful position before he or she can begin to affect change? Or does a new member bring from the beginning, new ways of perceiving, thinking, feeling, and acting, which produce repeated changes through role innovation? Is the manner in which new joiners are socialized influential in determining what kind of innovation they will produce? Much of the work on innovation in organizations is puzzling because often it is not clear whether elements often considered “new” are actually new assumptions, or simply new artefacts built on old cultural assumptions. (Schein E., 1984) In sum, if culture gives the group members with a paradigm of how the world “is”, it is obvious that such a paradigm would be passed on without question to new joiners. It is also the case that the very procedure of passing on the culture provides an opportunity for testing, endorsing, and reaffirming it. For both of these reasons, the process of socialization (i.e., the passing on of the groups culture) is tactically an important process to study if one wants to decipher what the culture is and how it might change. PERCEIVE, THINK, AND FEEL
The final element in the definition shows us that culture is pervasive ubiquitous. The basic assumption about nature, humanity, relationships, truth, activity, time, and space cover virtually all human functions. This is not to say that a given organizations culture will develop to the point of wholly “controlling” all of its members perceptions, beliefs, and feelings. But the procedure of learning to manage the external and internal environment does involve all of one’s cognitive and emotional elements. As cultural learning develops, more and more of the person’s responses will become involved. Therefore, the longer we live in a given culture, and older the culture is, the more it will influence our perceptions thoughts and feeling. (Schein E. H., 1984)
10 | P a g e
By focusing on perceptions thoughts and feelings, I am also stating the significance of those categories comparative to the category of overt behaviour. Can one speak of the culture in terms of just the explicit behaviour patterns one observes? Culture is manifested in explicit behaviour, but the idea of culture goes deeper than just behaviour. Indeed, the very reason for elaborating a conceptual notion like “culture” is that it is too difficult to explain, what goes on in an organization if you stay at the descriptive, behavioural level. To put it another way , behaviour is, to a large extent a joint function of what the individual brings to the situation and functioning situational forces, which to some degree are erratic. To understand the cultural part of what the individual brings to the situation (as contrasted to the idiosyncratic or situational portions), we must examine the individual’s pattern of observation, thoughts, and feelings. Only after we have reached an agreement at this inner level have we uncovered what could be cultural. (Schein E. H., 1984) THE STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
Organizational culture as per its theoretical definition is difficult to study. However, it is not as complicated as studying a different society where customs and beliefs are so different that one needs to live in the society to get any feel for it at all. Organizations live in a parent culture, and much of what we find in them is derived from the assumptions of the parent culture. But different organizations will sometimes accentuate or amplify different elements of parent culture. For example, in the companies previously mentioned, we find extreme version of the individual freedom ethic, and an extreme version of the authority ethic, both of which can be derived from U.S. culture. (Schein E. H., 1984) The problem of determining an organization’s culture is a matter of underlying assumptions, which will be identifiable once they have been revealed. Alien forms of perceiving, thinking, and feeling are difficult to unearth if the investigator has the same parent culture as the organization which is being investigated. On the other hand, the particular example of assumptions, which we call an organization’s cultural paradigm, will not reveal itself easily because it is taken for granted. (Schein E. H., 1984) How can we gather the data and decode the paradigm? Essentially, there are four approaches that should be used in combination with one another: 1. Analysing the process of socialising of new joiners: By interviewing the “socialising agent”, such as the supervisor and older members, one can identify some of the important areas of the culture. But some essentials of the culture won’t be revealed by this method as these characteristics of the culture are not exposed to newcomers or lower members. (Schein E. H., 1984) 2. Analysing responses to crucial incidents in the organization’s history: By developing a careful “organisational biography” from documents, interviews and even surveys of present and past members, it is possible to identify the main periods of culture formation. For each crisis or occurrence identified, it is then necessary to find what was done, why it was done, and what the outcome was. To infer the fundamental assumptions of the organisation, one would then look for the major reasons given for the actions taken. (Schein E. H., 1984)
11 | P a g e
3. Analysing beliefs, values and assumptions of “Culture Creators or Carriers”: When interviewing founders, leaders, or culture creators, one should make an open-ended chronology of each person’s history in the organisation – his or her goals, modes of action, and evaluation of outcomes. The list of issues found in Tables 2 and 3 can be used as a checklist later in the interview to cover areas more thoroughly. (Schein E. H., 1984) 4. Jointly Exploring and Analysing with Insiders the Anomalies or Puzzling Features Observed or Uncovered in Interviews: It is the joint inquiry that will help to disclose basic assumptions that help determine how they may interrelate to form the cultural paradigm. (Schein E. H., 1984) The insider must be a carrier of the culture and must be interested in disclosing his or her own basic assumptions to test whether they are in fact cultural prototypes. This process works best if one acts on observations that puzzle the outsider or that seem like anomalies because the insider’s assumptions are most easily surfaced if they