Organisational culture and cultural change: A network perspective
| Date | 01 December 2016 |
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865815604196 |
| Author | Chad Whelan |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
2016, Vol. 49(4) 583–599
!The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865815604196
anj.sagepub.com
Article
Organisational culture
and cultural change:
A network perspective
Chad Whelan
Deakin University, Australia
Abstract
Organisational culture is a complex and heavily contested concept. Not only is it difficult to
define what organisational culture is, but it is also very difficult to analyse how it guides and
constrains behaviour, and whether and how organisational cultures change. The central argu-
ment of this article is that organisational networks can effect cultural change and that the
terms ‘structural’ and ‘relational’, which are commonly used to conceptualise the properties
of networks, may also provide a useful conceptual framework for understanding cultural
change. While there has been some attention directed to the effects of organisational culture
for networks, there has been very little attention placed on the potential for networks to
shape organisational culture. Based on a detailed qualitative study of networks in the field of
‘high’ policing in Australia, the article draws on interviews with senior members of police and
security agencies to explore organisational culture and cultural change. The article puts
forward a network perspective on cultural change and aims to advance our knowledge of
how security nodes can experience cultural change as they work together in and through
networks.
Keywords
Cultural change, organisational culture, organisational networks, police culture, security
networks
Introduction
Organisational culture is a difficult concept to define. While the term has a relatively long
history (Selznick, 1957), it was really not until the early 1980s that organisational culture
became popular (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Smircich, 1983). Since then, however, organ-
isational culture has been defined and studied in many different ways. For Schein (2010),
one of the most influential scholars in the field, culture is to an organisation what
personality is to an individual, a conception that is not unsympathetic to Skolnick’s
(1966) classic notion of the police ‘working personality’. Schein refers to personality
Corresponding author:
Chad Whelan, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University, Geelong,
Victoria 3220, Australia.
Email: chad.whelan@deakin.edu.au
to emphasise that organisational culture is a deeply embedded phenomenon that is
pervasive in its influence and not easily changed (see also Schein, 1999). Schein (2010)
also likens culture to personality to call attention to the problematic relationship
between organisational culture and behaviour, suggesting that although we can see
behaviour, we often cannot see the underlying forces that cause certain behaviours.
However, while many have studied organisational culture and whether and how
organisational cultures change, there is much scope to advance our knowledge of this
topic, particularly in relation to organisational networks.
Networks have received much attention in the organisational and criminological lit-
erature. Much of the criminological literature has concentrated on networks of public,
private and hybrid security nodes. In recognising that the governance of security is
pursued by a host of agencies that include, but are not limited to, those of the state,
many scholars have called attention to the prominence of networks in security govern-
ance (e.g. Brewer, 2014; Dupont, 2004, 2006, 2014; Fleming & Rhodes, 2005; Fleming &
Wood, 2006; Johnston & Shearing, 2003; Palmer & Whelan, 2006, 2014; Shearing &
Johnston, 2010; Whelan, 2012, 2014; Wood & Dupont, 2006; Wood & Shearing, 2007).
For the most part, this literature uses the network concept as a metaphor to describe the
shifting relationships between security nodes. This is very different from what network
researchers refer to as ‘goal-directed’ networks (Kilduff & Tsai, 2003), or deliberately
structured organisational forms in which agencies are required to work together to
achieve their own goals and also a collective goal (Provan, Fish, & Sydow, 2007;
Provan & Kenis, 2008; Raab, Mannak, & Cambre, 2015).
Organisational networks involve two sets of basic properties: structural and relational.
Structural properties include such attributes as the design, size and level of goal consen-
sus between network members. One important consideration in relation to network
design is how networks are internally governed, with some being brokered by a central
actor or lead organisation and others sharing control relatively equally between actors
(Provan & Kenis, 2008). As networks increase in size and decrease in goal consensus,
formal approaches to internal network governance are likely to be needed, which may
require a lead organisation to be appointed. Relational properties refer to the relation-
ships that take place between actors, including among individuals, work units and
organisations (e.g. Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004). Network relationships
may be formal or informal and involve varying degrees of cooperation and conflict.
Organisational culture is one of the most significant relational properties of organ-
isational networks. While conflicting organisational cultures can cause problems for
networks, particularly in the field of ‘high’ policing due to the different outlooks or
mindsets of ‘cops’ and ‘spooks’ (Brodeur, 2010), there has been limited attention
placed on the potential effects of networks on organisational culture. The central argu-
ment of this article is that organisational culture and networks can have an effect on each
other, meaning we should be sensitive to the ways in which organisational culture shapes
networks and networks shape organisational culture. We also need to be mindful in
drawing conclusions on this subject from the literature on ‘police culture’, because the
overwhelming majority of this literature approaches police organisations as independent
units of analysis.
This article examines this subject and aims to outline the foundations of a dynamic
network perspective on cultural change. It presents organisational culture as
584 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 49(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial