Organizational Theory BUSM 3194 In what way does the use of a multiple perspective approach assist us in achieving a more

comprehensive understanding of complex organisational phenomena? Introduction Organizational culture is important to study since it describes the development, expansion, and influence of cultural aspects on organizations. It influences all areas of management, the decision-making, relationship to co-workers, customers, and suppliers, communication and so on. Every activity inside an organization is somehow influenced by culture. The comprehension of an organizational culture facilitates organizational members to better obtain their goals, and allows outsiders to better understand the organization. This paper aims to provide a deeper insight of organizational culture through a multiple perspective approach and how this approach assists us in understanding the complexity of organizational culture. I will first define organizational culture, using the iceberg theory developed by Edgar Schein to explain the three levels in organizational culture. I will then introduce the three perspectives, namely modernist, symbolic-interpretive and postmodernist perspective, with regards to organizational culture and how these three perspectives will bring about a more comprehensive understanding of organizational culture. Organizational Culture Culture, as a concept probably did not exist at all before 1750, and since then it has undergone many changes. In 1871, Edward Burnett Tylor offered the first anthropological definition of culture, equating it with civilization (Page 2005). He defined culture as a complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006, p.178). That definition set the benchmark for various contributions from other social and behavioural scientists to the concept of culture. Over the years, there is a paradigm shift in terms of the concept of culture, from the focus on anthropology in the general understanding of humans, to the distinctive characteristics of particular groups which led to cultural differences. This had Page 1 of 7

Organizational Theory BUSM 3194 effectively helped to open the doors to organizational culture. Over the years scholars began to develop various theories from different perspectives, and there was widespread interest in this field of study. So what actually is organizational culture? According to Edgar Schein, he defined organizational culture as a pattern of shared basic assumptions, invented, discovered, or developed by a given group, as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid, and, therefore, is to be taught to new members of the group as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995, p.42). Schein likened organizational culture to an iceberg, whereby he argued that there are three levels to organizational culture (Knights & Willmott 2007). The first level, which is the tip of the iceberg, represents the cultural artifacts. Through these organizational artifacts, organizational culture is visible to organizational insiders and outsiders (Mills et al. 2009). For example, McDonalds golden arches logo, Ronald McDonald, Big Mac, and slogans like Im lovin it provide powerful cues to its customers about what they can expect from McDonalds, and it helps them relay the culture at the most basic level. The second level, according to Schein, refers to values (Knights & Willmott 2007). Hatch and Cunliffe (2006, p.186) define values as social principles, goals and standards that cultural members believe have intrinsic worth. In another words, the values are sometimes equated with moral standards and are often seen in mission statements of the organization. However, some values are so deeply embedded in a culture that the cultural members no longer are conscious of them. This brings us to the third level of Scheins iceberg model, which represents the basic assumptions of the organization and they are hard to be observed. These are the underlying beliefs and assumptions which may have deviated from their initial form as values of the organization, to something which people take it for granted and difficult for outsiders to understand. In organizational cultures, there are usually subcultures which exist within an organizational culture. Hatch and Cunliffe (2006, p.176) observe that a subculture is actually a subset of an organizations members who identify themselves as a distinct group within the organization and routinely take action on the basis of their unique Page 2 of 7

Organizational Theory BUSM 3194 collective understandings. Subcultures may arise naturally from the interactions of individuals with similar ethnic, nationality, or religious backgrounds. Also, they may arise as a result of repeated interaction of people with common interests (Thomas 2003). As the subcultures belong to the same organization, they have relationships with one another. Typically, the dominant subculture in an organization is put forward by the top management, also known as the corporate culture (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006). Three perspectives In order to fully appreciate and understand organizational culture, one has to look at this from different perspectives. There are three main perspectives which we will discuss about, namely modernist, symbolic-interpretive and postmodern perspectives. Modernist perspective Modernists define organizational culture as a culture that is a variable to be manipulated to enhance the likelihood of achieving desired levels of performance from others within the organization (Hatch 1997). They believe that assumptions and values influence behaviour through their expression in norms and values and that culture is communicated through artifacts including stories, symbols, tradition and customs. To them, organizational culture is a real entity which is operating in the real world, and when well-designed and managed, it can have a positive impact on organizational performance as well as effectiveness of the organization (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006). In order to grasp the modernist perspective, one must commit to limiting what he counts as knowledge to what he can know through his five senses. What matters most to this group of people is the data collected by the five senses. This is because modernists assume objective ontology and positivist epistemology. This can be clearly shown in the methods used by Irene Lurie and Norma Riccucci whom based on the analysis of interviews with employees, written documents and observations, concluded that changes in artifacts were used to reinforce organizational changes (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006). This quantitative approach gives the modernists an

