University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Building a model of organization acculturation: an interpretive study of organizational culture and stories

(USC Thesis Other)

Building a model of organization acculturation: an interpretive study of organizational culture and stories

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content BUILDING A MODEL OF ORGANIZATION ACCULTURATION: AN INTERPRETIVE
STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND STORIES
by
Lynn Davis
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Communication Arts and Sciences)
August 1991
Copyright 1991 Lynn Davis
UMI Number: DP22465
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript
and there are missing pages, th ese will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publishing
UMI DP22465
Published by ProQ uest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQ uest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United S tates Code
ProQ uest LLC.
789 E ast Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089
This dissertation, w ritten by
Lynn Davis.
under the direction of h.f^J. D issertation
Committee, and approved by all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of re
quirem ents for the degree of
D O C TO R OF PH ILO SOPH Y
Dean of Graduate Studies
Date Septem ber 18 ? _19_9T
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Chairperson
Ph.D.
CM
V /
D 2 Cl
i ~ < u r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES/FIGURES......................................... iv
ABSTRACT........................................................ v
CHAPTER 1 Rationale for the Study of Socialization and
Organizational Stories
Background ........................................ 1-6
Purpose of Study .................................. 7-9
Research Objectives ............................... 9-10
Chapter Organization .............................. 10
CHAPTER 2 Acculturation: Coordinating Organizational Culture
and Socialization
Defining Organizational Culture .................. 11-15
Symbolic Cultural Forms .......................... 15-17
Organizational Stories ............................ 18-22
Organizational Culture Paradigms ............... 23-24
The Functionalist Paradigm ....................... 25-27
The Interpretive Paradigm ........................ 27-29
Research Themes in Organizational Culture ......... 29-34
The Acculturation Process ........................ 34-39
Professionalism vs. Occupational Communities .... 39-42
Socialization ..................................... 42-48
Summary ............................................ 48-49
CHAPTER 3 Methodology for Studying Organizational Stories
and the Acculturation Process .................... 50-52
Research Limitations ............................. 53-54
Learning Organizational Stories .................. 55-56
Observing the Acculturation Process .............. 57
Survey Research ................................... 57-58
Longitudinal Data ................................. 58
Stage One: Anticipatory Acculturation ........... 58-59
Stage Two: Orientation............................ 59
Stage Three: Encounter............................ 59-60
Stage Four: Adaptation............................ 60-61
Interpretation and Analysis of Data .............. 62
CHAPTER 4 Results of the Study of Organizational
Stories and Acculturation
Stage One: Anticipatory Acculturation ........... 63-64
Professionalism ...................... 64-67
People-Orientation ................... 67-73
Stage Two: Orientation ........................... 73-76
Training .............................. 76-79
Stage Three: Encounter ........................... 79-84
ii
Stage Four: Adaptation ............................ 84-88
Final Survey ......................... 88-95
CHAPTER 5 Conclusions and Implications ..................... 96-97
Organizational Stories ............................ 97-101
Occupational Acculturation ....................... 101-103
REFERENCES .................................................... 104-111
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A ............................................... 112-114
APPENDIX B ............................................... 115-117
APPENDIX C .................................. 118-120
APPENDIX D ............................................... 121-136
iii
LIST OF TABLES/FIGURES
Table I Culture Research Themes................................ 30
Table II Encounter State Data ................................. 80
Table III Occupational Commitment Data ....................... 30
iv
ABSTRACT
The concept of culture has become a useful and effective means
in understanding and describing organizations. However, theoretical
concepts must be tested to validate the practicality of the theory.
This study's purpose is to further investigate one aspect of culture-
organizational stories and the impact they have on newcomers'
acculturation.
Tools devised to determine newcomers' ability and desire to
learn and accept an organization's culture have been employed in a
longitudinal study of entry level accountants in a Big 8 firm.
Findings suggest stories are a significant factor in understanding an
organization's culture yet may not have much impact on creating
employee commitment to an organization.
A model of organizational acculturation which combines tenets of
anthropological acculturation theories and organizational
socialization theories is developed. The model suggests newcomers
follow four stages of acculturation: anticipation, orientation,
encounter and adaptation.
Findings from this study suggest strong occupational commitment
may lessen a newcomer's need or desire to understand and accept an
organization's culture.
v
CHAPTER 1
RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY OF SOCIALIZATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL STORIES
Background
Two predominant themes in Max Weber's classic essay,
"Bureaucracy," (1947) gave rise to the study of organizational theory
as an academic discipline. As a result of this essay, a society
obsessed with the notion of organization has been created. Denhardt
(1981) suggests we have "become an age of organization ... dominated
by an organizational ethic which offers itself as a way of life for
persons in our society ..." (in Smircich, 1985, p.56).
The important questions Weber poses which began this quest for
understanding organization are, first, "What are the structural
features, the surface attributes of modern organizations?" To this
end Weber is concerned with traditional forms of administration in
terms of hierarchy, division of labor, and rules and regulations.
Looking deeper into the principles of organization Weber suggests a
second area for consideration which looks at the causes of the
characteristics of modern organizations. In other words, the
question asked is, "Why are organizations like they are?"
Clearly, the study of organization has gone beyond Weber's
concept of bureaucratic administration, yet his two queries have
guided much subsequent research. This study falls in the second
1
category as it seeks to further understand why organizations are like
they are.
In reviewing past organizational scholars' work to uncover
answers to this question, a series of metaphors emerge which both
explain the phenomenon and govern the research. Examination of the
metaphors reveals much about past researchers' theoretical
assumptions, and the methods they have employed for study. Change in
metaphor reflects evolution of the field.
Frederick Taylor, father of scientific management, following
Weber's premise of bureaucratic rationality, advanced the image of
organizations as machines. Manufacturing the machine metaphor,
Taylor viewed organizations, people included, as interlocking parts
of sets that could be objectively viewed, consistently repeated and
precisely measured. The mechanization of work produced a
dehumanization of the work force which eventually led researchers and
scientists to the conclusion that organizations are not sustained by
task accomplishment and efficiency alone.
Recognition that organizations are not static entities, but
living organizations, spawned the theory of organizations as systems.
For the past twenty years the systems metaphor, stemming from the
work of von Bertanlanffy, has guided organizational studies (Morgan,
1986; Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo, 1983 Putnam, 1982). Process
or systems approaches direct attention to forces outside the
organization which influence internal processes. Organizations
become information processing systems whose parts are related to the
2
whole and to the environment (Porter and Roberts, 1976; Goldhaber,
1983) .
In the systems framework, communication becomes the act of
transferring, processing and storing subsystems and environmental
information, and organizations become information processing centers.
Feedback loops, signals, goals, and cybernetic control provide
structure and vocabulary (Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo, 1983).
A systems metaphor explains that organizations develop as they
do because they are in a continual process of responding to internal
and external stimuli. This metaphor, organization as organism, still
relies on the physical world to explain what is ultimately a human
phenomenon, yet does move beyond organization (man) as machine, and
heads toward an interactive and dynamic explanation of organization.
Although these two metaphors are dominant, others have been used
to explain the phenomenon of organization, from theatres and
political arenas (Smircich, 1983) to minds and psychic prisons
(Morgan, 1986). Within the past decade, however, a third
predominant metaphor, distinctly interactive, has taken a place as
counterpart of and complement to earlier conceptions. Management and
communication scholars, drawing heavily on the work of
anthropologists and sociologists, have suggested a different guiding
metaphor--organizations as cultures (Frost, Moore, Louis, Lundberg,
and Martin, 1985; Louis, 1980; Morgan, 1986; Pacanowsky and
O'Donnell-Truhillo, 1982; Pondy and Mitroff, 1979; Pondy, Frost,
Morgan, and Dandridge, 1983; Schein, 1983; Siehl and Martin, 1981;
Smircich, 1983). Culture as a root metaphor promotes a view of
organizations as expansive forms: or--manifestations of human
consciousness (Smircich, 1983).
The culture metaphor shifts focus from structural, rational
characteristics of previous metaphors toward an interpretive, dynamic
human process of organization. Attention is placed on the ways in
which organizations are like miniature societies with distinct social
structures characterized by language, roles, rites, rituals, customs,
stories, myths, legends, values, belief, etc. (Morgan et al., 1983).
The pattern of these activities enables the interpretation of symbols
which in turn generates meaning.
From a cultural perspective, organizations are viewed as systems
of publicly and collectively accepted meanings, and the
organization's members are creators and managers of meaning. Of
further impact is the shift of action the cultural metaphor implies.
The move is not from noun to noun (machine to organization) but from
noun to verb (organization to organizing). The cultural model
depicts a dynamic, interactive process capable of persisting and
changing over time (Jelinek, Smircich and Hirsch, 1983).
The extent to which the cultural metaphor has been applied to
organizational studies is overwhelming, with a range from popular
literature (Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Peters and Waterman, 1982) to
serious scholarly endeavor and research (Administrative Science
Quarterly, whole no. 28, 1983; Frost et al., 1985; Pondy et al.,
1983). With this broad range also comes the dangers of
overinterpreting the culture metaphor (Morey and Luthans, 1985) or
failing to measure effectively culture (Siehl and Martin, 1984).
Nonetheless, what the culture metaphor can provide is a
framework which focuses on symbols and processes that take on meaning
through communication events. Within this frame, communication is at
the heart of organizing. Hawes (1974) argues that "in short, a
social collectivity is patterned communicative behavior;
communicative behavior does not occur within a network of
relationships, but jis the network" (p. 74). This notion is echoed in
Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo (1982): "Culture is not a feature
of the organization. Culture is the organization, and the underlying
motive of the organizational culture approach is coming to understand
how organizational culture is accomplished communicatively" (p. 121).
One such measure of how culture is accomplished communicatively
is the story (Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo, 1982). Stories are
a natural, common form of communication (Brown, 1982) and can be
viewed as maps that let people know how things are done in a
particular group (Wilkens, 1984). Stories have been recognized as
serving a variety of purposes in organizations (Smith and McLaughlin,
1986) but of particular concern to this study is how the use of
stories relates to the socialization of newcomers to an organization.
Organizational socialization is a sense-making process in which
people learn new interpretive schemes appropriate to the local
culture (Louis, 1980). Further, socialization as an interactive
process (Wanous et al., 1984) places responsibility for successful
5
socialization on both the newcomer and the organization. Yet as
Eisenberg (1986) points out, a member does not belong to only one
culture or have single-minded allegiances. Therefore, when studying
socialization as a function of culture, the presence of multiple
memberships should be granted.
A possible alternative allegiance for organizational newcomers
is an occupational perspective. Van Maanen and Barley (1984)
recognize the influence of occupational community. Some occupations
(dentistry, firefighting, accounting) display remarkable stability
over time and seem to transmit a general culture from generation to
generation. Occupational community, defined by Van Maanen and
Barley, constitutes "a group of people who consider themselves to be
engaged in the same sort of work; who identify (more or less) with
their work; who share a set of values, norms, and perceptions that
apply to, but extend beyond, work related matters; and whose special
relationships meld the realms of work and leisure" (pp. 294-295).
Of particular interest is how shared values and norms of
occupational communities are communicatively transmitted. Stories
may be one means. However, neither culture nor socialization
research has addressed the issue. This study provides an initial
investigation of how stories and jargon play a role in creating both
organizational and occupational cultures.
Purpose of the Study
Often it is necessary to state what something is not in order to
fully understand what it is. Such is the case in stating my purpose
in undertaking this study.
First, the study reported here is not an attempt to define a
particular organizational culture. Observing culture is observing
evolution, change, and complex interaction. Existing patterns are
not the reality, but an abstraction of reality. To claim such
patterns are the culture would be to freeze the pattern and stop the
process (Morgan, 1986). Instead, this study attempts to identify
organizational symbols--specifically stories and jargon--which
distinguish it from other organizations. This study follows the
perspective that organizations are "culture-bearing milieux" (Louis,
1983) and as such are settings through which shared meanings emerge.
Culture is identified by distinction, not definition.
Indigenous to this culture perspective is also a practical
notion. Louis (1983) states the following as support.
Specifically, recognition of the need to become acculturated, to
"learn the ropes" when entering an unfamiliar organizational
setting suggests that some cultural stratum is present in any
organization, and that mastery is critical for the well-
functioning of new organizational members, (p.40)
This is not to say however that these distinguishing
characteristics identify a culture as "good" or "bad" or that the
extent of its sharedness creates a "strong" or "weak” culture.
Therefore, this study is not designed to determine the value of a
particular culture or the degree of a particular culture. Approaches
7
such as these in studying culture have created unnecessary and
potentially dangerous management centered biases. Morgan (1986)
elaborates this notion.
There is a certain ideological blindness in much of the writing
about corporate culture, especially by those who advocate that
managers attempt to become folk heroes shaping and reshaping the
culture of their organizations. The fact that such manipulation
may well be accompanied by resistance, resentment and mistrust,
and that employees may react against being manipulated in this
way receives scant attention. To the extent that the insights
of the culture metaphor are used to create an Orwellian world of
corporate newspeak, where the culture controls rather than
expresses human character, the metaphor may prove quite
manipulative and totalitarian in its influence, (pp.138-139)
Following these two premises, a third issue surfaces. This is
not a study which focuses on or seeks to find an overriding
organizational culture. Conversely, this study seeks to identify
various cultures (or subcultures) that newcomers are exposed to and
bring with them. Van Maanen and Barley (1985) liken subcultures to
Venn diagrams.
The degree to which smaller circles coalesce onto a larger
hypothetical one determines the analytical and empirical
justification for talk of an "organizational culture." The less
such circles overlap, the greater the cultural diversity.
Organizational culture is therefore understood as a shadow-like
entity carried by sub-cultures and defined as the intersection
of subcultural interpretive systems, (p.38)
Subcultures clearly serve a variety of purposes and can be found
I
I
at every level of organization. It is not the goal of this study to
identify each. Instead this research is geared to uncover
subcultures, such as occupational community, most often encountered
and managed by newcomers during their socialization process.
8
Occupational communities transmit to new members shared
occupational values, practices, and vocabularies which transcend
organizational settings (Van Maanen and Barley, 1984).
Therefore, this study seeks to determine how organizational
culture and occupational community contribute to the socialization of
newcomers.
Finally, it is important to note that not only does
socialization occur at many levels (Jablin and Krone, 1986; Wanores,
Reichero, and Malik, 1984), but it also occurs in stages (Louis,
1980; Van Maanen and Schein, 1979). As such, this study is not so
much concerned with the outcome of socialization as it is with the
process. To this end, Brown (1985) recommends a desirable goal--
follow the path of organizational newcomers to see what stories are
encountered and how they react. Such is the goal of this research.
Research Objectives
My purpose in the research reported here was to provide a study
of the socialization process in relationship to newcomers'
acquisition and interpretation of organizational stories and jargon.
In addition, insight into newcomers' ability to recognize and manage
subcultures is sought.
Specifically, this research is designed to:
1. Identify an organization's stories and jargon most likely to
be encountered by a newcomer,
2. Identify occupational allegiances of the newcomer,
3. Longitudinally observe the socialization process in attempt
to capture its processual nature, and
9
4. Gain insight into newcomers' ability/desire to manage
multiple cultures.
Chapter Organization
The rationale, procedures, results, and discussion of this
research is divided into five chapters.
Chapter II consists of a four-part literature review covering
organizational culture, organizational stories, occupational
communities, and socialization. The literature review identifies
both theory and research which has guided scholars and managers in
the development and understanding of organization.
Chapter III identifies the procedures used to follow the
socialization process of an organization's newcomers. Methods used
are detailed and organizational stories are provided. Measurement
tools, surveys, and questionnaires are included.
Chapter IV identifies research results. Each stage of
socialization is depicted by the newcomers knowledge and
interpretation of their new environment.
Chapter V develops implications the research results suggest for
more accurate understanding of the role culture and subcultures play
in the socialization process. Strengths and weaknesses of the study
are discussed as well as recommendations for future research.
10
CHAPTER 2
ACCULTURATION: COORDINATING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND SOCIALIZATION
Defining Organizational Culture
The concept of culture is not new. For years anthropologists,
sociologists, and psychologists have studied culture in an attempt to
decipher and describe differences in ethnic, social, and national
cultures. What is fairly new, however, is the use of the culture
concept to better understand organizations and organizational life.
Within the last decade organizational culture has emerged as a
dominant theme for students of organizational theory (Administrative
Science Quarterly, no. 28, 1983; Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Frost, et
al., 1985; Morgan, 1986; Peters and Waterman, 1982; Western States
Communication Association Journal, no.46, 1983; Wilkens and Ouchi,
1984).
As Van Maanen and Barley (1985) recognized, the power and
benefit of juxtaposing the terms organization and culture to create
an image has great generative potential. Nonetheless, understanding
this metaphor and what it represents is not a simple task. Simply
juxtaposing terms does not constitute definition or mandate
direction, thus, the study of organizational culture has quickly
become diverse and often nebulous. The purpose of this paper is to
provide a framework in which the culture metaphor can be used
11
successfully to interpret a part of organizational life. To do so,
this chapter reviews current literature to uncover the roots of
culture, recognize its many branches, and discuss areas of fruitful
s tudy.
Ouchi and Wilkens (1984) argue that organizational culture is an
amalgamation of several points of view that when blended together
create a rich mixture of ideas and approaches. This diversity is
evident when a search for a specific definition for culture reveals
little precise agreement. One reason a consensual definition is
difficult to obtain stems from culture's anthropological beginnings.
In an exhaustive exploration, Kroeber and Kiuckhohn (1952) identified
one hundred and sixty-four different definitions of culture. Keesing
(1958) offers a chronological sampling.
That complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art,
morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits
acquired by man as a member of society (Taylor, 1871).
The sum total of the knowledge, attitudes, and habitual behavior
patterns shared and transmitted by the members of a particular
society (Linton, 1940).
(All the) historically created designs for living, explicit and
implicit, rational, irrational and non-rational, which exist at
any given time as potential guides for the behavior of men
(Kiuckhohn and Kelly, 1945).
The mass of learned and transmitted motor reactions, habits, and
techniques, ideas, and values--and the behavior they induce
(Kroeber, 1948).
The man-made part of the environment (Herskovits, 1955).
Keesing contributes:
Culture in its broadest sense is concerned with actions, ideas,
and artifacts which individuals in the tradition learn, share,
12
and value. Finally, culture tends to be "patterned" and
"symbolic."
What is common to these definitions is the sense of shared
values, beliefs, and normative behavior that is transmitted to most
all members of a particular society. Current streams of thought in
anthropology follow suit. Anthropologists generally describe
relatively small, closed societies. Ethnographic studies elaborate
