THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
3.3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
3.3.2 Schein's framework of culture
Schein's view is that most definitions of culture fail to address the concept's complexity:
Many definitions simply settle for the notion that culture is a set of shared meanings that make it possible for members of a group to interpret and act upon their environment. I believe we must go beyond this definition: even if we knew an organization well enough to live in it, we would not necessarily know how its culture arose, how it came to be what it is, or how it could be changed if organizational survival were at stake (Schein 1985:3).
According to Schein (1992), researchers often treat culture superficially. Consequently, researchers end up preoccupying themselves with attempts to interpret the outward or tangible aspects of an organization such as rituals, uniform or dress style, its emblem or the style of communications to decipher underlying beliefs. In his model, Schein proposes a different approach, one that does the exact opposite: working from the covert, deeper aspects of an organization, starting by identifying the latent assumptions and using them to decipher the more tangible aspects of an organization. Underlying Schein's approach is the necessity to understand the dynamic forces that govern a culture's evolution. These forces influence how culture is learned, passed on and changed. Hence, Schein's concept of culture is based on a dynamic model that underscores these three aspects: how culture is learned, passed on and changed.
Schein perceives culture as being manifested in artefacts, espoused values and basic underlying assumptions. Accordingly, his framework (Figure 3.1) involves the conceptualization of organizational culture in terms of three levels of elements: artefacts
- the physical manifestations and behaviours grounded in assumptions; espoused values - social principles, philosophies, goals and standards seen as worthwhile; and basic assumptions - core beliefs which are taken for granted, about what is correct and real.
Attaining consistency amongst these levels of culture is the ideal and it is not strange that difficulties are to be expected when these three layers are incompatible or inconsistent.
To understand culture as a complex and dynamic issue, we have to understand not only the behaviour of the parts, but also how they act together to form the whole (Schein
1992). This means that we must recognize the complexity and dynamic interdependencies that exist amongst the three levels of culture. Schein distinguishes these three levels in terms of how they are approached in research and analysis and their main features.
Artefacts & Creations
Technology Art
Visible & audible Behaviour patterns
Espoused Values
Basic Assumptions
J I
Relationship to environment Nature of reality, time & space Nature of human nature Nature of human relationships
Superficial phenomena
>_ - Easy to access, hard to interpret
Formally expressed strategies/
philosophies
- Potentially misleading
Unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs, feelings - the essence of f culture
Figure 3.1 Levels of culture and their interaction After Schein (1992)
Assumptions are central to informing organizational behaviour because they are the basis for dialogue and the exercise of power. Assumptions have the potential to impose their subtle and yet far reaching influence on many aspects of organizational realities. The subtlety of the influence of assumptions is well captured by Schein:
Such assumptions are themselves learned responses that originated as espoused values. But as a value leads to a behaviour, and as that behaviour begins to solve problems which prompted it in the first place, the value gradually is transmitted into an underlying assumption about how things are. As the assumption is increasingly taken for granted, it drops out of awareness (Schein 1985: 3-4).
The influence of assumptions can be both positive and negative. On the positive side, they enhance group identity, foster stability through minimising uncertainty and anxiety while at the same time make things 'manageable' a shorthand description of 'coping with complexity' (Kotter 1996). Negatively, assumptions can be problematic, for example in dealing with change because of their tenacity to embed themselves in the corporate and individual subconscious thereby creating a stability against change even when change is necessary. In this way, assumptions have the capacity to limit an organization's responsiveness to changes in the environment (Senge 1990; Schein 1992). Altering assumptions is therefore not easy because of their latent nature - a situation that is in most cases compounded by their history and dynamic evolutionary reinforcing processes that keep them in motion (Senge 1990).
An important insight gained from Schein is his emphasis and focus on basic assumptions as the core of every organizational culture. Basic assumptions do not exist in isolation.
Rather, they exist as a pattern or paradigm of interrelated assumptions about humankind, nature and activities. "A cultural paradigm is a set of interrelated assumptions that form a coherent pattern" (Schein 1985: 4). As is the case with complex systems in general, the structure or pattern of a paradigm cannot be understood or predicted from the behaviour or properties of the component units alone. Therefore, the notion of 'pattern of basic assumptions' is central to Schein's understanding of culture:
Unless we have ... attempted to identify the paradigm [or pattern] by which the members of a group perceive, think about, feel about, and judge situations and relationships, we cannot claim we have described or understood the group's culture. Unless we achieve this level of analysis, however, we should not make any statement at all about culture, however superficial (Schein 1992: 142-143).
