Organizational Reform in Law Enforcement: Can Community Oriented Policing Succeed Without It - Literature review Example

Organizational Reform in Law Enforcement: Can Community Oriented Policing Succeed Without It? Wendy S. Unger Foundations Readings in the Justice Process CCJ 6902 Dr. Gordon Bazemore Florida Atlantic University Abstract Much of the literature on Community Oriented Policing (COP) has centered on the programs and initiatives implemented over the last two decades. The literature examines the successes and failures regarding COP programs, yet little focus has been concentrated on the organizations that provide the environment that can hinder or nurture these initiatives. From a general lack of understanding of what community policing means, to how best to expend the funding provided to promulgate COP programs, this review will explore the dynamics of examined law enforcement agencies and what organizational changes have or have not occurred, and what changes may be needed for community policing to survive and flourish. Introduction The organizational structure of police agencies is an ever evolving, and in many respects revolving, process. This review will consider the debate regarding the role of organizational structure regarding the implementation of Community oriented policing (COP). COP implementation has met with obstacles throughout the country, and we seek in this review to understand these obstacles, examine why they exist and speculate as to what we may do to conquer them. Specifically this discussion will examine recent focus directed at the organizational structure of police organizations and how the structure has hindered, or continues to hinder successful COP implementation. “Policing is changing dramatically. On the one hand, we wish policing to retain the old values of police integrity, equitable distribution of police resources throughout the community, and police efficiency which characterized the old model of the police. But the challenge of contemporary police and city executives is to redefine these concepts in light of the resurgence of neighborhood vitality, consumerism and more realistic assessments of the institutional capacity of the police” (Kelling, 1988, p. 7) Problem-solving and community policing have suffered in lieu of administrative concerns and with the fear of high involvement with the community, which comes with stronger demands. Team policing and split-force policing have had more support than these aspects. Apart from the lack of resource, Moore et al (1988) suggest that administrative style and structure may also be a weakness, citing the current administrative focal areas of “centralization, control, and distance from the community”, which are not aligned to the thrusts of problem-solving and community policing (Moore et al, 1988). Community oriented policing is a response to the contemporary needs of today’s police agencies and the communities they serve. Most researchers agree the history of policing can be divided into three eras. These eras are distinguished from one another by the apparent dominance of a particular strategy of policing (Kelling & Moore 1988). As municipal police agencies developed in the 1840’s politicians and the politics of the particular jurisdiction drove the police agencies’ function. This era is referred to as the Political Era, and these close relationships between the police and politicians eventually led to widespread corruption. Special interests and selective enforcement led to the gradual deterioration of the legitimacy of police agencies during this era. The Reform Era followed with attempts to re-legitimize the mission of all law enforcement agencies. A strong proponent of reform in the 1920’s was the Berkeley, CA Police Chief August Vollmer. He was instrumental in encouraging police executives to return to the morality and legitimacy that police agencies were envisioned to uphold at their inception. Vollmer led the country in reform initiatives by implementing some of the first professional models in policing. These models included a police screening for recruits and formal training for police officers. Berkeley officers conducted themselves under a Code of Ethics and all officers were held accountable for their moral and ethical behavior. Conversely, this era saw Reformers turning their backs on any political affiliations and led police agencies to become autonomous organizations strictly adhering to the law and those police executives who were leading independently of any political influence. This reform strategy worked well for several decades; until the 1960’s and 1970’s when it appeared that no matter what programs or initiatives the police embarked on, crime and the fear of crime was on the rise. The civil-rights movement, anti-war demonstrations, budget constraints and cut-backs were all factors that frustrated the police, government officials and citizens. The social unrest throughout the country during this time could no longer be policed by the narrow margin of crime control that was prevalent during the Reform Era. The widespread unrest and limited success police agencies were realizing, led to the evolution of policing referred to as the Community Problem Solving era. This strategy took the successes of the Reform era (professionalism, technology, etc.) and coupled them with the positive tenets of the Political era (foot patrol, fear reduction experiments) to create a climate that was receptive to the diverse needs of contemporary America. This of course was not without obstacles and of this Community Oriented Policing was conceived (Kelly & Moore, 1988). The following section discusses these eras in greater detail. The Distinctive Eras of Police History Kelling and Moore (1988) presented their own view of the history of the police force, describing each period based on legitimacy and authorization, police