are compared to the assumptions that the outsider holds about that is observed. (Schein E. H., 1984) While the first three methods mentioned should improve and balance one another, at least one of them should analytically cover all of the external adaptation and internal assimilation issues. In order to discover the fundamental basic assumptions finally to decipher the paradigm, the fourth method is necessary to help the insider surface his or her own cultural assumptions. This is done through the outsider’s questioning and searching. (Schein E. H., 1984) If an organization’s total culture is not well formed, or if the organisation consists of important stable divisions, which have developed subcultures, one must amend the above methods to study the various subcultures. Additionally, the organizational biography might reveal that the organization is at a certain point in its life cycle, one would hypothesize that the functions that a given kind of culture plays vary with the lifecycle stage. (Schein E. H., 1984) IMPLICATIONS FOR CULTURE MANAGEMENT
If we recognize organizational culture - whether at the level of the group or the total corporation – as a deep occurrence, what does this tell us about when and how to develop or manage culture? Firstly, the evolutionary point of view draws our attention to the fact that the culture of a group may serve different functions at different times. When a group is forming and growing, the culture is “glue” or binding thread – a source of identity and strength. In other words, young and growing founder-dominated companies need their cultures as a way of holding together their organizations. The culture changes that do occur in an infant organization can best be described as explanation, enunciation, and elaboration. If the young company’s culture is genuinely inadequate for adaption in relation to the external environment, the company will not survive anyway. Even if someone identifies the required changes, there is a slight chance at this particular stage that one could change the culture. (Schein E. H., 1984) The culture of an organization can be managed and shaped in the midlife, but only after considering all the sources of stability which have been identified above. The large diversified organization probably contains many divisions, geographic and other groups that have cultures of their own - some of which will conflict with each other. Whether the organization requires to augment the diversity to remain 12 | P a g e
flexible in the face of environmental instability, or to create a more homogenous “strong” culture (as some advocate) becomes one of the toughest policy decisions management confronts, especially if senior management is unaware of some of its own cultural assumptions. Some form of outside intervention and “culture consciousness raising” is probably required at this stage to facilitate better strategic decisions. (Schein E. , 1992) Organizations that have attained a stage of maturity or decline resulting from mature markets and products or from extreme internal stability and comfort that prevents innovation may need to change parts of their culture, provided they can obtain the necessary self-insight. Such managed change will always be a painful procedure and will draw strong resistance. However the changes in the organisation may not be possible without substituting large number of people who wish to retain the original culture. (Schein E. , The Art of Managing Human Resources, 1987) No universally applicable model of change exists - Managers can implement change through the use of a variety of techniques, from outright intimidation at one extreme to subtle seduction through the introduction of new technologies at the other extreme. (Schein E. , The Art of Managing Human Resources, 1987) SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
We have tried to define organizational culture in a way which derives from a dynamic way of learning and group dynamics. The definition of organisation culture shows that culture: 1. Is dynamic in nature and is in the process of development and change (Schein E. H., 1984) 2. Encompasses all the existing forms of human functioning (Schein E. H., 1984) 3. Is visible through major issues of external adjustment and internal assimilation (Schein E. H., 1984) 4. Is ultimately personified as an interconnected, ornate set of basic assumptions that deal with concluding issues, such as the nature of civilization, relationships, time, freedom, and the character of realism and exactness itself. (Schein E. H., 1984) If we are to make sense of a given organization’s culture, we must use a multifaceted interview, observation, and joint-inquiry approach in which members of the organization work with an outsider to unravel the unconscious assumptions that are hypothesized to be the spirit of the culture. We believe we need to study a large number of organisations using these approaches to determine the utility of the concept of organizational culture and to relate cultural variables, such as policy, organizational structure and ultimately, organizational usefulness. (Schein E. H., 1984) If research shows this model of culture to be of use, one of the obvious implications will be that the theory of organizational change would need to give more attention to the results that organizational culture provides. Obviously, if culture is as encompassing as Edward Schein argues, it will be simple to make changes that are similar with present assumptions, and very tricky to make changes that are not. In the end, the understanding of organizational culture should become integral to the process of management itself. (Schein E. H., 1984)
13 | P a g e
WORKS CITED
Hank Sohoto. (n.d.). Culture and Values. Retrieved Mar 1, 2009, from Jadhoo Consulting: www.jaadhoo.com MIT Sloan. (2006, 05 16). Biography of Ed Schein. Retrieved Feb 28, 2009, from Official Ed Shein Website:http://web.mit.edu/scheine/www/bio.html Schein, E. (1984). Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture. Sloan Management Review , 3. Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new Awareness of Organisational Culture. Sloan Management Review , 3-16. Schein, E. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. 2nd Edition. Schein, E. (1987). The Art of Managing Human Resources. Oxford University Press.
14 | P a g e
doc_371413812.docx