After completing a degree in Computer Science, I worked in the Information Technology industry for more than ten years, handling international as well as domestic assignments. I also undertook a full time MBA in general management recently and am running my own website. I do freelance project management work, handling small to medium sized software development projects.

People in Organizations

Introduction
This essay attempts to critique the concept of organizational culture (OC) and sub culture and the effect that these have on work groups and teams.

Organizational culture, sub culture and the impact on work groups and teams

OC is a rich description of organizational life (Davies, 2002). Google the trendsetting search engine company has appointed a chief cultural officer whose main job is to maintain the company’s unique culture and to keep the ‘googlers’ happy (Mills, 2007). This unique company culture is demonstrated by symbols such as snack rooms packed with bins full of cereals, café with outdoor seating to enable ‘sunshine daydreaming’, desks which are wooden doors mounted on two sawhorses, rituals like roller hockey matches every two weeks in the parking lot and routines like staff sharing spaces with dogs (Google, 2008). These are only the outward manifestations of Google’s culture but there is a deeper level which characterises the attitudes, beliefs and values of the organization which are essentially person or support based (Handy, 1985) and the focus is on belonging and support. OC impacts the strategies, motivation levels and the structure of an organization.

Schein (1996) describes it as the most powerful and stable force in organizations. He studied the behaviour of prisoners of war (POW) in the Korean conflict. He noticed that many prisoners had collaborated with the prison officers and had made false confessions which were totally unnecessary. He found that the captors had

• manipulated information by not passing on supportive mail or telling one prisoner that the other had already confessed and lecturing on their point of view.
• manipulated incentives by rewarding those who cooperated and showed a tendency to confess and punishing those who resisted.
• manipulated group support by breaking up groups and removing leaders.
• Captors were completely sincere in their efforts to extract confessions from the prisoners.

The captors had created a strong culture based on shared views and common experiences. Schein (1996) concluded that it was:

• the zeal which the prison officers displayed
• creation of an environment by manipulation to create results
• the shared belief system of the captors that was responsible for breaking some of the prisoners.

It would be useful to study the forces that create such a culture and influence the managers to the extent that was displayed by the prison officers, even though the goals of various organizations will be different. Culture of an organization depends not only on its history but also the background and experiences of its members. Inhabitants of an organization with a strong culture never actually question their beliefs or assumptions – they are taken for granted. Schein (1996) further says that members of a culture are not even aware of their culture until they encounter one different from their own.

OC directly affects:

• the motivation of the employees - shown in Appendix One
• how organizations control, steer or overcome external or internal contingencies - shown in Appendix Two.
• Organizational structure and the organizational design - shown in Appendix Three.

Various researchers have categorised the different types of cultures that can occur in an organization. Handy (1985) specified the power, role, task, person culture. Deal and Kennedy (1982) specified the tough guy, work hard/play hard, bet your company and process culture. However it is difficult to order hierarchically the various facets of culture and an abstract virtual onion model was introduced (Straub et al. 2002), which specifies that every individual has several layers (like an onion) of identity and experiences and the layers are virtual-they change depending on time and circumstances. People also define themselves as an in-group or out-group depending on various factors. Therefore according to the social identity theory, culture cannot be classified as national or organizational but is made up of multiple levels which converge and interact for each individual depending on various factors. A diagram of the virtual onion model is shown in Appendix Four.

Several researches have said that organizational sub cultures can exist independent of the main culture and each sub culture has its own set of values, attitudes and beliefs (Brown, 1995; Martin, 1992; Martin and Siehl, 1983; Schneider, 1990; Sackman, 1991; Trice and Beyer, 1993 cited in Lok and Crawford (1999)). Lok and Crawford (1999) conducted a survey in hospital wards and found that organizational subculture (that found in the wards) was more strongly related to commitment than the OC (that of the hospital).