function, organizational design, external relationships, demand management, principal programs and technologies and measured outcomes. Each of these periods is briefly described below in terms of these criteria: The political era. Legitimacy was provided by the local government, and the affiliation has been so distinct such that there renowned extensions of politicians. They provided a comprehensive range of services apart from crime control, including the operation of soup lines; provision of transient lodging for immigrant workers; finding employment for immigrants. Originally, the police form was decentralized. Moreover, during this time, the police were “connected with the social and political world of the ward”, and they stayed close if not lived within the communities which they were tasked to look after. Police services generally transpired within the precinct and street levels, coming from demands from the ward and community members. The main tactic utilized was foot patrolling, owing to the lack of technologies. The following metrics were used to gauge police effectiveness: “crime and riot control, maintenance of order, and relief from the many other problems of industrializing society” (Kelling & Moore, 1988, p. 3). The reform era. The reform era has been shaped by both internal and external forces that have molded policing at the state that we know it today. Criminal law has been the new basis for legitimacy instead of political ties. Crime control and apprehending violators were the primary functions of the police then. There was standardized patrol work and exercise of bureaucratic manner of control, with principles of Taylor being applied to the force. The ideal relationship between the law enforcer and the citizen has been redefined as one of impartiality and detachment. Anti-crime police tactics and their promotion were evident. The main programs of the day were the use of preventive patrol through automobile and quickly attending to calls for service. The measured outcomes of this era included crime control and apprehension of criminals (Kelling & Moore, 1988). The community problem-solving era. The authorization of police from this era stemmed from the community, law and professionalism. The functions of the police included crime control, crime prevention and problem solving. Their organizational structure is strongly decentralized, with task forces and matrices. Relationships were highly consultative, epitomizing values of the law but at the same time empathizing with the concerns of the community. There is through analysis of underlying problems, with quality of life and citizen satisfaction as metrics of success (Kelling & Moore, 1988). Moore et al (1988) cite the fact that the police have conventionally used motorized patrol, rapid response to calls for service and retrospective investigations of crime. While these have been reasonably successful, they are inadequate for crime prevention and largely encourage fire-fighting. Gone are the days of political and reform stages of policing, and practice is not moving on to the community era (Kelling & Moore, 1988). Acknowledging this, numerous police forces have strategically exercised proactive tactics for the prevention of crime. In particular, in combating drug dealing, organized crime and vice enforcement where there are no obvious victims to respond to, they have utilized surveillance, the use of informants and undercover investigations, all undertaken in collaboration with the community (Moore et al, 1988). Moore et al (1988) have put also forth the following recommendations for enhancing crime control mechanisms, as follows: 1) diagnosing and managing problems in the community that produce serious crimes; 2) fostering closer relations with the community to facilitate crime solving; and 3) building self-defense capabilities within the community itself (Moore et al, 1988, p.2). Putting it another way, policing has undergone changes in its approach. The distinction among these approaches is discussed in the succeeding section. Command and Control Approaches Command and control systems have been effective only in “creating an illusion of control.” There are mechanisms which encourage the decision making and empowerment of officers, specifically the use of auditing, rewards, and peer control help enhance the officer’s sense of autonomy and accountability. They do not see features of community-based policing as threatening to officer accountability; on the contrary, the effective management of this aspect may provide even more venues for sustaining the accountability of the police force (Kelling et al, 1988). Administrative Approaches Confronted with the complex and numerous problems of 20th century policing, reformers Vollmer and Wilson have focused on rectifying these issues through an administrative approach. In particular, they have reviewed and modified the structure of the police force, redefined the job roles of each incumbent, and has laid down metrics for success, including report generation and number of arrests and clearances (Kelly & Bratton, 1993) This administrative approach to policing consisted of two components, namely, crime fighting and controlling officers. To undertake the first component of the strategy, they carried out “preventive patrol, inception patrol, rapid response to calls of service, and criminal investigations” (Kelly & Bratton, 1993, p. 2). On the other hand, the control of officers intended to prevent “political meddling, corruption, and abuse” within the police force (Kelly & Bratton, 1993, p. 2). They then proceeded with cutting off the force from all unnecessary external influences by “centralization of urban services; election of council persons at large; strengthening mayors and creating city management forms of government; creating civil service; removing control of police chiefs from