Organizational Theory Length: 2,000 Words The Question

Organizational Theory Length: 2,000 words The Question To Be Answered: 'What managers most often want to know about their organization's culture is how to change it......But what is recommended to managers on the basis of culture theory differs markedly according to the perspectives adopted' (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2013: 185). Choose two of the four perspectives (modernist, symbolic interpretivist, critical theory and postmodernism )and discuss their different views on organisational culture and how their advice to managers who are seeking to influence organisational culture might be different.

Organizational culture remains a central focus for managers seeking to understand and influence their organizations' internal environments. Theories rooted in distinct perspectives—namely modernist and symbolic interpretivist—offer contrasting insights into the nature of organizational culture and different prescriptions for effective management and change. This essay explores these two perspectives, critically analyzing how their foundational ontological and epistemological assumptions shape their understanding of culture and influence their advice to managers aiming to change it. By contrasting the modernist view, grounded in a scientific and functionalist paradigm, with the symbolic interpretivist approach, emphasizing subjective meaning and social constructing processes, the paper highlights the divergent strategies recommended for cultural change. The analysis draws on key scholarly texts, including Hatch and Cunliffe (2013), Fleming and Spicer (2003), Wilson (2014), and Xu and Weller, to elucidate these perspectives and assess their strengths and criticisms.

Exploration of Perspectives: Theoretical Foundations and Approaches

Modernist Perspective on Organizational Culture

The modernist perspective views organizational culture as a tangible, measurable set of shared values, practices, and symbols that can be objectively identified and managed. It is rooted in a realist ontology, presuming an external social reality that exists independently of individual perceptions (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2013). Knowledge, from this standpoint, is derived through scientific method, emphasizing empirical observation and rational analysis. In this view, culture functions as a variable that influences organizational effectiveness and stability, and thus, it is amenable to systematic interventions aimed at aligning culture with strategic goals. The modernist approach tends to conceptualize culture as a stable, coherent entity that can be 'altered' through deliberate managerial actions, often involving policies, structural changes, and clear communication strategies (Schein, 2010). For example, leadership initiatives that articulate core values or embed new routines are seen as effective means to modify organizational culture.

The rationale behind the modernist approach is that organizations are akin to machines or systems where elements such as culture can be engineered for desired outcomes. This leads to prescriptions such as cultural audits, targeted training, and strategic leadership development, which aim to transform organizational norms systematically (Fleming & Spicer, 2003). However, critics argue that this perspective over-simplifies the complex, dynamic nature of culture and ignores the interpretative processes that underpin social realities (Pye & Treglown, 2010). Despite this, its emphasis on objectivity and control continues to influence managerial practices significantly.

Symbolic Interpretivist Perspective on Organizational Culture

Contrarily, the symbolic interpretivist perspective perceives organizational culture as a socially constructed reality, fundamentally rooted in shared meanings, narratives, and symbols that individuals and groups create through everyday interactions (Wilson, 2014). Ontologically, it adopts a constructivist stance, emphasizing that reality is subjective and shaped by collective human consciousness. Epistemologically, knowledge is seen as interpretive, generated through understanding subjective perspectives rather than empirical measurement (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2013). Consequently, culture is fluid, context-dependent, and continually recreated through social processes, making it resistant to straightforward managerial manipulation.

This perspective warns against treating culture as a system that can be simply altered through top-down interventions. Instead, it advocates understanding and engaging with the meaning-making practices of employees. Cultural change, from this vantage point, often involves participative processes, storytelling, and reflective dialogue, aiming to foster shared understanding rather than enforce prescribed values (Geertz, 1973). The interpretivist view emphasizes the importance of power relations, resistance, and the multiple, often conflicting, interpretations that coexist within organizational settings (Fleming & Spicer, 2003). As a result, managers adopting this perspective are advised to facilitate environments where employees’ voices are valued, recognizing that cultural change emerges from the bottom-up through a gradual process of shared learning and re-interpretation.

Practical Implications: Divergent Advice to Managers for Cultural Change

Modernist Recommendations

Under the modernist paradigm, managers seeking to change organizational culture are often guided by the principles of strategic alignment and systematic intervention. This involves conducting cultural assessments to diagnose current states, setting clear normative goals, and implementing structured initiatives such as leadership development programs, policy reforms, and communication campaigns designed to embed desired values (Schein, 2010). These techniques are premised on the assumption that culture can be 'engineered' much like a system, provided managers understand its components and have the authority and resources to effect change (Fleming & Spicer, 2003).

For example, a corporation aiming to foster innovation might introduce extensive training, redefine performance metrics, and realign reward systems to cultivate an innovative culture. The focus is on measurable outcomes, accountability, and controlling cultural variables through managerial authority (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2013). Critics argue, however, that such top-down approaches may overlook the deep-seated symbolic meanings and resistance that complicate cultural change, potentially leading to superficial or short-lived transformations (Pye & Treglown, 2010).

Interpretivist Recommendations

From an interpretivist perspective, change is less about direct manipulation and more about fostering shared understanding and meaning among employees. Managers are encouraged to engage in dialogue, storytelling, and participative practices that allow organizational members to negotiate and redefine their cultural assumptions collectively (Wilson, 2014). This approach recognizes the fluidity of culture and the importance of context, emphasizing co-creation over control.

For instance, instead of imposing a new set of core values, managers might facilitate workshops where employees explore and articulate their experiences, values, and perceptions. By doing so, they enable a cultural shift that is rooted in collective interpretation, which is more likely to be durable and meaningful (Geertz, 1973). This perspective also highlights the strategic use of symbols, rituals, and stories to embed new cultural meanings organically. Nonetheless, critics note that such bottom-up approaches may lack the direction or coherence needed for large-scale change and may be vulnerable to ambiguity and resistance, thereby making the change process unpredictable (Fleming & Spicer, 2003).

Critical Analysis and Inter-Perspectival Debate

The contrasting views of modernist and interpretivist perspectives generate a vibrant debate about the nature of organizational culture and how best to achieve effective change. Modernists critique interpretivists for lacking a clear mechanism for change, arguing that the social sources of resistance are insufficiently addressed in interpretive practices (Pye & Treglown, 2010). Conversely, interpretivists criticize modernist approaches for assuming a linear, rational process of change that neglects the symbolic, emotional, and power-driven dimensions of culture (Wilson, 2014).

Furthermore, these perspectives differ in their assumptions about organizational power. Modernists tend to view management as the domain of rational decision-makers who can shape culture through strategic interventions, whereas interpretivists see power as dispersed, relational, and embedded in discourses and social practices (Fleming & Spicer, 2003). The debate extends into issues of authenticity, sustainability, and resistance, with interpretivist scholars warning against simplistic managerial control that may suppress genuine cultural expressions and diversity.

Despite their differences, both perspectives recognize that culture is complex and resistant to easy change. Combining elements from both approaches, such as using strategic interventions that are sensitive to interpretive practices, may offer more nuanced and effective pathways for cultural management (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2013). This integration underscores the importance of context, participation, and reflexivity in contemporary organizational culture management.

Conclusion

In conclusion, modernist and symbolic interpretivist perspectives provide fundamentally different frameworks for understanding organizational culture and guiding managerial actions. The modernist view emphasizes systemic, measurable, and strategic interventions aimed at controlling and changing culture, whereas the interpretivist approach advocates for participative, meaning-centered processes that recognize the fluid, socially constructed nature of culture. Each perspective offers valuable insights and faces specific criticisms—highlighting the importance of context and the dynamic interplay of societal, symbolic, and power relations in organizational change. A comprehensive approach that integrates these perspectives may be best suited for addressing the complex realities of organizational culture in practice, balancing strategic coherence with social meaning and participation.

References

• Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2003). Working at a cynical distance: Implications for power, subjectivity and resistance. Human Relations, 56(9), 911–934.
• Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.
• Hatch, M., & Cunliffe, A. (2013). Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives. Oxford University Press.
• Pye, A., & Treglown, D. (2010). Understanding change: The importance of attitude and the role of communication. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(3), 290–306.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass.
• Wilson, F. (2014). Chapter 11: Culture in Organisational Behaviour and Work. Cengage Learning.
• Xu, Y., & Weller, P. (Year). Inside the World Bank, “The Staff and Their Organizational Culture,” pp. 74–82.