Schein (1996) has identified three such sub cultures within current organizations – (1) the operator culture, comprising of the workers and line managers whose main responsibility is making and delivering products and services; (2) the engineer culture, comprising of the technical people or designers in any organization. This subculture tends to believe and rely more on technology and systems than on people. They believe that the relationship and trust of employees that the management has to invest in are expensive and largely unnecessary. The operator sub culture tends to feel threatened by the engineer subculture because they are given the impression that their roles are largely redundant and can be easily done by machines; (3) the executive culture, comprising of the CEOs, who generally view everything from the financial point of view because they have share holders to answer to. Frequently when the operator culture tries to put forth proposals to invest in say training of the employees the executives fail to act on them because they are reluctant to invest the time, resources and money to do so. They unconsciously collude with the engineers to give the human factor a low priority. Schein (1996) argues that it is necessary for each sub culture to spend time observing and absorbing these other sub cultures to gain knowledge of how different aspects of the organization are affected and only then will an organization truly mature.

OC also affects the behaviors of work groups and teams. Work groups are not necessarily teams – a team is a work group that has a personality of its own (Mannen et al, 1977) this is when members collaborate and assume an identity of their own as a unit.

In strict regimental organizations like the army or the navy, Dornbush (1955) cited in Mannen et al (1977, p39) said that a “union of sympathy” developed among the recruits during the training programs of the Coast guard academy as a result of enforced regimentation. In bureaucratic organizations often one person acts as a mentor to a group or an individual and then the behaviors and norms of this particular person get translated into a common culture across the group. Some organizations require stringent tests in order to gain entry: elite universities, professional sports teams, military organizations are some examples. Such a culture bestows but also destroys individual identity.

	Norming means setting goals and standards(Pheysey, 1993) or sensing and judging (Kiercy and Bates, 1978)	Performing means getting work done (Pheysey, 1993) or intuitive/ thinking (Kiercy and Bates, 1978)	Storming means determining who will control whom (Pheysey, 1993) or sensing/perceiving (Kiercy and Bates, 1978)	Forming means accepting fellow members (Pheysey, 1993) or intuitive/feeling (Kiercy and Bates, 1978)
Stage in Tuckman’s (1965) sequence	Third	Fourth	Second	First
Agenda (Emotional dynamics)	Overt	Overt	Hidden	Hidden
Personality type (Kolb et al., 1974)	Logical thinkers	Thinkers, battlers, helpers	Sturdy battlers or a critical parent	Friendly helpers
Ego state (Berne, 1967).	Adult	P,A,C	Rebellious child	Nurturing parent and adapting child
Suitable culture	Role	Achievement	Power	Support

Hastings (1995) says that in new organizations there will be new roles emerging, which will span boundaries and be more integrating.

Figure 1: Emerging new roles in modern organizations. Source: Hastings, 1995

A new recruit to an organization usually goes through a process of organizational socialization (Mannen et al, 1977) where he/she learns the ropes of, in essence, the culture of the organization. Schein(1971) cited in Mannen et al (1977) has stated that the relationship of a new recruit with others in an organization may change depending upon how much he/she identifies with the sub culture of the group that he belongs to. Thus a new comer who is considered a good fit will move up the levels shown in the diagram below and will be accepted by the group. However someone who does not fit in will always “remain on the edge” (Mannen et al, 1977)

Figure 2: Inclusionary domains of organizations

Conclusion
The impact and effect of OC and subculture should not be under estimated. OC directly affects the strategies, motivations and the structure of organizations. It is important that managers give OC the importance that it deserves and this should be reflected in their recruitment practices. It is equally important for a recruit to ‘fit’ in the organization as are the other criteria that are considered for recruitment. As demonstrated by Schein with the POW study, an organization having a strong culture is capable of achieving things which may seem incomprehensible or impossible. At the same time it is necessary for the subcultures to peacefully coexist. The subcultures need to understand the other sub cultures within the organization and think of the organization as a whole. Only then will the organization truly prosper. The success of an organization will also depend on how well the work groups and team work within the OC. “Organizational results are not simply the consequences of the work accomplished by people brought into the Organization rather, they are the consequences of the work these people accomplish after the organization itself has completed its work on them.” (Mannen et al, 1977, p71)

Conclusion

1. Impact of culture on growth needs of people

Type of job	Type of organization
	Mechanistic (Role plus power culture)	Organic (achievement plus support culture)
Simple	High growth needs will lead to dissatisfaction and frustration. Low growth needs will be compatible with the job and culture.	High growth needs will lead to some levels of frustration. Low growth needs will lead to satisfaction to some extent but lack of clear direction may create anxiety.
Complex	High growth needs will lead to dissatisfaction due to rigidity of work culture. Low growth needs will lead to anxiety and stress.	High growth needs will lead to fulfilment. Low growth needs will lead to stress and anxiety.