politicians; and developing mechanisms to protect the tenure of police chiefs” (Kelly & Bratton, 1993, p. 3). Contemporary police leadership in the United States has been keen on revising its strategic thrusts, in an attempt to address both community-based policing and problem-oriented policing. Kelly & Bratton (1993) has undertaken a study on the implementation of community-based policing and has focused on the administrative problems plaguing the issue. Out of the sources of resistance which they have identified, namely, unions, detectives, and middle management, they have investigated the latter. The Restorative Justice Approach Bazemore et al (2003) describes restorative policing as the next step to undertake for the improvement of community policing and the reform of police work. The restorative justice framework presents novel instruments and principles related to community engagement, collaborative partnerships, and establishing capacity. While there have been documented successes, the novelty of the approach have caused difficulties in deployment. Implementation is anchored on holism, that integrates the concept of restorative justice across all facets of policing. The overarching aims of this vision include drafting “restorative resolutions to the greatest extent possible, and to promote community ownership of crime and conflict” (Bazemore et al, 2003). Defining Community-based Policing Greene (2000), defines community policing as the process for increased sharing of information and values by the police and the community it serves. Moreover, he expounds this is a means for modifying the police and the service they render to the community. As such, he changes the conventional police paradigm which prioritizes crime fighting, over a model which puts greater premium on problem-solving and supporting the community. Greene (2000) further proposes that members of the community and the police force may collaboratively determine community police enforcement needs and assess the efficacy of initiatives. To carry this out, the requisites of communication, empathy, and mutual understanding must be present. There has been a revolution transpiring within the police force, with the increasing popularity of community-based policing. There have been misgivings about the efficacy of this approach, with concerns on the rise of corruption and misbehavior among their ranks. However, concrete evidence from the experience of the Houston, New York, Flint, Los Angeles, and Baltimore County, among others, have proved otherwise where no such increase in corruption and misbehavior was noted (Kelling, 1988). Moore & Trojanowicz (1988) have stated that community-based policing aims to improve crime control through the establishment of a strong partnership between the police force and the community. They have expounded that entities in the community including “families, schools, neighborhood associations, and merchant groups” should count among the partners of the police in combating crime. In other words, crime control is not solely reliant on the competence of the workforce but also in building a competent community in relation to crime control. Under this approach, the community assistance and soliciting political backing from the community are essential factors for success. On the other end, the police has to ensure the prompt, reliable and effective delivery of services to ensure order within the communities they serve (Moore & Torjanowicz, 1988). In lieu of this view, police must view these community entities not just as simple partners for law enforcement. They must work for their progress and protection, which are requisites for an effective police force. Without development, they would also not be in a position to assist the police in their functions (Moore & Trojanowicz, 1988). Promoting Community-based Policing the Organizational Level Comprehension of the weaknesses of the current system. Moore et al (1988) indicate that while there has been empirical evidence pointing to the potential of problem-solving and community policing in the improvement of crime control, it may not be easy to modify administrative styles and structures without full comprehension of the issue. Towards this end, Moore et al (1988) propose that there first be a profound understanding of the present strategy and the limitations of the tactics being utilized; investigating the feasibility of strong community involvement and mobilization as a contributor to efficacy; and scrutinizing the evidence supporting the effectiveness of these proposed tactics, as used in the departments of Houston, New Port News, Baltimore Country, and Philadelphia (Moore et al, 1998). Involvement of middle managers. In Kelly and Bratton’s (1993) research with the Kansas, Cincinnati, Madison, Reno, and Houston police departments, they have concluded that it is crucial that middle managers be involved in the planning process regardless of the nature of the initiative, i.e. routine or strategic. Lest, they become prospective sources of resistance if they are left out. Moreover, the chiefs of these departments have to acknowledge the professional goals of their middle management in attempting to solicit support to any change. They must guarantee that these do not pose threats to their performance. There was also a realization on the importance of a clear and compelling vision from the chiefs which will be picked on by their middle managers; thus, they must also ensure that tasks and accountabilities are clearly defined and that rewards are granted equitably on the basis of merit. The middle managers also have to develop self-efficacy, tolerance for failure, and a culture of innovation and renewal (Kelly & Bratton, 1993). Decentralization. For community-based policing to proceed effectively, there is a need to decentralize. While there is legitimate concern over decentralization, the