on language, customs, taboos, child-rearing, leisure, and other
standards of behavior based on an almost mystical assumption that
members all learn and share the same lifestyles. In short,
anthropologists describe unitary cultures (Van Maanen and Barley,
1985) .
Clearly, this perspective is problematic in a society that is
fragmented, mobilized, and industrialized. Multiple cultures, or
subcultures, coexist in most any society. Gregory (1983) challenges
the traditional anthropological course which emphasizes homogeneity
and cohesiveness and suggests organizations (societies) are better
viewed as multicultural. Subgroups coexist with different
occupational, divisional, and ethnic orientations and can emerge for
a variety of reasons including competing values, social differences,
and divided loyalties.
The concept of subcultures is a major sociological contribution
to the study of organizational culture. What is of concern in this
paper is how individual organizational members--primarily new
organizational members--come to understand and interpret an
13
organization's culture and subcultures and how they manage possible
multiple memberships.
This leads to a second important sociological contribution--
interaction--where anthropology tends to suggest a linear, or
functional transmission of norms, values, and beliefs, a sociological
perspective suggests culture is acquired through a sense-making
process (Frost and Morgan, 1983; Louis, 1983). In effect, sense-
making allows individuals to make their world intelligible based on
their ability to draw on past experiences (values, beliefs, norms,
etc.) and to interpret and give meaning to new situations.
Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo (1982), Schein (1983), and Van
Maanen and Barley (1983) significantly shifted communication and
management scholars' perceptions of culture with their emphasis on
the interactional components of culture. Most recent definitions of
culture in the organizational literature reflect both structural and
interactional components. Yet, as in anthropology no single
definition exists. A sampling follows.
Culture is that which gives substance and meaning to what would
otherwise be insensate behavior (Paconowsky and O'Donnell-
Trujillo, 1982).
Culture is social reality (Jelinek, et al., 1983).
Culture is a shared system of values, norms, and symbols ... a
set of common understandings for organizing action and languages
and other symbolic vehicles for expressing common understandings
(Louis, 1983).
Culture is the taken-for-granted and shared meanings that people
assign to their social surroundings (Wilkens, 1983).
14
Culture is the learned ways of coping with experience ... a
system of meanings that accompany the myriad of behaviors and
practices recognized as a distinct way of life (Gregory, 1983).
Organizational culture is the pattern of basic assumptions that
a given group has invented, discovered, or developed in learning
to cope with its problems of external adaption and internal
integration, and that have worked well enough to be considered
valid, and therefore taught to new members as the correct way to
perceive, think, and feel in relation to this problem (Schein,
1984).
Culture's contents are symbolic and ideational. They are
carried in the forms of norms, rules, and codes that people use
to interpret and evaluate their own behavior as well as the
behavior of others... In terms of form and function all
cultures are constructed in similar ways and serve sense-making
ends (Van Maanen and Barley, 1985).
Shared meanings, shared understandings, and shared sense-making
are all different ways of describing culture. In talking about
culture we are really talking about a process of reality
construction that allows people to see and understand particular
events, actions, objects, utterances, or situations in
distinctive ways (Morgan, 1986).
Common themes of these definitions suggest two basic components
of culture, substance, and form. Trice and Beyer (1984) elaborate on
the differences: substance can be viewed as the networks of meaning
contained in its ideologies, norms, and values, whereas forms are the
practices whereby the meanings are expressed, affirmed, and
communicated to members. Therefore, researchers can begin to
interpret cultures by analyzing symbolic forms. This perspective is
further supported by Smircich (1985) advising researchers to focus on
symbols, not culture. Culture does not exist separately from people
in interaction, and interaction is expressed in symbolic forms.
Symbolic Cultural Forms
15
Symbolic forms of culture include rites, ceremonials, rituals,
myths, sagas, legends, stories, folklore, language, gesture, physical
setting, and artifacts (Trice and Beyer, 1984). Although to date
theoretical inquiry dominates the culture literature, a growing body
of empirical research does exist which focuses on how these symbolic
forms are manifested. Issues, problems, and methods, associated with
this type of research will be addressed in a subsequent section.
This review defines terminology and examines research which
specifically focuses on particular symbolic forms.
Rites and ceremonials are relatively elaborate, dramatic sets of
organizational activity and usually planned for the benefit of an
audience (Trice and Beyer, 1984). Retirement parties (Siehl and
Martin, 1981); awards banquets (Dandridge, Mitroff, and Joyce, 1982);
and induction ceremonies (Trice, Belagco, and Alutto, 1969) represent
typical organizational life. However, they are traditionally
infrequent and generally include a select group. Therefore,
important components of an organization's culture--rites and
ceremonials--may not best serve newcomers' attempts to learn an
organization's culture.
Rituals are more frequent symbolic forms of an organization's
culture and are usually seen as stylized, formal, repetitive behavior
(Turner, 1971; Smircich, 1983). Staff meetings (Smircich, 1983;
Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo, 1983) orientation programs
(Dandridge, Mitroff, and Joyce, 1982; Dyer, 1983) and coffee breaks
(Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo, 1982) are typical forms of
16
organizations rituals. They are clearly diverse and they can cut
across an organization to reach many members.
Although recognizing ritualized activities can be of interest
while interpreting an organization's culture, what seems to be
missing is what actually takes place during the ritualized activity.
Indeed, knowing that meetings and coffee breaks occur tell you
something about ongoing activity. What it fails to provide is the
actual interactive symbolic behavior which occurs during the ritual.
In short studying ritual seems to provide surface information about
an organization's culture.
On the other hand, when studying an organization, language
researchers dig deeper into the structure (Schein, 1985). Gregory
t
(1983) interviewed seventy-five Silicon Valley professionals and j
analyzed their language. Her analysis suggested several taxonomies
that natives use to help them make sense of their quickly changing
environment. Barley (1983) extensively studied the language of
funeral directors and also uncovered implicit categories and
taxonomies of language specific to their culture. These studies,
although insightful, are primarily anthropological and require
painstaking effort and often resemble exercises in methodology (Ouchi
and Wilkens, 1985).
In addition to these cultural forms are sagas, legends, myths,
and folklore. These symbolic forms assume more corporate perspective
of culture (Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Peters and Waterman, 1982).
i
Further these symbolic forms are often embellished with fictional ]
17
details (Trice and Beyer, 1984) and are also found to be quite
similar across organizations (Martin, Feldman, Hatch, and Sithen,
1983). Therefore, although useful in understanding an overview of
corporate culture, one must wonder if myths, legends, and sagas are
representative of a nation's culture instead of an organization's
specific culture.
Organizational Stories
Clearly, each of these symbolic forms has served valuable
purposes in helping researchers understand organizational culture.
Yet none has received as much attention--or appear to have as much
impact on an organization's members, including newcomers--as the
story (Brown, 1985). Fisher (1985) asserts that all human
communication is narrative. His theory that humans are natural
storytellers suggests that stories are the primary, if not sole,
means by which experience is ordered and common ways of living
established. Within this perspective, all communication, including
that found in organizations, can be viewed as an on-going story which
creates and recreates organizational life. Therefore, the symbolic
form which is most often used to make sense of experiences, which is
most representative of any given culture is the story. Wilkens
(1983) recognizes that stories provide rich detail, vivid
description, and vicarious experience which allow an organization's
members to know how things are done in a particular group.
18
Stories are narratives that present a series of events (Moore,
1973). The events depict, usually accurately, a report of the
organization's past in which the main characters are members rather
than outsiders (Martin and Powell, 1980). Clearly, organizational
members tell stories, but what may be more important is that as
individuals share stories, they begin to develop a kinship, a common
understanding of the organization (LeGuin, 1981). These bonds are
created as a result of individuals feeling a part of past key events
although they were not actually present. Brown (1984) offers the
following story which gives those not present at the actual event the
ability to better cope with life in the organization.
We were having a morning squad meeting before we went out on the
flight. And the supply sergeant came in late and snuck back
into the personal equipment room--that is like a locker room--to
get the parachutes ready for that morning's flight. When the ;
meeting was over the commander--who was about the size of that j
door over there--went over to the door of the equipment room and j
it was locked. He shook it a couple of times and then put his
foot about halfway up it and pushed it down. We could all see
the little supply sergeant being back there trying to get that
door open and being squashed like on a cartoon. But in a minute
he stuck his head out around where he was working on the
parachutes.
This story, like many organizational stories, is appealing and
holds listeners' interest. Stories, however, are not told for
interest and entertainment alone. Stories are more than strings of
concrete words and paragraphs. Stories have settings, central
characters, plots--with crisis and resolutions, and often a moral
(Martin, 1982).
I
19
Brown (1984) suggests stories serve a variety of functions in an
organization including their ability to reveal an organization's
culture as they transmit and substantiate customs and traditions of
organizational life. Nonetheless, the remaining functions of
stories, which include depicting rules, reflecting values and
beliefs, legitimizing power, and following evolution, are also
expressions of an organization's culture. Bruner (1990) makes the
important distinction that stories (narratives) are not mere reports
of an event, but instead an expression of morality. Stories, to be
culturally significant, must clearly provide a point, a moral, that
identifies values or beliefs for the interpreter. Therefore as
Wilkens (1984) states, "in general, stories are powerful in passing
on a culture because they are like maps that help people know how
things are done in a particular group." (p. 43).
Stories are generally considered to be unique to particular
organizations and are therefore symbolic representations of that
culture. Nonetheless, common themes and storylines appear which cut
across organizations (Martin et al., 1983). Although specific
characters and events vary from group to group and organization to
organization, seven story prototypes emerge. The include: "What do
I do when a higher status person breaks the rules?"; "Is the big boss
human?"; "Will I get fired?"; "Will the organization help me if I
have to move?"; "How will the boss react to mistakes?"; "Can the
little guy make it to the top?"; and "How will the organization deal
with obstacles?" Not all organizations generate stories from each of
20
these categories and there can be both positive and negative versions
of these storylines.
Martin and her associates offer three reasons why story
prototypes regenerate. First, common stories can express conflict
between individual and organizational values. Second, common stories
represent past organizational successes and failures, and third,
common stories enable employees to identify with the desirable
components of their organization while distancing themselves from
less desirable organizations. Stories are therefore important to
organizations because they contain messages of organizational
uniqueness and because they represent conflict and survival, hopes
and fears, and dreams and uncertainties of organizational life.
However, stories will be of little or no use to sense making if
individuals cannot identify with the stories' key members and themes.
Therefore, in light of the earlier discussion that suggests
organizations are collections of numerous subcultures, it follows
that members of one subculture may find great relevance in some
organizational stories and little relevance in others based on their
ability to recognize key members or interpret recurring themes.
It further stands to reason that stories, and their accompanying
morals, are not relevant at every level of an organization. For
example, the stories told to an entry level newcomer may vary greatly
from the stories told to a newly hired executive or a recently
promoted supervisor. In other words, stories are an important way to
map what Wilkens (1984) labels social territory and what could be
21
considered subcultures. Therefore, for a story to have impact, not
only must it be concrete in detail and commonly believed knowledge of
a particular group, but it must also provide a social contract that
gives insight into how a particular culture may fit into a larger
scheme or alongside co-existing cultures.
The previous review strongly suggests that learning and
understanding a culture's symbols has a strong impact on
acculturation. Further, the review supports the story as a
significant organizational symbol. Brown (1985) demonstrates how the
use of stories aids in the socialization of new employees. She
emphasizes that stories serve as a means for organizational members
to acquire and express their knowledge, understanding, and commitment
to an organization. She notes that as members move through the
socialization process, they begin to reflect a greater understanding
of organizational values.
Analysis of personal stories becomes Brown's measure of
socialization, providing little insight into shared organizational
stories. However, she has identified simultaneous learning of
organizational and occupational cultures. Organizational culture can
be seen as goals, resources, and rules. Yet when referring to "those 1
elements necessary to perform the task," an occupational culture
emerges.
Brown's population consists primarily of nurses--a highly
professional group, but she makes no mention of the influence
professional or occupational goals may play on the socialization
22
process. If we believe that organizations are not unitary cultures,
then it is important and necessary to begin to recognize stories that
delineate subcultures. As McLaughlin, Smith and Altendorf (1985)
note, organizational newcomers need to be asked about the stories
they are being told. If, in fact, it can be determined that certain
stories are told to certain groups of organizational members, or if
predominant storyline themes can be identified, then researchers can
begin to more fully analyze the impact of the story as a powerful
symbol of organizational culture as well as determine how the story |
i
can help identify subcultures within the organization.
Organizational Culture Paradigms
This symbolic perspective of organizational stories purported
leads to an important paradigmatic issue facing communication
researchers concerned with organizational culture. Paradigm, as
defined by Burrell and Morgan (1979), constitutes a representation of
an implicit or explicit view of reality. Paradigms encompass beliefs
and values that lead researchers to work from certain basic premises
and employ particular methodologies. Scholars and researchers whose
work has placed the cultural perspective within the greater
perspective of organizational theory have done so by moving away from i
traditional objectivist/positivist boundaries toward more |
subjective/interpretive paradigms (Burrell and Morgan, 1979; Evered
and Louis, 1981; Morgan, 1980; Morgan, Frost, and Pondy, 1983;
Putnam, 1982; Putnam, 1983; Smircich, 1983, Sypher, Applegate, and
Sypher, 1985).
23
Traditional streams of thought assume reality is comprised of
objective, verifiable fact, whereas more current perspectives view
reality as existing only as it is defined by the individuals who
comprise given social system. From this perspective, individuals do
not know or perceive the world but they know and perceive their world
through frames of reference. All forms of human organization, then,
although they are seemingly concrete and real, are actually
constantly being enacted, and made sense of after the event (Weick,
1976). Evered and Louis (1981) refer to the two paradigms as inquiry
from the outside and inquiry from the inside.
Burrell and Morgan (1979) argue that social theory in general
and organizational theory in particular can be analyzed in terms of
four broad world views--functionalist, interpretive, radical
humanist, and radical structuralist. The first two have stimulated
the most discussion and generated the majority of the research
efforts and will therefore be selected for elaboration. The
following discussion is derived primarily from Putnam's (1982)
description of Burrell and Morgan's (1979) schemata.
The Functionalist Paradigm
The dominant paradigm in organizational theory research has been
a functionalist approach. This perspective derives from mechanistic,
organismic, and cybernetic root metaphors. Machine theorists
emphasize formal structure as a means of improving efficiency and
attaining organizational goals. Research conducted within this
metaphor is generally concerned with barriers, breakdowns, and j
24 I
distortion and assumes that individuals respond to their environment
in automatic and predictable ways. From a mechanistic perspective,
communication is treated as a concrete substance that accentuates the
physical and spatial properties of a message (Fisher, 1978).
Messages are viewed as tangible entities and the locus of
communication is found in channels and message transmission. As
such, individuals are controlled by the formal channels of
communication that constitute their environment, and are therefore
unable to adapt to or change external stimuli.
The inability to incorporate or credit environmental variables
with organizational change led researchers away from the machine
metaphor toward the organismic metaphor, or systems approach. An
organism, in Morgan's (1980) terms, "is any system of mutually
connected and dependent parts constituted to share a common life,
focusing attention upon the nature of life's activities ...
attempting to survive within the context of a wider environment."
Thus, the key departure from the machine metaphor is the movement
from a closed to an open system in an on-going effort to
differentiate, integrate, and adapt to a changing environment. The
organism metaphor includes such schools of thought as structural-
functionalism, contingency theory, and general systems theory. The
integrating principle for each of these is the concept of an
organization as a life-sustaining system characterized by activities
which function to maintain that life (Farace, Monge, and Russell,
1977). This maintenance function, or integration, is viewed through
25
networks of relationships and has been a major focus for
organizational communication research.
Although a functionalist paradigm dominated major research
traditions for years, it failed to take into account the active role
individuals and language play in creating and sustaining
organizational life. Form, not content or meaning, dominates this
research that reifies both organization and communication into images
of physical things with an objective reality.
The Interpretive Paradigm
The interpretive paradigm views organizational reality as
socially constructed through words, symbols, and actions of
organizational members. Language-use comprises the medium through
which meanings become enacted via verbal and nonverbal messages that
create and sustain social reality. "Language," as Morgan states, "is
not simply descriptive; it is ontological." The constructed reality,
then, is actively maintained through the communicative experiences
and the meanings enacted from behaviors and society or understood
from the standpoint of the participant, not the observer.
The interpretive paradigm is comprised of four major schools of
thought: hermeneutics, symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology,
and phenomenology (Ritzer, 1975).
Drawing on the metaphor of text, hermeneutic theorists cast the
experiences of organizational members into symbolic documents that
give coherence to language patterns, themes, and symbolic processes.
"The metaphor of text is concerned with understanding the manner in
26
which organizational activities are authored, read, and translated,
the way in which the structure of discourse may explore certain key
themes and develop particular kinds of imagery" (Morgan, 1980).
Symbolic interactionism is characterized by a role-taking
metaphor defined through action-interaction and language games as the
basis of shared meanings. Organizational members create shared
meanings through their symbolic behaviors. Interaction becomes the
force in developing patterns of meaning among the individuals of a
collectivity. Louis' (1980) article on organizational socialization
combines a symbolic interactionist's perspective with Weick's (1976)
view of sense making. She interprets the characteristic features of
organizational entry in
terms of the way individuals enact their environment to cope with
change and surprise.
The paradigm from which much of the communication research in
the interpretive school is drawn is ethnomethodology-- the study of
how people construct common sense knowledge. Accomplishments
represent the outcomes of this social process and constitute the
created social structure. Topics covered under an
ethnomethodological perspective
range from conversational analysis to inventories of personal
accounts and organizational stories.
Phenomenology concentrates on inter and intrasubjective
consciousness of individuals. Commonly shared consciousness forms
the foundation of social interaction so that individuals make sense
27
of their experiences in similar ways, and as a result, create a
collective or intersubjective consciousness (Jehenson, 1973).
Phenomenology, as well as Putnam's fourth classification, grounded-
theory methodology, were not specifically designed for the
interpretive school but maintain many of the tenets, and little
organizational research has been conducted within these perspectives.
What is important to note however, is the emphasis each school of
thought places on the concept of socially constructed realities
created through communicative experiences.
The preceding discussions touched on schools of thought that
constitute both functional and interpretive paradigms. Table 1 is to
illuminate the basic assumptions that differentiate between the
paradigms.
Research Themes in Organizational Culture
What do these paradigmatic differences mean to the researchers
of organizational culture? Clearly, both paradigms can be
successfully applied to cultural research. Smircich (1983) suggests
five research themes have been generated from the two paradigms that
