Organizational culture

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (May 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Business administration
Management of a business
Accounting Management accounting Financial accounting Financial audit
Business entities Corporate group Conglomerate Holding company Cooperative Corporation Joint-stock company Limited liability company Partnership Privately held company Sole proprietorship State-owned enterprise
Corporate governance Annual general meeting Board of directors Supervisory board Advisory board Audit committee
Corporate law Commercial law Constitutional documents Contract Corporate crime Corporate liability Insolvency law International trade law Mergers and acquisitions
Corporate title Chairman Chief business officer/Chief brand officer Chief executive officer/Chief operating officer Chief financial officer Chief human resources officer Chief information officer/Chief marketing officer Chief product officer/Chief technology officer
Economics Commodity Public economics Labour economics Development economics International economics Mixed economy Planned economy Econometrics Environmental economics Open economy Market economy Knowledge economy Microeconomics Macroeconomics Economic development Economic statistics
Finance Financial statement Insurance Factoring Cash conversion cycle Insider dealing Capital budgeting Commercial bank Derivative Financial statement analysis Financial risk Public finance Corporate finance Managerial finance International finance Liquidation Stock market Financial market Tax Financial institution Working capital Venture capital
Types of management Asset Brand Business intelligence Business development Capacity Change innovation Commercial marketing Communications Configuration Conflict Content Customer relationship Distributed Earned value Electronic business Enterprise resource planning  management information system Financial Human resource  development Incident Integrated Knowledge Materials Network administrator Office Operations  services Performance Power Problem Process Product life-cycle Product Project Quality Records Resource Risk  crisis Sales Security Service Strategic Supply chain Systems administrator Talent Technology
Organization Architecture Behavior Communication Culture Conflict Development Engineering Hierarchy Patterns Space Structure
Trade Business analysis Business ethics Business plan Business judgment rule Consumer behaviour Business operations International business Business model International trade Business process Business statistics
v t e

Organizational culture encompasses the shared norms, values, and behaviors—observed in schools, not-for-profit groups, government agencies, sports teams, and businesses—reflecting their core values and strategic direction.^[1][2] Alternative terms include business culture, corporate culture and company culture.^[3] The term corporate culture emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s.^{[4][lower-alpha 1]} It was used by managers, sociologists, and organizational theorists in the 1980s.^[6][7]

Organizational culture influences how people interact, how decisions are made (or avoided), the context within which cultural artifacts are created, employee attachment, the organization's competitive advantage, and the internal alignment of its units. It is distinct from national culture or the broader cultural background of its workforce.

A related topic, organizational identity, refers to statements and images which are important to an organization and helps to differentiate itself from other organizations. An organization may also have its own management philosophy. Organizational identity influences all stakeholders, leaders and employees alike.^[8]

Organizational Culture (OC) serves as a foundational set of beliefs shaped by the members of an orga¬nization through external adaptation or internal integration (Schein, 1992). Various definitions exist, without consensus. Lesley Willcoxson and Bruce Millett note that organizational cultures can be described in similar ways to wider forms of culture such as national culture.^[9] Some of the definitions offered include:

• Writers Terrence E. Deal and Allan A. Kennedy defined organizational culture as "the way things get done around here".^[10]
• According to Elliott Jaques, the culture of a factory "is its customary and traditional way of thinking and doing of things, which is shared to a greater or lesser degree by all its members, and which new members must learn, and at least partially accept, in order to be accepted into service in the firm".^[11]
• Edgar Schein defined it as including a shared "pattern of basic assumptions" that group members acquired over time as they learn to cope with internal and external organizationally relevant problems.^[12]
• Ravasi and Schultz characterized it as a set of shared assumptions that guide behaviors.^[13] It is also the pattern of such collective behaviors and assumptions that are taught to new organizational members as a way of perceiving, thinking, and feeling.^[14]
• One of the most widely accepted definitions comes from Edgar Schein (1992), who describes organizational culture as a set of norms, values, beliefs, and attitudes that guide the actions of all organization members and have a significant impact on employee behavior (Schein, 1992). Schein (1992) offers a formal definition: “a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.”

Schein’s model identifies three levels of culture: Artifacts – Artifacts and behaviours are the most visible aspects of organizational culture, including physical layout, dress codes, rituals, and observable actions. Espoused values – Espoused values are the stated principles and ideals that organizations promote, often found in mission statements and leadership communications. Basic underlying assumptions – These are deeply rooted beliefs that are often unconscious and taken for granted, shaping how people think and behave within the organization. They develop over time and become embedded in the culture, rarely questioned.

• Schein,^[15] Deal and Kennedy,^[10] and Kotter^[16] advanced the idea that cultures are diverse and may encompass subcultures linked to an individual management teams.^[17]
• Other scholars have built on this framework. Denison and Mishra (1995) proposed four key traits of organizational culture: The Denison Model of Organizational Culture identifies four core traits, Mission, Adaptability, Involvement, and Consistency, that reflect the beliefs and assumptions driving organizational behavior. Mission defines the organization's purpose and direction, guiding strategic decisions and goal setting. Adaptability measures how well the organization responds to external changes through innovation and learning. Involvement captures employee engagement and empowerment, fostering teamwork and ownership. Consistency reflects the alignment of values and systems across the organization, promoting stability and coherence. Together, these traits shape the cultural framework and influence performance by linking values to observable behaviors.
• In the article Organizational Culture: A Systematic Review by Bogale and Debela (2024), Hardcopf et al. (2021) define organizational culture as: “A group attitude that evolves over time and proves resistant to modification once established.” This definition emphasizes the enduring nature of organizational culture, suggesting that once it is formed, it becomes deeply embedded and difficult to change. It aligns with broader views that organizational culture influences interpersonal interactions, communication, and behavior across all facets of an organization.
• According to Hodge, Anthony and Gales most definitions of organizational culture contain some common elements and note that the culture exists at two levels in organization. Definition: “Organizational culture is a two-level construct that includes both observable and unobservable characteristics of the organization. At the observable level, culture includes many aspects of the organization such as architecture, dress, behavior patterns, rules, stories, myths, language, and ceremonies. At the unobservable level culture is composed of the shared values, norms, beliefs, and assumptions of organizational members. Culture is the pattern or configuration of these two levels of characteristics that orients or directs organizational members to manage problems and their surroundings”.
• Ravasi and Schultz^[18] and Allaire and Firsirotu^[19] claim that organizational culture represents the collective values, beliefs and principles of organizational members. It is influenced by factors such as history, type of product, market, technology, strategy, type of employees, management style, and national culture. Culture includes the organization's vision, values, norms, systems, symbols, language, assumptions, environment, location, beliefs and habits.^{[20][21][22][23]} Gallup reported that just 22% of U.S. employees feel connected to their organization's culture.^[24]
• Geert Hofstede defined organizational culture as "the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one organization from another".^[25]
• McHale defines culture as "how the organization functions and its deeply embedded patterns".^[26]

The concept of organizational culture emerged in the late 20th century, drawing from sociology, anthropology, and psychology. Its formal introduction into management studies is often credited to Andrew Pettigrew’s (1979) article, which framed culture as a system of shared meanings, rituals, and myths within organizations. In the early 1980s, the idea gained traction through influential works such as Corporate Cultures by Deal and Kennedy (1982) and In Search of Excellence by Peters and Waterman (1982), which emphasized culture as a key driver of organizational success for high-performers.

A pivotal influence on the development of organizational culture, particularly in the post-WWII era, was the rise of Japanese industrial methodologies. Following World War II, Japan’s adoption of practices such as Total Quality Management (TQM), continuous improvement (Kaizen), and employee involvement, championed by figures like W. Edwards Deming, transformed not only Japanese industry but also inspired Western organizations to shift from rigid, hierarchical structures to more team-based, quality-focused, and customer-oriented cultures. This cross-pollination of management philosophies bridged Eastern and Western approaches, shaping leadership, employee engagement, and strategic planning worldwide (Denison & Mishra, 1995).

