3980554

8/3/2019 3980554

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3980554 1/13

Studymg Organiza-ultures

This paper is r^re se nta tw e of my long- term re s ^ rc h in ter-ests in the lo ng i tu di r^ pr o c^ su al study of organizatior>s, ape rsj^c t ive I feel is ne g le c t^ . The longitudinal-processualapproach to th e stud y of organizations recognizes tha t anorganization or any othe r sociat syste m may profitably beexjirfored as a continuing sys tem w it h a past, a present, anda future. Sound theory m ust, there fore, take into accountth e history and th e futu re of a system and relate the m tothe present. W ha t are advocated here are not mere m eth -

odological niceties. They have a fundamental impact on thekinds of research problems that become open for investiga-t ion, th e possibil ities of m aking certain kinds of conceptualdevelopmen ts, and the choice of language systems w ithw hic h th ese concepts are expressed. A longitudinal-processual analysis is more likely to be interested in lan-guage systems oi becoming than oi being, of processes ofstructural elaboration rather tha n the precise description ofstructural form, of mechanisms that create, maintain, anddissolve systems of power (Pettigrew. 1973) rather than just

attem pt to c odify distr ibutions of pow er at one point in t ime .

BACKGROUND

This paper offers a brief and necessarily speculative look atsom e of th e concepts and processes associated wit h thecreation of organizational cultures and, therefore, with thebirth of organizations. Although no strong reference will bemade to the data here, the frame of reference chosen forth e paper has been influence d by th e em pirical study of aprivate British boarding school. The school was founded by

an individual with a strong and quite idiosyncratic personalityw h o had a defin ite vision of w ha t kind of organizationalstructure s, m echa nism s, peopte. and processes co uld realizehis vision.

The data collection began in 1972 w it h a before , during, andafter analysis of the impact of a major structural change oncertain aspects of the structure, functioning, and climate ofrelationships in the school. The change began in September1972. Tw o sets of interviews and questionnaires w ere ad-ministered to s taff and pupils during the spring of 1973 and

1974.The cross-sectional and processual analyses have beencomplemented with a historical analysis of the birth andevolution of the school from 1934 to 1972. This retrospec-tive analysis is based on long interviews with former mas-ters, governors, and pupils w h o w ere at the scho ol from the1930s, until 1972. The se interview data have been supple-mented with documentary sources, including private papers,speeches, administrative documents, and other archival ma-terial. A number of unobtrusive measures have been and are

being developed from thes e data.So cial Drannas as a Research Focu s

8/3/2019 3980554


dramas in the school we re th e points of leadership succes-sion as the sch ool changed from headmaster to headmasterand as it m ade a major structural change in 1972 tha t alteredits population. Each of these dramas was sufficiently en-gaging of the minds and actions of the people in the schoolto be regarded as critical events. It should b e clear, there-fore, tha t i t is not just the researcher's judgment w hic hpinpoints the social dramas. The sequence of dramas, which

gives a form to the order of the research design, is shownin the Figure.

1934Birth ofthe School

Dranrta 11953FoundingHeadmasterRetires

Drama 21958Headmaster2Retires

Drama 31968Headmaster3Retires

I

Drama 41972StructuralChange

1975End Pointof DataCollection

Retrospective Data Collection Real Tim e Data C ollection

Rgure. Longitudinal research design.

Using a similar research design I (1973)studied four capital in v^ tm en t deciaons

In terms of a general analysis of social process and theparticular concern with unravelling the dynamics of the evo-lution of an organization, this kind of design has a number ofpotential advantages:

1. Each drama provides a clear point o f data collection , animportant practical consideration in such an extended streamof time, events, people, and processes.

2. Each drama can act as an in-depth case study wit hin th e

overall case stud y and there by provide a drannatic glimpseinto the current workings of the social system.

