Organizational culture

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Organizational culture ( English organizational culture, corporate culture ) is a term of organizational theory and describes the emergence and development of cultural value patterns within organizations . For companies or administrations, this phenomenon is also called corporate culture , corporate culture or even administrative culture called.

The organizational culture affects all areas of management ( decision-making , leadership , relationships with colleagues, customers and suppliers, communication, etc.). Every activity in an organization has arisen on the basis of its culture and is thus culturally influenced. The self-image of the organizational culture enables members of the organization to better realize goals. This knowledge enables outsiders to better understand the organization.


The concept of organizational culture transfers the cultural ideas from cultural anthropology to organizations. Accordingly, every organization develops a culture that determines the collective organizational behavior and behavior of individuals in organizations. It results from the interplay of values, norms , attitudes and paradigms that employees share collectively. The culture shapes the coexistence in the organization as well as the external appearance.

Edgar H. Schein should be mentioned here in particular . He is “the” pioneer of the organizational culture research field. Schein (1985, p. 25) defines organizational culture as “a pattern of common basic premises that the group has learned in dealing with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, which has proven itself and is therefore considered binding; and that is therefore passed on to new members as a rational and emotionally correct approach to dealing with problems. "

Further definitions are provided by various authors:

“The culture concept has been borrowed from anthropology, where there is no consensus on its meaning. It should be no surprise that there is also a variety in its application to organization studies. "

“The concept and concept of culture were borrowed from anthropological research. There is no consensus on the meaning of the term, so that there are sometimes considerable differences in application within the framework of organizational theory. - "

- Linda Smircich , 1983

"Organizational culture is the collection of traditions, values, policies, beliefs and attitudes that constitute a pervasive context for everything we do and think in an organization."

"Organizational culture is the collection of traditions, values, rules, beliefs and attitudes that form a consistent context for everything we do and think in this organization."

- McLean and Marshall, 1985

In short, the term organizational culture can also be described as follows:

"This is how we do things around here."

"That's how we do it here."

- Bright and Parkin, 1997

The definitions mentioned are sometimes described as problematic because they cover almost everything within an organization. The definitions, especially of the term culture , usually appear vague and all-encompassing. Each of the approaches described below is characterized by its own approach to the topic and definition of terms, so that not all approaches are arbitrarily compatible with one another. In particular, the different and often psychologically judgmental choice of words with adjectives such as strong , weak , good and bad as well as the type of methodology open up a wide range of possible interpretations. The literature points out that fallacies are often found in the readers' limited rationality and individual cognitive tendencies. Further, the respective biases difficult ( biases ) - from the researchers, the study participants up to the reader - the determination of a common discussion and research basis.

Despite all the different research approaches, there is agreement that national and regional cultures have an influence on the organizational culture and that this has an impact on the achievement of the organizational goals. The three-stage model developed by Schein has established itself as the basis for scientific research.

Organizational culture is generally viewed as changeable, although it is not possible to list conclusive and generally valid starting points. Organizational culture arises from the shared experiences of the workforce and can only be changed very slowly in a targeted manner. In addition, social and economic framework conditions as well as the structure and strategy of the organization influence its culture.

Organizational culture in business administration

Not all models of an organization recognize the existence of an organizational culture. Early mechanistic concepts of organization were based on a functioning apparatus or a militarily organized machine. However, the principal-agent theory showed that there are self-interests of employees and management in organizations . Research into factors and ways of influencing organizational culture is an important part of business administration today and an intersection with sociology .

A code of conduct with regulations and guidelines for external and internal communication within the organization defines management principles and the desired behavior of employees. The basis for the code of conduct are the values ​​to which the organization is committed. The result is a typical picture ( Image ) of an organization, which is also within the market communication of marketing within the Business Administration is planned and taught and z. B. also in the working basis of external service providers, such as B. the briefing of advertising agencies or investor relations consultants is included.

Is known on the organizational culture approach change management ( change management ) is attempted, one on the development of common visions and formulating corporate principles to work specifically on the organizational culture. Under diversity management different approaches are combined to integrate different types of people and groups and to establish a unified organizational culture.