As the 21st century progressed, organizational culture continued to evolve in response to globalization, technological advances, and shifting workforce demographics. The digital revolution introduced new communication tools and flattened hierarchies, enabling more collaborative and agile work environments. The rise of knowledge work and the gig economy further diversified organizational forms and cultural expressions.

In the 2020s, two transformative trends, artificial intelligence (AI) and hybrid work models, have had a profound impact on organizational culture. The integration of AI technologies into daily operations has reshaped not only workflows but also the values and behaviours that define organizational life. AI-driven automation has streamlined routine tasks, enabling employees to focus on creative and strategic work. This shift has encouraged cultures that value adaptability, continuous learning, and digital literacy. At the same time, the ethical use of AI and concerns about data privacy have prompted organizations to emphasize transparency, trust, and responsible innovation as core cultural values (Baek et al., 2019).

Hybrid work models, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, have also fundamentally altered organizational culture. The rapid transition to remote and flexible work arrangements disrupted traditional workplace rituals and informal interactions, challenging leaders to find new ways to foster connection and cohesion. Organizations have responded by prioritizing flexibility, autonomy, and work-life balance, embedding these values into their cultures. Hybrid work has also led to the emergence of microcultures within organizations, as teams develop distinct norms and practices based on their unique contexts and needs. This increased cultural complexity requires leaders to be more intentional in communicating values, building trust, and supporting employee well-being (Sull et al., 2022). Recent trends further reflect a broader shift toward adaptive, inclusive, and values-driven cultures. Organizations are increasingly prioritizing purpose and social responsibility, recognizing that employees and stakeholders expect alignment between stated values and actual practices. Mental health and well-being have become central cultural priorities, with organizations investing in support systems and destigmatizing conversations about psychological safety. Transparency and open communication are now seen as essential for building trust, especially in virtual and distributed environments.

Elliott Jaques introduced the concept in his 1951 book The Changing Culture of a Factory.^[27] The book was a published report of "a case study of developments in the social life of one industrial community between April, 1948 and November 1950".^[11] The case involved a publicly-held British company engaged principally in the manufacture, sale, and servicing of metal bearings. The study concerned itself with the description, analysis, and development of corporate group behaviors.^[28]

Researchers have proposed various dimensions individually and in combination as useful for analyzing organizational culture. Examples include external/internal, strong/weak, flexible/rigid, and many others.

Culture can be externally focused, aiming to satisfy customers, investors, and partners. Alternatively, they can be internally focused, aiming to satisfy employees, comply with union-imposed rules, or to meet conduct standards around issues such as diversity, equity, and inclusion.^[29] Many organizations lie between such extremes, attempting to balance the needs of multiple stakeholders.

Any type of culture can be strongly or only tacitly supported. A strong culture is characterized by reinforcing tools such as ceremonies and policies to instill and spread it.^[30]Template:Pred The intent is to secure group compliance.^[31]

Researchers generally report that organizations having strong cultures are more successful.^[32][33]

An employee's perception of the organization's culture can have an impact on the employee's longevity with the organization. When organizations create a positive environment for their employees, they experience professional fulfillment, boosted performance, and a longer stint with the organization.^[34]

Tension arises when cultural (personal) and organizational identities do not match well because corporate policies, work practices, and communication styles conflict with local customs, for example in terms of formal vs. informal work environments, direct vs. indirect communication, and individualistic vs. collectivist approaches.^[35][36][37]

Quiet quitting is a principle that could potentially affect organizations with negative culture. It is the idea of doing the bare minimum on a job and setting boundaries in response to poor culture, burnout, lack of recognition, and inadequate work-life balance. This occurs in unhealthy work environments where personal circumstances force employees to stay.^[38]

Organizational culture is used to control, coordinate, and integrate distinct groups across the organization.^[39] Differences in national cultures must be addressed.^[40] Such differences include organizational structure and manager/employee relationships.^[41]

Irving Janis defined groupthink as "a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action."^[42] This is a state in which even if group members have different ideas, they do not challenge the group. Groupthink can lead to lack of creativity and decisions made without critical evaluation.^[43] Hogg and separately Deanne et al. stated that groupthink can occur, for example, when group members rely heavily on a charismatic figure or where members evince an "evangelical"^[44][45] belief in the organization's values. Groupthink can also occur in groups characterized by a friendly climate conducive to conflict avoidance.

Since the late 1960s, the so-called "Five Monkeys Experiment", which serves to exemplify the adverse effects of unquestioned traditions, has become part of management lore, often titled "How Company Policy Is Made".^[46] It imagines a situation where five monkeys are in a cage with a banana tied to the ceiling. Whenever a monkey climbs to reach the banana, all five are sprayed with cold water. The group quickly learn to ignore the banana and punish any monkey who attempts to reach for it. If one monkey is removed from the cage and replaced with a newcomer, they too are punished for reaching for the banana. If every monkey is subsequently replaced in this manner, so that none present remember being sprayed with cold water, the group will supposedly continue to punish any attempts to reach the banana. The monkeys are perpetuating a caution that may be redundant "because that's the way it's always been around here".^[46]

Willcoxson and Millett note that organizational cultures change over time.^[9]: 93 Kotter and Heskett define an adaptive culture as characterized by managers who pay close attention to their constituencies, especially customers, initiating change when needed, and taking risks. They claim that organizations with adaptive cultures perform better.^[16]

Bullying manifests in workplaces that allow employees of higher status to harass those of lower status. This generally requires support or at least forbearance from company leaders.^[47] Bullying can cascade down the organizational hierarchy as supervisors experiencing bullying display the same behavior to their subordinates.^[48]

Workplace bullying impacts employees leading to increased stress on the job, decreased productivity and high turnover rates. Employees who are bullied often remain silent because management fails to hold perpetrators accountable.^[49]

The pandemic led many organizations to incorporate limiting spread into their cultures as a collective responsibility. Responses focused on requiring vaccines, hygiene, and masking.

In Asia, mask-wearing was part of several national cultures predating the pandemic.^[50] This was driven by experience with prior flus in Asia, such as Spanish flu, Hong Kong flu, Avian flu, and Swine flu, in addition to SARS, as well as various affronts to air quality such as volcanic eruptions.^[51]

Somers categorized cultures based on whether the need of the individual or the group was foremost. He used behaviors such as mask-wearing to measure collectivism vs individualism.^[52] Cultures otherwise rated "strong" were relatively resistant to change during the pandemic.^[53] However, strong cultures that emphasized innovation were more willing to change.

Mandated interventions could be seen by members either as attempts to protect them or to as attempts to exert control despite limited effectiveness, depending on how they were presented.^[54]

Digital tools such as videoconferencing, screen-sharing, file sharing, shared document authoring, digital whiteboards, and chat groups became widely accepted, replacing in-person meetings. The reduced amount of face-to-face communications may have impacted organizational cultures. New members, lacking face time with others, experienced difficulty in adapting to their organization's culture. The loss of face-time affected existing employees as well, directly weakening cultures, in addition to the indirect effects that strengthened or weakened cultures as organizations reacted in various ways to the pandemic. Some members felt disengaged and expandable rather than essential, alienated, and exhausted.^[55]

Sull and Sull reported that employees rated their leadership higher given honest/open communication, integrity, and transparency more than in preceding years. Also, employers and leaders giving more attention to employees' welfare had a positive impact on cultural adherence.^[56] Chambers claimed that this was a short-term response rather than a culture change.^[57]

Deloitte argued that employees displayed greater sense of purpose, inspiration, and contribution. Also, leaders became more tolerant of employees' failure because of a significant increase in experimentation and risk-taking.^[58]

Daum and Maraist claimed that sense of purpose relates to customers and the society of which employees are part. They compared hospitals and retail shops. The former had a greater sense of purpose during the pandemic, while the latter had less.^[59]

Healthy cultures address members' concerns about the well-being of the organization. Whistleblowing, particularly when it damages a company's reputation, is considered to be a sign of a dysfunctional corporate culture, indicating that internal methods of addressing problems are inadequate.^[60]

Promulgating a corporate culture requires effort, typically from leaders, but potentially throughout the organization. Among the many types of communication that affect organizational culture are:^[61]

• Metaphors such as comparing an organization to a machine or a family.^[62][63]
• Stories
• Rites and ceremonies:^[64]
  • Rites of passage: employees move into new roles
  • Rites of humiliation: employees have power taken away from them
  • Rites of enhancement: recognition for accomplishments
  • Rites of renewal: strengthen existing social structures
  • Rites of conflict reduction: resolve arguments
  • Rites of integration: strengthen ties across individuals and groups
• Reflexive comments, explanations, justifications, and criticisms of actions:
  • Plans: comments about anticipated actions
  • Commentaries: comments about action in the present
  • Accounts: comments about an action or event that has already occurred

Numerous outcomes have been associated either directly or indirectly with organizational culture. The relationships between organizational culture and various outcomes include organizational performance, employee commitment, and innovation. A healthy and robust organizational culture is thought to offer various benefits, including:^[65][66]

• Competitive edge derived from innovation and customer service
• Consistent efficient employee performance
• Team cohesiveness
• High employee morale and job satisfaction^[67]
• Alignment towards goal achievement
• Increased member conscientiousness, leading to better compliance with procedures such as information security, and workplace safety^[68][69]

A Harvard Business School study reported that culture has a significant effect on an organization's long-term economic performance. The study examined the management practices at 160 organizations over ten years and found that culture can impact performance. Performance-oriented cultures experienced better financial results. Additionally, a 2002 Corporate Leadership Council study found that cultural traits such as risk taking, internal communications, and flexibility are important drivers of performance. Furthermore, innovativeness, productivity through people, and other cultural factors cited by Peters and Waterman in In Search of Excellence also have positive economic consequences.

Denison, Haaland, and Goelzer reported that culture contributes to the success of the organization, but not all dimensions contribute equally. Effects differed across nations, implying that organizational culture is rooted in national culture.^[70]

Cultures are not static and can evolve over time, either organically or through intentional change efforts by management.^[71] Culture change may be attempted to reduce member turnover, influence behavior, make improvements to the organization, reset objectives, rescale the organization, or achieve specific results.^[72]

Organizational cultures have been reported to change in stages. Organizational communication professor Dave Logan proposed five stages:^[73][74]

• "Life sucks" (a subsystem severed from other functional systems; such as a tribe, gang or prison—2 percent of population);
• "My life sucks" (—25 percent of population);
• "I'm great, and you're not" (—48 percent of population);
• "We are great, but other groups suck" (unification around more than individual competence—22 percent of population) and
• "Life is great" (3 percent of population).

While Logan’s tribal stages offer insight into group identity and morale, other models conceptualize cultural change as a structured process grounded in organizational theory. One foundational framework is Kurt Lewin three-step model: unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. Unfreezing involves disrupting existing routines and creating readiness for change; the changing phase introduces new behaviors and systems; and refreezing embeds these changes into daily operations and organizational identity.^[75]

Edgar Schein emphasizes that cultural change is not linear but iterative, involving multiple reinforcing mechanisms. These include formal structures, leadership modeling, rituals, and language that signal and sustain new cultural norms.^[76]

In public sector HRM, these stages are often complicated by bureaucratic inertia, political oversight, and limited planning horizons. Cultural transformation requires sustained leadership, strategic alignment, and mechanisms for reinforcing change through recruitment, training, and performance systems.^[77]

Existing culture can hinder change efforts, especially where members understand the roles that they are supposed to play. Marquis et al. claimed that 70% of all change efforts fail because of the members. Organizational culture, and the structures in which they are embedded, often exhibit substantial inertia.^[78]

Cultural change in public sector organizations presents distinct challenges due to the structural, political, and behavioral characteristics of government institutions. Unlike private enterprises, public agencies operate within rigid bureaucratic frameworks, are subject to political oversight, and often face resource constraints that limit their capacity for sustained transformation.^[79]

One of the most significant obstacles is bureaucratic rigidity. Public sector organizations are typically governed by formal rules, hierarchical structures, and standardized procedures designed to ensure accountability and fairness. While these features serve important democratic functions, they can also inhibit flexibility and responsiveness.^[79] Christensen and Lægreid argue that the institutional logic of bureaucracy often clashes with the adaptive demands of cultural change, making it difficult to introduce new values or behaviors that deviate from established norms.^[79]

Political pressures further complicate cultural change initiatives. Public agencies are embedded in political systems where leadership turnover, shifting policy priorities, and electoral cycles can disrupt long-term reform efforts.^[80] Pollitt and Bouckaert note that cultural change requires continuity and strategic alignment, yet public managers often operate under short-term mandates that prioritize immediate results over deep transformation.

Resource limitations are another persistent barrier. Many public sector organizations face budget constraints, staffing shortages, and competing priorities that restrict their ability to invest in cultural change programs.^[77] Initiatives such as training, mentoring, and organizational redesign require time and funding, yet these are often deprioritized in favor of operational demands.^[77]

Employee resistance also plays a critical role in shaping the trajectory of cultural change. Public sector employees may be deeply attached to existing routines, role identities, and organizational traditions. Change initiatives that challenge these foundations can provoke anxiety, skepticism, or disengagement.^[81]

Ogbonna and Harris argue that entrenched cultural norms and structural inertia contribute to high failure rates in organizational change efforts, particularly when new values are not reinforced through leadership modeling and performance systems.^[81]

In addition, leadership gaps can undermine cultural change. Effective transformation requires leaders who not only endorse new values but also embody them in daily practice. In the public sector, however, leadership may be constrained by political appointments, administrative turnover, or limited autonomy.^[82]

Without consistent and visible support from senior leaders, cultural change efforts risk being perceived as superficial or temporary. Schein highlights the importance of leadership in shaping and sustaining organizational culture, noting that symbolic actions and behavioural modelling are essential for embedding new norms.^[82]

Finally, evaluation and feedback mechanisms are often underdeveloped in public sector HRM. Cultural change requires ongoing assessment to identify progress, surface any resistance, and adjust strategies accordingly. Yet many public agencies lack the tools or capacity to conduct meaningful evaluations of cultural initiatives.^[77]

Without data-driven insights, it becomes difficult to refine interventions or demonstrate impact, which can erode support and momentum.^[77]

Change methodologies include Peter Senge's concept of a "learning organization" expressed in The Fifth Discipline or Directive Communication's "corporate culture evolution".

Changing culture takes time. Members need time to get used to the new ways. Organizations with a strong and specific culture are harder to change.^[83]

Prior to introducing a cultural change, a needs assessment can characterize the existing culture. This involves some mixture of employ surveys, interviews, focus groups, observation, customer surveys, and other internal research. The company must then describe the new, desired culture, and then design a change process.

