Group & Organization Management - Sage

http://gom.sagepub.com

Management Group & Organization

DOI: 10.1177/105960118200700308 1982; 7; 367 Group Organization Management

Judi Marshall Implications for Organization Functioning

Organizational Culture: Elements in its Portraiture and Some

http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/3/367 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Eastern Academy of Management

at:can be foundGroup & Organization Management Additional services and information for

http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/7/3/367 Citations

at SAGE Publications on May 19, 2009 http://gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://eaom.org/

http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/7/3/367


367

Organizational Culture: Elementsin its Portraiture and Some Implications

for Organization Functioning

Judi Marshall

Following a cross-company research study of managers’ perceptions of potentialfreedom in their jobs and subsequent behaviour, the author arrived at aframework for charting significant elements of organizational culture. Thiscentered on four "dimensions of difference": a company’s stock of managers, theconceptual job model managers used, significant influences onjob performance,and managers’ perceptions of freedom. In this article, two of the organizationsstudied are portrayed in these terms, exploring factors that appear to haveinfluenced theircultures’development. The companies are markedly different intheir attitudes toward change, one being particularly optimistic and adaptive,the other typified by feelings of constraint and relative powerlessness. Theimplications for each organization’s ability to cope with change are considered.Finally, the author evaluates the framework as an organization mapping tool.

&dquo;You don’t have to be crazy to work here, but it helps.&dquo;&dquo;Constant change is here to stay.&dquo;&dquo;We’re like sticks of rock-cut us across and you’ll find the company name goesright through.&dquo;&dquo;When the rush is over I’ll have my mental breakdown. I’ve worked hard for it,I owe it to myself.&dquo;&dquo;Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t out to get you.&dquo;

Rather than merely providing attractive and amusing wallcoverings,the above poster slogans usually represent a telling indication, at onelevel of comment, of the opinion workers have of &dquo;what it’s like to workhere.&dquo; This aspect of organizational life is often referred to as organiza-tional &dquo;culture&dquo; or &dquo;climate&dquo;-terms that encompass many analysislevels and perspectives on how individual organizations are distinctiveand how they differ from each other. The approach taken here falls

Group Bc Organization Studies, Vol. 7 No. 3, September 1982 367-384@ 1982 Sage Publications, Inc.



368

somewhere between Harrison’s (1972) now widely used classification ofbroadly defined types of organizational culture and the impressionisticevaluations, aided by meteorological analogies, of Steele and Jenks(1977). It is most similar to Litwin’s (1979) definition of organizationalclimate as &dquo;the quality or property or organizational environments that(a) is perceived or experienced by organizational members and (b)influences their behaviour.&dquo;

In a recent research project I had the opportunity to look at threeorganizations comparatively and to appreciate their cultures throughthe eyes of the managers who worked there. Our discussions focused onthe job models the managers used, the opportunities for freedom theorganizations were seen to offer, and the implications these had for howthe managers did their jobs. In this article I shall paint portraits of twoof the three organizations in these terms. This is, then, a selectiveviewpoint on organizational functioning. The level of analysis it offers,however, is a valuable complement to more formal measures, such ascentralized versus decentralized structure, and offers additional insightsand understandings.

Here I shall focus on three potential development avenues. First,there are the opportunities to explore influences in each organization’spast, current, and expected future circumstances that contribute to itsorganizational climate. The key influences were different for the twocompanies. For example, in one, production methods greatly influencedother aspects of organizational life; in another recession, decliningmarkets and a resulting pessimism were significantly reducing individ-ual initiative. Their effects on managers’ jobs were all mediated by (andpartly expressed in) mechanisms for distributing authority and respon-sibility at management levels. Second, we can look at the implicationsthat profiles have. Here I have focused on their relative suitability forparticular types of adaptation, development, and change. Finally, Ifound it valuable to review the value of the factors considered as apotential mapping framework for future work in organizations. As thestudy reported was based on a limited sample of organizations, this isobviously a framework-in-the-making, and I would claim no more for ithere. I see the key to its future development and value in furtherexploration of similar evidence-that is, managers’ own accounts of howthey see the world and what they do.

This article, then, starts with my journey as a researcher throughthese companies. It focuses on what is often the background to research-the organizational context in which it takes place. I found the profiles anexciting and valuable outcome in their own right and have tried to retainthis for the reader by identifying key pieces in each &dquo;jigsaw&dquo; anddescribing how they fit together. They do, however, have uses other than



369

as context for the study’s main findings, and it is these that I shallexplore in the latter part of the article.

