Dimensions of Organizational Culture and beyond

Author(s): Michael A. Diamond

Source: Political Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Sep., 1991), pp. 509-522
Published by: International Society of Political Psychology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791759
Accessed: 02-02-2016 17:18 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791759?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and International Society of Political Psychology are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Political Psychology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:18:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PoliticalPsychology,Vol. 12, No. 3, 1991

FoundationsofPoliticalPsychology
Interdisciplinary

Cultureand Beyond
ofOrganizational
Dimensions
Michael A. Diamond'

INTRODUCTION

Organizationtheoristsand psychologists are focusingtheirattention on

organizational culture.
Similar to politicalpsychologists, organizational analysts
concentrate on leadershipand groupdynamics.Organization psychologists like
Edgar Schein (1985) claim, for example, that leaders are in the business of
and
creating managing cultureswithin institutions,and thatgroups are the site of
thedevelopment, containment, or destruction ofcultures. Schein and his contem-
porariesconcernthemselves withexplicitculture,whichrefersto directly ob-
servableaspectsofculture ofwhichmembers areaware.Explicitcultureincludes
standardsof rightand wrongand typicalpatterns of behaviorand technology
(1969, p. 96). In addition,theyconcernthemselves with(whattheyclaimto be)
thedeepestlayerof organizational culturethatis foundwithingroups,where
underlying basic assumptions governinteractions and decisionmaking-what
sociologistscall implicitculture(Theodorsonand Theodorson,1969).
Culture,Schein writes,"can now be definedas (a) a patternof basic
assumptions, (b) invented, discovered,or developedby a givengroup,(c) as it
learnsto cope withitsproblemsof external adaptation and internalintegration,
(d) thathas workedwellenoughtobe considered validand,therefore (e) is to be
taughtto new membersas the (f) correctway to perceive,think,and feel in
relationto thoseproblems"(1990, p. 111).Organizational culture,forSchein,is
a collectivedefensemechanism inwhichmembers learntocope withtheinternal
and externalpressuresof managinginstitutions. Whileattentive to theimplicit
and tacitdimensions, Schein'sdefinition and analysisof organizational culture
restson a functionalistanthropological framework thatis influenced by systems
theory, Lewinianfieldtheory, andcognitive theory. He writes:". . . thedeepest
level of culturewillbe thecognitivein thatperceptions, language,and thought
processesthata groupcomesto sharewillbe theultimate causal determinant of

Columbia,Missouri65211.
of Missouri-Columbia,
'University
509
Societyof PoliticalPsychology
? 1991 International
0162-895X/91/0600-0509$06.00/1

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:18:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
510 Diamond

feelings,attitudes, espousedvalues, and overtbehavior"(1990, p. 111). For

Schein,thesesharedcognitionsare requiredforsurvivaland systemicequi-
librium.
Why should politicalpsychologistswant to understandorganizational
cultures?The notionof organizational culturehelpsus to comprehend institu-
tionalformsof tyranny. Organizations arehuman-made environments. Theyare
producedandreproduced bygroupsof peopleas particular waysof relating and
working.Authoritarianism andtotalitarianism areorganizational, psychosocial,
and politicalphenomena.They would notexistwithoutgroupconsensus(or
collusion)upona setof unconsciousvalues,norms,ideas,actionsthatinclude,
forexample,unilateral decision-making, whichcontributes to obsessionalcon-
troland compulsivedominance.Such excessiveprimacyoccursoftenamong
executivesof bureaucratic organizations.
Simplystated,peopleunconsciously createpublicandprivateorganizations
thatexertsocial controloverindividualsand groupswithina governing polity.
This factis of greatconcernto politicalpsychologists, and understanding it is
critical.Allaireand Firsirotu claim thattheconceptof organizational culture
takesus beyonda sociologicaldescription or organizational structures,strat-
egies, policies, and processes to a of
dynamiccomprehension organizational
myths,values,and ideologies(1984).
Cultureis notsimplyanothervariableor isolablecomponent of organiza-
tions.It is whatorganizations are(Meek, 1988;Smircich,1983).Organizational
cultureis theproductof formsof social invention and interactionthatinclude
artifacts,physicalspace, and architectural of
design;degrees formality andinfor-
mality; social control that involves professionaland institutionalmodes of so-
cializationor indoctrination; sharedsymbolsand meaningsfoundin ritualsand
myths;espousedand practicednorms,values, and management philosophies;
organizational leadership personalities; groups(units,offices,divisions,etc.) as
subcultures; and hostculturesthatincludeeconomicand politicaltaskenviron-
ments;and, finally, criticalmoments of organizational history.
The analysisof organizational culture,I will argue,mustalso include,in
additionto the above, whatI call organizational identity-theunconsciously
sustainedsocial structure of organization (Diamond, 1988): "Organizational
identityis thetotality of repetitive patternsof individualbehaviorand interper-
sonalrelationships thattakentogether comprisetheunacknowledged meaningof
organizational life" (p. 169).
My purposein thisarticleis twofold:First,I wishto presentconventional
conceptsoforganizational culturetopoliticalpsychologists, and,second,I want
to critiquethemas inadequatebecausetheydo notsufficiently consideruncon-
sciousaspectsoforganizations. Thelatteris whatI call organizational identity-
theunconsciousfacetof an organizational culture.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:18:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Dimensionsof OrganizationalCultureand Beyond 511

In thefollowingsection,I discussthedynamiccomponents of organiza-

tionalculture,notedabove, and thenI presentthe notionof organizational
I beginwitha briefnoteon thehistorical
identity. originsoftheterm"organiza-
tionalculture."

COMPONENTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

IntellectualBackground

Many organization scholarsinterested in organizational cultureare influ-

encedbythehumanrelations movement ofthe1930s.EltonMayo (1933) along
withChesterBarnard(1938) and othersstressedthe significance of informal
social structureto understand humanbehaviorin organizations moredeeplyand
morerealistically. The notionofcultureinorganizations reappeared inthe1950s
and '60s withtheTavistockInstitute of HumanRelations,London,and particu-
larlyin theworkof ElliottJaques,as in his TheChangingCultureofa Factory
(1951). Jaquesandsuchpioneersofgroupandorganizational analysisas Wilfred
Bion,IsabelMenziesLyth,EricTrist,EricMillerandA. K. Riceareresponsible
forsustaining interestin thestudyof organizational culture.At thesame time,
however,in theUnitedStates,HarryLevinson(1960) at theMenninger Clinicin
Topeka,Kansas, and AbrahamZaleznikand his associates(1965) at Harvard
were also thinking about organizations along theselines. SociologistTalcott
Parsonsinfluenced manywithhis Social Structure And Personality (1964) in
whichhe stated:". . . thestructure of thesocietystandsbetweenthecultural
system. . . on theone hand,[and]thepersonality systemon theother. . . the
focus. . . of interconnections is thesetof valuesinstitutionalized in thesociety
and internalized in thepersonality" (p. 297). ForParsons,cultureis as mucha
partofpersonality as itis a partofsocialstructure;it is, in fact,an essentiallink
betweenindividualand society.
This briefintellectual historyof thenotionof organizational culturepro-
vides some background fortheexploration of its component parts,beginning
withtheirmorevisibleand explicitaspects.

Artifacts,PhysicalSpace, and Architecture

As Edgar Schein (1985) pointsout, organizational cultureencompasses

threelevels of analysis:artifacts,
values, and basic underlyingassumptions.
Artifacts
are materialobjectsand,therefore,arethemostaccessibleandreadily
observablefacetsof organizational culture.Materialobjectsmay rangefrom
newsletters,
computers, and pensand pencilsto thearchitecture
of officework

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:18:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
512 Diamond

space and theactualdesignof buildingsthemselves. These are components of

explicitculturein organizations.The availability, and qualityof such
quantity,
objectsdifferfromone organization to another,even thoughindividualsmay
have similartasksand occupationalmembership acrossorganizational bound-
aries. The mostimportant aspectof theseartifactsis understanding theiroften
deeplyheldmeaningfororganizational becauseknowingtheiroffi-
participants
cial or avowedpurposedoes notlead directlyto knowingwhattheymeanto
organization membersand theconsequencesof that.
The character of companynewsletters, forexample,sayssomething about
the culture:Are theychattyor seriousin tone?Whatkindof information is
provided?Who are theydistributed to and how?How well-written and printed
arethey?How oftenaretheyprinted? Theseconcrete aspectsofnewsletters draw
ourattention to theirtruepurposeand meaning.
Materialobjectslikepensandpencilsmaymeanone thingiftheycarrythe
companylogo and are freelydistributed. They will mean something entirely
differentifthosesamepensaregivenonlyto management. Whogetscomputers
andwhodoesn'tintheorganization also hasmeaningespeciallyregarding status
and prestige.
Officespace is oftenscarceandpeoplealso valuetheofficesize andphys-
ical locationas signsof prestigeand status.The not-so-hidden agendaamong
members is oftento competeforspace,whichis also affected bytheavailability
of otherkindsof rewards,status,andprestigein theorganization. The layoutof
officesand who has them,therefore, signifiessomething aboutthenatureof
authority relationsand management philosophy(includingvalues). CEOs are,
forexample,oftenlocatedon different floorsfrommore"common"officers and
staffand maybe seen as inaccessible,hidingbehinda fortress of receptionists
and administrative assistants.Such an arrangement signifiesthegrandiosityof
theofficeand itsinhabitants.

Hot and Cold OrganizationalClimates:Degreesof Formalityand

Informality at Work

One getsa distinctly differentfeelingwhenwalkingintoan officewhere

interactionsare rigidlyformalas comparedwithan officein whichinformal
relationsarethenorm.The extentto whicha climatefeelscold andconstraining
or warmandliberating fromone institution
also differs to another
and fromone
memberto another.Each is a littledifferentand is thereby differ-
experienced
entlyby differentindividuals.However, of and
degrees formality informality
signifydifferencesamongorganizations. The mannerin whichpeoplespeakto
each other,theirstyleof dress,and protocolare elementsof organizational
culture.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:18:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ofOrganizational
Dimensions CultureandBeyond 513

In myconsultingexperience, forexample,I observedan officeof account-

ing where peopleformally addressedeachother-as Mr.SmithorMrs.Jonesor
Dr. Riley-and wherethechainofcommandwas rigidly adheredto forcommu-
nicationsandauthorizations.Dresscodeswereinstituted andobeyed,orderliness
andrationality I observeda social servicesagencywhere
prevailed.In contrast,
employeesdealt witheach otheron a first-name
basis, regardlessof rankand
positionof authority,
and wherepeople regularly expressedtheirfeelingsand
attitudesabout things.No dresscode existedand the officeswere regularly
clutteredand disorganized.

Professionaland InstitutionalSocialization/Indoctrination

In TheRopesto Skipand theRopestoKnow,RittiandFunkhouser suggest

that"thefirst problemfacedbythenewmemberis thatofgainingentry intothe
men'shut-of gainingaccess to thebasicorganizational secrets.A keyepisode
hereis theriteof passage. This is moreor less an affirmation to theindividual
thathe has been acceptedintothemen'shut" (1977, p. 3). The "men's hut"
referstotherulingnormsina typically patriarchal organization,wheresocializa-
tionofthe new member dependsupon hisor herabilitytoassimilate thevaluesof
theorganizational culture(Diamond,1985, p. 665). Rittiand Funkhouser say
that"thehutis a symbolof, and a mediumformaintaining, thestatusquo and
thegood oftheorder"(1977, p. 3). The newmember whowishestobe accepted
is
by and allowedentranceto themen'shut forcedto "learntheropes" (Dia-
mond,p. 665). Individualseventually internalize institutional
normsand values
throughacculturation The
(socializationand indoctrination). organizational or
professionalethicbecomespart theof member's This of
identity. aspect organi-
zationallife partlyexplainsthe use by organizational-change agentsof de-
programming conceptslike "unfreezing" and "unlearning" to describethepro-
cess of initiating
organizational change.
A subsetofadmittance is thepresenceofprofessional groupswithin bureau-
craticinstitutions
thatgenerate subcultureswiththeirownlanguages,norms,and
rituals.Cooperationin theformof sharinginformation andtasksacrossprofes-
sionalboundaries becomesproblematic as a result.Forexample,theobserverof
a public worksorganization comprisingseparategroupsof accountants, en-
gineers,and architects will findeach professional groupfocusingon different
aspectsof the same project.Task cooperationand communication amongthe
groupswillbe difficult becauseeach groupwilltryto imposeitsdistinct values
and assumptions upontheothers.Accountants, forexample,cannotunderstand
whyengineers andarchitects do notdropwhattheyaredoingandrespondfaster
totheirbudgetrequests.Whilefiscalresponsibility maybe foremost intheminds
of theaccountants, architects
and engineers feelotherwise. Accountants, there-

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:18:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
514 Diamond

fore,do notappreciatetheframeof mindofpracticing andengineers,

architects
andthelatterdo notrecognizethedifferent and
priorities concernsoftheformer.
It is in thisway thatprofessional
socializationmay be seen to contribute
to
diminished and conflictin organizations.
effectiveness

Rituals

life is filledwithritualsintendedto enhancefeelingsof

Organizational
andimportance,
recognition groupaffiliation
andloyalty. toTheodor-
According
son and Theodorson(1969), ritualis
a culturallystandardizedsetofactionswithsymbolicsignificanceperformedon occasions
prescribed bytradition.Theactsandwordsthatcomprisea ritualarepreciselydefinedand
varyverylittleifat all fromone occasionto another.
Traditionalso determines
whomay
perform theritual.Ritualsofteninvolvesacredobjects,andareusuallyexpectedtoresult
in theemotional involvement oftheparticipants.
Theritualmaybe believedtohavepower
in itselfto producecertainresults.(p. 351).

Forexample,a department directorrewarded his divisionalmanagerswith

lapel pinsof thedepartmentallogo,thinkingto himself thatthemanagerswould
stopfighting overdivisional and
priorities theirshareof thebudget,andbecome
goodteamplayersandidentify withthegoalsofthedepartment. Therewas much
fanfare inthedispensingofthepins,whichmadethosewhodidnotreceivea pin
enviousandangry.Consequently, thosewhogotthemfailedtowearthemaround
anyoneexceptthedirector himself.Managerscontinued to quarreland operate
theirdivisionsas independent kingdoms.In fact,itcouldbe said thatthingsin
thedepartment wereworsethanbefore.Despitetheseoutcomes,thedirector was
convincedthatthepinswerehavingthedesiredeffect.Such magicrituals,like
mythsand stories,are commonplace in organizations.

Myths

Mythsare highlysymbolicand stereotypic storiesofmajoreventswithina

culture,and are oftenretoldand reexamined fortheirwisdomand inspiration
(TheodorsonandTheodorson,1969).Organizational myths andstoriesarenear-
as
ly commonplace as rituals.
For example, one often finds storiesof mythic
heroes,such as past CEOs, "who turnedtheorganization around"or maybe
"upside-down."Attimesthereis a messianicqualityto suchtalesand members
recitethemin bad timesoftenwhenthereis a strong desireforhope. Staffoften
tellandretellstoriesofpreviousexecutiveswhoruledliketyrants. Thesestories
the
unify group with a common identity-viewing for
themselves, example,as
"survivorsof oppressiveadministrators and vindictivelegislators."

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:18:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Dimensionsof OrganizationalCultureand Beyond 515

Espoused and PracticedTheoriesof Action

Executivesandtheirstaff oftensayone thinganddo another. It is common

tofindmanagers espousingthehumanist anddemocratic philosophyofTheoryY
(or, morerecently, Theory Z) management, and simultaneously practicing the
authoritarianTheoryX. In fact,executivesand managersare oftenunawareof
theirinconsistencies and contradictions. Theirstaff,however,are aware and
commonly resentit. Unfortunately, in mosttypically bureaucraticorganizational
cultures,thecontradiction betweenespousedand practicedtheoriesof actionis
undiscussable.Consequently, suchan organization producesa viciouscircleof
undetected errorsand unsolvedproblems.
Organizational culturesmaybe distinguished bythedegreeto whichlearn-
ing and problem-solving occur. Argyris and Schon (1978) haveestablished two
modelsof organizational learning, contrasting diminished effectiveness with in-
creasedeffectiveness. Model 1 is represented bygoverning variables(or values)
anduntested assumptions thatrenderproblematic thedetection andcorrection of
error.Some of thegoverning valuesof behaviorincludeunilateral protection of
selfand others,win-loseattitudes, owning and the
controlling task,being ra-
tionaland suppressing negativefeelings.Model 1 organizations aretheories-in-
use thatmaximizeinterpersonal defensesandminimizelearning.Model 1 orga-
nizationalculturesare based uponsingle-looplearning-learning thatinvolves
alteringstrategiesbut notvalues and norms.
Model 2, in contrast, is a theory of actiongovernedby valuesthatinclude
validinformation, bilateralprotection selfandothers,sharedtasksandrespon-
of
and
sibilities, acknowledgement ofnegativefeelings.In Model 2, conflict is not
seenas negativebutas an opportunity to solveproblemsandlearn.Assumptions
and attributionsarepubliclytestedrather thanheldprivate.Model 2 theoriesof
actionpromotecollaboration, information sharing,and minimalinterpersonal
defenses.Model2 is a reflective organizational culture perpetuatedbythecapac-
ityof individualsand theirsystemsto double-looplearn-to perform learning
thatquestionsand changes,if necessary, underlying valuesand norms.
Leadershipis a key ingredient in theproduction of Model 1 or Model 2
organizational cultures.In order to understand more deeplytheircognitiveca-
pacityor incapacityfor,and opennessor closednessto, learningand negative
feedback,we mustexplorethepersonality of leaders.

LeadershipPersonality

Beyondartifacts,degreesof formality, socialization,rituals,myths,and

values,
governing lies a deeperlevel of culture-thepersonality
organizational

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:18:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
516 Diamond

of leaders.The degreeto whicha leader'spersonality influences organizational

cultureis to some extentbased upontheorganizational structure. Tallerhier-
archieswithcentralized authorityproduce inordinate of
positions powerat the
top,whichfacilitate greater domination of subordinates andunilateral decision-
making.Consequently, thesebureaucratic, authoritarian structures requireex-
pansivepersonalities at thetop and self-effacing ones at thebottom(Diamond
andAllcorn,1985).Ifbureaucratic structure is considered a given,thenwe must
considerhowindividual personalityfitsandthenaffects organizational positions.
Relyingon Homey's (1950) neuroticsolutionsto anxiety,Diamondand
Allcornoutlinesix personality typesat work.Thereare threeexpansivetypes:
narcissistic, andarrogant-vindictive.
perfectionistic, Then,therearea self-effac-
ingtype,a resignedtype,andan intentional type(DiamondandAllcorn,1985).
Each typerequiresdifferent responsesfromhisorherstaff.In bureaucracy, these
demandsshapethenatureoforganizational roles,superior andsubordinate rela-
tionships.Briefly,thenarcissistrequiresgrandiosity andadmiration. The perfec-
tionistdemandsthateveryone meethis superior expectations andstandards. The
arrogant-vindictiveinsistsuponwinningregardless of costs(and to win,some-
one else mustlose). The self-effacing subordinate triestirelessly to meethis or
her superior'srequirements, and the resignedtype,whichmay be foundin
superioror subordinate positions,wantsto be leftalone. Finally,the inten-
tionalist
requiresmutually sharedpersonalresponsibility andcollaboration. The
is someonewhois notconsumedbystressandanxietyas hisorher
intentionalist
counterparts are.
Organizational culturesare shapedby theleadership's personality and un-
consciousexpectations and demands.Due to thecomplexity of largeorganiza-
tions, which includemultiplelayersof authority, responsibility, and tasks,
groupsemergeas subcultures withrelatively distinct identities.

Groups as Subcultures

In additiontoa leader'scharacteristic
responseto stressandanxiety, organi-
zationalculturesand subcultures are drivenby underlying basic assumptions.
WilfredBion's (1961) pioneering work,Experiencesin Groups,taughtus that
every work is of
group comprised at leasttwogroups-theexplicittaskgroup
andtheimplicit basicassumption group.According toBion,thesegroupsmayor
may not be at
compatible any giventime,and, frequently, theunconsciously
drivenbasicassumption groupsabotages themore consciously driventaskgroup.
Applying Bion's model of groups, we can identifythree possible sub-
cultureswithinworkgroupsof the organization. They include the following
basicassumptions: dependency, pairing,andfight-flight.
In thedependency sub-
culturemembersdesirea leaderto protectand care forthem.In thepairing

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:18:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Dimensionsof OrganizationalCultureand Beyond 517

subculturemembersfocuson the relationship of two othermemberswhose

potentialmergerrepresents a senseof hope and rebirth.In thefight-flight
sub-
culturememberssearchfora leaderto takethemin flightfromor in battle
againsta commonenemy.
Multipleanddiversebasic assumption groups,or subcultures,mayexistin
largeorganizations. Each group'sgreater autonomy and independence fromthe
centralauthority structurecontributeto a subculture'sdifferentiation
fromthe
largerorganizational culture.In mostorganizations, however,centralauthority
patterns determine groupsubcultures, and theways in whichgroupsadaptto
criticalincidents
becomehighlysignificant incomprehending theoverallorgani-
zationalculture-whatI will call organizational identity.
Beforediscussingorganizational identityand the significance of critical
momentsof organizational history,I mustadd to our list of componentsof
organizational culturethe influenceof host culture-the sociocultural, eco-
nomic,and politicalarena.

Host Culture

Organizationsare dependent upontheirsurrounding environmentsforem-

ployees,clients,customers, and others.
Organizational leadershipmusteffec-
tively adapt to the sociocultural,economic, and political natureof that
environment. Theprognosis fororganizational
survivalis, inpart,determined
by
executiveawarenessof organizational cultureand its fitwiththehostculture.
The hostculture, forexample,maydefinethesocialclassandethnicorigins
of employeesas well as customers.It mayalso represent thecharacter
of the
politicalclimateofa publicagency,andwhether ornotthatclimateis friendlyor
hostile.

OrganizationalHistory

The retelling
oforganizational liketheretelling
histories, ofindividualpasts
in psychoanalysis,arewhatDonaldSpencecalls narrative rather thanhistorical
truths(1982). Organizationalmythsand storiesproffermeaningful information
aboutindividualexperience and identification
withinstitutions.
Whenthesesto-
riesarerepeatedbyparticipantsindiscussionswithnonmembers, suchas consul-
tants,themesoftenemergethattellus how theorganization and itsleadership
respond to critical incidents-patternsdevelop and a group identityis
discovered.
Criticalincidents
are eventsin organizational
historythatare perceivedby
membersas stressful and whichare experienced anxiously.Organizations and
theirmemberstypically do notreflecton themselvesor theirprocesseswithout

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:18:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
518 Diamond

reason. Changesin theorganizational statusquo caused by management cut-

backs,retrenchment, leadershiptransitions,
budgetary revisions,audits,expan-
sionsin size and workload,and thelike,triggeranxietiesandfeelingsof panic.
Underlying basic assumptions andgroupdefensesarepushedto theirlimitsand
beyond.Consequently, culture,and all thatit entails,is both
organizational
and
endangered exposed.
Observersand consultants to organizationswill findthatcriticalmoments
are opportunitiesforreachingthesuppressedand deniedemotionsof organiza-
tionalmembers(Diamond, 1988). As Stracheypointsout, "Interpretation is
usefulonlywhenthereis a pointofurgency, thatis to say [when]emotionsare
genuineand communicated" (Modell, 1984,p. 90).
The analysisof organizationalculturemustincludean exploration of the
unconscious andintersubjective oforganizational
structures life.Examining crit-
ical momentsof organizational historycontributes to thatinsight.However,if
changeis desirableto organizational members,analystsrequirea methodof
diagnosisand intervention based uponthewillingness of membersto assume
personalresponsibility fortheiractions.The notionof organizational identity
takesthe analysisof organizational cultureto its deepestinterpersonal level,
beyondexplicitand implicitcultureto thestructure of intersubjectivity.

ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY

A good place to startthatdiscussionoforganizational

identityis withErik
Erikson'sconceptof identity.
His notionofidentity
linkscultureandhistoryin a
mannersimilarto mine.He writes:
Thekeyproblem ofidentity,then,is (as theterm connotes)thecapacity
oftheego to
sustain
sameness andcontinuityinthefaceofchanging fate.Butfatealwayscombines
changesininner which
conditions, aretheresultofongoing lifestages,
andchangesinthe
thehistorical
milieu, situation.
Identity connotes theresiliencyofmaintaining
essential
intheprocess
patterns ofchange.Thus,strange as itmayseem,ittakesa well-established
to tolerate
identity radicalchange,forthewell-established hasarranged
identity itself
aroundbasicvalueswhichcultures haveincommon. (Erikson,1964,pp.95-96)

Organizational culturereststopographically
uponorganizational as
identity
the consciousrestsupon and is a compromise formation to the unconscious.
Organizational identityis thereby
a "structural
solution orcompromise formation
to contradictory aims,motives,wishes,and desiresamongorganizational par-
ticipants"(Diamond,1988,p. 186). Suchidentity is a consequenceoforganiza-
tionalhistoryand thepsychology of pastand presentleadership.It consistsof
structures
repetitive ofintersubjectivity
foundinrelationships betweensuperiors
andsubordinates, among members, and betweenclients andorganization observ-
ers and consultants, whichare primarily drivenby unconsciousassumptions,
expectations, and feelingsthatresultin organizational decisionsand actions.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:18:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ofOrganizational
Dimensions CultureandBeyond 519

Organizational is capturedby analyzingtransference

identity and countertrans-
ferenceof emotions,vertically betweensuperordinates and subordinates, and
horizontallyamongorganizational members duringgroup and interpersonal re-
sponses to critical
incidents.
The organizational observerand consultant mustbe keenlyaware of the
oftransference
effects andcountertransference in hisor herroleas well. To fully
appreciatethe contribution of organizational
identity to our understanding of
organizational we
culture, need toexamine, three
briefly, patterns oftransference
(and countertransference) in organizations:
(1) mirroring and idealizing,(2)
twinship(alterego) and (3) persecutory.

Mirroringand IdealizingTransferencein Organizations

Formalhierarchical arrangements facilitatemirroring and idealizingex-

changesbetweensuperordinates and subordinates.An individual'snarcissistic
needsforadmiration and grandiositycan be easilymetwhenhe or she is in the
role of superioror CEO. Inordinate power and authority as well as public
visibility narcissism.Superiorsmayalso relyuponan idealizingstaffto
attract
satisfyunconsciousneedsformirroring ina fashionthatregularly inflates
hisor
herpublicimageand self-worth.
A mirroring and idealizingtransferencebetweenleaderand followerscan
shape the cultureof organization. Institutional
values, myths,and ideologies
mayreflect drivenauthority
narcissistically relationshipsin whichdetection and
correction of errorsbecomeunlikely. Organizationalculturesgovernedby nar-
cissisticvaluesat thetopwilldenyhumanimperfections and act as thoughthe
system is flawlessand ideal. The organizationalidentity becomesa social de-
fensesystemagainsttheanxietyofconfronting problems mustbe deniedin
that
orderto maintainthe "perfectstateof narcissism."

Twinship(Alterego)Transferencein Organizations

Peoplejoin organizations andcollegiality.

seekingfriendship Theywishto
belongto an organization of like-minded menand women.Theyexpectto find
leaderstheycan relateto and identify with-leadersand peerswho sharetheir
ambitions,ideals,talentsandskills.In thetwinshiptransference,
organizational
come in searchof otherswho are essentiallylike themselves-
participants
peoplewhosharetheirinterests andvalues,inorganizationsin whichsuperordi-
natesandleadersareviewedas alteregos ofthenewcomers andsubordinatestaff,
withleaderswho function and are seen as mentors
of theirstaff.
However,the organizational culturesymbolizedby individualmembers
whodesireto experience an "alter-ego replicaoftheself" (Kohut,1984,p. 70)

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:18:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
520 Diamond

in the othershouldbe viewedwithsome suspicion.Granted,we all need to

experiencealikenessthrough butthetendency
affiliation, to establishadultrela-
tionshipsbased upon theabsenceof differences is troublesome. Emphasison
organizationaland interpersonalattributes
ofuniformity and similaritylimitsthe
abilityto processconflicting, and novelinformation.
contradictory, Organiza-
tionalmembers tendtomergewithlike-minded others,producing organizational
subcultures dividedby rigidand impenetrable boundaries.These boundaries
oftensignify members'sharedvocations,professions, functionsor statusin the
organization.Nevertheless, thedefensiveoperationof externalized boundaries
enhancesresistance to changeandmaladaptiveness withinandamongorganiza-
tions.The organizational identitybecomesa social defensesystemagainstthe
anxietyof differences, and individuality.
separation,

PersecutoryTransferencein Organizations

People in organizationsoftenfindthemselves operating in hostileenviron-

ments.How leadersand followerscope withunfriendly environments differs.
Some are able to recognizehostility as a politicalrealityof organizational life.
Forinstance,publicagencieswithrelatively largebudgets find themselves great-
ly politicizedby legislatorsand theiroversightcommittees. Heads of those
agenciesarecontinuously defending themselves andtheirorganizations to those
who controlallocationsand requireaccountability. Manyorganizational execu-
tives adapt well and understandthe democraticnatureof these external
relationships.
However,in manypublicorganizations, executivesneveradaptor learnto
workeffectively in hostilepoliticalenvironments. Theyact as iftheyhad never
such and
anticipated scrutiny suspicion from the legislatureandthemanysectors
of thepublicinterest.They come to feel victimized in
and, turn,maytakeout
on
theiraggression,oftenpassively, theirstaff.Forexample,theymayneglect
thedetailsof internalmanagement by communicating less frequently withtheir
staff,or by leavingdecisionsand interpretations of key directivesup to their
staff.If theydo communicate withstaff,theymaydo so ambiguously, causing
conflicts amongstaffmembers.Executivesmayalso becomeparanoidand sus-
piciousoftheirstaff.Consequently, theymaytendtodevisestrategies fortesting
loyaltiesof staffmembersso thattheymaycome to identify allies as well as
enemiesfromwithintheranks.At theveryleast,theywillencourageorganiza-
tionalmembersto perceivethemselves as onlyvictims,thusdiscouraging per-
sonal responsibility.
Some membersmay come to identify withtheirleader,
regardlessof themistreatment and distrust of theirrelationship to himor her.
Organizational identities
of persecution becomefortresses, social defensesys-
temsthatencouragethetroopsto eitherretreat frombattleor searchanddestroy
theenemy.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:18:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Dimensionsof OrganizationalCultureand Beyond 521

Summary

Organizational cultureis ultimatelya productof thewaysin whichpartici-

pants interactwitheach otherat work.The sharedmeaningof those rela-
tionships,whichcan be discoveredbytheapplication oforganization is
identity,
crucialto our understanding of organizational decisionsand actions.Compo-
nentsof organizational culture,bothexplicitand implicit,include:artifacts,
formalitiesandinformalities; socializationandindoctrination; ritualsandmyths;
espousedand practicedtheoriesof action;leadershippersonalities; groupsas
subcultures;hostcultures;and organizational history.All of thesecontribute to
organizationaldesignandstrategy. Leadershipandgroupdynamicsareessential
variablesin assessingorganizational culture.However,thesharedmeaningof
organizationallifecannotbe adequately capturedwithconventional treatments of
organizationalculture.Thereis moreto it thanthat.
Organizational cultureitselforiginatesfromunconscious relationalpatterns
(structuresof intersubjectivity)betweenand amongorganizational members,
whatI call organizational identity.Theseunconsciousstructures are precultural
and intrapsychicat theirroots.Organizational therefore,
identity, shapesorgani-
zationalcultureandthemanner inwhichleadersandfollowers cope withinternal
andexternal pressures. The introduction of organizationalidentityis intended to
illuminatemoredeeplyand purposefully themeaningof organizational culture.
By assumingthatall relationships, whichcomprisegroupsand organizations,
involvethetransmission of transference and countertransference dynamics,the
observerof organizational culturereachesthe deepestlevels of unconscious
experienceand thereby betterunderstands organizationallife.

REFERENCES

Allaire,Y., and Firsirotu,M. E. (1984). Theoriesof organizational

culture.Organization Studies,
5(3), 193-226.
Argyris,C., and Schon,D. (1978). Organizational learning.Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barnard,C. (1938). Functionsoftheexecutive.Cambridge:HarvardUniversity.
Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiencesin groups.New York:Basic Books.
Diamond,M. A., and Allcorn,S. (1985). Psychological responsesto stressin complexorganiza-
tions.Administration & Society,17, 217-239.
Diamond,M. A., andAllcorn,S. (1987). Thepsychodynamics ofregressioninworkgroups.Human
Relations,40(8), 525-543.
Diamond,M. A. (1985). The social characterof bureaucracy: Anxietyand ritualisticdefense.
PoliticalPsychology, 6(4), 663-679.
Diamond,M. A. (1988). Organizational A psychoanalytic
identity: exploration of organizational
meaning.Administration & Society,20(2), 166-190.
Erikson,E. (1964). Insightand responsibility.New York:Norton.
Homey,K. (1950). Neurosisand humangrowth.New York:Norton.
Jaques,E. (1951). The changingcultureofa factory.London:Tavistock.
Kohut,H. (1984). How does analysiscure?Chicago:ChicagoUniversity Press.
Levinson,H., et al. (1962). Men,management, and mentalhealth.Cambridge: HarvardUniversity.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:18:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
522 Diamond

Mayo, E. (1933). The humanproblemsofan industrial civilization.

New York:MacMillan.
Meek, V. L. (1988). Organizational culture:Originsand weaknesses.Organization Studies,9(4),
453-473.
Modell, A. (1984). Psychoanalysis in a new context.New York:International Universities
Press.
Parsons,T. (1964). Social structureand personality.London:Collier-Macmillan.
Ritti,R. R., and Funkhouser, G. R. (1977). The ropesto skipand theropesto know.Studiesin
Organizational Behavior.Columbus,Ohio: Grid,Inc.
Schein,E. (1985). Organizational cultureand leadership.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Schein,E. (1990). Organizational culture.AmericanPsychologist, 45(2), 109-119.
Smircich,L. (1983). Conceptsof cultureandorganizational analysis.AdministrativeScienceQuar-
terly,28, 339-358.
Spence,D. (1982). Narrativetruthand historicaltruth.New York:Norton.
Theodorson,G. A., and Theodorson,A. G. (1969). A moderndictionary ofsociology.New York:
Barnesand Noble Books.
Zaleznik,A., et al. (1965). The executiverole constellation.
Cambridge:HarvardUniversity.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 02 Feb 2016 17:18:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions