Talk:Organizational culture/Archive 1

Culture
Rather than saying that "culture involves the study of..." which only applies to the academic area of OD, I would say "culture collectively refers to values, history etc. Yaronf 22:20 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

A few points, in bold brackets, taking text from paragraph one:

Organizational culture, or corporate culture, [these two are not the same, corporations are kinds of organizations]comprises the attitudes, experiences, beliefs and values of an organization [not a definition of culture by any social scientific standard]. It has been defined as "the specific collection of values and norms [these two things do not culture make]that are shared by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization. Organizational values [what happened to just values and norms? are these special kinds of values and norms the only ones orgs have, or do the people have them, or mgmt?  extemely unclear]are beliefs and ideas about what kinds of goals members of an organization should pursue and ideas about the appropriate kinds or standards of behavior organizational members should use to achieve these goals. From organizational values develop organizational norms [this is not even close to a universally accepted, social scientific or even philosophical statement about the relationship between values and norms], guidelines or expectations that prescribe appropriate kinds of behavior by employees in particular situations and control the behavior of organizational members towards one another"[1]Senior management may try to determine a corporate culture. They may wish to impose corporate values and standards of behavior [on whom, what, and where]that specifically reflect the objectives of the organization. In addition, there will also be an extant internal culture within the workforce. Work-groups within the organization have their own behavioral quirks and interactions which, to an extent, affect the whole system. Task culture can be imported. For example, computer technicians will have expertise, language and behaviors gained independently of the organization, but their presence can influence the culture of the organization as a whole.

This paragraph far overreaches the author's educational and disciplinary limitations. Not at an encyclodepic level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewalanwalker (talk • contribs) 17:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to classify company cultures
Given that culture and personality are homologous, attempts to classify the infinite range of company cultures comes up against the same problem as attempting to classify personalities (i.e. classify people). Good luck! Classification is an academic's activity. Understanding is not the same as classification. The applied question of the businessman/manager is more, "How and where do I move it?", [Barry Phegan, Feb 21, 2007] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.164.184 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree - in fact I would not agree that many of the classifications are in fact culturally based in any case. It would be more relevant to discuss the behaviours (that could be both individual, team or organisational) that drive culture to be what it is within an environment? Neilmac, Nov 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilmac7 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