So that the self-image of the organization can be shown, lived and communicated, it is practiced and communicated through training measures and management instructions. The leader intends to promote internal communication, to accelerate decision-making and - should this be the goal of the organization - to increase profitability.

The following are frequently cited and used for analysis:

Deal and Kennedy

Terrence E. Deal and Allan A. Kennedy describe culture as a two-dimensional model with the dimensions (financial) risk and feedback (the speed with which an activity turns out to be beneficial or disadvantageous). They give the resulting four quadrants very graphic names, which are also listed here in English for this reason.

Cultural typology
according to Deal and Kennedy
low high
fast Work hard - Play hard
Bread-and-games culture
Tough-Guy, Macho Culture
All-or-nothing culture

slowly Process culture
Process culture
(or bureaucracy)

Cultural levels of appearance

Apparent 3-level model

Edgar Schein developed a model with three levels of cultural phenomena in organizations. Culture arises from the personal learning history of a team or an organization. Fundamental are the inner values ​​and how they are expressed as behavior in the company - i.e. not the written rules and instructions. The model is more nuanced than the Deal and Kennedy model. Schein defines culture as

“A pattern of basic assumptions - invented, discovered, or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaption 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 ”

“A pattern of common basic premises that the group has learned in dealing with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, which has proven itself and is therefore considered binding; and that is therefore passed on to new members as a rational and emotionally correct approach to dealing with problems. "

- sham
  1. On the surface lie the visible behaviors and other physical manifestations, artifacts and products.
    Examples are the communication behavior with employees, customers and suppliers, logo, parking spaces, office layout, technology used, the mission statement, but also the rituals and myths of the organization.
  2. Below this level lies the feeling of how things should be; Collective values ​​are, for example, “honesty”, “friendliness”, “love of technology”, “playful”, “conservative” etc., ie attitudes that determine the behavior of employees.
  3. At the deepest level are the things that are taken for granted in the way one reacts to the environment ( basic assumptions ). These basic assumptions are not questioned or discussed. They are so deeply rooted in thought that members of the organization are not aware of them.

It is this pattern of assumptions that Schein describes as culture.

The Cultural Network (English. Cultural web )

Gerry Johnson (1988) describes organizational culture as a network of internal structures and processes that continuously both generate and strengthen the self-perception of an organization . The origin of the model in Schein's three-level model must be noted and knowledge of Schein's model is a prerequisite for understanding. Unlike Schein, Johnson arranges the elements next to one another instead of on top of one another and adds a kind of core idea - the paradigm - as a characteristic element .

He describes the organizational culture as a network of seven overlapping subject areas: stories and myths, symbols, power structures, organizational structures, control systems, rituals and routines, paradigm.

Strong and weak cultures

The idea behind the discussion about organizational cultures was and still is that cultures represent a competitive advantage. Jeffrey Pfeffer believes that as other competitive factors (e.g. learning effects , economies of scale , etc.) weaken , cultures as the way in which we create value through people become increasingly competitive - provided one does better than the competition. Henry Mintzberg takes a similar point of view . Therefore, a questionable (since judgmental) form of designation established itself, where one speaks of strong cultures and, conversely, of weak cultures . As much is known by Horst Steinmann and Georg Schreyögg cultures, meet different dimensions. As the most important, they identify conciseness, degree of dissemination and depth of anchorage, but also add less important ones to their list.

factor description Strong culture Weak culture
Conciseness How clear are orientation patterns and values? Are the basic assumptions mapped homogeneously in the 1st and 2nd levels? clear instructions for action, clear separation between wanted and unwanted differentiated rules of conduct, variable orientation patterns
Diffusion rate The extent to which group members share the culture very many employees, ideally all of them few employees
Anchorage depth How deeply does culture represent a natural part of the rules of action? ( whereby conformity - calculated adaptation - is to be distinguished from thoughtless internalization) Values ​​are used without hesitation or thought Values ​​are either used calculated or do not play a major role in decision-making
Persistence Stability of the cultural elements over time long immutable variable, adaptable and flexible