3. The longitudinal study of a sequence o f dramas allowsvarying readings to be taken of the development of the or-ganization, of the impact of one drama on successive andeven consequent dramas, and of the kinds of mechanismstha t lead to, accentuate, and regulate the impact of eachdrama.

4. As the point about mechanisms of transformation implies,only dramas can provide consequence and meaning in rela-

tion to routines. The quality and analytical impac t of th estudy o f th e dramas can only be as good as the researcher'sunderstanding of the relative routines with which eachdrama is interspersed. In this sense the routines provide th econtextual backdrop for the foreground drama and the re-searcher becomes interested in the interactive effect be-tw ee n context and foreground and the mechanisms andprocesses of transformation from routine to drama to newroutine and further drama.

5. Examining the dramas affords the opportunity to study

continuous processes."• In th e sc hool study th e focus o ncontinuous process relates to questions of organizational

8/3/2019 3980554


affords to study the eme rgence arvd development of organi-zatbnal cultures. Using th e example of t he sc hool study, Iw i l l discuss how purpose, com mitm ent, and order are gen-erated in an organization bo th th rou gh t he feelings and ac-tions of i ts founder and throug h th e amalgam of bel iefs,ideology, \ar\guage, ritual, and myth we collapse into thelabel of orgarMzationai culture.

I have another objective: to encourage the use of som e

concepts w hic h have developed in sociology and anthropol-ogy. The se con cepts are directly relevant to th e conce rn inthe field of organizational behavior as to how purpose,commitment, and order are created in the early l ife of anorganization. In th e con text of the action fram e of re ferenc efor t he study o f organizations (Sitverman, 1970), tho se con -cepts reveal man as a creator of sym bols, languages, be-l iefs, visions, ideologies, and my ths, in e f f ^ t , man as acreator and manager of meaning.

Yet before I discuss the importance of the sym bolic in th e

stud y of organizations, I shall briefly discuss so me aspectsof the literature on entrepreneurs, followed by sections onsym bolism a nd its role in the creation of purpose, and onidentity and mean ing in a new ly established organization,and a discussion of how the problem of commitment washandled by an entrepreneur in th e sc hool.

Entrepreneurs

To define entrepreneurs is difficult for it is one of thoseterm s used so regularly by the general public as well as inmore specific and yet differing ways by social scientists that

one wonders if it has any discriminatory power left at all.The tendency to attr ibute highly symbolic value to the wo rdentrepreneur is starkly visible in one of the most oftenquoted research studies in the field by Collins and Moore(1970). In th e introduction to their book (p. 2), the y justifytheir research on entrepreneurs and the process of foundingan organization partly to provide system atic know ledge toal low "the free world to stay free." Elsewhere entrepre-neurs are portrayed as heroes. Boswell (1972: 70), whileasking the researcher to be wary of the romantidzation

ofte n associated wit h founding entrepreneurs, presents afair ly he rdc picture of entrepreneurship: "H is course is de-termined by fiats of various key outsiders on the one handand his own supply of persistence, guts, and ability on theother ."

This concern with the courage, persistence, and ability ofentrepreneurs is reflected in a more refined wa y in the e s-tablished research literature that constructs psychologicalprofiles o f th e entrepreneur. McC lelland (1961) and his as-sociates have built up an impressive, though controversialset of instrum ents and data around th e the m e of achieve-m ent m otivation. The aim is to tease out the psychologicalcharacteristics tha t differentiate entrepreneurs from nonen-

8/3/2019 3980554


needs for ach iav em ait and either high or low needs forfxswer (RcAserts, 1968 ; Wa iner and Rubin, 1969). Th is w or kar«i th e less am bitious research by Schrage (1965) on veridi-cal perce ption, by Hom aday and Bunker (1970) examiningth e deprivation of entrepreneurs in their early years, and byStan wo rth and Curran (1973) on entrepreneurs as sociallymarginal people, have made a useful contribution to wardprobing into th e psychology of entrepreneurs. Wh at each o f

these studies lacks, however, is any real attempt to examinethe relationships between the entrepreneur and his organi-zation. Apart from some vague references to leadershipstyle, this research literature does not deal with the inter-dependencies and reciprocities between the entrepreneurand his staff or how some of the crucial problems of or-ganizational functioning such as thos e associated w ith pur-pose, commitment, and order are handled by the entrepre-neur.

If we move away from considering (in isolation) the personal

characteristics of entrepren eurs to ward an analysis of theperson in his context, the problem of entrepreneurship maybe stated in a specifically interactive fashion . I assume herethat the essential problem of entrepreneurship is the trans-lation of individual drive into collective purpose and commit-ment. With this viewpoint the focus is not what makes theentrepreneur but rather what does the entrepreneur make.

Although it is conventional to equate entrepreneurship withth e taking of financial risks in the context of business enter-prises, this seem s an unnecessarily l imited institutional con-

text within which to use the term entrepreneur. Many ofthose who create new institutions outside the business sec-tor and w ho are often referred to by th e terms founders andinnovators, have to deal w it h many of th e sam e organiza-tional, managerial, and personal challenges as those facedby business entrepreneurs. For th e purposes o f this paperthe term entrepreneur will be used to denote any personw h o takes primary responsibility for m obilizing people andothe r resources to initiate, give purpose to , build, and man-age a new organization.

Synnbol ism and the Creation of Organizat ional Cul turesThere have been a number of different approaches in theresearch literature around the theme of the birth, growth ,and evolution of organizations. One approach represented byPugh and his associate, Donaldson (1972), has examined thedimensions of bureaucracy and how they change with or-ganizational size. An othe r approach foun d in the wo rks ofBo sw ell (1972), Greiner (1972), and Strauss (1974) looksrather mo re specifically at th e interaction betw ee n organiza-tional structuring and fu nctioning and uses characterizations

either of phases oc crises of development to discuss theevolution of organizations. A third fo cus in th e literature, and

8/3/2019 3980554


of mission, program of activity, selective recruitment, andsocialization, w hi le Clark defines saga as a syste m of collec-tive understanding of unique accomplishment in a formallyestablished group. Both authors discuss the necessary con-ditions for the creation of sagas and highlight the impor-tance o f an initially stron g purpose, conc eived and enu n-ciated by a single m an or a small group. Clark also em -phasizes the importance for saga creation of the setting ofan autonomous new organization where there is no estab-

lished structure or rigid customs and where the leader canbuild from th e top dow n.

Entrepreneurs may be seen not only as creators of some ofth e mo re rational and tangible aspects of organizations suchas structures and technologies but also as creators of sym -bols, ideologies, languages, beliefs, rituals, and m yth s, as-pects of t he more cultural and expressive com ponents oforganizational l ife. Ne w organizations thu s represent settingswhere it is possible to study transition processes from nobeliefs to new beliefs, from no rules to new rules, from no

culture to new culture, and in general terms to observe thetranslation of ideas into structural and expressive f orm s.

The Concept of Organizat ional Cul ture

In the pursuit of our everyday tasks and objectives, it is alltoo easy to forget the less rational and instrumental, themore expressive social tissue around us that gives thosetasks meaning. Yet in order for people to function within anygiven setting, they must have a continuing sense of w ha tthat reality is all about in order to be acted upon. Culture isthe system of such publicly and collectively accepted mean-ings operating for a given group at a given tim e. This syste mof terms, forms, categories, and images interprets apeople's o w n situation to thems elves. Indeed wha t is sup-posed to be distinctive about man compared with otheranimals is his capacity to invent and communicate determi-nants of his ow n behavior (W hite, 19 49; Cassirer, 1953).

