Chapter 3

Research Tools & Techniques—How to Identify an Organizational Culture

            The last chapter identified the characteristics of a participatory culture.  This chapter explores the techniques employed to research organizational culture.  The previous chapter stated what characteristics one should find in a firm that promotes employee involvement.  This chapter explains how one would identify the culture within an organization.  The two, characteristics of a participatory culture and organizational culture identification, are going to be used in conjunction in chapters four and five.  In other words, utilizing the characteristics of a participatory culture described in chapter 2 as a tool to understand what to seek, this chapter explains how researchers identify a culture.

            The first section of this chapter presents the research of investigators who identified geographical-based cultures.  By presenting their findings, we can become more familiar with the concept of culture and what an investigation of culture entails.  What we will find is that utilizing stereotypes and overall identifiers aids in distinguishing a culture.  The second section concerns itself with studying culture within organizations.  The main point established is that organizational culture is important, but it is difficult to ascertain.  However, by combining these two fields of study, then identifying organizational culture becomes possible.

Literature Review of Culture Identification

            Culture is the customs and practices of an identified group of people in a particular place.  Focusing on people, culture is the set of practices that most, or many, of a particular group perform.  Therefore, in identifying what the majority of the people of a particular area do, then one is able to identify the culture, which is exactly how many researchers accomplish the task of ascertaining a culture.  Martin J. Gannon’s “method involves identifying some phenomenon or activity of a nation's culture that all or most of its members consider to be very important and with which they identify closely. The characteristics of the metaphor then become the basis for describing and understanding the essential features of the society" (1994, 7).  Gannon does not end with the metaphor.  The metaphor is the beginning of how to understand the culture.  "For example, Italians invented the opera and love it passionately. Four key characteristics of the opera are (a) spectacle and pageantry, (b) voice, (c) exteriority, and (d) interaction between lead singers and chorus" (1994, 7).  Thus, the opera is the starting point, but these additional items aid in understanding nuances of Italian culture.

            Next, Edward T. Hall and Mildred Reed Hall (1990) write about cultures in terms of several dimensions: High/Low Context [1] , Space [2] , Monochronic/Polychronic People [3] , and Information Flow [4] .  Based on these four dimensions, Hall and Hall describe cultures and one’s ability to integrate and understand them.  Hall and Hall show a clear bias towards high context, polychronic people who operate where information flows freely and to everyone in the organization.  Despite their bias, they do concede that low context, mechanistic systems are easier to work with in a multi-cultural sense (1990, 27).

            Before dissecting the information gleaned from Gannon and Hall and Hall, let us move to Geert Hofstede.  One of the lessons learned from Hofstede’s work is, despite differences in culture, people have similar wants and needs.  Hofstede wrote, and continues to write, extensively about culture.  His contributions to the field cannot be overstated.  He is, by far, one of the pioneers to take the notion of culture and utilize a broad understanding of culture identification within the context of the firm. The material presented here draws upon three of his published writings. 

            Hofstede presents three pertinent points for this research: presocialization of the employee, commonalities of workers, and the non-existence of a universal theory of management given differences among people.  First, Hofstede states “[f]amily and school presocialization are beyond the influence of the employer.  They will affect the selection and self-selection processes that precede the placement of a person in a first job, and they will influence the way a person works and his or her subsequent career” (1992, 140).  Socialization is the transference of culture via four elements: Symbols [5] , Heroes [6] , Rituals [7] , and Values [8] .

            Second, Hofstede (1994), according to his extensive cross-cultural research [9] , found that “[r]egardless of the occupation and educational level of the respondents, earnings, advancement, challenge, use of skills, and recognition are always among the six work goals whose satisfaction is most correlated with overall satisfaction” (1994, 46). The commonality found is that dissimilar occupations do not mean dissimilar wants.  People want to feel good about what they do and who they are (1994, 47).

            Third, despite these similarities, Hofstede (1997) states there are obvious differences across different cultures and spatial geographics.  Hofstede investigates different cultures around the world showing that a universal theory of management is futile (1997, 465).  His "argument is that management scientists, theorists, and writers are human too: they grew up in a particular society in a particular period, and their ideas cannot help but reflect the constraints of their environment” (1997, 466).

Summary of Cultural Literature

The literature on culture spans from the geographic locale to the individual.  The work by Gannon and Hall and Hall serve as guideposts as to how to identify a culture.  Based on their work, one can begin to understand that culture is a theme.  With the information gleaned from the study of culture, let us address the techniques employed to identify a culture.  The primary method, as stated by Gannon, Hall and Hall, and Hofstede, is to infer a culture by identifying how people find something important.  The techniques employed are quite simple: Infer from statements, comments, and action what people value; (In the research that I conduct, I utilize the comments made by the human-resource manager of the firm.  The most common theme among researchers of organizations is that the person whom is able to speak for the firm is the person that a researcher should seek.) see where people place importance by determining how they value what is important; and generalize a culture in terms of its overall attributes.

            Although the study of a culture is quite difficult because most researchers have no idea what they will encounter and, additionally, attempt to remove their own personal experiences and biases from the task, our task is easier because we know what attributes we seek.  As presented in chapter 2, there is a set of characteristics that identify a participatory culture.  Therefore, if a firm responded in line with those characteristics, then the firm could be labeled as one that has a participatory culture.  If not, then the firm might be classified as one that practices a management style other than a participatory one.

Literature Review of Organizational Culture

            The following literature review examines how researchers look at culture within an organization.  The outline for the investigation is to present the relevant literature, the strong points and weaknesses of each contribution, and to conclude by identifying the research which most applies in this situation.

The theme of Noel M. Tichy's book is understanding the culture of an organization.  Tichy (1983) focuses on the alignment of three dynamics: technical, political, and culture.  Defining these, Tichy states that they are, respectively, associated with (1) technical aspects of work, (2) power, and (3) values (1983, x).  Tichy proposes that a researcher can identify the nature of these poles with: "(1) radar scan-diagnosis, which entails a quick and somewhat superficial diagnosis of the organizational components and their alignments, (2) a symptom diagnosis, which entails significant analysis of organizational components felt to relate to the symptom, and (3) in-depth diagnosis" (1983, 168).

Howard Schwartz and Stanley M Davis (1981) contend that distinguishing, changing, and improving an organizational culture is possible.  Their steps for identifying culture are: 1.  Define relevant cultures and subcultures in an organization.  2.  Define manager's tasks and relationships.  3.  Assess the risks that the culture has to the realization of the company’s goals.  4.  Focus attention on those aspects that are not supportive of goals and support those areas that promote the values and ideas of the company.

            Like other authors, Schwartz and Davis provide pertinent points that organizational leaders need to address.  The authors state that structure, systems, people, and culture are the four points of an organization, and "[n]o organization will perform well in a competitive environment unless these four dimensions of organization are internally consistent and fit the strategy" (1981, 32).  The authors state that two questions need to be asked: "1.  What specific behavior is the organizational approach designed to encourage?  2.  How is the behavior linked to critical success factors?" (1981, 41).

Shifting from identification and prognosis, Edgar Krau states why he thinks organizations are a reflection of a larger whole.  Krau's (1998) point is that macro conceptions and micro conceptions are inextricably intertwined.  Organizations are designed around the values of the macro conceptions and micro operations reinforce macro conceptions.  The four types of values, with associations made to countries, identified are: 1. Collectivist-Authoritarian/Russia  2.  Liberal-Individualistic/United States  3.  Collectivist with Participation in Decision Making/Japan  4.  Cultural Pluralism within an Individualistic Society/Europe.  The reason for studying these different styles is to understand how these four styles influence and affect society in the organization and society as a whole. 

Shifting from the influence of macro conceptions and their impact on local operations, Tatiana Kostova (1999) examines the difficulty of working across a multi-cultural, multi-regional setting in terms of disseminating company practices.  “That is, the transfer process does not end with the adoption of the formal rules describing the practice but continues until these rules become internalized at the recipient unit" (1999, 311).  In other words, they become part of the recipient culture. 

Kostova combines the social, organizational, and relational contexts and the successful transfer of practices to three strata: country, organization, and individual.  She states that if organizational practices are transferred across different organizations within a Multi-National Corporation (MNC), then failure may occur because of incongruent environments.  "There is a possibility that these practices may not be consistent with the institutional environments into which they are transferred, and they may even be in conflict with them. This, in turn, may affect the ultimate success of the transfer" (1999, 315).

            Finally, we consider how a person can commandeer an organization and change the organization at will.  Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1983) writes about change agents, which "are the right people in the right place at the right time.  The right people are the ones with the ideas that move beyond the organization's established practices" (1983, 28).  Her thesis is that “change masters” need to work within existing structures so as to provide realistic change based on the firm's strengths and traditions (1983, 18).

            Kanter provides five building blocks to implement change.  They are: 1.  Depart from tradition (1983, 21).  2.  Crisis or galvanizing event [10] (1983, 22).  3.  Strategic decisions [11] (1983, 23).  4.  Individual 'prime movers' [12] (1983, 23).  5.  Action vehicles [13] (1983, 25). 

Summary of Organizational Cultural Literature

and Tools and Techniques Used for This Research

            Approaches to studying organizational culture span from structured alignment to chaos.  The research analysis performed here rests on the work of Tichy.  Tichy’s work is the most thorough and applies directly to the research conducted.   Now that the theoretical foundations of the two areas, techniques of cultural investigation and organizational culture, are addressed, it is necessary to state how the two are combined for purposes within this research.

