Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business

Relationships, and Interfirm Networks

Chapter 2 Discourses in organizational culture: Bank managers and employees
perceived relationships and performance
Farah Asif
Article information:
To cite this document: Farah Asif. "Chapter 2 Discourses in organizational culture:
Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks

Bank managers and employees perceived relationships and performance" In

Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks.
Published online: 08 Mar 2015; 11-26.
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1069-0964(2010)0000016005
Downloaded on: 25 March 2016, At: 12:36 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 79 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 677 times since NaN*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2010),"Chapter 1 Introduction: Theory and practice of organizational culture,
B2B relationships, and interfirm networks", Advances in Business Marketing and
Purchasing, Vol. 16 pp. 1-9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1069-0964(2010)0000016004
(2010),"Chapter 5 Structure and dynamics of business-to-business relationships",
Advances in Business Marketing and Purchasing, Vol. 16 pp. 327-340 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1069-0964(2010)0000016008
(2010),"Chapter 3 Modeling the structure of business-to-business relationships",
Advances in Business Marketing and Purchasing, Vol. 16 pp. 27-177 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1069-0964(2010)0000016006

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

emerald-srm:393177 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please
use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which
publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society.
The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and
 book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and
additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner
of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the
LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks
 CHAPTER 2

DISCOURSES IN
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE:
BANK MANAGERS AND
Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks

EMPLOYEES PERCEIVED
RELATIONSHIPS AND
PERFORMANCE

Farah Asif

ABSTRACT

On the basis of research from Dutch bank an empirical framework, this

report describes how discourses of organizational culture imply a
perceived relationship to performance. The study includes an ethno-
methodology of 25 in-depth interviews with two groups includes managers
and employees from the Services Business Unit of a global Dutch bank.
Results from managers reveal discourses of organizational culture provide
a negative perceived relationship to performance. Results from employees
show discourses of organizational culture provide a positive perceived
relationship to performance.

Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks

Advances in Business Marketing and Purchasing, Volume 16, 11–26
Copyright r 2010 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1069-0964/doi:10.1108/S1069-0964(2010)0000016005
11
 12 FARAH ASIF

INTRODUCTION

From the 1970s the concept of organizational culture gained proliferated

interest on performance (Brinkman, 1999; Brubakk & Wilkinson, 1996)
and continues to be an area of research, which contributes to notions of
performance (Besanko, Dranove, & Shanley, 2000; Cremer, 1993; Gordan &
DiTomaso, 1992; Sorensen, 2002).
Alvesson (2004) suggests organizational culture, also understood as
Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks

organizational discourse, is associated with performance. Managers identify

organizational success and growth through discourses of culture. Compa-
nies survive or perish depending on discourses of organizational culture.
A number of scholars, for example, Kanter (1983), Powers and Hahn
(2004), Rashid, Zabid, Sambasivan, and Johari (2003), Sadri and Lee
(2001), Smith (2004), and Tichy (1987), say organizational culture is an
essential factor for driving the performance of an organization.
Alvesson (2004) advocates organizational culture must be understood
through interpretation of language, which leads to understand discourses of
organizational culture.
It is complex to find an analysis that provides account of discourses of
organizational culture and performance despite the interest in the field. This
paper analyzes how discourses of organizational culture imply a perceived
relationship to performance by looking at a global Dutch bank.

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

Organizational culture is ‘‘the sharing of certain important beliefs’’

(Tichy, 1982, p. 63), ‘‘shared perceptions’’ (Pfeffer, 1981, p. 12), and ‘‘thick
and shared social knowledge’’ (Wilkins & Ouchi, 1983, p. 469). Culture
is shared in an organization and relates to symbolic values and social
ideals (Louis, 1983). Organizations share a common theme underlying
symbolic values of culture, which reconciles the definition of culture as
symbolic values of shared beliefs, rituals, practice, and language (Swidler,
1986).
Organizational culture, epitomized as a shared understanding and
meaning relates to Ogbor’s (2001, p. 592) definition of organizational
culture as ‘‘systematic norms, beliefs and attitudes.’’ Gagliardi (1986, p. 621)
defines organizational culture as ‘‘a coherent system of assumptions and
basic values.’’ Schein (1993, pp. 373–374) refers to organizational culture as
‘‘a pattern of shared basic assumptions.’’
 Discourses in Organizational Culture 13

Conceptualizing organizational culture through shared meanings and

understandings (Joanne, 2001) is not enough to understand it. How shared
meanings and understandings are conveyed matters. Schneider (1986,
p. 353) defines ‘‘The meaning incumbents share about what the norms and
values of the organization are.’’ Organizational culture consists of a shared
mindset, defining the individual organization’s culture. Organizational
culture has no universal definition, because every organization influences
how symbolic values are transmitted in their organization. Denison (1996,
Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks

p. 624) defines organizational culture to include:

The deep structure of an organization, which is rooted in the values, beliefs, and
assumptions held by organizational members. y Interaction produces a symbolic world
that gives culture both a great stability and a certain precarious and fragile nature rooted
in the dependence of the system on individual cognition and action.

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
AND PERFORMANCE
The idea of organizational culture is to develop a shared mindset about how
to perform. Alvesson and Wilmot (2002, p. 2) states ‘‘a strong case can be
made for taking an interest in corporate culture in relationship to
performance. Managers frequently ascribe success such as rapid growth of
their culture. Companies win or lose based in the cultures they create.’’
Organizational culture is considered a practice, which cultivates awareness,
individual development, employee influence, and diversity in a work
environment (Deal & Kennedy, 1988; Goffee & Jones, 1998; Gregory,
1983; Kilmann, Saxton, & Serpa, 1986; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Trice &
Beyer, 1993; Rusaw, 2000). Organizational culture is a set of values, beliefs,
and behavior shaping and driving the employees’ performance (Deshpande &
Farley, 1999; Jones, 1983; Pheysey, 1993; Yavas, 2001).
A characteristic of all organizations, through which at the same time, their individuality
and uniqueness is expressed. The culture of an organization refers to the unique
configuration of norms, values, beliefs, ways of behaving and so on that characterize the
manner in which groups and individuals combine to get things done. (Burnes & James,
1995, p. 15)

According to Rotacher (2004), organizational culture matters for an

organization’s rise and fall, change, and processes that creates the
organization and its brand and therefore is considered an asset for long-
term performance. Organizational culture is an amalgam consisting of values,
morals, and codes, both written and unwritten and influence organizations in
 14 FARAH ASIF

terms of performance, modernization, customer service, change, and knowl-

edge (American Management Association, 2008).
According to experts, organizational culture is the defining factor in areas
of engaging the employees (Browaeys & Price, 2008; Cao, Clarke, & Lehaney,
2000; Collins & Porras, 1994; Davis, 1984; Smith, 2005). Organizational
culture is a considerable component in the field of organizational manage-
ment, and when seen in context of individual organizations and its employees,
it implies a constructive balance for achieving the organizational goals and
Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks

objectives (Rashid et al., 2003).

Chapman, Murray, and Mellor (1997) argue organizational culture is
commonly adopted as an important strategic management tool, because it
relates to an organization’s performance. The interest of an organization is
to create sustainable and competitive performance by having the right
organizational culture (Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990).
Aryee (1991) discusses it is necessary to create a committed workforce
within organizations to balance positive performance and to gain and
sustain competitiveness. Commitment is an underlying aspect of strategic
management approach that motivates employees and their performance
evolving from organizational culture.
Denison (1984, 1990) conducted research at 34 large American companies
showing that organizational culture is related to long-term and short-term
company performance. Pfeffer’s (1996) research gives great importance to
employees performing in accordance to a company’s organizational culture.
Wilson’s (1997) study of corporate success is related to organizational
culture with focus on a service delivery environment. Lim (1995) outlines a
more critical approach to link organizational culture and performance,
whereas Irani, Sharpe, and Kagioglou, (1997) raise the profile of business
performance, introducing organizational culture with positive effects on
performance.
Van der Post, De Coning, and Smit (1998) researched certain culture
types that increase organizational performance. Lankford and Mintu-
Wimsatt (1999) discuss large American companies such as IBM, Harley,
Procter and Gamble, Johnson and Johnson, who believe their success and
performance is grounded in a strong organizational culture.

ORGANIZATIONAL DISCOURSE

Scholars Boden (1994), Firth (1995), Grimshaw (1990), Gunnarsson, Linell,

and Nordberg (1997), Mumby and Clair (1997), Wodak (1996a, 1996b),
 Discourses in Organizational Culture 15

and Van Dijk (1997) introduce new perspectives of organizational culture

through organizational discourse. The concept and phenomenon of
organizational discourse connects to culture by concentrating on meaning
and language. Language expresses meaning, as these are conveyed
simultaneously (Alvesson, 2004).
Organizational discourse is how certain shared meanings and perceptions
(discourses) are constructed to define organizational culture. Organizational
culture constructs a shared mindset, whereas organizational discourse
Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks

sustains it. Organizational discourses reveal expressed symbolic values of

an organization and determine the performance of organizations. Organiza-
tional discourse also elucidates the notion of shared symbolic values through
which humans express meaning. Meaning found identity, and identity is how
we see ourselves in relation to others, in a social construct of organizations,
forming behavior and determining performance (Fairclough, 2003). Chia
(2000, p. 181) argues:
Organizational discourse shapes our habits of thought, by legitimizing particular objects
of knowledge and influencing our epistemological preferences, is crucial for a deeper
appreciation of the underlying motivational forces shaping the decisional priorities y by
organizing our preferred modes of thought, organizational discourse works as a
relatively unconscious force to restrict vision and to thereby inhibit the exploration of
genuinely alternative modes of conception and action.

Organizational discourse is a social structure that consists of expressional

modes organizational members espouse, when identifying themselves in
frame of the organization. Mumby and Clair (1997, p. 181) say ‘‘discourse is
the principle means by which organization members create a coherent social
reality that frames their sense of who they are.’’
For a discourse-analytical study, an approach lends itself best which conceptualizes
organizations as cultures in order to examine the ways in which organization members
engage in the creation of institutional reality. Such research generally takes organiza-
tional symbolism, myths, stories, legends, jokes, rites, logos as the most clearly visible
articulation of organizational reality. (Mumby, 1988, p. 3)

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AS METHOD

Conducted in-depth interviews at Dutch Bank present a contextual frame,

which makes it possible to comprehend how discourses of organizational
culture imply a perceived relationship to performance. The analysis
highlights how language forms an objective purpose or substance and
presumes language does not reflect reality, but represents it. Words only
 16 FARAH ASIF

matter through discourses, and the meaning can differ according to the
choice of discourse they are related to. In contradiction to objective views
that are based on ontological questions about reality, discourse analysis is
concerned with epistemological questions and with desire to understand
social and cultural processes that constructs self-perceptions and images of
reality. The social construction of reality matters in relation to the
consequences discourses generates (Mumby, 2004).
The interest of discourse analysis sediments social constructions, the
Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks

construction of perceptions uncovers possibilities, which in this case relates to

how discourses of organizational culture imply a perceived relationship to
performance. Discourse analysis is applied to explore and interpret how
perceptions of organizational culture are constructed and how these
discourses construct the possibilities for implying a perceived relationship
to performance. Illustrating the subsequent and rational blueprint of
sedimentation of perceptions, a discourse is defined as ‘‘a relational totality
of signifying sequences that determine the identity of the social elements, but
never succeed in totalizing and exhausting the play of meaning’’ (Torfing,
1999, p. 87).
On the basis of everything is placed in a discourse, the analytical field
focuses on articulations in all social constructions. In relation to the
collective construction of organizational culture, it is necessary to set focus
on the articulations that constructs perceptions of organizational culture
and signifies it through representations. Discourse analysis has the
methodological advantage to be limited concerning pronouncement of
intentions and motives behind the participant’s actions. Appliance of
discourse analysis in a sociological paradigm outlines how discursive
structures create a presumption for cultural preferences. The perceived
discourses of organizational culture from managers and employees are
reflected through quotes in the analysis and also state a perceived
relationship to performance. Explanations are given during the analysis for
the discursive structures stipulating perceptions of organizational culture in
relationship to performance (Tayler & Van Every, 1993).

THE STUDY
From the 1990s, the financial markets were transformed and increased
competition in the banking sector, bringing importance to higher perfor-
mance (Mullineux, 2007).
 Discourses in Organizational Culture 17

Akamavi (2005) discusses how the financial sector offers more products
and services, with focus on customer tailored services. Ennew and Wright
(1990) explore how organisations structure and integrate their culture
for developing strong corporate performance strategy. Jayawardhena and
Foly (2000) say the banking sector in particular faces great internal and
external developments, and new services and competition mean stronger
focus on performance.
This research analyzes how discourses of organizational culture imply a
Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks

perceived relationship to performance at a global Dutch bank. Twenty-five

interviews are conducted with managers and employees from the Service
Business Unit. Thirteen of the interviews were with managers. Among
interviewees were executive director of group-shared services and the head
of Services Business Management (Services Business Control). Twelve
in-depth interviews were conducted with employees from the same division.

BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH

AND FINDINGS

This research evaluates organizational culture from a perceptual perspective

and as a socially embedded discourse. The findings emphasize on discursive
constructions of organizational culture to understand how these imply a
perceived relationship to performance.
Before discussing key findings it is necessary to look at what discursive types
of organizational culture imply a perceived relationship to performance at the
bank. One aspect to examine is managers’ perceptions of how discourses of
organizational culture imply a perceived relationship to performance.

Analysis of Manager’s Statements

The work culture is friendly and it is a nice place to work [y] Work colleagues are
willing to help one another. The work environment is not competitive [y] Very relaxed
and laid back [y] The organizational culture of the bank hurts when looking at how we
perform. Other banks are acting more aggressively where we don’t [y] The
organizational culture is conservative, Dutch and hurts the performance of the bank.

The work culture is friendly and it is a nice place to work – work colleagues are willing to
help one another, and it is not competitive environment. The organizational culture is
very consensus based, and certainly does not have a positive impact on performance.

Discursive perceptions of organizational culture among managers imply

a negative perceived relationship to performance. This is reflected by other
 18 FARAH ASIF

managers who commented on the perceived relationship between organiza-

tional culture and performance of the bank.
I don’t know, some people say, it is rooted in the Dutch culture- everything is based on
equality in Holland, which potentially hinders the company to be more progressive. The
risk reward is also there. Dutch culture is more natural. Our bank’s culture is not go get
it, and aggressive compared to other banks. The large part of the bank is still Dutch.

The organizational culture has a negative impact on our performance. The culture
Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks

should focus more on delivery and higher performance and should be more autocratic
[y]

The goals have not been achieved enough and there is less focus on delivery. We should
focus on being a bank. Good idea, however, the delivery is not being aimed at.
The diagnosis, a change in culture will help.

Necessity and survival- banking is becoming more global, with more pressure on 24 hour
banking. Now days we are going to low margin, cut throat. There is a need for a more
aggressive approach. We are not good at closing the deals. Not like Goldman Sachs.

The organizational culture has hurt our performance- we are not focused enough.
It has not performed well in comparison to its competitors- A bit laissez faire here.
The organizational culture has a particular flavour and maybe there is too much loose
ends and self motivation is missing [y]

Not enough focus on delivery and accountability- people seems to get away with stuff.
It has to do with the company structure. Accountability is missing.

The responses from managers show that discourses of organizational

culture imply a negative perceived relationship to performance. The bank
also has a strong influence from Dutch culture and discourses as consensus,
less delivery, accountability, and laissez-faire among employees are argued
to contribute negative on performance.
The culture of the bank is overall perceived as relaxed, easygoing, with laid-
back manners and attitude, but also with a collective, homogeneous approach.
The organizational culture is not defined as cut throat in comparison with
competitors such as Goldman Sachs. Managers also highlight the bank does
not perform aggressively enough to achieve goals. The organizational culture
of the bank is not suffering from an autocratic management style in contrary
the relaxed culture is perceived to have hurt performance.
Managers desire a change in the culture of the bank being more
autocratic, as they perceived an existing influence from the organizational
culture to have a negative perceived relationship to performance.
The discursive perceptions of organizational culture are perceived positive
among managers, although these become negative when implying a
 Discourses in Organizational Culture 19

perceived relationship to performance. These were mainly identified through

relaxed and laid-back perception of the culture.
Managers revealed an affectionate relationship to the culture of the bank
by implying it is friendly, nice, laid-back easygoing, which are also perceived
negative to hurt the performance.

Analysis of Employees Statements

Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks

The other aspect to examine is employees’ perception of how discourses of

organizational culture imply a perceived relationship to performance.
Our organizational culture is not Americanised or like Goldman Sachs. Organizational
culture has positive contributions on our performance. We are lucky to have a bank that
value employees, gives freedom, trust, and provides a none-aggressive environment. AAB
is not like other banks.

The work culture is friendly and it is a nice place to work – work colleagues are willing to
help one another, it is not competitive.

Discursive perceptions of organizational culture imply a positive

perceived relationship to performance. This is reflected by other employees
who comment on the perceived relationship between organizational culture
and performance of the bank.
If the four concepts of respect, integrity, professionalism and teamwork which are our
corporate values would work it would help performance – because these hold up a global
concept of sticking together representing one bank [y] Teamwork increases the
performance.

I would believe based on the four concepts of respect, integrity, teamwork and
professionalism that it helps us perform better.

It is a good thing to have a good organizational culture because it helps people to

perform. Teamwork helps and so does respect. It helps on our performance and to be a
good employee.

Employees signify a positive work environment, given conditions of trust

and freedom, and in return the employee feels valued. It is an emphasized
discursive implication that the employee perceives a positive relationship
between the organizational culture and performance. The feeling of
solidarity by being a different bank builds the positive discursive image of
the perceived organizational culture. The discursive image of the bank is
also reflected through a non-aggressive environment and through hidden
identification of the other, and the financial institution as the antagonist,
 20 FARAH ASIF

which justifies the positive perceived relationship to performance. Employ-

ees present a discourse where reality is perceived through antagonising the
other, the competitors.
Overall employees indicate organizational culture at the bank is laid-back,
relaxed, flexible, based on teamwork and respect, but also trust and freedom.
Employees also perceived an easy going, helpful, friendly, and a flat
hierarchy culture at the bank defined through integrity, teamwork, respect
and professionalism. Employees signified great satisfaction working for the
Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks

bank in comparison with American companies, epitomized as cut throat.

Overall, employees’ discursive perceptions of organizational culture imply a
positive perceived relationship to performance.

Managers’ and Employees’ Perceptions of Organizational

Culture’s Impact on Performance

Managers and employees perceive discourses of the organizational culture in

relationship to performance differently. Managers present a cynical discern-
ment on the banks culture revealing it has a negative impact on performance.
Employees perceive discourses of the organizational culture to have a positive
impact on performance, which the following statement reflects:
The way people deal with each other, there is a high performance. It is laid-back like a
family. The employees know what it is about.

ANALYSIS

Distinction in discourses at play at the bank and discursive perceptions of

organizational culture are understood as a source of knowledge that
constructs reasons for managers’ and employees’ performance. It also forms
a discursive identity that relates to teamwork and respect, and these
constitute the possibilities for practising performance (Hardy, 2001).
Berger and Luckmann (1967) argue the human reality is reproduced
through people’s acts and interpretations of their knowledge. These are also
preserved and shared through human interactions, which relates to mutual
shared knowledge of reality and becomes strong unbreakable patterns.
Discursive perceptions of organizational culture are reflected through
official corporate statements. This not only upholds the organizational
culture as shared knowledge and interaction but also constructs an objective
reality of the social reality perceived in discursive manners by employees to
be respect, integrity, professionalism, and teamwork.
 Discourses in Organizational Culture 21

A shared unbreakable pattern based on knowledge and interaction of the

shared knowledge constructs discourses of organizational culture as the
perceived reality. The discursive perceptions of organizational culture are
providing managers and employees a solution that is transformed into
belief, which is a part of the conceptual process that justifies actions and
behavior (Schein, 2004).
The organizational culture of the bank is perceived as a discursive
construction of knowledge at the bank that managers and employees
Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks

identify themselves comfortably through declarations as ‘‘laid-back and like

a family’’ (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997). These discourses are
also strong patterns that construct and uphold their perceived reality. The
social construction of organizational culture is the objective reality, in which
the perceptions of performance are carried out.
Dewey (1902) states that the mind is controlled by the environment and is
entangled in a relationship to life processes. He gives significance to social
and natural contexts of existing facts and states that these are inseparable
from human environments. The average perceptions are conceived stating:

People are very relaxed, easygoing. It is a good place to work. And you just look at
everybody else and see how they behave

Reflections from the environment creates a process that reproduces the

culture by ‘‘looking at everybody else and see how they behave,’’ which
becomes an inseparable perceived blueprint between the employee and
the controlled environment (Dewey, 1902). This does not distinguish the
construction of culture and actual knowledge but comprehends them as
the perceived discursive image of reality employees work in. The repetitive
definitions and perceptions of organizational culture at the bank are marked
by discourses identified as laid-back, relaxed, and easygoing. The patterns of
reality are also manifested through symbolic attributes (Schein, 2004).

The ambience of the office is good, with open offices and transparent rooms.

This discourse is understood as a visible creation of the organization,

constructed by the physical and social environment, better understood as
artifacts that are perceived as part of the organizational culture (Handy,
2005). As a consequence to an already positive perceived organizational
culture created from various discourses, this generates a natural implication
for a discursive perception that constructs a good ambience and considered
an important factor to performance.
 22 FARAH ASIF

Table 1. Positive Discourses of Organizational Culture.

Pleasant office ambience
Friendly work environment
Integrity, teamwork, respect, and professionalism

Table 2. Negative Discourses of Organizational Culture.

Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks

Lack of aggressive work environment

Lack of competitive environment
Laid-back, easygoing, and relaxed attitude

Table 1 outlines discourses of organizational culture, implying a positive

relationship to performance, and gives an overview of what organizational
discourses are at play at the bank.
Table 2 draws attention to discourses of organizational culture implying a
negative relationship to performance.

CONCLUSION
This research looks at how discourses of organizational culture imply a
perceived relationship to performance. Research was conducted at global
Dutch bank, and 25 in-depth interviews were conducted with managers and
employees.
This research presents a minor segment of what is perceived as discursive
reality, the constructions do not refrain from gathering a belief that is
commonly adopted among 25 interviewees. What may also influence the
perceived discourses from both groups are different backgrounds, gender,
nationality, culture, ethnicity, work experience, and position.
This research evaluates organizational culture from a perceptual presenta-
tion and as a socially embedded discourse. The analysis emphasizes on
discursive constructions of organizational culture between managers and
employees. Key findings in the analysis shows two results: managers perceive
discourses of organizational culture negatively in relationship to performance,
and employees perceive discourses of organizational culture positively in
relationship performance. The purpose of conducting two types of interviews
among managers and employees was to compare different outcomes in a
theoretical context and to find several discursive structures of organizational
culture to see how it implies a perceived relationship to performance.
 Discourses in Organizational Culture 23

The discourse analytical method helps interpret and deconstruct the

sedimentations of conducted interviews assuming organizational culture is
an organizational discourse. Discourses explore relationship to reality by
interpretation of hidden meanings. Certain ways of speaking represent a
discourse. The final analysis demonstrates discourses of organizational
culture are perceived as Tables 1 and 2 show and imply a positive and
negative relationship to performance.
Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks

REFERENCES
Akamavi, K. R. (2005). A research agenda for investigation of product innovation in the
financial services sector. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(6), 359–378.
Alvesson, M. (2004). Organizational culture and discourse. In: D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick
& L. Putnam (Eds), Organizational discourse. London: Sage.
Alvesson, M., & Wilmot, H. (2002). Identity regulation as organizational control: Producing
the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39(5), 619–644.
American Management Association, Human Resources Institute. (2008). Cultivating effective
corporate cultures: A global study of challenges and strategies: current trends and future
possibilities, 2008–2018.
Aryee, S. (1991). Creating a committed workforce: Linking socialization practices to business
strategy. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resource, 29(1), 102–112.
Berger, L. P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the
sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor.
Besanko, D., Dranove, D., & Shanley, D. (2000). Economics of strategy (2nd ed.). New York:
Wiley.
Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk. London: Polity Press.
Brinkman, L. R. (1999). The dynamics of corporate culture: Conception and theory.
International Journal of Social Economics, 26(5), 674–694.
Browaeys, M. J., & Price, R. (2008). Understanding cross cultural management. London:
Prentice Hall.
Brubakk, B., & Wilkinson, A. (1996). Agents of change? Bank branch managers and the
management of corporate culture change. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 7(2), 21–43.
Burnes, B., & James, H. (1995). Culture, cognitive dissonance and the management of change.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 15(8), 14–33.
Cao, G., Clarke, S., & Lehaney, B. (2000). A systematic view of organizational change and
TQM. TQM Magazine, 12(3), 186–193.
Chapman, L. R., Murray, C. P., & Mellor, R. (1997). Strategic quality management and
financial performance indicators. International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, 14(4), 432–448.
Chia, R. (2000). Discourse analysis as organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 7(3), 513–518.
Collins, C. C., & Porras, J. I. (1994). Build to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New
York: Harper-Collins.
 24 FARAH ASIF

Cremer, J. (1993). Corporate culture and shared knowledge. Industrial and Corporate Change,
101, 351–386.
Davis, S. M. (1984). Managing corporate culture. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Deal, E. T., & Kennedy, A. A. (1988). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Denison, D. R. (1984). Bringing corporate culture to the bottom line. Organizational Dynamics,
13(2), 5–22.
Denison, D. R. (1990). What is the difference between organizational culture and organi-
zational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. The Academy of
Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks

Management Review, 21(3), 619–654.

Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and
organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. The
Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 619–654.
Deshpande, R., & Farley, J. (1999). Executive insights: Corporate culture and market orien-
tation: Comparing Indian and Japanese firms. Journal of International Marketing, 7(4),
111–127.
Dewey, J. (1902). Interpretation of the savage mind. Psychological Review, 9(2), 217–230.
Ennew, C. T., & Wright, M. (1990). Building societies in transition: Strategy in a new market
environment. Managerial Finance, 16(5), 14–24.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London:
Routledge.
Firth, A. (1995). The discourse of negotiation. London: Pergamon.
Gagliardi, P. (1986). The creation and change of organisational cultures, a conceptual
framework. Organization Studies, 7(2), 117–134.
Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (1998). The character of a corporation: How your company’s culture can
make or break your business. London: Harper Business.
Gordon, G. G., & DiTomaso, N. (1992). Predicting corporate performance from organizational
culture. Journal of Management Studies, 29(6), 783–798.
Gregory, K. (1983). Native-view paradigms: Multiple cultures and culture conflict in
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 539–576.
Grimshaw, A. (1990). Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gunnarsson, B. L., Linell, P., & Nordberg, B. (1997). The construction of professional discourse.
London: Longman.
Handy, C. B. (2005). Understanding organizations (4th ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Hardy, C. (2001). Researching organizational discourse. International Studies of Management
and Organization, 31(3), 25–47.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational
cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 35(2), 286–316.
Irani, Z., Sharpe, M. J., & Kagioglou, M. (1997). Improving business performance through
developing a corporate culture. TQM Magazine, 9(3), 206–221.
Jayawardhena, C., & Foly, P. (2000). Changes in the banking sector – The case of internet
banking in the UK. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy,
10(1), 19–30.
Joanne, M. (2001). Organizational culture, mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 Discourses in Organizational Culture 25

Jones, G. (1983). Transaction, costs, property rights, and organisational culture: An exchange
perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 454–467.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Innovations for productivity in the American
corporation. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kilmann, R. H., Saxton, M. J., & Serpa, R. (1986). Gaining control of corporate culture. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lankford, W., & Mintu-Wimsatt, A. (1999). Another look at corporate America’s culture.
Career Development International, 4(2), 88–93.
Lim, B. (1995). Examining the organizational culture and organizational performance link.
Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks

Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 16(5), 16–21.

Louis, M. (1983). Organizations as culturebearing milieux. Humanity Systems Management, 2,
246–258.
Mullineux, A. (2007). Financial sector convergence and corporate governance. Journal of
Financial Regulation and Compliance, 15(1), 8–19.
Mumby, D. K. (1988). Communication and power in organizations: Discourse, ideology and
domination. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mumby, D. K. (2004). Discourse, power and ideology: Unpacking the critical approach. In:
D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick & L. Putnam (Eds), Organizational discourse. London:
Sage.
Mumby, D. K., & Clair, R. D. (1997). Organizational discourse. In: T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.),
Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage.
Ogbor, O. J. (2001). Critical theory and the hegemony of corporate culture. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 14(6), 590–608.
Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best run
companies. New York: Warner Books.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of
Organizational Paradigms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 1–52.
Pfeffer, J. (1996). Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the workforce.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Pheysey, D. (1993). Organizational culture: Types and transformation. London: Routledge.
Powers, L. T., & Hahn, W. (2004). Critical competitive methods, generic strategies, and firm
performance. The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 22(1), 43–64.
Rashid, M., Zabid, A., Sambasivan, M., & Johari, J. (2003). The influence of corporate culture
and organisational commitment on performance. Journal of Management Development,
22(8), 708–772.
Rotacher, A. (2004). Corporate cultures and global brands. London: World Scientific.
Rusaw, A. C. (2000). Uncovering training resistance: A critical theory perspective. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 13(3), 249–263.
Sadri, G., & Lee, B. (2001). Developing corporate culture as a competitive advantage. Journal of
Management Development, 20(10), 853–859roach.
Schein, H. E. (1993). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, H. E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B. (1986). Notes on climate and culture. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Smith, G. (2004). An evaluation of the corporate culture of southwest airlines. Measuring
Business Excellence, 8(4), 26–33.
Smith, L. (2005). How to survive a corporate merger. US News and World Report, EE2-EE6.
 26 FARAH ASIF

Sorensen, J. B. (2002). The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of firms
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 70–91.
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological
Association, 51(2), 273–286.
Tayler, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (1993). The vulnerable fortress: Bureaucratic organization in the
information age. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto.
Tichy, N. (1982). Managing change strategically: The technical, political, and cultural keys.
Organizational Dynamics (Autumn), 59–80.
Tichy, N. (1987). The transformational leader. New York: Wiley.
Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks

Torfing, J. (1999). New theories of discourse Laclau, Mouffe and Zizek. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
Trice, H., & Beyer, J. (1993). The culture of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding
diversity in business (2nd ed.). London: Nicholas Brealey.
Van der Post, W. Z., de Coning, T. J., & Smit, E. V. (1998). The relationship between
organizational culture and financial performance: Some South African evidence. South
African Journal of Business Management, 29(1), 30–41.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourses as social interaction. London: Sage.
Wilkins, A. L., & Ouchi, W. G. (1983). Efficient cultures: exploring the relationship between
culture and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 468–481.
Wilson, A. M. (1997). The nature of corporate culture within a service delivery environment.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(1), 87–102.
Wodak, R. (1996a). Disorders of discourse. London: Longman.
Wodak, R. (1996b). Critical discourse analysis. In: J. Blommaert (Ed.), Handbook of
pragmatics. The Hague: Mouton.
Yavas, U. (2001). Enhancing organizational performance in banks: A systematic approach.
Journal of Services Marketing, 15(6), 444–453.