O'Donovan section pseudo-advertisement?
The O'Donovan section hardly belongs here. Its far to unestablished within the academic area to be listed along with established and accepted theories.. Listing ISBN etc within the article pretty much gives off an aura of self-promotion. Pseudo-advertisment? [Gordo - 9 mars 2007] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.78.238 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Self promotion?
Isn't the directive communication element just self promotion?--Andrew Gardner 11:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding a book
I work for Productivity Press, a business publisher. Under Sources, I would like to add one of our books, Creating a Lean Culture: Tools to Sustain Lean Conversions, by David Mann. (Lean principles are gaining widespread acceptance in manufacturing, healthcare, and other industries. Look up Lean Manufacturing.) Details on the book can be found at http://www.productivitypress.com/productdetails.cfm?SKU=3225. Any objections? Ralph Bernstein LeanInsider 18:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I consider such links WP:SPAM, given that the website it links to is primarily for promotion and sale of a book.  Further, since this article isn't about the book itself, the link appears off-topic. -- Ronz  19:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you truly think the book is off-topic, I can accept that. However, if a book is relevant to a topic, I don't see the harm in a link to a Web page for that book. There are plenty of books under plenty of topics on Wikipedia - and I mean books not published by our company - that have such links. Is there a guideline covering this issue? I'm not trying to argue over including this particular book - maybe it's not right on topic. But I will be interested in raising this issue on other topics with books that I believe are very much on topic. Also, what if a book is listed without a link? Does that make a difference? LeanInsider 20:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Listing the book is fine. Linking to a website that promotes the book is the problem.  See WP:SPAM and WP:EL if you haven't yet.  From my interpretation of WP:SPAM and WP:EL, I think a link to a book webpage such as that one are usually not appropriate.  I even argue that they are not appropriate for articles about books themselves (such as for Wikinomics). -- Ronz  15:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that the guidelines on external links do suggest use of ISBN numbers for books rather than links to commercial bookselling sites. Fair enough. Now I have one more question, and a comment. Question: I've noticed a variety of books that have their own articles. You mentioned Wikinomics; I found several others in subject areas of interest to us (meaning books that compete with books we sell). Are there any guidelines regarding when an article can be written about a specific book? When is this acceptable, and when is it not? Comment: About a year or so ago, the publishing industry adopted a new system on ISBN numbers, replacing 10-digit ISBN numbers with 13-digit numbers. A great many books listed on Wikipedia still show the 10-digit numbers. There is a lot of work to be done to update these. LeanInsider 16:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BK is the guideline article for notability/inclusion of books as article topics. There also appear to be two active projects related to books: WikiProject_Books and WikiProject Novels. I'd be interested to hear what editors in those projects think of my advice to you. They certainly should be able to address your questions better than I can. -- Ronz  16:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Advert tag
I tagged the article with advert, though it needs an explanation. The article is poorly sourced, it attracts and still contains a lot of spam, and sections describing the theories of different researchers have been replaced by theories of other researchers. I'm going to try to find some time to go back through the edits and restore removed sections that might be worth keeping. After that the entire article needs to be examined for proper sourcing and presentation per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. --Ronz 17:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to find some critical anthropological or sociological studies of corporate culture for citation, sourcing and a good rewrite. I think this article leans too far towards how to improve an organizational culture and not what makes one up (recognizable traits, common examples, etc.)Slavlin (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve text
Shouldn't the reference to 'Charles Handy popularized ....' read that he adapted the work of Robert Harrison? Ton Zijlstra 21:33 07 Jul 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.170.75 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As a doctor of cultural anthropology who is also a culture change professional, it is clear that the uses of "culture" here are extremely weak and uninformed.

In terms of definition and use, the main approach to culture here would not earn a passing grade in introduction to cultural anthropology.

While the culture change industry in certain business circles is represented here, most of this article/entry is more about business training and little about that which the millions of organizational cultures in the world have in common.

I suggest creating a new entry that specifically frames most of this information in terms of "business scholarship and consultant uses of the term," which is only a part of this cncept as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewalanwalker (talk • contribs) 17:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Should there be no reference to Tuckman, and his theoretical framework to the development of culture within group? Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399. Tuckman, B.W. & Jensen, M.A. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies, 2, 419-427. moos79 —Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC).

Definitions of culture
The very first sentence is misleading. Schein actually defines culture as something an organisation "has". I believe that Deal and Kennedy would as well. And the definition presented as Scheins definition culture is NOT the same as given in Schein 1992. Sadly I only own it in danish, but it is about "webs of underlying assumptions, that the insiders have made while solving their problems with internal integration and external adaption..." 217.157.166.105 (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Found the definition in english and changed the page. 217.157.166.105 (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

We tweeked the intro and added the Shein definition to the beginning. We also took the paragraph regarding organizational values and added them to the "Factors and Elements" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMWJMU (talk • contribs) 17:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Corporate culture <> Organizational Culture but page redirect
In the second paragraph, it says that corporate culture is not the same as organizational culture... so why does "corporate culture" redirect to this page? Guypersonson (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. ProductBox (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

After almost three years, Corporate Culture still redirects here, despite the statement that, "Organizational culture and corporate culture are often used interchangeably but it is a mistake to state that they are the same concept." Really, I know nothing about this topic, but this all seems absurd. Guypersonson (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean there is no page for corporate culture? someone should get on that to solve this problem LogicalFinance33 (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Self-promoting user added content
A user added the following self-promotional content to the article, which I have reverted, please consider its relevance to your article and its significance before including or ignoring it. Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The“Multi-Carriage Train” Perspective on Culture Emergence in International Cross Cultural Management Contexts

Xibao Zhang carried out an empirical study of culture emergence in the Sino-Western international cross-cultural management (SW-ICCM) context in China. Field data were collected by interviewing Western expatriates and Chinese professionals working in this context, supplemented by non-participant observation and documentary data. The data were then analyzed in grounded fashion to formulate theme-based substantive theories and a formal theory.

The major finding of this study is that human cognition contains three components, or three broad types of “cultural rules of behavior”, namely, Values, Expectations, and Ad Hoc Rules, each of which has a mutually conditioning relationship with behavior. The three cognitive components are different in terms of the scope and duration of their mutual shaping with behavior. Values are universal and enduring rules of behavior; Expectations, on the other hand, are context-specific behavioral rules; while Ad Hoc Rules are improvised rules of behavior that the human mind devises contingent upon a particular occasion. Furthermore, they need not be consistent, and frequently are not, among themselves. Metaphorically, they can be compared to a multi-carriage train, which allows for the relative lateral movements by individual carriages so as to accommodate bumps and turns in the tracks. In fact, they provide a “shock-absorber mechanism”, so to speak, which enables individuals in SW-ICCM contexts to cope with conflicts in cultural practices and values, and to accommodate and adapt themselves to cultural contexts where people from different national cultural backgrounds work together over extended time. It also provides a powerful framework which explains how interactions by individuals in SW-ICCM contexts give rise to emerging hybrid cultural practices characterized by both stability and change.

One major theoretical contribution of this “multi-carriage train” perspective is its allowance for the existence of inconsistencies among the three cognitive components in their mutual conditioning with behavior. This internal inconsistency view is in stark contrast to the traditional internal consistency assumption explicitly or tacitly held by many culture scholars. The other major theoretical contribution, which follows logically from the first one, is to view culture as an over-arching entity which is made of a multiplicity of Values, Expectations, and Ad Hoc Rules. This notion of one (multiplicity) culture to an organization leads to the classification of culture along its path of emergence into nascent, adolescent, and mature types, each of which is distinct in terms of the pattern of the three cognitive components and behavior.


 * Yes, I opened a new section for Nationality and organizational culture that serves this content. Thank you for keeping it here. --Aleksd (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Robert A. Cooke
We are going to revamp the section on Robert A. Cooke and to go into more detail on the different clusters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMWJMU (talk • contribs) 16:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Rearrange
Hello! Today we took some time and reorganizaed this page to make it easier for viewers to understand. We also added parts on a few of the sections and references! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMWJMU (talk • contribs) 15:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Content
I think this article is flooded and not enough concentrated on topic, not well structured, etc. If possible some passages should go into separate articles or rewritten if there are duplications. Also references do not seem enough for me for such a long article. I think it needs serious work over comprehensibility, exactness, etc. --Aleksd (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This article looks like an "Organizational culture for dummies", I didn't know Wikipedia is about "how-to" articles, esp. downgraded to how-to dummies style. I wish to say there were potential for advanced level at least. --Aleksd (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The content is beyond any standard using incorrect cultural utterances and not primary researchers names and literature but instead less notable writings on the subject, I am trying to change this but for now "multiple issues" template addresses the situation. There are too big sections while other are too small and even important things are not included. --Aleksd (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article is particularly confusing. The article also contains biased information, notably, the references to building a healthy organization. It also tends to ramble without a coherent structure and seems to bounce in and out of discussing organizational culture as a theory and corporate culture. I would almost recommend that this article is perilously close to needing a complete reassessment of what the article is designed to impart, and rewrite in entirety... --Stiche1775 (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Usually the best first step of improving an article is better referencing and cleaning of style. Most of the references are missing and I am adding a lot, because of names mentioned and not referenced but that seems to be toilsome, other authors and titles in References section does not go anywhere in the text and I will put a Further reading section. Also there seems to have howto books authors and sections although they are not so many as I thought at first-second glance (maybe just a How-to section?) and there are also important names as Talcott Parsons so improvement will bring meaning and consistency after all. There are also passages of "thats what I think" of the editor and that do not represent author's writing and even say the opposite, so :) things really need to be checked / confirmed. I am adding now links to authors' wiki articles, referencing and cleaning and adding in some passages. I think this will help editors to easily find author-theory-writing in the text and then if they are familiar with an author and subject to add or edit, and to easily spot of mistakes. Also "Types of organizational culture" section is growing and may need something like summary as many things repeat and then go to a separate article about the different researchers works. --Aleksd (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Content added by Doktor Harper
I've removed the following from the top of the page, as it amounts to criticism of the article rather than an attempt to improve it. Doktor Harper's comments can be discussed here.


