Guide To The Individual Assignment Due Date

Guide To The Assignmentindividual Assignmentdue Dateto Be Advisedle

Choose two of the four perspectives on organizational culture and discuss their different views on organisational culture and how their advice to managers seeking to influence organisational culture might differ. Explain how each perspective's theoretical and meta-theoretical approaches lead to distinct insights into organizational culture and how these insights translate into specific management recommendations for changing or managing culture. Support your analysis with at least two required readings and relevant academic debates, ensuring your response moves beyond description to critical analysis.

Paper For Above instruction

Organizational culture remains a fundamental area of inquiry within the field of organizational studies, particularly concerning how managers can effectively influence and change it. Different perspectives on organizational culture offer varied insights and recommendations for management actions. Among these, the modernist and symbolic interpretivist perspectives stand out for their contrasting assumptions about the nature of culture, the organization, and strategies for change. This essay critically explores how each perspective conceptualizes organizational culture and investigates the implications these conceptualizations have for managers seeking to modify organizational culture.

Understanding the Perspectives on Organizational Culture

The modernist perspective views organizational culture as a tangible, measurable entity that reflects shared beliefs, values, and norms embedded within organizational systems. Rooted in positivist epistemology, it emphasizes the existence of an objective reality that can be dissected through systematic analysis. According to Schein (2010), the modernist approach sees culture as a relatively stable and coherent set of artifacts, espoused values, and basic underlying assumptions that can be deliberately managed and altered through strategic interventions. The ontological stance is functionalist, asserting that organizational culture influences organizational effectiveness and that managers can influence culture by aligning artifacts and policies with desired values (Fleming & Spicer, 2003).

In contrast, the symbolic interpretivist perspective considers organizational culture as socially constructed, fluid, and infused with meaning that varies across contexts and individuals. It adopts a relativist ontology and a constructivist epistemology, emphasizing that culture is an ongoing process of shared interpretation rather than a static entity. Martin and Frost (2012) argue that culture is a toolkit of symbols, stories, rituals, and practices that organizations use to create identity and coherence. From this perspective, cultural change is not about manipulation but about facilitating new ongoing interpretative processes, acknowledging that culture is inherently resistant to top-down management attempts (Wilson, 2014).

Theoretical and Meta-Theoretical Approaches

The modernist view relies on a scientific paradigm that seeks to identify cause-effect relationships within organizational systems. Its epistemology advocates for objectivity, measurement, and control, which informs its recommendations for change—such as redefining artifacts, reshaping organizational policies, or implementing structural reforms (Xu & Weller, 2014). The underlying assumption is that by understanding the core values and assumptions, managers can intervene to shape culture systematically.

By comparison, the symbolic interpretivist perspective is grounded in interpretivism, which regards reality as socially constructed through human interactions. It emphasizes the importance of understanding meaning and context over objective measurement. Consequently, the interpretivist approach suggests that cultural change involves facilitating dialogues, creating shared stories, and encouraging new rituals rather than imposing top-down directives (Zhang & Iles, 2014). It underscores the importance of leadership in shaping culture via storytelling and symbolism, recognizing that culture changes through ongoing process and interpretation.

Management Implications and Recommendations

The modernist perspective recommends that managers approach cultural change as a strategic process involving the alignment of artifacts, structures, and policies with desired core values. Interventions such as redefining mission statements, introducing new codes of conduct, or restructuring roles are typical strategies derived from this approach. For example, to foster innovation, managers might establish formal innovation programs, redesign organizational policies, or conduct training aimed at embedding innovative values into daily routines (Fleming & Spicer, 2003).

Conversely, the symbolic interpretivist view advises managers to foster a participative environment where new meanings, stories, and rituals are developed collaboratively. Change is seen as a cultural narrative that emerges through social interaction rather than an imposed set of policies. Leaders are encouraged to act as cultural catalysts—storytelling, celebrating rituals, and engaging employees in meaning-making activities to gradually reshape organizational culture (Wilson, 2014). Such approaches recognize resistance to change as stemming from the social and interpretive processes that sustain culture, rather than from structural barriers alone.

Critical Evaluation and Criticisms

The modernist view’s strength lies in its clarity, measurability, and strategic focus. However, critics argue that it oversimplifies cultural complexity and neglects the nuanced, socially constructed and resistance-prone nature of culture (Martin & Frost, 2012). It is criticized for fostering managerial control rather than understanding cultural dynamics, risking superficial or one-dimensional change efforts.

The symbolic interpretivist perspective emphasizes the fluidity and plurality of culture, offering a richer understanding of cultural phenomena. Nonetheless, critics note its potential difficulty in providing concrete, actionable strategies for change, and its risk of relativism that may undermine the legitimacy of deliberate interventions (Zhang & Iles, 2014). Managers might find it challenging to operationalize cultural adaptation through symbolic means alone and may underestimate the structural barriers to deep change.

Conclusion

In sum, these two perspectives offer contrasting yet complementary visions of organizational culture and management. The modernist perspective advocates for deliberate, strategic interventions, grounded in an assumption of measurable, stable culture, thus emphasizing control and planning. The symbolic interpretivist perspective recognizes the fluidity and social constructedness of culture, recommending participative and meaning-centered approaches. Effective management of cultural change demands an awareness of these differing assumptions and strategies, integrating insights to navigate the complex landscape of organizational culture.

References

• Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2003). Working at a cynical distance: Implications for power, subjectivity and resistance. Organization Studies, 24(5), 733-754.
• Martin, J., & Frost, P. (2012). The organizational culture war games. In Gittell, J. H., & Gittell, M. (Eds.), Sociology of organizations. Pine Forge Press.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. 4th ed. Jossey-Bass.
• Wilson, F. (2014). Chapter 11: Culture. In Organisational Behaviour and Work.
• XU, Y., & Weller, P. (Year). Inside the World Bank, “The Staff and Their Organizational Culture”, pp. 74–82.
• Zhang, C., & Iles, P. (2014). Chapter 11: Organizational culture. In Rees, G., & Smith, P. (Eds.), Strategic human resource management: An international perspective. Sage.