W hile providing a general sense of orientation, culturetreated as a unitary concept in this way lacks analytical bite.A potentially mo re f ruitfu l approach is to regard culture asthe source of a family of concepts. The offsprings o f theconcept of culture I have in mind are sym bol, language,ideology, belief, ritual, and myth. Of these symbol is themost inclusive category not only because language, ritual,and myth are forms of symbolism but because symbolicanalysis is a frame of reference, a style of analysis in itsown right (Duncan, 1968; Abner Cohen, 1974; Will is, 1975)

The definition of symbol used here is derived from an-thropology: "Symbols are objects, acts, relationships, or l in-guistic formations that stand ambiguously for a multiplicityof meanings, evoke emotions, and impel m en to actio n"(Abner Cohen, 1 974: 23). Symbol cons truction serves as avehicle for group and organizational conce ption. As a group*

8/3/2019 3980554


On Studying Organintional Cultures

th e be liefs about the use and distribution of pow er andprivilege, the r ituals and m yth s w hi ch legit ima te tho se dis-tributions — have significant functional consequences forthe organization.

Another aspect of organizational culture is the system ofvocal signs we call language. With its immense variety andcom plexity, language can typ ify and stabilize experience andintegrate those experiences into a me aningful w ho le (Bergerand Luckman. 1966). These processes of typification are es-sential features of the process of creating culture in a neworganization. But language is not just ou tside us and given tous as part of our cultural and historical heritage, it is alsow ith in us. w e create it. and it impels us. Language is also avehicle for achieving practical effects. Words are part ofaction. Socially built and maintained, language embodies im-plicit exhortations and social evaluations. By acquiring th ecategories of a language, w e acquire the structured " w a y s "of a group, and along w it h th e language, the value implica-

tions of tho se w ays. " A vocabulary is not merely a string ofwo rds ; im ma nent w ithin it are societal textures — institu-tional and political coordinates. Back of a vocabulary lie setsof collective action" (Mills, 1972: 62). The study of organiza-tional vocabularies is long overdu e. The analysis of the ir ori-gins and uses and in particular the ir role in expressing co m -munal values, evoking past experiences, providing seed bedsfor human action, and legitimating current and evolving dis-tributions of power represent key areas of inquiry in re-search on the creation and evolution of new organizations.

As mentioned, one of the key attr ibutes of symbols in gen-eral and language systems in particular, is their potential forimpell ing m en to action. Ideologies and their com ponen t sys-tems of belief are also widely accepted to have such action-impell ing qualit ies. According to W ilson (1973: 91), " A nideology is a set of beliefs about the social world and how itoperates, containing statements about the rightness of cer-tain social arrangements and wh at action would be undertak-en in the l ight of thos e s tatem en ts." Ideologies can play asignificant role in th e processes of organizational creationbecause they have the potential to link attitude and action.

Sm elser (1963) describes this as a process of social sho rtcircuit ing. The l ink is made betw een broad, often moraldiagnoses of situations and to action at a specific level. Theideology mobilizes consciousness and action by connectingsocial burdens with general ethical principles. The result isthat c om m itme nt is provided to perform everyday organiza-tional tasks on th e wa y to som e grand schem e of thin gs.But the potency of organizational ideologies will depend notonly on the social context in which they function and howthe y are created and by wh om , but also ho w the y are main-

tained and kept alive. It is here that the final two conceptsrelevant to this analysis of creating cu lture play their part.

8/3/2019 3980554


social situation to e xpress and articulate m ean ing." Th e cru-cial feature of ritual as a me dium of culture creation is th emessage it contains. But as Beattie (1966) notes, th e crucialquestion about its role is not what does it do but what doesit say. W ha t it can say, of course, is that th es e are thecentral or pheripheral values, the dom inant or marginalpeople, th e highly prized or less im portant goals and ac-tivities of this or that organization. It is partly through ritual

that social relationships becom e s tylized, conventionalized,and prescribed. It can create distinctiveness and exclusive-ness and fashion order out of delineating the margins whichseparate th e pure from t he impure.Just as ritual may provide a shared experience of belongingand express and reinforce w ha t is valued, so my th alsoplays its crucial role in the continuous processes of estab-lishing and maintaining what is legitimate and that which islabelled unacceptable in an organizational cu lture. PercyCohen (1969 : 337) has w ritte n tha t in popular usage theterm m yth is almost always intended pejoratively: " m y be-liefs are a strong conviction, yours a dogm a, his a m yt h.Myths, in this view, are erroneous beliefs clung to againstan evidence ." Cohen defines m yths in term s of their inter-nal structure and the func tions they perform . Thus they con-tain a narrative of events often with a sacred quality whichexplores in dramatic form issues of origin and transforma-t ion. In so doing they anchor the present in the past, offerexplanations and. therefore, legitimacy for social practicesand contain levels of meaning that deal simultaneously w iththe socially and psychologically significant in any culture.

Leach (1954) and An thon y Cohen (1975) w hile recognizingthat myths have qualities that can reinforce the solidarityand stabil ity of a syste m also argue that m yths can becreated and used in the furtheran ce of sectionaiized inter-ests. Leach view s m yth as a we apo n deployed by individualsand ideological groupings to justify public and private stancesand affirm wavering or aspiring power positions. AnthonyCohen connects myth even more directly with political pro-cesses, suggesting that myths justify and sustain valuesthat underlie political interests, explain, and thereby reconcile

the contradictions between professed values and actual be-havior and legitimate established leadership sys tems facedwith environmental threats. These value-imparting, justify-ing, and reconciling qualities of m yth s are precisely the onesthat would suggest that the concept of myth has a powerfulanalytical role to play in studies of the creation of organiza-tional c ultures.

In describing and defining the various forms and functionsof sym bols, language, ideologies, beliefs, rituals, and myt hs ,it should be recognized tha t the se co ncepts are to varying

degrees interdependent and that there is some convergencein the way they relate to functional problems of integration,

8/3/2019 3980554


On Studying Organiatlonal

ture then acts as a determinant or constraint on the wayfurther attempts to handle issues of purpose, integration, andcommitment are handled. Man creates culture and culturecreates man.

THE ENTREPRENEUR IN HIS CONTEXT

Throu gh th e focus on th e creation of organizational culture,

we can more easily come to understand both aspects of theentrepreneur's leadership role and th e em erging contextwhich inevitably places bounds on that leadership role. Ieariier emphasized th e limitations of approaching th e studyof entrepreneurship entirely through the analysis of person-ality profiles. The focus on entrepreneurs in terms of sets ofneeds and abilities tend s bo th to overly em phasize the per-sonal qualities of entrepreneurs and to forget that thosequalities have to be mobilized and made effe ctive w ithin aparticular institutional con text. The leadership com ponen t ofentrepreneurship, therefore, is not just concerned with the

explanation of the individual drive of the entrepreneur interm s o f skil ls and opportunities, but also w ith th e interac-tive processes between entrepreneurs and their followersand the more general processes through which purpose andcommitment are generated and sustained within an organi-zation. Thus th e leadership aspect of entrepreneurship is afunction of institutional dynamics and leader-follower rela-tions as well as the skil lful deploym ent of personal qualities.

Problems of Commitment

The relationship of leadership to entrepreneurship may beanalyzed under the guise of commitment mechanisms. Oneway to look at commitment is through a cultural approach.Following Kanter (1972) and Buchanan (1974) commitment isdefine d as the will ingness o f pa rticipants to give energy andloyalty to an organization, to be effectively attached to itsgoals and values and thereby to the organization for its ownsake. The role of commitment mechanisms is partly to dis-engage the person from some of his preexisting attach-me nts and to redirect his system of language and beliefsand the patterning in his social relationships tow ard th e or-

ganization's needs and purposes. In this way, a set of dispa-rate individuals are fashioned into a collective whole.

