This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
Culture is an abstract concept. It explains an impalpable and ephemeral state of affairs within an organization, its values and beliefs, for example (Schwartz, 1994). As Van Maanen (1988, p.3) states, culture 'is made visible only through representation and created by writing'. There is no universally applicable theory about organizational culture (OC); hence, there is no single definition of this phenomenon. Special literature offers an embarrassment of definitional riches (Schein, 1992; Morgan, 1997; Hofstede, 2001; Gold, 1982; Pacanowsky and O'Donell-Trujillo, 1982; Meyerson and Martin, 1987; Martin, 2001; Kanter, 1995; Ashkanasy, 2003; Hatch and Schultz, 2005; Gannon and Newman, 2001; Hickon and Pugh, 2002; Scholtz, 1987 et al.).
Firstly, this paper observes two contrasting theoretical paradigms of OC. The debate includes the managerial approach that organization 'has' a culture versus the social science point of view that organization 'is' the culture (Smircich, 1983).
Secondly, this paper provides the evidence against concept simplification and presents the importance of knowing OC by using system thinking and dynamic system theories (Stancey, 2007). While the functionalist attempts to find 'one best universal culture' is widely adopted by managers and popular writers, this paper supports the hypothesis that this approach has some limitations. OC is a very complicated phenomenon and it cannot be easily measured or managed. OC can be viewed as a complex system (Martin, 2002). Systems can be regarded as nodes inserted in a giant network in which everything is connected (Sterman, 2000). Most of previous researches are based on linear thinking born of logical positivism. Organizations and human systems are studied from deterministic, reductionistic and equilibrium-oriented perspectives (Mendenhall and Macomber, 1997; Capra, 1996; Dooley, 1997). Social scientists also proceed from the assumption that human systems are composed of relationships between variables that exist and function according to linear, cause-and-effect laws (Mendenhall and Macomber, 1997). However, according to the dynamical system thinking an alternative approach exists and many systems are constructed nonlinearly, consequently the managers have not really such a degree of control over the systems that they think they have (Stacey, 2007).
Simplification can have negative impact for future generations. The organization is responsible for sustainable development, thus the managers should be very careful making their strategic choices (Adams, 2006).
Finally, the conclusion is made that it is important to view OC holistically. Nonlinear thinking can bring a new perspective on this research.
What is the Organizational Culture?
The attempts to find 'one best way' theory lead to disagreements among cultural researchers. Smircich (1983) distinguishes five different currents in research connecting the concepts of culture and organization. Although these all have their own fundamental assumptions, she also remarks that they can be divided into two strongly contrasting schools.
The functionalist concept of culture forms the theoretical basis for comparative management research (e.g. Hofstede, 1991) and has inspired many OC researchers (e.g. Schein, 1985). The writers mostly supporting this view are management academics and consultants (Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Schein, 1985; Ouchi, 1981; Peters and Waterman, 1982; Pascale and Athos, 1982).
The key presupposition of functionalist approach is that culture is a crucial component of successful organizational performance. According to his view, every organization possesses a culture, just as it has a strategy, technology, structure and employees. Thus, OC represents an objective reality of values, artifacts and meanings that can be quantified and measured. The culture, being an organization attribute, is 'given' to its members when they join, and they don't participate in its shaping.
Functionalists reckon that business-specific and well-developed culture in which employees and managers are absolutely socialized underpins more effective performance, higher moral, stronger organizational commitment and higher productivity' (Furnham and Gunter, 1993). This concept considers culture as an empirical category, a rather stable, homogeneous, internally coherent system of assumptions, norms, and values, which can be objectively described (Hastrup, 1995); something that members of a group, an organization, or a nation possess or bear collectively. Hence, it is possible to reach the core (the basic assumptions and values) of any culture by examining and systematizing behavior and stated attitudes of individual members.
