Managing Organizational Culture: Compliance or Genuine Change?
| Date | 01 December 1998 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00098 |
| Published date | 01 December 1998 |
| Author | Lloyd C. Harris,Emmanuel Ogbonna |
Introduction1
The literature on managing organizational culture
has developed in several directions over the past
two decades. Many early protagonists assumed
that culture can be controlled and governed by
executives; the success of the change effort merely
dependent on the abilities of managements to link
key cultural attributes to the espoused strategic
direction of the organization (see for instance
Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Peters and Waterman,
1982; Schwartz and Davis, 1981). The seminal
work of Smircich (1983a) classifies such organ-
izational culture writers as ‘functionalist’, in that
they assume culture is an organizational property
subject to management control. More recent
conceptual culture literature has evolved which
raises questions as to the efficacy of this function-
alist perspective (see Anthony, 1990; Legge,
1994; Ogbonna, 1993; Willmott, 1993). Despite a
continuing theoretical debate, the desire to man-
age organizational culture remains at the forefront
of contemporary managerial activity (Bowman
and Faulkner, 1997; Harris and Ogbonna, 1998).
However, whilst a conceptual understanding of
the intricacies of the managing culture debate
has provided many worthwhile theoretical con-
tributions, many theorists have noted the need for
further empirical work in this area (for example,
Ackroyd and Crowdy, 1990; Anthony, 1990; Hopfl,
Smith and Spencer, 1992; Knights and Willmott,
1987; Kunda, 1992; Legge, 1994; Ogbonna and
Wilkinson, 1990).
This paper considers the issues of the suitability
and successfulness of attempts to manage organ-
izational culture. Hence, the objectives of the
paper are twofold: first, to provide empirical
evidence of the consequences of management
attempts to change organizational culture and
second, to evaluate critically the utility of such
efforts utilizing contemporary organizational cul-
ture literature. In this sense, the paper provides
British Journal of Management, Vol. 9, 273–288 (1998)
Managing Organizational Culture:
Compliance or Genuine Change?
Emmanuel Ogbonna and Lloyd C. Harris
Cardiff Business School, University of Wales, Colum Drive, Cardiff CF1 3EU, UK
The issue of managing culture is of key importance within management theory and
practice. A number of extant studies have found that attempts to ‘manage’ culture
frequently degenerate into the enforcement of espoused behaviours. The objective of
this paper is to provide empirical evidence and discussion of the consequences of
management attempts to change culture. The paper reviews existing theory pertaining
to organizational culture change and presents the desire to control as the rationale for
management attempts to modify culture. After a brief discussion of the research design
and methodology employed, the findings of a single case study are presented. The
findings suggest that within the case study organization, a recent change initiative had
resulted in changes to material manifestations, behaviours and in some cases values.
However, it is noted that modifications to values could be the result of ‘instrumental
value compliance’. The paper culminates with conclusions, implications and suggestions
for further research.
© 1998 British Academy of Management
1The authors thank Professor David Otley and two
anonymous reviewers whose constructive comments
helped in restructuring this paper.
a contribution to the managing culture debate
through the provision of case-study evidence
which is analysed using recent organizational
culture theory. The findings of this study indicate
that the cultural change effort examined produced
a differential impact. Consistent with extant theory,
behavioural compliance was frequently accom-
plished. However, in contrast, widespread material
manifestation changes were evidenced as was
limited value-level adoption.
Managing organizational culture:
an overview
Analysis of literature pertaining to organizational
culture change finds that existing research into
cultural change can be broadly classified into two
principal categories: studies of natural change
and research into culture management. Whereas
studies into managed change centre on the effects
of management action on organizational culture,
research into natural change focuses on the evolu-
tion of cultures in organizations. An example of a
study which focuses on natural change is that of
Sathe (1983), who develops a conceptual model
of how an organizational culture perpetuates itself.
Sathe (1983) argues that new members of an
organization ‘acquire’ culture through a process
of socialization which is reinforced as employees
interact and therefore any attempts at culture
change should focus on the means of perpetuation
(such as communication). Similarly, Harrison and
Carrol (1991) contend that culture has a tendency
to evolve due to variables such as socialization
and employee turnover.
Consistent with Smircich (1983a), research into
culture management can be classified into three
subdivisions: studies which argue that culture can
be managed; research which claims that culture
may be manipulated, and; theory which argues
that culture cannot be consciously changed (al-
though natural change is argued to occur fre-
quently). The first stream of studies identified
above comprises the work of those researchers
who believe that culture is an organizational
variable and logically assume that culture may be
changed. Hence, a significant theme in culture
research has been the study of management
attempts to direct and control culture. Indeed, a
brief review of management texts finds numerous
references to cultural change models (for example,
Bate, 1994; Bowman and Faulkner, 1997; Brown,
1995; Dawson, 1994; Silverzweig and Allen,
1976).
The second stream of research centres on cul-
ture researchers who reject the view of culture as
a directly manageable variable. These researchers
frequently argue that culture cannot be viewed
as something the organization has but is more
appropriately conceptualized as something the
organization is – a view which mirrors Smircich’s
(1983a) paradigmatic classification. Hence, Martin
(1985) contends that changes to an organizational
culture cannot be managed but may be ma-
nipulated under specific (and rare) contingencies
(including the formation of an organization,
periods of crisis and during leadership turnover).
Finally, the extreme stance of this argument
rejects both the ‘culture can be managed’ and the
‘culture may be manipulated’ points of view.
Many theorists argue that whilst the culture of
organizations can and does change, the direction,
impact and sustainability of the change cannot be
subject to the conscious action of management
(Ackroyd and Crowdy, 1990; Anthony, 1990;
Knights and Willmott, 1987; Ogbonna, 1993;
Legge, 1994; Willmott, 1993). Indeed, notwith-
standing the accepted view that change often
results in unintended consequences, many such
researchers contend that change efforts frequently
degenerate into changes to behaviour, commonly
leaving higher levels of culture untouched (for
example, Anthony, 1990; Legge, 1994; Ogbonna
and Wilkinson, 1990). These views highlight a
frequently under-explored key issue within the
domain of organizational culture theory; that is,
analyses of culture change appear to yield differ-
ent results depending on the level of culture
which is examined – this point is important and
will be further discussed in later sections.
The plethora of literature on the issue of man-
aging culture is clearly premised on the assump-
tion that the performance of organizations is
dependent on the alignment of organizational
values to the espoused values of company
strategy (see Ray, 1986; Willmott, 1993; cf. Hopfl
et al., 1992; Linstead and Grafton-Small, 1991;
Mabey and Manyon-White, 1993). Hence, a com-
mon rationale for cultural management attempts
is to exert cultural control in order to accomplish
the goals of the organization. The rationale of
‘control’ and its links with organizational culture
require further discussion.
274 E. Ogbonna and L. C. Harris
To continue reading
Request your trial