RESEARCH METHODS AND DATA ANALYSIS

The Social Science Research Council recently funded a study toexplore managers’ perceptions of the choices, or opportunities forfreedom, in their jobs. (This was undertaken by the author, together withDr. Rosemary Stewart of the Oxford Management Centre.) Choices weredescribed as &dquo;opportunities for one jobholder to act differently fromanother&dquo; and have been contrasted to demands and constraints byStewart (1976) in her &dquo;Demands, Constraints and Choices&dquo; job model.The main objectives were to discover whether managers feel they havechoices in their jobs, and if so how they conceptualize them. Semi-structured interviews with 86 male middle managers from three

companies were the main source of data. This material was supple-mented by questionnaire answers about individual and career demo-graphics and, following data analysis, by discussions with originalcontacts in the companies of the significant company aspects identified.

In selecting the sample, job function was controlled to two broadcategories between which differences in perception were likely to occur:technical/production and sales/marketing. It was appreciated that&dquo;company&dquo; might also be a significant factor, and approximately equalnumbers of participants were therefore taken from each to makemeaningful comparisons on this dimension possible. This article is oneoutcome of the resulting intercompany analysis.

During interviews a series of broad questions was asked, developedvia a pilot study to allow subjects maximum freedom to express theirown concepts. Essentially, managers were encouraged to explain howthey did their jobs and what influenced their behavior. Interviews weretape-recorded and full transcripts used as the basis for a data-guidedcontent analysis as is appropriate to achieving initial understanding inwhat is still (surprisingly) a relatively uncharted area. From analysis,four central themes emerged: the perceptions or models managers heldof their jobs; their more behavior-directed working strategies; factorsthey identified as influencing how they do their jobs; and their percep-tions of potential choice or freedom. These were obviously influenced bythe initial research questions. Two previous papers (Marshall & Stew-

art, 1981a, 1981b) report this data. A cross-company analysis was alsoconducted and constitutes the basis for this article. Significant companydifferences were found on three of the above themes-job models,influencing factors, and perceptions of freedom-suggesting them as a



370

potential framework for organizational mapping. Characteristics of thecompany’s stock of managers was added as a fourth dimension becausethese questionnaire responses also revealed significant company differ-ences.

This framework for organizational mapping is applied, explored, andevaluated in the article’s remaining sections. The next section gives abrief summary of the sample’s range of responses on its four coredimensions. The organization profiles then provide a detailed presenta-tion of the data. Here, only two of the three companies studied areprofiled for reasons of space. The third was also initially analyzed inthese terms and reinforced rather than questioned the frameworkdeveloped. Both of the two selected companies are part of larger,multidivision concerns. Here they are given fictitious names to preserveconfidentiality. Both &dquo;Ilex&dquo; and &dquo;Dais&dquo; are process production compan-ies, the former large, the latter medium-sized.

DIMENSIONS OF DIFFERENCE

A key issue which sets the scene for the organization comparison thatfollows is whether the organizations are really different. Viewed asmultifaceted wholes (hence the theme of &dquo;portraiture&dquo;), they certainlyare. However, they also show similarities by often sharing a commonbase in the range of a particular factor represented. This is typicallyoverlaid with some consistency in the emphasis for a particularcompany, marking out its distinctiveness. For example, while somemanagers from each company talked about delegation, it was particu-larly a concern for those in Ilex.

I shall briefly describe the four dimensions of the organizationalmapping framework (see Marshall & Stewart, 1981a, 1981b for moredetail) before proceeding in the next two sections to report eachcompany’s profile in these terms.

Personal Characteristics of theCompany’s Stock of Managers

Reviewing the individual and career demographics included forstudy, we find considerable consistency across the sample. For age,marital status, length of time in current job, and number of subordi-nates, the distribution for all three company samples was closely similar.Mean scores and distributions on a &dquo;job involvement&dquo; index (slightlyadapted from Bailyn, 1977) were virtually identical. Marked differencesdo appear on job functions contacted, participants’ educational back-grounds, and whether managers had worked only for that employer. Onthese dimensions, real differences appear in the pool of managers



371

employed, obviously a significant descriptive variable with manyimplications for the company’s functioning and culture.