Schein, one of the most famous researchers within this approach, defines culture as 'a pattern of basic assumptions- invented, discovered or developed by a given group learning to cope with its problems of external adjustment and internal integration-that has worked well enough to be regarded valuable and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in connection with those problems' (Schein, 1992: 9). Schein (2004) analyzes OC at three levels: artifacts (visible part of the culture such as physical environment, technology, language, dress-code), adopted values and beliefs (articulated statements that can be discussed) and fundamental assumptions (thoughts and feelings, the unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs). The sharing of meanings, of 'deep' assumptions, is considered to be what culture 'fundamentally' is and, as a result, these depths can be controlled from above, if their underlying structure is understood. He states that culture is stable, inserted in deep and often unconscious parts of the group, rather than simply in observable behavior. He also argues that a leader's beliefs can be converted into collective beliefs (1995). This position has provoked three debates. First, it raises a discussion between 'week' and 'strong' cultures, considering how managers can turn their company's culture from the former into the latter. Second, it stimulates a related discussion concerning 'inefficient' and 'efficient' cultures, which evaluate the ability of an OC to innovate and to adapt rapidly and appropriately to changes in the strategy of the firm. Third, it assumes that leaders' views make a considerable contribution to culture, and that they play a vital role in 'culture management'. Changing organizational culture is an outcome of transformational leadership which influences followers' level of efforts and performance (Bass, 1985: Bass and Avolio, 1990).
This view presumes that senior company executives can and should execute cultural leadership functions. Leaders may be requested to maintain and reinforce the original culture settled by a company's founder. Or, they may be required to alter (and consequently innovate) that culture if it becomes a liability in changed environmental circumstances. The original founder's visions, as modified by the organization's current senior management (Schein, 1983), are another source of values. First, a single person (founder) has an idea for a new organization and brings in other key people to create a core group sharing a common view with the founder. This group creates an organization, brings in others and starts building a common history. Robbinson (2005) describes senior management as an OC carriers'. Thus one can agree that organizational values are the values of the current company elite (senior managers), rather like 'organizational goals' constitute the preferred aims of the same group. Values are operationalized into organization practices and procedures. Although senior managers might like their employees to adopt the organization's values, this is not unlikely but also unnecessary. Employees only need to follow the specified, values-based practices and display expected reactions.
However, trust in this prescriptive approach was shaken because many of the so-called 'excellent' companies began to manifest performance problems (Alvesson, 2002).Methodologically speaking, many functionalist studies use a range of quasi-scientific techniques for extracting these fundamental rules, generally following Schein's injunction that the concept can be best operationalized with 'precise empirical measurement' and 'hypothesis testing' (Schein, 1990:109). Academically legitimate versions of a scientific method, however, seem to end up providing very statistic pictures of consensus within organizations. For instance, Reynolds (1986) employs survey techniques to evaluate perceived work context in different organizations. He concludes that there is no statistical relationship between culture and organizational performance. Graves (1986) and Amsa (1986) use Likert scale methods to operationalize culture in a similar way, the former stating that it is a variable that should be inserted in social-technical system analysis, the latter that culture is the adopted and disseminated beliefs of top managers and executives.
Many anthropologists dispute the essentialist ways of thinking. This leads to the social constructionist conception. Sociologists Berger and Luckmann (1966) claim: reality is socially constructed, and everything belonging to a culture, including science and technology, presupposes human beings, human language and actions. Authors distinguish society as subjective reality including people's beliefs about the world, and the material world. Social objects are inherently meaningful, whereas material objects are only meaningful when they are integrated into the social. However, people have no direct access to any reality, neither the material nor the social.
From social constructionist perspective, OC is an organization and presents a subjective reality of rituals and meanings. It is viewed as social interaction result, as is a root metaphor for conceptualizing organizations (Smircich, 1983). As such, there is no place or time from which it can be finally captured and presented as the truth (Parker, 2000); culture is a living and evolving reality (Morgan, 1997) and exists only as a pattern of symbolic relationships and meanings maintained through the continued processes of human interactions (Smircich, 1983).
This approach researches do not admit that culture may be controlled or manipulated (Ackoyd and Cowley, 1990; Gargiardi, 1986; Anthony, 1990; Knights and Willmott, 1987; Harris and Ogbonna, 1999; Krefting and Frost; 1985; Meyerson and Martin, 1987; Legge, 1994; Martin 1985, 1992; Willmott, 1993; Weick, 1979).