In these classifications, only the characteristics of the cultures are taken into account, not their content, even if it is clear that conciseness can only be achieved if the content speaks to people and this has a direct effect on the degree of dissemination and depth of anchorage. Steinmann and Schreyögg formulate the finding succinctly:

“However, it would be a pure illusion to believe that the strength dimensions themselves are value-free; of course they also convey values. "

- Steinmann and Schreyögg

Management and national cultures

The Dutch cultural scientist Geert Hofstede examined from 1967 to 1978 about 116,000 questionnaires in 50 different countries from employees in all positions - had been filled - worker to manager. His goal was to find a language in which culture can be scientifically worked on without misunderstandings. From the answers, Hofstede developed four cultural dimensions to describe cultures:

  1. Individualism vs. collectivism
  2. high or low acceptance of status differences ( power distance )
  3. strong or weak (engl. uncertainty anxiety uncertainty avoidance )
  4. Masculinity vs. Femininity (English masculinity vs. femininity )

Hofstede later added two additional dimensions to this model:

  1. Long- or short-term orientation (engl. , Long-Term orientation )
  2. Compliance and control (Engl. Indulgence vs. restraint )

Consequences for management

The management literature is heavily influenced by the USA. Since the Second World War, the USA has dominated organizational and leadership theory in particular. In view of the differences described, this also means that these theories try to organize people with a strong individual character (in Hofstede's study, the USA has the highest value of individualism of all countries examined). However, the proposed methods are hardly applicable in collectively shaped countries. Leadership in countries with high collectivities (practically the entire Third World ) requires leadership styles in which employees are offered similar group advantages as in their social groups.

Differences in power distance have a similar effect on management style. The USA are in the middle here, i. H. a manager has wide-ranging decision-making powers, and subordinates do not often question these decisions. The situation is different in Sweden or Denmark, for example, where the power distance is very low and subordinates can very well and often question a decision individually or as a group. Countries with a high power distance, like almost all Asian countries, usually have high collectivity values ​​at the same time, so that the collective can still influence a manager. France and Belgium differ from this, where high power distance comes together with relatively high individuality. Here participation is very difficult to implement - subordinates shy away from responsibility for the tasks.

Management takes place in a cultural environment. It is important to recognize that theoretical models are mapped against a cultural background and that these, especially leadership and organizational theories, cannot easily be transferred from one country to another. Successful transfer achievements, for example the transfer of American quality circles to Japan, were so successful there because they met the Japanese need for a high level of uncertainty avoidance while at the same time being a strongly collective society and could easily be adapted. Without the collective basic attitude, the hurdle would have been considerably greater.

Organizability of the organizational culture

Tom Burns' Mechanistic and Organismic Enterprises

One of the first scientific papers on cultural change comes from the Scottish professor of sociology ( University of Edinburgh ) Tom Burns, who retired in 1981 . Burns tried to introduce electronic development activities into traditional Scottish companies. The adjustment problems these companies had, led Burns to describe two "ideal types".

The mechanistic type (Engl. Mechanistic type ) is adapted to relatively stable environmental conditions. Management's problems and tasks are divided into areas and managed, there are clear lines of communication and a structured hierarchy of commands. The system is very similar to Weber's rational-legal bureaucracy or Mintzberg's machine bureaucracy .

The organismic (or organic) Type (Engl. Organismic or organic type ) is adapted to unstable environments in which new, unfamiliar problems occur frequently, which can not be decomposed in a traditional manner and divided into departments. So here there is a continuous adjustment and redefinition of the individual tasks. Communication takes the form of exchanging information and advice rather than command and obedience. One recognizes Mintzberg's adhocracy in this description.

When almost none of the traditional Scottish companies were able to familiarize themselves with the development of electronic assemblies, Burns began to doubt whether mechanistic companies could consciously change. He noted three types of changes in the mechanistic organization, which he called pathological ( pathological ). Pathological systems are the attempts by mechanistic companies to make themselves more organismatic in order to cope with unsafe environments.

  1. In rapidly changing environments, it is increasingly necessary to clarify what happens in mechanistic companies with the superior. If he cannot solve the problem , the problem climbs up the hierarchy and ends on the table of the company manager. It quickly becomes clear that many decisions cannot be made without guidance. A system with an ambiguous figure system develops , in which there is an official and an unofficial system of two-way relationships between the manager and a large number of middle management. As a result, the leader is overworked and many of his direct executives are frustrated because they are constantly being overlooked.
  2. Other companies try to solve the problem by adding additional branches to the bureaucratic hierarchy, such as: As contact manager, etc. This results in a system that Burns mechanistic jungle (Engl. Mechanistic jungle ) indicates where a new job or a new department is created, whose existence depends on the persistence of problems.
  3. The third pathological solution method that Burns recognized was the introduction of committees (committee system, English super-personal or committee system ). The committee is the traditional way of dealing with temporary problems that cannot be resolved by a single function or person. The committee is completely unsuitable as a permanent solution, as it destroys the loyalties and career structures of the departments.

Burns claims that an understanding of organizations can only follow from an understanding of three social systems. The first are the formal authority structures that result from the organizational goals and with which it adapts to its environment. But organizations are also living environments in which people plan careers. They will therefore adjust their behaviors so that these careers take place better. And ultimately, organizations are also political systems where people and departments compete and cooperate. Burns considers it naive to view an organization only in terms of its formal systems (the organizational chart ).

Burns does not speak of culture or culture change , but from today's perspective it is exactly what is described here.

Can you manage culture?

The English organizational researcher Emmanuel Ogbonna questioned the presented concepts for their usefulness. He does not see a consensus on the definition of organizational culture. It seems like every definition of culture converges with the particular expert's approach. But an operational definition is needed for a meaningful discussion of the change. Thus, for discussion, Ogbonna defines the interweaving of the individual in a community and the collective programming of the mind, which distinguishes the members of a known group from members of other groups. It consists of values, norms, beliefs and customs that the individual has together with the members of a social group or unit.

The discussion about the changeability of culture revolves around two extreme positions in the perception of the topic: Smircich (1983) identifies two positions on culture as something that is an organization (variable approach) as opposed to something that an organization has ( Root metaphor approach) . The two seemingly mutually exclusive points of view not only dominate the discussion, but also the research into the concept. From the point of view of the organization having a culture, culture acts like a powerful tool that controls behavior, conveys a sense of identity and provides accepted and recognized methods of decision-making. For those researchers who consider culture to be an integral part of organizations - organization is culture and culture is organization - it is an existential question of organizations (what organizations are). Other researchers go even further and claim that culture simply exists and cannot be created or changed by individuals.

"If organizational culture is funneled through the unconscious and is therefore not always orderly, then it is unlikely that efforts to manage such a culture can be precisely predicted or tightly controlled"

"If organizational culture arises from the unconscious and is therefore not always 'orderly', then it is unlikely that efforts to manage such a culture are precisely predictable or controllable."

- Krefting and Frost

Given the experience, it is of course plausible to question this extreme point of view. What is everyday behavior today was once a criminal offense against culture. What a culture has once appropriated, it can also unlearn and replace with something else. In this approach, which goes back to Edgar Schein, a culture can be changed if it no longer reacts appropriately to the environment. Finally, there is ample literature on cultural change even under the pressure of necessity.

The realization that cultural changes in the “deep organizational tissue” are extremely difficult and should not be tackled without careful consideration. This is evidenced by, among other things, Tunstall's report on the change in organizational culture at AT&T (American Telephone & Telegraph). Robbins shifts the discussion from “Is change possible” to “In what circumstances is change possible”, arguing that if managers could not lead their organizations through cultural change, the concept would have academic value at best. In the case of observed changes in organizational culture, various authors also describe unforeseen changes and suggest that the management of culture is subject to unintended organizational consequences, just as the culture of society as a whole cannot be controlled in a controlled manner.