are specifically concerned with culture. The first two correspond
with a functional perspective while the remaining three reflect an
interpretive philosophy.
Cross-cultural, or the comparative management approach,
corresponds with functionalism in traditional anthropology and
classical management theory. Culture is viewed as an instrument that
serves human needs. Similarly, organizations are viewed as
28
instruments to accomplish tasks. Culture is thus part of the
environment and an imprinting force on its members. Causality is
critical to these studies with culture representing the independent
variable. Examples of this line of research include Theory 2 (Ouchi,
1981) and Pascale and Athos' (1981) Art of Japanese Management.
Hofstede (1980) may best
Table 1
CULTURE RESEARCH THEMES
Paradigm Functionalist Interpretive
Social phenomenon: objective
materialistic,
behavior
external to individual
subj ective
words, symbols,
internal to individual
Norms, values,
and beliefs:
tangible factual
data
created through
symbolic processes
Reality: social reality exists
can be found "out there"
prior human action not
required
socially constructed
reality
dependent on social
interaction
Structure: container approach
organizations fixed
structures; independent
of process
relationally created
structure & process
interdependent; based
on human action
Environment: determinism individual volunteerism
product of environment individual creates
environment
Organization:
perspective
unitary perspective pluralistic
common goals& purposes
exist
(continued
diverse goals and
purposes exist
on next page)
29
(Table 1 continued)
Communication: vehicle of
transmission
linear messages,
within formal channels
meaning centered
language is key as it
creates meaning
Research: Positivistic
predictive, controlled,
homothetic, often
managerially skewed
Relativism
situational,
ideographic,
participant/observor
depict the cross-cultural concept. He asserts that many of the
differences in employee motivation, management style, and
organizational structure can be traced to differences in the
collective mental programming of people in different national
cultures.
The second research theme Smircich labels is corporate culture.
Organizations are recognized as culture-producing phenomena. Culture
is a function of organizations that regulates behavior. Causality is t
again important and is linked to commitment (Siehl and Martin, 1981)
and financial success (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Deal and Kennedy,
1982). Culture is usually defined as the "social glue that holds an
organization together" (Siehl and Martin, 1981) and cultural
artifacts are examined as symbolic indicators of the values and
beliefs that control organizations. Cummings (1984) links the
culture variable to traditional organizational variables including
compensation, promotion, and decision making.
30 !
Overall, the emerging research agenda from both the comparative
and corporate culture view seeks to point out ways to mold and shape
a successful culture and is indicative of a managerial bias.
The remaining research themes view culture as a root metaphor--
as something an organization has--and are therefore more consistent
with the concept of culture developed throughout this literature
review. In this light, organizations exist as a pattern of symbolic
activity and meaning is created and sustained through the continuing
processes of communication. Social action is possible because of
consensual meaning. Although the three themes (cognitive, symbolic,
and structural) are differentiated by the specific nature of culture,
they all attempt to uncover the structure of meaning.
The cognitive view of culture is based predominantly on
Goodenough's (1971) ethnoscience. Culture is understood to be
generated in the human mind by a finite number of rules. Culture is
shared cognitions and the researcher attempts to discern ways in
which organizational members perceive themselves as a collectivity.
Harris and Cronen (1979) offer a landmark study that proposes a
"master-contract" which develops out of on-going interactions that
provide a context for subsequent interaction. Dyer (1982) posits an
image of culture that consists of three elements: assumptions, or
taken-for-granted; values or rules of conduct; and perspectives or
norms. Dyer's basic premise is that culture is a set of usually
implicit understandings shared by a group. Finally, Schall (1983)
studied the communication rules that govern the emergence of a
31
culture. Her diagnostic approach suggests uncovering taken-for-
granted rules that can help organizations to recruit, hire, and train
new employees; devise and implement strategy; and adapt to change.
Symbolic anthropology, as articulated by Geertz (1973), is the
basis of the fourth research theme. Culture, from a symbolic
perspective, is seen as a system of shared meanings and symbols.
Research focuses on the way experience becomes meaningful for those
in the organization. Recurring themes often become the "unit of
analysis" as they represent common interpretations and accompanying
behavior. Themes are expressed in a variety of ways with language at
the core as it facilitates shared meanings and shared realities.
Thus organizations are characterized by varying degrees of values,
norms, roles, and expectations which constitute and maintain
organizational structures. Further, the symbolic perspective
recognizes meaning structures as the organizational members'
cumulative interpretation and sense making out of on-going actions
and interactions (Allaire and Firsirotu, 1984). Therefore, as Brown
(1978) states,
... organizational realities are not external to human
consciousness, out there waiting to be recorded. Instead, the
world as humans know it is constituted intersubjectively. The
facts of this world are things made. They are neither
subjective nor objective in the usual sense. Instead, they are
constructed through a process of symbolic interaction.
The fifth and final research theme finds its foundation in the
structural anthropology of Levi-Strauss and remains to be developed
further in the original literature. In this perspective culture is a
i
<
32
projection of the minds' universal unconscious infrastructure.
Correspondingly, organizational forms and practices are viewed as
manifestations of unconscious processes. Organizational researchers
working from this perspective have, as a goal, to penetrate the
surface level of appearance to uncover the workings of the
unconscious mind often hidden behind cosmetic nicities.
Each of the five themes articulated by Smircich offer viable
avenues of inquiry for organizational culture research. Nonetheless,
what is hopefully evident by now is this researcher's notion that
culture is something an organization has put this study under the
interpretive rubric. Further, with story content and meaning as a
basis, a symbolic perspective naturally follows. Therefore, as
Sypher, Applegate, and Sypher (1985) note, organizational culture is
not reduced to an entity defined by organization type, size,
productivity, or satisfaction, but is defined in patterns of shared
interaction. With the notion that culture is communication they
state,
A functional analysis of cultural artifacts such as stories
typically focuses on the types of stories told and how they
affect the organization's performance. An interpretive
orientation would lead one to describe the content and
meaning of stories and the ways in which stories help
members to construct a sense of order in their
organizational lives.
It is this point precisely which becomes the focal point of this
study--how do organizational members, particularly new members come
to understand the specific symbols which make a culture unique. In
33
short, the concern is to begin to recognize the role of symbols in
the acculturation process.
The Acculturation Process
It should come as no surprise that no definitive understanding
of acculturation exists. As with the term culture, acculturation is
a complex concept that is not easily defined. Nearly fifty years ago
Herskovits (1938) noted with concern that scholars of cultural change
who employ the term acculturation seldom seek to define it or assess
its implications before they use it. Even a cursory review of
current literature uncovers the same problem as researchers attempt
to explain acculturation or use acculturation as a variable without
explicating any of acculturation's characteristics (Kin, 1980;
Mendonhall and Oddou, 1985). Therefore, the following discussion
reviews past and current streams of thought surrounding the
acculturation process.
Lesser (1933) offered a broad definition stating, "Acculturation
is a useful term for the processes by which aspects of elements of
two cultures mingle and merge" (p. 179). Recognizing the broad
nature of this definition, Lesser added:
Acculturation may be taken to refer to the ways in which some
cultural aspect is taken into a culture and adjusted and fitted
to it. This implies some relative cultural equality between the
giving and receiving cultures. Assimilation is the process of
transforming aspects of a conquered or engulfed culture into a
status of relative adjustment to the form of the ruling culture.
The problem of acculturation is a problem of assimilation.
34
The 1936 Social Science Research Council, concerned with
Lesser's focus on assimilation, included other phases of
acculturation as well.
Acculturation comprehends those phenomenon which result when
groups of individuals having different cultures come into
continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the
original cultural patterns of either or both groups... Under
this definition acculturation is to be distinguishable from
cultural change, of which is but one aspect, and assimilation,
which is at times a phase of acculturation. It is also
differentiated from diffusion which while occurring in all
instances of acculturation, is not only a phenomena which
frequently takes place without the occurrence of all types of
contact between peoples specified in the definition above, but
also constitutes only one aspect of the process of
acculturation.
Twenty years later the 1956 Council reformulated the definition
to include the other aspects of the process.
Acculturation is culture change that is initiated by the
conjunction of two or more autonomous cultural systems.
Acculturative change may be the consequence of direct cultural
transmission; it may be derived from non-cultural causes, such
as ecological or demographic modifications inducted by an
impinging culture; it may be delayed, as with internal
adjustments following upon the acceptance of alien traits or
patterns; or it may be a reactive adaptation of traditional
modes of life. Its dynamics can be seen as the selective
adaptation of values systems, the processes of integration and
differentiation, the generation of developmental sequences, and
the operation of role determinants and personality factors.
From these definitions Berry (1980) draws a number of constructs
on which current definitions of acculturation are based. They
include the nature, level, course, and measurement of acculturation.
The nature of acculturation refers to the change aspects.
Acculturation requires that at least two autonomous cultures meet and
further, that change occur in at least one of the groups. Change
occurs in an attempt to accommodate, therefore acculturation is a
form of accommodation, with assimilation as but one of the possible
outcomes.
The course of acculturation constitutes the stages of a process.
The three stages of acculturation are contact, conflict, and
adaptation. Contact, either physical or symbolic must occur.
Conflict is likely to occur, but it does not always end with
acculturation. Finally, adaptation refers to the ways in which
conflict (or change) is reduced or stabilized. There are two
positive varieties of acculturation and two negative varieties.
Assimilation and integration are positive outcomes of
acculturation and depict cultural groups that move toward one another
during the adaptation stage. The major difference between these two
forms of adaptation is that assimilators give up their initial
cultural identity whereas integrators incorporate their existing
cultural identities with that of the new culture. Therefore, of the
two, integration is the better possible outcome as it is more likely
to create a richer blend of cultural values, bringing new dimensions
and diversity.
Rejection and deculturation represent negative outcomes of the
acculturation process. Rejection is moving away from instead of
moving toward a new culture. Cultural identity is retained by
withdrawing from the larger society. Classic examples of rejection
during acculturation result in segregated societies. Deculturation
36
is the worst scenario, as it results in confusion and anxiety in all
cultures involved and is likely to result in ethnocide (Berry, 1980).
Acculturation also takes place on both group and individual
levels. Language, personality, cognitive ability, and identity are
seen as contributing factors to a two-tiered process of
acculturation. Measurement, the fourth construct, is concerned with
the degree to which members acculturate, and the unit of analysis is
a variable determined by the nature of individual studies.
What can be concluded from this discussion of acculturation is
that both positive and negative outcomes are possible, and that the
outcome is largely dependent on the adaptation phase. Preferably, a
positive outcome, be it assimilation or integration is established.
Ideally, integration occurs as it allows for both diversity and
individualism. Integration is most likely to occur in plural
societies (with many cultural groups present) or multicultural
societies where diversity is valued (Berry, Kalin, and Taylor, 1977).
Thus integration becomes an attractive notion for the study of
organizational culture as it has been compellingly argued that
organizations consist of a number of subcultures which establishes
them as plural or multicultural arenas. Nonetheless, the question of
how acculturation is accomplished remains.
Padilla (1980) suggests acculturation occurs as a complex
interactional process involving members from both the cultural group
undergoing change and the host culture. Further, acculturation
37
involves a cultural awareness, likened to knowledge of cultural
artifacts, which includes understanding the language and values of
the host culture. In addition, ethnic loyalty plays an important
role and is represented by the newcomer's prior cultural
orientations. Therefore, if in fact organizations can be likened to
mini societies, acculturation in organizations should include
interaction between the newcomer and the organization, cultural
awareness, and an organizational disposition that recognizes existing
cultural (i.e., professional) orientations.
Stewart (1985) addresses the issue of employees' professional
orientations and the possible effects they have on an organization's
culture. Concerned primarily with conflict and the decision making
process, Stewart applies the concept of subjective culture (Triandis,
1972) to bureaucratic and professional disputes. Subjective culture,
simply stated, refers to a cultural group's characteristic way of
perceiving its social environment. Subjective cultures reflect the
way people prioritize goals, react in a variety of situations, and
make connections between their behavior and different outcomes.
Further, subjective cultures are an individual's perceptions of
norms, rules, and values and finally, subjective cultures can exist
in organizations with organizational members privy to more than one
subjective culture. This concept has similar implications to the
notion of numerous subcultures existing in organizations but adds the
important dimension of pre-existing individual cultural orientations,
which may include occupational or professional orientation.
38
Returning again to how acculturation occurs, but with a specific
focus on the new employee in an organization, the key may be in the
adaptation phase. Cultural adaptation, from an organizational
perspective, is the newcomer's opportunity and ability to manage
multiple subjective cultures and is dependent on both the
organization's and the newcomer's willingness to provide and seek out
cultural knowledge. A positive outcome, either assimilation or
integration, is the responsibility of both groups and should be
reflected in the acceptance level of one another. Although this
acceptance level, or outcome, can be interpreted any number of ways,
understanding the newcomers professional and organizational goals
offers one avenue. Therefore, the remainder of this review provides
an understanding of the notion of professionalism and how it plays a
role in new employee acculturation, or what organizational theorists
more commonly refer to as socialization. Finally, the organizational
socialization literature will be reviewed.
Professionalism vs. Occupational Communities
Thus far occupation and profession have been referred to with a
synonymous implication. They are not however exactly the same.
Webster's New World Dictionary defines occupation as, "that which
occupies one's time; work" (p. 415), and profession as, "an
occupation requiring advanced academic training" (p. 477). Although
the distinction seems slight it is important nonetheless.
Occupational choice may be determined by the element of
professionalism and is therefore an important factor in subjective
39
culture. Thus while professionals may belong to a larger
occupational community (Van Maanen and Barley, 1984), they often view
themselves as having more highly developed ideals than non
professionals (Cullen, 1978). A singular definition of
professionalism does not exist as the term is interdependent with the
profession itself. Blumer (1954) suggests that at best, the idea of
professionalism is a "sensitizing concept" which connotes differences
in occupational status.
Cullen's (1978) research is to date the most extensive
quantitative examination of professionalism. He offers a traits
perspective of professionalism and recognizes several dimensions.
Based on an exhaustive review he found common determinants of
professionalism to include affiliation with a complex occupation,
long training or academic preparation, and a strong ethical code.
I
What these dimensions suggest, in essence, is a stratification, or a |
class-orientation to occupations that give professionals greater j
i
status. j
Much of the professionalism literature is based on Durkheim's j
(1933) concern for social integration and the ability of occupational j
I
groups to reestablish a disintegrating system. He argues: j
What we specifically see in occupational groups is a moral power j
capable of containing individual egos, of maintaining a spirited .
sentiment of common solidarity in the consciousness of all !
workers. j
Researchers concerned with professionalism argue however, that j
i
professions constitute the occupations best reflected in Durkheim's 1
view, and therefore professionalism offers values to be respected and
emulated.
Van Maanen and Barley (1984) disagree. Professionalization,
they argue, is a process serving goals similar to those of
unionization. The traditional, and what Turner and Hodge (1970) have
called "the formal organization" approach to the study of
professions, holds that professions are somehow quite different from
other occupations. Typically, advocates of this approach propose a
set of attributes or traits which define the differences... At best,
trait theories suggest not what the profession is, but what it
pretends to be.
Professions then can be viewed as a continuum of occupational
differentiation with wide status discrepancies. The medical
profession provides a clear example. Interns belong to the medical
profession. They are affiliated with a complex occupation, have
undergone extensive academic training, and espouse a common ethical
code--the Hippocratic Oath. Therefore under the guise of
professionalism or professional affiliation interns should be equated
with other medical professionals. Nonetheless, it is highly unlikely
that an intern would be given the same status as a neurosurgeon.
Thus Van Maanen and Barley (1984) recognize three important
factors regarding professionalism.
First, a profession is not an occupational community, per se,
although some of its subdivisional units or specialties may be.
Second, and far more important, the professions are not to be
considered as a class apart from other occupations. The notion
of a profession is one of these seemingly natural concepts
41
fraught with unexamined ideological baggage that has penetrated
much organizational and occupational research. Too often
researchers simply accept a profession's own definition and
image of itself without examining what uses are to be found
behind such definitions and images. Third, and finally, the
process of professionalization must be understood as but one
path by which occupational communities may gain self-control.
There are no fundamental distinctions to be found between a
profession and an occupation which are not inherent in the work
itself.
Members of occupational communities share values, vocabularies
and identities equating them to work cultures. Thus, one of the
subjective cultures newcomers bring to an organization is their sense
of occupational community.
This brings us full circle and back to the acculturation
process. As defined, acculturation requires that two cultures meet,
in this instance, occupational community and organizational cultures.
Second, conflict on some level is likely to occur whether it is
internal or external. And third, some variety of adaptation must
result which will ultimately be based on the interaction between the
individual and the organization. This interactive process is
organizational socialization and will constitute the final section of
this review.
Socialization
As noted earlier, many similarities can be found between the
acculturation and socialization processes. Cheney (1986) asserts the
difference may be one of terminology and states, "We may observe a
constellation of terms all aimed at accounting for the developing
individual-organizational relationship ... socialization,
42
acculturation, learning (the ropes), education, training, and
initiation." Yet, he further recognizes that terms "suggest
orientations" and "condense assumptions." Therefore, knowing |
!
organizational culture has both anthropological and sociological j
i
roots, it is not surprising to find terms from both fields of inquiry j
I
being used to explain organizational phenomena. Acculturation, the
anthropological term, has been explicated previously. Socialization
describes much the same process but has a different orientation.
Feldman (1976), for example, defines organizational socialization
globally as, "The process by which employees are transformed from
organization outsiders to participating and effective members." In
an attempt to formulate a theory of organizational learning, Van j
I
Maanen and Schein (1979) articulate:
i
Organizational socialization refers to the process by which one
is taught and learns "the ropes" of a particular organizational
role. In its most general sense, organizational socialization
is the process by which an individual acquires the social
knowledge and skills necessary to assume the organizational
role.
From these definitions emerge one basic difference between
acculturation and socialization--no mention of understanding an
]
organization's culture is mentioned. Louis (1980) recognizing this
shortcoming, and concerned with how newcomers "make-sense" out of
their early organizational experiences defines organizational
socialization as,
The process by which an individual comes to appreciate the
values, abilities, expected behaviors, and social knowledge
essential for assuming an organizational role and for
participating as an organizational member.
43
Although not explicitly stated, these definitions contain the
same constructs as acculturation: nature, level, course, and
measurement. A large body of literature provides support for this
position.
The nature of socialization is rooted in the learning process.
Newcomers must learn the norms and assumptions that govern an
organization's behavior as well as the necessary task related
information for job performance. Thus during the socialization
process, new members internalize both role-related and cultural
information about a variety of organizational influences. Brown
(1985) differentiates the two. Role-related information is concerned
with the "how-to-do-it" aspects of the job, and related cultural
information reflects the organization's personality. Therefore, as
i
in the acculturation process, socialization requires some change to |
occur as the newcomer and the organization attempt to make sense of j
i
one another.
The course of socialization is depicted in stage models of
socialization and has received wide attention. Wanous (1980) points
to three crucial characteristics of stage models. First, is the
component which represents the passage of time or the occurrence of
certain events. Second, a stage model should indicate how the stages
are interrelated, and the third, concern centers around what j
necessitates movement from stage to stage. j
As with most conceptualizations of acculturation, socialization j
I
is generally viewed in terms of these three stages and is based more
i
44 I
on the occurrence of particular events than on the passage of time.
Feldman (1976) labels the three stages anticipatory socialization,
accommodation, and role management. During the anticipatory, or
getting-in stage, individuals and organizational goals are assessed
to determine how well they match. Accommodation is likened to a
breaking-in period and is concerned with initiation and evaluation.
Settling-in, the third stage, is based on the newcomers' ability to
resolve conflict resulting in personal and work related situations.
This stage model has a primary focus on the individual assuming that
socializing is primarily the responsibility of the individual and
evaluating or judging the responsibility of the organization.
Porter, Lawler, and Hackman (1975) present a three stage model
which more closely resembles the three phases of acculturation:
prearrival, encounter, and change and acquisition. Prearrival is
concerned with existing values the newcomer brings to the
organization at the time of contact. Encounter, which begins at the
point of entry is characterized by conflicts the newcomer encounters
and the organization's response of reinforcement, nonreinforcement,
or punishment. Change and acquisition refers to the newcomers
adjustment to the new environment. Yet, in this model there is an
underlying assumption that the organization will ultimately control
the socialization process and has the power or responsibility to
create change.
Schein (1978), concerned with career development, presents a
three stage model of socialization which views socialization from
45
both a newcomer and and organizational perspective. Entry,
socialization, and mutual acceptance constitute the three stages and
are based on expectations, trust, loyalty, and commitment. Of
particular interest is Schein's notion of outsider/insider wherein
organizations and individuals send signals to one another conveying
mutual acceptance and denoting the individuals' passage from outsider
to insider.
Wanous (1980) combines the models discussed into an integrated
model of socialization with four stages. The first three stages
refer to the actual socialization process and the fourth exemplifies
the transition from newcomer to insider. The socialization stages
include confronting and accepting organizational reality, achieving
role clarity, and locating oneself in the organizational context.
The transition stage is characterized as detecting signposts of
successful socialization.
Herein lies an important distinction between the socialization
and acculturation concepts. Almost inherent in the term
socialization is the assumption of success. In other words,
individuals who remain in the organization become socialized; seldom
is mention made of those who do not. On the other hand,
acculturation recognizes at least four possible outcomes during the
adaptation phase, not all of which are positive. Further,
acculturation accounts for the effects adaptation has on both the
individual and the group, a notion too often ignored by socialization
models.
46
This raises the issue of "level," which refers to the individual
and group in acculturation, and is represented by the newcomer and
the organization in socialization. Not to be confused with
I
collective vs. individual socialization (Van Maanen and Barley,
1979), this issue deals with the interactive processes which occur
during socialization which involve the individual and the existing
group. What has been emphasized to date is the process--the
transmission of information from the organization to the newcomer.
Yet, the content of the messages has yet to be fully studied.
Further, how newcomers interpret messages in accordance with their
perception of the organization is another viable area for study.
Clearly, what past research has provided is a functional measure
I
of socialization. The focus of such studies has been on how a !
I
j
newcomer's experiences of organizational reality result in specific j
outcomes (Jones, 1986). Outcomes or functions of socialization J
I
include personal satisfaction (Feldman, 1976); organizational
commitment (Buchanan, 1974; Martin, 1982); relaying rules and norms
(Brown, 1984; Van Maanen, 1974); sense making (Louis, 1980); and
calming anxiety (Kreps, 1983).
Granted, not all of these studies used strictly functional
research methods. In fact, Kreps (1983) utilized only interpretive
methods yet still found socialization as a process which functions to
create social order. Further, he assumes that a social order
(unitary culture) does exist which needs to be exposed to newcomers
in order to make them organizational newcomers.
47
This is certainly not to say that past and current socialization
research is not worthwhile or useful. However, as Eisenberg (1986)
points out, organizational members play more than one role at a time,
I
belong to more than one group, and therefore must manage multiple
memberships. He contends, then, that successful socialization should
I
be viewed as the opportunity to manage multiple memberships --a |
|
concept similar to acculturation's integration--which allows
individuals to retain other cultural identities while still leaning |
I
toward the dominant society they are joining. Yet, integration is
but one variety of the adaptation phase of acculturation and not
always possible or probable. What is important, however, is that
socialization models need to begin to account for the various forms
socialization may take and the myriad of "outcomes."
Summary
The study of organizational culture provides a rich and broad
understanding of organizational theory. The culture metaphor opens i
windows which offer insight to the phenomenon of organizing and j
challenges researchers to find new ways of explaining organizational j
life. Interpretivism, with symbolic activity and language at the j
core, provides new methods for understanding organizations. j
Stories, one common form of symbolic activity found in all
organizations, have been studied from a variety of perspectives and
have been touted as serving numerous purposes. Story acquisition and
interpretation is one way newcomers learn about an organization as
stories reflect an organization’s culture. However, what researchers
48
have failed to do is distinguish between socialization of newcomers
and acculturation. Most studies concerned with newcomers entering an
organization view the process which occurs after entry and predict
outcomes such as commitment and satisfaction. These studies often
overlook the anticipatory stage that all models of acculturation
depict. Therefore, previous dispositions and cultural preferences
are not accounted for. Further, the majority of these studies
represent a functional perspective--how does the story get
interpreted?
An interpretive perspective would seek to discover what the
story means to the individual and to the organization. The
acculturation process more closely resembles what actually occurs in
organizations as it allows for levels of organizational awareness and
acceptance. Further, acculturation recognizes that not all members
place the same value on membership whereas socialization presumes
conformity. Acculturation is sensitive to an individual's right to
retain a previous cultural identity(ies) while socialization stresses
a unitary culture.
Therefore, if in fact interpretive cultural research is to be
true to its domain and focus on symbolic interaction, inquiry
concerned with the transition of newcomers into an organization
i
should focus on acculturation. The remaining chapters provide such a |
I
project. |
I
I
i
i
!
49
t
_____________________-_ . _____I
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY FOR STUDYING ORGANIZATIONAL STORIES
AND THE ACCULTURATION PROCESS
An interpretive approach to cultural research embodies a
semiotic style (Sanday, 1983) and, as Geertz (1973) states, "The
whole point of a semiotic approach to culture is to aid us in gaining
access to the conceptual world in which our subjects live so that we
can, in some extended sense of the term, converse with them."
Derived from his concept of man as, "an animal suspended in webs of
significance he himself has spun,” and his view of culture study as,
"not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one
in search of meaning ... requiring thick description," Geertz
provides a methodological framework for this study consistent with an
ethnographic tradition.
Geertz1, The Interpretation of Culture (1983), describes
ethnography: "It is interpretive; what it is interpretive of is the
flow of social discourse." Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo (1982)
agree with this perspective and suggest that culture study is best
suited to case study as they assert, "If these two components of
culture are to be studied--culture as structure and culture as human
process--then the methodological implication is that researchers must
50
not be content simply with accounts, but must also be present during
occasions of naturally occurring discourse" (p. 123). Or, as
Van Maanen (1983) suggests the ethnographic approach is that of
anthropology, and to a more limited extent sociology, under the stiff
but precise tag, participant observor. Thus selecting an
ethnographic approach to research allows an observer to identify
symbolic activity which occurs in repeated ways or patterns that
represent meaning to organizational members.
Knapp (1979) clarifies these terms and delineates the basic
elements of ethnographic research.
Ethnographic research refers to the descriptive fieldwork
activity of cultural anthropologists and many qualitative
sociologists. The basic elements of ethnographic research
include: a) an initially exploratory and open-ended approach to
the research problem; b) intensive involvement of the researcher
in the social setting being studied; c) the use of multiple
intensive research techniques, with emphasis on participant
observation and key informant interviewing; d) an explicit
attempt to understand terms of meanings held by those in the
social setting; e) an interpretive framework which emphasized
the role of context in determining behavior; and f) a research
product which interprets events in vivid detail and gives
readers a sense of what it feels to be there.
Conklin (1968) also describes the procedure as involving:
A long period of intimate study and residence in a well-defined
community employing a wide range of observational techniques
including prolonged face-to-face contact with members of local
groups, direct participation in some of the group's activities,
and a greater emphasis on intensive work with informants than on
the use of documentary or survey data.
Thus ethnographic research relies heavily on qualitative data
such as interviews and direct observation over time and therefore
becomes the main source of information used to interpret the
51
organization's culture. However, it was not the sole purpose of this
project to simply interpret an organization's culture by identifying
organizational stories. This project was also designed to determine
how the acquisition of such stories played a role in the
acculturation process of new employees. Therefore other means of
data collection were necessitated that went beyond strict
ethnographic parameters. This is not to say that more traditional
quantitative measures are prohibited in ethnographic research, for
both Conklin (1968) and Knapp (1979) recognized their contribution
yet suggest they should not be over emphasized.
However, as Jick (1979) suggests, utilizing both quantitative
and qualitative measures offers an opportunity for cross-validation,
or in this case validation for the organizational story in the
acculturation process. Therefore, because quantitative survey
measures such as self report and questionnaires are representative of
traditional, on-going organizational research (Farrles, 1982) and
have the advantages of efficiency and comprehensiveness (Albrecht and
Ropp, 1982), they too were employed in the current study.
Therefore, this study can be classified as ethnographic as it is
consistent with Van Maanen's (1983) perspective that an ethnographic
study is to uncover and explain the way organizational participants
"understand, account for, take action, and manage day-to-day
meanings." However, this study focuses particularly on how the new
organizational participant acquires and interprets cultural meanings.
52
Research Limitations
To understand fully an organization's culture, it must be lived.
I
As has been expressed, culture is not something an organization has,
but something an organization is. Therefore, ideally, research
should be conducted on an day-in, day-out basis, as if one were a
member of a given organization. However, this approach is seldom |
[
possible or practical. One limitation of this study is indeed the
sporadic observation of an organization and limited access to all the
organization's members.
To appreciate fully how an organization's members are
I
socialized, organizational life should be fully experienced opposed
to simply observed. Yet, this study was not afforded that
i
opportunity. Therefore, a reporting of observations will take the j
place of actual experience. I
Additionally, observors are outsiders and are often treated as
i
such--with caution and distance. Therefore, accurate, pure
descriptions of an organization may not be fully attainable, thus,
they create a final research limitation.
Description of the Organization
This study was conducted in a Los Angeles branch of a "Big 8"
accounting firm and will be further referred to as Company A.
The majority of the employees are professional staff, or
accountants, divided into six categories. Staff B, Staff A, Senior,
Supervisor, Manager, and Partner. One partner serves as managing
partner. Interestingly, just prior to this study's beginning, the
53
managing partner died. His replacement arrived early in the course
of the study. This is noted as a number of culture studies (Schein,
i
1984; Siehl and Martin, 1984; Wilkins, 1978) suggest the role of the j
leader as an important cultural component. Therefore, although this
incident did not become a focal point in the project, or play a role
in the selection of the organization, the researcher anticipated
learning stories surrounding the sudden change in leadership.
An accounting firm was sought for the study for four specific
reasons.
1. Accounting firms actively recruit and hire large groups of
entry-level accountants annually.
This is an important factor for two reasons.
a. The majority of newcomers have interviewed with a
variety of the "Big 8" firms and many have received
more than one job offer.
b. The size of the incoming recruits provides a desirable
number for a subject population.
2. New accountants enter firms with a predisposition about
accounting that suggests a high level of occupational
community (Dean, Ferris, and Konstans, 1985; McTague, 1983:
Sommer and Loeb, 1983).
3. Public accounting firms traditionally experience high
annual turnover (Doll, 1983).
4. Newcomers have a variety of assignments, often outside the
organization, and encounter a large number of co-workers as
well as other organization's members.
All of these points are mentioned as each could quite clearly be
a factor in a newcomers ability, willingness, and opportunity to
acculturate.
54
The procedures used to secure entry into the organization are as
follows.
1. Gathered names of managing partners and personnel directors
of each of the "Big 8" firms in Los Angeles.
2. Sent a letter of introduction to each that generally
explained the study.
3. Contacted each by telephone one week later to determine
level of interest.
4. Narrowed field to three based on conversations.
5. Discussed a more detailed version of the study and assessed
level of cooperation and support.
6. Made final selection.
Important details which were discussed during the fifth step
focused on the need to conduct the study over a ten-month period.
Access to newcomers as well as established members over an extended
period was a critical factor in organization selection as one
weakness of current socialization literature is lack of longitudinal
data (Brown, 1984; Louis, 1980; McLaughlin, Smith, and Altendorf,
1985).
Another important factor in the decision was the willingness of
the organization to allow access to all levels of employees. This in
essence allowed for two distinct, although simultaneous, data
gathering processes to occur. A description of each follows.
Learning Organizational Stories
The purpose of having access to established members throughout
the organization was based on ethnographic premises of observation
and interviews. In short it was the means employed to learn
55
organizational stories. Speaking with and observing members at all
levels was necessary in order to gain the same perspective newcomers
would as they do interact with members from all levels of the
organization.
Initial contact was made with members selected by the personnel
department. The twenty five employees were selected primarily on
their level of availability and were representative of the
organization. Each individual received a letter from the researcher
explaining the nature of the study and their role. In addition, the
personnel department circulated a memo to them encouraging their
cooperation and participation. One-on-one interviews were arranged
by phone.
Although observation and spontaneous conversations with
organizational members not specifically selected for the study
occurred, informal interviews were the main source of data
generation. Interviews were chosen as they are a viable form of
investigative social research when conducted as in-depth
conversational discussions in which a list of flexible questions are
woven into the interaction (Douglas, 1976). Further, this form of
data gathering allows the researcher to play the role of the learner
(Smircich, 1983), giving the informant the feeling of control and
therefore being placed in a less threatening position. To accomplish
some sense of consistency and privacy all interviews were conducted
by the researcher. Finally, the interviews were conducted over a
period of time (approximately six months) in order to capture the on
56
going nature of culture. In other words, it was the intention to
gather both old and new organizational stories. The stories were
then used to create a final measure of acculturation to be discussed
later.
Observing the Acculturation Process
As noted, the purpose of this project was to follow the
acculturation process of twenty seven newly hired accountants over a
ten-month period. And, although some observations were made possible
(i.e., the researcher's attendance at "B-School," a two-week training
session), most of the data were generated through surveys and self-
report questionnaires. Overall, the researcher had contact either in
person or via mail on at least five separate occasions with each of
the subjects. Each occasion corresponded to a particular event (or
passage of time) representing stages of socialization earlier
discussed. Yet, in light of the shortcomings of the socialization
I
process, phases depicted here are used to now suggest a stage model j
I
of organizational acculturation. |
i
Survey Research j
Survey research has become one of the most widely used social |
|
science research methods (Babbie, 1973) and can serve a variety of j
I
purposes including description, explanation, or exploration. )
I
Further, survey research is traditionally quantitative and may seem
out of place in an interpretive study. Yet, as was previously
t
discussed, cross-validation is one good reason to use more than one
method. Nonetheless, the surveys used in this research were not <
I
57 |
traditional surveys. They consisted primarily of open-ended
questions that were designed to replicate an informal interview and
therefore are true to an interpretive study. Self report and
interpretations were sought, even though they are viewed as more
difficult to code or analyze (Payne, 1951). Coding and analyzing
specific data is not the goal, instead looking for themes and trends
which can begin to help build a model of organizational acculturation
become the ultimate goal.
Longitudinal Data
Longitudinal studies permit the collection of data over time
giving the researcher the ability to depict change or describe and
explain events (Babbie, 1973). This research most closely resembles
a panel study which follows the same group of individuals over time.
Although one of the more sophisticated survey methods, threats
including mortality and attrition need to be considered. Thus,
although the ideal would be to receive each of the surveys back from
each participant, it is seldom possible. Therefore, each survey was
designed to uncover specific information about a particular stage.
Failure to respond to one survey did not invalidate later
participation.
Stage One: Anticipatory Acculturation
Anticipatory acculturation is characterized by the preexisting
values and beliefs a newcomer brings to an organization as well as j
their expectations surrounding the new venture. Events that mark the j
anticipatory stage include educational preparation; job search,
58
I
selection, and recruitment; and often some form of relocation.
Change is eminent creating heightened states of anxiety and
apprehension as well as excitement and accomplishment.
Initial contact with the twenty seven new recruits was made
during this stage. Their employment was to begin in early September,
so one month prior--August--they received a letter of introduction
and study explanation which was accompanied by their first survey
(see Appendix A). Ten open-ended questions were designed to uncover
their expectations about their firm, their position, and their
profession. Questions were posed to also find out who or what
provided them with their information.
Stage Two: Orientation
Although labeled a stage, orientation is more of a transition
between anticipation and entry than an actual stage. In most
organizations, some form of orientation program exists that almost
I
acts as a buffer to reduce the "reality shock" that often accompanies i
change. Orientation usually occurs the first time the newcomer
enters the organization as an employee. Prior to this time they have
been an
outsider, therefore orientations are a form of welcoming newcomers
inside while at the same time indicating what that role entails.
Newcomers to this organization experience two phases of
orientation: a two-day welcome and a two-week training course. The
researcher attended both days of the initial orientation and the
first and last days of the training course as an observer. I was j
59:
introduced and had the opportunity to briefly discuss the project
with the entire group. In addition, I availed myself of one-on-one
informal interviews and small group conversations during breaks and
lunch.
Stage Three: Encounter
Once the protective closeness of an orientation program ends,
newcomers find themselves thrust into the larger body of the
