Reason and Meaning in Organisational Culture - Essay Example

Work from Lecture 5 Reason and Meaning in Organisational Culture "One of the major strengths of the culture metaphor rests in the fact that it directs attention to the symbolic…significance of even the most rational parts of organizational life" [Gareth Morgan, 1986] Morgan describes the culture concept as a metaphor—it’s self a representation of organizational “facts,” the truth and utility of which lies in its representational character. He contrasts this concept with the idea of “rationality,” a feature already assumed to be inherent (or at least desirable) in the structure, concept and daily practice of corporate life. This opposition is itself evident in Morgan’s definition of “organizational culture” as: "The set of the set of beliefs, values, and norms, together with symbols like dramatized events and personalities, that represents the unique character of an organization, and provides the context for action in it and by it."1 In this definition, culture represents the “unique” features of a given organization or business; “rationality” is then presupposed to be the shared goal of all oganisations and businesses. It is in this uniqueness that the significance of organizational culture resides; in this formulation, “culture” contains the seeds of distinction that can differentiate a given organization from its competitors in the market, resulting in success or failure. Culture is not only the opposite of rationality; it transcends rationality and becomes the something extra that brings a necessary human element to organization, imbuing an abstract collective with identity, personality and “a face.” This opposition, and its transcendence, has been at the heart of all analyses of “culture” dating back to the early days of the discipline of Anthropology in which “other,” seemingly irrational foreign cultures were investigated by Western academics and researchers, whose goal was to discern the underlying and apparently unapparent rationality. In this original formulation, culture both obscures rationality and gives it its unique form; the same holds true for the analysis of business and organization. Organisational Culture and Organisational Structure Organisational culture is both a product of formal organizational rules and structures, and also helps to produce the structures themselves, both formally and in their practical function. Like all cultures, organizational cultures have subcultures as well as practices and values that directly contradict the stated values and norms of a given organisaton. Both the relationships between organizational culture and the larger structure of an organization, as well as the relationship between formal “values” and the values as practiced by employees, managers or other organizational figures are best investigated through direct, analytical observation, an anthropological practices known as “ethnography.” An example of the relationship between organizational culture and formal structures as mutually reinforcing systems may be found in Mary Kay Cosmetics. Mary Kay has been made successful both by its formal structures and by a deeply ingrained corporate culture which are mutually constitutive. The company is structured as a commission-based sales scheme, in which saleswomen earn not only by selling the cosmetic products themselves, but also the idea and cultural practice of Mary Kay, including recruiting additional sales people and operating as their suppliers. This structure is efficient and rational, as salespeople bear the costs of distribution as well as the risk of unsold stock, but is also itself symbolic and representational in the related corporate culture. The role of independent contractor symbolizes the saleswoman’s independence, financial power and her hyper-traditional femininity. The lack of formal salary and hours is not only efficient for the company, but thus a symbolically necessary aspect of the business. This symbol is reinforced by other key symbols of femininity, independence, financial power and successful consumption; pink as the ubiquitous color of Mary Kay Ladies, and the prized bonus of a pink Cadillac, traditional, showy and feminine. National Culture and Organisational Culture Organisations do not exist in a vacuum. The culture concept was originally developed to describe the social systems of tribes and nations; business and organizations today exist within and sometimes between nations (and sometimes tribes!) As a result, the cultures within a given organization may represent a subculture of a larger national culture. One much studied and commented on example of this relationship between national and organizational culture is Japanese innovation in the auto industry. Total Quality Management was formed in Japan, and has often been described as an extension of existing national values such as hard work, loyalty and individual subservience to a collective—and corporate—good. In this framework, the company is an extension of the family, which in Japan is an entity with substantial symbolic importance and power, given the cultural import of ancestors, whom are thought to have an influence on day to day affairs. Honor and shame are thought to be matters of collective, familial import, rather than a simple matter of individual character as might be more common in more individualist Anglo cultures. Total Quality Management (TQM), or “team concept” as it is also known, harnessed these cultural tropes for the collective benefit and honor of Japanese auto manufacturers such as Toyota, while also introducing a further element which may be initially seen as contradictory to Japanese “tradition” or “culture,” namely, flexibility. Under team concept, employees are encouraged to be multi-skilled while managers are encouraged to take over factory work where doing so would improve productivity. While TQM sped up the process of auto manufacturer, it was also thought to vastly reduce the number of errors and quality on the shop floor in part by instilling a collective pride in quality products. At the same time, organizational culture (and the related structure) is not bound by national culture, despite seeming or initial incompatibilities. Ultimately the same organizational forms may be able to adhere to similar or complimentarily elements of differing cultures, through a process that eminent anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss termed “bricolage;” a kind of collage of cultural concepts and practices composed to suit a give n situation. It is bricolage that allowed for change that could incorporate flexibility as a value n the original Japanese context of TQM; at the same time, it is also bricolage that allowed TQM to be transferred (ultimately) successfully to a new context. To maximize profit for Japanese automakers, TQM needed to be effective not only in the home context, but also in the United States, where a large portion of Japanese automobiles were sold in the 1980’s. Because it was simply too expensive to import every Japanese auto, makers invested in assembly within the lower 48 contiguous United sates. Initially, these plants were dysfunctional an unworkable. This was attributed in large part to the American subculture within the automobile industry that emphasized conflict on the shop floor and distinctions between workers and management. This culture was reinforced and produced (as well as was productive of) differential structures based on this premise and emphasizing these contradictions such as overtime, seniority, rigid work rules and a tradition of work stoppages and strikes. Ultimately however, this cultural conflict was managed in two ways; one it was simply avoided, and two the existing structures were manipulated so as to allow for cultural bricolage, flexibility and ultimately acceptance and adaptation of TQM by American workers. First, Japanese automakers set up shop in low union-density states such as those in the American South where “right to work” laws made climates unsuitable to unionized cultures of conflict and status-based identity. Second, employers (both American and Japanese) took on the structures that emphasized this culture of conflict, such as work rules, seniority and overtime, as well as employing younger, less acculturated workers in the new structure, thus creating the conditions for acceptance of TQM, now not Japanese, but American, adapted the and American sensibility of individuality rather than collectivity. In this case, the adaptation reduced not identification with the company, but with the union. Thus national culture can create a framework for organisaitonal culture, but does not define or bind organizational culture, nor prevent transfer and adaptation of an organizational culture between nations. Power and Organisational Culture As Morgan suggests, power within an organization may, without conscious adaptation, reflect the realities of social life and power relations outside of the organization, just as national cultures are reflected and adapted within organizations. Social structures such as gender, race and class will be reproduced within an organization. At the same time, these power differentials can be used to the benefit of an organizational culture, if cultivated consciously. While many businesses may tend toward a masculinist style of discourse, reflecting men’s greater social power outside the organization, many businesses find they are benefitting from cultivating feminine (and sometimes feminist) approaches to management in terms of employee happiness and productivity. Conclusion: Overall, Morgan points to the idea that the “symbolic significance” of even the most banal elements of corporate practice are what makes them “: cultural,” that is meaningful for the employees who practice them. It is their significance, not their rationality that perpetuates them as regular parts of organizational life. Read More