4 Object Levels 4.1 The Need to Levels ‘The first obvious difference between various s encounters is that they seem to address culture at of analysis chosen in organi ional culture research, not only because it provides a good ructuring ofthe field as such, but also because of the apparent Jack of awareness of the problems associated with mixing concepts from different levels of analysis with different object levels. ‘There are p: fee reasons why itis so important to understand ‘hat object levels the various authors have chosen to study and use as a their conceptual framework. Firstly, one of the major problems with our research field is the common confusion between different levels of analysis. Sarup (1976) observes, for ‘example, that there must be an agreement between the level for which the ‘conceptual framework was developed and the level of the object under ture at best aggregate of individual characteristics. There is also a tendency to sce the organizational culture as a reflection of the founder's beliefs and values ~ “the founder writ large” ~ which often appears simplistic and misleading (Alvesson 1992b; Martin etal. 1985). As we seeit, the main advantage of the organizational culture concept is that it allows us to treat larger social‘mojoq 1p 94084 ut povenst nat asat],sypt¥asa4 oAnyjno ywoTIND sadfs edroud qwaraqyp wanes ysindionsyp pue fay 1 [a9) a44 "Ho patssea S] yaseasax axmyjno ayexods0o you [evoneriued:0 yueyrodus as0us 29) Jo 2tH0s matnax 01 paadoud wou Sa 39] ap pue {(puersiopon 07 vnouP ySou ax} Oste pu Jaro] s2daap 2 st some] amy qauyy Jo ‘Suondumnsse yeywowepuny pure sonyen 1) Aueduoo e ul sjaa2{ fexoyjno 92xyp JO syeads ‘ajdurexa 10} “(c961) ‘royps “qons se yonof w29/qo 2m) UeYT FoKRed “paiseyuEUI axe euaWoUSyE ‘ip Worn 18 SOAs] 31 O} J9For sroyaTe—ser ‘Sse SOUL 18 19 daly pe 0G6T “TE 19 aparsjoH oste 20s) aumy|n ABojouys04 f fg0 waxaypp sox owt 2 “ojdusex 205 *(¢961) unsquteg “sjana] iUaxO},p [eIOA9S 18 parpmis ‘29 fs pue mnogo exowouayd 93m1]0> 1) Pantasqo ose axey ploy] aInyM> ‘tn paupeotdde ane o¥s sioysne a4) Jo AUeUr rey} 210U Ose PIOUS aN “podiowe souo fi xaquo> peouduo ye 24oge pue [eaneI09MN 24) BupapssuOD mou pesr ‘pe pagges? aq asn{ 104 eo salI00(p pu sidasueD reIp, peoutauon équsy ‘a1 Soaiasino aM “ajdwuexs J9qTOUR st 'SaayosuaKp punoy parpmys BuLeq axe om “suonejndod payeraua® Kjmopues ssa] 10 910u ur Suse idoxdde saupo 40) yeuonve 403 Suryoteas ye aduroy {duns © uo paseg axe yp suonduinsse jeanez02un ‘up Funeredas 20) uosear quewodusr sow 24) Sdeysad * “onezue8io ay Jo sio190s pur eyo sty) UL Nos 01 pustUt ‘uaowel ys 01 paeN 2, 17 Ajtemse 2m 1eyyy “poprone ‘yp Jo aumeu aig arya uojeambo se parean 2q 01 pus (aun sonsiiorseseyo (eanyno s,.uowafleuew TeMp S| Uosear 49490 Ou neu ou Uo euawousyd ezmyno Busspms uO parins liom fran 2g eur sidaot0s jearBojodosypue 2441 “Aoua}ouyo pue sourtI05 -1ad ayerodioo 30 suonow ur ‘2jdusexo 103 ‘passaidxo se plow ssounsng nwuso 24) dzISeyduI9-1940 29 snk ed suons® pue sivoulaSuee [eUSUINIISUI puE 5205 “wowsrU yduroooe 0} axmonas zejnonsed & YUEN pu 01 spust sidaouos atydesfouyie jo uononponut oy) smu, “Te ue sux ou au jo 2u9 “euamouayd idaou0o arydesBouuna mosseq ua SI parteD 2AEy xnayoneg pue Siag “(cg61 sueyn] KaroJy 438) voreztuei0 uado ‘urepoU v 0 108 pasoyp pue now pue sanjea ‘somoueyy 120 Aq. paouanyur aq or saajasuroyy rad os sdnio18 uo sn90} 0} aansodsiad aunyino B wioyy ZupsouayUY a4oW ng “sieoqyJo ontynoaxe Jaryp uFeLI99 pue Aueduto> 19} 249 ajdusexa 203 ‘ze sjenpripur ‘Bupqeads 200 uorssnasip Suymoyfoy oy Us UOsoYD aay am "YIOS—I B SY4 Object Leve's, ions Nationa cule Figure 4.1: Levels of culture 4.2. Review of Culture Studies on Different Levels e corporate areas which under the label of “crose-cultr acted the greatest attention for some years. The 1 phenomena at @ macro-level, (ie. behaviour, values and beliefs which are specific to the manner of doing business or ‘managing companies, for example in the Western world). There are var- ‘ous bases for such studies, for example, the inter ment style and national character (Beck/Moore 1983; Ouchi 1981; Pas- cale/Athos 1981 jonal manager characteris 1 companies (Adler 1980; Hofs ion between manage- nship between strategy for ure (Hlaiss 1990; Schneider 1989). Developments some interest in the actual n between cultural contexts, asin the cultural communications field various nati (Gudykunst beliefs and we. Given recent develop- ments in Europe in particular, with the emergence of strong ethnic and 9. economic regions across national boundaries,the concept of national tures needs to be complemented wi the future we can expect more A relatively new and interest ‘or Asian civilizations) from a include the deeper bi i of organizations which are in a broader symbolic context research as a resul the corporat Sézen etal 1988.) A fusther object increased interest in soci their affect on the organiza may be partially related to (1990) study of the increasing tendency to focus on images 8s a means of control in companies. The recognition of the “postmodern age" as a highly expressive masssociely has also been treated from a cultural and symbolic angle (Berg 1989, 1989) (see also chapter 11), Studies of regional Phenomenon have study of cultures (jurisdiction), commercial (market) or ethnic (count field of interest.‘ose soypms sanuea“rosuoo stp uy “(€861) NERO, Pw SUBIIAN PEE (0861) | yong) Aq pasn s yong ad20u09 s01NeuR St BID, “(9B6I SHOU ‘FL6t 38e ‘7361 Kpowayyteoq 2) sown Guew! &@ poso|duls ua0q u29q sey ey) adaou00 & jo ofdurexo ue s} i» “ABojodonque wiowy SioqdeISuT ‘sn 0} st sanadosd annaot(oa as0ip"simade> 0) Kea 2uQ “wouawiouayd ‘2anoa|j0o se ~ oy # se mt a4 aunydeo Ue> yexp sida0do9 pay 01 te yoteasor a2u}eseyp 01 suNB95 [8 2408 EYAL ‘6/9908 40 Kashipur snes 3yp ur Suonezue8 2410 07 payejsuun ‘uoneztuedi0 ay1 Jo ssauanbyun ay st paziseydua 18s 2yez0dI09 iyduta Map Axaa 190] OF 94e 9391, jaqesey> 21p1 vO Butsno0y voreases ofp jo wed wrew au, 1940 st qSiie ess [etojieziueds0 pue ayer0d:09, soumyng syesodi05 pue jeuonezuesig y'z'y jporsoffou reymouis uadq sey [2A9} [8101995 ay OI ‘suonezjuedio jenpraiput uo payesjuaouo> sey pyoy fesmyn> ay UL YpZeasOs pduioo Aueus ey) UeEU 3p “yoAo} st ye Ur pon 2g oste eur sayezado faeduos ayy yous uo yoxzem ay) Jo aImeu sq) pue ainyyn> s,cued an IsMpUL prEFaI 0} st ue (6361 ‘19 eueuo 5 wou 24 uy steadéeas ose 180) Asn ‘sojuedon jenpinput urenisuos p ine ayy ut sramarjnuew &% pue ,suondumsse poreys 21, 01 Uo yod s, ysmpuy oy puryoa (syn ‘J9k07 watoyte uo sompnig aanTIAg Jo NOHO ZF Ino © wos s1O1S9S Joxpo pue pernIsMpUL 20 .Setasnpuy, Buépms ur ysor9yu pawausy 349991 Afaanefou w oste st SUL, soqueduio9 wolssaidx2 pue seimonns rearSojoyoAsd ystigeise 01 sidwaye 24 ey) st wonnqmnUoD s,preuog 2eWy uY aiN1293 SuNso1oNUF ayy (‘smeredde orionpoid 2inua 24} 40 vonezuesi0 pue dn Bums oy) 19n00 04 asias nsmpur ay} rey) paziseyduia oq ixoquod sp UT) “Suna|MO TeLASApUL Jo WwOUMO|AAaP pUE YamoZs (9861) s.pleu0g ou s| ajdusexa aC) “TeA9] 101996 j yi 1 euowousyd uisyoquids pur sumyno uMpms u sio129g [epo§ pue sousmpuy Jo so1MIIN 2UL EZ"P ‘sadfa snouen Jo evamousyd euoneziuedro oy sidaouos jeotSoqopoyrour staqr Suss9}sueN ut parsozayUL {qrejnonsed usog 10u anvy ypseaso1 Jo soda) asout Jo suswodoud amp J} Se soos 1 1nq ‘siaydesBoa8 yernajna 241 pur sioydesouupe out Jo surewop au veya sdeysad st yoreesor jo adf si jaiens yuyof 405 wrod Sunyzeas 1661 YOSSI /B19q) Sunjyoud yeuors joudojanop saying Yy “so1uedwos ‘aon ou st Ainuapt jeuor$ax ar2ym 91 pue [230] uy yso191U1 paseaxoUl audonua yo s0380p y81y 2 idope oF 241 puryag syosau geamyno 2up Jo SosKjeue axe soypms Yons Jo saydwexsy sHeno7 12f40 ¥ 99ont 6 4 Object Levels 1s 1989) its “personality” (Bernstein 1984) oF oul” (Goranson 1984), However, for the most part researchers ly speak of corporate culture or organizatiGnal culture when referzing cultural characteristics of the organization as whole, But as we have already noted, there have been very serious attacks on the assumption that the culture of organizations constitutes a really appropri ate object for study. For example, it has been maintained that it is not always meaningful fo say that organizati ure, There are many ~ and probably an increasing number of ~ authors who claim that it is unusual for an organization to have a single composite and readily identified culture (Alvesson/Sandiull 1988; Martin/Meyerson 1988; Smir- cich 19832; van Maanen/Barley 1984, 1985; Witkins/Oue Another source of conceptual confusion is linked like “corporate” culture, “organizational” culture, ulture and “business” culture, The corporate culture and organi: ure concepts, which are the most widely used, have, for exam- ple, over time become “labels” for a great deal ofc research at different object levels, rather than being scientific concepts culture in the organization as a whole. Not also used with a managemen of thinking and values of strategically impor- tant groups. The concept of corporate culture is thus frequently used wh dealing with culture in a managerial perspective or even when deal the company in a particular business context, However, we are accept the opinion that in such cases one should not speak of corporate or organizational culture, since, strictly speaking, the company/organization does not constitute the object level, but rather a certain level of the organization (management) or a certain sector of industry (business). The concepts of manage erature, but can may be maintained th (which has not yet become conceptually exhausted) cept for capturing phenomena at the organizat there might be a possib ay be a better con: level. In our opinion, that the organizational concept is regarded by 4.2 Review of Cultuce Studies on Different Levels 6 i the field of study t no dire: se not restrict academics’ tern \-as said in chapter 1~ use the concept orgai re in a general sense to refer to the research field as such, but...) AS use the concept to signify the very character of the ct studied at the overall organization level. Thus, the ci different ways, but when organizational culture is used as an umbrella concept and when it implies a demarcated object of study (the organization), 4.2.5 Functional Subcultures at the Organizational Level In addition to overall organizational culture studies, there are also func tional subcultures which have been studied at the organizational level When we are referring to functional subcultures in this context, we are thinking of a certain aspect or function of the culture, e.g. its view of, oF method of doing business (business culture), the interaction between cul ture and technological factors (techno-culture) or links between the cul ture and the management system (management culture). Generally speak ‘ng, the basis for the function which is emphasized is the organization. ement culture, they generally emphasize the cultural system which affects the corporate business orientation. Here the researchers, often without much reflection, oF at aij rate impl sume that the management (the elite or the dominating co is the same as an overall corporate culture, commen.to all person basic though here is.that the ideas, beliefs and values of the manageme! group (regarding the orientation of operations and the fiatagenient Sa" tem) characterize the orgenization’s behaviour (Deal/Kennedy 1982; Ki mann et al, 1985; Sathe 1985) and success (Peters/Waterman 1982; Vai 1982) The Gisiness cultute concept has also been used to describe managemer culture in companies (Dahlgren/Witt 1985). However, this concept does not seem to be popular in research, possibly because itis associated with ‘an aspect which is rather limited from the perspective of the total or zational collective, and perhaps also because it can be confused with the industry culture concept which has already been presented, When people speak of management cult18 aoigjo Jo Uon>idap [eoHFojouyy9 s,uospe1 ur aydood jo Apmis s,saidyor-moH #2 ojourpa jo so[darexa Jo roquiau e pe oue aso 9920 ) siogpzeosorjeuonezueiio teonua 20 (Eg6t uresiounuogy “>) sIsHO}HO} paluouO-1oy20% ax0u ay pur (og6t edsoy 2) sisuopyoy paruavo-wwoweSeurus azoU Mp UaDMTO4 sreqap ou, (ps6t wesiowD siayios, pus ,210|-yvaUeBeUeUs, ssopph oun ma se paquosep st 1guos aues ayn ‘dutex9 30) ‘ax0y \pteasor o1opyoy wf si008 sy Sey pro ssn WY SoIpMIS Jo Ato BoyED JoyLOUY ‘soungyno 2ag40 Jo $9 20 “angus fees ur susii0 10> 9420% atp Jo SPapr PuE SanfeA sontynoaxo Joqu9é aly pu s,300U -eueus ay) 03 se 98 San{asULouy Uap S108 ITA ut fuone(et suowaBeuew- ongdun uorsuay ata Jo ansos © Se sopoeretp pue Woy toMy axamype suzANeA TeaMMo OU, “=pMINIe 2 Jo seq 219 sopinold ~ suonipuo> Buy uuessnsy pue Su:puEM pu fypresay ayei0dso> ay Jo worog =u SjfON SU], “9IMH|N9 JosOK ayy Jo suAUEdo|as9p puB IUSUIYSt eis9 24) ‘uo aouanaL UE 2 10 “Loy wonipwon Aressozau v 218 ;oBeueu arezodioo put 2499/09 11208 21 ey 29pisuoo sroyose9s03 Bsaup JO AEWA I99H9 seyom uo uossnosip (661) 80D oyut 30 (6861) Bono, pue (6861) P {q paronpuoo saipmas ou pur (1 ons Ka. paouanyuy AiBuons 29 01 sayy 2a2t{ 0} pouansse snip 21° 9/ yy, “uonewojdxa pu 1 01 soydutexo axe sam ‘pue saingino 200% doys peut 61) uu “(6z61) Komen saanba|j00 32480" 30 APIS s,pseeH -sh7 “1ooy A2o1>ey ay) uo pafsauo ,Asnoauejuods,, 2aey YIU surOned 2 aU! UO S90} ue aoUDrD}oH Jo SoUIEY) JeaFTojOUID 10 ywaiBoyo!05, sro saq10M Jo saIpMIS ‘suonesodion uy sj249] 19m] 18 SOAIT -2oj}09 Jo soypmis asou 39j ax8 aroun ‘puEY| TOKO otp UO ("SR6T LostoIag of Axoa © UY puNO8DIO} 2M eueB0 uy sdnosd uw ‘yoo uaI9yTG uo seIpmas sum Jo NBN ZT oUny yeuoALZIUeTI0 ay) UO UEYA Jay roereyD eIMyfAD a4} UO poseg st SoIPMIS Jo AsoF9ye9 st, yungns & yons jo ajdurexe twon2uny 243 pue dnos8 jeoos n2oF ua pasmdea © se dross 18 are arom ‘sdnos? woneztuedig ay) ut sdnosD [ED0g O"p ~yungose 82) stoyrne j sey Bojomypor m9 30 uot ory uioned oanyn9 sAueduioo e noe seapy “Bun B ov fenuetuer axe yore sioadse p: -odioo 01 uonejas ut jdusexa 10) deouos ayp pasn osje sey sn Jo 2uQ “(5467 puEnsue: ;aquunu a{qesapisuo> @ fq parpmis ua9q ose 1a ay pue Aaisuadord wonvaouut psouongut sm mou pue eimjns Kueduron pue ABojouypo1 to2mIq WON (6861 suyoruosiousy) 0m Jo 224d 24) 18 wsraauasqe “(ea6r ‘ume n2-outjoor Burquosop req) SBojouyaoy ung ja1 12400 “SotSoyens ayer n> 2ye10dF09 yyy pouso940> 29 03 feo Yoryas soxpnys dueyy “ssceue aun ur — [p1seq pue ¥>0)s "y>0] -91M[N9 e820 2p uo ‘asap # usomjaq Sunelt2s0 938 UK sj99} 2u0 ‘Squsnbasjur 10N ° 1ulex2 pue suonsonb ssoutsng pi 2y) woom9q ui soipms £q pazirsroexe4p st At0Baye> 5 sArT 9aao b feweBeueut aye0ds09 ay) pue sysodse ssa ‘y1 apnjaut oF ‘puey sano aya uo ‘pur wraisks arin idura nq 921 eyusHI0 “puey au0 suowpne weqy ferny ‘MIA Jo yutod |2A9] 94) OI oun 4 Object Levels 4.2.7 Professional Cultures Professional cultuze-stdies-describe_how. various, occupational groups 0 be of ni ionfThe organization is then consider secondary simple reason that a profession isnot the (emework of a given organicaton, but goes beyon the orponizaion. Determinant faciors which ae external othe organiza This type of study often emphasi behaviour and bli between various profesional groups within given = for examples chicans and development pe particular industry Won det Lippe 1985) ‘employed to define these communities. The decis thus peop- le's own ideas and experiences about which values, forms of understand- ing and aims are shared and who people identify with (group belonging- ness). ‘This research has mainly been devoted to the profession as such, that ive of the organi which the professionals ope ns are of subordinate interest and are mainly di the professional and work groups happen to nal context, interesting interaction and dyn: previously, where the framework of the organizational context was the to the main stream of thought within the accordance with a growing emphasis on of people's val Since organiza organizat ‘occupation: which may easily give rise o conflicts and antagonism. Culture would then be followed by conflict rather than consensus and harmony, 4.3 The Importance of Focusing on the Level Problem {Ie might appear that there should be no major problem ia determining at Jar research approach 1 text operates. But itis 0 clearly distinguish diffe depend on some other factor, for exam belong to the same nation or industrial sector, the same pi pany (for example the same division or the same level in the organiza- tional hierarchy) or because they have a similar occupation’ difficult to distinguish corporate-specific culture charac ‘example, national or indus characteris are regarded as organiza! tionally determined may fen, in fact, be linked with circumstances outside the organi question and may be common for a considerable number of compai “To some extent, the research field suffers from the fact that most ap- proaches have tried to focus solely on those culture characteristics be> Tieved to be unique to a particular organization, while neglecting those ich are common to corporate management, organizal tracted to the more super example basic values, ways of granted, are more widespread within the framework of the same macro culture (societal typ) (Alvesson 1992; Hofstede et al. 1990). Feldman ‘and March's (1981) observation that information is considered to be im- portant in an organizational context on the basis of what it symbolizes| “stoiqaid pue sSuipueisiopunst 0: peoig Aran & ui {nuanbo pue sfem wosoyip AueUE UF p: mous Apoosye aney om sy “Apnus sip ut 1dsau00 12903 24 AIsmotago St 2umHIN aamaing T'S soydeyp pou 2p tur soamaodsrodsuonuaauos Jo mained paitisHo quoyod & st saideyp siya snip “euowousyd asoy ‘m1 pute euowouayd oxy ano 120s 01 Ano} st soideqp sip us WorquiE an 2 spewiiu ue xojdwioo © amdeo pue Amiduis 0 posn sioyderour arou ox 4 rea Suefo301 tuowoyd(e01e sidaoudo Zuneen 0} pur suo -eouoosi 01 spe ijenitano sn pu ‘parang rj sf euswouDye as0%p umide> 0: pom sidsouoo ain pur suowusyd 21 uodsi0g woHDUHNP sugu rep sy oumesayaweaojan of Jo ofao1 NO UF pode anc om oygOne 2a, wououiosayd autos a4) oquosop oF s\LOMAUIEN IUDIOIHP 01 P=RU ‘adaouoo quarapip fut 28n of 2qqssod ‘qdurex9 10) ‘Sy HoMDUE, yur yo nxotoo ayy over main and par souaLodx soup ayeop on posn oie wep sidoou0 ayy put Supowos se euawouaud 9501 2umnaayeiodi0o wi passoippe evotwoway yo saqtanwe énos8 “ison iGo pre) aay aS or FETA WHET aT wsod fernu20 S940 s10u v a4wy YoLyAreUaWIOLOKE Jo Sdn soqueuspoouatiodyo 10 yuoredde oy) ueout 2m eusuiousyd ini #Xpmis 01 eusuIoUdYd reYTO SoIO4D TeMIDe 3UN $1 YOTEOSOT nsip ofew puor2s ou, “oy Stonezelig uw euomouong jem § Summooxp203 2q 108 ‘ou st atayp ‘2sinos Jo “yBnoy) Uans) aouo:ss Aue UL qUDUI!9 2 {pty ~ a8poymouy jo juswaDuEApE ayp 40} SHON 1wHO! 24) PU Ip A1BA aq Im SiaMauBasax WaaMIaq, YON Surpeaystan Suronpord yo 3st 24) una s12y>1e2s01 OU JT “UIBt40 soUdoM pur sopou 'sids2u09 24 nya) YEU Ory $e [fom Se “POULIO] us Jo 2ouasixo00 aIqissod ot ren ey jo uontsonb w uey) pLOM WI Ayjerous8 Jo uonsanb w asows st (219 syen0T Bfa0 + % 1 oy wossnostp 2yp dn wins OF Su