These choices all tie together, of course. They are the choices to be made by the individual and by the organization in the interests of service to the community and of earning its support.
more time and sustained energy, than is the nature of change required in the bureaucratic organization. But the benefits generally are considered worthy of the costs, if sometimes only on the bases of faith and common sense.
A cynic could well assert that the managed culture shows benefits simply as an example of the Hawthorne effect21and, therefore, that they probably will be short lived. Whether this is a valid quibble or to what extent it may be true, would be a complex hypothesis to prove. But what has stirred deeper concern among a number of scholars is the supposed perversion of the concept of authority in the engineering of culture, ‘‘when the culture becomes its own object, when the seemingly objective, scientific, concept of culture is expropriated and drawn into the political fray by culture engineers and their various helpers in the service of corporate goals’’ (Kunda, 1992, p. 222). In the final analysis, whether or not the managed culture does constitute a perversion of authority depends entirely on the executive’s intentions, which cannot be known. The mindset of the observer is all but irrelevant to this question.
Perhaps the most radical recommendation for enhancing the corporate culture is that of removing the meritocratic system of recognition and reward, because it conflicts with the intended spirit of the culture (Donnellon & Scully, 1994, p. 64). This would not simply amount to the redefinition of meritocracy or the discovery of a way to make it work in post-bureaucratic systems by shifting merit identified with individuals to one identified with teams. Rather, it would eliminate the individualistic, competitive spirit that characterizes the bureaucracy. The matter of reward strikes directly at motivation and commitment, which are fundamental to work in any situation, but especially in the less supervised, flattened organization, and so presents a most significant connection to all the aspects of a strong culture. But the way this could be accomplished, particularly in a capitalist society, has not yet been clearly defined.
It is the high level of importance some researchers/theorists attach to alignment of effort in managing corporate culture that has led an increasing number to believe it holds the key to longevity of the strong culture. The well-managed corporate culture is more than an assortment of techniques and structures; it is a carefully balanced and dovetailed synergistic package.
In their study of eight successful companies, O’Reilly and Pfeffer (2000) found that underlying the complex of initiatives in which those companies engage are three common themes: a clear set of promulgated values; leaders whose primary role is to ensure that the values are maintained throughout the organization; and ‘‘a remarkable degree of alignment and consistency in the people-centered practices that express its core values’’ (p. 232). Changed
behavior, stemming from changed attitude, is essential in moving from the rigid authority structure to the less structured system of influence and cooperation. But the changed behavior must show improved and successful results in terms of the organization’s mission and goals, because values do not change easily and because there is substantial cost to the organization in bringing that about. In the 10 cases of cultural change studied by Kotter and Heskett (1992), ‘‘These new cultures grew in a cycle that was driven by successful results’’ (p. 99). Measurable success encourages continued success.
It has long been stated, almost as a platitude, that the most important decision made by management is that of determining whom to hire. That decision, more than any other single decision, serves to align all the other efforts in managing corporate culture. ‘‘With careful selection, nurturing, and encouragement, dozens of people can play important leadership roles’’
(Kotter, 1990, p. 103). It starts with hiring: ‘‘Organizations serious about obtaining profits through people will expend the effort needed to ensure that they recruit the right people in the first place’’ (Pfeffer, 1998, p.
69). And, as important as cultural fit may be in hiring, it is of equal importance in matters of promotion and other aspects of the reward system.
‘‘In the ten successful cases of cultural change that we studied y They replaced managers with individuals whose values were more consistent with the cultures they desired y Even more fundamental, they changed the criteria used in selection and promotion decisions’’ (Kotter & Heskett, 1992, p. 99).
Pfeffer’s interpretation of research he conducted both independently and jointly with O’Reilly supports these findings about cultural fit quite cogently:22
yorganizations should screen primarily on important attributes that are difficult to change through training and should emphasize qualities that actually differentiate among those in the applicant pool. An important insight on the selection process comes from those organizations that tend to hire more on the basis of basic ability and attitude than on applicants’ specific technical skills, which are much more easily acquired.
(Pfeffer, 1998, p. 71)
O’Reilly and Pfeffer have found that while most companies focus on hiring based on the skills needed for a specific job, people-centered firms hire for how well the person fits the company. They do not ignore a candidate’s job- specific abilities, but they do recognize that to contribute substantively in the long term, a person must feel comfortable in the organization; ‘‘y the abilities that are important are thus those that help someone grow, change,
and develop to meet changing business challenges’’ (O’Reilly & Pfeffer, 2000, p. 240). And this spirit, they find, carries through to training, where emphasis that usually is placed on specialist skills, they advise, should be transferred to general competence and culture. More than just supervisors, ideally, everyone in the managed culture becomes a leader.
This overview of the literature of organizational development has traced the movement away from bureaucratic systems, which are characterized by authority of position in the hierarchy, toward culture-driven systems, which are characterized by the guided influence of peers in a much flatter structure.
Both systems are managed from the top of the organization, but obviously in ways that differ significantly. And both have advantages and disadvan- tages. It appears highly unlikely that there will be a return to the rigid bureaucracy in libraries at any time in the next quarter century, if for no reasons other than the time required to effect a deep change and the probability that select elements of the bureaucratic system of management will not disappear entirely, but will persist in modified form to serve evolving environmental and internal demands.
In the culture-driven system, the individual bears a great deal of responsibility, because each is responsible, in a formal way, for generating, maintaining, and passing along the culture, while the environment abounds in potential for ambiguity. The mixture of these conditions and responsi- bilities in the context of the apparent freedom offered by the corporate culture should lead logically to a growth in the importance of the ethical code held by each individual23and of the level of trust sensed throughout the organization, for trust is basic to full and effective communication.24 Increasingly, it will be important for each individual not simply to muster the motivation to accomplish for the organization what must be accomplished, but also to maintain vigilance over one’s own inner motivations behind attitude and behavior and the conscious choice of tactics. Ultimately, it is the attitude, the behavior, and the strength of character of each individual, ranging from top to bottom, that determine the quality of the organization of which each is a member.
The Weberian differentiation of person from office, which was founded on supposed objectivity, seems to have been reversed by somewhat less than 1801, but by how much less is still undeterminable. Many questions remain to be resolved about the management structure that can best foster the culture and, therefore, that is most likely to optimize the concerted effort of the organization and the individual effort of each member. Not least among them are those relating to the reward/sanction structure, the balance in functional and personal qualifications of personnel, and the
ultimate determination of the costs and benefits of management by corporate culture.