See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247614957

A three-perspective approach to understanding culture in retail organizations

Article in Personnel Review · April 1998

DOI: 10.1108/00483489810369269

CITATIONS READS

51 4,372

2 authors:

Lloyd C. Harris Emmanuel Ogbonna

University of Birmingham Cardiff University
122 PUBLICATIONS 8,306 CITATIONS 71 PUBLICATIONS 3,840 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lloyd C. Harris on 27 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Personnel Review
A three-perspective approach to understanding culture in retail organizations
Lloyd C. Harris Emmanuel Ogbonna
Article information:
To cite this document:
Lloyd C. Harris Emmanuel Ogbonna, (1998),"A three-perspective approach to understanding culture in retail organizations",
Personnel Review, Vol. 27 Iss 2 pp. 104 - 123
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483489810369269
Downloaded on: 27 April 2015, At: 05:52 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 62 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2762 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
E.C. Martins, F. Terblanche, (2003),"Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation", European
Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 6 Iss 1 pp. 64-74 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14601060310456337
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

Alan M. Wilson, (2001),"Understanding organisational culture and the implications for corporate marketing", European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Iss 3/4 pp. 353-367 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560110382066
Lauren Skinner Beitelspacher, R. Glenn Richey, Kristy E. Reynolds, (2011),"Exploring a new perspective on service
efficiency: service culture in retail organizations", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 25 Iss 3 pp. 215-228 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876041111129191

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 399721 []
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.

 Personnel
Review A three-perspective approach
27,2 to understanding culture in
retail organizations
104
Lloyd C. Harris and Emmanuel Ogbonna
Received February 1997 Cardiff Business School, Cardiff, UK
Revised/Accepted June
1997
Introduction
Recent theoretical contributions could be taken as an indication that the concept
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

Personnel Review,
Vol. 27 No. 2, 1998, pp. 104-123,
© MCB University Press, 0048-3486
of culture has regained much of the credibility it lost in the 1980s when it was
hijacked by those seeking tools of behavioural conformance in line with the
prevailing management agendas (see for example, criticisms identified by
Carroll (1983); Mitchell (1985); Ray (1986); Saffold (1988); Soeters (1986). Indeed,
many authors now argue that there is a resurgence of academic interest in the
concept as researchers have sought to maximize its strengths as a tool for
understanding and analysing organizations and behaviours within them (for
example, Denison, 1996; Frost et al., 1991; Kunda, 1992; Schultz and Hatch,
1996. An important recent contribution to this genre is the work of Martin
(1992) which develops three perspectives of organizational culture: integration,
differentiation and fragmentation. The three-perspective framework forms the
basis for the discussion in this article.
Through the analysis of three in-depth case studies, this article demonstrates
the analytical value of Martin’s (1992) framework and argues that the three
perspectives provide greater insight into the culture of retail organizations. The
findings indicate that the ways in which organizational members view their
roles and relationships (their organizational world) are consistent with the
integration, differentiation and fragmentation perspectives. Furthermore, the
article demonstrates that these perspectives relate to the hierarchical positions
of organizational members: head office personnel (particularly those at senior
levels) commonly project views that are consistent with “integration”, store
managers tend to lean towards “differentiation” and shopfloor staff frequently
hold views which can be approximated to “fragmentation”.
The article starts with a review of recent contributions to extant literature on
organizational culture in order to locate Martin’s (1992) three perspectives in the
context of broader organizational culture theory. This is followed by a
discussion of the three-perspective framework developed by Martin (1992)
comprising an evaluation of each of the three perspectives. This is preceded by
a brief discussion of the design of the research and the methodology. The
remainder of the article is dedicated to the presentation and analysis of the
findings of the research and the development of conclusions and implications.
The rationale for this paper is founded on the argument that Martin’s (1992)
framework is an important development in the study of organizational culture
 not only because of its theoretical significance but also because it highlights Understanding
some of the fundamental problems inherent to the practitioner perspectives of culture in retail
organizational culture. In order to demonstrate the degree of fit and analytical organizations
value of the three perspectives, the article presents empirical data generated
from interviews with managers and staff at three major retail companies.

The concept of organizational culture 105

The confusion surrounding the definition and the boundaries of the concept of
culture continues despite the increasing number of articles devoted to the
subject (Denison, 1996; Hatch, 1993). Indeed, since Kroeber and Kluckhon’s
(1952) assertion that numerous definitions of the concept abound, more
researchers have gone on to propose their own definitions to the point that it is
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

now widely acknowledged that there are as many definitions as there are so-
called “experts” on the subject (Ogbonna and Wilkinson, 1990). However, it is
possible to propose that an emerging trend is the polarisation of the definition
of organizational culture enabling the identification of two principal categories
of definition. First, there are those studies which define culture in terms of its
utility as an organizational variable or the purpose it serves in helping
organizational members make sense of their social world and cope with
problems of adaptation (see for example, Harris, 1996; Pacanowsky and
O’Donnell-Trujillo, 1983; Schein, 1992). Second, there are those studies which
describe culture primarily in terms of its merit as a tool of social research (see,
Kreps, 1984; Smircich, 1983b; Zamanou and Glaser, 1994).
Notwithstanding the differences in the methodological approach employed in
studies subscribing to these two broad views, it is clear that most contemporary
definitions of culture embrace one or more elements of what Pettigrew (1979)
describes as a “family of concepts”. Prominent components of Pettigrew’s (1979)
“family of concepts” include “values”, “beliefs”, “assumptions”, “myths”,
“rituals” and “symbols” which organizational members share in common and
which guide their everyday survival. Increasingly, researchers are now
recognizing the usefulness of conceptualizing culture as a “family of concepts”
(for example, Harris, 1996; Ogbonna, 1993). However, the benefits derived from
such a loose conceptualization are arguably outweighed by the methodological
difficulties this causes. Foremost among these is the concern that if culture is an
amalgam of opaque and nebulous concepts such as those identified above, how
does one study it and how does one distinguish it from similar organizational
concepts such as “climate” and “norms”? (Denison, 1996). This issue is
compounded by the fact that different studies emphasize the significance of
diverse components of culture. For example, while acknowledging that culture
has different levels, Schein’s conception focuses on underlying and unconscious
assumptions (see for instance Schein, 1992). In contrast, Martin and Siehl (1983)
argue that greater insight could be gained by the specific examination of values.
Moreover, popular managerialist literature commonly equates culture with
organizational rituals (Deal and Kennedy, 1982) and visible manifestations such
as artefacts and creations (Peters and Waterman, 1982).
 Personnel Probably as a response to the considerable conceptual problems highlighted
Review above, many studies have emphasized “shared meaning” as the common thread
27,2 linking the “family of concepts”. Indeed many studies which examine
organizational culture posit the notion that culture is mainly (or in part) a
shared or consensus-based system. For example, Badovick and Beatty (1987)
stress the critical nature of shared values, Schein (1992) discusses at length the
106 importance of commonly-held basic assumptions and Hatch (1993)
demonstrates the utility of a consensual-based analysis of four components of
culture. However, it is worth noting that some researchers have questioned the
view that organization-wide consensus (as discussed above) is either desirable
or a leitmotif for organizational success (see for instance, Hopfl et al., 1992;
Linstead and Grafton-Small, 1991).
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