The above quotation is parallel to Giddens ideas as may be inferred from this interpretation of his work:
Can actors come to identify some of the extended social and structural consequences of their individually intended actions? Yes, according to Giddens. If encouraged to reflect on their own behaviour and assumptions in light of the larger structural question, then individuals could conceivably arrive at an awareness... (Kondrat 1999: 460).
An implication of this is that there can be no collective view without a process that continuously promotes dialogue about the basic assumptions leading to collective self-
reinforcing assumptions. It is this property of existing as a 'self-reinforcing collective' or in Schein's words a 'pattern' and their locus of operation (the subconscious) which makes basic assumptions a strong force in influencing behaviour. Schein's characterization of basic assumptions as the core of every culture means that if a culture is to be understood, it is essential to appreciate the underlying basic assumptions.
Assumptions are like a filter screen, which we all possess, but whose influence and usefulness we seldom have control over if it stays in the subconscious. Very rarely are we consciously aware of mental models at play in our lives or of the profound effects they tend to have on our behaviour (Senge 1990). According to Schein (1992), underlying assumptions can function as a cognitive defence mechanism for individuals and the group. The inherent challenge, therefore, is to make the assumptions behind our ideas explicit so that people can start discussing the conflictive and 'undiscussable' subjects without invoking defensiveness and appreciating deeper causes of problems and their interdependencies (Senge 1990; Senge et al. 1999). Thus, Schein reveals the need for an explicit mechanism that can promote dialogue on and around basic assumptions so that they can be brought into the 'corporate conscious'.
Schein's views about assumptions resonate with those of other authors like Argyris' ('theories in use', 1977) and McGregor's ('assumption sets' 1960). Further, Senge has helped to clarify the role of assumptions in his metaphor of 'mental models', which he describes as "deeply ingrained assumptions, generalisations or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action" (Senge 1990: 8). Along these lines, Senge et al. (1999) have suggested that decisions cannot be divorced from mental models or assumptions because through them, we identify challenges and opportunities we choose to engage with, as well as the actions we consider appropriate. Drucker (1995: 20) makes a parallel observation:
The root cause of nearly every one of these crises [in organizations] is not that things are being done poorly. It is not even that the wrong things are being done. Indeed, in most cases, the right things are being done - but fruitlessly. What accounts for this apparent paradox?
The assumptions on which the organization has been built and is being run no longer fit reality (Drucker 1995:20).
Difficulties in accessing or understanding assumptions have caused a blind spot in organizational research. Consequently, according to Schein (1992), most studies of organizational culture are not detailed enough to produce helpful results. This, he argues is the result of a tendency among researchers to focus only on the artefacts for example, rituals, dress style, logos or structure of communications within organizations. Using artefacts as pointers to underlying beliefs takes away the rigour with which organizational culture is supposed to be studied. To overcome this problem, Schein has proposed that it is more helpful to begin by studying the hidden then to study the apparent. Schein's approach entails beginning the analysis from the hidden assumptions and using those assumptions to interpret the overt organizational aspects. Real change depends on addressing basic assumptions, understanding their influence, evolution and how they can be brought into the 'organizational conscious'.
Bringing basic assumptions into the 'organizational conscious' is akin to Giddens' notion of 'discursive consciousness' (Giddens 1984). A discursive account occurs when we explicitly express an activity or phenomenon. In this respect, Schein and Giddens share common ground, each emphasizing knowledgeability of actors which by implication means that structures and systems do not operate in isolation from the actor. Discursive reflectivity around an action, in addition to providing logical explanations, entails prospects of changing our patterns of action which, in Schein's language rest on basic assumptions. Real change, according to Schein and Giddens, as well as Kondrat (1999) depends on the ability of those involved to make explicit their hidden assumptions. In this way, they can attain a level of 'discursive consciousness' which refers to the understanding which we attain through reflecting upon our actions (Giddens 1991). How reflection occurs is another view Schein and Giddens share: they both note that it can happen with the help of others, for example, as in interviews or a process of dialogue or as a solo act. Schein also asserts that the core of an organization's culture is contained in an underlying paradigm of shared unconscious assumptions. He further suggests that for most organizations, an important component of these assumptions relates to the organization's strategic processes and imperatives, and functions as an ideal and is
usually an implicit influence of strategic decisions and activities. At this stage, it is important to examine what Schein postulates on strategy and organizational culture.