Managers are often confused about what they want to achieve and prefer to work reactively as problems arise. One implication of this insight is that managers who intend to change culture need to have clear and unambiguous goals. Individual aspects and the degree of success will depend on the definition of culture and the desired changes.

A problematic area is, for example, an intervention in an organizational culture for security reasons, especially in the sector of communication and information security . In order to ensure success and to avoid unwanted side effects, it must be carefully assessed whether a campaign for more security awareness may or should violate an existing organizational culture.

A summary of the literature on organizational cultures (organizational cultures) is confusing. There are two schools for change. Some treat culture as behavior, others as values. As a result, there is no clear concept that explains how fundamental cultural change should be brought about. Anyone looking for change embarks on a journey into the unknown. It appears, Ogbonna concludes, that the concept of organizational culture has reached a stage in a life cycle where it is of declining value.

“The question of culture has the capacity to annoy anyone seriously interested in the topic”

"The question of cultural change has the potential to annoy anyone who is seriously interested."

- J. Martin

Culture and the paradigm

Mallory et al. describe the connection between organizational culture and the paradigm from the cultural network approach described above. Mallory defines the paradigm in a slightly different way as permanent beliefs about how the company will prevail in the competition, which have emerged over time and have been reinforced by the activity of management . Core values ​​relate to beliefs about how the world is and how we should behave in it. Such beliefs guide our behavior. If we repeat such behavior, a behavior pattern quickly forms that is not questioned further. The same applies to organizations in terms of strategic planning, formulation and implementation. In this sense, the paradigm is empirical, shaped more by experience than a planned model.

Hamel and Prahalad describe strategy in part as adapting the organization to its environment ( strategic fit ). These adjustments of the organization take place in the limits of the paradigm according to the pattern described above; d. H. the strategist behaves “habitually” in such a way that the paradigm remains fulfilled. Strong changes can lead to considerable resistance in the organization. If the adaptation of the organization to the environment is no longer sufficient, a rupture can occur in which the old paradigm breaks and a new one takes its place.

Such paradigm shifts often take place in organizations when the existence of the organization is threatened because it has strayed too far strategically from the required adjustment ( strategic drift ). For the manager / strategist, the image of a captain who is following his course does not come to mind, but rather that of the surfer who works with the wave as well as possible. The resulting new pattern in the cultural network is largely unpredictable or plannable.

Culture and genders

As in ethnology, the concept of culture in organizations is examined for its impact on gender roles or, conversely, the impact of gender roles on culture. Since the concept of organizational culture developed relatively late in technical language, the concepts are often based on the older discussion on equality in broader society.

Gender cultures

Su Maddock and Di Parkin use gender cultures to describe a model of business research in the field of organizational culture. It describes cultural differences in the treatment of men and women. Maddock / Parkin speak of gender culture (gender-specific culture), which is perceived better by women than by men, because especially female behavior and expressions are restricted. They differentiate between six forms

  • the gentlemen's club ( Gentleman's Club ) - a marked politeness and courtesy system used in the classic role-stereotypes as a norm of behavior and deviant behavior is sanctioned.
  • the barrack yard - a culture characterized by masculine, autocratic behavior, where power is understood as compulsion.
  • the locker room - a culture shaped by stereotypes, in which a strong overemphasis on (male) sexuality makes it difficult for the sexes to work together.
  • The gender-blind culture - a form of culture in which a difference between the sexes is denied and women are treated equally but inappropriately (namely like men).
  • A culture of lip service and feminist hypocrites (English paying lip-service and the feminist pretenders ) - a culture formed by the emancipation movement of the 1970s and 80s, in which programs are carried out that are opportunistically submitted to without changing underlying opinions.
  • Culture of the cunning machos (English smart machos ) - a culture focused on pure performance, which (over) demands people as a production factor maximizing use. A ruthless form of gender-blind culture.