examples of both public and private organizations suggest that decentralization need not necessarily lead to corruption. However, they do have reason believe so since the decentralized organizational structure resulted in rampant corruption (Kelling, 1988). Accountability. Kelling et al (1988) have investigated the relationship between police accountability and community-based policing, driven by the concern of police administrators and law makers that certain traits of community-based policing pose significant threat to the accountability of the officer. These characteristics cover “organizational decentralization; increased intimacy between police officers and citizens and neighborhoods; receipt and interpretation of citizen demand for service by individual patrol officers; and development of patrol and policing tactics by patrol officers at a neighborhood or community level. Deployment of civilians into the police force. Greene (2000) suggests that community control over the police be enhanced by deploying more civilians into the police force. This is presumably more cost-efficient and will result in better fit, particularly for positions that do not necessitate a police officer. In addition, the integration of more civilians into the force may also be instrumental in balancing the mindset of police and making them more “civil” and has a perspective empathic of the community’s sentiments (Greene, 2000). Distinction between Traditional Policing and Community-based Policing Question Traditional Policing Community-based policing Who are the police? A government agency principally responsible for law enforcement. Police are the public and the public is the police; the police officers are those who are paid to give full-time attention to the duties of every citizen. What is the relationship of the police force to other public service departments? Priorities often conflict. The police are one department among many responsible for improving quality of life. What is the role of the police? Focusing on solving crimes. A broader problem-solving approach. How is police efficiency measured? By detection and arrest rates. By the absence of crime and disorder What are the highest priorities? Crimes that are high-value (e.g. bank robberies) and those involving violence. Whatever problems disturb the community most. What, specifically, do police deal with? Incidents. Citizens’ problems and concerns. What determines the effectiveness of the police? Response times. Public cooperation. What view do police take of service calls? Deal with them only if there is no real police work to do. Vital function and great opportunity. What is police professionalism? Swift effective response to serious crime Keeping close to the community. What kind of intelligence is most important? Crime intelligence (study of particular crimes or series of crimes). Criminal intelligence (information about the activities of individuals or groups). What is the essential nature of police accountability Highly centralized; governed by rules and regulations and policy directives; accountable to the law. Emphasis on local accountability to community needs. What is the role of headquarters? To provide the necessary rules and policy directives. To preach organizational values. What is the role of the press liaison department? To keep the “heat” off operational officers so they can get on with the job. To coordinate an essential channel of communication with the community. How do the police regard prosecutions? As an important goal. As one tool among many. Sparrow (1988) presents a direct comparison between traditional policing and community-based policing, and has delved on the difficulties that come with a transition from one to the other. One such obstacle is the strength of the police culture which will certainly impede the transition to a community-based police system. This paradigm shift will take substantial time to accomplish. In cases where members of the force are already complacent with and accustomed to the status quo, it may be worthwhile for the chief to point out the weaknesses of the present system – the organization itself; its mission, vision and objectives; the efficacy of its technologies; and even its self-image (Sparrrow, 1988). Distinctions between Community-based Policing and Other Approaches To concretely carry out community-based policing, it is necessary for the members of the police force to have a good grasp of community definitions and of their most pressing needs. This is in contrast with problem-based policing in which the process of problem identification and resolution is mainly to the accountability of the police. They are deemed the experts in the most preponderant crimes, priorities of citizens, and resources. On the contrary, the community-based policing approach views the citizen as the better authority and whose views are given more weight (Moore & Torjanowicz, 1988). In professional crime fighting, the involvement of the police in domestic quarrels, runaway delinquents, and traffic accidents represent distractions, these represent opportunities for increase interaction with the community. Under this approach, activities such as drug based programs in schools, orientations for drunk driving, and juvenile justice programs are worthwhile (Moore & Trojanowicz, 1988). The Importance of Organizational Culture Change A discussion of organizational culture is warranted. According to Deal and Kennedy:” Culture by definition is elusive, intangible, implicit, taken for granted, but every organization develops a set of assumptions, understandings, and implicit rules that govern day-to-day behavior in the work place. Participants often describe these patterns as the "way we do things around here", and thus sanction and reinforce them (Deal & Kennedy, 1983, p. 501)." Whereas Deal and Kennedy (1983) view "corporate