Surprisingly, instead of culture research evolving in multiple traditions as

the diversity of theoretical opinion would suggest, studies can be categorized
into two intellectual traditions incisively discussed in Smircich’s (1983)
paradigmatic framework; the “functionalist” and “interpretive” paradigms.
While the paradigmatic schema provided by Smircich (1983) has provided a
convenient basis for the categorization of organizational culture research, it is
debatable whether the classification fully embraces the intricacies surrounding
the conceptualizations and practicalities of organizational culture (Rousseau,
1990). For example, it can be argued that the principal flaw of Smircich’s two
paradigms is that they represent too extreme conceptualizations of culture.
First, the interpretive paradigm is overtly idealistic in its quest to understand
and widen knowledge within the subjective realms of the interpreter. This view
relegates culture to a concept that is only of interest to academics and the issue
of managing culture is either ignored or treated as an unimportant area of
enquiry. Second, while the functionalist paradigm has attracted widespread
support for the way it treats the management of culture as feasible and
desirable, it has been argued that researchers adopting a functionalist
perspective can only go so far in advancing the view that organizational culture
is susceptible to conscious manipulation (Alvesson, 1987; Anthony, 1990;
Legge, 1995; Ogbonna, 1993; Ray, 1986; Wilmott, 1993).
Some researchers have misinterpreted Smircich’s (1983) paradigmatic
framework and have implicitly assumed that there are only two ways of
analyzing culture. The functionalist paradigm has tended to dominate culture
research and this has arguably led to the commodification of some elements of
culture research. For example, through the adoption of the functionalist
perspective, many studies tend to posit the view (mostly by implication) that a
monolithic culture is either desirable or attainable; frequently the objective has
been to achieve consistency and conformity across the organization. However,
while monolithic interpretations of culture may amplify the relevance of certain
aspects of organizational culture (for example culture “management”), such
interpretations fail to account for other crucial considerations, in particular
those phenomena which do not conform to dominant expectations. In this
sense, monolithic studies frequently ignore or overlook what culture “is” in
 preference for subjective prescriptions of what culture “ought to be”. The Understanding
various monolithic treatise frequently aimed at practitioners have not been met culture in retail
with widespread academic support and have led to researchers increasingly organizations
questioning the practicality and utility of assumptions of monolithic cultures
(see for example, Bolon and Bolon, 1994; Jun, 1996; Klein, 1996).

A three-perspective approach to analysing organizational culture 107

While the three perspectives of Martin (1992) is by no means a “fix-all” solution
to the fundamental flaws of both the “idealist” and “pragmatic” views of culture
many of these issues are addressed, discussed and overcome by the framework.
Similarly, it should be recognized that a number of other organizational culture
theorists have sought to explore the tensions and differentiation between levels
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

of culture and their interaction (an example being that of Hatch (1993)). The
work of Martin (1992) is an important contribution to the study of culture not
only because of theoretical niceties but also because of the extent to which it
captures the practical realities of organizational existence.
Martin (1992) is concerned with explicating the tensions surrounding the
concept of organizational culture. This highlights a number of problems
including the interpretation of culture, its boundaries, notions of multiple
cultures and culture change. Martin (1992) seeks to present an all-
encompassing analytical framework emphasizing three important aspects of
research into cultural phenomena: integration, differentiation and
fragmentation, demonstrating that a major weakness in organizational culture
research is the propensity to adopt only one theoretical perspective.
The integration perspective is one adopted by studies seeking consistency in
their data and using such consistency to explain issues that are identified.
Martin (1992, p. 12) contends that studies from the integration perspective
possess “three defining characteristics: all cultural manifestations mentioned
are interpreted as consistently reinforcing the same themes, all members of the
organization are said to share in an organization-wide consensus, and the
culture is described as a realm where all is clear. Ambiguity is excluded”. The
integration perspective has dominated much of the research on organizational
culture with many researchers seeking to explore cultural consensus. This has
taken many forms, including the identification and review of shared values (for
example, Badovick and Beatty, 1987), cultural “strength” (Sathe, 1983) and the
stream of research which focuses on shared cultural manifestations (for
example, Peters and Waterman, 1982).
In contrast, the differentiation perspective focuses on the inevitability of
conflict in organizations and presents “lack of consensus” as an issue that needs
to be understood and addressed within organizational culture research. Martin
(1992; p. 83) argues that the defining characteristics of the differentiation
perspective on organizational culture are “inconsistency, subcultural
consensus, and the relegation of ambiguity to the periphery of subcultures”.
Studies of the differentiation perspective tend to focus on the analysis of
organizational culture as a series of frequently conflicting opposites (such as
 Personnel management-labour, rational-emotional, professional-manual). However, while
Review the differentiation perspective recognizes the inevitability of conflict, it fails to
27,2 account sufficiently for the ambiguities of organizational existence. It is for this
reason that the final perspective, fragmentation, is important.
The fragmentation perspective views organizations as being in a constant
state of flux. Studies within the fragmentation perspective are concerned with
108 understanding the processes for constructing and re-constructing
organizational reality. The defining characteristics of the fragmentation
perspective on culture are presented by Martin (1992, p. 130) as a “focus on
ambiguity, complexity of relationships among manifestations, and a
multiplicity of interpretations that do not coalesce into a stable consensus”.
These studies go beyond the quest for cultural consensus and seek to
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

understand the complexity and interaction between sometimes conflicting sub-

cultures. For example, issues of gender and race are viewed as important in
construction of organizational realities (topics which are frequently ignored by
studies from other perspectives of organizational culture). A summary of the
key differences and distinctions between the three perspectives is presented in
Table I.
Martin (1992) argues that the adoption of one perspective biases the nature
and outcomes of the research; a point which is widely acknowledged by
scholars exploring epistemological issues in general (see for example, Burrell
and Morgan, 1979). Indeed, Martin’s (1992) empirical evidence illustrates that
diverse and rich findings, conclusions and understanding can be reached by
analysing one company from each of the three perspectives.
A major benefit of Martin’s (1992) three perspectives is the analytical depth
provided by the framework. The three perspectives framework emphasizes the
critical issue of multiple interpretation as a key facet of organizational analysis
and in so doing acknowledges the existence of cultural pluralism and
interpretation. Thus, it is not only desirable to study culture with the aid of these
perspectives, it is one of the few comprehensive ways to understand
organizational phenomena. Similarly, the three-perspective framework re-opens
debates about contested terrain within organizational culture research. For
example, the pursuit of cultural similarity and conformity (strong culture)
advocated by much of previous research as constituting the “ideal”, restricts the

Perspective
Characteristics Integration Differentiation Fragmentation

Orientation to Organization-wide Subcultural Multiplicity of

consensus consensus consensus views
Table I. Relation among Consistency Inconsistency Complexity
Characteristics of manifestations
Martin’s (1992) three Orientation to Exclude it Channel it outside Focus on it
perspectives ambiguity subculture
 scope for studies of the dynamics of multiple cultures, gender and diversity issues Understanding
which are frequently inadequately covered in organizational culture research. culture in retail
Therefore, this article advances the three-perspective framework of Martin organizations
(1992) by illustrating that the framework should be employed not only because
it provides greater insight into the complexities of organizational culture but
also because it enables greater understanding of how relationships and
interpretations of culture appear to be associated with organizational 109
hierarchical levels.

Methodology
The concern of this study is with the meaning which organizational members
assign to their social world as they seek to maintain membership of such an
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

organization. Thus, it is argued that to identify culture, the views and

interpretations of organizational members must be understood. It has been
argued that the ideal method for such a study is to embark on a longitudinal
study (Pettigrew, 1979) or to adopt a “native view” (Gregory, 1983). However,
constraints on resources and particularly access make this type of study
difficult. The data presented was taken from detailed case studies of three
companies. Initially, the three-perspectives framework was used to gain insight
into the culture of a regional food retail chain. This food retailer was selected
since it exhibits some of the characteristics reported in previous studies of
organizational culture, such as the existence of a transient workforce and a
management “obsessed” with generating cultural conformance (see, Anthony,
1990; Hopfl, 1992; Ogbonna and Wilkinson, 1990). The case study not only
revealed that different conclusions can be drawn by adopting each of the
perspectives but that the perspectives corresponded to hierarchical positions of
organizational members. For reasons of reliability, it was then considered
necessary to extend the case studies to other retail companies to assess whether
this case was unique. Consequently, two further case studies of one medium and
one large retail company (one food and one clothing) were conducted.
The case studies were based on in-depth interviews across the hierarchical
levels in the three companies, top head office managers, store managers and
shopfloor workers. The interviews were semi-structured to allow for consistency
but the questions were open-ended such that participants were encouraged to
describe and explain views using their own language and jargon. The
participants were asked for permission to audio-tape the interviews and this was
granted in nearly all cases. When individuals preferred not to be recorded,
comprehensive written notes were taken. The transcripts of the interviews were
analysed by methods of inductive reasoning (Lincoln and Guba, 1986) and
comparative methods (Martin and Turner, 1986). The data analysis phase of
research was conducted via a systematic process of qualitative transcript-based
data analysis following a form of the iterative stage process outlined by Turner
(1981). Rather than report exhaustive detailed case studies of each company, the
article presents representative illustrations to demonstrate the consistency of
views along hierarchical levels in the three companies.
 Personnel The companies studied share a number of attributes but also provide
Review interesting contrasts. The selection criteria for the case study organizations
27,2 were based on two issues. First, that the organizations were primarily focused
on the food and/or clothing sector. Second, since both sectors are characterized
by a dominance of large to medium sized firms, case study organizations were
required to manage at least 50 outlets. While a sample of three organizations
110 cannot be construed as representative, efforts were made to avoid a biased
sample. The principal characteristics of the three organizations are identified in
Table II.

Company A Company B Company C

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

Company size Small Medium Large

(turnover) (£60m) (£130m) (£4000m)
Market coverage Regional Regional – National
national
Market share Low Medium High
Principal product range Grocery Clothing Grocery
Company ownership Private Private Public
Table II. Number of interviewed staff
The characteristics of Head office 20 15 17
the three case study Store management 17 14 24
organizations Shopfloor staff 20 25 25

Findings and analysis

The study of the organizational cultures of the three case-study companies
reveals numerous cultural cognitions and manifestations. Semi-structured
interviews led to the finding that the ways organizational members view their
cultures are consistent with the integration, differentiation and fragmentation
perspectives developed by Martin (1992). Furthermore, organizational
members’ perspective of company culture appears to relate to hierarchical
position: head office employees tend to view the company culture from an
integration perspective, store managers incline towards the differentiation
perspective and shop floor workers view culture in fragmentation terms. These
findings are discussed and explained below.

Head office managers: integration perspective

As has been previously mentioned, the defining characteristics of the
integration perspective of organizational culture are organization-wide
consensus, clarity and consistency. Analysis of the values, beliefs and all the
other components which approximated culture within each of the three
organizations identifies the head office cultures to be broadly in line with the
integration perspective (a possibility noted by Martin (1992, p. 84)). The
similarity is particularly marked in five areas; the rationale for managerial
 interest in culture, views of organizational consensus, consistency, reactions to Understanding
deviation and views of cultural change. culture in retail
Prior to a discussion of the cultural perspective of head office managers, it is organizations
necessary to clarify the key characteristics and perceived roles of head office
managers. For the purposes of this article, head office managers are defined as
employees of a retail organization who work in central or regional offices in a
managerial role. The head office managers studied generally believe their role in 111
the organization to be centred on the creation of organizational effectiveness
and efficiency. Thus, managers see their role as one of branch support and
control in order to achieve the objectives of the organization (ranging from
survival to profit maximisation). Head office managers of Companies A and C
discuss their role:
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

The role of Head Office is to ensure that stores know precisely what is required from them. We
set the limits on what they [the stores] can do and monitor them to make sure they keep to
what we want (Head Office Manager, Company A, aged 37, seven years’ service).
Head Offices operate as a strategic centre. The role of stores is tactical – to achieve the goals
determined by our [the head office] strategic direction. The head office determine what needs
to be accomplished to take us forward to the year 2000 and makes sure that the stores follow.
(Head Office Manager, Company C, aged 37, eight years’ service).
The beliefs of head office managers in relation to their role in the organizational
hierarchy appear to provide the rationale for their perspective of organizational
culture. Thus, head office managers in the three companies tend to conceptualize
organizational culture in prescriptive terms, frequently contending that head
office visions of what the organization’s culture is (or should be) should be
considered as the ideal. Often, head office personnel present culture in objective
terms and portray the culture of the organization as a variable which can be
managed (particularly at branch level). These integration-consistent
assumptions (of prescriptive, objective and manageable culture) allow head office
managers to relate organizational culture to organizational effectiveness.
Head office managers’ belief in their role as that of effectiveness creators is
apparent in their assumptions of organizational-wide consensus (head office
managers’ belief of cultural consistency being closely aligned to the studies of
Ouchi and Jaeger (1978) and Schein (1991)). Since achieving organizational
effectiveness in order to accomplish company objectives is viewed as the role of
head office management, the prescription of organizational consensus holds
inherent appeal for such personnel. A head office manager of Company C refers
to the role of the head office during a major change initiative:
The role of the Central Offices is to conceive and formulate strategies for change which will
create the leader of the industry – take us to the year 2000 (Head office manager, Company C,
aged 37, eight years’ service).
Thus, head office managers in the three companies appear to believe that, since
culture is related to effectiveness, the creation of a culture which is organization-
wide leads to organization-wide effectiveness. This is implicit in head office
managers’ frequent references to “the company team” (Senior head office
 Personnel manager, Company B, aged 49, one years’ service), “the family of Company C”
Review (Head office manager, Company C, aged 37, eight years’ service) and “company
27,2 closeness” (Head office manager, Company A, aged 54, 22 years’ service) and the
commonly held view that any non-conforming personnel should leave the
company (this point is important and will be taken up later).
The logic of the culture consensus-effectiveness relationship is extended by
112 head office managers’ views of cultural consistency (a view of consistency akin
to that of Ouchi and Jaeger (1978)). As one head office manager of Company B
illustrates through his discussion of the current efficiency of the company:
We’ve got to re-focus some of our systems. When we say “focus on customers” this should be
across the board, we should all say it at the same time. At the moment we are creating
conflicting messages and that will hurt us unless we get on-track (Senior head office manager,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

Company B, aged 49, one years’ service).

By implication a lack of organization-wide consensus, not only in the
articulation of the values but also in the communication of the message arising
from such values, can have unforeseen consequences for the organization.
These managerial assumptions that shared value ultimately leads to
organizational success have previously been documented and criticised (see for
example, Hopfl, 1992; Linstead and Grafton Small, 1991).
Linked to their assumption that an organization-wide consensus culture
creates organization-wide effectiveness, is their view that the strength of this
relationship is partly determined by the consistency of the maintenance and
creation of cultural manifestations and widely-held beliefs (a view similar to
that identified by Ouchi (1980)). Indeed, the consistency of prescriptions
embodied in the beliefs of head office managers in the three companies equates
to Martin’s (1992) description of integrative action, symbolic and content
consistency.
Head office managers’ prescriptive-integrative view of organizational culture
is also apparent in their views of deviation or non-conformity which are similar
to Pascale and Athos’ (1981) findings on conformity in IBM and O’Reilly et al.’s
(1991) view of cultural-fit. Founded on their prescriptive assumptions of
organizational culture consensus and consistency, deviation is not understood
or tolerated. This view extends to both branch-level and head office personnel
who deviate from cultural consensus or who hold inconsistent beliefs, to the
extent that non-conformists are viewed as “non-players” (Director, Company A,
aged 46, two years’ service), “not on side” (Senior head office manager, Company
B, aged 49, one years’ service) or “closed” (Regional support manager, Company
C, aged 37, ten years’ service) and are most commonly encouraged to seek
employment elsewhere. The comments of a head office manager of Company A,
in reference to a subordinate he actively encouraged to leave the company, are
particularly illustrative of this point:
We have had people here who didn’t fit in. We had a [job position] who stayed for almost a
year. She had a superior attitude that made it difficult for everyone to get on with her…it’s
important for everyone to get on. She adopted a superior attitude … she seemed to feel that
because she had held more senior positions in other companies that she could say and do what
 she wanted without any regard of her position. Nobody got on with her and I think she knew Understanding
this. We were all glad when she finally left (Senior head office manager, Company A, aged 54,
22 years’ service). culture in retail
Similarly, a head office manager of Company B refers to a branch level colleague
organizations
who was dismissed from his post for deviation from the widely-held value of
company loyalty:
Jack was in the bar at this conference. He was heard to be slagging the company off – next 113
thing we hear he’s had a disciplinary meeting and he’s gone (Head office manager, Company
B, aged 29, five years’ service).
The integrative perspective of head office managers of prescriptive consensus,
consistency, effectiveness rationale and reaction to non-conformity is manifest
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

in head office managers’ view of cultural change. Since culture is seen in

consensus and consistency terms, cultural change is often viewed in
transformational rather than incremental stages (akin to the unfreezing/re-
freezing theory of Lewin (1951)). Thus, head office managers generally refer to
cultural change as “metamorphosis” (Senior head office manager, Company B,
aged 49, one years’ service) “radical reshaping” (Annual report, Company C). A
senior head office manager of Company A refers to the need for company
change:
We’ve got to change and quickly. We’re being left behind by our competitors. What we’ve got
to do is catch up with those things our competitors have got – scanning, better staff etc.… If
we can do this we can drag Company A into the nineties and turn this company from a small
family run company into a modern professionally run company (Head Office Manager,
Company A, aged 59, 15 years’ service).
Similarly, in the Annual Report of Company C:
We have succeeded in improving our overall service to customers and in lowering our cost
base, but only by totally reshaping our business to equip it with the organizational structures,
management processes and technology it will need as we move forward to the year 2000
(Annual Report, Company C).
Thus, change is viewed as either the re-alignment of the organization to the
consensus (as in the study of Kanter (1985)) or the switch from one consistent
and consensus oriented culture to another different consistent and consensus
oriented culture; the change being complete and total, the old culture now being
wrong and the new culture now being correct (consistent with the findings of
Greenwood and Hinings (1988)).

Store managers: differentiation perspective

The differentiation perspective of organizational culture has previously been
categorized as comprising the key characteristics of inconsistency, sub-cultural
consensus and ambiguity exclusion. Once again this perspective appears to
relate to the views of a layer of the organizational hierarchy. The cultural
perspective adopted by store managers in the three companies is highly
consistent with differentiation. Store managers’ views on company culture are
akin to the differentiation perspective in five key areas; the rationale for attention
 Personnel to culture, dichotomous difference, inconsistency, subcultural consensus and
Review views on cultural change. These similarities are discussed below.
27,2 The store managers interviewed appear to view their organizational role as
one of a supervisor of a single outlet/part which contributes to the effectiveness
of the whole. Thus, probably due to their position as one of a large number of
similarly contributing branches, store managers view the culture of the
114 organization as segmented into various categories or subcultures. Moreover, the
boundary-spanning nature of store management allows store managers to
appreciate the cultural diversity of the organization and understand the culture
of both head offices and branches. This appreciation of cultural diversity is
implicit in their perception of the role of a store manager (supervising a part of
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

the whole). A further indication of the categorization of store managers into this
perspective is derived from their widespread assumption that since head offices
and stores appear to be so diverse, organizational effectiveness can only be
achieved through the understanding and management of differences between
bounded subcultures (the possibility of such balance being an issue on which
store managers are equally divided). Thus, while the integrative perspective of
head office managers leads to their belief in their role as one of effectiveness
creators (through head office prescription), store managers generally view their
role as effectiveness facilitators (through the balance of dichotomous influences
and demands).
Consistent with the differentiation perspective proposed by Martin (1992),
store managers across the three companies tend to define and consider
subcultural differences in dichotomous terms. Such differences included store
management/store workers, head office/stores, store managers/head office
managers and even capital/labour. Interestingly, as noted by Martin (1992, p. 84)
such dichotomous relationships are discussed with the first half of the
dichotomy relating to the powerful subculture while the weaker half is always
mentioned last (for example; management/worker = powerful/weak
subculture). Thus, store managers tend to view culture in relation to realms of
dominance often describing how one subculture controls or influences another;
a view which equates to that identified by Siehl and Martin (1984). A store
manager of Company A refers to a pay-freeze and new store openings within
the same year illustrating a differentiated view of subcultures (note the
reference to “they’ve”(head office management) and to “the rest of us” (store
workers and managers)):
I understand that they’ve got to open new stores – you’ve got to move to survive. But, this is
at the cost of the rest of us – our non-pay rise paid for those stores – we got nothing from the
deal (Store manager, Company A, aged 28, ten years’ service).
Similarly, a store manager of Company C refers to a recent change initiative:
Was the big change all about taking the whole company forward? I think not. What it felt like
was head office cutting back on store costs – it was getting more from less people – we got
screwed for their bottom-line (Store-level manager, Company C, aged 27, four years’ service).
 The unique hierarchical position of the store manager appears to lead many Understanding
store managers in the three companies to comment on the perceived culture in retail
inconsistencies of the dichotomous subcultures. For example, within all three organizations
companies, while some head office personnel were implementing cuts in store-
level costs such as staffing, other head office personnel were requesting higher
levels of customer service (which commonly requires more staff). A store
manager of Company B refers to the conflicting demands of head office 115
functions and the confusion this causes:
Yesterday was a nightmare – one of those days. I spent a good 90 per cent of the day sorting
out four totally conflicting messages from John and Jack (marketing and finance middle
managers of the central support office). Sometimes I think they should just stay in their
cupboards and leave the thinking to us – they really don’t know their apples from their
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

oranges! (Store manager, Company B, aged 34, six years’ service.)

This is an illustration of what Martin (1992, pp. 85, 88) labels, “ideological
inconsistency” in that one espoused cultural value conflicts with another,
“action inconsistency” in that the practice of cost cutting conflicts with
customer care practice and “symbolic inconsistency” in that personnel
responsible for customer care are perceived to be less powerful.
While store managers generally indicate that they are aware of inconsistency
across subcultural boundaries, they appeared to place great emphasis on the
consensus within subcultural boundaries (such as branches or functional
departments – that which Ouchi (1980) would label “clans”). Store managers
refer to team-work within their stores:
This store now works like a real team – I’m proud of that (Store manager, Company A, aged
28, nine years’ service).
Being part of a team is crucial here (Store manager, Company B, aged 47, 12 years’ service).
I’ve just about got my team perfect (Store-level manager, Company C, aged 33, eight years’
service).
Interestingly, the emphasis of store managers implies that their individual
stores are areas where subcultural consensus is encouraged and even
celebrated. Yet, previous quotations illustrate clearly their dichotomous view of
broader organizational culture (for instance, the relationship between head
office and stores).
Store managers appear to analyse organizational subcultures in reference to
spheres of influence and domination. Most commonly, store managers refer to a
single espoused dominant culture (mostly at head office) and discuss the
challenge to this culture by hierarchically lower employees (most commonly
store personnel). This view is often related to the difference between what store
managers view as the prescriptive idealism of head office and the pragmatic
realism of store management, thus implying a dichotomous inconsistency
between subcultures while inferring cultural consensus within subcultural
boundaries (a view similar to that of Gregory (1983)). These issues are apparent
in the comments of a store manager of Company C and in the reference to the
“unrealistic” view of head office personnel:
 Personnel They [the support centre] have their demands about what to do but we’re at the sharp end,
we’re the mugs who’ve got to turn their ideas into something do-able (Store manager,
Review Company C, aged 35, six years’ service).
27,2 Store managers’ differentiation perspective on culture is also evident in their
views of organizational cultural change. In contrast to the integrative-
transformational change perspective of head office managers, store managers
116 view cultural change in relation to changes to the power and dominance
relationship of subcultures. Examples include Company B where store
managers discuss a change initiative in terms of how the marketing function of
head office was slowly changing into a more dominant group to the detriment
of the previously powerful technical support function. Meanwhile, at store-level,
shopfloor employees were becoming “empowered” thus weakening the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

dominance of store management. Similarly, a store manager of Company C

refers to changes in the balance between store-level managers and shopfloor
workers:
It was to even the balance of thinkers and doers. The re-structure was necessary. We had
managers getting exorbitant salaries for doing a job which no longer required the skills they
had. There was a lot of unfairness with some people earning too much (Store-level manager,
Company C, aged 23, two years’ service).
Overall, organizational change is viewed by store managers as an incremental
alteration of subcultural realms of dominance, often influencing dichotomous
subcultures (a view of change akin to the established concept of “logical
incrementalism” of Hofer (1973); Quinn (1980)).

Shopfloor workers: fragmentation perspective

The fragmentation perspective has previously been discussed as characterized
by a focus on ambiguity, complex relationships and multiple interpretations
inhibiting a stable consensus. Once again, this perspective on culture is
consistent with the views of a level of the organizational hierarchy across the
three companies; in this case, shopfloor workers. The similarity between the
views of shopfloor workers on organizational culture and Martin’s (1992)
fragmentation perspective is notable in five main areas; unpredictable and
complex views of culture, the centrality of ambiguity, “differance”, cultural
definition and views of organizational change. These issues are discussed
below.
The hierarchical position of shopfloor workers coupled with their narrow
and limited understanding of the organization lead many shopfloor employees
to view their organizations as complex and unpredictable. For employees in
Company C (the largest company), the organization was so large and the levels
of the company so numerous that their understanding of the company
structures and systems led to confusion as to the “centre” of the organization.
Indeed, within Company C, the central, regional and area-based structure of the
company indicates to many shopfloor employees that no “centre” is
ascertainable owing to the existence of numerous “centres”. These views are
compounded by shopfloor employees’ perception of their organizational world,
 with all aspects of branches constantly changing and the remainder of the Understanding
organization categorized as distant both in geographical terms and in relation culture in retail
to diversity of interest. Similarly, at store-level, shopfloor employees are often organizations
unable to share store-level subcultures to the extent that these could not be
described as “thick” or “strong” (respectively see: Sathe, 1983; Robbins, 1987).
To such employees, the constant flux of change and complexity means that
subculture membership is fluid and the boundaries of subcultures constantly 117
changing. For example, a shopfloor employee of Company C refers to a
transitory alliance during a Christmas rush:
At Christmas we had a good team working – everybody helped everybody. I even helped on
the check-out one night! Mind you it only lasted for Christmas (Replenishment assistant,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

Company C, aged 40, seven years’ service).

Similarly, a part-time sales assistant of Company B refers to her working life
which is characterized by the fluidity of working relationships:
I don’t really know many of the people here. One of the things I like about the job is the variety
– one week you’re on one section, the next you’re on another – you rarely work with the same
people twice in one month (Part-time sales assistant, Company B, aged 42, three years’
service).
These typically fragmented perspectives of culture are further indicated by the
insistence of shopfloor employees that the culture of their company is open to
multiple interpretation. Indeed, the multiplicity of cultural interpretation is
implied by frequent references to confusion relating to cultural manifestations.
The unpredictably and complexity of shopfloor employees’ perspective of
culture is further indicated by the centrality placed on organizational
ambiguity. Indeed, many shopfloor employees view their organizational
existence as characterised by such ambiguity (see Meyerson (1991) and Weick
(1991) for a fuller discussion of the sources of ambiguity). For example,
shopfloor employees tend to describe themselves as mobile with easily
transferable skills. They also indicate that their hours of work are often
determined by personnel with whom they rarely have face-to-face contact and
that the hours of work frequently change from week to week with job
descriptions and duties changed regularly. The work of retail sector specialists
highlights examples of these issues, see for example; Dawson et al. (1988);
Freathy (1993); Freathy and Sparks (1993); Marchington and Parker (1990). A
sales assistant of Company A refers to the unpredictability of her working life:
One week it’s two shifts – the next week eight. In this job you can’t second guess what is going
to happen. It’s way too unpredictable. You just take it week to week (Sales assistant, Company
A, aged 47, two years’ service).
At the same time, those who wish to progress within the organization are often
expected to move stores on a regular basis. An assistant controller of Company
C discusses his future career prospects emphasizing his perception that
mobility and flexibility are crucial to individual success:
 Personnel To get ahead in this company you’ve got to jump from store to store, from job to job – that way
you can climb the ladder – it’s what they expect (Assistant controller, Company C, aged 27,
Review seven years’ service).
27,2 Thus, given their perception of the constant flux of their organizational life, it is
not surprising that their perception of their organizational culture is
fragmented and often characterized by ambiguity.
118 Shopfloor employees also indicate a fragmentation perspective towards
organizational culture in their views of what Derrida (1976) phrases
“differance”. The perception of cultural complexity, flux and ambiguity leads
shopfloor employees to characterise culture as a context-specific phenomenon,
with each culture and subculture only understandable and explicable in the
context in which it is enacted. A shopfloor employee of Company B discusses
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

the wider company:

I can’t say if that’s company-wide. I only know about xxxx [name of store location].
Everywhere is bound to be different isn’t it, you can’t say what other people are thinking or
doing, can you? (Sales assistant, Company B, aged 54, four years’ service).
Thus, while store managers’ perspective (differentiation) concentrates on
dichotomous, subcultural dominance interaction, shopfloor employees tend to
view organizational culture as comprising a multiplicity of context-specific
transitory interactions wherein agreement and disagreement can only be
analysed in relation to the context of enactment.
Similarly, while store managers’ perspectives on culture indicate cultural
definition through the analysis of subcultural dichotomy (differentiation),
shopfloor employees imply that the culture of the organization is defined as
much by “what is not”, as “what is” (Martin, 1992). For example, the store
managers of Company B interpret a head office policy relating to the
distribution of overtime as a management mechanism for reducing costs
through “exploiting” full-time workers. However, shopfloor employees interpret
the policy by what it did not mention (part-time staff) and saw the policy as
indicating the poor standard and ability of part-time personnel. A similar
finding to the multiple interpretation of meaning is discussed by Owens (1983).
The fragmentation perspective on organizational culture is also indicated in
shopfloor employees’ interpretation of organizational change. Shopfloor
employees view culture as constant flux, with one effort to change being
superseded by another with no noticeable period of certainty. Thus, many
shopfloor employees perceive cultural change as the rapid and continuous
incremental change of the organization. Probably, linked to the hierarchical
position of shopfloor employees and their perceptions of a complex,
unpredictable, ambiguous and multi-faceted culture, organizational change is
also viewed in a localised way; each change being context specific.

Conclusions and implications

Overall, this article finds that the application of Martin’s (1992) three-
perspective framework to the analysis of organizational culture provides
 considerable insight into the complexities of organizational culture. The case Understanding
study of three retailing organizations finds that each of Martin’s (1992) three culture in retail
perspectives corresponds to different hierarchical positions. The study of head organizations
office personnel finds that they tend to adopt an integration perspective on
organizational culture. That is, culture is viewed in terms of consensus and
consistency. Cultural deviation is considered unwelcome whereas cultural
change is viewed as transformational rather than incremental. The analysis of 119
interviews with store managers finds that store managers commonly adopt a
differentiation perspective on organizational culture. That is, store managers
view culture as dichotomous, inconsistent and characterized by subcultural
consensus. Final, shopfloor workers tend to exhibit a fragmentation perspective
on organizational culture. That is, the views of shopfloor workers tend to focus
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

on the ambiguity, fluidity and complexity of organizational culture.

A number of conclusions can be developed from the presented findings. First,
different levels of organizational hierarchy have differing views of
organizational culture. The findings of this study reveal that the views of senior
managers can be radically different from the views of shopfloor workers. This
raises the suggestion that studying multiple cultures and their dynamics
presents researchers with richer and more realistic insight into organizational
cultures.
Second, instead of studies being biased towards one narrow perspective,
analyses of organizational culture could utilise different focuses obtainable via
the use of (almost others) Martin’s (1992) three diverse perspectives on
organizational culture. Such analyses of culture will surely reveal a greater
understanding of organizational culture while providing the researcher with
rich and reliable data. This article does not imply that one perspective provides
richer or more reliable data but rather that each perspective highlights different
aspects of cultural phenomena.
Third, while researchers’ interpretation of organizational culture is useful,
the three-perspective approach enables culture to be defined from the realms of
the organizational member. In particular, the use of three different perspectives
in the analysis of one (or more) organizations forces the study of some
organizational groups or subcultures which are frequently overlooked in
organizational research. For example, while women represent over 70 per cent
of retail employees (Marchington, 1996), their interpretation of organizational
issues such as culture is frequently overlooked largely because they are usually
employed at the lower levels of the hierarchy. Furthermore, the examination of
the retail companies reveals that those organizational members whose
perspective on culture is fragmented are those employees whose interface with
the customer frequently determines the success of the organization. It is
debatable whether this group of workers will ever adopt values which are
consistent with their companies’ espoused values towards customers.
The implications of this study are profound and pervasive. While numerous
and diverse implications of this research can be derived, possibly the most
interesting centres on the implications for organizational culture change
 Personnel research. As discussed above, the case study of three organizations finds that
Review organizational members of different hierarchical levels hold widely differing
27,2 views on organizational change. In particular, it was found that shopfloor
workers perceived their roles and relationships in ambiguous and often
confused ways. Hence, notions of culture management based on the
development of cultural conformity and enforced by head office directives (for
120 example, customer care) may be misguided or at least inappropriate in their
simplicity. Indeed, it may be argued that a significant amount of organizational
culture change literature has over-simplified the dynamic and fragmented
perspectives of key organizational members. An important practical
implication arising from this work is that different culture change initiatives
should be directed at different levels of the organizational hierarchy. This leads
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

to two further implications. First, it would appear that head office

managements should direct more attention to appreciating differing
perspectives (for example, the design of training and change programmes must
reflect not only the cultural perceptions and assumptions of head office
managers but also those of store level employees including managers). Second,
during cultural change it maybe the case that behavioural consistency is the
best which could be hoped for in the case of shopfloor staff whose cultural
perspective is highly fragmented.
Finally, as with many social science studies, this study raises a number of
issues for further research. First, is the three-perspective framework used in
this study likely to reveal the same results in different settings other than the
retail sector: that is, do the hierarchical positions of organizational members
always correspond to differing perspectives? Second, if cultural perspectives
always correspond to hierarchical positions, what happens when people change
positions in the hierarchy and what consequences does this have for our
understanding of cultural change? Third, in order to understand more fully the
complexities of the relationships between hierarchical position and cultural
perspective, longitudinal research would seem to be appropriate. Fourth,
causality is not an issue discussed in this article, however, the study of the
derivation of cultural perspective would appear to be necessary. However, while
this study raises a number of issues, it is argued that the presented findings and
conclusions provide a tentative step towards a more complete understanding of
the intricacies of organization culture.

References
Alvesson, M. (1987), “Organizations, culture and ideology”, International Studies of Management
and Organization, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 4-18.
Anthony, P.D. (1990), “The paradox of the management of culture or ‘he who leads is lost’”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 3-8.
Badovick, G.J. and Beatty, S.E. (1987), “Shared organizational values: measurement and impact on
strategic marketing implementation”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 19-26.
Bolon, D.S. and Bolon, D.S. (1994), “A reconceptualisation of organizational culture”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 22-7.
 Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Understanding
Heinemann, London.
Carrol, D.T. (1983), “The disappointing search for excellence”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61
culture in retail
No. 6, pp. 78-88. organizations
Dawson, J., Findlay, A. and Sparks, L. (1988), “The employment implications of locational decision
making; the case of in-town and out-of-town superstores”, International Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 35-47.
Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (1982), Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life,
121
Addison-Wesley, Reading.
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”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 619-54.
Derrida, J. (1976), Speech and Phenomenon, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

Freathy, P. (1993), “Developments in the superstore labour market”, The Service Industries
Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 65-79.
Freathy, P. and Sparks, L. (1993), “Sunday working in the retail trade”, International Journal of
Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 3-9.
Frost, P.J., Moore, L.F., Louis, M.R., Lundburg, C.C. and Martin, J. (1991), Reframing
Organizational Culture, Sage, London.
Greenwood, R. and Hinings, C. (1988), “Organizational design types, tracks and the dynamics of
strategic change”, Organization Studies, Vol. 9, pp. 293-316.
Gregory, K.L. (1983), “Native-view paradigms: multiple cultures and culture conflicts in
organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 359-76.
Harris, L.C. (1996), “Cultural obstacles to market orientation”, Journal of Marketing Practice:
Applied Marketing Science, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 36-52.
Hatch, M.J. (1993), “The dynamics of organizational culture”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 657-93.
Hofer, C.W. (1973), “Some preliminary research on patterns of strategic behaviour”, Academy of
Management Proceedings, pp. 46-59.
Hopfl, H., Smith, S. and Spencer, S. (1992), “Values and valuations: corporate culture and job cuts”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 24-38.
Jun, J.S. (1996), “Changing perspectives on organizational culture: embracing multiculturalism”,
International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 323-43.
Kanter, R.M. (1985), The Changemasters, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Klein, R. (1996), “Ethnic versus organizational culture: the bureaucratic alternative”,
International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 345-75.
Kreps, G. (1984), “Organizational culture and organizational development: promoting flexibility
in an urban hospital”, paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication
Association Convention, May, San Francisco, CA.
Kroeber, A.L. and Kluckhohn, C. (1952), Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions,
Vintage Books, New York, NY.
Kunda, G. (1992), Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a HighTech Corporation,
Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Legge, K. (1995), Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities, Macmillan, London.
Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1986), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Linstead, S.L. and Grafton Small, R.G. (1991), “On reading organizational culture”, Organization
Studies, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 257-73.
 Personnel Marchington, M. (1996), “Shopping down different aisles: a review of the literature on human
resource management in food retailing”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 3
Review No. 1, pp. 21-32.
27,2 Marchington, M. and Parker, P. (1990), Changing Patterns of Employee Relations, Harvester
Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead.
Martin, J. (1992), Cultures Organizations: Three Perspectives, Oxford University Press, London.
Martin, J. and Siehl, C. (1983), “Organizational culture and counterculture: an uneasy symbiosis”,
122 Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 12, pp. 52-64.
Martin, P.Y. and Turner, B.A. (1986), “Grounded theory and organizational research”, The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 141-57.
Meyerson, D. (1991), “Normal’ ambiguity?: A glimpse of an occupational culture”, in Frost, P.,
Moore, L., Louis, M., Lundberg, C., and Martin, J. (Eds), Reframing Organizational Culture,
Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 131-44.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

Mitchell, T.R. (1985), “An evaluation of the validity of correlational research conducted in
organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 192-205.
O’Reilly, C., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D. (1991), “People and organizational culture: a q-sort
approach to assessing person-organization fit”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34,
pp. 487-516.
Ogbonna, E. (1993), “Managing organizational culture: fantasy or reality?”, Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 42-54.
Ogbonna, E. and Wilkinson, B. (1990), “Corporate strategy and corporate culture: the view from
the checkout”, Personnel Review, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 9-15.
Ouchi, W. (1980), “Markets, bureaucracies, and clans”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25,
pp. 125-41.
Ouchi, W. and Jaeger, A. (1978), “Type Z organization: stability in the midst of mobility”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 3, pp. 305-14.
Owens, C. (1983), “The discourse of others: feminists and postmodernism”, in Foster, H. (Ed.), The
Anti-Aesthetic, Bay Press, Pott Townsend, WA, pp. 57-82.
Pacanowsky, M.E. and O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983), “Organizational communication as cultural
performance”, Communication Monographs, Vol. 50, pp. 126-47.
Pascale, R.T. and Athos, A.G. (1981), The Art of Japanese Management: Applications for
American Executives, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Peters, T. and Waterman, R. (1982), In Search of Excellence, Random House, New York, NY.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1979), “On studying organizational cultures”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 24, pp. 570-81.
Quinn, J.B. (1980), Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism, Irwin, Burr Ridge, IL.
Ray, C.A. (1986), “Corporate culture: the last frontier of control”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 251-97.
Robbins, S.P. (1987), Organization Theory: Structure, Design and Application, Prentice Hall,
Hemel Hempstead.
Rousseau, D.M. (1990), “Assessing organizational culture: the case of multiple methods”, in
Schneider, B. (Ed.), Organizational Culture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 153-92.
Saffold, G.S. (1988), “Culture traits, strength, and organizational performance: moving beyond
‘strong’ culture”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 546-58.
Sathe, V. (1983), “Implications of corporate culture: a manager’s guide to action”, Organizational
Dynamics, Autumn, pp. 5-23.
Schein, E.H. (1991), “What is culture?”, in Frost, P.J., Moore, L.F., Louis, M.R., Lundburg, C.C. and
Martin, J. (1991), Reframing Organizational Culture, Sage, London, pp. 243-53.
Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
 Schultz, M. and Hatch, M.J. (1996), “Living with multiple paradigms: the case of paradigm interplay Understanding
in organizational culture studies”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 529-57.
Siehl, C. and Martin, J. (1984), “The role of symbolic management: how can managers effectively
culture in retail
transmit organizational culture?”, in Hunt, J., Hosking, D., Schriesheim, C. and Stewart, R. organizations
(Eds), Leaders and Managers: International Perspectives on Managerial Behavior and
Leadership, Pergamon, Elmsford, NY, pp. 227-39.
Smircich, L. (1983), “Studying organizations as cultures”, in Morgan, G. (Ed.), Beyond Method:
Strategies for Social Research, Sage, London. 123
Soeters, J.L. (1986), “Excellent companies as social movements”, Journal Management Studies,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 299-312.
Turner, B.A. (1981), “Some practical aspects of qualitative data analysis: one way of organising
the cognitive processes associated with the generation of grounded theory”, Quality and
Quantity, Vol. 15, pp. 225-47.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

Weick, K. (1991), “The vulnerable system: an analysis of the Tenerife air disaster”, in Frost, P.,
Moore, L., Louis, M., Lundberg, C. and Martin, J. (Eds), Reframing Organizational Culture,
Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 117-130.
Wilmott, H. (1993), “Strength is ignorance: slavery is freedom: managing culture in modern
organisations”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 515-51.
Zamanou, S. and Glaser, S.R. (1994), “Moving towards participation and involvement”, Group and
Organization Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 475-502.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Elke Angelika Pioch, Ulrike Gerhard. 2014. Organizational culture as differentiator in international retailing. The Service
Industries Journal 34, 729-749. [CrossRef]
2. Mavis Yi-Ching Chen, Carol Yeh-Yun Lin, Hsing-Er Lin, Edward F. McDonough. 2012. Does transformational leadership
facilitate technological innovation? The moderating roles of innovative culture and incentive compensation. Asia Pacific Journal
of Management 29, 239-264. [CrossRef]
3. Lauren Skinner Beitelspacher, R. Glenn Richey, Kristy E. Reynolds. 2011. Exploring a new perspective on service efficiency:
service culture in retail organizations. Journal of Services Marketing 25:3, 215-228. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Angela Chen. 2010. Culture and compensation-unpicking the intricate relationship between reward and organizational
culture. Thunderbird International Business Review 52:10.1002/tie.v52:3, 189-202. [CrossRef]
5. Jossy Mathew, Emmanuel Ogbonna. 2009. Organisational culture and commitment: a study of an Indian software
organisation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 20, 654-675. [CrossRef]
6. Beverly B. Tyler, Devi R. Gnyawali. 2009. Managerial Collective Cognitions: An Examination of Similarities and Differences
of Cultural Orientations. Journal of Management Studies 46:10.1111/joms.2008.46.issue-1, 93-126. [CrossRef]
7. Oliver George Kayas, Rachel McLean, Tony Hines, Gillian H. Wright. 2008. The panoptic gaze: Analysing the interaction
between enterprise resource planning technology and organisational culture. International Journal of Information Management
28, 446-452. [CrossRef]
8. Lloyd C. Harris, Emmanuel Ogbonna. 2007. The impact of cultural and political dynamics on web site design, development,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK At 05:52 27 April 2015 (PT)

and implementation. Personnel Review 36:6, 918-938. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Elke Pioch. 2007. ‘Business as usual?’ Retail employee perceptions of organizational life following cross-border acquisition.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 18, 209-231. [CrossRef]
10. Vassil Girginov. 2006. Creating a Corporate Anti-doping Culture: The Role of Bulgarian Sports Governing Bodies. Sport
in Society 9, 252-268. [CrossRef]
11. Vassil Girginov, Dimitra Papadimitriou, Rosa López De D'Amico. 2006. Cultural Orientations of Sport Managers. European
Sport Management Quarterly 6, 35-66. [CrossRef]
12. Ngaire Bissett. 2004. Diversity writ large. Journal of Organizational Change Management 17:3, 315-325. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
13. Andrew Smith, Leigh Sparks, Susan Hart, Nikos Tzokas. 2004. Delivering customer loyalty schemes in retailing: exploring
the employee dimension. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 32:4, 190-204. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
14. Robert Jones, Barbara Lasky, Heather Russell‐Gale, Mia le Fevre. 2004. Leadership and the development of dominant and
countercultures. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 25:2, 216-233. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Lloyd C Harris, Georgios Metallinos. 2002. The fact and fantasy of organizational culture management: a case study of Greek
food retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 9, 201-213. [CrossRef]
16. Lloyd C. Harris, Andrew Crane. 2002. The greening of organizational culture. Journal of Organizational Change Management
15:3, 214-234. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Nic Beech, George Cairns, Tom Robertson. 2000. Transient transfusion; or the wearing‐off of the governance of the soul?.
Personnel Review 29:4, 460-473. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Lloyd C. Harris. 2000. The organizational barriers to developing market orientation. European Journal of Marketing 34:5/6,
598-624. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Lloyd C. Harris, Emmanuel Ogbonna. 1998. Employee responses to culture change efforts. Human Resource Management
Journal 8:10.1111/hrmj.1998.8.issue-2, 78-92. [CrossRef]

View publication stats