Page 3 of 7

Organizational Theory BUSM 3194 assurance that everything is under control, and that they are able to see the results clearer as facts do not lie. Symbolic-interpretive perspective A symbolic-interpretive view on organizational culture posits a different view point from other points of view. Rather than treating cultures with objectivism, it views organizational culture as a deeply subjective phenomenon (Hancock & Tyler 2001, p.108). This is to say that symbolic interpretivists define culture as a context for meaning-making and interpretation. Symbolic interpretivists assume subjective ontology and interpretive epistemology and focus on how organizational members make meaning and the role that meaning-making plays in the workplace. They argue that meaning is dependent on the context in which artifacts and symbols are encountered and this context is what they refer to as culture (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006). Symbolic-interpretivists also see the worldview as a socially constructed reality that aids members in coordinating their activities and in making sense of their organizational experiences (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006). This context, to which organizational members routinely orientate their identity, experience and activity, is what they refer to as organizational culture. Their goal is to formulate patterns which are recognizable to cultural members and also to understand the particular organizational culture from the inside (Scott-Findlay & Eastbrooks 2006). Ethnographic methods like thick description (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006) are used as one of the approaches for this perspective to discover the symbolic meaning to show culture at work. Postmodernist perspective Postmodernists tend to find numerous ways to challenge the notion that organizations are cultures. They define organization culture as something which cannot be simply characterized as harmonious and shared or full of conflict. Rather, they believe that organizational members share some values, disagree about some and are unaware of others. The main assumption of this perspective is that ambiguity is inevitable and it is an aspect of organizational life (Scott-Findlay & Eastbrooks 2006). Postmodernists focus on the ways in which organizational cultures are dynamic, ambiguous and inconsistent (Hatch & Schultz 1997), as well Page 4 of 7

Organizational Theory BUSM 3194 as deconstructing the sense-making process. Contrary to the modernists, postmodernists deconstruct the notion that organizational culture is linked to the underlying values, beliefs and systems of meaning, claiming that any idea of unifying and cohesive culture is merely an illusion created by hollow and ambiguous rituals and symbols that support many different interpretations (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006, p.204). It is probably worthwhile to note that postmodern theories like intertextuality, suggest that the idea of shared understanding is an illusion, and therefore so is organizational culture. Julia Kristeva introduced the term intertextuality to suggest that no text exists in isolation, and they are interwoven with other texts to which they refer (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006). This application of intertextuality can also be used to describe organizational culture. It suggests treating culture, identities, organizational members, symbols and actions as interwoven texts that create one another via mutual ongoing referencing (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006). This is particularly true, because in the first place, the corporate culture is being set at the top management. At the very best, the lower subordinates are forced to subscribe to this culture. Back to the question After expounding on the three different perspectives with regards to organizational culture, it is back to the question on how the multiple perspective approach can assist us in achieving a more comprehensive understanding of complex organizational phenomena. My opinion is that these three perspectives offer an allrounded view on the phenomenon of organizational culture. In fact, these three perspectives have to co-exist so that it can provide a better understanding of this phenomenon, since the nature of organizational culture is vast. For example, without the modernist thinking, it is hard to establish the ideas of the postmodernist perspective. With the knowledge of the three perspectives, we are in a better position to appreciate culture more in depth, rather than a touch-and-go thing. Having a multiple perspective bring us on a balance where we will not compromise too much in terms of the different school of thoughts. Also, it brings us to an awareness of the underlying assumptions and values, making us more conscious of the reasons behind the things we do and also the actions taken by others. By Page 5 of 7

Organizational Theory BUSM 3194 understanding the three perspectives on organizational culture, it will give some guidance for practitioners and researchers in avoiding possible pitfalls. Conclusion Organizational culture is a complex phenomenon, and it is manifested in behavioural norms, hidden assumptions and human nature. Schein suggests the usefulness of viewing organizational culture from different levels, namely artifacts, values and assumptions (Knights & Willmott 2007). In this essay, we have discussed how the multiple perspective approach helps us in appreciating the complex organizational phenomena, which in this case, organizational culture. Though there is no one best perspective, my opinion is that, organizational culture seems to be the most associated with the symbolic-interpretive perspective. This perspective, according to Hatch and Cunliffe (2006), is based on the belief that people subjectively create reality. Having said that, my feel is that, we may not find every perspective mentioned here useful in all situations. This is when we got to discern and apply a multiplicity of perspectives to fully analyse the organizational culture as there is no definitive answer. (1767 words)

Page 6 of 7

Organizational Theory BUSM 3194 References Hatch, MJ 1997, Organizational Theory: Modern, Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives, Oxford University Press, Oxford Hatch, MJ & Cunliffe AL 2006, Organizational Theory: Modern, Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford Hatch, MJ & Schultz, M 1997, Relations between organizational culture, identity and image, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 31, issue 5, pp. 356-365 Knights, D & Willmott, H 2007, Introducing Organizational Behaviour and Management, Thomson Learning, London Mills, JH, Dye, K & Mills, AJ 2009, Understanding Organizational Change, Routledge, New York Nonaka, I & Takeuchi, H 1995, The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York Page, JB 2005, The concept of culture: A core issue in health disparities, Journal of Urban Health, September, vol. 82, no.3, pp. 35-43 Scott-Findlay, S & Eastbrooks, CA 2006, Mapping the organizational culture research in nursing: a literature review, Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol 56, issue 5, pp. 498-513 Thomas, RK 2003, Society and Health: Sociology for Health Professionals, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York

Page 7 of 7