culture" as a total organizational phenomenon, affected by groups of people throughout the organization, Thompson and McHugh view culture as a management instrument that:"... Mobilizes combinations of values, language, rituals and myths, is seen as the key factor in unlocking commitment and enthusiasm of employees” (Thompson & Luthans, 1990). It has been held that organizational culture, once established, is difficult to change. This is explained in the context of Bandura's social learning theory, where the creation of a new organizational culture would entail learning new behaviors that is complex (Thompson & Luthans, 1990). But in dealing with corporate change, there are two ways by which this culture change may be instigated: first, by changing the culture in order to suit the strategy (Allen & Dyer, 1980); or, second, by designing the strategy according to what is attainable given the current culture (Schein, 1990). But then again, before either of these two methods may be applied, a ‘culture review’ is needed in order to ascertain what approach is best suited (Robbins & Barnwell, 1991; Wilkins, 1983). In the case of the police force, the more applicable strategy is the overhaul of the culture in order to suit its strategy of effective community-based policing. After going through the organization-wide interventions, the following section specifies recommendations at the level of the police officer. Recommendations for the Individual Police Officer Community based policing will entail certain changes at the individual level. First, there will be a redefinition of the roles and responsibilities of the police officer. Apart from crime control, he will have to perform other tasks as well, including “preventing crime, promoting order, resolving disputes, and providing emergency assistance in social crises” (p. 3). The jurisdiction of the officer likewise expands, as he proactively decides on what to do in looking after the community’s welfare. Meese (1993) further asserts that the transition to community-based policing requires a change in outlook and theirs, the public’s and the department’s perception of individual officers. He proposes that this be addressed through a revision of the police rank system, using nonmilitary titles. Moreover, a rewards system that reflects this status should also be established. While modification of titles and rank structure are beneficial, these are not adequate, and they must be empowered: that is, they should be given sufficient autonomy in decision making, problem solving, collaborating with community leaders, and enhancing the conditions of the communities they look after. Still towards the end of professionalizing the practice, the selection of college graduates is recommended. Candidates ought to have exhibited the competencies of leadership, communication skills, persuasion skills, and the ability to motivate others to be effective (Meese, 1993). Requisites for Transitioning from the Traditional Policing Model Greene (2000) puts forth three factors that are required for community policing to be effective, namely the association of the police to “overarching constitutional processes”; autonomy and detachment from politics; and a belief that the police force is the core means of maintaining social order (Greene, 2000). Greene (2000) recommends that the police force carry out six critical factors to maintain “changes in role, function and organization.” First, there must be a decentralization of authority and accountability. This is needed so that community services are mutually advantageous for both the community and the police force. Next there must be enhanced police bureaucracy by changing the current focal point of keeping documentation and reporting incidents to problem solving and analytical thinking. A third point entails an overhaul of the police force’s organizational culture, which calls for the change of all components of the force, including symbolism, language, and beliefs. There must also be increased community involvement in drafting policy. As a corollary, the police force must be actively involved at the local government level, particularly in issues that influence police services. Finally, he encourages emphasis on quality assurance systems; sustaining the integrity of the police force; and the impartial treatment of the citizenry (Greene, 2000). The help of external parties would certainly expedite the process of change. That is, the chief officer may elicit public support for the new approach to policing, suggesting that the weaknesses of the present system are direct outcomes of the weaknesses of the traditional approach. Moreover, pressure groups may also be used to more explicitly express concerns, and lend support to his proposition of change (Sparrow, 1988). The strongly mechanistic structure of the police force precludes creativity. Thus, there is a need to promote such creativity and analytical thinking. Yet another development is the greater value placed on the experience of the officer than on the prescriptions found in a manual or book. There is also more emphasis on the motivations, ideals and ethics of the officer over the black or white judgments on compliance to procedure (Sparrow, 1988). One other tactic that may be deployed by the police department is to increase their face-to-face interaction with the constituents of the community within their own zones of jurisdiction. Another tactic is to return to the practice of foot patrolling to improve perceptions of availability. There must also be a structural change, focusing on decentralizing the police force, marked by the establishment of neighborhood police stations. Frequent consultations with the community through focus groups and meetings may likewise be undertaken. The evaluation of the efficacy of services may also be carried out through community surveys (Moore & Trojanowicz, 