            Tichy’s organizational investigation model is quite thorough.  As previously identified, it is necessary to understand the organization along three poles: technical, political, and cultural.  Although the technical and political are important, the focus of this research, as explained earlier, is on the cultural pole.  The importance of understanding the cultural pole, for Tichy, is the most important facet to understanding the organization.

One of the most important and difficult tasks of top management is to decide the content of the organization's culture; that is, to determine what values should be shared, what objectives are worth striving for, what beliefs the employees should be committed to, and what interpretations of past events and current pronouncements would be most beneficial for the firm. Having made these decisions, management's next task is to communicate these values in a memorable and believable fashion which will not be instantly forgotten or easily dismissed as corporate propaganda (Tichy 1983, 133).

While Tichy states the importance of identifying culture, he does not state how one should identify a culture nor the techniques employed.  Therefore, the use of the techniques identified by investigators of culture is utilized.  Another identified weakness of Tichy’s argument is the amount of time necessary to perform the task.  However, by focusing on the cultural pole and by employing the techniques of investigators of culture, the weakness of Tichy’s model is overcome.  Identification and time are no longer constraints nor concerns.

            Now that we know the tools to be employed, let us examine the techniques or how those tools are used.  First, we need an instrument that measures the culture within a firm.  The instrument utilized here is a survey, which was a questionnaire composed of 20 multiple-choice questions and two open-ended questions.  The respondents to the survey are human-resource managers at employee-owned firms located in Ohio which were selected if the Ohio Employee Ownership Center had a human-resource contact for the firm. (Please see the introduction where I specify the selection process in greater detail).  The questions posed and answers received reveal the type of culture within a firm [14] .

            Second, we need to utilize benchmark standards with which we can evaluate the responses made.  The benchmarks, the characteristics of a participatory culture identified in chapter 2, provide direction and allow a researcher to evaluate responses against a priori established guidelines.

            Third, we need a method of investigation.  The method of investigation is to utilize a multi-faceted approach that provides a quantitative and qualitative assessment.  The quantitative assessment highlights conventional similarities and relationships between two variables.  For example, how does gain-sharing correlate to absenteeism rates?  The qualitative approach reveals the culture of the firm.  By using the techniques employed by investigators of culture, a researcher can infer a culture.

            The theoretical approach that I take is consistent with empirical evidence.  The only research I found in which a researcher ascertained the impact of how culture organizes a workplace is that of Christina B. Gibson (1994).  Given that the approach that I take is in accord with her dominant finding, the method that I follow is congruent with how organizations define themselves.

As identified by Gibson (1994), organizations define themselves through culture [15] .  Gibson reviews the literature on culture and organizations and then performs empirical research to determine the pervasiveness of cultures within firms.  Her conclusion is that organizations have embedded culture.

            Gibson describes organizational constructions through four perspectives [16] as defined in the literature (Figure 2—Gibson 1994, 7).  Her four perspectives are based on two continuums.  There is a characterization of culture based on a continuum with external and internal [17] at the poles.  The other aspect is organizational structure, which is on a continuum with purposeful design and enacted phenomenon at the poles.  Crossing these two together, Gibson produces a matrix with external and internal down the left-hand side, and purposeful and enacted running along the bottom.  Gibson finds no research to support Perspective 4, and she discards this perspective in her study.  She then defines the other three perspectives [18] for the purposes of her study.

Gibson’s Cultural Perspectives

Figure 2

Gibson performed a study in order to see how these perspectives manifested themselves in two different geographic locations.  Scandinavia and Australia were chosen, because they represented diverse cultures and had a vibrant economy that made an impact on the global economy (1994, 17).  The author performed 79 interviews [19] in Scandinavia and 65 interviews in Australia.  Gibson shows that the vast majority of the interviewees believed that culture was best interpreted through Perspective 2 (1994, 20) [20] .  This conclusion provides researchers with insight into what actually links theory to real-world exploration.  What this conclusion means is that a culture does exist within a firm, employees create it, it does permeate the entire organization, and it can be identified.

Summary

            Given the amount of information presented, it seems appropriate to summarize the tools to be used.  In investigating culture, researchers employ inference.  The use of inference is necessary given that trying to deduce importance or trying to ask someone how or why he or she does something reveals little.  Only by determining where and how people place value can a researcher begin to understand what is important to people.  Likewise, asking what type of culture permeates an organization is likely to result in little value.  Members of a firm may not even know or be able to identify the culture in which they work.  Employing inference overcomes an ultimately useless exercise.  Next, only Tichy provides the necessary tools to study organizational culture.  His roadmap is identification, the establishment of standards, and evaluation.  The missing link, though, is the technique to use to perform the evaluation.  By coupling together organizational research and cultural research, the two complement each other such that identifying a culture within an organization becomes possible.