Understanding your organization: strong culture or cult?

Culture is defined as an invisible force and social energy that defines “rules of the game” invented by a pattern of basic assumptions with associative meanings that clarifies the ambiguity of a complex adaptive system and prescribes an inflexible and programmed instrumentation to moderate uncertainty and control variable situations. In terms of shared values and norms, a strong culture exist when values and norms are universally transmitted and sturdily held throughout an organization. A conglomerate of shared values, beliefs, assumptions and expectations systematically creates level of pressure impressed upon cultural participants within social groups thus producing rigidity with intermittent deviations from the prescribed normality. Organizational behavior theorists suggest that organizations should infuse transactional regimens into cultural activities. Similar to the managerial concept of control, culture encompasses formal systems with strict methodical ordinances with management-by-exception undertones that exactingly influence behavior and performance. Such severe measures ensure behavioral consistency and overt acclimation to performance standards along with repercussions contingent upon failure.

Within strong cultures, organizations adopt an intense and purposeful value system that is widely shared among its constituents. As familiarity with this value system strengthens and the normality becomes accepted in its plenary, the causality of commitment ensues. Moreover, as the cultural dynamic propagates and become internalized, the organization’s value system begins to transform into its reflective cultural organism comprised of shared values and societal ideals. Consequently, organizational behavior predicates a governance indicative of commonalities relative to paradigmatic beliefs, developed outside of individual worldviews. Strong cultures are comprised of both the concentration of endeavoring toward the unification of a subjective ethical framework (intensity) and unanimity of harmonious actions inclusive of similar behavioral traits aligned with societal standards (consensus).

Some researchers have postulated that strong culture translates into positivity and psychologically expressed by organizational commitment and job performance which produces extra-role behavior. An evidentiary presence of strong cohesion should build loyalty and organizational commitment which lessens the propensity of employees to exit the organization. Such divestiture is mitigated when the cultural construct alludes complexity of the belligerent invasion of worldviews and becomes receptive to differentially, paradoxical views of idiosyncratic disparities. The cultural climate is theoretically infused with deep-level diversities urbanized by individual antecedents and linked to relational attributes analogous to existing perceptions. The agreement of commonalities within perceptional paradigms creates collective compliance among social groups.

The conundrum surrounding strong culture calls into question the ethnography of a linear evolution of synchronized and unambiguous assumptions confined within a homogenous and simplified context (strong culture) and its commonalities with social

cults. Here, like strong cultures, managers possess the ability to influence the behavioral outcomes of individuals within social groups through formal mechanisms. This mechanistic temperament pivots on the rigid control of collective activities by virtue of extrinsic reward systems and perceived authoritative power or centralization. Interestingly, idiosyncratic behavior becomes dormant when engrossed inside a homogeneous construct predicated on a shared valued system indicative of an overarching normality that restricts dissimilar conduct. This obligatory nature symbolizes groupthink, which is “when a group exerts extensive pressure on an individual to withhold his or her different views in order to appear to be in agreement.” Perpetuators of cultural dominance prompt conformity among constituents engendering programmable actions that promotes a ubiquitous vision of societal acceptability.

Notably, collectivism is the equivalent to low individualism and one’s preference to act egotistically impedes the ethnography of institutionalized normality. Cults impose a rule-oriented construct governed by external rules and predominantly task-centered and leaders adopt a “what you say is what mean” mantra where “telling it like it is” is construed as a positive trait. Contextually, inelastic rules influence verbal and interactive behaviors that create reactionary responses and perpetuate actions that develop new behaviors that infiltrate an underlying value system which leads to changed belief. Albeit independent thoughts invade the collective dynamic, strong adherence to the dominant culture can influence individuals to behave in accordance with other group members.

The totality of environmental cues that transcend beyond vernacular and associative, contextual vectors create prescriptive paradigms with marginal deviations. Severely inflexible norms target a peripheral expanse of societal behaviors that restrict interactive behavior with nonorganizational members. If violated, subtle or overt deviations from this rigidity may result in punishment that penalizes undesirable or objectionable behavior contrary to the direction of the intensity toward prearranged norms. The mere hint of individualism threatens the collectivist nature of social norms which may be interpreted as rebellion and disloyalty. As for some organizations whose methods of authenticating synergy may be acrimoniously criticized, adopt the resolve of Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon, when he stated, “We never claim that our approach is the right one, just that it’s ours, and…we’ve collected a large group of like-minded people. Folks who find out approach energizing and meaningful.”