This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
| Business administration |
|---|
Organizational culture encompasses the shared norms, values, and behaviors in organizations reflecting their core values and strategic direction. [1] [2] Alternative terms include business culture, corporate culture and company culture. [3] The term corporate culture emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. [4] [a] It was used by managers, sociologists, and organizational theorists in the 1980s. [6] [7]
Organizational culture influences how people interact, how decisions are made (or avoided), the context within which cultural artifacts are created, employee attachment, the organization's competitive advantage, and the internal alignment of its units. It is distinct from national culture or the broader cultural background of its workforce.
A related topic, organizational identity, refers to statements and images which are important to an organization and helps to differentiate itself from other organizations. An organization may also have its own management philosophy. Organizational identity influences all stakeholders, leaders and employees alike. [8]
Various definitions exist, without consensus. Lesley Willcoxson and Bruce Millett note that organizational cultures can be described in similar ways to wider forms of culture such as national culture. [9] Some of the definitions offered include:
Elliott Jaques introduced the concept in his 1951 book The Changing Culture of a Factory. [27] The book was a published report of "a case study of developments in the social life of one industrial community between April, 1948 and November 1950". [11] The case involved a publicly-held British company engaged principally in the manufacture, sale, and servicing of metal bearings. The study concerned itself with the description, analysis, and development of corporate group behaviors. [28]
Researchers have proposed various dimensions individually and in combination as useful for analyzing organizational culture. Examples include external/internal, strong/weak, flexible/rigid, and many others.
Culture can be externally focused, aiming to satisfy customers, investors, and partners. Alternatively, they can be internally focused, aiming to satisfy employees, comply with union-imposed rules, or to meet conduct standards around issues such as diversity, equity, and inclusion. [29] Many organizations lie between such extremes, attempting to balance the needs of multiple stakeholders.
Any type of culture can be strongly or only tacitly supported. A strong culture is characterized by reinforcing tools such as ceremonies and policies to instill and spread it. [30] [ predatory publisher ] The intent is to secure group compliance. [31]
Researchers generally report that organizations having strong cultures are more successful. [32] [33]
An employee's perception of the organization's culture can have an impact on the employee's longevity with the organization. When organizations create a positive environment for their employees, they experience professional fulfillment, boosted performance, and a longer stint with the organization. [34]
Tension arises when cultural (personal) and organizational identities do not match well because corporate policies, work practices, and communication styles conflict with local customs, for example in terms of formal vs. informal work environments, direct vs. indirect communication, and individualistic vs. collectivist approaches. [35] [36] [37]
Quiet quitting is a principle that could potentially affect organizations with negative culture. It is the idea of doing the bare minimum on a job and setting boundaries in response to poor culture, burnout, lack of recognition, and inadequate work-life balance. This occurs in unhealthy work environments where personal circumstances force employees to stay. [38]
Organizational culture is used to control, coordinate, and integrate distinct groups across the organization. [39] Differences in national cultures must be addressed. [40] Such differences include organizational structure and manager/employee relationships. [41]
Irving Janis defined groupthink as "a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action." [42] This is a state in which even if group members have different ideas, they do not challenge the group. Groupthink can lead to lack of creativity and decisions made without critical evaluation. [43] Hogg and separately Deanne et al. stated that groupthink can occur, for example, when group members rely heavily on a charismatic figure or where members evince an "evangelical" [44] [45] belief in the organization's values. Groupthink can also occur in groups characterized by a friendly climate conducive to conflict avoidance.
Since the late 1960s, the so-called "Five Monkeys Experiment", which serves to exemplify the adverse effects of unquestioned traditions, has become part of management lore, often titled "How Company Policy Is Made". [46] It imagines a situation where five monkeys are in a cage with a banana tied to the ceiling. Whenever a monkey climbs to reach the banana, all five are sprayed with cold water. The group quickly learn to ignore the banana and punish any monkey who attempts to reach for it. If one monkey is removed from the cage and replaced with a newcomer, they too are punished for reaching for the banana. If every monkey is subsequently replaced in this manner, so that none present remember being sprayed with cold water, the group will supposedly continue to punish any attempts to reach the banana. The monkeys are perpetuating a caution that may be redundant "because that's the way it's always been around here". [46]
Willcoxson and Millett note that organizational cultures change over time. [9] : 93 Kotter and Heskett define an adaptive culture as characterized by managers who pay close attention to their constituencies, especially customers, initiating change when needed, and taking risks. They claim that organizations with adaptive cultures perform better. [16]
Bullying manifests in workplaces that allow employees of higher status to harass those of lower status. This generally requires support or at least forbearance from company leaders. [47] Bullying can cascade down the organizational hierarchy as supervisors experiencing bullying display the same behavior to their subordinates. [48]
Workplace bullying impacts employees leading to increased stress on the job, decreased productivity and high turnover rates. Employees who are bullied often remain silent because management fails to hold perpetrators accountable. [49]
The pandemic led many organizations to incorporate limiting spread into their cultures as a collective responsibility. Responses focused on requiring vaccines, hygiene, and masking.
