Do we still think about cultures as areas of consensus, where shared visions of the world allow coordinated action? 

This was the dominant understanding, from the 40s on, as the influence of the work of anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead grew, stemming from research on remote Pacific islands.

Soon after, and as a means of fostering and maintaining consensus, cultures began attracting attention from disciplines beyond the original anthropology/sociology/psychology block. Organizational administration and management seemed the most interested of all. By the 70s, “organizational culture” was established not only as a concept in organizational theory but also as a managerial apparatus for achieving greater efficiency. 

Lasting for a few decades, what seemed a fashion became a natural interest in the new perceived nature of culture, now understood as part of the organizational morphology (Smircich, L. 1985).

At this point, we can consider some of the formal questions and preoccupations of today’s scientific communities, topics such as: Is this perspective of culture closer to objective reality? Given all the investments made in its study, are we getting any meaningful results? Is it returning any profits? And, despite all efforts, is “management by culture” more efficient now than any other model of the past (the hierarchical, for example)?

The answers that could shed light on these questions seem to be still far away from an established understanding. Instead, polemic new perspectives are destroying the clear view of a consensual paradise, coming from the first reports on “culture”. As a result, its definition, under the consensual perspective, is now seen as more difficult than ever. On the contrary, and due to the evolution of the concept, cultures are now understood as controversial arenas where each participant or member holds a different position on each issue. 

At the other end of the swing, or the opposite pole, this understanding is reinforced by modern approaches, which stand in contrast to the dogmatic, authoritarian one of the past. However, societies (including their scientists), have changed now assuming a much more democratic posture towards difference. From this new point of view, we can appreciate more clearly the dynamic and controversial flows of influence that sweep a “culture” during its process of reality construction and adaptation.

In this context, cultures are now better understood when approached through a Differentiation perspective, or even a Fragmentation one (Meyerson, 1991), which allows for a broader scope of the events and actors being observed, rather than through a limited, outdated model of analysis such as the consensual one. However, to fulfill the expectation of “an ordered environment”, this new understanding of cultures responds in a very poor way. 

From the manager’s point of view, who wants “recipes” for manipulating culture in a way that appears more profitable to his organization, the actual scientific position and, in general, the evolution of the concept are causing more confusion than benefits. Specifically, it seems less relevant to management.

“Management by culture” was one of the applications back in the 70s thought to be a possible advancement in the field of organizational theory. However, the actual situation not only makes the use of the concept difficult but also hinders the initial position, offering no solutions to the problems. The source of these problems seems to come from two sources: one is the pragmatic aspect, evolving from the social environment and new democratic social thought, which are gradually changing mentalities and thus the perspectives with which people approach the issues. Under this new position, each individual is given equal power to express their opinion. Instead of listening to the “authority’s” opinions, everybody is now feeling free to produce their new “visions” of reality, giving rise to a natural phenomenon that was invisible under the authoritarian regimes of the past. 

Each individual also has their own idiosyncratic conception of the world. It is only the exchange of that conception with others in a negotiation taking place during social interaction (in positions of equality) that creates reliable social representations of reality, which are the essence of culture. This fact may give an idea of how social processes have been distorted through the use of dogmatic and/or integrative perspectives. Democratic freedom has thus stimulated the natural variety already inherent in the nature of the process, legitimizing it and producing a diversified culture (called “fragmentary” by Meyerson, 1991).

Another source of “problems” is the increasing perplexity due to the contradiction of attitudes felt in this phase of transition from authoritarian to democratic societies (which Western societies are still crossing) that is obstructing the establishment of a coherent process of reality construction. During daily activities and interactions, people tend to adopt ambiguous attitudes towards situations, sometimes adopting an authoritarian stance (denying others the right to establish a new position, for example), and at other times adopting a democratic stance and accepting it. This inconsistency of attitudes hinders the development of the democratic process, introducing yet more ambiguity and incoherence. All these phenomena and their dynamics, occurring in societies and organizational environments, may confuse managers’ views of the hypothesis that culture can be used to manage organizations.

The real origin of the problem, however, seems to spring from the fact that there is no confidence on the part of managers at all levels of administration in delegating power to lower levels, thereby enabling the process of democratic reality construction to take place. The reason for that lack of confidence is the alleged chaotic situation that occurs when a clear line of authority is not established, said to happen when a clear line of authority is not established. The lack of consensual opinions and positions in the production of culture is altering the former concept, which was first understood (Schein,1985) as a clear system of ideas. The application of this concept to organizational approaches and management provides no greater guarantee of concerted action. It is clear that its nature has changed, giving rise to a new understanding. The managerial dilemma, then, may be this: give up power and reduce expenses (running the risk of collapse as they fear), or conserve hierarchies, reduce flexibility, and increase costs (losing survival capacity).

Now we reach the ultimate question: Is consensual culture necessary for the implementation of concerted action? The answer is – no! 

Consensual opinions about anything can only be artificial productions. This does not mean a lack of capacity to produce concerted action despite arising from diverse positions. Only now are we understanding that the two positions can co-exist. The problem remains that we need to accept the variety and trust that common points, or more coincidences, will always emerge, maintaining coherence in the resulting action. 

Only when we fully accept this assertion as a more realistic description of reality will it be possible to leverage culture as a managerial tool, or even to establish a new organizational philosophy. This new understanding will become visible after the transfer of power, grounded in the principle of an equalitarian attitude toward others. The true potential of cultural dynamics could then be appreciated.

Do we have proof of their existence? Yes, we do. There is (at least) one organization following this principle, doing so for the last 500 years with great success. The Brotherhoods of the Holy Spirit maintain formal relations with the Catholic Church, but remain outside of its authority. In this organization, there is a very unusual situation. Due to its horizontal structure, in which every member has the same authority and responsibility for the results of their actions, concerted action emerges. This appears to be a consensus, but when analyzed in detail, there are very different opinions on everything, as well as different ways of executing to achieve the objectives. This does not impede the performance of the tasks, and/or the maintenance of the objectives. On the contrary, the variety of interpretations gives a richer view to the rituals, introducing excitement and dialogue where there could be just dogma and restriction.

From the observation of this behaviour, we can now state that simple social interaction among people (such as in a leaderless group but with objective goals), will produce concerted action, even if this group does not have any structured authority levels. It seems that once the organization’s ideals are established and there is perfect equality of power to reinforce them, the entire group works in synchronization. Although they have different perceptions of the objectives and receive different influences from each other, they end up finding the best way to cope with environmental contingencies and constraints. This attitude of confidence seems to help the organization respond more effectively to the environment and in a much more flexible way, despite the apparent lack of consensus.

As once stated by Prigogine (1995), the tendency for organizing in ever-increasing complexity is a universal principle, visible in a star as in a mosquito.

This organizing effort seems to work with a centrifugal orientation, despite the centripetal forces that might arise from idiosyncratic perceptions. Why then do we disturb its natural flow by introducing contradictions such as power and hierarchy? We should, instead, learn more about the principles of running flat structures, like those of the referred organization, and try to understand the dynamics that underpin such an economy of means, not only for this reason, but also considering their contribution to the dignification of the human resource.

Bibliographic references

Costa, A.  (1999) O Poder e as Irmandades do Espírito Santo, Ed. Rei dos Livros, Lisboa 

Meyerson, D. (1991). ‘Acknowledging and uncovering ambiguities in cultures’, in Frost, P., Moore,L., Louis, M., Lundberg, C., Martin, J., Reframing Organizational Culture, Sage Publications.

Prigogine, I. (1995) .“Time, Chaos and the Two Cultures”, in Polanyi,J. Science and Society, ed. M.Moskovits (House of Anansi Press, Ltd.).

Schein, E. ( 1985 / 1991). ‘The Role of the Founder in the Creation of Organizational Culture’, in Refraiming Organizational Culture, Sage Publications, Inc.

Smircich, L., (1985). ‘Is the concept of culture a paradigm for understanding organizations and ourselves ?’, in Frost, P., Moore, L., Louis, M., Lundberg, C., Martin, J., (1985) Organizational Culture, Sage Publications, Inc. California.