a three-perspective approach to understanding culture in retail organizations
TRANSCRIPT
Personnel ReviewA three-perspective approach to understanding culture in retail organizationsLloyd 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 - 123Permanent 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: [email protected] 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", EuropeanJournal of Innovation Management, Vol. 6 Iss 1 pp. 64-74 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14601060310456337Alan M. Wilson, (2001),"Understanding organisational culture and the implications for corporate marketing", EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Iss 3/4 pp. 353-367 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560110382066Lauren Skinner Beitelspacher, R. Glenn Richey, Kristy E. Reynolds, (2011),"Exploring a new perspective on serviceefficiency: 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 AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Pleasevisit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio ofmore than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on PublicationEthics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
PersonnelReview27,2
104
A three-perspective approachto understanding culture in
retail organizationsLloyd C. Harris and Emmanuel Ogbonna
Cardiff Business School, Cardiff, UK
IntroductionRecent theoretical contributions could be taken as an indication that the conceptof culture has regained much of the credibility it lost in the 1980s when it washijacked by those seeking tools of behavioural conformance in line with theprevailing management agendas (see for example, criticisms identified byCarroll (1983); Mitchell (1985); Ray (1986); Saffold (1988); Soeters (1986). Indeed,many authors now argue that there is a resurgence of academic interest in theconcept as researchers have sought to maximize its strengths as a tool forunderstanding and analysing organizations and behaviours within them (forexample, 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 thebasis for the discussion in this article.
Through the analysis of three in-depth case studies, this article demonstratesthe analytical value of Martin’s (1992) framework and argues that the threeperspectives provide greater insight into the culture of retail organizations. Thefindings indicate that the ways in which organizational members view theirroles and relationships (their organizational world) are consistent with theintegration, differentiation and fragmentation perspectives. Furthermore, thearticle demonstrates that these perspectives relate to the hierarchical positionsof organizational members: head office personnel (particularly those at seniorlevels) commonly project views that are consistent with “integration”, storemanagers tend to lean towards “differentiation” and shopfloor staff frequentlyhold views which can be approximated to “fragmentation”.
The article starts with a review of recent contributions to extant literature onorganizational culture in order to locate Martin’s (1992) three perspectives in thecontext of broader organizational culture theory. This is followed by adiscussion of the three-perspective framework developed by Martin (1992)comprising an evaluation of each of the three perspectives. This is preceded bya brief discussion of the design of the research and the methodology. Theremainder of the article is dedicated to the presentation and analysis of thefindings 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
Personnel Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, 1998, pp. 104-123,© MCB University Press, 0048-3486
Received February 1997Revised/Accepted June1997
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
Understandingculture in retail
organizations
105
not only because of its theoretical significance but also because it highlightssome of the fundamental problems inherent to the practitioner perspectives oforganizational culture. In order to demonstrate the degree of fit and analyticalvalue of the three perspectives, the article presents empirical data generatedfrom interviews with managers and staff at three major retail companies.
The concept of organizational cultureThe confusion surrounding the definition and the boundaries of the concept ofculture continues despite the increasing number of articles devoted to thesubject (Denison, 1996; Hatch, 1993). Indeed, since Kroeber and Kluckhon’s(1952) assertion that numerous definitions of the concept abound, moreresearchers have gone on to propose their own definitions to the point that it isnow widely acknowledged that there are as many definitions as there are so-called “experts” on the subject (Ogbonna and Wilkinson, 1990). However, it ispossible to propose that an emerging trend is the polarisation of the definitionof organizational culture enabling the identification of two principal categoriesof definition. First, there are those studies which define culture in terms of itsutility as an organizational variable or the purpose it serves in helpingorganizational members make sense of their social world and cope withproblems of adaptation (see for example, Harris, 1996; Pacanowsky andO’Donnell-Trujillo, 1983; Schein, 1992). Second, there are those studies whichdescribe 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 instudies subscribing to these two broad views, it is clear that most contemporarydefinitions 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 andwhich guide their everyday survival. Increasingly, researchers are nowrecognizing the usefulness of conceptualizing culture as a “family of concepts”(for example, Harris, 1996; Ogbonna, 1993). However, the benefits derived fromsuch a loose conceptualization are arguably outweighed by the methodologicaldifficulties this causes. Foremost among these is the concern that if culture is anamalgam of opaque and nebulous concepts such as those identified above, howdoes one study it and how does one distinguish it from similar organizationalconcepts such as “climate” and “norms”? (Denison, 1996). This issue iscompounded by the fact that different studies emphasize the significance ofdiverse components of culture. For example, while acknowledging that culturehas different levels, Schein’s conception focuses on underlying and unconsciousassumptions (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 withorganizational rituals (Deal and Kennedy, 1982) and visible manifestations suchas artefacts and creations (Peters and Waterman, 1982).
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
PersonnelReview27,2
106
Probably as a response to the considerable conceptual problems highlightedabove, many studies have emphasized “shared meaning” as the common threadlinking the “family of concepts”. Indeed many studies which examineorganizational culture posit the notion that culture is mainly (or in part) ashared or consensus-based system. For example, Badovick and Beatty (1987)stress the critical nature of shared values, Schein (1992) discusses at length theimportance of commonly-held basic assumptions and Hatch (1993)demonstrates the utility of a consensual-based analysis of four components ofculture. However, it is worth noting that some researchers have questioned theview that organization-wide consensus (as discussed above) is either desirableor a leitmotif for organizational success (see for instance, Hopfl et al., 1992;Linstead and Grafton-Small, 1991).
Surprisingly, instead of culture research evolving in multiple traditions asthe diversity of theoretical opinion would suggest, studies can be categorizedinto 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 aconvenient basis for the categorization of organizational culture research, it isdebatable whether the classification fully embraces the intricacies surroundingthe conceptualizations and practicalities of organizational culture (Rousseau,1990). For example, it can be argued that the principal flaw of Smircich’s twoparadigms is that they represent too extreme conceptualizations of culture.First, the interpretive paradigm is overtly idealistic in its quest to understandand widen knowledge within the subjective realms of the interpreter. This viewrelegates culture to a concept that is only of interest to academics and the issueof managing culture is either ignored or treated as an unimportant area ofenquiry. Second, while the functionalist paradigm has attracted widespreadsupport for the way it treats the management of culture as feasible anddesirable, it has been argued that researchers adopting a functionalistperspective can only go so far in advancing the view that organizational cultureis susceptible to conscious manipulation (Alvesson, 1987; Anthony, 1990;Legge, 1995; Ogbonna, 1993; Ray, 1986; Wilmott, 1993).
Some researchers have misinterpreted Smircich’s (1983) paradigmaticframework and have implicitly assumed that there are only two ways ofanalyzing culture. The functionalist paradigm has tended to dominate cultureresearch and this has arguably led to the commodification of some elements ofculture research. For example, through the adoption of the functionalistperspective, many studies tend to posit the view (mostly by implication) that amonolithic culture is either desirable or attainable; frequently the objective hasbeen to achieve consistency and conformity across the organization. However,while monolithic interpretations of culture may amplify the relevance of certainaspects of organizational culture (for example culture “management”), suchinterpretations fail to account for other crucial considerations, in particularthose phenomena which do not conform to dominant expectations. In thissense, monolithic studies frequently ignore or overlook what culture “is” in
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
Understandingculture in retail
organizations
107
preference for subjective prescriptions of what culture “ought to be”. Thevarious monolithic treatise frequently aimed at practitioners have not been metwith widespread academic support and have led to researchers increasinglyquestioning 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 While the three perspectives of Martin (1992) is by no means a “fix-all” solutionto the fundamental flaws of both the “idealist” and “pragmatic” views of culturemany of these issues are addressed, discussed and overcome by the framework.Similarly, it should be recognized that a number of other organizational culturetheorists have sought to explore the tensions and differentiation between levelsof culture and their interaction (an example being that of Hatch (1993)). Thework of Martin (1992) is an important contribution to the study of culture notonly because of theoretical niceties but also because of the extent to which itcaptures the practical realities of organizational existence.
Martin (1992) is concerned with explicating the tensions surrounding theconcept of organizational culture. This highlights a number of problemsincluding the interpretation of culture, its boundaries, notions of multiplecultures and culture change. Martin (1992) seeks to present an all-encompassing analytical framework emphasizing three important aspects ofresearch into cultural phenomena: integration, differentiation andfragmentation, demonstrating that a major weakness in organizational cultureresearch is the propensity to adopt only one theoretical perspective.
The integration perspective is one adopted by studies seeking consistency intheir data and using such consistency to explain issues that are identified.Martin (1992, p. 12) contends that studies from the integration perspectivepossess “three defining characteristics: all cultural manifestations mentionedare interpreted as consistently reinforcing the same themes, all members of theorganization are said to share in an organization-wide consensus, and theculture is described as a realm where all is clear. Ambiguity is excluded”. Theintegration perspective has dominated much of the research on organizationalculture with many researchers seeking to explore cultural consensus. This hastaken many forms, including the identification and review of shared values (forexample, Badovick and Beatty, 1987), cultural “strength” (Sathe, 1983) and thestream of research which focuses on shared cultural manifestations (forexample, Peters and Waterman, 1982).
In contrast, the differentiation perspective focuses on the inevitability ofconflict in organizations and presents “lack of consensus” as an issue that needsto be understood and addressed within organizational culture research. Martin(1992; p. 83) argues that the defining characteristics of the differentiationperspective on organizational culture are “inconsistency, subculturalconsensus, and the relegation of ambiguity to the periphery of subcultures”.Studies of the differentiation perspective tend to focus on the analysis oforganizational culture as a series of frequently conflicting opposites (such as
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
PersonnelReview27,2
108
management-labour, rational-emotional, professional-manual). However, whilethe differentiation perspective recognizes the inevitability of conflict, it fails toaccount sufficiently for the ambiguities of organizational existence. It is for thisreason that the final perspective, fragmentation, is important.
The fragmentation perspective views organizations as being in a constantstate of flux. Studies within the fragmentation perspective are concerned withunderstanding the processes for constructing and re-constructingorganizational reality. The defining characteristics of the fragmentationperspective on culture are presented by Martin (1992, p. 130) as a “focus onambiguity, complexity of relationships among manifestations, and amultiplicity of interpretations that do not coalesce into a stable consensus”.These studies go beyond the quest for cultural consensus and seek tounderstand the complexity and interaction between sometimes conflicting sub-cultures. For example, issues of gender and race are viewed as important inconstruction of organizational realities (topics which are frequently ignored bystudies from other perspectives of organizational culture). A summary of thekey differences and distinctions between the three perspectives is presented inTable I.