organization. This is the encounter phase which is characterized by
confusion and conflict. During this phase newcomers are trying to
make sense of their surroundings. They have expected work to be one
way (the anticipatory stage), have been told it is another, (the
orientation stage), and now they must interpret organizational
reality for themselves. Both role and task adjustments mark this
period of sense-making.
Communication plays a major role in this stage. Accessibility
to accurate information and feedback on performance assist newcomers
in making decisions. The second survey was designed to account for
this period of adjustment and asked for both specific and open-ended
information (see Appendix B). Specific questions about communication
networks and flow of information were asked to determine if newcomers
perceived information to be accessible and accurate. Open-ended
questions took the place of an interview setting and were structured
to find out positive and negative aspects about the job and the
company. Additionally, the questionnaire sought to find out the
kinds of advice/information others gave to the newcomers.
60
Stage Four: Adaptation
Adaptation is a newcomer's ability or willingness to manage past
and present cultures. The four outcomes as discussed earlier suggest
both positive and negative reactions to acculturation. These terms,
however, are seldom used in organizations. Instead individuals are
given labels, such as team builders, rebel, isolate, company man, to
indicate the organizations perception of their adaptation. Further,
organizational stories often depict these levels of adaptation
offering examples and consequences. |
t
The final phase of this research was designed to discover J
i
I
stories organizational newcomers had heard and their individual
interpretations of the stories. It was also important at this phase
to learn some of the cultural predispositions (occupational
community) that could be playing a role in the acculturation process.
Therefore, two separate surveys were administered.
All of the newcomers were invited to a "reunion" at which time
the final surveys were administered. This was done for expediency,
control, and was intended to create a "safe" place for individuals to
i
honestly respond. Further, it gave the researcher an opportunity to
gather final "interview" data as well as debrief and thank the
participants.
The first survey (see Appendix C) was a compilation of
organizational stories and jargon generated during the on-site
interviews previously discussed. The respondents were asked if they
were familiar with the story (or term), who told the the story, the
61
_____________________________________________________________________________ i
circumstances prompting the telling, and their interpretation. If
they had not heard the story, they were still asked to offer an
interpretation. The final section of the questionnaire invited
participants to share stories and jargon not listed.
The second survey was designed to differentiate between
organizational and occupational allegiances (see Appendix D).
Various types of questioning was utilized in order to obtain a range
of information. In addition to the newcomer responses, the final
survey was administered to seventy accounting majors at a Southern
California university in order to determine possible foundations of
occupational community prior to employment.
Interpretation and Analysis of Data
The interview data, as mentioned, were used to learn
organizational stories. Although many versions of each story
emerged, the researcher took the most consistent for the surveys.
The differences will be analyzed in the qualitative analysis section.
The remaining three surveys were analyzed on two levels. First,
on a corporate level, an analysis was conducted that looked for
recurring themes and trends. Second, they were analyzed on an
individual level which followed the newcomers through the ten-month
period. The results and discussion of the analysis are in
Chapter IV; Chapter V offers conclusions and implications for further
research.
62
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS OF THE STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL STORIES AND ACCULTURATION
"Writing up the results of qualitative work is as much a
discovery process as it is a summary of what has already been
discovered" (Mills, 1959). A Weikian maxim helps explain this
phenomenon. "Qualitative researchers often do not know exactly what
they have studied until they have written it up and passed it around"
(Van Maanen, 1983, p. 252).
Such is the case for this research. Writing the results of a
qualitative/interpretive study is, in essence, a process which
uncovers themes and trends as opposed to expressing statistical
variances and differences. Interpretation of the findings from the
researcher's perspective provides a first step in building a
framework for understanding organizational acculturation.
Each of the surveys administered will be discussed as
impressions and themes are sorted. Descriptions of what appears to
be occurring at a particular point in time--"the most elementary
qualitative research question" (Van Maanen, 1983)--follow.
Stage One: Anticipatory Acculturation
63
Twenty-two of the twenty-seven newcomers participated in this
initial phase of the study. Responses to questions designed to
uncover knowledge and expectations regarding their forthcoming
employment provided an array of information. Close examination of
the data reveals two dominant themes: professionalism, and people-
orientation. These themes are particularly interesting as they
express occupational and organizational perceptions and are
indications that both play an important role in the acculturation
process.
Professionalism
Professionalism was mentioned as a determining factor in company
selection by each of the respondents. Company A's commitment to
service and clientele suggested a respect for the accounting
profession consistent with the newcomers' orientation. Following are
comments that are representative of all the newcomers' attitudes
toward the professional dimension of Company A: "The most exciting
aspect of working for Company A is working in a professional
atmosphere for a respected accounting firm;" "Their management style
is a businessman's approach. I like that. It offers me the
opportunity for professional development;" and "Working with
professionals who share similar goals to mine was one of the major
reasons I chose Company A. I like to imagine myself as a respected
accounting professional."
When explored in greater detail, professionalism represented a
multitude of qualities that reflected personal occupational
64
orientations. Terms including "reputable," honest," "trustworthy,"
"honorable," "capable," "competent," "conscientious," "respected,"
"dependable," and "reliable" were all elements of professionalism.
This suggests that although a broad image of professionalism played
an essential role in company selection, these perceptions of what it
means to be professional are not completely shared. Further, each of
the recruits believed that their affiliation with Company A would
allow them to maintain and enhance their personal occupational and
professional integrity.
In addition to the previous list of attractive characteristics
of professionalism, many recruits intimated that they selected
Company A because a quality usually associated with accounting
professionals was not present--arrogance. One respondent states,
"I have found them to be far more friendly and helpful than any other
large firm. They have managed to combine a congenial attitude with
an image of professionalism. Other firms get so caught up in this
image of being professional they often appear stuffy." Another
respondent claims, "Company A gives the impression that they are a
more relaxed and informal office without losing their
professionalism," while a third adds, "Company A's public image is
informal in the sense that in conducting their business their
professionals relate to their clients in a slightly less formal way
than those in other Big Eight firms--they are human." A final
representative comment neatly summarizes the feelings of many,
"Company A employees have a confidence in themselves that allows them
65
to be professionals. They know they are respected and don't seem to
have to hide behind an arrogant facade."
Repeatedly, this notion of informality without loss of
professionalism was listed as a factor that weighed heavily in their
choice of organization. It is interesting to note, however, that
some new recruits were surprised to learn this about Company A (see
Question 5). Several participants in this study indicated they had
not expected so many accountants to be so "natural," so "normal."
One newcomer remarked, "I selected Company A because I felt the most
comfortable here. They were honest and conveyed a very natural yet
professional image. I was very surprised, but pleased, to see I
could still be me," while another adds, "They seem more down-to-
earth, more like me ... normal people."
This finding is important for two reasons. First, it strongly
suggests that even in the earliest stages of acculturation, changes
occur. Preconceived occupational notions or orientations can be
altered. The stereotype of the conservative, staid, uni-dimensional
accountant, a common occupational generalization, was replaced by an
image of a more out-going, likeable, diverse, yet competent,
individual.
What is not clear from this study, however, is whether this
occupational generalization is a misrepresentation of accountants, or
if in fact Company A has actually begun to move away from these
behaviors. From the interviews and written information collected,
the latter seems to be the case. Therefore it is prudent for
66
Company A to allow newcomers the opportunity to interact with staff
accountants during the interview process; it serves as an information
base in the self-selection process of new accountants in their choice
of firms.
This leads to the second finding. The role of company selection
appears to be a critical factor during anticipatory acculturation.
Although this seems an obvious point, it apparently is not, or so
many of the respondents would not have voiced their surprise over the
differences in firm's with which they were familiar. The differences
mentioned, which played a major role in company selections were not
task or occupationally related. The work the new hires were expected
to do would have been about the same in most organizations. Instead,
the differences that led to company selection were indeed cultural
differences, and the less personal change an individual felt he or
she would have to experience upon entering an organization, the more
attractive the organization became to the recruit. Therefore, it
appears that some knowledge of an organization's culture prior to
joining may lead to less interpersonal conflict and ultimately a
greater likelihood of a positive outcome during adaptation. Whether
intentional or not, Company A successfully utilized this tactic as
most of the newcomers expressed relief that they did not anticipate
giving up their personal identity to become a part of a packaged
company image.
People-Orientation
67
The second major theme to come out of the initial survey is
related to the professional yet informal image of Company A's
personnel. Each of the twenty-two respondents specifically stated
that Company A’s concern for employees--or people oriented management
style--was a critical factor in their selecting that firm. As was
true for the term professionalism, the phrase "people oriented" had
different meanings for different individuals. Some felt Company A
allowed them to be themselves, while others appreciated the personal
attention given to career development. Still others remarked on the
accessibility and amicability of higher level employees. A final,
often mentioned indication of Company A's concern for people which,
in the minds of the respondents set it apart from other Big Eight
firms, is its separate, professional personnel department. This
department is designed not only to assist in recruiting, but also to
aid in further career development and monitoring. A sampling of
comments provides a more vivid picture of Company A's management
style. "Not only does Company A have an excellent opportunity for
professional growth and experience, it also seems very people-
oriented (i.e., employee relations) which was a major factor in my
decision to choose Company A." Another recruit, when specifically
asked why Company A was selected remarked, "The reason I decided to
work for Company A is because I feel very comfortable with the people
there. I can grow with the firm and still maintain my personality.
I don't feel I have to become a 'firm clone.’" Still another
recognized that Company A’s concern for people was not limited to its
68
employees and observed, "I selected Company A because out of all the
firms I had a chance to learn about, Company A was the one that
consistently stressed the importance
of people in their business, both their clients and employees. This
is one aspect that really sets Company A apart from their
competitors."
A final comment referred to Company A's commitment to career
development--an appealing factor to many new hires. "Company A seems
to be extremely concerned with the development of its staff. This is
evident in part by Company A's Professional Personnel Department. At
each stage in a staff person's career, the firm wants to make sure
that s/he is developing in the ways s/he wants to. Secondly, the
professionals at Company A seem to really enjoy what they do. They
are happy with the direction their careers are going and Company A
allows them to make the career choices they desire. I selected
Company A for these reasons and because I felt I could work with,
respect, and be respected by the others."
Clearly, there is consistency if not unanimity among the
participants regarding these two themes. And, although these two
factors influencing company selection were often inextricable, they
were also separately designated numerous times which indicates their
salience. Although professionalism and people orientation were
singled out and discussed in depth as dominant themes, they were not
the only recurring themes emphasized in the initial survey. In fact,
69
several other issues are mentioned which uncover and provide insight
into Company A's culture and the acculturation process.
Two of the most frequently mentioned subthemes are: (1)
Company A's innovative nature, and (2) the percentage of women and
minorities throughout all levels of the company. The term
"innovative" was offered several times when recruits were asked to
provide three adjectives describing Company A's public image. In
fact, only "professional" and "people-oriented" were mentioned more
often. Of further interest is the similar way in which individuals
defined Company A's innovativeness. In perhaps the most elaborate
description--one consistent with other comments--a new recruit
writes, "Company A is always one of the first Big Eight firms to try
new technological developments. The firm is always looking to the
future to develop new methods of auditing. For example, Company A
creates its own computer programs to perform audit procedures more
effectively and efficiently." Many individuals expressed the
extensive utilization of computers and the availability of computer
training as significant factors in company selection. A second
aspect of the company's innovativeness is recognized in the diversity
and breadth of services offered. And, although many admired and were
attracted to Company A's innovative spirit, many also feared or grew
anxious about what it represented. This innovativeness manifested
ambivalent feelings, often those who happily described Company A as
innovative also referred to this feature of the organization as their
70
greatest apprehension (see Question 9). The following statement
typifies the respondents apprehensions.
Company A's professional diversity and innovative specialty in
the services that it offers will make the work atmosphere a
highly competitive and demanding one. I am apprehensive about
being able to live up to the company1s standards and
expectations.
Living up to company expectations, whether they were directly
tied to innovation or not, was the most common concern listed by the
new hires. Indeed, over half stated that not performing adequately
was a real fear. Other concerns, including the size of the branch
and the number of overtime hours required also surfaced, but much
less frequently;
The second subtheme centers on several newcomer's pleasure in
finding a number of women and minorities in management positions--
certainly an area which can be viewed as symbolic of an
organization's culture. One respondent observes, "I selected
Company A for several reasons. One of primary importance to me was
the number of women and minorities I noticed within the firm. The
other firms didn't seem to have this kind of mixture." Another
noted, "The fact that Company A has the most female partners was
pleasantly surprising. The number of minorities in upper management
is also a good sign and further emphasizes Company A's concern for
the individual."
These two points are dubbed subthemes, not only because they are
less frequently mentioned, but also because they are clearly
dimensions of professionalism (ability to do one's job adequately)
71
and people-orientation (equal opportunity for advancement). Thus it
is safe to assert that there is a great deal of consistency among the
newcomers earliest perceptions of Company A and their impending role.
An obvious question then becomes, "How did the recruits come to
share this common knowledge?" Answers to this question can be
generated from participant responses to Questions 4 and 7.
Question 4 was designed to determine if there are certain
organizational members who pass on the organization's culture or if
this is a common role for most all of Company A's members. The
latter appears true for two reasons. First, Question 4 provides 40
individual names. One name was listed seven times, two names were
mentioned four times, three names noted three times, and three other
names were listed two times. This implies that a substantial number
of Company A's members are made available to potential newcomers.
Also worth noting here is the diversity of positions listed by
respondents: from intern to partner, and from outside executive to
in-house personnel supervisor. These responses indicate many,
possibly all, members of Company A share a common image and readily
represent it to outsiders.
The second reason for this conclusion is based on my personal
interviews and experiences in Company A. Over and over the
individuals I came in contact with offered a very similar picture of
Company A and its expectations for new employees. Therefore, I was
not surprised to find a high level of consistent responses from the
initial survey.
72
Question 7, serves a slightly different purpose, and seeks to
determine how newcomers (or potential newcomers) acquire the majority
of their information. By and large, interviews and conversations are
listed as the main source of information, but brochures are also
listed as a source of valuable information. I obtained and reviewed
those mentioned. Not surprisingly, a thematic analysis indicates
that terms such as challenge, diversity, and personal growth were
indicative of the company's written materials.
Overall, the survey used to explore anticipatory organizational
acculturation proved to be a very useful and informative tool. At
this point, it is important to restate that one of the goals or
purposes of this research is to begin to create a framework or
foundation from which a model of organizational acculturation can be
built. And, since a model does not yet exist, the notion of
anticipatory acculturation is a new concept. For this reason, the
survey used during this stage was useful on two levels: In specific
terms, the findings vividly depict twenty-two newly hired
accountants' impressions of their company. And, as has already been
chronicled, there appears to be a great deal of consistency among the
interpretations. In a more general sense, or in regard to a model of
organizational acculturation, the survey was designed to determine if
in fact anticipatory acculturation is characterized by preexisting
values and beliefs as well as expectations and apprehensions. The
survey also sought to discover the impact of suggested events
73
including educational preparation, job search, recruitment, and
selection.
The findings suggest that this is indeed an important phase of
acculturation, and that selection at the crux of the related
subissues. During this stage there is much preparation (formal
education, career selection, company fact-finding, interviewing)
which helps lead to a particular company's selection. Once the
selection is made, the individual is able to provide a plethora of
reasons, or rationalizations, for why the decision is (or possibly is
not) sound. This period of rationalization may be interpreted as a
prelude to adaptation as the newcomer begins to sort out similarities
and differences between themselves and the company. What then
becomes of interest is how these initial interpretations change once
the newcomer actually enters the organization. The following
sections address this issue.
Stage Two: Orientation
As indicated earlier, orientation more closely represents a
transition than a stage. It is nonetheless an important element of
the acculturation process. Observation, the method of data
collection during this stage, took place over four days.
The first two days of the orientation were conducted in
Company A's offices. Although the orientation served several
purposes, the most important seemed to be to welcome the newcomers
and as one partner phrased it, "meet the key players." Over the
course of the two-day orientation a representative from each division
74
(the managing partner whenever possible) briefed the newcomers on the
role their division played in Company A. The briefing usually
included an explanation of the path one would take in order to
succeed in that particular division. There was always a sense of
pride conveyed, not only with regard to his/her division, but also in
regard to this particular office and of course, the company in
general.
A question/answer period always followed. Very few questions
were generated after the first several appearances and were generally
posed by the same newcomer each time. A member from the personnel
department noted this as well and strongly encouraged the newcomers
to take a more active role in further presentations. They did! I
noted this because the newcomers were encouraged to mingle not with
one another, but with executives and other company officials who also
invited them to lunch. Clearly, the newcomers' were somewhat ill at
ease, but they were making valid attempts to meet their superiors
while also trying to fulfill their first set of instructions.
During the two-day orientation, company-produced videos were
shown--one was a welcome from the New York based Chief Executive
Officer, another was on company benefits. A good deal of time (one-
half day) was spent on paper work-- insurance benefits, withholding
forms, and the like. In addition, the newcomers were taught how to
fill out daily time reports, with great emphasis placed on the
importance of these forms.
75
A dress for success module was also included during the two-day
orientation, and although it was often stressed that no "required"
dress code exists, everyone was clear on the "expected" dress code
while doing company business. So, in one sense, orientation became a
rule-setting arena. Other rules discussed, and quite often through
story or anecdote, included the use of the company credit card and
personal phone use at work.
In general, the two-day orientation very closely resembled
others I have taken part in, planned, and/or observed both in content
and relationship development. When I arrived the first morning--a
Thursday about two minutes before starting time--each of the
newcomers was present. All were impeccably dressed (for the most
part in dark suits) and sat gazing straight ahead. The little