Job Models Used in the Organizations

From the main study, managers’ job models can be classified intothree broad categories: &dquo;job analysis,&dquo; &dquo;focused,&dquo; and &dquo;holistic.&dquo; Thesewere differentially distributed across the companies. Job analysis ischaracterized by analytic thinking; demarcating different areas ofresponsibility; and concerns about constraints, time, and delegation. Thestatement, &dquo;My job is to achieve the right balance between my variousresponsibilities,&dquo; illustrates this approach. &dquo;Focused&dquo; managers sawtheir jobs as a few key priorities. For example, &dquo;My job is to produce X inthe most economical way, so I’m always looking at different ways toreduce costs.&dquo; Managers whose job perceptions I have labeled &dquo;holistic&dquo;repeat two themes of change and adaptation, but are unable, nor think ituseful, to be more explicit: &dquo;It’s hard to describe my job precisely, it’smany things and it changes even day to day sometimes. I can give yousome examples of what it involves,&dquo; is a typical comment.

It is interesting that the conceptual models managers used abouttheir jobs differed more between companies than did their workingstrategies (general approaches to doing their jobs). This suggests, first,that company uniformities are more in attitudes to work-a company’s&dquo;philosophy&dquo;-than in the way the jobs are actually performed, andsecond, that perceptions at the overall &dquo;job model&dquo; level influencebehavior less than we had thought. Perhaps individuals’ attitudes aremore open to shaping, through company &dquo;socialization,&dquo; than are theirabilities to do things differently.

Significant Factors Influencing Job Performance

Against a common broad range of personal, relationship, organiza-tional, and historical factors, managers from the two companies differedin those they identified as important influences on their behavior atwork.

Perceptions of Freedom

The most significant intercompany difference, from the viewpoint ofthe main study, was the difference in the amount of freedom or choicemanagers felt they had, and their attitudes to that choice. In these terms,the sample represented the fullest potential range from &dquo;I have as muchchoice as I can handle&dquo; and estimates of freedom at 100%, to &dquo;none.&dquo;



372

Managers in one company felt markedly less free than those in theothers.

PROFILES OF THE COMPANIES

Having set the scene and identified those aspects on which companiesdid and did not differ markedly, I should now like to paint a portrait foreach of its distinguishing features. Where appropriate, I shall makelinks between possibly related emphases and include explanations giventhe researcher by contacts in the company who were consulted afteranalysis.

Ilex

Figure 1 shows diagrammatically the significant characteristics ofIlex on the four dimensions of difference. In the profile below, dimen-sions 2, 3, and 4 are described together to achieve a more holistic andinterrelated company profile. On dimension 1, &dquo;personal characteris-tics,&dquo; managers from Ilex were less seldom in production and morefrequently in research and development functions than those from Dais.Consistent with this, most had had a university education, and 40% hadpostgraduate qualifications. Members of this group work in jobs with asignificant technical content. By no means all, as will become apparentlater, actually see themselves as managers. As Keenan (1980) has said ofa similar group:

The point is that, because of the nature of their personal values, their educationand training, and the nature of the job (they) have to do, the successfulaccomplishment of meaningful technical work is at the centre of theirperception of themselves in their jobs.

They had previously been more mobile than other members of thesample, both between companies and between jobs within companies,and could thus be described as more &dquo;cosmopolitan.&dquo;

Ilex managers’ accounts of working life reveal a fundamental conflictbetween the workings of the company system and their own needs forpersonal satisfaction. The resulting tensions are evident in their answers,particularly those about freedom in their jobs, but are tempered byallowances, expectations, and positive attitudes to security whichdrastically reduce potential antagonism toward the company.

Describing their jobs, managers in Ilex concentrate on analyticalperceptions and models to a far greater extent than other members of thesample. (Their extended, technical education may well contribute to thisapproach.) They describe their jobs in detail and demarcate areas ofresponsibility. &dquo;Opportunities for choice&dquo; are often seen as opportunities



373

to emphasize one such area in preference to another. Boundaries are setby the constraints imposed on their behavior by given conditions ofproduction, technology, or the market, or by company policy andimposed procedures that appear repeatedly in their accounts. The latter,&dquo;company&dquo; factors are the most openly criticized. Managers’ mostcommon complaints are having to attend frequent meetings that seemlargely irrelevant to their productive/technical tasks, and a companyemphasis on conformity that deters them from taking initiatives.