But to study commitment mechanisms begs the question ofcom mitmen t to wh at. In the school "w h a t" was not onlyth e personal qualities of th e e ntrepreneur but also th e visionhe had for his organization. Visions are not merely thestated purposes of an organization, though they may implysuch purpose, but they also are and represent the system ofbeliefs and language w hi ch give the organization texture andcoherence. The vision will state the beliefs, perhaps imply-

ing a sacredness of quality to t he m , use a distinctive lan-guage to define roles, activities, challenges, and purposes,

8/3/2019 3980554


expressed, the extent to w hi ch i t used rational or form alsystems of language as distinct from highly expressive sys-tems of language, and various stylistic considerations. Stylis-tic com ponen ts of a vision w hic h may be crucial might in-clude the presence of a dramatically significant series ofeve nts, rooting the v ision back into history and th us indica-ting th e vision was mu ch more than a fad , and using opposi-tions and their resolution as ways of boldly conveying mes-

sages. Visions with a simple yet ambiguous content, ex-pressed in symbolic language w it h t he appeal of a dialecticstyle are not only likely to be p otent consciousne ss raisersbut also flexible enough to survive and thereby validateevents.

If visions are to be used by an entrepreneur as a poten tmechanism for directing and influencing others the languagecontained w ith in t he vision is crucial. Visions m ay containnew and old terminology, som etimes using me taphors andanalogies to create fresh meanings. Words can provide en-

ergy and raise consciousness. Th e capacity to use the fullpowe r of w ords — to m ake words wa lk — I suspect is oneof the unexplored characteristics of successful entrepreneurs

Pondy (1975) has discussed leadership as "a languagegame." He noted that language is one of the key tools ofsocial influenc e and tha t a leader's e ffective ne ss is l ikely tobe influenced by the language overlap with his followersand by the extent to w hic h a leader can create words thatexplain and there by give order to collective e xperiences. Th ismay be one of the key processes by which identity is given

to an organization and there fore to w hic h individuals cancom mit their em otions and energies.

Commitment may also derive from sacrifice (Kanter, 1968,1972). Commitment-building processes involve persons de-taching them selves from one set of options to go toanother. They make sacrifices and investments. In a neworganization the sacrifices may be giving up a secure careerelsew here, doing witho ut expected standards of creaturecom forts and organizational resources and eve n building t henew institution. The investments can be actual financial

com mitm ents and the extraordinary amounts o f t ime andenergy needed to build an institution. Investment is thus aprocess of tying a person's present and potential resourcesto th e organization in exchange for a share of th e organiza-tion's future acclaim and rewards.

These processes involving sacrifice and investment may alsonecessitate relinquishing or at least partly withdrawing fromother relationships and beliefs. Social processes are set inmo tion wh ereb y th e individual actively moves tow ard bui ld-ing an exclusive w orld of primary contact and belief and wi th -

draws from th e m ore inclusive patterns that had existedbefore he joined the new organization. In this way a sense

8/3/2019 3980554


OnStudying Oiânizational Cultures

entered the organization and for inhibiting contact with thecom m unity outside. A new organization can also help tocreate a sense of exclusiveness and internal commitmentthrough the development of a distinctive organizational vo-cabulary and idiosyncratic forms of dress. Finally, it may bepossible for an organization to create a sense of institutionalcompleteness, a set of beliefs reinforced by behaviors thatpractically all of life's needs can be at least partially satisfied

w ithin its b ounds. The distinctive languages, dress, and in-stitutional completeness were all present in the school.

Building com m itme nt can involve action at the entry stage ofthe organization. The entrepreneur may initially be able torecruit on the basis of prior acquaintance and homogeneityof background. He may continue to recruit in a highly per-sonalized fashion, insisting on seeing all potential employeesand using th e interview process as an opportunity to displayhis vision, personal drive, and presence. Once inside thenew organization the employer is confronted with the

emerging culture through the language, the performanceand observation of everyday tasks, the regular contact, andthe group rituals. In the school the rituals varied from dra-matic public meetings, where organizational deviants wereexposed, to the headmaster's breakfast.