They argue that culture exists objectively and independently imposing itself on employees. Culture is produced and reproduced incessantly through routine interactions of organization members. It shapes both their actions, and the outcome of social creation and reproduction process. However, this view takes into consideration the influence of leaders, since they themselves are engaged in interactions and thus contribute to culture formation. Morgan (1997) states that in the process of constructing reality people could see and understand particular events, objects, utterances, or situations in distinctive ways. From this point of view, if different people attribute different meanings to the same phenomena (Schultz, 1995), one can conclude that it is unlikely to find a culture based only on shared values, beliefs and understandings.
Managerial perspective regards culture as monolith, characterized by consistency, organization-wide consensus and clarity. According to the integration perspective, an organization possesses a single unified culture and that its integrating features will lead to improved organizational efficiency through greater employee commitment and control (Martin, 2002). Ambiguities must be eliminated in favor of a dominant and stable set of values (Meyerson, 1991). Fragmentation and differentiation are considered as problems. Homogeneity is important to prevent attachment to ideas that do not conform to and strengthen the authority of the core organization values. It is critical that there is an adjustment of 'employees' purposes with the normative framework created by the corporation cultural engineers (Willmott, 1993). Functionalists are advocates of what is called strong culture (Peters and Waterman, 1982). The controversial notion of a 'strong' culture has three characteristics: a clear set of values, norms and beliefs; the sharing of these by the majority of members; and the guidance of employees' behavior. Schein (2004) states that managers have to find ways of coordinating, aligning, or integrating different subcultures. Functionalists do not take into account contradictions, disputes and ambiguities.
In contrast, according to the social science approach or differentiation perspective, an organization comprises subcultures, each with its own characteristics differing from those of its neighbours (Martin, 2002). It sees organizational culture as pluralistic and organizations as consisting of various interests with different objectives. The goal is to understand the lack of cultural consensus within organizations. Interest is focused upon the way in which organizational reality is constructed and reconstructed. Thus, the differentiation perspectives view 'cultural pluralism' as a fundamental aspect of all organizations: seek to understand the complexity and the interaction between frequently conflicting subcultures; and therefore stands in direct contrast to the managerial unitary or integrationist perspective. Diversity is important for organizations that want to help individuals to react more effectively to extremely complex information and to allow and perhaps appreciate more "fuzzy" technologies (Meyerson, 1991:262). This could be viewed as a competitive advantage if one considers that ambiguity and chaos are inherent in the innovation process (opt.cit:261).
Culture is regarded as the product of group experience and is found wherever there is a determinable group with significant shared history, values and beliefs. Given the existence of many different groups within a single organization, one can expect there to be many different subcultures. Schein acknowledges the existence of a managerial culture: various occupation-based subcultures within functional units and worker cultures based on shared hierarchical experiences. The social science perspective sees organizations as composed of interacting subcultures divided both laterally and vertically.
From fragmentation perspective, ambiguity is a norm, where consensus and disagreement co-exist in a constantly changing pattern influenced by events and specific areas of decision making (Martin, 1992). Rather than the clear unity of the integration perspective, or the clear conflicts of the differentiation viewpoint, fragmentation concentrates on that is vague. Many OC studies concentrate on only one of these perspectives. For instance, Meyerson (1991) remarks that much of the popular literature (Peters and Waterman,1982; Deal and Kennedy, 1982) assumes mistakenly that organizational culture consists of shared meanings and commonalities that are monolithic, homogeneous and organization-wide. The potential existence of subcultures or controversy is considered only as a weak culture indicator. There are also major methodological differences between the three perspectives. Much of the research identifying consensus has engaged small-scale qualitative research where only the senior levels of selected organizations have been interviewed (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Barley, 1983). This approach has been criticized for providing an incomplete picture of an organization's culture, reflecting only management hopes (Martin et al., 1983 ).
Most of the studies identifying differentiation perspective have tended to be quantitative, questioning large number of subjects, using some form of standardized research instrument (Martin and Frost, 1995). This approach has been reproved for its lack of depth and its inability to evaluate the unique characteristics of an organization (Schein, 1991). Martin and Meyerson (1988) argue, using data from a variety of case studies, that any culture contains elements that can be understood only when all three perspectives are used.
The managerial view of culture emphasizes consensus. The possibility of conflict is acknowledged, but is imputed to failures in communication and capable of being managed through interventions. It is presupposed that senior managers' articulation of their organization's culture is identical to the actual culture. The focus is on what the culture should be (in management view) rather than explaining what the culture actually is, and evaluating its significance. Most problematically, it stimulates managers to act if their preferred culture (with its attributes) already existed, making them to believe that representing their cultural myth would create their desired organizational reality (Martin, 1992).
