In this fast-paced, ever-changing world, organizations are often looking for ways to improve - and that means addressing internal communication. However, to create change researchers suggest a consultant must first examine the organization’s culture (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Ornatowski, 1989; Schein, 1992; Zamanou & Glaser, 1994). Thus it is important for a communication consultant to understand and analyze organizational culture.

There is not one single definition for organizational culture; however, it is generally used to refer to the shared meanings, values, and patterns of beliefs and expectations within the organization (Zamanou & Glaser, 1994). Edgar Schein (1992) formally defines culture as

"A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems" (p 12).

This study is an analysis of the communication culture of two Towson University departments. The purpose of this study is only to understand and apply the theories of organizational culture. It is not meant to examine its implementation as a change agent. The Organizational Culture Survey (OCS) was used to answer the following research questions:

Research Question 1: What is the organizational culture of Department A?

Research Question 2: What is the organizational culture of Department B?

Research Question 3: How does the culture of Department A compare to Department B?

Research Question 4: How does the culture of Department A contrast to Department B?

Literature Review

The use of the culture metaphor in the communication field began in the late 1970s - 1980s (Kelley-Ott, 1989). Before then, culture had been primarily used for research in the field of anthropology. As the use of the culture metaphor has become more prominent in different academic fields, Donal Carbaugh (1988) calls for constraints on its use. He claims the concept of culture should be reserved "for those resources (patterns of symbolic action and meaning) that are a) deeply felt, b) commonly intelligible, and c) widely accessible" (p.38). In essence, if a boss habitually drinks coffee in the morning, this should only be accepted as an aspect of culture if it holds deep significant meaning and if it is meaningful to the rest of the organization.

There are two prominent paradigms used in understanding organizational culture (Jeffcutt, 1994; Miller, 1999; Smircich & Calas, 1987; Zamanou & Glaser, 1994). The first of the two is the functionalist paradigm, asserting that organizations produce culture (Zamanou & Glaser, 1994). According to Smircich and Calas, the functionalist approach tries to create generalized "lawlike statements that aid in prediction, control, and manageability across situations" (p. 233). The interpretive paradigm, on the other hand, contends that a culture is what an organization is (Miller, 1999). Rather than focusing on prediction and control, the interpretive paradigm "centers on documenting processes and experiences through which people construct organizational reality" (Smircich & Calas, p. 233).

In more recent years, organizational communication researchers have been interested in the interpretive approach (Miller, 1999). Miller highlights three issues (complicated, emergent, and non-unitary) that set the more recent interpretive approach apart from the functionalist approach. The first of these three issues is the idea that culture is complicated. There is not one set way or method to investigate organizational culture. Scholars have used concepts such as rites and rituals (Beyer and Trice, 1987) or communication rules (Shockley-Zalabak & Morley, 1994). The second concept is that culture is emergent. This emphasizes the idea that culture is created through the process of communication. "As the members of social groups communicate, they negotiate the shared meanings of symbols" (Barnett, 1988, p. 103). These shared meanings then emerge as the organization’s culture. And finally, Miller points out that culture is not unitary. Within one organization there may be subcultures that exist. Barnett explains that "as organizations grow, they tend to develop subcultures" (p. 105). This occurs as larger organizations allow for small, restricted communication networks to develop.

As the culture metaphor became popular in the late 1970s and 1980s, Terrence Deal and Allan Kennedy’s (1982) book, Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life, became widely-read. Deal and Kennedy use a functionalist approach when researching the culture of an organization. They begin by describing what they consider to be the key elements of culture: (1) Values, the basic concepts and beliefs of an organization; (2) Heros, the people who exemplify the organization’s values; (3) Rites and Rituals, the routine day-to-day life in the company; and (4) The Cultural Network, the means of communication within the organization. These elements help create four general types of culture (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). They are based on a quadrant where one axis represents risk on a high to low continuum, and the other axis represents feedback on a quick to slow continuum. The main idea behind Deal & Kennedy’s research is that every business can fit into one of these four quadrants, and that those which have a strong culture are those that will succeed in American Business. However, some researchers believe it is too simplistic to place organizations into a single quadrant (Shockley-Zalabak & Morley, 1994).

Edgar Schein (1992) provides us with a different model of culture. His model consists of three separate layers; the first of which is artifacts and creations. This layer consists of the physical and social aspects of the work environment (Miller, 1999). This is the most easily observed layer of culture (Schein). The next layer examines the values of the individuals within the company. Schein defines values as what the individuals think ought to happen. These conscious values are sometimes incongruent with observable behavior. In order to truly understand behavior and thus culture one must explore the third layer, basic assumptions. Basic assumptions are the unconscious values that "have become so taken for granted that one finds little variation within a cultural unit" (Schein, p. 22).