Martin (1992) argues that the adoption of one perspective biases the natureand outcomes of the research; a point which is widely acknowledged byscholars exploring epistemological issues in general (see for example, Burrelland Morgan, 1979). Indeed, Martin’s (1992) empirical evidence illustrates thatdiverse and rich findings, conclusions and understanding can be reached byanalysing one company from each of the three perspectives.
A major benefit of Martin’s (1992) three perspectives is the analytical depthprovided by the framework. The three perspectives framework emphasizes thecritical issue of multiple interpretation as a key facet of organizational analysisand in so doing acknowledges the existence of cultural pluralism andinterpretation. Thus, it is not only desirable to study culture with the aid of theseperspectives, it is one of the few comprehensive ways to understandorganizational phenomena. Similarly, the three-perspective framework re-opensdebates about contested terrain within organizational culture research. Forexample, the pursuit of cultural similarity and conformity (strong culture)advocated by much of previous research as constituting the “ideal”, restricts the
PerspectiveCharacteristics Integration Differentiation Fragmentation
Orientation to Organization-wide Subcultural Multiplicity ofconsensus consensus consensus views
Relation among Consistency Inconsistency Complexitymanifestations
Orientation to Exclude it Channel it outside Focus on itambiguity subculture
Table I.Characteristics of Martin’s (1992) threeperspectives
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
Understandingculture in retail
organizations
109
scope for studies of the dynamics of multiple cultures, gender and diversity issueswhich are frequently inadequately covered in organizational culture research.
Therefore, this article advances the three-perspective framework of Martin(1992) by illustrating that the framework should be employed not only becauseit provides greater insight into the complexities of organizational culture butalso because it enables greater understanding of how relationships andinterpretations of culture appear to be associated with organizationalhierarchical levels.
MethodologyThe concern of this study is with the meaning which organizational membersassign to their social world as they seek to maintain membership of such anorganization. Thus, it is argued that to identify culture, the views andinterpretations of organizational members must be understood. It has beenargued that the ideal method for such a study is to embark on a longitudinalstudy (Pettigrew, 1979) or to adopt a “native view” (Gregory, 1983). However,constraints on resources and particularly access make this type of studydifficult. The data presented was taken from detailed case studies of threecompanies. Initially, the three-perspectives framework was used to gain insightinto the culture of a regional food retail chain. This food retailer was selectedsince it exhibits some of the characteristics reported in previous studies oforganizational culture, such as the existence of a transient workforce and amanagement “obsessed” with generating cultural conformance (see, Anthony,1990; Hopfl, 1992; Ogbonna and Wilkinson, 1990). The case study not onlyrevealed that different conclusions can be drawn by adopting each of theperspectives but that the perspectives corresponded to hierarchical positions oforganizational members. For reasons of reliability, it was then considerednecessary to extend the case studies to other retail companies to assess whetherthis case was unique. Consequently, two further case studies of one medium andone large retail company (one food and one clothing) were conducted.
The case studies were based on in-depth interviews across the hierarchicallevels in the three companies, top head office managers, store managers andshopfloor workers. The interviews were semi-structured to allow for consistencybut the questions were open-ended such that participants were encouraged todescribe and explain views using their own language and jargon. Theparticipants were asked for permission to audio-tape the interviews and this wasgranted in nearly all cases. When individuals preferred not to be recorded,comprehensive written notes were taken. The transcripts of the interviews wereanalysed by methods of inductive reasoning (Lincoln and Guba, 1986) andcomparative methods (Martin and Turner, 1986). The data analysis phase ofresearch was conducted via a systematic process of qualitative transcript-baseddata analysis following a form of the iterative stage process outlined by Turner(1981). Rather than report exhaustive detailed case studies of each company, thearticle presents representative illustrations to demonstrate the consistency ofviews along hierarchical levels in the three companies.
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
PersonnelReview27,2
110
The companies studied share a number of attributes but also provideinteresting contrasts. The selection criteria for the case study organizationswere based on two issues. First, that the organizations were primarily focusedon the food and/or clothing sector. Second, since both sectors are characterizedby a dominance of large to medium sized firms, case study organizations wererequired to manage at least 50 outlets. While a sample of three organizationscannot be construed as representative, efforts were made to avoid a biasedsample. The principal characteristics of the three organizations are identified inTable II.
Findings and analysisThe study of the organizational cultures of the three case-study companiesreveals numerous cultural cognitions and manifestations. Semi-structuredinterviews led to the finding that the ways organizational members view theircultures are consistent with the integration, differentiation and fragmentationperspectives developed by Martin (1992). Furthermore, organizationalmembers’ perspective of company culture appears to relate to hierarchicalposition: head office employees tend to view the company culture from anintegration perspective, store managers incline towards the differentiationperspective and shop floor workers view culture in fragmentation terms. Thesefindings are discussed and explained below.
