patterns are most often interpreted from the perspective of one of the most popular anthropological books, R. Benedict’s Patterns of Culture73. In the case of organisational culture, these are relatively well-established ways of action, common to all of an organisation’s members, being a manifestation of its configuration of values. Cultural patterns concern all activities, including both the ways of proper behaviour in the organisation and the ways of communication.
Artefacts are notions drawn from anthropology and archaeology, which in the case of organisational culture, mean visible manifestations of the organisational culture’s functioning. These can be physical (spaces, buildings, architecture), behavioural (greeting gestures, non-verbal communication) and lingual (language conventions, forms of addressing each other). The notion of artefacts was popularised in organisational culture by E. Schein, but it entails a ←40 | 41→large degree of ambiguity. On the one hand, similarly to archaeology, its understanding seems to be limited to the visible, mostly material manifestations of culture, but on the other, following the example of cultural anthropology, artefacts can be understood as all manifestations of the basic assumptions and values of organisational culture. An additional challenge is the use of artefacts both in functionalist and interpretative paradigms74.
Subcultures are social groups within organisational culture, which build their integration upon opposition to the dominant organisational culture (counter-cultures), or upon looking for autonomy. Subcultures usually crystallise around values that are not thoroughly consistent with the culture of the whole organisation75. Examples include the professional subcultures in hospitals, amongst doctors, nurses, managers and others. Subcultures and counter-cultures are key notions for the understanding of culture in the symbolic-interpretative paradigm76.
It is easy to see that even a superficial analysis of culture elements reveals they are inseparable. For example, the meanings of norms, cultural patterns, and artefacts to a large extent overlap. All elements of organisational culture described are systemically interdependent, but hierarchically ordered. The reasons and original constituents of culture are values and basic assumptions. Other elements of organisational culture are often considered to be the only manifestations of these deeper elements.
An advantage of this canon of elements is the analytical approach, allowing us to operationalise and study organisational practices and make a consistent division, according to which cultural elements can be separated from other organisational subsystems, such as organisational strategy and structure. A disadvantage of this functionalist division is its incompleteness and the overlapping of culture elements. It seems quite obvious that a mission or structures of power are of a cultural character. Mission reflects values and organisational identity, while the structure of power is the dominant cultural pattern. However, in the case of the functionalist-systemic approach, these two elements should be ascribed to organisational strategy and structure, respectively.
←41 | 42→
Some proposals for the analysis of culture elements, trying to omit these disadvantages of the ‘canon’ of culture elements, are based on an understanding located on the borderline between functionalism and interpretivism. In response, G. Johnson proposed a division into culture elements which is not disjunctive and which places the elements of strategy and structure among culture’s constituent parts. This proposal includes the following elements of organisational culture:
• Paradigm: what the organisation is, its mission and values.
• Control system: processes aimed at monitoring activities.
• Organisational structures: hierarchies and the division of work.
• Structures of power: who makes decisions, using what prerogatives.
• Symbols: logos and utility models, as well as status symbols indicating power.
• Rituals and procedures: meetings, reports, consolidated more than necessary.
• Stories and myths: narratives about people and events, the aim of which is to spread information about what is valued in the organisation77.
However, it seems that such broadening of the way culture is understood is quite risky in the case of the neopositivist-functionalist-systemic paradigm. Including organisational strategy and structure in culture means that they cannot be treated as subsystems that are organisationally equal to culture. In this case, studying the relationships between subsystems becomes pointless, while the concept moves closer to understanding culture as a ‘root metaphor’, which is characteristic of non-functionalist paradigms.
2.3 Models of organisational culture
Assuming the analytical perspective on the elements of organisational culture, it is worth considering the relationships between them too. The key to understanding culture is answering the question about the cognitive model, with the use of which we can formulate hypotheses concerning the state of culture. Organisational culture models, based on the neopositivist-functionalist-systemic paradigm, are characterised by:
• Systemic nature,
• Analytical nature,
• Reification,
• A striving for statistical balance.
←42 | 43→
A systemic nature is one in which elements of organisational culture, between which causative relationships in a model are described, form subsystems, and so a change in the state of one entails a change in the state of the whole system. An analytical nature is one in which the assumed model of culture can be divided into elements both theoretically and empirically. Thus, the elements of organisational culture described in the previous subchapter are not only a list of elements, but also constituents of a model. Reification means that organisational culture is treated as an extant, real entity, almost an object that can be studied. Understanding of organisational culture as a process is much rarer. And finally, the striving for balance means that functionalist models usually describe the status quo, so they are static.
The subject literature offers a large number of models that have often been used to build typologies, and have been tested with the use of empirical research. The most important, even canonical culture models are those of E. Schein and G. Hofstede, while the most popular modern models were created by K. Cameron and R. Quinn, as well as R. Goffee and G. Jones. Later on, I will present my own 3D model of organisational culture, based on G. Hofstede’s model of dimensions, which I used for research in 2000.
E. Schein emphasises that organisational culture exists to some extent in order to answer two kinds of problems, concerning each organisation: problems with adjusting to the organisation’s environment and problems related to its internal integration78. His model consists of three elements called culture levels, which were distinguished because of their permanence and visibility. This author perceives organisational culture as a collection of dominant values and norms of conduct that are characteristic of a given organisation, supported by assumptions as to the nature of reality and manifested in the form of artefacts – external and artificial products of the given culture79. According to the concept of this author, culture functions on
