Organisational Culture

In editing a collection of essays on corporate culture, Frost et al have introduced three distinct perspectives on culture: Integration, differentiation and fragmentation. Critically consider these distinctive approaches to culture considering the claim that �all forms of workplace behaviour, including management action, is complex, ambiguous and material, in other words it is cultural and impossible to completely know.’

.

Organisational culture is the values and beliefs of the people within an organisation; it is the вЂ?personality’ of the organisation. It includes the assumptions, values and normalities of behaviour within the cultures (McNamara, 1999). “Just as tribal cultures have totems and taboos that dictate how each member will act towards fellow members and outside, so does the corporation’s culture influence employee’s actions towards customers, competitors, suppliers and one another.” (Parker, 2002) Therefore human behaviour is the focal point of culture. Culture is mainly studied through anthropology, researchers providing empirical evidence to view culture, some describe it and some try to come up with solutions. This assignment sets out to critically look at culture and the framework put forward by Frost et al, with an understanding of organisational behaviour. Use of empirical examples from Frost et al’s вЂ?Reframing Organisational Culture’ will be used to support and explain the framework and the criticisms of it.

The core definition of organisational culture is relatively stable; however, ways in which to study and вЂ?measure’ it are not. There are many disagreements as to which methods should be used. Such disagreements come from the fact that researchers of organisational culture do not study the same manifestation, “they do not study from the same theoretical, epistemological or methodological point of view.” (Frost et al, 1991) This is where the study of organisational behaviour begins to become complex. We need to emphasise the researcher’s approach to understanding and interpreting culture and behaviour as this is “inseparable from the picture he or she paints.” (Frost et al, 1985) The profession, values, background, style and assumptions of the researcher all play a part in the understanding and interpreting. Frost et al have taken this into account in providing us with a three perspective framework which does not exclude the ambiguity within the research of organisational behaviour. These perspectives offer “a theoretical framework that can capture the major similarities and differences among the various approaches to the study of culture.” (Frost et al, 1991) They give different insights into organisational culture, insights which aim to provide a less bias view of culture.

The 3 perspectives are comprised of the integration, differentiation and fragmentation perspective. Integration is where culture is considered to be �as one’. Everyone agrees with what is to be done and how to do it. One main factor of the integration perspective is that it is consistent and ambiguity does not exist. Differentiation has sub-cultures, small pockets of groups within a larger culture i.e. the organisation. These sub-cultures have consensus within them and ambiguity occurs between these sub-cultures but so can an agreement, the culture is inconsistent. Disagreement is virtually unavoidable in a fragmentation perspective. This is where culture is viewed as though each person had different opinions on why things are done, how to do them, when to do them etc. Sometimes there is consistency, sometimes there is inconsistency, but one thing is almost certain, there will always be a lack of consensus. The table below shows the main characteristics of the three perspectives to organisational culture:

Perspective .

Features Integration Differentiation Fragmentation

Orientation to Orientation-wide Sub-cultural Lack of

Consensus consensus consensus consensus .

Relation among Consistency Inconsistency Not clearly

Manifestations either .

Orientation to Exclude it Channel it outside Acknowledge

Ambiguity sub-cultures it .

(Frost et al, 1991)

Frost et al’s perspective is a descriptive way of looking at culture. Descriptive approaches to culture literally describe the culture of the organisation; it is involved in it, but does not offer a solution to the situation. This way, it allows managers to adapt the description to the organisation for them to come up with a solution. On the other hand, there is prescription. Prescription offers an answer to cultural problems within the organisation. One example of prescription is Taylor’s Scientific Management, where he offers a system in the aim to eliminate soldiering. (Hitchin, lecture 5, 2004) It can be said that by offering a descriptive approach alone may easily eliminate ambiguity due to the fact it only describes a situation. There is likely to be even more disagreement in a prescriptive approach as there seems to be a larger scope for subjectivity due to there being two sides; the description of the culture or behavioural problem, e.g. employees are soldiering, and the solution offered, e.g. scientific management, whereas a descriptive approach has one that can be adapted by organisations and its managers in their specific context as it is, or certainly appears to be, an objective approach to culture. Frost et al have given organisations and its managers a descriptive way of looking at the behaviour of employees.

Why is it impossible to have complete knowledge of organisational behaviour? Employee behaviour cannot be monitored every minute of the day; it would not be cost effective. Therefore management often have a misperception or do not know of the patterns of behaviour within the workforce.