According to Zamanou & Glaser (1994), "Researchers tend to choose their particular layer of culture (i.e., artifacts, patterns of behavior, behavioral norms, values, assumptions)" (p. 477). For example, Beyer & Trice (1987) examine the artifacts and creations layer when researching culture through different rites and rituals of an organization. They believe rites provide a rich outcrop of cultural understanding. Shockley-Zalabak & Morley (1994), on the other hand, look at how the founders’ values create communication rules and their impact on employee values.

The use of cultural analysis within organizations has led to its use as a method for change within an organization. Schein (1992) believes that organizational change implies cultural change. However, implementing this is a challenging task. Deal & Kennedy (1982) believe that if a company wants to create long-lasting changes that it must start with changing the culture. They describe this process as "people telling different stories to one another explaining what is occurring around them, people spending their time differently on a day-to-day basis" (p. 158).

To understand how changing culture can work to create a change within an organization, one can examine the functions culture serves. Culture serves at least three functions within an organization: legitimation, motivation, and integration (Gutknecht in Cushman, King, & Smith, 1988). The first purpose of culture is to provide a legitimate method for the employees to deal with culturally relevant problems. Next, an organizational culture "provides its members with a hierarchical motivation structure which links their identity to culturally relevant roles and values" (Cushman, King, & Smith, p. 78). And finally, culture creates an integrated framework which regulates social interactions and goal attainment (Cushman et al.). Culture is what creates the tendencies to behave in certain ways (Barnett, 1988). And in order to change the way people behave an organization must first change its culture (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Schein, 1992; Zamanou & Glaser, 1994).

Understanding an organization’s culture is the first step in being able to create long-lasting changes. A company can then articulate a culture they desire and work toward those changes to increase productivity and employee satisfaction.

Method

Two separate departments in Towson University were studied. For purposes of anonymity they will be referred to as Department A and Department B. All full-time and part-time faculty members of both departments received the Organizational Culture Survey (OCS) on May 2, 2001 and were given until May 8, 2001 to respond. The surveys were distributed through the faculty’s mailboxes. All participants were given an envelope in which to seal the survey when completed. The participants were then asked to leave the surveys in a specific faculty member’s mailbox. The response rate in Department A was 27% while the response rate in Department B was 19%.

The data was then analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Pearson-r correlations and t-tests were used in examining the data.

The OCS was created by Glaser, Zamanou, & Hacker (1987) in order to create a quantitative method for measuring organizational culture. It is a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. The survey contains 31 statements which can be broken down into the following subscales: teamwork, morale, supervision, involvement, information flow and meetings (Glaser et al.). The six subscales represent the communication dimensions of culture.

Glaser et al. used t test and Pearson product-moment correlations to check for reliability. Both statistics revealed satisfactory reliability (Glaser et al.). To test the validity, interviews were conducted and coded along the same six subscales. The interviews reinforced the findings of the surveys.

The OCS is part of a triangulation approach to studying culture (Zamanou & Glaser, 1994). The triangulation approach used by Glaser et al. (1987) employed reliably coded interviews and observations to interpret the data obtained through the OCS. For the purposes of anonymity and due to time constraints only the OCS was used in this study. No interviews or observations were conducted.

Demographics were added to the end of the survey. Participants were asked to indicate whether they were full or part-time faculty members. They were also asked to indicate whether they were male or female. Differentiation between the two departments occurred through internal coding on the survey.

Results

The demographic results are as follows: 58% of the total number of respondents in both departments were full-time faculty. The remaining 42% were part-time faculty members. In Department A 71% of the respondents were full-time faculty and 29% were part-time, while 80% of the respondents in Department B were full-time and 20% were part-time faculty.

The response rate between males and females overall was nearly equal (47% males, 42% females, 11% unidentified). However, in Department A the majority of respondents were female (57%) while in Department B the majority of respondents were male (80%).

The results of the OCS showed no statistical differences between the two departments in any of the six subscales (see Table 1). Due to this we will examine the cultures of both departments at the same time.

TABLE 1: Comparison of Department Means and t-scores.

(p > 0.05, no statistical significant difference)

Both Departments A & B had medium to high ratings on all six subscales of the OCS. The mean response for all statements, except statement 18, were in the area of three to four (to some extent and to a great extent.) Statement 18 on the OCS, "I know what’s happening in work sections outside of my own," only rated a one (to very little extent).

The OCS revealed a positive correlation between the teamwork and the atmosphere of trust within the departments (r = 0.654, p < 0.002). A positive correlation also exists between information flow and supervision (r = 0.634, p < 0.004). In addition, information flow has a positive correlation with meetings (r = 0.615, p < 0.005). Specifically how meetings are run has a positive correlation with understanding the big picture (r = 0.710, p < 0.001) and the reason for changes (r = 0.655, p < 0.002). There were no correlations between motivation to put forth one’s best efforts, except respect from the organization (r = 0.866, p < 0.000).