Cummings and Worley offer six guidelines for cultural change, in line with the eight distinct stages mentioned by Kotter.^[84][85]

• Formulate a strategic vision (Kotter stage 1, 2, and 3). A clear vision of the firm's new strategy, shared values and behaviors provides direction for the culture change.^[86]
• Display top-management commitment (stage 4). Culture change must be managed from the top of the organization, as senior management's willingness to change is an important indicator.^[86] Leadership must be strongly in favor of the change to implement the change. De Caluwé and Vermaak provide a framework with five different ways of thinking about change.^[87]
• Model change at the highest level (stage 5). In order to show that management wants the change, the change has to be visible and notable. Leadership needs to express the values and behaviors to be realized. It is important that leadership acknowledge the strengths of the current culture; it must be made clear that the culture needs adjustments rather than radical changes.^{[10][88][89][90][91]} This process may include creating committees, task forces, or value managers. Change agents communicate the new culture. They must embody courage, flexibility, interpersonal skills, organization knowledge, and patience. These individuals must be catalysts, rather than dictators.^[92]
• The fourth step is to modify the organization to support change. This includes identifying systems, policies, procedures and rules accordingly. This may include changes to accountability systems, compensation, benefits/reward structures, and recruitment and retention programs.
• Select and socialize newcomers and expel deviants (stage 7 and 8).^[85] A way to implement a change is to connect it to organizational membership. People may have to be selected and terminated in terms of their fit with the new culture.^[93] Encouraging employee motivation and loyalty is key and creates a healthy culture. Change managers must be able to connect the desired behavior and organizational success. Training must be provided to employees.
• Develop ethical and legal sensitivity. Changes in culture can lead to tensions between organizational and individual interests, which can create legal problems for practitioners. This is particularly relevant for changes in integrity, control, equitable treatment and job security.^[93] An evaluation process monitors progress and identifies areas that need further development. This step surfaces obstacles and resistant members, and acknowledges and rewards improvement, which encourages change. It may be necessary to incorporate new change managers, such as outside consultants. People often resist change, leaving it to leadership to convince people that gains outweigh losses. Besides institutionalization, reification is another process that tends to occur in strong cultures. The organization may come to be regarded as a source of pride, and even unique. The organization's members develop a strong bond that transcends material returns, and begin to identify with it, turning the organization into a sort of clan.

Several methods have been used to classify organizational culture. While there is no single "type" of organizational culture and organizational cultures vary widely across organizations, researchers have developed models to describe different indicators of organizational cultures.

Hofstede looked for differences between over 160 000 IBM employees in 50 countries and three regions of the world, searching for aspects of culture that influence business behavior. He emphasized awareness of international differences and multiculturalism. Cultural differences reflect differences in thinking and social action, and in "mental programs", a term Hofstede used for predictable behavior. Hofstede related culture to ethnic and regional differences, but also to the influence of organizations, professional, family, social and subcultural groups, national political systems, and legislation.^[94]

He suggested that changing "mental programs" involves changing behavior first, which then leads to value change. Though groups such as Jews and Gypsies have maintained their identity through centuries, their values reflect adaptation to the dominant cultural environment.

Hofstede described national and regional cultural groupings that affect the behavior of organizations and identified four dimensions of culture (later five^[95]) in his study of national cultures:

• Power distance – Societies adopt various approaches to social inequality. Although invisible, inside organizations' power inequality of the "boss-subordinate relationships" is functional. "According to Mulder's Power Distance Reduction theory subordinates will try to reduce the power distance between themselves and their bosses and bosses will try to maintain or enlarge it", but societies expect differences in power levels to exist.^[96]
• Uncertainty avoidance is a way of coping with uncertainty. Society copes using technology, law and religion/ritual, along either a rational (technology, law) or non-rational (religion/ritual). Hofstede cited rituals including memos and reports, some parts of accounting systems, parts of planning and control systems, and the invocation of experts.
• Individualism vs. collectivism – disharmony of personal and collective interests.^[97] Hofstede raised the idea that society's expectations of Individualism/Collectivism are reflected by members. Collectivist societies have more emotional dependence; when in equilibrium an organization is expected to show responsibility to members. Individualist societies more often expect self-reliance. Some cultures have features of both.
• Masculinity vs. femininity – reflects whether a certain society emphasizes stereotypical male or female cultural values, gender roles and power relations.
• Long- versus short-term orientation^[95] – "The long-term orientation dimension can be interpreted as dealing with society's search for virtue. Societies with a short-term orientation generally have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth. They are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results. In societies with a long-term orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results."^[98]

These dimensions help define the effect of national cultures on management, and can be used to adapt to local needs.^[99]

Denison's model assessed culture along four dimensions. Each divides into three sub-dimensions:^[100]

• Mission – Strategic Direction and Intent, Goals and Objectives and Vision
• Adaptability – Creating Change, Customer Focus and Organizational Learning
• Involvement – Empowerment, Team Orientation and Capability Development
• Consistency – Core Values, Agreement, Coordination/Integration

It separately assesses cultures along the dimensions of external/internal focus and flexible/stable evolution.

Deal and Kennedy characterized four types of organizations. Each focused on how quickly the organization processes along three dimensions: feedback, member rewards, and risk.^[101]

• Work-hard, play-hard – Feedback: rapid; risk: low. Stress comes from work quantity rather than uncertainty. High-speed action leading to high-speed recreation. Examples: Restaurants, software companies.^[101][102]
• Macho – Feedback: rapid; reward: rapid; risk: high. Stress comes from risk and potential reward loss/gain. Short-term focus. Examples– police, surgeons, sports.
• Process culture – Feedback: slow; reward: slow; risk: low. Low stress, plodding work, comfort and security. Stress comes from internal politics and bureaucracy. Examples: banks, insurance companies.^[10][101]
• Bet-the-company culture – Feedback: slow; reward: slow; risk: high. Stress comes from high risk and long payoff intervals. Detailed long-term planning. Examples: aircraft manufacturers, oil companies.

Schein claimed that culture is the most difficult organizational attribute to change, outlasting products, services, founders and leadership and all physical attributes. His model considers culture as an observer, characterized in terms of artifacts, values and underlying assumptions.^[15]

Schein's model considers attributes that can be experienced by the uninitiated observer – collectively known as artifacts. Included are facilities, offices, furnishings, visible awards and recognition, informal dress codes, member interactions with each other and with outsiders, and company slogans, mission statements and other creeds.

• Artifacts are physical elements that convey cultural meaning. Denison described artifacts as the tangible aspects of culture shared by members of an organization. Verbal, behavioral and physical artifacts are the surface manifestations of organizational culture.^[100] Technology and art exhibited by members of an organization are examples of physical artifacts. Rituals (myths, stories, and sagas) are artifacts that convey organizational history and influence member understanding of values and beliefs.
• Values direct individual behavior such as loyalty and customer orientation. Acceptance of stated values underlies impressions about trustworthiness and supportiveness, while also informing member behavior. This can be assessed by member interviews and surveys.
• Tacit assumptions are elements of culture that are not explicitly identified by members. Some elements may be taboo to discuss. Members may not have conscious knowledge of them. Nevertheless, they can influence member behavior. Interviews and surveys do not reveal them—much more in-depth assessment is required.

This model can enable understanding seemingly paradoxical behavior. For instance, an organization can profess high aesthetic and moral standards in terms of values, while violating those values should they conflict with tacit assumptions.

Schein claimed that the two main reasons why cultures develop in organizations are external adaptation and internal integration. External adaptation helps an organization to flourish by affecting its culture. An appropriate culture holds the potential for generating sustained competitive advantage over external competitors.