 * The contents of this page does not in any way or form represent more than a fraction of the debate and discussions among organisational culture theorists, social anthropologists, social-psycologists and various practitioners. It is at best a one-sided representation reflecting a narrow and selective reading of the phenomena "corporate culture" disguised as "organisational cultere", and some of the claims on this page have been proven wrong or misguiding by a number of practitioners and scholars. Important scholars in the field are simply missing. A comprehensive discussions of the various schools and approaches can be found in for instance the works of Per Richard Hansen, Joanne Martin and Mats Alvesson.

Robin S (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Rename 'Types of organizational cultures'
The section 'Types of organizational cultures' seems incorrectly named. It is primarily a list of authors on the subject and their different views and models rather than a taxonomy of types. Any suggestions as to what would be a better sub-title, perhaps Models and analysis? --Fæ (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes a terrible name. I renamed section "Research and models" and moved it down in the article. 69.86.6.150 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Organizational culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111110012303/http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1989 to http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1989
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130831002012/http://geert-hofstede.com/dimensions.html to http://geert-hofstede.com/dimensions.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Management types of communication
I would like to remove this section from the article. Yes, how an organization's values, mission, and vision are expressed to its employees matters a great deal, however, I feel this area speaks to organizational climate more than culture. Objections? Tiflal (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Culture of fear type
This areas speaks to organizational climate rather than culture. I'd like to remove it or move it to the org. climate article. Thoughts one way or the other? Tiflal (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Removed following from Typology section because it addresses climate versus culture. Content duplicated in Culture of fear main article. Culture of fear type Main article: Culture of fear

Ashforth discussed potentially destructive sides of leadership and identified what he referred to as petty tyrants, i.e. leaders who exercise a tyrannical style of management, resulting in a climate of fear in the workplace. Partial or intermittent negative reinforcement can create an effective climate of fear and doubt. When employees get the sense that bullies "get away with it", a climate of fear may be the result. Several studies have confirmed a relationship between bullying, on the one hand, and an autocratic leadership and an authoritarian way of settling conflicts or dealing with disagreements, on the other. An authoritarian style of leadership may create a climate of fear, where there is little or no room for dialogue and where complaining may be considered futile.

In a study of public-sector union members, approximately one in five workers reported having considered leaving the workplace as a result of witnessing bullying taking place. Rayner explained these figures by pointing to the presence of a climate of fear in which employees considered reporting to be unsafe, where bullies had "got away with it" previously despite management knowing of the presence of bullying. Tiflal (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC) Tiflal (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi Heba, I think you have chosen a very challenging topic to do as the Wiki page is fairly well-designed. It has a straightforward summary, which could leave a good first impression on people who check the page. It also has a clear structure so that readers could go to the part they wish to dig into directly. However, there are some places that could be improved. For the Covid-19 part, the last author used two paragraphs to explain what wearing masks mean for Asian people, which I think is not relevant to the topic. For the usage part, I think you could make it more specific. Now it only contains a general idea of how the concept could be used, while you could apply it to different kinds of organizations or make it into several subsections. I hope my thoughts could help to build a more thorough page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruhanh (talk • contribs) 16:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HebaTea. Peer reviewers: Ruhanh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Jessssy (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at James Madison University supported by WikiProject Organizational Communication theory or practice and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 15:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Yg2816 (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Healthy Culture
The section on healthy culture is original research with few references. The author lists characteristics of healthy culture with no source noted. Appropriate citations should be added or the section should be deleted in my opinion.Psyc12 (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)