Disclaimer: This is an example of a student written essay.
Click here for sample essays written by our professional writers.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKEssays.com.

Culture As Eldridge And Crombie Commerce Essay

Paper Type: Free Essay Subject: Commerce
Wordcount: 3296 words Published: 1st Jan 2015

Reference this

Culture, as Eldridge and Crombie (1974, cited in Burnes, 1996, p.112) stated, refers ‘to the unique configuration of norms, values, beliefs, ways of behaving and so on, that characterize the manner in which groups and individuals combine to get things done’.

Every organization has its own unique culture even though they may not have tried to change, manage or manipulate it. Rather it will have been probably changed, managed or manipulated , based on the values of the top management or core people who build and/or direct that organization. Over time individuals (particularly the organization’s leaders) attempt to change, manage or manipulate the culture of their organizations to fit their own preferences or changing marketplace conditions.Then this culture influences the decision-making processes, it affects styles of management and what everyone determines as success. When an organization is created, it becomes its own world and its culture becomes the foundation on which the organization will exist in the world.

In the past decade, more and more companies have attempted to make significant changes in the way that they manage their businesses. In a world where rapid change has become the norm, a variety of forces have driven organizations to undertake task of changing their culture (Heifetz & Hagberg, 2003).

1.1 Definition of Organizational Culture:

There is no single definition for organizational culture. A variety of perspectives ranging from disciplines such as anthropology and sociology. Some of the definitions are listed below:

Organizational culture is a series of understandings about action that is organized, and find expression in language whose nuances are special to the group (Becker and Geer 1960, cited in Michelson, 1996, p.16 ).

Organizational culture is a series of understandings and meanings shared by peoples that are relevant to special group which are passed on to new members, and are tacit among members (Louis 1980, cited in Michelson, 1996, p.16).

Organizational culture is a system of knowledge and standards for believing, evaluating and understanding etc that serve to environmental backgrounds (Allaire and Firsirotu 1984, cited in Michelson, 1996, p.16).

Basic assumptions and beliefs have deeper level that are: learned responses to internal integration’s problems and survival’s problems in group’s external environment; are shared by members of an organization; that operate unaware; and that define in a basic “taken -for-granted” mode in an organization’s view of itself and its environment (Schein 1988, cited in Michelson, 1996, p.16 ).


All the organizations’ culture isn’t static: because the internal and external factors influence culture change, so culture will change. According to Burnes(1991, cited in Burnes, 1996, p.115): assumed that culture is locked into personal values, beliefs and norms of organization, because these conceptions’ change is difficult. This type of organic culture will be slow if there isn’t major shock to the organization. It’s a big problem whether organizational culture can be changed or not. In the following, this problem will be discussed: analyzing whether culture can be changed, and if it does, in what way.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!

Essay Writing Service

2.1 Culture can be Changed:

Many people take a more considered view while sharing the belief that culture can be changed. Schein(1985,cited in Burnes, 1996, p.117) who is one of the more influential, believed that before any attempt is made to change an organization’s culture, it is first necessary to understand the nature of its existing culture and how this is sustained. He argued that it can be achieved by:

For new members, analyzing the process of employment and induction;

Analyzing responses to critical events which are often translated into unwritten in history of organization. But rules of behavior are still very strong.

Beliefs, values and assumptions of guardians and promoters of organization’s culture are analyzed;

Paying especial attention to puzzling characteristics which have been observed.

Schein’s approach is to treat culture as an adaptive and tangible learning process, and emphasizes the way in which an organization communicates its culture to new members.

For a variety of reasons, organizations may find that their existing culture is unsuitable or even harmful to their competitive needs. In such a situation, many organizations have decided to change their culture. After a survey carried out in 1988 by Dobson (1988, cited in Burnes, 1996, p.116), Dobson states that these organizations sought to change culture by shaping the beliefs, values and attitudes of employees. Dobson identified a four-step approach to culture change based on these companies’ actions:

Step 1 To change the composition of workforce, organization can change policies of recruitment, selection and redundancy so that prospects of promotion and employment are dependent on those controlling and displaying the beliefs and values that organization wishes to promote.

Step 2 Organization may reorganize the workforce in order to make employees and managers who display the required traits to occupy positions of influence .

Step 3 Organization can effectively communicate the new values by using a variety of methods such as one-to-one interviews, briefing groups, quality circles, house journals, etc.

Step 4 Organization can change systems and procedures that related with rewards and evaluations.

Many peoples advocating culture change adopt a similar approach. Some of these underestimate the difficulty involved in changing culture. For example, Egan(1994, cited in Burnes, 1996, p.117) took just four pages to show how organizations could quickly, and with apparent ease, identify and change their cultures. Gordon et al.(1985, cited in Burnes, 1996, p.117) conclude that : “this type of generic approach to culture has been criticized as being too simplistic, and putting forward recommendations which are far too general to be of use to individual organizations”.

Schwartz and Davis (1981, cited in Burnes, 1996, p.118) suggest that: it should compare the strategic significance(importance to the organization’s future) of the change with the cultural resistance when an organization is considering any form of change. They term this the ‘cultural risk’ approach. They argue, it is possible for an organization to decide with a degree of certainty whether to ignore the culture, manage round it, attempt to change the culture to fit the strategy, or change the strategy to fit the culture.

Though Schein (1984&1985, cited in Burnes,1996, p.118) believes that culture can be changed, he also argues that there is a negative side to creating a strong and cohesive organizational culture. Shared values make organizations resistant to certain types of change or strategic options regardless of their merit.

Although many peoples believes the advisability of culture change and strong cultures in some situation, and someone question this , there are also people who believe that culture can not be changed or managed at all. Meek (1982, cited in Burnes,1996, p.119) commented that: “culture as a whole can not be manipulated, turned on or off, although it needs to be recognized that some [organizations] are in a better position than others to intentionally influence aspects of it… culture should be regarded as something an organization ‘is’, not something it ‘has’: it is not an independent variable nor can it be created, discovered or destroyed by the whims of management”. Filby and Willmott(1988, cited in Burnes, 1996,p.119) also questioned the notion that management has the capacity to control culture. They point out that this ignores the way in which an individual’s values and beliefs are conditioned by experience of exposure to the media, social activities, and previous occupational activities.

A further factor against the feasibility of managing/changing culture is the ethical dimension. Van Maanen and Kunda(1989,cited in Burnes,1996, p.120) argued that: managers attempt to control what employees feel and what they say or do behind the interest in culture. Their argument is: culture is a mechanism for training emotion that is a method of guiding the way people are expected to feel. It can be conceived that they attempt to change culture.

Cooper (1998) conclude three views relevant whether culture can be changed :

Root Metaphor:

If peoples believe that culture is a root metaphor, they believe that there is no instant means about changing a culture which will be developed and which is passed on from generation to generation of the workforce. Cultural change will happen only through the hundreds of forces acting between all the actors, but slowly. It cannot be pre-determined.

External and independent variable :

If peoples believes that culture is an external and independent variable, they believe that there is little one can do to change a culture in the face of external social behaviours, values and beliefs that employees bring into the work place.

Internal variable:

If peoples believe that culture is an internal variable, they believe that the culture can be directed and changed. However some focus on the more visible symbols and artifacts, many on people’s behavioral patterns, and others on people’s underlying behavior norms, values, and beliefs.

2.2 How to Change Culture:

There are many ‘solutions’ to changing culture, some prescriptive (directive)

others more philosophical (enabling) (Cooper,1998). The need for a change in culture is invariably precipitated by some significant, even critical, external environmental change.

2.2.1 Management Directed :

Culture change through the actions and behavior of leaders rather than a process they prescribe a set of actions to create an environment. Peters and Austin (1985,cited in Cooper,1998) equates business and leadership with “show business” and thus the need to create the right atmosphere. So they advocate “shaping values, symbolizing attention” even to the point of saying “it is the opposite of ‘professional management’ “. Drama can be just for impact and creating stories that get told time and time again, such as the when the founder of McDonalds ordered all manager’s chair backs to be sawn off so they would be more inclined to get out and meet the customer.

Consensus building based on sharing: developing high-trust between individuals; allow time for people to change; to set the direction but allow the employees to work out the details, more direct intervention, provide the training to develop the new skills needed. Within atomized organization, managers will be both the bearers of culture as well as its promoters.

2.2.2 Management Enabled:

According to Schein(1985, cited in Cooper,1998):organization need leadership to help the group learn new assumptions and unlearn some of its cultural assumptions when culture becomes dysfunctional. Leaders encourage groups to undergo group cue. The aim is to surface the unconscious assumptions and values of the group as a prelude to changing them to meet the needs of a new environment.

Schein had process models:

“General Evolutionary Process [this is change from within a group that is natural and inevitable and passes through predictable stages].

Adaptation, Learning, or Specific Evolutionary Process [here the environment causes responses by which the group learns and adapts].

Revolutionary Process [in this power is a key variable].

Managed Process [here there is a focus on what can and cannot be changed]”.

     Schein proposes that leaders are responsible for which model to adopt

and for ensuring the group knows and agrees which model it is using.

Burnes (1996) conclude:

If organizational culture lack clear fuidelines, managers must make themselves to choice based on their own circumstances and perceived options as to whether to attempt to change their organization’s culture.

If organization lacks strong or suitable cultures which bind their members together in a common purpose and legitimate and guide decision-making, managers may find it difficult either to agree among themselves or to gain agreement from others in the organization.