There were significant differences between responses from men and women concerning information flow. The mean for men was 13.1111, while the mean for women was 10.2500 (t = 2.758, p < 0.015). Significant differences also existed between full-time and part-time faculty members in terms of information flow and supervision (see Table 2).

TABLE 2: Comparison of Full vs. Part-time Faculty

The OCS has enabled us to look at the cultures of Departments A and B. Both departments under study have a medium to strong communication culture. The only real weakness exists within communication between departments. However close examination of the data also reveals differences between full-time and part-time faculty. Full-time faculty receive more information than part-time faculty. The correlation between information flow and meetings may be the cause of this. The results showed that the availability of information was strongly related to meetings. It may be that full-time faculty attend more meetings and are thus more able to receive information. The difference in the amount of meetings attended and the amount of time spent on campus may also be the cause of the difference in responses concerning supervision.

Yet, even though there are differences between full and part-time faculty existing both have a high level of morale. This may be because there are no existing correlations between morale and the six other subscales. Due to the fact that the respondents are professors, their motivation most likely comes from their students. Further use of observation and interviews could possibly be able to examine the source of motivation.

In addition to the differences between full-time and part-time faculty, there were also differences concerning information flow between men and women. However, there is not enough information to interpret these differences.

Research questions three and four aimed to compare and contrast the cultures of the two departments. However, there were no differences - the cultures were virtually the same. This may exist because the two departments belonged to the same department until the fall of 2001. It is highly possible that the more time they exist as individual departments, the more differences in culture will occur.

The major flaw of this study is that it used only the OCS and did not allow for the analysis of qualitative data. In creating the OCS, Glaser, Zamanou, & Hacker (1987) intended for its use with interviews and observations. The qualitative data would allow interpretation of the statistical results (Glaser et al.). Without the qualitative results, we can only make conjectures about the reasons for the results.

Suggestions

This research has provided glimpses into the cultures of Departments A and B, yet, more research needs to be conducted to fully analyze and understand the cultures. Future research should include the triangulation approach in its fullness. This approach has been successful in interpreting the cultures of other organizations (Zamanou & Glaser, 1994). In addition, future uses of the OCS in researching the culture of educational departments should be reworded. The word "chair" should replace the word "supervisor" and the word "department" should replace the word "organization. The simple changing of these words may produce more accurate answers and results.

Conclusion

This study has examined the culture of two Towson University Departments. Research such as this enables one to understand the workings of an organization, and if change is desired, to create change (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Ornatowski, 1989; Schein, 1992; Zamanou & Glaser, 1994). The OCS used in this study allowed for gathering of quantitative data concerning organizational communication culture. As the interpretive approach suggests, culture is emergent, meaning it is created by the communication process (Barnett, 1988; Miller, 1999). Although it lacked qualitative data, the data still showed a strong communication culture.

As we continue to move through this fast-paced world, we will most likely see more organizations creating change by changing their culture.

References

Barnett, G. A. (1988). Communication and organizational culture. In G. M. Goldhaber & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication, (pp. 101-103). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Beyer, J., & Trice, H. (1987). How an organization’s rites reveal its culture. Organizational Dynamics, 15, 4 - 35.

Carbaugh, D. (1988). Comments on "culture" in communication inquiry. Communication Reports, 1 (1) 38 - 41.

Cushman, D., King, S., & Smith, T. (1988). The rules perspective on organizational communication research. In G. M. Goldhaber & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communciation, (pp. 55-94). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Glaser, S. R., Zamanou, S., & Hacker, K. (1987). Measuring and interpreting organizational culture. Management Communication Quarterly, 1( 2), 173-198.

Jeffcutt, P. (1994). From interpretation to representation in organizational analysis. Organizational Studies, 15 (2), 241 [Online] Available: ABI/Inform [2001, March 20].

Kelley-Ott, K. E. (1989). An historical explanatory study of the evolution and development of organization culture in organizational communication within the speech communication discipline. (Doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota. 1989) Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, AAT9020264.

Miller, K. (1999). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes (2^nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Ornatowski, C. M. (1995). The writing consultant and the corporate industry culture. Journal of Business & Technical Communication, 9(4), 446 - 461[Online] Available: Academic Search EBSCO [2001, March 23].

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view (2^nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shockley-Zalabak, P., & Morley, D. D. (1994) Creating a culture: A longitudinal examination of the influence of management and employee values on communication rule stability and emergence. Human Communication Research, 20, 334 - 355.

Smircich, L., & Calas, M. B. (1987). Organizational culture: A critical analysis. In F. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. Roberts & L. Porter (Eds.), The handbook of organizational communication (pp. 228 - 263). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Zamanou, S., & Glaser, S. R. (1994). Moving toward participation and involvement. Group and Organization Management, 19 (4), 475 - 501 [Online] Available: Academic Search EBSCO [2001, March 23].