In the schoo l, my ths also played their part in generating andsustaining commitment and in legitimating the entrepre-neur's control over his organization. There w ere m yths aboutthe school's experience of persecution in relation to its so-cial setting, about major victories and significant defeats in

its history, and above all about the special qualities pos-sessed by the entrepreneur. Many accounts were given ininterviews of his extraordinary powers of empathy for otherpeople.

There have been a number of assumptions in the precedingargumen t. One has been tha t employee c om m itme nt is anecessary condition for the success of a new organization. Asecond is that such commitments are not generated au-tomatically out of interaction, but must be earned. Part ofthe earning will undoubtedly com e fro m th e energy and vi-

sion of the entrepreneur, from his personalized recruitingand throug h th e language and style w ith w hich he com -municates his vision. A vision beco mes an ideology t hro ug hthe endorsement of the organization. The ideology can im-part meaning, demand involvement and behavioral consis-tency, motivate the performance of routine tasks, and re-solve the concerns of its people. Closely interwoven withthese processes are the mechanisms of sacrifice and in-vestm ent, the forms of boundary management and tenden-cies to institutional completeness, and the potential forcommunity arising out of group rituals, homogeneity of back-

ground, and organizational myths.

8/3/2019 3980554


into th e the oretic al language of orgarttzational behavior. Th esubstantive prdWem used here to provide a focus for the seconc epts has bee n h ow are organizational cultures created?The problem has been approached throug h th e concepts o fsymbol, language, ideology, belief, ritual, and m yt h. Th eseconcepts have been define d and som e of their functionsarKJ analytical interconnections and overlaps distinguished.Attention has been drawn to their value not only in under-

standing the creation of ne w cu ltures, but also in unravellingthe related processes by wh ich entrepreneurs give energy,purpose, and com mitm ent to th e organizations the y arebringing into be ing.

No suggestion is being m ade that the se concepts are uni-versally applicable across aH organizations in differing institu -t ional spheres. The works of E taoni (1 ^ 1 ), Goffm an (1961).and Coser (1974) wo uld se em to indicate these concepts aremo re likely to b e use ful in certain kinds of or^ niz at ion s thanothers. Caution is in order, however, before assuming this

kind of cultural analysis is only applicable to educational, reli-gious, correctional, or sodal m ovem ent type o f organizations.The study by Pettigrew and Bum stead (1980) of ho w varia-tions in organizational culture have affected the impact oforganization development activities i l lustrates the use of theconcepts in this paper in business organizations. In additionit is only recently (Pettigrew , 1977) tha t conceptual devel-opm ents in th e analysis of political processes in organiza-tions have explored processes of legitinnation and deligitima-t ion, although there is a strong tradition of using symbolicanalysis in political science (Edelman 1 ^ 4 ; Graber 1976).

More specifically claims are being made that the kinds ofanalyses made |X)Ssible by these concepts are potentialtyuse ful in understanding th e creation of organizational cul-tures, th e leadership com ponents o f entrepreneurship. andhow th e problems of com m itme nt are handled in organiza-t ions. This paper has only l isted some items on a menu andput some of the i tems together in some simple dishes; i tremains for others t o broaden the m enu and produce th ecordon bleu meals.

^ 6 "Ritual and sodal change."Man (new series), 1: 60-74.

L., and Thomas

The Social Construction o f

Reality. Harmondsworth, En-gland: Allen Lane; Penguin

Buchanan. Bruce1974 "Build ing organizational com-

mitment: The socialization ofmanagers in work organiza-tions." Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 18: 533-546.

Cassirer, Ernst1953 An Essay on Man. Garden

Cohen, Abner1974 Tw o Dimensional Man: An

Essay cm the Anthropology oPower and Symbolism inComplex Society. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.

, Anthony P.1975 The Management of Myths:

8/3/2019 3980554


Collins, Oryis, mid David Moore1970 The Orgarezation Makers.

New York: Meredith.