Head office managers: integration perspectiveAs has been previously mentioned, the defining characteristics of theintegration perspective of organizational culture are organization-wideconsensus, clarity and consistency. Analysis of the values, beliefs and all theother components which approximated culture within each of the threeorganizations identifies the head office cultures to be broadly in line with theintegration perspective (a possibility noted by Martin (1992, p. 84)). Thesimilarity is particularly marked in five areas; the rationale for managerial
Company A Company B Company C
Company size Small Medium Large(turnover) (£60m) (£130m) (£4000m)Market coverage Regional Regional – National
nationalMarket share Low Medium HighPrincipal product range Grocery Clothing GroceryCompany ownership Private Private PublicNumber of interviewed staff
Head office 20 15 17Store management 17 14 24Shopfloor staff 20 25 25
Table II.The characteristics of the three case study organizations
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
Understandingculture in retail
organizations
111
interest in culture, views of organizational consensus, consistency, reactions todeviation and views of cultural change.
Prior to a discussion of the cultural perspective of head office managers, it isnecessary to clarify the key characteristics and perceived roles of head officemanagers. For the purposes of this article, head office managers are defined asemployees of a retail organization who work in central or regional offices in amanagerial role. The head office managers studied generally believe their role inthe organization to be centred on the creation of organizational effectivenessand efficiency. Thus, managers see their role as one of branch support andcontrol in order to achieve the objectives of the organization (ranging fromsurvival to profit maximisation). Head office managers of Companies A and Cdiscuss their role:
The role of Head Office is to ensure that stores know precisely what is required from them. Weset the limits on what they [the stores] can do and monitor them to make sure they keep towhat 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 goalsdetermined by our [the head office] strategic direction. The head office determine what needsto 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 organizationalhierarchy appear to provide the rationale for their perspective of organizationalculture. Thus, head office managers in the three companies tend to conceptualizeorganizational culture in prescriptive terms, frequently contending that headoffice visions of what the organization’s culture is (or should be) should beconsidered as the ideal. Often, head office personnel present culture in objectiveterms and portray the culture of the organization as a variable which can bemanaged (particularly at branch level). These integration-consistentassumptions (of prescriptive, objective and manageable culture) allow head officemanagers to relate organizational culture to organizational effectiveness.
Head office managers’ belief in their role as that of effectiveness creators isapparent in their assumptions of organizational-wide consensus (head officemanagers’ belief of cultural consistency being closely aligned to the studies ofOuchi and Jaeger (1978) and Schein (1991)). Since achieving organizationaleffectiveness in order to accomplish company objectives is viewed as the role ofhead office management, the prescription of organizational consensus holdsinherent appeal for such personnel. A head office manager of Company C refersto 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 willcreate 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, sinceculture is related to effectiveness, the creation of a culture which is organization-wide leads to organization-wide effectiveness. This is implicit in head officemanagers’ frequent references to “the company team” (Senior head office
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
PersonnelReview27,2
112
manager, Company B, aged 49, one years’ service), “the family of Company C”(Head office manager, Company C, aged 37, eight years’ service) and “companycloseness” (Head office manager, Company A, aged 54, 22 years’ service) and thecommonly held view that any non-conforming personnel should leave thecompany (this point is important and will be taken up later).
The logic of the culture consensus-effectiveness relationship is extended byhead office managers’ views of cultural consistency (a view of consistency akinto that of Ouchi and Jaeger (1978)). As one head office manager of Company Billustrates 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 beacross the board, we should all say it at the same time. At the moment we are creatingconflicting messages and that will hurt us unless we get on-track (Senior head office manager,Company B, aged 49, one years’ service).
By implication a lack of organization-wide consensus, not only in thearticulation of the values but also in the communication of the message arisingfrom such values, can have unforeseen consequences for the organization.These managerial assumptions that shared value ultimately leads toorganizational success have previously been documented and criticised (see forexample, Hopfl, 1992; Linstead and Grafton Small, 1991).
Linked to their assumption that an organization-wide consensus culturecreates organization-wide effectiveness, is their view that the strength of thisrelationship is partly determined by the consistency of the maintenance andcreation of cultural manifestations and widely-held beliefs (a view similar tothat identified by Ouchi (1980)). Indeed, the consistency of prescriptionsembodied in the beliefs of head office managers in the three companies equatesto Martin’s (1992) description of integrative action, symbolic and contentconsistency.
Head office managers’ prescriptive-integrative view of organizational cultureis also apparent in their views of deviation or non-conformity which are similarto 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 oforganizational culture consensus and consistency, deviation is not understoodor tolerated. This view extends to both branch-level and head office personnelwho deviate from cultural consensus or who hold inconsistent beliefs, to theextent that non-conformists are viewed as “non-players” (Director, Company A,aged 46, two years’ service), “not on side” (Senior head office manager, CompanyB, aged 49, one years’ service) or “closed” (Regional support manager, CompanyC, aged 37, ten years’ service) and are most commonly encouraged to seekemployment elsewhere. The comments of a head office manager of Company A,in reference to a subordinate he actively encouraged to leave the company, areparticularly illustrative of this point:
We have had people here who didn’t fit in. We had a [job position] who stayed for almost ayear. She had a superior attitude that made it difficult for everyone to get on with her…it’simportant for everyone to get on. She adopted a superior attitude … she seemed to feel thatbecause she had held more senior positions in other companies that she could say and do what
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
Understandingculture in retail
organizations
113
she wanted without any regard of her position. Nobody got on with her and I think she knewthis. We were all glad when she finally left (Senior head office manager, Company A, aged 54,22 years’ service).
Similarly, a head office manager of Company B refers to a branch level colleaguewho was dismissed from his post for deviation from the widely-held value ofcompany loyalty:
Jack was in the bar at this conference. He was heard to be slagging the company off – nextthing we hear he’s had a disciplinary meeting and he’s gone (Head office manager, CompanyB, aged 29, five years’ service).
The integrative perspective of head office managers of prescriptive consensus,consistency, effectiveness rationale and reaction to non-conformity is manifestin head office managers’ view of cultural change. Since culture is seen inconsensus and consistency terms, cultural change is often viewed intransformational rather than incremental stages (akin to the unfreezing/re-freezing theory of Lewin (1951)). Thus, head office managers generally refer tocultural change as “metamorphosis” (Senior head office manager, Company B,aged 49, one years’ service) “radical reshaping” (Annual report, Company C). Asenior head office manager of Company A refers to the need for companychange:
We’ve got to change and quickly. We’re being left behind by our competitors. What we’ve gotto do is catch up with those things our competitors have got – scanning, better staff etc.… Ifwe can do this we can drag Company A into the nineties and turn this company from a smallfamily 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 costbase, 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 theconsensus (as in the study of Kanter (1985)) or the switch from one consistentand consensus oriented culture to another different consistent and consensusoriented culture; the change being complete and total, the old culture now beingwrong and the new culture now being correct (consistent with the findings ofGreenwood and Hinings (1988)).
Store managers: differentiation perspectiveThe differentiation perspective of organizational culture has previously beencategorized as comprising the key characteristics of inconsistency, sub-culturalconsensus and ambiguity exclusion. Once again this perspective appears torelate to the views of a layer of the organizational hierarchy. The culturalperspective adopted by store managers in the three companies is highlyconsistent with differentiation. Store managers’ views on company culture areakin to the differentiation perspective in five key areas; the rationale for attention
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
PersonnelReview27,2
114
to culture, dichotomous difference, inconsistency, subcultural consensus andviews on cultural change. These similarities are discussed below.
The store managers interviewed appear to view their organizational role asone of a supervisor of a single outlet/part which contributes to the effectivenessof the whole. Thus, probably due to their position as one of a large number ofsimilarly contributing branches, store managers view the culture of theorganization as segmented into various categories or subcultures. Moreover, theboundary-spanning nature of store management allows store managers toappreciate the cultural diversity of the organization and understand the cultureof both head offices and branches. This appreciation of cultural diversity isimplicit in their perception of the role of a store manager (supervising a part ofthe whole). A further indication of the categorization of store managers into thisperspective is derived from their widespread assumption that since head officesand stores appear to be so diverse, organizational effectiveness can only beachieved through the understanding and management of differences betweenbounded subcultures (the possibility of such balance being an issue on whichstore managers are equally divided). Thus, while the integrative perspective ofhead office managers leads to their belief in their role as one of effectivenesscreators (through head office prescription), store managers generally view theirrole as effectiveness facilitators (through the balance of dichotomous influencesand demands).
Consistent with the differentiation perspective proposed by Martin (1992),store managers across the three companies tend to define and considersubcultural differences in dichotomous terms. Such differences included storemanagement/store workers, head office/stores, store managers/head officemanagers and even capital/labour. Interestingly, as noted by Martin (1992, p. 84)such dichotomous relationships are discussed with the first half of thedichotomy relating to the powerful subculture while the weaker half is alwaysmentioned last (for example; management/worker = powerful/weaksubculture). Thus, store managers tend to view culture in relation to realms ofdominance often describing how one subculture controls or influences another;a view which equates to that identified by Siehl and Martin (1984). A storemanager of Company A refers to a pay-freeze and new store openings withinthe same year illustrating a differentiated view of subcultures (note thereference to “they’ve”(head office management) and to “the rest of us” (storeworkers and managers)):
I understand that they’ve got to open new stores – you’ve got to move to survive. But, this isat the cost of the rest of us – our non-pay rise paid for those stores – we got nothing from thedeal (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 likewas head office cutting back on store costs – it was getting more from less people – we gotscrewed for their bottom-line (Store-level manager, Company C, aged 27, four years’ service).
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
Understandingculture in retail
organizations
115
The unique hierarchical position of the store manager appears to lead manystore managers in the three companies to comment on the perceivedinconsistencies of the dichotomous subcultures. For example, within all threecompanies, while some head office personnel were implementing cuts in store-level costs such as staffing, other head office personnel were requesting higherlevels of customer service (which commonly requires more staff). A storemanager of Company B refers to the conflicting demands of head officefunctions and the confusion this causes:
Yesterday was a nightmare – one of those days. I spent a good 90 per cent of the day sortingout four totally conflicting messages from John and Jack (marketing and finance middlemanagers of the central support office). Sometimes I think they should just stay in theircupboards and leave the thinking to us – they really don’t know their apples from theiroranges! (Store manager, Company B, aged 34, six years’ service.)
This is an illustration of what Martin (1992, pp. 85, 88) labels, “ideologicalinconsistency” in that one espoused cultural value conflicts with another,“action inconsistency” in that the practice of cost cutting conflicts withcustomer care practice and “symbolic inconsistency” in that personnelresponsible for customer care are perceived to be less powerful.
While store managers generally indicate that they are aware of inconsistencyacross subcultural boundaries, they appeared to place great emphasis on theconsensus within subcultural boundaries (such as branches or functionaldepartments – that which Ouchi (1980) would label “clans”). Store managersrefer to team-work within their stores:
This store now works like a real team – I’m proud of that (Store manager, Company A, aged28, 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 individualstores are areas where subcultural consensus is encouraged and evencelebrated. Yet, previous quotations illustrate clearly their dichotomous view ofbroader organizational culture (for instance, the relationship between headoffice and stores).
Store managers appear to analyse organizational subcultures in reference tospheres of influence and domination. Most commonly, store managers refer to asingle espoused dominant culture (mostly at head office) and discuss thechallenge to this culture by hierarchically lower employees (most commonlystore personnel). This view is often related to the difference between what storemanagers view as the prescriptive idealism of head office and the pragmaticrealism of store management, thus implying a dichotomous inconsistencybetween subcultures while inferring cultural consensus within subculturalboundaries (a view similar to that of Gregory (1983)). These issues are apparentin the comments of a store manager of Company C and in the reference to the“unrealistic” view of head office personnel:
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
PersonnelReview27,2
116
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,Company C, aged 35, six years’ service).
Store managers’ differentiation perspective on culture is also evident in theirviews of organizational cultural change. In contrast to the integrative-transformational change perspective of head office managers, store managersview cultural change in relation to changes to the power and dominancerelationship of subcultures. Examples include Company B where storemanagers discuss a change initiative in terms of how the marketing function ofhead office was slowly changing into a more dominant group to the detrimentof the previously powerful technical support function. Meanwhile, at store-level,shopfloor employees were becoming “empowered” thus weakening thedominance of store management. Similarly, a store manager of Company Crefers to changes in the balance between store-level managers and shopfloorworkers:
It was to even the balance of thinkers and doers. The re-structure was necessary. We hadmanagers getting exorbitant salaries for doing a job which no longer required the skills theyhad. 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 incrementalalteration of subcultural realms of dominance, often influencing dichotomoussubcultures (a view of change akin to the established concept of “logicalincrementalism” of Hofer (1973); Quinn (1980)).
Shopfloor workers: fragmentation perspectiveThe fragmentation perspective has previously been discussed as characterizedby a focus on ambiguity, complex relationships and multiple interpretationsinhibiting a stable consensus. Once again, this perspective on culture isconsistent with the views of a level of the organizational hierarchy across thethree companies; in this case, shopfloor workers. The similarity between theviews of shopfloor workers on organizational culture and Martin’s (1992)fragmentation perspective is notable in five main areas; unpredictable andcomplex views of culture, the centrality of ambiguity, “differance”, culturaldefinition and views of organizational change. These issues are discussedbelow.
The hierarchical position of shopfloor workers coupled with their narrowand limited understanding of the organization lead many shopfloor employeesto view their organizations as complex and unpredictable. For employees inCompany C (the largest company), the organization was so large and the levelsof the company so numerous that their understanding of the companystructures and systems led to confusion as to the “centre” of the organization.Indeed, within Company C, the central, regional and area-based structure of thecompany indicates to many shopfloor employees that no “centre” isascertainable owing to the existence of numerous “centres”. These views arecompounded by shopfloor employees’ perception of their organizational world,
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
Understandingculture in retail
organizations
117
with all aspects of branches constantly changing and the remainder of theorganization categorized as distant both in geographical terms and in relationto diversity of interest. Similarly, at store-level, shopfloor employees are oftenunable to share store-level subcultures to the extent that these could not bedescribed as “thick” or “strong” (respectively see: Sathe, 1983; Robbins, 1987).To such employees, the constant flux of change and complexity means thatsubculture membership is fluid and the boundaries of subcultures constantlychanging. For example, a shopfloor employee of Company C refers to atransitory alliance during a Christmas rush:
At Christmas we had a good team working – everybody helped everybody. I even helped onthe check-out one night! Mind you it only lasted for Christmas (Replenishment assistant,Company C, aged 40, seven years’ service).
Similarly, a part-time sales assistant of Company B refers to her working lifewhich 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 samepeople 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 theinsistence of shopfloor employees that the culture of their company is open tomultiple interpretation. Indeed, the multiplicity of cultural interpretation isimplied by frequent references to confusion relating to cultural manifestations.
The unpredictably and complexity of shopfloor employees’ perspective ofculture is further indicated by the centrality placed on organizationalambiguity. Indeed, many shopfloor employees view their organizationalexistence 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 easilytransferable skills. They also indicate that their hours of work are oftendetermined by personnel with whom they rarely have face-to-face contact andthat the hours of work frequently change from week to week with jobdescriptions and duties changed regularly. The work of retail sector specialistshighlights examples of these issues, see for example; Dawson et al. (1988);Freathy (1993); Freathy and Sparks (1993); Marchington and Parker (1990). Asales 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 goingto happen. It’s way too unpredictable. You just take it week to week (Sales assistant, CompanyA, aged 47, two years’ service).
At the same time, those who wish to progress within the organization are oftenexpected to move stores on a regular basis. An assistant controller of CompanyC discusses his future career prospects emphasizing his perception thatmobility and flexibility are crucial to individual success:
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
PersonnelReview27,2
118
To get ahead in this company you’ve got to jump from store to store, from job to job – that wayyou can climb the ladder – it’s what they expect (Assistant controller, Company C, aged 27,seven years’ service).
Thus, given their perception of the constant flux of their organizational life, it isnot surprising that their perception of their organizational culture isfragmented and often characterized by ambiguity.
Shopfloor employees also indicate a fragmentation perspective towardsorganizational culture in their views of what Derrida (1976) phrases“differance”. The perception of cultural complexity, flux and ambiguity leadsshopfloor employees to characterise culture as a context-specific phenomenon,with each culture and subculture only understandable and explicable in thecontext in which it is enacted. A shopfloor employee of Company B discussesthe 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 ordoing, can you? (Sales assistant, Company B, aged 54, four years’ service).
Thus, while store managers’ perspective (differentiation) concentrates ondichotomous, subcultural dominance interaction, shopfloor employees tend toview organizational culture as comprising a multiplicity of context-specifictransitory interactions wherein agreement and disagreement can only beanalysed in relation to the context of enactment.
Similarly, while store managers’ perspectives on culture indicate culturaldefinition through the analysis of subcultural dichotomy (differentiation),shopfloor employees imply that the culture of the organization is defined asmuch by “what is not”, as “what is” (Martin, 1992). For example, the storemanagers of Company B interpret a head office policy relating to thedistribution of overtime as a management mechanism for reducing coststhrough “exploiting” full-time workers. However, shopfloor employees interpretthe policy by what it did not mention (part-time staff) and saw the policy asindicating the poor standard and ability of part-time personnel. A similarfinding to the multiple interpretation of meaning is discussed by Owens (1983).
The fragmentation perspective on organizational culture is also indicated inshopfloor employees’ interpretation of organizational change. Shopflooremployees view culture as constant flux, with one effort to change beingsuperseded by another with no noticeable period of certainty. Thus, manyshopfloor employees perceive cultural change as the rapid and continuousincremental change of the organization. Probably, linked to the hierarchicalposition of shopfloor employees and their perceptions of a complex,unpredictable, ambiguous and multi-faceted culture, organizational change isalso viewed in a localised way; each change being context specific.
Conclusions and implicationsOverall, this article finds that the application of Martin’s (1992) three-perspective framework to the analysis of organizational culture provides
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
Understandingculture in retail
organizations
119
considerable insight into the complexities of organizational culture. The casestudy of three retailing organizations finds that each of Martin’s (1992) threeperspectives corresponds to different hierarchical positions. The study of headoffice personnel finds that they tend to adopt an integration perspective onorganizational culture. That is, culture is viewed in terms of consensus andconsistency. Cultural deviation is considered unwelcome whereas culturalchange is viewed as transformational rather than incremental. The analysis ofinterviews with store managers finds that store managers commonly adopt adifferentiation perspective on organizational culture. That is, store managersview culture as dichotomous, inconsistent and characterized by subculturalconsensus. Final, shopfloor workers tend to exhibit a fragmentation perspectiveon organizational culture. That is, the views of shopfloor workers tend to focuson 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 oforganizational culture. The findings of this study reveal that the views of seniormanagers can be radically different from the views of shopfloor workers. Thisraises the suggestion that studying multiple cultures and their dynamicspresents researchers with richer and more realistic insight into organizationalcultures.
Second, instead of studies being biased towards one narrow perspective,analyses of organizational culture could utilise different focuses obtainable viathe use of (almost others) Martin’s (1992) three diverse perspectives onorganizational culture. Such analyses of culture will surely reveal a greaterunderstanding of organizational culture while providing the researcher withrich and reliable data. This article does not imply that one perspective providesricher or more reliable data but rather that each perspective highlights differentaspects of cultural phenomena.
Third, while researchers’ interpretation of organizational culture is useful,the three-perspective approach enables culture to be defined from the realms ofthe organizational member. In particular, the use of three different perspectivesin the analysis of one (or more) organizations forces the study of someorganizational groups or subcultures which are frequently overlooked inorganizational research. For example, while women represent over 70 per centof retail employees (Marchington, 1996), their interpretation of organizationalissues such as culture is frequently overlooked largely because they are usuallyemployed at the lower levels of the hierarchy. Furthermore, the examination ofthe retail companies reveals that those organizational members whoseperspective on culture is fragmented are those employees whose interface withthe customer frequently determines the success of the organization. It isdebatable whether this group of workers will ever adopt values which areconsistent with their companies’ espoused values towards customers.
The implications of this study are profound and pervasive. While numerousand diverse implications of this research can be derived, possibly the mostinteresting centres on the implications for organizational culture change
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
PersonnelReview27,2
120
research. As discussed above, the case study of three organizations finds thatorganizational members of different hierarchical levels hold widely differingviews on organizational change. In particular, it was found that shopfloorworkers perceived their roles and relationships in ambiguous and oftenconfused ways. Hence, notions of culture management based on thedevelopment of cultural conformity and enforced by head office directives (forexample, customer care) may be misguided or at least inappropriate in theirsimplicity. Indeed, it may be argued that a significant amount of organizationalculture change literature has over-simplified the dynamic and fragmentedperspectives of key organizational members. An important practicalimplication arising from this work is that different culture change initiativesshould be directed at different levels of the organizational hierarchy. This leadsto two further implications. First, it would appear that head officemanagements should direct more attention to appreciating differingperspectives (for example, the design of training and change programmes mustreflect not only the cultural perceptions and assumptions of head officemanagers but also those of store level employees including managers). Second,during cultural change it maybe the case that behavioural consistency is thebest which could be hoped for in the case of shopfloor staff whose culturalperspective is highly fragmented.
Finally, as with many social science studies, this study raises a number ofissues for further research. First, is the three-perspective framework used inthis study likely to reveal the same results in different settings other than theretail sector: that is, do the hierarchical positions of organizational membersalways correspond to differing perspectives? Second, if cultural perspectivesalways correspond to hierarchical positions, what happens when people changepositions in the hierarchy and what consequences does this have for ourunderstanding of cultural change? Third, in order to understand more fully thecomplexities of the relationships between hierarchical position and culturalperspective, longitudinal research would seem to be appropriate. Fourth,causality is not an issue discussed in this article, however, the study of thederivation of cultural perspective would appear to be necessary. However, whilethis study raises a number of issues, it is argued that the presented findings andconclusions provide a tentative step towards a more complete understanding ofthe intricacies of organization culture.
ReferencesAlvesson, 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. 15No. 1, pp. 19-26.
Bolon, D.S. and Bolon, D.S. (1994), “A reconceptualisation of organizational culture”, Journal ofManagerial Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 22-7.
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
Understandingculture in retail
organizations
121
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis,Heinemann, London.
Carrol, D.T. (1983), “The disappointing search for excellence”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61No. 6, pp. 78-88.
Dawson, J., Findlay, A. and Sparks, L. (1988), “The employment implications of locational decisionmaking; 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,Addison-Wesley, Reading.
Denison, D.R. (1996), “What is the difference between organizational culture and organizationalclimate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 619-54.
Derrida, J. (1976), Speech and Phenomenon, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL.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 CommunicationAssociation 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.
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
PersonnelReview27,2
122
Marchington, M. (1996), “Shopping down different aisles: a review of the literature on humanresource management in food retailing”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 3No. 1, pp. 21-32.
Marchington, M. and Parker, P. (1990), Changing Patterns of Employee Relations, HarvesterWheatsheaf, 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”,
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.
Mitchell, T.R. (1985), “An evaluation of the validity of correlational research conducted inorganizations”, 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-sortapproach to assessing person-organization fit”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 487-516.
Ogbonna, E. (1993), “Managing organizational culture: fantasy or reality?”, Human ResourceManagement Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 42-54.
Ogbonna, E. and Wilkinson, B. (1990), “Corporate strategy and corporate culture: the view fromthe 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”, Academyof Management Review, Vol. 3, pp. 305-14.
Owens, C. (1983), “The discourse of others: feminists and postmodernism”, in Foster, H. (Ed.), TheAnti-Aesthetic, Bay Press, Pott Townsend, WA, pp. 57-82.
Pacanowsky, M.E. and O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983), “Organizational communication as culturalperformance”, Communication Monographs, Vol. 50, pp. 126-47.
Pascale, R.T. and Athos, A.G. (1981), The Art of Japanese Management: Applications forAmerican 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.
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
Understandingculture in retail
organizations
123
Schultz, M. and Hatch, M.J. (1996), “Living with multiple paradigms: the case of paradigm interplayin 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 effectivelytransmit organizational culture?”, in Hunt, J., Hosking, D., Schriesheim, C. and Stewart, R.(Eds), Leaders and Managers: International Perspectives on Managerial Behavior andLeadership, 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.
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 organisingthe cognitive processes associated with the generation of grounded theory”, Quality andQuantity, Vol. 15, pp. 225-47.
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 modernorganisations”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 515-51.
Zamanou, S. and Glaser, S.R. (1994), “Moving towards participation and involvement”, Group andOrganization Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 475-502.
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Elke Angelika Pioch, Ulrike Gerhard. 2014. Organizational culture as differentiator in international retailing. The ServiceIndustries Journal 34, 729-749. [CrossRef]
2. Mavis Yi-Ching Chen, Carol Yeh-Yun Lin, Hsing-Er Lin, Edward F. McDonough. 2012. Does transformational leadershipfacilitate technological innovation? The moderating roles of innovative culture and incentive compensation. Asia Pacific Journalof 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 organizationalculture. 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 softwareorganisation. 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 Differencesof 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 interactionbetween enterprise resource planning technology and organisational culture. International Journal of Information Management28, 446-452. [CrossRef]
8. Lloyd C. Harris, Emmanuel Ogbonna. 2007. The impact of cultural and political dynamics on web site design, development,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. Sportin Society 9, 252-268. [CrossRef]
11. Vassil Girginov, Dimitra Papadimitriou, Rosa López De D'Amico. 2006. Cultural Orientations of Sport Managers. EuropeanSport Management Quarterly 6, 35-66. [CrossRef]
12. Ngaire Bissett. 2004. Diversity writ large. Journal of Organizational Change Management 17:3, 315-325. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]
13. Andrew Smith, Leigh Sparks, Susan Hart, Nikos Tzokas. 2004. Delivering customer loyalty schemes in retailing: exploringthe 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 andcountercultures. 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 Greekfood 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 Management15:3, 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 ManagementJournal 8:10.1111/hrmj.1998.8.issue-2, 78-92. [CrossRef]
Dow
nloa
ded
by U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F W
AR
WIC
K A
t 05:
52 2
7 A
pril
2015
(PT
)