interaction that did occur was whispered. By the end of the first
day, the newcomers began to relax a bit, at least among themselves,
and with members of the personnel department.
The second morning people drifted in a bit more comfortably (in
stride, not dress) and carried on conversations with one another over
coffee and doughnuts. A few newcomers even appeared a bit late. It
did not go unnoticed however, and a clear signal of promptness had
been delivered.
By the end of the day coat j ackets were on chair backs,
conversation was flowing freely and what started off as first day
jitters and apprehension had successfully been transformed into
excitement and comradery. The orientation was serving its function.
76
Not only had a great deal of information been imparted in a short
time, but feelings of friendship and unity had begun to be
established. With the last order of business concluded (see you at
training Monday morning, 8:30 sharp) beer, wine, and refreshments
were provided.
Training
t
Each of the newcomers knew they would be expected to attend an
extensive two-week training course prior to actually beginning work.
The training course was conducted off-site at a state university.
Housing was provided and all of the newcomers were expected to
utilize the housing provided. A great deal of information--primarily
regarding audit procedures--would be covered, and much study time
would ensue. Thus the living arrangements provided not only a strong
study atmosphere, but also encouraged interaction between newcomers
and trainers,
I attended only two days of the two-week training course--the
first and the last. Day one was still somewhat of an orientation,
yet it was clear there was work to be done. The "class" was large
enough to be broken into two groups. Each group would receive the
same information but from different instructors. Some instructors
would teach the same material twice, but in general there were two
separate training groups. They did, of course, eat meals together
and had free time and study time together.
When I arrived for the final day of training it was quickly
evident that the two weeks had indeed been long, strenuous, and
77
somewhat stressful. Clearly, stronger relationships had been formed,
but many of the newcomers expressed desires to get home and "on with
their normal routine." Fatigue had set in. It had been a long two
weeks of training, and there had been a banquet the previous night
followed by a late night of dancing, drinking, and partying by most
of the newcomers and trainers. Therefore, although there were still
items on the agenda, they were not being given a great deal of
attention.
Role-playing was a popular teaching technique on the last day of
training, which was primarily devoted to communication skills--
written & spoken. Several interpersonal scenarios were enacted that
depicted client interview techniques, in-charge and staff accountant
encounters, and other personnel issues. In addition, some writing
analysis and writing exercises were conducted to help trainees
recognize the variety and impact of an accountant's communication
skills.
All the while, trainees were being called out, one at a time, to
have an one-on-one evaluation of their training performance. This
evaluation was billed as a typical performance appraisal, and
consisted of many of the same items that would constitute further
evaluations.
While on the subject--evaluations play a major role in both
orientation and training. Evaluations play a major and critical role
in the life of a public accountant employed by a Big Eight firm.
This point did not go unnoticed or undiscussed. Many questions posed
78
by newcomers--if not the majority--centered around the evaluation
process and the significance of each single evaluation. "Can one bad
evaluation hurt me?" "What do I do if I feel I've received an unfair
evaluation?" "Do we discuss our evaluations with anyone?" and "How
often are we evaluated?" were questions often asked. Trainers,
personnel agents, and partners alike tried to reassure newcomers
about the fairness and equity of the process, stating that trends
were more important than any given evaluation. Nonetheless, all the
positive, supportive comments offered did not reduce the apprehension
that the thought of evaluations had generated.
Similarly, conversation in the personal interviews conducted
with established members often returned to the issue of evaluations
and the importance of understanding the in-charge's methods and basis
of evaluation. Although, there were discrepancies in the answers
provided to the above questions, one item of complete agreement was
the importance of evaluations. A number of criteria are incorporated
into the evaluation form which demands much attention and
consideration on the part of the evaluator.
Overall, my impression which is based on observation and
conversation, the training course achieved its goals. Quite
evidently, the newcomers obtained a great deal of important, useful,
practical information in a relatively short, structured period of
time. Likewise, newcomers had (and seemingly took advantage of) the
opportunity to get to know one another and selected members of the
company. At the close of the final day of training emotions ranged
79
from excitement to exhaustion and relief to eagerness. Whatever the
feeling, all the newcomers I spoke with looked forward, with
enthusiasm, to their first "real day" of work.
For some, day one meant a job, for others, day one meant sitting
"available." Several of the newcomers were informed, during the last
week of training, that they had been given a job assignment. The
remainder of the class was to report to the Los Angeles office and
wait for assignment. This news was meant with mixed emotions. Those
assigned were eager, yet uncertain why they had been selected, those
not assigned hoped they too would soon see, as one put it, "combat."
Stage Three: Encounter
The encounter stage of organizational acculturation begins when
the newcomer assumes the position for which they were hired.
Characterized by confusion and conflict, sense-making and
interpretation, communication is a major factor. And, although there
are no hard and fast rules as to how long the encounter stage lasts,
based on the previous literature review, it appears that a standard
time period for encounter is five to six months. Therefore, the
second survey was circulated in early February, following five months
of employment. Sixteen of the twenty-seven new hires responded. The
population actually consisted of twenty-six new hires as one
individual resigned shortly after beginning work.
80
Table 2
Encounter Stage Data
Item S tandard
Jumber Yes! Yes
?
No Mean Deviation
1. 2 15 2.1 ,401
2. 1 10 6 2.6 667
3. 6 11 H
00
517
4. 9 7 1 1.7 648
5. 2 8 6 1
CM
826
6. 8 8 1 1.8 656
7. 4 6 6 1 2.5 952
8. 1 15 1 3.4 543
9. 5 10 2 3.2 745
10.
667
13 _3 1 2.6
I designed a survey to investigate this stage of acculturation
that consisted of fifteen items--ten Likert-type questions and five
open-ended questions. Findings from Questions 1-10 are found in
Table III. Questions 11-15 are analyzed for recurring themes and
trends.
The data from Questions 1-10 displayed in Table II are generally
self-explanatory. What is important to note is the relative
consensus on all matters. Furthermore, most members, according to
this data seem basically satisfied with their career choice. Their
work is what they
81
expected, they like their fellow employees, and they view themselves
as important, contributing members.
One area of particular interest centers around Questions 6, 7,
and 8. In general, members recognize the prevalence of grapevine
communication. When asked if the information they obtain from the
grapevine is important, however, the mean response is higher,
signifying that information is seen as less important than it is
available. Further, Question 8 indicates that grapevine information
is not always important nor is it considered particularly accurate.
A complete interpretation of this finding is difficult because
the sample size is small and the survey did not attempt to ascertain
or define individual meaning of "grapevine" communication. The goal
of the questions was to determine how important information was
acquired. And, in light of the fact that stories are an integral
feature of this study, it was necessary to ask if grapevine
communication served as a vehicle for organizational stories. It
appears that organizational stories are spread through the grapevine.
However, the grapevine at Company A is apparently also used to pass
on a great deal of gossip as well.
Newcomers may be hesitant to recognize the importance and/or
accuracy of grapevine communication due to their surprise at the
amount of office gossip it carries. This point is further supported
by written information provided in Questions 11-15. Very clearly,
one theme that emerged from these open-ended questions is the
prevalence of gossip. One newcomer remarks, "The most surprising
82
finding about Company A is how much gossip there is. I'm told all
large companies are like this, but I'm not convinced," while another
states, "I expected my job to be competitive. It is and it is rough,
but the gossip is even rougher. You've got to watch your every
move." Much of the gossip pertains to inter-office dating: one
respondent offers, "Don't date in the office, it will kill you.
People are doubly interested in gossip if they know both parties.
Keep out of the grapevine. In my opinion no reputation is better
than a bad reputation around here!"
Yet, there is an implicit contradiction in these findings.
Again in this survey respondents list fellow employees as one of the
best features of their job. On the other hand, there is much more
uncertainty as to whom one can and cannot trust in order to keep out
of the grapevine. In part, Question 9 addresses this issue as the
majority responded that they had not been able to create helpful
communication networks. In other words, although they had many
contacts, they were simply not convinced that these contacts were
useful or supportive.
One newcomer expresses this concern, "There are some people here
who have no compassion or ability to relate to others' needs. I have
found some people totally unsympathetic and concerned only with
themselves." On the a more positive, although cautious note, another
remarks, "Its politics. The politics of knowing the right people
makes all the difference. If higher-ups like you, you develop a good
rapport, you're in good shape. Getting your name around is easy,
83
getting your name to the right people in the right way isn't so easy.
It can be done, but you have to be observant, and you have to be
careful."
All in all, this leads to the variety of ways individuals deal
with the conflict and confusion that is an essential part of the
encounter stage. Indeed, much of the input from this survey is
negative, but this is to be expected during periods of conflict.
Other areas mentioned which created conflict for newcomers include:
*
too much available time
*
too much over-time
*
rude clients
*
time pressures
*
abundance of new information
•*
menial task assignments
*
relatively low pay
*
favoritism
Once newcomers expressed their concerns and/or dissatisfactions, they
generally went on to explain how they dealt with these problems or
indicated that they knew these situations were temporary and part of
the learning process. One newcomer states, "If you feel that you
have given it your best, don't worry about it. Everyone here
realizes we are new and that we aren't perfect. Everyone is new
sometime." Another notes, "The variety of experiences I am gaining
is incredible, more than I expected really. But, the frustration is
I
84
greater than I anticipated too. People say it will calm down soon
though."
Negative feedback was not the only information this survey
provided however. Individuals still readily expressed their overall
satisfaction with their company and their career. Many also felt
they had received a good deal of valuable advice as well. One
respondent provided this insight, "Ask questions before starting an
audit area. Make sure you know what your objectives are before you
begin work. Never flounder around on your own. This will help you
to be more efficient and will facilitate your learning."
Other recurring themes included the importance of "good
communication," the "ability to be flexible," and the need for an
"adaptive personality." Clearly, the newcomers were experiencing
what had been suggested during the encounter stage of organizational
acculturation. Further, although they may have not been fully aware
of what was going on, they did recognize this period as somewhat
turbulent. One respondent summed it up quite well, "There is a lot
going on now. Some good, some bad. I won't be surprised if we don't
all make it, or for that matter stick around. Those of us who do
though are the ones who are--willing to adjust and adapt to a hectic
way of life."
Stage Four: Adaptation
As discussed earlier, adaptation is a newcomer's ability to
manage past and present cultural orientations. Therefore, during the
final phase of data collection, two surveys were administered: one
85
to understand occupational orientations and another to understand the
acquisition of new cultural values. Stories, of course, are the
focal point of the final survey to be discussed shortly. First,
however, some discussion of preexisting values is necessary. Two
groups were surveyed in order to make this determination. Fifteen of
the original twenty-seven newcomers (as one had resigned and another
had been let go by this stage) responded. In addition, this survey
was administered to eighty-five accounting students enrolled in a
communication course for accountants.
Interestingly, there was actually little difference in the
responses of the two groups which does suggest a relatively uniform
occupational orientation. There were some areas of particular
interest, however. In general, Questions 1-5 provided the least
difference. Most stated they decided to become an accountant
somewhere between their senior year in high school to their sophomore
year in college. The decision was usually independent of family
influence. In fact, very few respondents indicated being related to
an accountant and suggested the main reason for choosing an
accounting career was an aptitude and interest in numbers.
Much consistency in adjectives emerged from both groups.
Primarily adjectives described the task-orientation of accounting, or
the professionalism of accountants that was previously mentioned
during the analysis of anticipatory acculturation, which lends
further support for a common cultural awareness.
86
Table III provides additional evidence that both newly hired
accountants and accounting students have a similar notion of the
accounting culture. Question 5 determines that new accountants
consistently perceive a little more difference among Big 8 accounting
firms than do students. This may possibly be attributed to their
recent interviewing experiences.
Question 6 looks at allegiance to a company and to the
accounting profession. Students responses indicate higher allegiance
in both areas than do newly hired accountants. This variance may be
due again to newly hired subjects1 recent awareness of the "real
world" leading to a bit less idealism toward the work force.
Table 3
Occupational Commitment Data
Subj ects
Mean Standard Deviation
3.37 1.145
5.0 1.690
3.4 1.353
Accounting Students
Mean Standard Deviation
5. 3.09 1.55
6. a 3.5 1.41
6.b 2.88 1.40
87
i
5.
6a
6b.
In addition to this difference, Company A's employees would be
much more easily enticed away from their company than students felt
they would be. Most newcomers marked several factors that would make
a competitor's offer attractive. Higher salary was unanimous with
faster promotion, and greater benefits close behind. Students also
indicated higher salary as the number one reason they would change.
Colleagues and social life, however, were the next most often listed
reasons.
Answers to Questions 8 and 10 also provided some dissimilarities
between the groups. Students consistently ranked the accounting
profession as 2, 3, or 4 in terms of prestige whereas the newcomers
most often ranked it 4, 5, and 6. Finally, only 2 of the fifteen
newcomers indicated that becoming a Big-Eight partner was an eventual
goal of theirs. The majority hoped to become self employed CPAs or
private consultants. On the other hand, although many indicated it
way too early to say for sure, students were much more likely to
express an eventual goal of being a Big Eight partner (16 out of 84).
Finally, Question 11 also provided consistency between the
groups. The accounting profession is seen as different from other
professions since it provides a broad overview of the business world
in a relatively short period of time. Further, there will always be
a need for accountants, both public and private which provides a
feeling of security and stability. As one newcomer stated, "The
accounting profession offers a great experience. No other job offers
the opportunity to experience the diversity of American and
88
international business first hand. It is the perfect training
ground."
The findings from the survey do indeed suggest that a strong
occupational community exists within the accounting profession. It
further provides support for the fact that many newcomers join Big
Eight firms for the auditing experience and business training they
provide. Therefore, although newcomers may be capable and willing to
adjust to a new culture within their chosen organization, these
findings do indicated that incoming accountants may not have a strong
organizational commitment from the onset of employment. This is
certainly not to say they are not committed to doing a good job
because clearly they are. What it does say is that both accounting
firms and new accountants recognized openly that they need each other
and to some extent they are using each other. Thus newcomers are
willing to adapt and adjust to the company's culture in order to get
it from the experience and knowledge they need.
It is also very likely that the organization's culture is
"coped with" more than actually "adopted" under these circumstances.
The final survey findings address this issue more fully.
Final Survey
Over the six months of interviews, I learned a great many
stories and much jargon at Company A. The stories for this final
tool were selected as an overall sampling of those collected. Some
of the stories were told repeatedly, others only a few times.
Interestingly, the results of the final questionnaire nearly mirror
89
the frequency with which I heard the stories. Further, those stories
and jargon that were least recognized by the respondents were the
stories I had heard primarily from managers and partners. It seems
that a hierarchy of stories exists at Company A. Managers and
partners seem to tell stories to one another about one another,
whereas lower level employees are familiar with and tell more work-
related stories. The remainder of this section interprets the
findings from this study.
Only one story was unanimously recognized--the- staff outing
story. The reason it was the most popular story (or most recognized)
seems to be due to the fact the yearly staff outing was to be held
about two weeks following the administration of the final survey, and
it was a very current issue. Anyone who had been present at last
year's outing was certain to recall the incident. In fact, when the
newcomers were asked who they had heard the story from, the majority
indicated they had heard it from several people. Some noted specific
names and titles (which ranged from Staff B's to partners) others
simply stated, "Everyone!" or "Too many people to remember."
Furthermore, of all the stories investigated, this one is also the
one respondents have most often repeated. A few indicated that they
had not heard about the food
fight or the memo which another claimed, "This version is tame in
comparison," however, this was recognized as a close approximation.
Two morals were offered consistently. The most often cited
moral is clearly represented by the newcomer who stated, "Even though
90
the staff outing is a 'free day' of 'fun,' it is important to realize
that one must conduct themselves in an adult and professional
manner." The second moral was voiced about half as often,
"Accountants have to be so straight-laced all the time so when they
party, they party!" And, a few respondents intertwined the two,
"Accountants get out of control from time to time, like anyone else.
We all need some fun. We were representing our firm though and could
have been a little more professional."
This story does not seem to have the hierarchical nature of the
others. One explanation, of course, is that all organizational
members took part in the outing. Further, members from all levels of
the organization reportedly got involved in the "non-planned"
activities. Therefore it has a quality that transcends hierarchy and
thus is probably most representative of what had earlier been defined
as an organizational story. This is not to suggest however, that the
other stories should not be considered organizational stories, but it
does suggest that Company A's culture may not be strongly dependent
on having a large number of widely shared common stories.
The two other most frequently recognized stories (by about 90%
of the respondents) have been given specific names within the
company: "the Driller" and "the Shredder" stories were told to me
time and time again. If the stories did not come up during an
interview, I sometimes asked the interviewee if they were familiar
with "The Driller" and "The Shredder." These stories have very
distinct morals, but they are widely agreed upon. As a matter of
91
fact, even the few respondents who were not familiar with these
stories provided morals very much like the ones provided by people
who knew and/or told the stories, which suggests that some common
values do exist in Company A.
One very important correction was provided by the respondents to
"The Shredder." All those familiar with the story stated that it was
not an in-charge who shredded the work papers, but a partner who
shredded the papers, making the incident even more threatening.
Further, the majority of respondents named the partner as well, which
to many made the story's moral all the more significant, "Do you
work," "Make sure your work is up to the standards of the company,"
"Papers not done correctly are worthless," and "When your superior
asks you to redo something, he/she has reasons. Don't question it,
do it" are all versions of the moral to the shredder. Obviously,
there is a good deal of consensus on the issue. Only one respondent
had a differing moral, and interestingly they had not heard the
story, did not know the people involved, but still offered a moral,
"Tactics such as shredding a staff person's workpapers should not be
used. There are better ways to deal with incompetence in
insubordination." Therefore, although this individual got the
message of incompetence or insubordination, the message of
questioning or doubting a superiors actions was overlooked. This is
an important point because often, the stories at Company A do seem to
make more than one point, or serve dual purposes and if one is
92
to correctly interpret or understand their culture, they must often
look beyond surface meanings.
"The Driller" is clearly a favorite story of many. Everytime
the story was relayed to me the storyteller invariably laughed
through it or commented, "I love that story," or "What a classic,
isn't it great!" And, the frivolity of the story is carried through
the moral. All of the respondents recognized that the new Staff B
was having a joke pulled on him, it was meant to be funny (although
everyone I ever spoke to also indicated they were glad it didn't
happen to them!). "Staff B's get hazed" remarked one respondent
while another said, "People love to play jokes on each other. It
helps you stay sane." So in some sense the moral of this story is to
expect some initiation. Yet as mentioned earlier, there are
sometimes deeper meanings to Company A's stories and "The Driller" is