Coser, Lewis A.1974 Greedy Institu tions . Nevy/

York: Free Press.

Donaldson, Lex1972 "Forecasting the future trend

of bureaucratisation." Lon don:

Graduate Schooi of B us in gs(mimeo).

Duncan, Hugh DaiaelSymbols in Scwiety. Oxfo rd:University Press.

, M.The Symbolic Uses of Politics.Urbana: University of IllinoisPress.

Etzioni, Amitai1961 A Comparative Analysis of

Complex O rganizations. NewYork: Free Press.

Goffman, Erving1961 Asylums. New York: Double-

day; Anchor Books.

Graber, D. A.1976 Verbal Behavior and Politics.

Urbana: U niversity of IllinoisPress.

Greiner, Larry E.1972 "Evolution arKi revolution as

organizations grow." Harvard

Business R eview, 50: 37 -46 .Hill, Michael1973 A Sociolc^y of Religion. Lon-

don: Heinemann.

Hornaday, John A ., and Charles S.Bunker1970 "Th e nature of the entrepre-

neur." Personnel Psychology,23: 47 -54 .

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss"Co mm itmen t and social or-ganization: A study of c om -mitmen t mechanisms in Uto-pian comm unities." AmericanSociological Review, 33 :499-517.

1972 ComiTHtiTjent andCommunity.Ca m brfc ^, M A: Harvard Uni-versity P ress.

L&ach, E. R.1954 Political Systems of Highland

Burma. LorKi(^: BeH.

M<CieHand, DaWd C.1961 The A chieving Society. Lon-

don: Collier Macm illan.

Mill, C. WHght1972 "Language, l<îc &nd culture."

In A. Csshdan and E. Crugecxi(eds.). Language in Education:A Source Book: 5 9 - 66. Lon-don: Routledge and KeganPaul.

Pettigrew, Andrew M .1973 The Politics of O rganizational

Decision M aking. London:Tavistock.

1975 "Strateg ic aspects of the

nrianagement of specialist ac-tivity." Personnel Review, 4:5 -13 .

1977 "Strategy formulation as apolitical process." Interna-tional Studies of Managementand Organization, 7: 7 8- 87 .

Pettigrew, Andrew M., and D. C.Bumstead1980 "Strategies of organization

development in differing con-texts." In P. A. Clark, J. G uiot,and H. Thirry (eds.). Organiza-tional Change and Develop-ment in Europe. London:Wiley.

Pondy, Louis R.1975 "Leadership is a language

game." Working paper.De-partment of Business Adm in-istration, University of Illinois-Urbana.

Roberts. E. B.1968 "Entrepreneurship and

technology — A basic studyof innovators." ResearchManagement, 11 : 249-266.

Schrage, Harry1965 "Th e R&D ^treprerwBur: P

file of su<xess." HarvardBusiness R^êw, 43: 5 6 -

Seiznick, P.1957 Leadership in /^m inistra tio

Evanston, IL: Row, Peterso

Silverman, David1970 The Theory of Organiaation

London: Heinemann.Smetser, Neil1963 Theory of Collective Behav

New York: Free Press.

Stanworth, M . J . K., and J . Cur1973 Management Motivation in

the Smaller Business. London: Gower Press.

Straus. George1974 "Ado lescence in organizat

growth." OrganizationalDynamics, 2:3-17.

T u r n e r , V . W .1957 Schism and Continuity in a

African Society. ManchestEngland: Manchester Univsity Press.

Wainer, Herbert A ., and Irvwn MRubin1969 "Motivation of research de

velqpment entrepreneurs:terminants of company sucess." Joumal of AppliedPsychology, 53: 178-184.

Wh ite, L.1949 The Science of Culture. N

York: Grove Press.

Willis, Roy, ed.1975 The Interpretation of Sym

bolism. London: MalabyPress.

Wilson. John1973 Introduction to Social Mov

ments. N ew York: BasicBooks.

8/3/2019 3980554


Documents

3980554