Internal integration is an important function for establishing essential social structures and aiding socialization at the workplace. Culture-shaping factors include:^{[15][clarification needed]}

• External environment
• Industry
• Size and nature of the organization's workforce
• Technologies the organization uses
• The organization's history and ownership

Organizational structure is linked to organizational culture. Harrison described four types of culture:^[103]

• Power culture – concentrates power among a small group or a central figure and its control radiates from its center like a web. Power cultures need few rules and little bureaucracy, but swift decisions can ensue.
• Role culture – authorities are delegated within a defined structure. These organizations form hierarchical bureaucracies, where power derives from personal position and rarely from expertise. Control is by procedures (which are highly valued), strict role descriptions and authority definitions. These organizations have consistent systems and are predictable. This culture is often represented by a "Roman Building" with "pillars". These pillars represent the functional departments.
• Task culture – teams are formed to solve particular problems. Power is derived from the team with the expertise to complete a task. This culture uses a small team approach, where people are highly skilled and specialized in their own area of expertise.^[104] Additionally, these cultures often feature multiple reporting lines found in a matrix structure.
• Person culture: formed where all individuals believe themselves superior to the organization. It can become difficult for such organizations to operate, since the concept of an organization suggests that members are like-minded individuals who pursue common organizational goals. Some professional partnerships operate well as such cultures, because each partner brings a particular expertise and clientele to the group.

Johnson described a cultural web, identifying elements that can be used to describe/influence organizational culture:^[105]

• The paradigm – What the organization is about, what it does, its mission, its values.
• Control systems – Processes that monitor activity. Role cultures have vast rule-books. Power cultures rely on individualism.
• Organizational structure – Reporting lines, hierarchies, and the way that work flows through the organization.
• Power structures – Who makes the decisions, how widely spread is power, and on what is power based?
• Symbols – Organizational logos and designs, including symbols such as parking spaces and executive washroom keys.
• Rituals and routines – Management meetings, board reports,...
• Stories and myths – narratives about people and events that convey values

These elements may overlap. Power structures may depend on control systems, which may exploit rituals that generate stories that may or may not be true.

Schemata are knowledge structures derived from experience that simplify behavioral choices by providing a way to think about events. Schemata are created through interaction with others.^[106] Harris described five categories of in-organization schemata necessary for organizational culture:

• Self-in-organization schema – individual self-concept relating to the organization, including personality, roles, and behavior
• Individual-in-organization schema – memories, impressions, and expectations of others
• Organization schema – a subset of individual schema: generalized perspective on others
• Object/concept-in-organization schema – organizational aspects
• Event-in-organization schema – knowledge of social events

These schemata represent an individual's knowledge of the organization. Culture results when individual schemata become shared across an organization, primarily through organizational communication, reflecting shared knowledge and meaning.

Adam Grant, author of Give and Take, highlights norms of reciprocity in analyzing culture. He distinguishes giver, taker and matcher cultures.

• Givers – employees operate by "helping others, sharing knowledge, offering mentoring, and making connections without expecting anything in return"
• Takers – "get as much as possible from others while contributing less in return" and winners are those who take the most and are able to build their power even at the expense of others.
• Matchers – match giving with taking, and trade favors mostly in closed loops.^[107]

In a study of the US intelligence system, giver cultures had the greatest group effectiveness.^[107]

Frank claimed that "many organizations are essentially winner-take-all markets, dominated by zero-sum competitions for rewards and promotions". In particular, when leaders implement forced ranking systems to reward individual performance, giver cultures give way to taker or matcher cultures. Awarding the highest-performing individual within each team encourages a taker culture.^[107]

McGuire's model predicted revenue from new sources. An entrepreneurial organizational culture is a system of shared values, beliefs and norms, valuing creativity and tolerance, believing that innovating and seizing market opportunities are solutions to problems of survival and prosperity, environmental uncertainty, competition, and expects members to behave accordingly.^[108][109]

• People and empowerment focused
• Value creation through innovation and change
• Attention to basics
• Hands-on management
• Doing the right thing
• Freedom to grow and to fail
• Commitment and personal responsibility
• Emphasis on the future

Smircich described two approaches to studying organizational culture: as a variable and as a process.^[110] The former could be external or internal, encompassing values, norms, rituals, structures, principles, assumptions, and beliefs.^[111] National culture influences that variable.

Driskill and Brenton claimed that culture could be understood as shared cognition, systems of shared symbols, and as the expression of unconscious processes.^[111]

• Traditional – views culture through stories, rituals, and symbols
• Interpretive – views culture through a network of shared meanings (members sharing subjective meanings)
• Critical-interpretive – views culture through a network of shared meanings as well as through power struggles created by competing meanings.

Rosauer observed organizational culture to be emergent – an incalculable state that results from the combination of various ingredients. In "Three Bell Curves: Business Culture Decoded",^[112] he outlined three ingredients that he claimed guide business culture:

• employee (focus on engagement)
• work (focus on eliminating waste increasing value)
• customer (focus on likelihood of referral)

Improving these areas brings leadership, employees, work and customers together, improving culture and brand.^[112]

Other frameworks include:

• Kets de Vries and Miller (1984):^[113] Paranoid, Avoidant, Charismatic, Bureaucratic, and Schizoid
• Mitroff and Kilmann (1975):^[114] Sensation thinking, Sensation feeling, Intuitive thinking, and Intuitive feeling
• Sethia and Von Gilnow in 1985:^[115] Caring, Apathetic, Integrative, and Exacting
• Deal and Kennedy (1982):^[116] organizational environment, core beliefs, heroes of the culture, folklore, myths, rites, rituals of culture, and the cultural network
• Ouchi and Jaeger (1978):^[117] type A (allows some decision making), J (tribal control), and Z (tribal decision making)
• McHale's 4-stage Culture Disruptor: 1. Diagnose the deeply embedded patterns 2. Reframe role of the parts 3. Break the patterns 4. Consolidate one's gains ^[118]

O'Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell developed a model based on the belief that cultures can be distinguished by values. Their Organizational Cultural Profile (OCP) is a self-reporting tool that distinguishes eight categories:

• Innovation
• Supportiveness
• Stability
• Respect for People
• Outcome Orientation
• Attention to Detail
• Team Orientation
• Aggressiveness.

The instrument can measure how culture affects performance, as it discerns persons most suited to an organization and such organizations have an effective culture. Takeda claimed that such instruments can measure both person-situation fit and person-culture fit.^[119] Such measurements assess the level of  compatibility between employees and companies. Employee values are measured against organizational values to predict employee turnover.^[120][121]

Cameron and Quinn developed the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) that distinguishes four culture types, based on the Competing Values Framework (CVF).^[122]

Competing values can be assessed along dimensions of flexibility/stability and internal/external focus – they reported these to be the most important in influencing organizational success. These dimensions enable a quadrant of four culture types:

• Clan culture is flexible/internally focused. Collaboration, shared values and employee development with participatory decision making and cohesion. This culture encourages positive relationships and personal satisfaction and can be linked to a soft HRM approach.^[123][124]
• Adhocracy culture is flexible/externally focused. Innovation, risk-taking and adaptability. These cultures have a higher risk tolerance and focus on development and can be linked to a soft HRM approach.^[123][124]
• Market culture is stable/externally focused. External accountability, results, and efficiency using performance metrics and targets. This culture strives for continuous improvement but with structure and can be linked to a hard HRM approach.
• Hierarchy culture is stable/internally focused. Formal rules, procedures, and centralized authority such as in regulatory authorities. This can be described as bureaucratic and is unlikely to work in a complex and changing environment. It can be linked to a hard HRM approach.^[123][124]

Cooke defined culture as behaviors that members believe are required to fit in and meet expectations. The Organizational Culture Inventory measures twelve behavioral norms grouped into three culture types:^[125]

• Constructive cultures – Members are encouraged to interact with people and approach tasks in ways that help them meet their higher-order satisfaction needs.
• Passive/defensive cultures – Members believe they must interact with people in ways that will not threaten their own security.
• Aggressive/defensive cultures – Members are expected to approach tasks forcefully to protect their status and security.