The designations chosen by Maddock / Parkin are striking and provocative and are understood as stimulating discussion. The cultures not only affect women, but also minorities such as homosexuals, the physically handicapped, older citizens, the mentally handicapped, foreigners, people of color, followers of other religions, etc. and also restrict men; In the changing room culture, for example, a beer after working with women is misunderstood as an attempt at flirting, or in the barracks culture, praise is misunderstood as a weakness.

In Maddock / Parkin's opinion, the mostly male executives play an essential role in the creation, maintenance and change of gender cultures. Women adapt to cultures without questioning the causes, focus on their children due to hopelessness or change careers. Many men believe that the lack of women in leadership positions is only due to women's lack of ambition.

Continue Maddock / Parkins that executives feared that a woman would "suddenly" pregnant and not feared by closable gaps. In reality, women plan their pregnancies after work, not their post-pregnancy work. In addition, female managers are rarely absent for more than 3 months due to pregnancy. All of these are just male rationalizations against equality. The pregnancy example is just one example of gender cultures. Often enough, organizations invest in their male managers, who then promptly change jobs, but ignore women, who are usually more localized.

While Maddock and Parkin describe internal symptoms and analyze causes, other authors deal with harmful effects on organizations and employees. In a project for the German Research Foundation (DFG), Hildegard Matthies analyzes the career opportunities of men and women in industrial research areas. According to this, women are hindered in their professional advancement through stereotypical gender images and uniform notions of the characteristics of an ideal manager . According to this study, women can rarely develop beyond ascertainable career levels. The phenomenon is known as the glass ceiling and leads to the fact that the filling of management positions is restricted by gender even before the qualification of an applicant is assessed.

The German professor Birgit Pfau-Effinger attributes these phenomena to the broader culture, which Hofstede (see above) identified as the most important influence on organizational culture. Thus, for the change of organizational cultures, there is an arc back to the anthropological concept of culture. The assessment of culture in business analyzes is relativized and must be made with a broad understanding of the prevailing culture in which a company is located. Concepts that are heavily dependent on the organizational culture as a means of enforcement may be difficult to transfer to foreign cultural areas.

Dedicated to the highest management levels is also used by Hyper inclusion top management spoke as an admission requirement for which the gender homogeneity stabilize from the management level.

See also


  • Edgar H. Schein: Organizational Culture. "The Ed Schein Corporate Culture Survival Guide" , EHP, Bergisch Gladbach 2003, ISBN 3-89797-014-7

Individual evidence

  1. a b L. Smircich (1983), Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis; Administrative Science Quarterly 28, pp. 339-358
  2. ^ J. Marshall and A. McLean (1985): Exploring Organization Culture as a Route to Organizational Change , in Hammond V. (ed), Current Research in Management, pp. 2-20, Francis Pinter, London.
  3. ^ D. Bright and B. Parkin: Human Resource Management - Concepts and Practices . Business Education Publishers Ltd., 1997, p. 13 .
  4. ^ R. Rosenfeld and D. Wilson (1999) Managing Organizations , McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-707643-5 , pp. 270 ff.
  5. ^ Herbert A. Simon : Theories of decision making in economics and behavioral science. In: American Economic Review . Vol. 49, no. 3, 1959, pp. 253-283
  6. Jane Henry: Creativity and Perception in Management . Open University, Milton Keynes 2001, ISBN 0-7619-6825-3 , pp. 58 .
  7. ^ Terrence E. Deal, Allan A. Kennedy: Corporate Cultures . Perseus, 2000.
  8. ^ Edgar H. Schein (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership , San Francisco: Jossey-Bass in Emmanuel Ogbonna (abridged from E. Ogbonna), Managing organizational culture: fantasy or reality , Human Resource Management Journal, 3, 2 (1993), pp. 42-54 in Jon Billsberry (ed.) The Effective Manager , Open University, Milton Keynes 1997
  9. ^ Edgar H. Schein (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership. A Dynamic View , San Francisco etc. (Jossey-Bass); p. 9
  10. ^ G. Johnson (1988) Rethinking incrementalism , Strategic Management Journal 1988, Vol. 9. pp. 75-91;
  11. Jeffrey Pfeffer: Competitive Advantage through People . In Jane Henry and David Mayle (2002): Managing Innovation and Change , Open University / Sage Publications, London; ISBN 0-7492-3900-X
  12. ^ A b Horst Steinmann and Georg Schreyögg (1997) Management - Fundamentals of Corporate Management 4th edition (2000); Gabler textbook; ISBN 3-409-43312-0
  13. Tom Burns, Industry in a New Age New Society, January 31, 1963, no. 18; reprinted in Derek S. Pugh (ed.) (1997) Organization Theory , Penguin,
    Tom Burns, On the Plurality of Social Systems in JR Lawrence (ed.) (1966) Operational Research and the Social Sciences , Tavistock
    Tom Burns (1977) The BBC: Public Institution and Private World , Macmillan
    Tom Burns and GM Stalker (1961) The Management of Innovation , Tavistock; 3rd edn 1994, Oxford University Press, all cited in Derek S. Pugh and David J. Hickson (1996) Writers on Organizations , 5th ed. Penguin Books
  14. a b Emmanuel Ogbonna (abridged from E. Ogbonna), Managing organizational culture: fantasy or reality , Human Resource Management Journal, 3, 2 (Dec. 1992), pp. 42-54 in Jon Billsberry (ed.) (1997) The Effective Manager , Open University, Milton Keynes
  15. ^ Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgan (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis ; Longon: Heinemann L. Smircich (1983) Concepts of culture and organizational analysis , Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 339-358
  16. LA Krefting and PJ Frost (1985) Untangling webs, surfing waves, and wildcatting: a multiple metaphoric perspective on managing culture , in PJ Frost et al. (eds.) Organization Culture , Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
  17. ^ WB Tunstall (1983) Cultural transition at AT&T , Sloan Management Review
  18. ^ SP Robbins (1987) Organization Theory: Structure, Design, and Application , Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
  19. LA Krefting and PJ Frost (1985) Untangling webs, surfing waves, and wildcatting: a multiple metaphoric perspective on managing culture , in PJ Frost et al. (eds.) Organization Culture , Beverly Hills, CA: Sage or
    S. Ackroyd and PA Crowdy (1990) Can culture be managed? Working with raw material , Personal Review, 19 (5): 3-13
  20. ^ Henry Mintzberg (1975) The Manager's Job: Folklore and Fact , Harvard Business Review, July-August: 49-61
  21. Michael Helisch Awareness work and corporate culture , LANline Spezial IV 2007: 11-15 [1]
  22. J. Martin (1985) Can organization culture be managed? , in PJ Frost et al. (eds), Organization Culture , Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
  23. ^ Geoff Mallory, Susan Segal-Horn and Michael Lovitt (2002) Organizational Capabilities: Culture and Power , 2nd ed .; Open University, Milton Keynes
  24. ^ Gary Hamel and CK Prahalad (2000) Strategy as Stretch and Leverage in Susan Segal-Horn (2000) The Strategy Reader , Open University / Blackwell Business
  25. a b Su Maddock and Di Parkin: Gender cultures: women's choices and strategies at work in Jon Billsberry (ed.) The Effective Manager ; The Open University, 1997
  26. Hildegard Matthies (2005) Between Nepotism and Reflexive Standards , Order No. P 2005-102 Archived copy ( memento of the original from October 9, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot /
  27. Birgit Pfau-Effinger (2005) Change in gender culture and gender politics in conservative welfare states - Germany, Austria and Switzerland ; gender ... politics ... online
  28. P. Erfurt Sandhu (2013) Persistent Homogeneity in Top Management. Organizational path dependence in leadership selection (PDF, 2.9 MB), dissertation, Department of Economics at the Free University of Berlin. See chapters VI and VII (pp. 167–208) in English, abridged version of the dissertation (in German) p. 215; Summary (in English)
This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on January 7, 2007 .