Cultures are hardly planned or predictable; they are the natural products of social interaction and develop and emerge over time. Someone believes that cultures can be shaped to suit strategic ends. Even if cultures can be managed is this necessarily a good thing? This is the tendency for culture to be promoted as a device for increasing organizational effectiveness.

Find Out How UKEssays.com Can Help You!

Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.

View our services

Culture spans the range of management thinking. Organizational culture has been one of the most enduring buzzwords of popular management. Why? Perhaps most importantly culture penetrates to the essence of an organization – it almost analogous with the concept of personality in relation to the individual and this acute sense of what an organization is – its mission, core values – seems to have become a necessary asset of the modern company. There is the contentious question of whether or not organizational culture can be managed or not. While there may be no definitive answer to the question.

According to Bate (1994,cited in Willcoxson & Millett, 2000, p.97): there exist two basic approaches to culture and strategy: conforming (maintaining order and continuity) and transforming (changing and breaking existing patterns). The effectiveness of the chosen approach to organizational culture and strategy at any given time is dependent on contextual factors that relate to both the internal and the external environment. Thus, context determines a culture needs to be maintained or changed, but the strategies adopted are very much determined by the

perspective subscribed to by the manager or change agent. In dealing with the management of organisational culture, it is firstly necessary to identify as fully as possible the attributes of the existing or new target culture – the myths, symbols, rituals, values and assumptions that underpin the culture. Allen et al.(1985, cited in Willcoxson & Millett, 2000, p.97) concluded that: action can be instigated in any of several key points of leverage:

recruitment, selection and replacement -organization ensure that oppointments strength the existing cultures or support a culture change, that can affect culture management. Organization can change the culture by using removal and replacement;

socialization -which is especially critical in fragmented organisational cultures. An existing or new culture can be provided by induction and subsequent development and training for acculturation and for improved interpersonal communication and teamwork;

performance management/reward systems -organization can highlight and encourage desired behaviors which may (or may not) in turn lead to changed values through using performance management/reward systems.

leadership and modelling – executives, managers, supervisors can reinforce or assist in the overturning of existing myths, symbols, behaviour and values, and

demonstrates the universality and integrity of vision, mission or value statements;

participation – it is essential that participation of all organization members in cultural reconstruction or maintenance activities and associated input, decision making and development activities if long-term change is to be achieved in values, not just behaviors.

interpersonal communication – an existing organizational culture can be supported much by satisfying interpersonal relationships. Satisfying interpersonal relationships integrate members into a culture; effective teamwork supports either change or development in and communication of culture;

structures, policies, procedures and allocation of resources – need to be congruent with organizational strategy and culture and objectives.

The above constitute a number of many strategies and leverage points that can be used in organizations to manage an organization in terms of its overall culture. The management of culture is based on a understanding of the tacit and explicit aspects that make-up the existing culture.


Culture determines what a group pays attention to and monitors in the external

environment and how it responds to this environment. Thus, as Bate (1994, cited in

Willcoxson & Millett, 2000 ) notes, for those who take an anthropological

stance, organisational culture and organizational strategy are inextricably linked and

dependent each other. Culture is not a separable aspect of an organisation, it is not

readily manipulated, and it is not created or maintained primarily by leaders.

For the peoples who called as “scientific rationalists”, organisational culture is one aspect of the component parts of an organisation, a aspect that can be measured, manipulated and changed as organisational variables such as skills, strategy, structure, systems, style and staff. Organisational culture is primarily a set of values and beliefs that articulated by leaders to guide the organisation, translated by managers and employees into appropriate behaviours and reinforced through rewards and sanctions. ‘Scientific rationalist’ peoples thus tend to talk about culture as if it is a definable thing – the culture of the organisation; the organisation has a service culture – and their strategies for change focus on ‘modular, design-and-build activity’ often related to structures, procedures and rewards.


Organizational cultures are created or changed by people. In part, an organization’s culture is also created and cahnged by the organization’s leadership. Leaders at the executive level are the principle source for the generation and re-infusion of an organization’s ideology. What constitutes organisational culture and its perceived role in organisational are argued, resting on perceptions of culture either as a historically-based, change-resistant, deep social system which underpins all organisational strategy and action, or as just one aspect of the total organisational system, manipulable though surface structures such as rewards. The model adopted will determine which of the key points of leverage are deemed most likely to achieve the desired outcome of cultural maintenance or change. The perspective adopted will determine the focus of cultural change, development or maintenance activities. There are no definitive answers to questions about whether culture can be changed, managed and manipulated or not. There are different views about this question. The view of yours based on your knowledge, experience about organizational culture. Although there are no definitive answer to question, you can conclude a answer which fit your view through analyzing of this paper.


Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on UKEssays.com then please: