Measuring Culture:Anecessary But Insufficient First Step

We know how to measure culture. A key finding here comes from a study performed by Geert Hofstede and his associates (1990), who examined organizational culture in 20 units of ten organizations in Denmark and the Netherlands. They found that differences among the cultures could be explained by the practices employees of each firm said they shared in common (similar to what Schein called "artifacts"). Hofstede et al. further concluded that differences among organizational cultures can be described by focusing on very few--perhaps only six to eight--dimensions of organizational practice. Two key dimensions they found were the extent to which the culture was employee- versus job-oriented and whether it was process- or results-oriented.

The important point here is that in studying an organization's culture we can focus on practices (behaviors and performance) rather than on values, which are much harder to measure. One caution: in measuring culture, we need to recognize the possibility of important subcultures in different areas of the organization. Though there may be a general consensus on how things should be done, variations will occur within certain units--variations that do not violate the broader culture but which can make those particular units somewhat unique.

Assessing a firm's culture is not the same as changing it. Furthermore, it cannot be changed by top management edict. As Paul Bate's study of British Rail found, organizational culture develops over a long period through the interactions and relationships of key individuals and groups-- some outside the organization (Bate 1990). Note that the most recent attempts to change GM and IBM involved pressure from outside board members to replace top management teams. GM's team was from the Roger Smith school, and IBM's had come up through the "mainframe" ranks. It's too early to say, but bringing in new top management teams---with new interactions and relationships--may be what is needed to turn those two companies around. My point is that those attempting such change must understand the network of relationships and the dialogue among interest groups both inside and outside the organization. As Bate concluded, this network of relationships, and not the formal authority structure, is the foundation upon which culture is created and adapted.

The influence of outsiders--the firm's environment--is further highlighted in a study by George Gordon (1991). He concluded that the basic assumptions and values of business organizations are influenced substantially by three outside factors: customer requirements, the competitive environment, and societal expectations. Organizations facing dynamic and complex competitive environments can be successful with cultures that are flexible and adaptable. U.S. auto makers have known for some time now that they face this type of environment and must change accordingly (note Chrysler's efforts in recent years to downsize). Companies in the high-technology area, facing rapidly changing consumer demands, support cultures that call for risk-taking and individual initiative. Intel's culture has shown a recognition of this idea since the company's inception.

Working Through Culture (Instead of Trying to Change It)

Instead of trying to change the culture to change the organization, the wisest approach may be to work with and through the existing culture. Along this line, one recent study (Beer, Eisenstat, and Spector 1990) concluded that successful change efforts should focus on the work itself (practices, a la Hofstede) rather some abstraction such as "culture." This study also suggested that organizational renewal should start at the bottom rather than at the top. The authors studied four major corporations over a four-year period, finding that company-wide change programs led by corporate staff specialists were largely unsuccessful. Instead of the specialist-led, top-down effort, these writers suggested a focus on three key concepts: coordination, commitment, and competencies.

Coordination refers to the need for key departments and individuals to work together to determine how to improve the organization. Note the similarity of their argument to that of Paul Bate: they suggest a focus on relationships and working through the existing culture. An important outcome here is a shared vision of how the organization will be managed.

Commitment--their second key concept-- refers to selling lower-level managers and employees on the new vision and making them committed to their roles in achieving it. They suggest a positive, employee-oriented approach here. However, they also note the "velvet glove" approach of one CEO who, while offering support to those who showed commitment, also threatened outplacement to those who balked.

"Competencies" means that individuals need to learn the analytical and interpersonal skills they will use in the change effort. Formal training programs can play a key role. If the new vision calls for greater employee involvement in decision making, managers may need training in how to involve their employees.

Up to this point, I've emphasized the need to understand an organization's culture and the difficulty of changing it. Next I explain how organizational change depends more on leadership and the effective use of power than it does on any attempt--including that of top management--to change culture. A change in organizational culture would probably result from, rather than lead to, organizational change.