In Asia, mask-wearing was part of several national cultures predating the pandemic. [50] This was driven by experience with prior flus in Asia, such as Spanish flu, Hong Kong flu, Avian flu, and Swine flu, in addition to SARS, as well as various affronts to air quality such as volcanic eruptions. [51]
Somers categorized cultures based on whether the need of the individual or the group was foremost. He used behaviors such as mask-wearing to measure collectivism vs individualism. [52] Cultures otherwise rated "strong" were relatively resistant to change during the pandemic. [53] However, strong cultures that emphasized innovation were more willing to change.
Mandated interventions could be seen by members either as attempts to protect them or to as attempts to exert control despite limited effectiveness, depending on how they were presented. [54]
Digital tools such as videoconferencing, screen-sharing, file sharing, shared document authoring, digital whiteboards, and chat groups became widely accepted, replacing in-person meetings. The reduced amount of face-to-face communications may have impacted organizational cultures. New members, lacking face time with others, experienced difficulty in adapting to their organization's culture. The loss of face-time affected existing employees as well, directly weakening cultures, in addition to the indirect effects that strengthened or weakened cultures as organizations reacted in various ways to the pandemic. Some members felt disengaged and expandable rather than essential, alienated, and exhausted. [55]
Sull and Sull reported that employees rated their leadership higher given honest/open communication, integrity, and transparency more than in preceding years. Also, employers and leaders giving more attention to employees' welfare had a positive impact on cultural adherence. [56] Chambers claimed that this was a short-term response rather than a culture change. [57]
Deloitte argued that employees displayed greater sense of purpose, inspiration, and contribution. Also, leaders became more tolerant of employees' failure because of a significant increase in experimentation and risk-taking. [58]
Daum and Maraist claimed that sense of purpose relates to customers and the society of which employees are part. They compared hospitals and retail shops. The former had a greater sense of purpose during the pandemic, while the latter had less. [59]
Healthy cultures address members' concerns about the well-being of the organization. Whistleblowing, particularly when it damages a company's reputation, is considered to be a sign of a dysfunctional corporate culture, indicating that internal methods of addressing problems are inadequate. [60]
Numerous outcomes have been associated either directly or indirectly with organizational culture. The relationships between organizational culture and various outcomes include organizational performance, employee commitment, and innovation. A healthy and robust organizational culture is thought to offer various benefits, including: [61] [62]
A Harvard Business School study reported that culture has a significant effect on an organization's long-term economic performance. The study examined the management practices at 160 organizations over ten years and found that culture can impact performance. Performance-oriented cultures experienced better financial results. Additionally, a 2002 Corporate Leadership Council study found that cultural traits such as risk taking, internal communications, and flexibility are important drivers of performance. Furthermore, innovativeness, productivity through people, and other cultural factors cited by Peters and Waterman in In Search of Excellence also have positive economic consequences.
Denison, Haaland, and Goelzer reported that culture contributes to the success of the organization, but not all dimensions contribute equally. Effects differed across nations, implying that organizational culture is rooted in national culture. [66]
Cultures are not static and can evolve over time, either organically or through intentional change efforts by management. [67] Culture change may be attempted to reduce member turnover, influence behavior, make improvements to the organization, reset objectives, rescale the organization, or achieve specific results. [68]
Organizational cultures have been reported to change in stages. Organizational communication professor Dave Logan proposed five stages: [69] [70]
Existing culture can hinder change efforts, especially where members understand the roles that they are supposed to play. Marquis et al. claimed that 70% of all change efforts fail because of the members. Organizational culture, and the structures in which they are embedded, often exhibit substantial inertia. [71]
Cultural change in public sector organizations presents distinct challenges due to the structural, political, and behavioral characteristics of government institutions. Unlike private enterprises, public agencies operate within rigid bureaucratic frameworks, are subject to political oversight, and often face resource constraints that limit their capacity for sustained transformation. [72]
One of the most significant obstacles is bureaucratic rigidity. Public sector organizations are typically governed by formal rules, hierarchical structures, and standardized procedures designed to ensure accountability and fairness. While these features serve important democratic functions, they can also inhibit flexibility and responsiveness. [72] Christensen and Lægreid argue that the institutional logic of bureaucracy often clashes with the adaptive demands of cultural change, making it difficult to introduce new values or behaviors that deviate from established norms. [72]
Political pressures further complicate cultural change initiatives. Public agencies are embedded in political systems where leadership turnover, shifting policy priorities, and electoral cycles can disrupt long-term reform efforts. [73] Pollitt and Bouckaert note that cultural change requires continuity and strategic alignment, yet public managers often operate under short-term mandates that prioritize immediate results over deep transformation.
Resource limitations are another persistent barrier. Many public sector organizations face budget constraints, staffing shortages, and competing priorities that restrict their ability to invest in cultural change programs. [74] Initiatives such as training, mentoring, and organizational redesign require time and funding, yet these are often deprioritized in favor of operational demands. [74]
Employee resistance also plays a critical role in shaping the trajectory of cultural change. Public sector employees may be deeply attached to existing routines, role identities, and organizational traditions. Change initiatives that challenge these foundations can provoke anxiety, skepticism, or disengagement. [75]
Ogbonna and Harris argue that entrenched cultural norms and structural inertia contribute to high failure rates in organizational change efforts, particularly when new values are not reinforced through leadership modeling and performance systems. [75]
In addition, leadership gaps can undermine cultural change. Effective transformation requires leaders who not only endorse new values but also embody them in daily practice. In the public sector, however, leadership may be constrained by political appointments, administrative turnover, or limited autonomy. [76]
Without consistent and visible support from senior leaders, cultural change efforts risk being perceived as superficial or temporary. Schein highlights the importance of leadership in shaping and sustaining organizational culture, noting that symbolic actions and behavioural modelling are essential for embedding new norms. [76]
Finally, evaluation and feedback mechanisms are often underdeveloped in public sector HRM. Cultural change requires ongoing assessment to identify progress, surface any resistance, and adjust strategies accordingly. Yet many public agencies lack the tools or capacity to conduct meaningful evaluations of cultural initiatives. [74]
Without data-driven insights, it becomes difficult to refine interventions or demonstrate impact, which can erode support and momentum. [74]
Change methodologies include Peter Senge's concept of a "learning organization" expressed in The Fifth Discipline or Directive Communication's "corporate culture evolution".
Changing culture takes time. Members need time to get used to the new ways. Organizations with a strong and specific culture are harder to change. [77]
Prior to introducing a cultural change, a needs assessment can characterize the existing culture. This involves some mixture of employ surveys, interviews, focus groups, observation, customer surveys, and other internal research. The company must then describe the new, desired culture, and then design a change process.
Cummings and Worley offer six guidelines for cultural change, in line with the eight distinct stages mentioned by Kotter. [78] [79]
Criticism of "organizational culture" began in the early 1980s. [7] Most criticism comes from writers in critical management studies who for example express skepticism about functionalist and unitarist views. They stress the ways in which these assumptions can stifle dissent and reproduce propaganda and ideology. They suggest that organizations do not embody a single culture (diversity), and cultural engineering may not reflect the interests of all stakeholders.
Parker suggested that many of the assumptions surrounding organizational culture are not new. They reflect a long-standing tension between cultural and structural (or informal and formal) versions of organizations. Further, it is reasonable to suggest that complex organizations might have many cultures, and that such sub-cultures might overlap and contradict each other. The neat typologies of cultural forms found in textbooks rarely acknowledge such complexities, or the various economic contradictions that exist in capitalist organizations. [88]
Smircich criticized theories that attempt to categorize or 'pigeonhole' organizational culture. [6] [89] She applied the metaphor of a plant root to represent culture, saying that it drives organizations rather than vice versa. Organizations are the product of their organizational culture, which shapes behavior and interaction. While Schein's underlying assumptions are that beliefs, perceptions, thoughts, and feelings are taken for granted and can be observed and considered the ultimate source of values and action. However, such assumptions undermine attempts to categorize and define organizational culture. [90]
In the US, corporate culture can legally be found to be a cause of injuries and a reason for fining companies, such as when the US Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration levied a fine of more than US$10.8 million on Performance Coal Co. following the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster in April 2010. This was the largest fine in the history of this agency. [91]
Groups within the organization may act according to their own subcultures that are not fully aligned with that of the organization as a whole. For example, computer technicians will have expertise, language and behaviors gained independently of the organization, but their presence can influence the culture of the larger organization.
Egan and Tate speak of organizations having a "shadow side", [92] which Egan defined as:
All those things that substantially and consistently affect the productivity and quality of the working life of a business, for better or worse, but which are not found on organisation charts, in company manuals, or in the discussions that take place in formal meetings. [93]
Tate describes the shadow side as the "often disagreeable, messy, crazy and opaque aspects of [an] organisation's personality". [92]
"Culture is everything", said Lou Gerstner, the CEO who pulled IBM from near ruin in the 1990s.
The term "Corporate Culture" is fast losing the academic ring it once had among U.S. manager. Sociologists and anthropologists popularized the word "culture" in its technical sense, which describes overall behavior patterns in groups. But corporate managers, untrained in sociology jargon, found it difficult to use the term unselfconsciously.
{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)With the publication of his book The Changing Culture of a Factory in 1952, British sociologist Elliott Jaques became the first organization theorist to describe an organizational culture.
Jacques [sic], a Canadian psychoanalyst and organisational psychologist, made a major contribution [...] with his detailed study of Glacier Metals, a medium-sized British manufacturing company.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2025 (link){{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2025 (link){{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)