1988). Conclusion The review of related literature has demonstrated the importance of organizational reform in carrying out effective community-based policing. Because the members of the police force have grown accustomed to the traditional ways of policing, there has to be concrete efforts undertaken for increased efficacy. Organizational reform of the force may be undertaken at the individual and organizational levels. At the organizational level, initiatives must be carried out for thorough and profound cultural change. The transition from traditional to community-based policing may only be possible if police change their self-image, role and functions, the meaning attached to their procedures and activities, and their view of the community and the latter’s role. Since there have been concerns on the need to cascade cultural change until the ranks, there should be greater effort towards this. The chief of the department has a particularly critical role in promoting community-based policing. He will be critical in drafting and encouraging the thrust of the department, beginning from the vision and strategies of the force. There should also be prudence exercised in the assignment of individual objectives. That is, if the thrusts of the department adequately reflect the goals of community-based policing, then they shall surely be fulfilled. This means that these strategic objectives of the chief offices must be cascaded effectively from top-down and integrated into the different high-end systems of the force, including performance appraisal, training, compensation and benefits, organizational development, among others. For instance, if the community-based performance objectives are explicitly defined into each individual’s objectives, with metrics against which he would be measured, he will work towards the achievement of those objectives. The other human resource systems of the department must reflect these thrusts as well. Recruitment ought to focus on competencies and skills that are supportive of community-based policing, recruiting candidates whose profiles are suitable for these ends. Along the same vein, training programs must be aligned to these competencies. The rewards system must also reinforce behaviors that are supportive of these overarching thrusts. In line with objective setting, the initiatives at the community level must be leveraged on to maximize interaction between the community and police force. These may include mandating foot patrolling, the installation of neighborhood police stations, and mandatory police support for community-based programs. Organizational reform may also be reinforced through the help of external parties, such as pressure groups who may help the force realize the deficiencies of the current system. Gradually, what seems to be minor efforts at the transition would have aggregate, substantial impact. Initially, the police force has to contend with superficial, behavioral changes, but this is where the profound change begins. That is, since cognition, behavior and emotion are meaningfully interrelated, these behaviors shall soon influence the way they think and feel on their roles and functions. And that is where real change will begin as this is already a more profound realm of values building. This suggests a deeply rooted change in the norms of the force itself, and this entails a redefinition of how they perceive themselves. The core principle in community-based policing is a collaborative, productive relationship between the community and the force; as such, all activities related to organizational reform must envision this as an end. Moreover, there should be acknowledgment of the value of the community, and their participation in the activities of the department, their input on relevant issues, and their priorities. These shall serve as significant output in drafting organizational change towards a more effective community-based policing approach. References Allen, R. F. & Dyer, F. J. (1980). A tool for tapping the organizational unconscious. Personnel Journal, 3, 192-200. Robbins, S. P. & Barnwell, N. S. (1991). Organizational theory in action. Sydney: Prentice-Hall. Bazemore, G. & Griffiths, C. (2003). Police reform, restorative justice and restorative policing Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 4(4), 335-346. Deal. T. E . & Kennedy. A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley. Greene, J. (2000). Community policing in America: Changing the nature, structure and function of the police. Criminal Justice, 3. Kelling, G. & Bratton (year). Implementing community policing: The administrative problem. Perspectives in Policing, 17. Kelling, G. & Moore, M. (1988). The evolving strategy of policing. Perspectives on Policing, 4. Kelling, G. (1988). Police and communities: The quiet revolution. Perspectives on Policing, 1. Kelling, G., Wasserman, R., & Williams, H. (1988). Police accountability and community policing. Perspectives on Policing, 7. Lee, B. (1989). Community-policing: A practical guide to police officials. Perspectives on Policing, 15. Meese, E. (1993). Community policing and the police officer. Perspectives on Policing, 15. Moore, M. & Trojanowicz, R. (1988). Corporate strategies for policing. Perspectives on Policing, 6. Moore, M., Trojanowicz, R., & Kelling, G. (1988). Crime and policing. Perspectives on Policing, 2. Schein, E. H. (1990). Organization culture. American Psychologist. 45, 109-119. Sparrow, M. (1988). Implementing community policing. Perspectives on Policing, 9. Thompson, K. R. & Luthans, F. (1990). Organizational culture: A behavioural perspective. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture, 319-344. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Wilkins, A. & Dyer, W. G. (1988). Toward culturally sensitive theories of culture change. Academy) of Management Review, 13, 522-533. Read More