&dquo;Job description&dquo; also emerged as the most significant factor leadingto opportunities for choice in a job. Ilex managers spoke in terms of thesize of the job as the main determiner of management freedom. Morefreedom is found in big jobs, those with &dquo;wide objectives&dquo; or &dquo;a wideremit.&dquo; Despite their emphasis on job descriptions and assigned respon-sibilities, it is apparent that in this company, authority is not conferredunconditionally. Managers in Ilex are subject to continual intrusionsupon their work from other members of the organization-most signif-icantly, these come from central company policies and departments,from immediate superiors, and from subordinates who are officiallyallowed substantial participation. The boundaries around Ilex jobs aretherefore highly permeable, in marked contrast to the impermeable



374

boundaries enjoyed by Dais managers. While both companies are partsof larger concerns, there is more emphasis in Ilex to achieve consistentemployment conditions across sites to stabilize labor relations.

Further preoccupations of Ilex managers were time and delegation.Most felt there was insufficient time for them to do their work

(particularly to innovate or plan ahead) satisfactorily. Many reportedfinding delegation difficult, mainly because they did not want to givesatisfying technical tasks to subordinates and/or distrusted the latter’scompetence. They applied their analytic orientation to this problem areatoo, and many discussed at length the issues involved and the merits ofdifferent techniques of delegation.

Despite their technical skills and previous career mobility, Ilexmanagers placed a surprisingly low value on experience as an influenceon current performance. This appears to reflect both their own ambiv-alence about management jobs-which reduce their technical satisfac-tion and are not seen as intrinsically offering more freedom-and thepremium the company places on youth and being up-to-date technically.The culture’s devaluing of past experience contributes to managers’feelings of insecurity. Interviewees in Ilex were more likely than othersin the sample to report a &dquo;project approach&dquo; as their natural style ofworking. This style, in which a sequence of objectives are systematicallyidentified and worked toward leads to regular, highly visible outcomesas demonstrations of competence and seems highly appropriate if

competition and current job performance are valued more highly thanseniority. One manager applied this policy to new jobs particularlyexplicitly. He tackles first a highly visible area-such as absenteeism-in which he can have maximum, speedy impact.When asked what factors influence how they do their jobs (dimension

3), managers in Ilex described the above factors (particularly the natureof the job), portraying them almost wholly as constraints on behavior.They also expanded on the role played by their immediate superiors. Forsome, this was a positive factor associated with conferring rather thandenying freedom. Many, however, described their immediate reportingrelationship as highly demanding in terms of both time and detailedinformation. This appeared to result from a combination of highermanagement/central company intrusion filtering downward and theirown bosses’ difficulties in relation to delegation.

Focusing the above strands in this company’s profile on the issue ofperceptions of freedom (dimension 4), we find a group who feel highlyconstrained by their jobs. Answers to more simple direct researchquestions bear out this impression. Of the 19 managers in the totalsample saying they have no, little, or limited opportunities for choice intheir jobs, 13 (68%) were from Ilex. Even in the next category ofresponses to this question, in which they did not outnumber othergroups, Ilex managers portrayed their position more negatively. Man-



375

agers from the other company saw &dquo;freedom within defined boundaries&dquo;as reasonable and as matched against responsibilities. Their estimates ofwhat percentage of the job this represented were optimistically high(70%-100%). Ilex managers used instead the phrase &dquo;freedom withincertain constraints&dquo; and estimates of opportunities for choice were muchlower (about 30%). We can speculate on the factors that contribute to Ilexmanagers’ relative feelings of powerlessness. One of the explanationsthey themselves give stands out as particularly credible. They describetheir jobs as &dquo;open&dquo; positions in which other people are constantlyinterfering. Structural factors may contribute to making this situationinevitable: The company is one of sophisticated technology and longchains of command. In addition, lack of opportunities at a company levelmay be reflected in these individuals’ replies. Ilex faces a static, if notdeclining, market which may have contributed to loss of motivationwithin jobs, as well as to reduced promotional and career opportunities.

On the other side of the job/manager equation are those personalcharacteristics that the managers see as influencing their behavior atwork and, especially in this company, the way individuals react toperceived demands and constraints in the work environment. Ilexmanagers recognize certain personal factors that affect their work-principally their own strengths and interests. They also demonstrate awillingness to accept constraint, even to work toward it. These managersdid not, when asked, want more opportunities for choice (although somesaid they might like less constraint). Several reasons emerged for this:They cited possible negative consequences of choice (it makes the jobmore uncertain and difficult); they also revealed criteria (possiblyprotective rationalizations) of the amount of choice they judged &dquo;reason-able&dquo; and said that they had as much freedom as they could expect in aless-than-ideal world. Some managers spoke of adopting strategies thatserved actively to reduce the number of opportunities for choice in theirjobs, and others of recognizing, but passively perpetuating, a situation oflimited freedom.