Public sector organizations have complex environments that shape their organizational cultures. HRM typologies and approaches reflect the unique regulatory, operational, and strategic characteristics of government agencies.^[126] These frameworks provide a way to classify the approaches and identify patterns that offer insight into how public sector organizational culture influences public service delivery.

Public sector organizations often operate under multiple typologies, both at once and in different units within the same organization depending on the function.^[127] Unlike private sector organizations which often prioritize profit, public sector HRM needs to have a balance of compliance, accountability, and policy alignment while fostering employee engagement and performance and meeting the needs of multiple stakeholders.^[128][129]

Two widely discussed typologies and HRM approaches are the ideas of Soft versus Hard HRM and the Competing Values Framework. These frameworks provide insight into how organizations find a balance between control and adaptability as they face dual demands from the public, politicians, and stakeholders.^[127]

Soft versus Hard HRM approaches shape the effectiveness of HRM and the organizational strategies put in place. The two approaches are opposing in their understanding of employees and motivation.^[127] Soft HRM emphasizes the human element of management with a focus on organizational commitment through autonomy, training, and trust, where employees are central to success. Hard HRM aligns organizational culture with an organizations strategic objective and measuring performance, employees are treated as resources.^[127][130]

In public sector organizations there is often tension between hard and soft HRM as governments try to be efficient but also promoting an inclusive public service. With public and political scrutiny playing a pivotal role in perceived success, public sector organizations often adopt hard HRM principles to show visible performance and accountability.^[131] In the balance, soft HRM is demonstrated through public engagement and service quality. This coexistence reflects the hybrid nature of organizational culture in the public sector as public sector managers balance the need for efficiency with employee wellbeing.^[127]

The Competing Values Framework (CVF) can be used to understand the tensions between bureaucratic control and developmental flexibility and the dual pressures public sector organizations face. This framework is built on the two dimensions of flexibility versus stability where organizations encourage either agility or compliance and internal versus external focus where organizations encourage internal cohesion or external competition.

CVF helps to understand public sector organizational culture becomes it shows both bureaucratic stability and developmental flexibility environments that these organizations operate under.^[132][133]

Typologies influence organizational culture because they impact how employees perceive their positions, peers, managers, and motivations. In bureaucratic, hard HRM environments employee compliance is likely to be high, but the employees are at risk of dissatisfaction. In developmental, soft HRM environments employees benefit from autonomy and collaboration, but resource constraints and public sector requirements for accountability can impede progress.^[130]

Public sector organizational culture typologies provide a framework for understanding how HRM practices influence culture and subcultures, culture change, and the shaping of employee behavior across and within organizations. Public sector organizations often have multiple typologies at the same time which creates distinct subcultures within a single organization.^{[126][132][133]}These overlapping typologies can generate hybrid cultures that balance stability, innovation, efficiency, and accountability but they can make organization culture change difficult when a subculture focuses on stability and procedures. Being able to recognize the difference and coexistence of typologies can support the development of HRM strategies that are cohesive and are more likely to succeed.^[130][132]

Criticism of "organizational culture" began in the early 1980s.^[7] Most criticism comes from writers in critical management studies who for example express skepticism about functionalist and unitarist views. They stress the ways in which these assumptions can stifle dissent and reproduce propaganda and ideology. They suggest that organizations do not embody a single culture (diversity), and cultural engineering may not reflect the interests of all stakeholders.

Parker suggested that many of the assumptions surrounding organizational culture are not new. They reflect a long-standing tension between cultural and structural (or informal and formal) versions of organizations. Further, it is reasonable to suggest that complex organizations might have many cultures, and that such sub-cultures might overlap and contradict each other. The neat typologies of cultural forms found in textbooks rarely acknowledge such complexities, or the various economic contradictions that exist in capitalist organizations.^[134]

Smircich criticized theories that attempt to categorize or 'pigeonhole' organizational culture.^[6][135] She applied the metaphor of a plant root to represent culture, saying that it drives organizations rather than vice versa. Organizations are the product of their organizational culture, which shapes behavior and interaction. While Schein's underlying assumptions are that beliefs, perceptions, thoughts, and feelings are taken for granted and can be observed and considered the ultimate source of values and action. However, such assumptions undermine attempts to categorize and define organizational culture.^[136]

Although organizational culture has become a prominent concept in management and organizational studies, it has also faced significant criticism. Scholars, practitioners, and critical theorists have questioned its conceptual clarity, managerial use, and ethical implications.

One major criticism concerns the ambiguity of the term organizational culture. The concept has been used to describe everything from values and beliefs to symbols, stories, and power relations.^[137] Critics argue that this lack of precision makes it difficult to operationalize or measure culture reliably.^[138] Some researchers suggest that organizational culture is treated more as a metaphor than a testable construct, which reduces its scientific rigor. Others point out that while organizations are often described as "having" a culture, in practice culture is not a single unified entity but a set of complex, overlapping practices.

In public sector HRM, this ambiguity is even more visible. Government agencies often contain competing institutional logics, such as political accountability, bureaucratic procedures, and professional ethics. Trying to label this mix as a single "culture" risks oversimplifying reality. For example, a central ministry might emphasize compliance and hierarchy, while local offices prioritize responsiveness to community needs.

Another line of criticism is directed at the use of culture as a managerial control tool. Since the 1980s, management literature has encouraged leaders to "shape" or "engineer" culture to align employees with organizational goals. Critics contend that such efforts can be coercive, requiring employees to internalize company values at the expense of individuality. From this perspective, organizational culture initiatives resemble ideological control, where employees' identities are managed as much as their work tasks.^[139]

Critics also note that corporate culture programs often use persuasive language to promote unity while masking underlying inequalities. For instance, slogans about teamwork and collaboration can obscure power asymmetries between managers and staff. In public services, this can take the form of reform programs that ask teachers, nurses, or police officers to embrace efficiency targets without addressing resource shortages or political pressures.

In public sector HRM, reforms inspired by New Public Management have sought to instill private sector values such as efficiency and customer focus.^[140] Critics argue that these efforts often clash with professional values in healthcare, education, and policing, leading to cultural resistance. Nurses may value patient-centered care over throughput targets, while teachers often prioritize student development rather than performance indicators.

Many organizational culture models assume that organizations can or should have a single, cohesive culture. Critics highlight that organizations are pluralistic, consisting of multiple subcultures that may not align.^[141] Attempts to impose a unitary culture may suppress diversity, stifle dissent, or ignore legitimate differences in professional norms and values.^{[134][page needed]}

In public administration, efforts to enforce a single reform-oriented culture have often been met with resistance. For example, attempts to standardize "customer service" norms across welfare offices may clash with the legalistic and compliance-driven traditions of social workers. Similarly, central government initiatives that promote uniform values can overlook local contexts, creating tensions between headquarters and frontline staff.

Research on organizational culture also faces methodological difficulties. Ethnographic studies can provide rich descriptions, but they are often criticized for being context-specific and not easily generalizable.^[142] Quantitative surveys attempt to measure culture through standardized instruments, but critics argue that these oversimplify complex cultural phenomena.^[143] The subjective nature of culture makes it difficult to draw causal conclusions about its effects on performance, innovation, or employee satisfaction.

In public sector HRM, measuring culture is particularly problematic because outcomes are multidimensional. Success is not only about efficiency but also about fairness, transparency, and service quality. This makes it difficult to establish simple links between "culture" and performance indicators.