2. Impact of culture on control strategy

Figure 3: A decision tree for choosing a control strategy

3. Impact of culture on structure and design of the Organization

Organizational value	Organizational culture	Stage when value is most appropriate	Definition	Organizational Structure
Efficient	Role culture	Grow by coordination (Greiner, 1972)	Administrative problem (Miles and Snow, 1978)	Formal, bureaucratic or temple (Handy, 1985) or hierarchy (Quinn and Mc Grath, 1985).
Innovative	Achievement culture	Grow by delegation (Greiner, 1972)	Entrepreneurial problem (Miles and Snow, 1978)	Decentralised, matrix (Handy, 1985) or market (Quinn and Mc Grath, 1985).  Structure should be able to cater to future management requirements using appreciation.
Productive	Power culture	Grow by direction (Greiner, 1972)	Engineering problem (Miles and Snow, 1978)	Centralised, web (Handy, 1985) or Adhocracy (Quinn and Mc Grath, 1985).  Structure should enable an operational control over resources
Balance		Grow by collaboration (Greiner, 1972)		Hybrid or mixed cultures.
Collaborative	Support culture	Grow by creativity (Greiner, 1972)	Entrepreneurial problem (Miles and Snow, 1978)	Entrepreneurial cluster (Handy, 1985) or clan (Quinn and Mc Grath, 1985). Structure should enable customer service using appreciation.

4. The Virtual Onion model

Figure 4: Virtual Onion model

Bibliography
Davies, H. (2002) Understanding Organizational culture in reforming the National health service. Journal of the royal society of medicine [Online] vol. 93(3), p140-142 Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1279486#id2650016. [Accessed: 20 March 2008]

Gallivan, M and Srite. (2005). Information technology and culture: Identifying fragmentary and holistic perspectives of culture. Information and organization [Online] vol. 15, p295-338 Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W7M-
4FWKDVJ-1&_user=6368771&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig
=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000033818&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=
6368771&md5=afcfa383bb3b78081378e13f91c539c0 [Accessed: 20 March 2008]

Google (2008) The Google culture. [Online]. Available from: http://www.google.com/corporate/culture.html. [Accessed: 20 March 2008]

Hastings, C. (1995) Building the culture of organizational networking. Managing projects in new organizations. International Journal of project management [Online] vol. 13(4), p259-263 Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9V-3Y44SFR-T&_user=6368771&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000033818&
_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=6368771&md5=bcc17da655eec47fee8e6f06e0f2fdde [Accessed: 21st March 2008]

Jana, R. (2007) HP’s cultural revolution. BusinessWeek, Nov 15. [Online]. Available from: http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/nov2007/id20071114_289027.htm [Accessed: 20 March 2008]

Lok,P and Crawford. (1999) The relationship between commitment and organizational culture, subculture, leadership style and job satisfaction in organizational change and Development. Leadership and organization development journal [Online] vol. 20(7), p365-373 Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/0220200704.pdf. [Accessed: 20 March 2008]

Mannen,V et al. (1977) Toward a theory of organizational socialization. MIT Alfred P. Sloan school of Management [Online] vol. 960(77), Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/1934 [Accessed: 22nd March 2008]

Mills, E. (2007) Meet Google’s culture czar. CNet News, Apr 27. [Online]. Available from: http://www.news.com/Meet-Googles-culture-czar/2008-1023_3-6179897.html [Accessed: 20 March 2008]

Pheysey, D. (1993) Organizational cultures. Types and Tranformations. London:Routledge.

Schein, E. (1996) Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly [Online] 41(2), p. 229-240 Available from: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=9820938&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&
VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1206006584&clientId=28275 [Accessed: 20 March 2008]