The overall picture, then, is of a group of well-qualified, technicalspecialists who naturally apply analytic concepts to their jobs. They feelat the same time both constrained and more secure working in a large,centrally and participatively managed company.

Dais

Dais’s stock of managers (dimension 1) were more likely than othersto have worked for only one company during their careers (that is, were&dquo;local&dquo; in this respect). The majority had had no formal postschooleducation, but 25% had been to university. This company’s sample cameslightly more often from sales and marketing functions than did those



376

from Ilex. This distribution was consistent with the mix of managers inthe company. The extent to which Dais moved managers betweenfunctions was striking, particularly the &dquo;normality&dquo; of moves betweensales and production. This is made more possible than in other firms by arelatively low-level technology, so that individuals are more transfer-able.

Managers in Dais perceive their jobs markedly differently from theirIlex contemporaries. They emphasize the decision making implicit in aparticular position, around which a relatively impermeable boundaryexists. The company culture is described as explicitly encouraging theuse of opportunities for choices. Areas of responsibility are clearlydefined and authority freely given. Managers say that they haveopportunities for choice in their jobs because they are &dquo;in charge.&dquo; Theysee more choices open to them in methods of meeting objectives andtackling problems than do managers in other companies. Furtherdiscussion with the company revealed a structural influence fosteringthe operation of departments as &dquo;watertight&dquo; compartments. Typically,different trade unions are represented, reducing the overlap of respon-sibility (and needs for liaison) between departmental managers.

One major choice that Dais managers identified is that between doinga job passively (accepting set procedures, keeping within departmentalboundaries, and so forth) and taking a more active, confrontingapproach. The majority feel that they take, and are encouraged by thecompany culture to take, the latter approach. Performance is searchinglyassessed. Employees are very satisfied with the rewards of success, butare also highly aware of the possible penalties of failure. Severalreported that their predecessor had been summarily removed from thejob for failing to perform to expectation or to cope with new companypriorities. Being nominated as a replacement, often with &dquo;new broom&dquo;implications, was both an honor and a pressure. More than those in anyother company studied, these interviewees were explicitly career-oriented (including showing an awareness of past career choices), andthis ties in with the frequently repeated theme of &dquo;assessment.&dquo; Adominant criterion in the company (which appears to be a key value ofthe company culture) is an individual’s ability to adapt to change.Change might come from any direction, and relatively recent changes ofsenior personnel, requiring an adaptation to a new company philosophy,had obviously played a part in fostering this organizational priority. Thecompany is successful in the main with expanding markets, and thismay well contribute significantly to the atmosphere of optimism andopportunities apparent throughout the interviews.

Rather than describe their jobs as lists of tasks or definable respon-sibilities, Dais managers more often see them &dquo;holistically&dquo; as constantlychanging entities that require sensitivity from their holders and anability to react appropriately and flexibly. Despite the &dquo;up-to-date&dquo;



377

emphasis, experience is important too, and there is ample anecdotalevidence that building up a reputation and being valued for past (right)decisions contributes significantly to an individual’s career. This islinked to the company’s dominant sales orientation. Several managersemphasized the need to &dquo;sell oneself&dquo; inside (to superiors, peers, andsubordinates), as well as outside the company, and &dquo;communications&dquo;and &dquo;consultation&dquo; were common preoccupations. There was also consid-erable interest in choices relating to whom to influence and how to do so.Several instances of the promotion of salesmen into production jobs bothreflects the acceptability of such a style and indicates that it may well bespread and fostered in the company’s future development. A furtherindication of the sales orientation is the day-to-day importance attrib-



378

uted to customer requests and complaints, which can take priority overthe company’s more stable functions. Several of the more production-oriented managers did not feel wholly happy with this emphasis, seeingit as a sanctioned excuse for failing to meet more routine objectives.