Critics further argue that organizational culture discourse often reflects dominant cultural perspectives, especially Western managerial ideologies.^[144] This raises concerns about ethnocentrism, particularly in multinational contexts where imposed cultural values may conflict with local traditions. Additionally, the emphasis on cultural "fit" in hiring and promotion has been criticized for reinforcing homogeneity and limiting diversity.^[145]

In public sector organizations, these concerns are particularly relevant. Recruitment practices that stress cultural fit may inadvertently exclude candidates from minority or disadvantaged groups, undermining commitments to representativeness and equity. Moreover, efforts to impose performance-driven cultures may undervalue caring professions, such as teaching or nursing, which emphasize empathy and social responsibility. Research indicates that organizations emphasizing cultural conformity may inadvertently exclude individuals from underrepresented groups, reducing both equity and innovation.^[146]

Attempts to shape culture may generate resistance or unintended effects. For example, initiatives promoting "positivity" and "resilience" can discourage employees from voicing concerns or criticizing problematic practices.^[147] Similarly, programs that promote customer-centric cultures may lead employees to prioritize client satisfaction over ethical considerations or work–life balance.^[148] Critics argue that culture is not fully controllable, and managerial interventions may produce outcomes opposite to those intended.

Public sector reforms illustrate these dynamics. Campaigns promoting a "culture of efficiency" in tax agencies or social services can create defensive subcultures that emphasize box-ticking rather than real service improvements. Instead of empowering employees, cultural reforms may lead to cynicism, resistance, or passive compliance.

From an academic perspective, some argue that organizational culture has been overemphasized at the expense of structural, economic, or institutional explanations of organizational behavior.^[149] Critics suggest that focusing on culture risks neglecting material conditions such as pay, resources, and power dynamics. As such, organizational culture may function as a "fashionable" but limited lens in organizational analysis.

For public sector HRM, this critique is especially important. Issues such as inadequate staffing, political pressures, and funding shortages often have more immediate effects on performance than cultural values. Scholars therefore caution against cultural determinism — the idea that culture alone explains organizational outcomes. Instead, they argue for integrated approaches that consider culture alongside structure, resources, and governance.

In the US, corporate culture can legally be found to be a cause of injuries and a reason for fining companies, such as when the US Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration levied a fine of more than US$10.8 million on Performance Coal Co. following the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster in April 2010. This was the largest fine in the history of this agency.^[150]

Organizational subcultures are distinct cultural groupings that develop within larger organizations. While the overall organizational culture reflects shared values, norms, and practices, subcultures arise when groups of employees interpret and enact the dominant culture differently. These subcultures may form along departmental, professional, geographical, or hierarchical lines, and can either support or challenge the broader organizational culture.^[151]

Subcultures often emerge from shared experiences and professional identities. For example, engineers, marketers, and human resource professionals may each develop unique norms of communication, problem-solving, and decision-making.^[152] Geographic dispersion also fosters subcultures: multinational organizations often find that local offices adapt the dominant culture to fit local social norms.^[153] Hierarchical subcultures can form as executives, middle managers, and front-line employees perceive organizational goals differently based on their responsibilities.^[154]

Key characteristics of subcultures include specialized jargon, rituals, insider humor, and symbols that are distinct from the dominant culture. These elements can strengthen group identity and cohesion, but may also create boundaries that separate one subculture from others. In public agencies, for example, auditors, inspectors, or policy analysts may develop a shared professional language and ethical framework that differentiates them from administrative staff, even though they are employed by the same government department.^{[134][page needed]}

Scholars such as Joanne Martin and Carol Siehl classified subcultures into three types:

• Enhancing subcultures reinforce the core values of the organization. For example, a training department that promotes the organization's stated values through development programs. In the public sector, military academies or police colleges often cultivate subcultures that reinforce discipline, loyalty, and service to the community, in alignment with official values.
• Orthogonal subcultures coexist with the dominant culture but maintain distinct values that do not directly conflict. For instance, a research division may prioritize scientific autonomy within a profit-oriented company. In government, a planning unit might emphasize long-term social impact while the broader agency prioritizes short-term efficiency.
• Countercultures openly reject or resist the dominant culture, often emerging when employees perceive organizational values as inconsistent with their own. Trade unions, employee advocacy groups, and whistle-blower communities within public organizations often illustrate countercultural behavior.^[155]

Occupational subcultures are also widely studied, such as those found in policing, nursing, or the military, where professional standards and traditions override broader organizational values. In the public sector, professional subcultures in healthcare or education often clash with managerial reforms that emphasize efficiency, performance measurement, and accountability. For example, teachers may emphasize student development and holistic education, while government departments emphasize standardized testing and league tables.^[156]

Subcultures influence organizational behavior in multiple ways. Supportive subcultures can facilitate goal alignment, innovation, and knowledge sharing. For instance, interdepartmental project teams may create a collaborative subculture that enhances creative solutions to public service challenges. Conversely, subcultures may create silos, communication barriers, or conflicts. A strong counterculture can undermine organizational initiatives, leading to resistance against change programs, mergers, or new policies.^[157]

Public sector examples include police subcultures resisting community policing reforms, or health worker subcultures prioritizing patient care over cost-cutting mandates.^[158] These subcultures may both protect professional ethics and slow down organizational change. Similarly, tax agencies or social welfare offices sometimes develop compliance-oriented subcultures that emphasize rule-following over innovation, which can ensure fairness but also create rigidity.

Another important impact is the role of subcultures in shaping employee motivation and morale. When subcultures are consistent with employees' professional identities, they can increase engagement and retention. However, when organizational reforms undermine professional values, employees may disengage or resist. This is particularly visible in public services such as education and healthcare, where reform programs are frequently contested by strong professional subcultures.

While subcultures are widely acknowledged, debates persist about whether they threaten organizational unity or provide resilience. Some scholars argue that too many divergent subcultures fragment organizations, weakening cohesion and making it harder to pursue shared goals. Others contend that subcultures enhance adaptability by giving employees spaces to develop identities and practices aligned with their professional needs.^[159]

Contemporary debates also emphasize how digitalization and remote work have accelerated the formation of subcultures. In public administrations, virtual teams often develop subcultures based on online communication styles, which may diverge from the traditional bureaucratic culture of government institutions.^[160] Some researchers argue that recognizing these emergent digital subcultures is essential for managing a modern public workforce.

Finally, the literature highlights the difficulty of managing subcultures in complex environments. Attempts to impose a singular organizational culture may be counterproductive, while overly fragmented subcultures risk undermining collective accountability. For public sector HRM, the challenge lies in balancing professional autonomy with organizational alignment, ensuring that diverse subcultures contribute constructively to public service outcomes.

Egan and Tate speak of organizations having a "shadow side",^[161] which Egan defined as:

All those things that substantially and consistently affect the productivity and quality of the working life of a business, for better or worse, but which are not found on organisation charts, in company manuals, or in the discussions that take place in formal meetings.^[162]

Tate describes the shadow side as the "often disagreeable, messy, crazy and opaque aspects of [an] organisation's personality".^[161]

163. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

164. Hodge, B. J., Anthony, W. P., & Gales, L. M. (2003). Organization theory: A strategic approach (6th ed.). Prentice Hall. Think Insights. (n.d.). Schein’s organizational culture model.

165. Think Insights. https://thinkinsights.net/index.php/consulting/scheins-organizational-culture-model

166. Tadesse Bogale, A., & Debela, K. L. (2024). Organizational culture: A systematic review. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 2340129. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2340129

167. Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6(2), 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.2.204

168. Hardcopf, R., Liu, G., Jason, R., & Shah, G. R. (2021). Lean production and operational performance: The influence of organizational culture. International Journal of Production Economics, 235, 108060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108060

169. Hodge, B. J., Anthony, W. P., & Gales, L. M. (2003). Organization theory: A strategic approach (6th ed.). Prentice Hall.

170. Baek, P., Chang, J., & Kim, T. (2019). Organizational culture now and going forward. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 32(6), 650–668. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-05-2018-0121

171. Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6(2), 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.2.204

172. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Addison-Wesley.

173. Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies. Harper & Row.

174. Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 570–581.

175. Sull, D., Sull, C., & Bersin, J. (2022). 10 things your corporate culture needs to get right. MIT Sloan Management Review, 63(3), 1–8.

• Adkins, B.; Caldwell, D. (2004). "Firm or subgroup culture: Where does fitting in matter most?". Journal of Organizational Behavior 25 (8): 969–978. doi:10.1002/job.291. 
• Burman, R.; Evans, A.J. (2008). "Target Zero: A Culture of safety". Defence Aviation Safety Centre Journal. pp. 22–27. http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/849892B2-D6D2-4DFD-B5BD-9A4F288A9B18/0/DASCJournal2008.pdf. 
• Cameron, Kim S.; Quinn, Robert E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: based on the competing values framework. Addison-Wesley series on organization development. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. ISBN 978-0-201-33871-3. https://books.google.com/books?id=D6gWTf02RloC&pg=PA1. 
• Chatman, Jennifer A.; Jehn, Karen A. (June 1994). "Assessing the Relationship between Industry Characteristics and Organizational Culture: How Different can You Be?". Academy of Management Journal 37 (3): 522–553. doi:10.5465/256699. ProQuest 199853245. 
• Cummings, Thomas (2004). "Organization Development and Change". Dynamics of Organizational Change and Learning. pp. 25–42. doi:10.1002/9780470753408.ch2. ISBN 978-0-471-87737-0. https://repozitorij.upr.si/IzpisGradiva.php?id=4466. 
• Denison, Daniel (1990-01-16) (in en). Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-80021-7. https://books.google.com/books?id=jLa3AAAAIAAJ. 
• Denison, Daniel R.; Haaland, Stephanie; Goelzer, Paulo (February 2004). "Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness". Organizational Dynamics 33 (1): 98–109. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2003.11.008. 
• Handy, Charles B. (1976) (in en). Understanding Organizations. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-508732-1. https://books.google.com/books?id=TnTvtW8FNlgC. 
• Harris, Stanley G (1994). "Organizational Culture and Individual Sensemaking: A Schema-Based Perspective". Organization Science 5 (3): 309–321. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.3.309. 
• Harrison, Roger (1972) Understanding your organisation's character, Harvard Business Review
• Hofstede, Geert (1984) (in en). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. SAGE. ISBN 978-0-8039-1306-6. https://books.google.com/books?id=Cayp_Um4O9gC. 
• Hofstede, Geert; Hofstede, Gert Jan (2004-10-03) (in en). Cultures and Organizations: Software for the Mind. McGraw Hill Professional. ISBN 978-0-07-150568-0. https://books.google.com/books?id=7mslqQWDP10C. 
• Johnson, Gerry (1988). "Rethinking Incrementalism". Strategic Management Journal 9: 75–91. doi:10.1002/smj.4250090107. 
• Keick, Karl E. (September 1985). "Cosmos vs. chaos: Sense and nonsense in electronic contexts". Organizational Dynamics 14 (2): 51–64. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(85)90036-1. 
• Kotter, J. P. (1995). "Leading change: why transformation efforts fail." (in en). Harvard Business Review (73): 59–67. https://psnet.ahrq.gov/issue/leading-change-why-transformation-efforts-fail. Retrieved 2023-11-29. 
• Schall, Maryan S. (1983). "A Communication-Rules Approach to Organizational Culture". Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (4): 557–581. doi:10.2307/2393009. 
• McGuire, Stephen J.J. Entrepreneurial organizational culture: Construct definition and instrument development and validation (Thesis).
• Mulder, Mauk (1977). The daily power game. doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-6951-6. ISBN 978-1-4684-6953-0. 
• O'Rielly, Chatman; Caldwell (1991). "People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit". Academy of Management Journal 34 (3): 487–516. 
• Parker, M. (2000). Organizational Culture and Identity. London: Sage. 
• Parsons, Talcott; Shils, Edward (1964-12-01) (in en). Toward a General Theory of Action: Theoretical Foundations for the Social Sciences. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7658-0718-2. https://books.google.com/books?id=wnDB18pwKpcC. 
• Peters; Waterman (1982). In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper & Row. 
• Sathe, Vijay (September 1983). "Implications of corporate culture: A manager's guide to action". Organizational Dynamics 12 (2): 5–23. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(83)90030-X. PMID 10264413. 
• Stoykov, Lubomir (1995) (in bg). Фирмената култура и комуникация. Sofia: Stopanstvo. 
• Zhang, Xibao (2009). Values, Expectations, Ad Hoc Rules, and Culture Emergence in International Cross Cultural Management Contexts. New York: Nova Science Publishers. 

• Barney, Jay B. (July 1986). "Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage?". Academy of Management Review 11 (3): 656–665. doi:10.5465/amr.1986.4306261. 
• Black, Richard J. (2003) Organizational Culture: Creating the Influence Needed for Strategic Success, London UK, ISBN 1-58112-211-X
• Bligh, Michelle C (2006). "Surviving Post-merger 'Culture Clash': Can Cultural Leadership Lessen the Casualties?". Leadership 2 (4): 395–426. doi:10.1177/1742715006068937. 
• Boddy, C. R. (2011) Corporate Psychopaths: Organizational Destroyers, Palgrave Macmillan
• Hartnell, C. A.; Ou, A. Y.; Kinicki, A. (2011). "Organizational Culture and Organizational Effectiveness: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Competing Values Framework's Theoretical Suppositions". Journal of Applied Psychology 96 (4): 677–694. doi:10.1037/a0021987. PMID 21244127. 
• Jex, Steven M. Jex & Britt, Thomas W. (2008) Organizational Psychology, A Scientist-Practitioner Approach, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 978-0-470-10976-2.
• Kleinbaum, Rob and Aviva (2013). Creating a Culture of Profitability, Probabilistic Publishing, ISBN 978-0-9647938-9-7.
• Markus, Hazel (1977). "Self-schemata and processing information about the self". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35 (2): 63–78. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.2.63. 
• Mills, Albert J (1988). "Organization, Gender and Culture". Organization Studies 9 (3): 351–369. doi:10.1177/017084068800900304. 
• O'Donovan, Gabrielle (2006). The Corporate Culture Handbook: How to Plan, Implement and Measure a Successful Culture Change Programme, The Liffey Press, ISBN 1-904148-97-2
• Papa, Michael J., et al. (2008), Organizational Communication Perspectives and Trends (4th Ed.). Sage Publications.
• Phegan, B. (1996–2000) Developing Your Company Culture, A Handbook for Leaders and Managers, Context Press, ISBN 0-9642205-0-4
• Sopow, E. (2007). Corporate personality disorder. Lincoln Neb.: iUniverse.
• Luthans, F. & Doh Jonathan, P. (2015). "International Management, Culture, Strategy and Behavior" (9th ed.). McGraw Hill

• Organizational Culture and Institutional Transformation (PDF) – From the Education Resources Information Center Clearinghouse on Higher Education Washington, DC; Corporate executives discuss the importance of building a healthy, effective organizational culture
• Organizational Culture, Joel Peterson (Chairman of JetBlue Corporation and managing partner of Trammell Crow Company), Stanford Graduate School of Business
• Organizational Culture Trumps Strategy, Mindy Grossman (CEO of the Home Shopping Network [HSN]), Stanford Graduate School of Business
• Organizational Culture, Isadore Sharp (founder and chairman of Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts), Stanford Graduate School of Business
• Organizational Debt is like Technical debt – but worse, Steve Blank (entrepreneur, investor and Stanford University professor)

0.00 (0 votes) Original source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational culture. Read more