The social science view, in contrast, regards organization as a collection of frequently opposed groups which are rarely reconciled. It thus assumes the inevitability of conflicts and focuses on the variety of interests and opinions between different groups. It therefore is important for managers and management consultants who underplay the differences existing between individuals, groups and departments within a company. The fragmentation (or conflict) perspective sees organizations as being in constant flux with reality being constantly constructed and reconstructed, due to human interactions and environmental changes. This view offers no comfort for either managers or academics who seek clarity (Cohen et al., 1972; Becker, 1982).
Overall, this comparison can be represented as a table below.
Common Characteristics of
Culture is intangible (values, beliefs,
norms, assumptions, frameworks)
Social Sciences Perspective/
Culture is shared
Something that organization
'has' (level, skill, tool)
Something that organization 'is'
Culture affects people's behavior
Changes in culture occur by
Changes occur through the natural evolution,
each member of organization influences culture
Culture emerges and develops
during the time
Information workplace of values
Influence culture and create sustainable
Culture is created and influenced
by human interaction
The explanation for the 'corporate culture boom' of the 1980s and the emerging of 'corporate culturism' (Willmott 1993) is that Japan economic success was believed to owe something to the cultural characteristics of its corporations (Alvesson, 1993; Schultz. 1995). However, Japan national culture is collectivistic, in contrast to Western individualistic culture. The national tradition number one for the Japanese is respect for the honored personalities and desire to learn from them (Liker, 2003). Thus the values, norms and beliefs of employees in different countries vary and could be incompatible with the manager's view of culture. The writers supporting managerial approach have their own cognitive maps formed by their view of reality. For instance, almost all material on 'IBM's philosophy' is taken from A Business and Its Beliefs, a book by Watson, the founder's son (Peter and Waterman, 1982). As the critics of corporate culturism have pointed out, 'what executives and managers say in words or in paper is taken as proof. There is little critical reflection on this' (Thomson and McHugh, 1990; 231-232).
Schein (1985) is recognised as one of the most influential writers on corporate culture (Alvesson, 1993; Schultz, 1995). Working with a functionalist framework, he explicitly acknowledges that 'historical data' is vital for the culture study. However, he considers history to be methodologically inaccessible because of the problem of meaning. Schein's studies of culture are largely based on interviews. The nature of the data reinforces the problem that: 'Real history is fantastically complex, difficult to unravel, and itself culture boundâ€¦ cultures simplify and reinterpret the events to fit into themes that make cultural sense'(1985).
Schein interprets the 'historical factors' regarding the cultures origins through 'group and leadership theory' (1985). As a result, he imposes a preordained structure on the history of organizational cultures, namely the story of founder. As Schultz (1995) notices, rather than study the specific histories of organizations, Schein invokes psychological theories of 'the psychodynamic makeup of leaders' (1985;172). He uses them to create an idealised picture of how 'organizations begin to create cultures through the actions of founders' (Schein 1985;221). This rests on an assumption that 'culture and leadership are really two sides of the same coin' (1985:4)
The OC can help organization to achieve their goals. Kunde (2002) argues that only the companies with strong OC are successful on the international market. Kunde states that only companies with the harmony between internal OC of organization and external market position have chance for development and surviving. He provides in his book the examples of such companies (Harley- Davidson, Virgin, Toyota, Hard Rock Café, Microsoft, IBM, Starbucks, McDonald's,) and introduces the definition of 'corporate religion', which includes the culture of company, external marketing position and the goals of the managers.
The OC can be presented as the essence of triangle: vision and strategy (knowing where organization is presently, where it wants to go and how it will get there); innovation (includes products, markets, operations) and change (includes resource, skills, managing people, problem solving). Knowledge of organization culture would help to determine: mission, values, vision and strategy of organization (Kaplan and Norton, 2001). Culture perspective can help organization to understand arisen constrains and opportunities, manage organizational change, mergers and acquisitions, choose strategy according global markets and right marketing programmes, reconsidering the traditional management practices, intensive competition, societal consciousness- raising regarding oppressive atmosphere in organizations for workers, minorities and women, inequities and oppressive circumstances (Johnson et al.,2008).
The OC can also have a huge impact on whether people can pursue areas of intrinsic interest to them that are also potentially creative for their organization. It helps to allow staff freedom as to how they organize their work.
Organizations such as 3M and Google allow staff a proportion of their time to work on projects of their own choosing. 3M have offered scientists 15% of their time for such projects. They also offer genesis grants to help develop ideas generated in this free-time. Google requires staff to attract colleagues to devote some of their free work-time to that project to demonstrate support for its Viability. Flatter structures and simplified reporting procedures tend to give new ideas a better chance of getting off the ground as they are less likely to become bogged down in the red tape of a long committee-bound reporting structure.
Through organization culture can be done:
-attempts to account differences among organizations
-description of how members of a group live and make sense of their world together
Culture helps to explain patterns of behaviour and thoughts of individuals and groups with which they are associated.
The knowledge of OC helps to concentrate on values, attitudes and beliefs of members.
Thus the knowing of different perspectives on organizational culture is useful in order to have a wide overview of phenomenon. However, the limitations of logical positivism paradigm should be admitted.
Moscovichi (1981) opposes an individual outside organization to the same individual within organization or crowd. He states that crowd thinking is unconscious, influenced by extreme emotions. The human commonality in the crowd tends to be at the lowest level of its members. Thus the crowd is easily manipulated by its leader since a member of the group is characterized by loss of connection with realty, absence of logical thinking and almost hypnotic susceptibility.
"Culture is a loosely structured and incompletely shared system that emerges dynamically as cultural members experience each other, events, and the organization's contextual features." (Martin, 2002). Organization can be presented as a larger system existing within other systems, industry as a whole for example. System can be defined as a group of interacting or interdependent components that form a complex and unified whole (Anderson and Johnson, 1997).
Social scientists have traditionally operated from the belief that one can 'break a linear system up into its components, study and explain each component, then put it all back together again andâ€¦ have an explanation of the whole' (Parker and Stacey, 1994).The 'machine-model' perspective is a dominated paradigm in the organizations study. Social science research methods, and their techniques of data analysis, are founded on the assumption that linearity exists in systemic human relationships (Capra, 1996). Traditionally, scientists, when having to use nonlinear equations to solve problems, replaced them with linear approximations because nonlinear equations were seen as being too complex to be solved. As a result, instead of describing the phenomena in their full complexity, the equations of classical science dealt with small oscillations, shallow waves, and so forthâ€¦ this habit became so ingrained that many equations were linearized while they were being set up. Consequently most scientists came to believe that virtually all natural phenomena could be described by linear equations (Capra, 1996, p.122) The advent of the field of nonlinear dynamics has clarified the inherent nonlinearity that exists in many natural systems- including human systems - and thus renders the practice of using many of our traditional methods as being best naive, and at worst dangerous. So long as social scientists rely on cross-sectional studies, they will miss important discoveries and will be unable to model the nonlinear dynamical nature of human social systems (Gregersen and Sailer, 1993).
Busy people try to simplify even sophisticated philosophical ideas in order to use them as 'quick-fix' solutions for achieving their objectives. Desire of control and aspiration to find short-term solutions for long-term problems seem to be modish tendency in the financial-oriented society. Sometimes simplification can be very dangerous for the environment. The fundamental guiding principle behind systems approaches to sustainability is that the organization and its environment must be conceived as complex and unitary whole in order to design effective strategies and interventions (Sterman, 2000; Adams, 2006). Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). According to Rawls (1972), moral principles are considered fair if they could be chosen by a rational individual in an 'original position' behind a virtual veil of ignorance concerning his or her future position both in time and space and his or her position in society.
The implication of McDonald's culture brings a 'great deposit' in sustainability of the planet and cultures of different countries. One of 'successes' of 'fast-food nation' that women now are more independent from their husbands, can spend more time on their work and less cooking a dinner for their families as they can feed their children with cheap and fast trans-gens production (Schlosser, 2001).
Another example of culture change is influence on identity by rejecting ancient rituals in order to become 'development society'. Adolescence used to be a time of initiation into manhood (Gilmore, 1990). In these older rituals, boys were taken away from their homes by men and subjected to trials and challenges. They were taught to trust and rely upon their male peers, and they were guided in their responsibilities and in proper behavior toward women. They were taught the rituals and prayers that the adult men used in their worship, and they were encouraged to seek the vision of their lives.
Young men of the Lakota Sioux Indian tribe, for example, went out for four days on a solitary vision quest, going without food and sleep until a vision came to them that would guide them throughout their lives. Aboriginal boys in western Australia went on "walkabout" to learn the ways of the desert and to seek the wisdom of the spirits.
With the exception of bar mitzvahs and the few remaining indigenous celebrations of manhood, there are few initiation rites for today's adolescent male. He will get his driver's license and his high school diploma and take a girl to the prom, but there is virtually no other recognition by other men or by society of his passage into manhood.
Initiations have always played a critical role in integrating young men into society, infusing them with a sense of belonging and meaning, preparing them to defend their community and to find their vocation. Without these meaningful, symbolic ceremonies, today's young men are bereft of appropriate ways of establishing their identity as men. Sports teams, hunting, and other "manly pursuits" may serve this purpose in some communities, but even here the initiation is limited. Some young men may join gangs to secure the sense of community, adventure, and heroism that once came with preparation to be a warrior. Others may make objects of girls, using them as a means of propping up their sense of masculinity. Still others may rebel against parents, teachers, and other authority figures as a way of separating themselves from childhood (Pittman, 1993).
Russia had two attempts of 'culture change' over past century during the reforms in 1917 and 1991, trying reject the values, beliefs and knowledge that hold past generation and the society in deep trouble now. There are some facts: in 1990 - 2001 the number of persons engaged in scientific-technical field decreased three times. Since 1991-2001 the number of drug users increased nine times. The number of violence cases associated with the drug use increased fifteen times. By expert predictions the number of persons affected by tuberculosis, syphilis, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C will be 8-11% of the whole population in 2010 (near 13 millions of people, mostly young generation). The number of mental illness cases show 11,5 times increase (2,5 times increase among teenagers). 14,3 thousand murder cases were registered in Russia in 1990; more than 32 thousand in 2002. The number of convicts per 100 000 inhabitants is 1000. 26,4 thousand suicide cases were registered in 1990. In 2001 the number of suicides was 39,7 thousand.
(Sociology . The second all-Russia sociological congress â„- 1 , March 2004 (library of the Sociology Department of the Lomonosov Moscow State University) V.I. Dobrenkov Russian Society: modern state and prospects (from sociology of crisis to sociology of hope)
Searches for 'right culture' have led to religious wars and horrific murders by controlling and manipulations of human minds. For example, the installation of 'high culture' idea led to Holocaust (LaCapra, 1996).
In nonlinear systems one cannot simply tear out a subsystem of a larger system and study it because the elements of the system are too interconnected and mutually intertwined (Mendenhall, 1997, p.45). Apparently random activity in them is in fact complexity patterned from deep-order principles. In nonlinear systems, causality is not unidirectional, but can be understood only through complex interconnections among all the elements of the system in its environment (Parker and Stacey, 1994). Research has shown that many nonlinear dynamical systems are highly sensitive to small deviations at the starting point of the system, or at other intervals throughout the system's existence. That is, a small difference at the beginning of a series of values soon magnifies into major differences among evolving systems. By contrast, a truly random system will exhibit differences between behavioural trajectories, but the magnitude of differences as determined by the random components does not change over time (Elliot and Kiel, 1996; Lorenz 1993). The explanation of the importance of small factors comes through the circumstance that nonlinear dynamical systems depend on feedback, Feedback is the notion that an effect becomes part of the cause in subsequent interactions of the system's internal operations (Mendenhall and Macomber, 1997; Waldrop, 1994).
Organizations are ever unfolding, they are highly sensitive to all of their internal and external dynamics, and through they seem stable, they are often in great flux within. Powerful, organizational attractors keep organizations in a bounded state and serve as almost unconscious funnels that attract behaviour. However, even these attractors can change due to perturbations from within and without the system. Nonlinear systems are inherently unpredictable in the long term, and only somewhat predictable in the short term. The holy grail of being able to control organization culture and understand nonlinear systems from linear mindsets does not exist within the paradigm of nonlinear systems. (Dooley, 1997; Holland 1995; Waldrop, 1994).
This paper, although trying to clarify the nature of organizational culture, has highlighted the complexity of the phenomenon. Organizational culture is multifaceted and complicated, encompassing a variety of forms, and is determined by myriad influencing factors. It can be viewed as a complex system interviewing with others systems, human psychics and environment. All these systems influence each other. The OC could be presented as energetic pendulum or superstructure consisting of living organisms which begins to live on its own and to make persons taking part in its creation obey its law. For instance, the so-called generic egregor has a big significance in the East but it is not acknowledged in the West. During global changes family is destroyed first of all (Revolution of 1917, Jewish families extermination during the Second World War). As trees without roots cannot resist to strong wind, so men without family support or principles like respect for parents and older generation can be easily manipulated.
Further researches through the prism of dynamic system model would be interesting to understand the phenomenon. As a whole, the overview of different sophisticated theories could provide very simple idea: independent, what definition organizational culture has among researches, the human organisms are not the machines that could be adjusted easily by modern tendencies. 'Just as you cannot manage what you can measure, you cannot measure what you cannot describe' (Kaplan and Norton, 2004,p.2).
Journey leads to the vertex ("temple"): prosperity and wellbeing of organizations, humans and Nature on the basis of understanding the concept "win-win"- "we are gaining together".
Kaplan, Robert S.; Norton, David P. (2001), The Strategy-focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies thrive in the new business environment., Harvard Business School Press, ISBN 978-1591391340
Jung, Carl. (1959). Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious.
"Culture is the pattern of shared beliefs and values that give members of an institution meaning, and provide them with the rules of behaviour in their organization." (Davis, 1984,1).
"Culture is the set of understandings or meanings shared by a group of people. The meanings are largely tacit among the members, are clearly relevant to a particular group, and are distinctive to the group." (Louis, 1985, 74).
" Culture is a loosely structured and incompletely shared system that emerges dynamically as cultural members experience each other, events, and the organization's contextual features." (In Martin, 2002).
rnold, K. D. (1993). Academically talented women in the 1980's: the Illinois Valedictorian Project. In K. D. Hulbert & D. L. Schuster (Eds.). Women's lives through time: Educated American women of the twentieth century. (pp.393-414). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Arnold, K., Noble, K.D., & Subotnik, R. F.(1997). Remarkable women: perspectives in female talent development. New York: Hampton Press.
Bandura, A (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Callahan, C. (1987, May). Gender and the gifted: A roadmap for reflecting, questioning, and understanding. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Girls, Women, and Giftedness, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.
Campbell, P., & Clewell, B. C. (1999). Science, math and girls: Still a long way to go. Education Week, 9/15/99, 50-51.
Chan, L. K. S. (1988). The perceived competence of intellectually talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 310-315.
Czeschlik, T. & Rost, D. H. (1994). Socio-emotional adjustment in elementary school boys and school girls: Does giftedness make a difference? Roeper Vewier, 16, 294-297.
Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women's achievement related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 135-172.
Eccles, J. S. (1985). Who doesn't Jane run? Sex differences in educational and occupational patterns. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O'Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented developmental perspectives (pp. 253-295). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Fehrenback, C. R. (1993). Underachieving gifted students: intervention programs that work. Roeper Review, 16, 88-90.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hay, C. A., & Bakken, L. (1991). Gifted sixth-grade girls: Similarities and differences in attitudes among gifted girls, non-gifted peers, and their mothers. Roeper Review, 13, 158-160.
Hollinger, C. L. (1991). Facilitating the career development of gifted young women. Roeper Review, 13, 135-139.
Hollinger, C. L., & Fleming, E. S. (1993). Project CHOICE: The emerging roles and careers of gifted women. Roeper Review, 15, 156-160.
Hollinger, C. L. & Fleming, E. S. (1992). A longitudinal examination of life choices of gifted and talented young women. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 207 -212.
Hollingworth, L.S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. New York: Macmillan.
Jackson, N. E.& Kearney, J. N. (1999), In N. Colangelo and S.G. Assouline (Eds.), Talent development. Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press.
Kauffman, F. (1981). The 1964-1968 Presidential Scholars: A follow-up study. Exceptional Children, 48, 2.
Kelly, K. (1992). Career maturity of young gifted adolescents: A replication study. Journal for the education of the gifted, 16, 36-45.
Kerr, B. A. (1997). Smart Girls: A new psychology of girls, women, and giftedness. Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press.
Kerr, B. A., & Colangelo, N. (1988). The college plans of academically talented students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 42-49.
Kerr, B. A., & Robinson Kurpius, S. E. (1999). Brynhilde's Fire: Talent, risk and betrayal in the lives of gifted girls. In J. LeRoux, (Ed.) Connecting the gifted community worldwide (261-271). Ottawa: World Council on Gifted and Talented.
Kitano, M. K. & Perkins, C. O. (1996). International gifted women: Developing a critical resource. Roeper Review, 19, 1, 34-40.
Kitano, M. K.(1997). Gifted Asian American women. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 21, 1, 3-37.
Kitano, M. K. (1998). Gifted Latina women. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 2, 131-159.
Klein, A. G. & Zehms, D. Self-concept and gifted girls: A cross-sectional study of intellectually gifted females in grades 3,5,8.
Lea-Wood, S. S., & Clunies-Ross, Graham. (1995). Self-esteem of gifted adolescent girls in Austrailian schools. Roeper Review, 17, 195-197.
Leroux, J.A. (1994). A tapestry of values: Gifted women speak out. Gifted Education Inernational, 9,3, 167-171.
Ludwig, G., & Cullinan, D. (1984). Behavior problems of gifted and nongifted elementary school girls and boys. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 37-40.
Martinez-Thorne, Y. (1995). Achievement motivation in high achieving Latina women. Roeper Review, 18, 1, 44-49.
McCormick, M. E., & Wolf, J. S. (1993). Intervention programs for gifted girls. Roeper Review, 16, 85-87.
Morelock, M. J. (1992). Giftedness: The view from within. Understanding our Gifted, 4(3), 1, 11-15.
Napier, L. A. (1995). Educational profiles of nine gifted American Indian women and their own stories about wanting to lead. Roeper Review, 18,1,38-43.
National Institute of Mental Health (1993). Eating Disorders. NIH Publication No. 93-3477/Washington D. C.: US Department of Health and Human Services.
Noble, K. D., Subotnik, R. F., and Arnold, K. D. (1999). To thine own self be true: A new model of female talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 140-149.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs and mathematical problem-solving of gifted students. Contemporary educational psychology, 21, 325-344.
Phelps, C. E. (1991). Identity formation in career development for gifted women. Roeper Review, 13, 140-141.
Phillips, L.(1998). The girls report. New York, NY: National Council for Research on Women.
Reis, S. M. (1995). Talent ignored, talent diverted: The cultural context underlying giftedness in females. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 162-170.
Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1985). Interventions that promote equity and effectiveness in student-teacher interaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America's schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Silverman, L. K. (1986). What happens to the gifted girl? In C. J. Maker (Ed.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for the gifted (pp. 43-89). Rockville, MD: Aspen.
Siverman, L. K. (1993).
Silverman, L. K. (1995). Why are there so few eminent women? Roeper Review, 18,1,5-13.
Lorenz, E. (1996). The Essence of Chaos, University of Washington Press
Robert S. Kaplan, David P. Norton (2004). Strategy maps: converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes
Schein, E.H. (2005) .Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd Ed., Jossey-Bass.
Sterman, J.D. (2000) Business Dynamics: System Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, McGraw-Hill Higher Education
Swartz, Davis (1981). Matching Corporate Culture and Business Strategy. Organizational Dynamics.
Adams, W.M. (2006). The Future of Sustainability: Re-thinking Environment and Development in the Twenty-first Century
Anderson, V. and Johnson, L.(1997). System thinking Basics: From concepts to Causal Loops.Pegas Communications.
Bob Doppelt (2003). Leading Change Toward Sustainability.
Taylor, Rodney Leon (2005). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Confucianism, Vol. 2. New York: Rosen Publishing Group
Robert S. Kaplan,David P. Norton 2004Strategy maps: converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes Harvard business school university press,
John Houghton, , 2009 Global Warming: The Complete Briefing, Cambridge University Press ISBN 9780521709163