The factors that managers identified as influencing how they do theirjobs reinforce themes introduced above, while adding new dimensions.They say they are influenced and supported by broad company guide-lines but do not feel restricted by them (as Ilex managers quite obviouslydo). Maintaining a satisfactory relationship with a substantial work-force is important. Many Dais managers attribute their career success to&dquo;getting on well with people&dquo;-particularly having the respect of, andbeing able to talk to, shopfloor workers. Some started in such jobsthemselves and now draw on their resulting appreciation to be moreeffective managers. This relates to the importance they (in markedcontrast to their contemporaries in Ilex) attribute to experience and totheir greater sense of personal power. Having proved oneself-in aspecific job or in the company generally-and earned the respect ofothers is the cornerstone of management authority in Dais and was seenas a major contributor to individual freedom. Satisfaction with theirjobs, particularly the amount of freedom they are allowed, is reflected inDais managers’ answers to, &dquo;Would you like more opportunities forchoice in your job?&dquo; The overwhelming majority answered &dquo;no&dquo; becausethey feel they already have the maximum they can be given.

At Dais, experience is seen not only as a significant contributor toone’s own job behavior but also as a base for training subordinates.Managers spoke of explicit and implicit ways in which the distinctivesystem and style of management described so far is perpetuated. Tosummarize this system: At Dais, individuals are allowed maximumfreedom in a well-defined area of responsibility and are then judged ontheir performance; superiors interfere only if a subordinate seems likelyto or does fail. One manager called this management style &dquo;leading fromthe back.&dquo; In their relationships downward, managers in the samplereported deliberate ways in which they tried to coach their subordinates,particularly those they had identified as potential successors. Their ownbosses did not appear to take the same detailed interest in them.Interviewees implied that they were now on their own to implement thecoaching they received in the past.

This profile illustrates how different it is to be a manager in Daisrather than in Ilex. One has obviously &dquo;grown up&dquo; within the company,relies heavily on the past even now, is more a manager of others, is moreindividually powerful and yet visible and at risk. The Dais manager issomehow more &dquo;on his toes.&dquo; He uses less analytical techniques and moreintuition, more personal ability to get on with people and to recognizeand cope with change. For most of those I met, this profile of job demandswas one they enjoyed overall, although there were occasional signs of the



379

personal strain this combination of individual responsibility and assess-ment could bring.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

In this section I shall look in turn at three of the possible developmentsof the above material: (1) conclusions about influences on organizationalculture; (2) consideration of the profiles’ implications for organizationaladaptation, development, and change; and (3) consideration of the valueof the dimensions used above as an organizational mapping framework.

Influences on Organizational Culture

A review of the factors that contribute to distinctive companycharacteristics offers an opportunity to reflect on demands, constraints,and choices at an organizational level. Are some influences unavoidable,for example, but others more open to organizational control? Severalmajor influences on organizational climate are apparent in the aboveprofiles, some echoing an earlier generation of organization studies.These are summarized in the following list:

(1) nature of the product and production technology;(2) organizational structure-especially the centralization or decen-

tralization of responsibility;(3) company’s economic/market position;(4) stock of managers/recruitment policy;(5) officially promoted priorities; and(6) organization’s socialization mechanisms.

The nature of the product and production techniques has important,but not necessarily easily predicted, implications. Ilex has a sophisti-cated technology served by long chains of command. Relatively low-leveltechnology in Dais, on the other hand, allows managers to moverelatively easily from one function to another, thus facilitating thedevelopment of a companywide sales orientation.

For each factor identified, we can reflect on how determining itnecessarily is, whether any of the supposed demands or constraints in theorganizational environment are in fact choices-opportunities for onecompany (rather than one individual, as in the original researchanalysis) to behave differently from another.

Consideration of the above profiles suggests that certain companychoices may not in fact be inevitable. This is particularly well illustratedin relation to a second potential influencing factor-that of organiza-tional structure. Management jobs in Ilex, for example, are open to



380

considerable interference from central company departments and fromtheir bosses. The jobholders explain this as being largely a fact of lifebecause they work in a large company that is part of a larger,divisionalized concern. Dais is in a similar position organizationally butis much more independent as a company, as are its managers in theirjobs. The identification and coaching of one’s successor is, for example, adelegated function, seen as part of every manager’s responsibilities.

There are several other organizational problems which in statementseem similar in Dais and Ilex but are resolved by radically differentmechanisms. Why is this? To answer this question fully, we need to gobeyond initial, one-dimensional explanations to more complex under-standings of the key elements, in relation and over time. The company’seconomic position at the time of study is an obvious further influencingfactor. In this case, some of the marked differences in perceivedopportunities, personal power, and optimism between Ilex and Daisseem attributable to differences in their economic circumstances. Eventhis factor, however, although a particularly relevant one in times ofrecession, does not act independently. It must be viewed in relation toother significant influences-in this case, particularly the distributionof authority and power between central, divisional, and departmentalorganizational levels-to understand its likely impacts.A fourth influence on organizational climate as studied here is the

company’s recruitment policy. In Ilex there are other than job compe-tence implications of employing highly qualified technical specialists.Difficulties in relation to delegation and to the move from a technical to amanagement role are two of the subsidiary consequences that feed backin to influence company functioning. In one company at least (Dais), afurther significant influence on culture are the priorities currentlypromoted by influential individuals or groups within the organization.The pervasive emphasis in Dais on &dquo;ability to adapt to change&dquo; came tohave these connotations, although no attempt was made by the researcherto trace it to source.A final set of influences on how jobs are done are the mechanisms by

which management philosophies and practices are passed from gener-ation to generation. These are part of the more general process of&dquo;organizational socialization&dquo; described by Schein as &dquo;the process bywhich a new member learns the value system, the norms, and therequired behavior patterns of the society, organization or group whichhe is entering.... This learning is defined as the price of membership.&dquo;In these profiles, this is most apparent in the ways managers coach theirsubordinates in the art of management. These differ significantlybetween companies. At Dais, individual managers play an active andpersonal part. They copy their own relationship to their boss in theirdealings with subordinates. Many said explicitly that they use it as partof their job to pass on their experience, good working practices, and so



381

forth. As a company, Ilex appears to rely more on the dominatingcompany structure and procedures, and on defined jobs to structurework. In modeling terms, managers are also, perhaps, implicitlyteaching subordinates their reluctance to delegate technical work.Socialization can lead to shared &dquo;company beliefs,&dquo; some of which werealso apparent in the research data. For example: &dquo;It’s my job to... copewell with change&dquo; (Dais) or &dquo;solve technical problems&dquo; (Ilex).

Organizational Adaptation, Development,and Change

The list of influences examined here is by no means exhaustive, butbrings together those which seemed most significant in the companiesstudied. Given the profile of a company in these terms, we can ask a morefuture-oriented question about the organization’s ability to change andadapt, to survive given today’s complex and fast-changing environment.The climate in Dais appears particularly supportive of development andchange at several organizational levels. Innovation is likely to beinitiated at an individual level, and many examples of this were cited ininterviews. Individuals feel that they can influence others and so takeopportunities to do so. Because of the predominant sales orientation, theyare more aware of and skilled in the necessary communication techniquesthan were other managers. Relative freedom within a job area meansthat managers are able to develop individualistic systems and styles, andto pass these on to subordinates. This is reinforced by a sharedorganizational belief in the benefits of change and adaptation, whichfurther primes the culture to respond positively. Organizationwidechange can be brought about very similarly, if on a larger scale, by theefforts of appropriately senior managers. The main blocks to change inDais seem to be potential rivalries between individually powerfuldepartmental managers.

Ilex is in a rather different situation. Reactivity at an individuallevel-the organization’s capability for continual growth and adapta-tion-is blocked by two significant factors: individuals’ feelings ofrelative powerlessness, and the reliance on consistency-oriented, cen-tralized functions. These two factors may, in fact, favor organization-wide change, although this might well be slow.

A Framework for Organizational Mapping

From the research data, four broad dimensions were identified onwhich organizational differences proved significant. These were: thecompany’s stock of managers; job models used; influences on job



382

performance; and perceptions of freedom. Using them as a basis fromwhich to map Ilex and Dais confirmed them as a satisfactory intermedi-ate framework. This was helpful in indicating broad themes forexploration but was not constraining in trying to specify importantitems in detail. It appeared that in these companies the ways in whichauthority and responsibility were distributed and taken at managementlevels could be seen as significant summary dimensions, amalgamatingmuch of the material contained in the other four, and with particularlysignificant implications for managers’ behavior.

As yet the framework is, however, probably incomplete, grounded asit is in this one selective study. Further dimensions may need to be addedto achieve holistic company profiles in future research.

This mapping framework has various practical implications forcompany personnel and external consultants. Here I should like to usethree examples to illustrate its potential for application. First, we canuse it to sharpen our perception of an organization as it is, especially theless formal aspect of its functioning. Independent frameworks thatprompt revision are important to managers within a company who mayfind themselves socialized into stale perceptions of the company culture.They can also help external consultants maintain their effectiveness.Organizational norms and rituals can be contagious, undermining aconsultant’s capacity for detached perception. There are few advan-tages, for example, in becoming as depressed as your client!

Second, the use of such frameworks can furnish a sounder apprecia-tion of where others start from when we meet for specified tasks. This isparticularly important, for example, in training. We often make (and actupon) gross assumptions about the perceptions of the world and theexpectations participants bring to our courses. If, as many of thesemanagers did, they believe in the old Jesuit dictum, &dquo;Give me a man ’tilhe’s seven and he will be mine for life,&dquo; they will be unlikely also to sharethe common training belief that courses can significantly changebehavior.

Finally, for now, an analysis of these aspects of organizational life canprovide us with a more informed basis for action. For example, verydifferent issues will be salient for consultants working with the twocompanies above. Dais already has its own vibrant channels thatwelcome and foster change. The culture will be highly responsive toinitiatives along these lines. In fact, its capacity for stability may wellneed strengthening, especially once expanding markets plateau. Theinitial task in Ilex will be to address fundamental issues of depressionand individual powerlessness. Any attempts to encourage organiza-tional change would be inappropriate (and dangerous!) if they did notappreciate the bases for these organizational themes and the means bywhich they are sustained.



383

EPILOGUE

Since finishing the above research project, I have had one majoropportunity to apply the organizational mapping framework developedhere to a fresh company, to test it &dquo;in action,&dquo; so to speak. This time I wasin the role of consultant rather than researcher. Much of my initiallearning about the company did revolve around the four dimensionsidentified above, although I did not use them deliberately as a guide(having not, at the time, completed this analysis). For example, thedominant stock of employees had a strong technical orientation, whichaffects priorities, acceptable goals, and ways of going about things interalia. The issues of &dquo;perceptions of freedom&dquo; was also a dominantcompany concern. Despite overt messages from others that they hadinfluence, many individuals defined themselves as powerless, and thiswas reflected in their behavior. Having access to a taller slice ofperspectives than in the previous study, I can also see how perceptions offreedom differ at different organizational levels, and how differentgroups in the hierarchy conflict in their perceptions. As in the companyprofiles given here, the distribution of authority and responsibilityappears to be a significant summary dimension.

From this recent experience I would possibly add a further dimensionto the above model, which I tentatively label &dquo;rules of the game.&dquo; Theseare accepted, ingrained ways of going about things that affect most, ifnot all activities. Working hours, attitudes toward paperwork, andcatering arrangements are examples. These relatively trivial factors areoften the microtranslations of more obviously significant macroculturalaspects. They often only make sense once one has got to know anorganization well but are then telling indications of its general function-ing. And so I return to my initial quotations-the apparently trivialindicators of organizational culture which say so much to those whoknow!

REFERENCES

Bailyn, L. Involvement and accommodation in technical careers: An inquiry intothe relation to work at mid-career. In J. Van Maaner (Ed.), Organisationalcareers: some new perspectives. London: John Wiley, 1977.

Harrison, R. How to describe your organisation. Harvard Business Review, 1972(Sept.-Oct.).

Keenan, T. Occupational stress and the professional engineer. In C. L. Cooper andJ. Marshall (Eds.), White-collar and professional stress. London: John Wiley,1980.

Litwin, G. H. Climate and motivation: An experimental study. In D. A. Kolb et al.,Organisational psychology: A book of readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979.



384

Marshall, J., & Stewart, R. Managers’ job perceptions. Part I: Their overall frame-works and working strategies. Journal of Management Studies,1981,18(2). (a)

Marshall, J., & Stewart, R. Managers’ job perceptions. Part II: Their perceptionsof choices. Journal of Management Studies, 1981, 18(3). (b)

Steele, F., & Jenks, S. The feel of the work place: Understanding and improving or-ganization climate. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1977.

Stewart, R. Contrasts in management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976.

Judi M arshall has been a Lecturer in Organizational Behavior at the University ofBath, England, since 1978. Her research interests include managerial job stress,how managers see and do their jobs, organizational change and stability, andwomen in management jobs. To each of these areas she brings an interest indeveloping rigorous, qualitative methodologies. Most of her publications have beenin the stress area, including recently editing &dquo;Coping with Stress at Work, &dquo;a seriesof organizational case studies of stress management initiatives.



Group & Organization Management - Sage

Documents