not an exception. Many of the respondents, after recognizing the new
Staff member was being hazed, went on to point out that you can’t
lose sight of your common sense. One individual put it bluntly,
"Don’t be a sucker! Think before you act," while another states,
"Being eager is one thing; showing it is another. People will try to
take advantage of those who seem vulnerable." Therefore, although
the story is light-hearted, newcomers apparently take it to heart as
they do not want to appear stupid nor do they want to be taken
advantage of.
A story much less familiar is the egg factory story. Just as it
is wise not to be gullible, it is equally wise not to be cocky. Very
93
few respondents have heard this story--in fact I only heard it a few
times myself. Nonetheless, each of the respondents (except one),
familiar with the story or not, clearly interpreted the story to mean
"Keep how great you are to yourself. Let your actions speak for
you." Yet, as mentioned, one respondent had a different
interpretation. In fact much different, stating, "Don't believe
stories colleagues tell you. They simply want to scare you." I
point this out because in many instances throughout the course of the
study this respondent had different interpretations than those more
commonly expressed. And, usually the comments had a more negative
connotation. Interestingly, from answers in the third survey, it can
be surmised that professional allegiance is much more important than
company allegiance to this individual and that living up to personal
goals is a major priority. And although there is currently no way of
knowing, it seems likely this individual may not experience a
positive outcome of acculturation during adaption.
The final story to be discussed is actually more of a Company A
policy than a specific story, but was recognized by more than half
the respondents. And, of those who were not familiar with it, many
remarked that they were glad to have this new information! The moral
was straight forward: Don't burn your bridges.
Of the remaining stories, one had been heard by none of the
respondents (Herbalife, and I only heard it twice myself) and another
story had only been heard by one of the respondents (missing papers,
and it was told to the respondent by the same person who told me the
94
story!). The other two stories that were familiar to about 25% of
the respondents were examples of stories found at higher levels of
management, reemphasizing the networks of storytelling.
The terms or jargon used in the survey offered little insight.
Big Picture was known to all and uniformly defined as an overall view
of an audit. It is important though because in many occasions
interviewees told me that once you see the big picture, it all comes
together. One interviewee said, "I kept hearing big picture this,
big picture that. But how could I see the big picture when all I was
given was one little segment. Then once I got more responsibility, I
began to see how pieces fit in. But it takes time, and once I really
understood what big pictures meant, I really felt like a functioning,
contributing member of Company A. Before then, I just plodded
along."
Of the other terms, the only other ones recognized with any
frequency were "Dragon Lady" and "Shoe Box." Interestingly, each
respondent who said they were familiar with Dragon Lady named a
different person, and none of them named the person I was led to
believe earned this title. Shoe Box was recognized as a first-time,
unsophisticated audit by about one-third of the respondents. The
remaining terms were not known.
"Golden Eggs" is a term used by a former managing partner and
evidently is no longer commonly used. The other two terms are used
to describe occurrences during an audit, or specific audit methods,
95
and newcomers may need to be able to "see the big picture" before
being exposed to (or remembering) these terms.
Overall, the questionnaire implies that those who responded seem
to be learning the organization's culture, or acculturating, at a
fairly equal pace. In other words, most were familiar with about the
same number of stories and had similar interpretations. A few of the
respondents were familiar with none (or very few of the stories).
After noting this, I reviewed their previous questionnaire responses
when available. Without exception, these individuals expressed
concerns regarding their careers early on. What this suggests is
that they may be less willing to acculturate and may experience a
less positive outcome during adaptation. This is not to say they
will leave, it does suggest, however, they may feel less connected to
the organization.
One respondent falling under this category stated, "I plan to
stay maybe three-four years. I view this like going to school. I'm
getting an education. When I remember this, it makes me worry less
about my career." Statements like this are not the norm however.
Those who participated fully in the study (of the twenty-seven,
eleven responded to all four surveys) seemed the most content with
their career and with Company A. And very possibly that is one
explanation of why they were willing to take a more active role in
the study.
Two of the twenty-seven did not participate at all, and two left
before the study's completion. Of the remaining twelve, various
96
conclusions can be drawn. Some may have simply not viewed this as a
necessary function of their job, while others may have viewed the
study a threat or invasion. For this, there is no absolute answer.
Yet what it implies is that there are varying degrees of adaptation
during organizational acculturation. Further, before a model of
organizational acculturation can be developed, this possible outcome
needs to be more fully explored and understood.
The findings from this study do not provide all of the
information needed to fully develop a model of organizational
acculturation. They do, however, provide enough insight so that a
framework for future research exists. Chapter V more fully addresses
this issue.
97
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The initial goal of this research was to examine the role of
organizational stories during the socialization process of new
employees. Following recommendations for further research posed by
Brown (1985), Louis (1980, and McLaughlin, Smith and Altendorf
(1985), a longitudinal study was designed that would allow the
researcher to follow a group of newcomers through their socialization
process with particular emphasis on the implications of
organizational stories. While this study in essence sought to
further our conceptual knowledge of organizational culture the term
"acculturation” was used to describe the socialization process.
Yet as the project progressed, it became evident the
substitution could not be that easily made. Although neither term
fully accounts for the process occurs upon entering an organization,
I had fallen into the trap identified by Morey and Luthans (1985) as
"displacement of concepts." They contend,
"displacement of a concept through metaphor or analogy is simply
a process whereby the concept as used in one discipline or
theory is transferred to a new theory or discipline so that the
theorist/researchers is/are treating the new as old. Many new
hypotheses can be expected to come form this process, which is
why displacement is so attractive. Displacement, however, can
98
trick the theorist or researcher into believing that because
something can be treated as if it were something else, it has
actually become something else."
To further complicate the issue, the group selected,
accountants, have a strong occupational culture prior to entering the
work place. This added complexity may account for many of the
homogenous answers to surveys while not indicating an equal level of
organizational acculturation. In other words, occupational culture
appears to be a more significant factor for new accountants than does
the acutal culture of the organization they choose to work for.
Therefore, although the intervening variable of occupational
culture may have disallowed for the desired results, the impact of
organizational stories on a newcomer's socialization/acculturation,
has been made and merit discussion. The following provides an
overview of the important findings on both organizational stories and
organizational acculturation.
Organizational Stories
My first reaction to my final survey findings (designed to
investigate the acquisition of organizational stories) was one of
disappointment. A number of newcomers had heard only one story, only
one had heard them all, most of the respondents were familiar with
three stories, yet not always the same three. I concluded that not
only had I failed to interpret Company A's culture, but that
organizational stories are not an important factor in organizational
acculturation. Unwilling to face this dismal conclusion, I continued
to assess the findings and two important points emerged.
99
First, I was clearly reminded by the participants' comments that
they indeed were living and experiencing the culture, the
organization. I, on the other hand, was an observer and not
qualified to interpret the culture as a member. Morgan (1986)
cautions,
When we observe a culture, whether in organization or in society
at large, we are observing an evolved form of social practice
that has been influenced by many complex interactions between
people, events, situations, actions, and general circumstance.
Culture is always evolving. Through at any given time it can be
seen as having a discernible pattern, e.g., reflecting an ethos
of competition or cooperation, dominance or equality,
seriousness or playfulness, this pattern is an abstraction
imposed on the culture from the outside. It is a pattern that
helps the observor to make sense of what is happening in the
culture by summarizing the sweep of history in retrospect, but
it is not synonymous with experiences of the culture itself.
Our understanding of culture is usually much more fragmented and
superficial than the reality.
Coupling Morgan's statement with a Weikian perspective, I
reviewed the survey and interview data again. This time however, I
looked for what was not there. The question became, "What do
organizational members take-for-granted that newcomers do not?" The
answer--morals. This is certainly not to imply that established
organizational members have no morals. Instead, it suggests that
organizational members do not tell stories for the purpose of being
moralistic. They primarily tell stories for fun--because it gives
them a chance to laugh.
What is interesting, however, is that newcomers, when asked, can
easily and consistently identify the morals to stories, even to
stories they have not previously been told! This strongly suggests
ioo|
that stories are indeed powerful symbolic cultural forms that pass on
values and norms without conscious effort. This finding further
suggests that living and experiencing a culture is truly the only way
to interpret it. Observation does not provide the needed information
to begin to learn the taken-for-granted aspects and innuendos of
every day organizational life.
This raises the question of how organizational stories fit into
the acculturation process. Interestingly, organizational stories
seem to be told to newcomers because they already understand, not
because they need to understand. They are reinforcers of rules and
values and of membership.
This may explain why established members do not feel they tell
stories to make a point or offer a moral. Instead, in Company A,
organizational stories are a means of letting newcomers know they are
accepted. Therefore, those who most readily adapt, or pick up on
j
other culture clues, are those most likely to be told organizational
stories.
This poses an interesting Catch-22. What seems to be happening
at Company A is similar to the worker who has to be in the union to
get a job but cannot join the union until s/he has a job. In other
words, perceptive newcomers are rewarded with information that
clarifies their position while more confused members are left in the
dark until they figure out what is going on.
The obvious question this raises is whether this occurrence is
organization specific, occupation specific, or a common occurrence
101
during acculturation. Until further research is conducted no general
conclusion can be drawn. Some specific conclusions about Company A,
however, can be drawn.
First, Company A clearly has both implicit and explicit
expectations for its new accountants. They are carefully screened
and recruited. Therefore, before newcomers even begin, they have a
vivid picture of what their work will be like. What may not be so
vividly stated is that they are expected to be able to "get on board"
by themselves. The learning curve is very sharp in the first few
months. New accountants must be quick to catch on and stay ahead.
Therefore, if a newcomer seems unable to interpret cultural cues
appropriately, it may be assumed they are unable to keep up with the
quick pace. Therefore, nurturing (moralizing) may be viewed as
unnecessary as the newcomer will ultimately leave (or be asked to
leave) anyway. On the other hand, the perceptive newcomer is
welcomed immediately as an insider and given insider information as
part of the rites of passage.
Part of this process may be attributable to the short career
expectancy of public accountants. This suggests that practice may be
occupational. Further study, however, is needed.
A second interesting conclusion drawn from what is not in the
data is that very few of Company A's stories give a sense of history
or organizational roots. In fact, most of the stories were task
oriented. This again may be indicative of the rapid, large turnover
rate in public accounting. The typical "founder" types of stories
102
are not found in Company A. Perhaps this is because public
accounting may be more occupationally than organizationally centered.
(Very few individuals join accounting firms with the intention of
staying their entire career.) This is not true for many other
occupations.
In actuality, the story survey did not provide surprising (or
disappointing) findings after all. Instead, the data provided
insight into a purposefully diverse and often segmented
organizational culture.
Organizational Acculturation
The impact of the culture metaphor on organizational theory is
clearly evident in the literature. It has changed the way scholars
from many disciplines as well as managers think about organizing.
Gareth Morgan (1986) observes,
Whereas previously many managers have seen themselves as more or
less rational men and women designing structures and job
descriptions, coordinating activities, or developing schemes for
motivating their employees, they can now see themselves as
symbolic actors whose primary function is to foster and develop
desirable patterns of meaning. The results of research on
organizational culture show how this form of symbolic management
can be used to shape the reality of organizational life in a way
that enhances coordinated action. The culture metaphor thus
opens the way to a reinterpretation of many traditional
managerial concepts and processes.
This study opens the way to reinterpreting one such process--
socialization, under the cultural perspective of acculturation. As I
discussed earlier in this chapter, the term socialization was too
often displaced and researchers assumed that the process was the
same. However, this is not true. Three basic differences emerge
103
between socialization and acculturation that suggest a new concept,
or a reinterpretation of concepts in order. I have termed this
process organizational acculturation.
First, organizational acculturation accounts for the
intersection of two cultures; a host culture (the organization) and
the individual identity (the newcomer). This is an increasingly
important factor if managers do indeed view themselves as symbolic
actors designing desirable patterns of activities as both the
company's and the individual's goals must be considered.
Organizational and communication theorists studying socialization
(Jablin, 1985; Wanous et al., 1984) recognize the interdependent
nature of socialization, but have yet to fully address the cultural
implications. Eisenberg (1985) begins to recognize the need to
manage multiple memberships but does not fully investigate the impact
on either the organization or the individual during the fusion.
Second, almost inherent in the notion of socialization is the
assumption of success. And, if in fact successful socialization is
always the outcome, there would not be the continual need to study
employee morale, job satisfaction, and turnover ratios.
A model of organizational acculturation needs to account for a
variety of possible outcomes during the process. All employees
clearly do not acculturate at the same level or to the same degree.
Further studies which begin to identify levels of organizational
acculturation will provide the next step in building a model.
104
Finally, both acculturation and socialization have traditionally
treated culture as an unitary entity. With our furthered
understanding of the diverse, complex, and often eclectic nature of
organizations, clearly a unitary cultural notion must be laid aside.
A model of organizational acculturation which identifies and
interprets actions based on a number of coexisting subcultures is
needed.
Admittedly, this study provides more questions than answers
regarding organizational acculturation. Yet one clear conclusion is
the need to venture away from standard, traditional methods of
studying socialization and/or acculturation. The need for more long
term interpretive studies are needed to build a solid foundation.
Researchers need to look at a variety of cultural forms, not only
those within the organization, but those the individual brings to the
organization as well, before the process of organizational
acculturation can be more fully interpreted.
105
REFERENCES
Albrecht, T. L., & Ropp, V. A. (1982). The study of network
structuring in organizations through the use of method
triangulations. The Western Journal of Speech Communication,
46, 162-178.
Allaire, Y., & Firsirotn, M. E. (1984). Theories of
organizational culture. Organization Studies. 193-226.
Amemiya, T. (1981). Qualitative response models: A survey.
Journals of Economic Literature. 19. 1483-1536.
Argyris, C. (1957). The individual and organization: Some
problems of mutual adjustment. Administrative Science
Quarterly. 2, 253-267.
Babbie, E. R. (1973). Survey & Reseach Methods. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Brown, M. H. (1982). Metaphors, stories, and myths: An
examination of narrative forms in organizations. Paper
presented at annual meeting of the Speech Communication
Association, Chicago.
Brown, M. H. (1985). That reminds me of a story: Speech
action in organizational socialization. Western Journal of
Speech Communications. 49, 27-42.
Burling, R. (1970). Man's many voices: Language in its
cultural context. San Francisco: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Chatman, S. (1978). Story and discourse: Narrative structure
in fiction and film. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
Cheney, G. (1983). On the various and changing meaning of
organizational identification. Communication Monographs. 50
(40), 342-359.
Clawson, J. C. (1985). Is mentoring necessary? Training and
Development Journal. 36-39.
Cook, D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation:
Design & analysis issues for field settings. Palo Alto, CA:
Houghton Mifflin.
106
Cook, D., & Reichardt, C. S. (1983). Qualitative and
quantitative methods in evaluation research. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Cullen, B. (1978). The structure of professionalism: A
quantitative examination. New York: Petrocelli Books.
Daft, R., & Weick, K. (1983). Toward a model of organziations
and interpretation systems. Unpublished manuscript.
Dandridge, T. C., Mitroff, I., & Joyce, W. F. (1980).
Organizational symbolism: A topic to expand organizational
analysis. Academy of Management Review. 5, 77-82.
Deal, T. E. & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Dean, R. A., Ferris, K. R., & Konstans, C. (1985). Reality
shock: Reducing the organizational commitment of professionals.
Personnel Administrator. 139-148.
Doll, B. F. (1983). Staff turnover: How to manage it.
Journal of Accountancy. 76-78.
Eisenberg, E. M. (1986). Successful socialization: Managing
multiple membership. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Southern California, Communication Arts and Sciences.
Eisenberg, E. M., Monge, P. R., & Farace, R. V. (1984).
Coorientation on communication rules in managerial dyads. Human
Communication Research. 11. 261-271.
Eisenberg, E. M., Monge, P. R., & Miller, K. I. (1983).
Involvement in communication networks as a predictor of
organizational commitment. Human Communication Research, 10,
179-201.
Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of
organizational environments. Human Relations. 18, 216-226.
Farace, R. V., Stewart, J. P., & Taylor, J. (1979). Criteria
for evaluation of organzational communication effectiveness:
Review and systheses. Communication Yearbook 2. 271-291.
Feldman, D. C. (1976). A contingency theory of socializaiton.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 21, 433-452.
107
Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of
organization members. Academy of Management Review. 6, 309-318.
Feldman, M. S., & March, J. G. (1981). Information in
organizations as signal and symbol. Administrative Science
Quarterly. 26. 171-186.
Fine, G. (1984). Negotiated orders and organizational
strategies. Annual Reviews in Sociology. 10, 239-262.
Fisher, W. (1984). Narration as a human communication
paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communications
Monographs. 51 (1), 1-18.
Frentz, T. (1981). A generative approach to episodic
structure. Communication Quarterly. 12-20.
George, R. T. (1986, March). First impressions: How they
affect long-term performance. Supervisory Management, pp. 2-9.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1974). The discovery of
grounded theory: Strategies for quantive research. Chicago:
Aldine.
Goodwin, M. H. (1982). "Instegating": Storytelling as social
process. American Ethnological Society. 799-811.
Gregory, K. L. (1983). Native view paradigms: Multiple
cultures and culture conflicts in organizations. Administrative
Science Quarterly. 28, 359-376.
Gudykunst, W. B., Stewart, L. P., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1985).
Communication, culture, and organizational processes. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Guy, M. E. (1985). Professionals in organization: Debunking a
myth. Philadelphia: Praeger.
Harrison, R. (1972). Understanding your organization's
character. Harvard Business Review. 119-128.
Hebden, J. E. (1986, Summer). Adopting an organization's
culture: The socialization of graduate trainees.
Organizational Dynamics. pp. 54-72.
Herskovits, J. (1938). Acculturation: The study of culture
contact. New York: J. J. Augustin.
108
Hopper, R. (1981). The taken-for-granted. Human
Communications Research, 2(3), 195-211.
Jablin, F. M. (1981). Organizational communication theory and
research: An overview of communication climate and network
research. Communication Yearbook 4. 327-348.
Jablin, F., & Krone, K. (1986). Organizational communication
and organizational assimilation: An intra- and inter-level
analysis. Unpublished manuscript.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and
newcomer's adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management
Journal. 29, 262-279.
Keesing, F. M. (1958). Cultural anthropology: The science of
custom. New York: Rinehart & Company.
Kim, J. K. (1980). Explaining acculturation in a communication
framework: An empirical test. Communication Monographs. 47
(2), 155-179.
Leitch, T. M. (1986). What stories are: Narative theory and
interpretation. University Park: The Pennsylvania State
University Press.
Lincoln, J. & Miller, J. (1979). Work and friendship ties in
organizations: A comparative analysis of relational networks.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 24, 181-197.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers
experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226-249.
Louis, M. R., Posner, B. Z., & Powell, G. N. (1983). The
availability and helpfulness of socialization practices.
Personnel Psychology, 857-866.
Martin, J. (1982). Stories and scripts in organizational
settings. In Albert H. Hastorf & Alice M. Isen (Eds.),
Cognitive Social Psychology, (pp. 255-306). New York:
Elsevier.
Martin, J. (1983, Autumn). Organizational culture and
counterculture: An uneasy symbiosis. Organizational Dynamics,
52-64.
109
Martin, J. Feldman, M. S., Hatch, M. J., & Sitkin, S. B.
(1983). The uniqueness paradox in organizational stories.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 28, 438-453.
Mayer-Sommer, A. P., & Loeb, S. E. (1981). Fostering more
successful professional socialization among accounting students.
The Accounting Review, LIV, 125-136.
McPhee, R. D. (1983). Organizational communication: Toward
control phenomena and concepts. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Illinois, Speech Communication.
Mendenhall, M., & Oddon, G. (1985). The dimensions of
expatriate acculturation: A review. Adademy of Management
Review. 10, 39-47.
Miles, M. B., & Humberman A. M. (1986). Qualitative data
analysis: a sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
Mitroff, I. I., & Kilman, R. H. (1978). Methodological
approaches to social science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Monge, P., Edwards, J., 6c Kirste, K. (1974). The determinants
of communication and communication structure in large
organizations: A review of research. Communication Yearbook 2.
311-330.
Monge, P. R., Farace, R. V. , Eisenberg, E. M., Miller, K. I., 6c
White L. L. (1984). The process of studying process in
organizational communication. Journal of Communication. 34, 22-
43.
Morey, N. C., 6e Luthans, F. (1985). Refining the displacement
of culture and the use of scenes and themes in organizational
studies. Academy of Management Review, 10, 219-229.
Mumby, D. (1984). Narrative as an everyday legitimating
practice in organizations. Unpublished manuscript. Rutgers-The
State University of New Jersey, Communication.
Ouchi, W., 6c Wilkins, A. (1984). Organizational culture.
Unpublished manuscript. University of California at Los
Angeles, Graduate School of Management.
Ouchi, W., 6c Wilkins, A. (1985). Organizational culture.
Annual Review of Sociology. 11, 457-483.
110
Pacanowsky, M., & 0'Donnell-Trujillo. (1982). Communication
and organizational cultures. The Western Journal of Speech
Communication. 46, 115-130.
Pacanowsky, M., & 0'Donnell-Trujillo. (1983). Organizational
communication as cultural performance. Communication
Monographs. 50, (2), 126-147.
Padilla, A. M. (Ed.). (1980). Acculturation, theory, models
and some new findings. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1984). In search of
excellence. New York: Warner Communications.
Pondy, L. R. (Ed). (1983). Organizational Symbolism.
Greenwich, CT: Jai.
Posner, B. Z., Kouzes, J., & Schmidt, W. H. (1985). Shared
values make a difference: An empirical test of corporate
culture. Human Resource Management. 24, 293-309.
Putnam, L. L. (1981). Mode of communication in the encounter
phase of organizational socialization. Unpublished manuscript.
Roberts, K., & O'Reilly, C. (1978). Organizations as
communication structures: An empirical approach. Human
Communication Research, 4, 283-293.
Rounds, J. (1984). Information and ambiguity in organizational
change. Advances in Information Processing in Organizations. 1, 1
111-141.
St. John, W. D. (1980, May). The complete employee orientation
program. Personnel Journal. 373-378.
Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual
organizational needs. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Schein, E. (1983). The role of the founder in creating
organizational culture. Organizational Dynamics, Summer, 13-27.
Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of
organizational culture. Sloan Management Review. 3-16.
Siehl, C., & Martin, J. (1984). The role of symbolic
management: How can managers effectively transmit j
organizational culture. In J . G. Hunt (Ed.), Leaders and
Managers. (pp. 227-239). New York: Peragom Press.
Ill
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational
analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly. 28. 339-358.
Smith, J. K. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research:
An attempt to clarify the issue. Educational Researcher. 12. 6-
13.
Smith, S. W. , 5c McLaughlin, M. L. (1986). Thematic dimensions
of organizational storytelling. Unpubulished manuscript.
University of Southern California, Communication Arts and
Sciences.
Staton-Spicer, A., 5c Darling, A. (1986). Communication in the
socialization of preservice teachers. Communication Education.
35. 215-230.
Stohl, C. (1986). The role of memorable messages in the
process of organizational socialization. Communication
Quarterly. 34. 231-249.
Strine, M. S., 5c Pacanowsky, M. E. (1985). How to read
interpretive accounts of organizaitonal life: Narrative bases
of textural authority. The Southern Speech Communication
Journal. 50, 283-297.
Teplity, C. J. (1980). How the right example can help the new
recruit make the team. Supervisory Management. 30-35.
Thomas, L. (1980). On the uncertainty of science. Harvard
Magazine. XLVI. 1-4.
Techy, N. , 5c Fombrun, C. (1979). Network analysis in
organizational settings. Human relations, 32. 923-965.
Trice, H. M., 5c Beyer, J. M. (1984). Studying organizational
cultures through rites and ceremonials. Academy of Management
Review. 9 _, 653-668.
Von Glinow, M. (1985). Reward strategies for attracting,
evaluating, and retaining professionals. Human Resource
Management. 24, 191-206.
Van Maanen, J., 5c Barley, S. R. (1984). Occupational
communities: Culture and control in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior. 6, 287-365.
Van Maanen, J., Dabbs, J. M., Jr., 5c Faulkner, R. R. (1982).
Varieties of qualitative research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
112
Van Maanen, J., & Schien, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of
organizational socialization. Research in Organizational
Behavior. 1, 209-264.
Wanous, J. P. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment,
selection, and socialization of newcomers. Menlo Park, CA:
Addison-Wesley.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Malik, S. D. (1984).
Organizational socializaiton and group development: Toward an
integrative perspective. Academy of Management Review, 9, 670-
683.
Wilkins, A. L. (1983). The culture audit: A tool for
understanding organizations. Organizational Dynamics. 24-64.
Wilkins, A. L. (1984a). On stories and cultural changes.
Unpulbished manuscript. Brigham Young University, Management
and Organizational Behavior.
Wilkins, A. L. (1984b). The creation of company cultures: The
role of stories and human resource systems. Human Resource
Management, 23, 41-60.
Wilkins, A. L., & Ouchi, W. G. (1983). Efficient cultures:
Exploring the relationship between culture and organizational
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 468-481.
113
APPENDIX A:
ANTICIPATORY STAGE QUESTIONNAIRE
INSTRUCTIONS: Please read each of the following
questions carefully. Respond to each honestly and
completely. If you need additional space, use the
back of the pages provided, numbering carefully. Your
answers may be related to interviews you have had,
materials you have read, or people with whom you have
spoken. When completed, please return it in the
provided envelope by August 20, 1986. Thank you.
1. What three adjectives do you believe best describe Coopers &
Lybrand's public image?
2. What makes Coopers & Lybrand different from other accounting
firms with which you are familiar? Be specific.
3. Why did you select Coopers and Lybrand for employment?
4. List the three people, and their positions, from whom you have
learned the most about Coopers & Lybrand. Briefly describe what
you have learned from each.
114
5. What was the most surprising fact you learned about Coopers &
Lybrand during the interviewing process?
6. Briefly describe what you were told to expect you job to entail
in the first two months.
In the first six months:
7. How have you received the majority of your information about
Coopers & Lybrand?
□ Written materials (please list)
□ Meetings (please describe nature)
□ One-on-one interviews (with whom?)
□ Other
115
8. What is the most exciting aspect of working for Coopers &
Lybrand?
9. What feature of Coopers & Lybrand makes you most apprehensive?
10. Do you feel you know anyone at Coopers & Lybrand well enought to
ask for career advice? If yes, why, who, what position does the
person hold? If no, why not?
116
APPENDIX B
ENCOUNTER STAGE QUESTIONNAIRE
INSTRUCTIONS: Please read each of the following
statements/questions carefully. Circle the
appropriate response for statements 1-10. (YES! =
Strongly agree, Yes = Agree, ? = Uncertain, No =
Disagree, NO! = Strongly disagree). Answer questions
11-15 based on your perceptions, feelings and findings
of Coopers & Lybrand to date. Be honest and complete.
Please return your completed questionnaire in the
enclosed envelope by February 20, 1987. Thank you.
1. My job at Coopers & Lybrand is what I expected it to be.
YES! Yes ? No NO!
2. I am an important member of Coopers & Lybrand.
YES! Yes ? No NO!
3. I made a wise career choice when joining Coopers & Lybrand.
YES! Yes ? No NO!
4. I like the people at Coopers & Lybrand.
YES! Yes ? No NO!
5. Communication flows freely at Coopers & Lybrand.
YES! Yes ? No NO!
6. There is grapevine communication at Coopers & Lybrand.
YES! Yes ? No NO!
7. I get important information from the grapevine.
YES! Yes ? No NO!
8. Grapevine information at Coopers & Lybrand is accurate.
117
YES! Yes ? No NO!
9. I have created a helpful communication network at Coopers &
Lybrand.
YES! Yes ? No NO!
10. My adjustment to Coopers & Lybrand has been smooth.
YES! Yes ? No NO!
11. What do you like best about your job? About Coopers & Lybrand?
12. What do you like least about your job? About Coopers & Lybrand?
13. What has been your most surprising (unexpected) finding about
your job? About Coopers & Lybrand?
14. Aside from accounting/auditing knowledge, what is important for
continued success?
118
15. What is the most valuable advice you have received since joining
Coopers & Lybrand? Why?
119
APPENDIX C
OCCUPATIONAL ORIENTATION
Questionnaire administered to accountants in Company A and accounting
students. Results in Table 3.
Instructions: Carefully read each question. Answer
each question honestly and completely.
1. When did you decide to become and accountant?
Why?
2. Are you related to an accountant(s)?
Yes _____
No _____
If yes, who? I no, move to question 3.
Did they influence you to become an accountant? (If more than
one person listed rank order of influence.
Yes _____
No
3. Who has most influenced your decision to become an accountant?
Family ___
Friends ___
Co-workers ___
Teachers
Others ______________________________________ (please
specify).
What three words to you associate with the word "accountant"?
120
10
10
10
Do you view most Big 8 accounting firms as:
Very Much Alike Very Little
Alike
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
6. How much allegiance do you think accountants have toward their
company?
High
Low
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
The accounting profession?
High
Low
1 2 3 4
7. Assume you were offered a job at one of your competitors. What
factor(s) would make you change to another firm?
Company image ________ Greater benefits __
Higher salary ________ Less travel_____
Faster promotion ____ Colleagues _____
Team atmosphere ____ Other _____________________(Please
specify)
Better social life
8. Rank the following jobs from 1-15 with 1 being the most
prestigious.
Accountant Investment banker Police
officer
Dentist Lawyer Professor
121
Entrepreneur ___ Manager ___ Real estate
broker
Financial analyst ___ News reporter ___ Salesperson
Government official ___ Pilot ___ Surgeon
9. What are your five-year goals?
10, Eventually, you hope to become:
A Big 8 partner
A corporate controller
A self-employed CPA
A private consultant
A state or federal official
A bank/finance executive
11. What specific advice or information have you heard about the
accounting profession that makes it different from other
professions that you are familiar with?
122
APPENDIX D
ADAPTATION QUESTIONNAIRE
Part 1
The following stories were collected during interviews conducted with
Coopers & Lybrand employees over the last several months. Carefully
read each story and fully answer the follow-up questions. Use the
back of the paper if needed.
"Once there was this staff person who took their work papers to the
in-charge. Well, the in-charge said there were some changes that
needed to be made before the papers would be acceptable, and gave the
papers back to the staff person to make the necessary changes. The
staff person took the work papers back, but didn't make the changes.
When the in-charge asked for the papers again, the staff person gave
him the unchanged papers. After realizing the papers hadn't been
corrected, the in-charge took the papers to the paper shredder. With
the staff person watching, he threw them into the shredder and told
the staff person to do the work papers again...the right way this
time!"
(a) Have you heard this story?
Yes _____ No______
(b) Who told you this story? (Please give name and position, if
more than one, then list.)
Person Position
(c) What circumstances prompted the telling of this story?
(d) Have you told other C&L employees this story? If yes, who?
Person Position
(e) Is this the same version of the story you heard?
Yes ________ No___
If no, how does the version you heard differ?
1231
(f) What do you think the moral of this story is?
124
"One of the partners was out at a client's where smoking wasn't
allowed. He was not real happy about that and decided to have a
cigarette anyway. He did try to hide it, though, and when he wasn't
smoking the cigarette, he put it in his pants' pocket. The problem
was that he started his pants on fire! But he didn't panic. He
stayed quite calm, just walked to the bathroom and put the fire out."
(a) Have you heard this story?
(b) Who told you this story? (Please give name and position, if
more than one, then list.)
(c) What circumstances prompted the telling of this story?
(d) Have you told other C&L employees this story? If yes, who?
Yes No
Person Position
Person Position
(e) Is this the same version of the story you heard?
Yes No
If no, how does the version you heard differ?
(f) What do you think the moral of this story is?
125
"There was this Staff A who thought he was really hot. One of his
first assignments had been in the Arco Towers, and that was all he
talked about. Well, this one job he got was at an egg factory, and
people were pretty tired of listening to him. They told him to go
get something, but he had to walk through--let's just say 'chicken
droppings' to get it. He did--he rolled up his pants and walked
through--with everybody watching!"
(a) Have you heard this story?
(b) Who told you this story? (Please give name and position, if
more than one, then list.)
(c) What circumstances prompted the telling of this story?
(d) Have you told other C&L employees this story? If yes, who?
Yes No
Person Position
Person Position
(e) Is this the same version of the story you heard?
Yes No
If no, how does the version you heard differ?
(f) What do you think the moral of this story is?
126
"This one managing partner--the one who died on the golf course--
came into work one weekend. I guess there was a new security agent
that day. He told the managing partner he had to sign in. Didn't go
over so well--the security guy got fired!"
(a) Have you heard this story?
(b) Who told you this story? (Please give name and position, if
more than one, then list.)
(c) What circumstances prompted the telling of this story?
(d) Have you told other C&L employees this story? If yes, who?
Yes No
Person Position
Person Position
(e) Is this the same version of the story you heard?
Yes No
If no, how does the version you heard differ?
(f) What do you think the moral of this story is?
127
"There was a brand new Staff B--I mean first day on the job! Well,
he was pretty nervous and was wanting to do everything just right.
He really wanted to please and impress everyone. I guess it was
becoming pretty obvious to the others on this job, so they decided to
play a little joke. Somebody got a lot of blank work papers and
piled them up, then taped their card to it to make them look
official. Then they set the papers next to this drill and told the
guy when he came in to drill the papers. He was sort of hesitant,
but figured he should do what he's told, so he really got ready to
drill before he realized he'd had a pretty good joke pulled on him."
(a) Have you heard this story?
(b) Who told you this story? (Please give name and position, if
more than one, then list.)
Yes No
Person Position
(c) What circumstances prompted the telling of this story?
(d) Have you told other G&L employees this story? If yes, who?
Person Position
(e) Is this the same version of the story you heard?
Yes No
If no, how does the version you heard differ?
(f) What do you think the moral of this story is?
128
"One time this person was out at a client's. He did his job and all,
but was also selling Herbalife to the client's employees on the side.
The in-charge told him it wasn't a good idea, but I guess he decided
to keep selling it anyway. That made the in-charge really mad, and
she had him taken off the job. Maybe it was just their
personalities, but something like that can really hurt your
reputation, and it takes a long time to shake a bad reputation. He
didn't get fired or anything, but it might have delayed his
promotion."
(a) Have you heard this story?
(b) Who told you this story? (Please give name and position, if
more than one, then list.)
(c) What circumstances prompted the telling of this story?
(d) Have you told other C&L employees this story? If yes, who?
Yes No
Person Position
Person Position
(e) Is this the same version of the story you heard?
Yes No
If no, how does the version you heard differ?
(f) What do you think the moral of this story is?
129
"Every year we have a big company party in the spring--usually at a
country club. It's an all-day affair and the office is closed. You
can golf during the day or do whatever, then there's a big dinner .
Well, last year it got a little out of hand. Some people were having
golf cart races, others were throwing golf balls at swans. Then,
during dinner, a food fight started and it was a mess! Hard to say
how it got started, a lot of people letting off a lot of steam. The
country club wrote a letter saying if it ever happens again, that's
our last party there. One of the partners sent out a memo telling us
to keep it calmer."
(a) Have you heard this story?
(b) Who told you this story? (Please give name and position, if
more than one, then list.)
(c) What circumstances prompted the telling of this story?
(d) Have you told other C&L employees this story? If yes, who?
Yes No
Person Position
Person Position
(e) Is this the same version of the story you heard?
Yes No
If no, how does the version you heard differ?
(f) What do you think the moral of this story is?
130
"Quite a while back we were working on an extremely important job.
It was taking a lot longer than anyone had figured, and we were
really coming up against the wall. One night everyone, including
some partners and the client, were working late and decided to get a
quick dinner. We weren't gone long, but the cleaning crew had come
in and thrown away some of the papers. It would have cost thousands
to start over and not everything could be duplicated. The partners
and the client went out and searched through the trash at 3 o'clock
in the morning! What a picture! But they found them."
(a) Have you heard this story?
(b) Who told you this story? (Please give name and position, if
more than one, then list.)
(c) What circumstances prompted the telling of this story?
(d) Have you told other C&L employees this story? If yes, who?
Yes No
Person Position
Person Position
(e) Is this the same version of the story you heard?
Yes No
If no, how does the version you heard differ?
(f) What do you think the moral of this story is?
131
"One of the things that makes Coopers & Lybrand different is their
policy to rehire people who left to pursue other positions. It seems
like a good policy and communicates Coopers & Lybrand's commitment to
their people. You don't have to be embarrassed about coming back
either. But this rehiring doesn't hold true for everyone. You can
pretty well tell when you resign whether you are valued enough to be
rehired. It is important, though, to be sure you've cleared up all
your projects before leaving so as not to burn any bridges."
(a) Have you heard this story?
(b) Who told you this story? (Please give name and position, if
more than one, then list.)
(c) What circumstances prompted the telling of this story?
(d) Have you told other C&L employees this story? If yes, who?
Yes No
Person Position
Person Position
(e) Is this the same version of the story you heard?
Yes No
If no, how does the version you heard differ?
(f) What do you think the moral of this story is?
1321
Part 2
The following terms or jargon were referred to in recent
interviews... some more frequently than others. Please identify the
terms you have heard and are familiar with by answering the questions
below. If there are synonyms for these terms that you feel are more
commonly used, please list them.
(1) Big Picture
(a) Have you heard this term?
Yes No
(b) Is this a frequently used term:
by others ?
by you ?
(c) Define the term.
(d) List any synonyms for this term.
(2) Fire Drill
(a) Have you heard this term?
Yes No
(b) Is this a frequently used term:
by others ?
by you ?
(c) Define the term.
(d) List any synonyms for this term.
133
(3) Dragon Lady
(a) Have you heard this term?
Yes No
(b) Is this a frequently used term:
by others _____?
by you _____?
(c) Define the term.
(d) List any synonyms for this term.
(4) Golden Eggs
(a) Have you heard this term?
Yes No
(b) Is this a frequently used term:
by others _____?
by you _____?
(c) Define the term.
(d) List any synonyms for this term.
(5) Shoe Box
(a) Have you heard this term?
Yes No
134
(b) Is this a frequently used term:
by others _____ ?
by you _
(c) Define the term.
(d) List any synonyms for this term
Cookie-cutter Approach
(a) Have you heard this term?
Yes No
(b) Is this a frequently used term:
by others _____?
by you _____?
(c) Define the term.
(d) List any synonyms for this term
Part 3
What stories and terms have you heard not listed? Briefly tell the
stories and define the terms.
136

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A critical analysis of ideology and discourse in two hotels

PDF

AIDS preventive sexual behavior in college students: An empirical test of the health belief model

PDF

A system of participation and allocation preferences in organizations

PDF

An organizational culture approach to the study of individual power and its use

PDF

Communication during physical intimacy: A theoretical and methodological study of communication competence

PDF

Corporate management training programs: An application of Acquisition Theory

PDF

A ship in a bottle: How communication builds the lifeboats of the world's largest A.A. group

PDF

A structurational analysis of labor negotiations

PDF

Cinematic concepts and techniques in the adaptation and staging of chamber theatre

PDF

¹⁹F-NMR studies of trifluoroacetyl insulin derivatives

PDF

Computer modeling and free energy calculatons of biological processes

PDF

Children's judgments of the similarity of television series and the similarity of gratifications associated with television series

PDF

Computer simulation of polar solvents with the SCAAS model

PDF

A new approach to the problem of measuring the properties of micelles

PDF

Correlates of deceit: A cross-cultural examination

PDF

Computers and political communication: Innovation in political campaign organizations

PDF

Communication practices and organizational change: The structuring of process improvement experiences

PDF

Communication rules and perceived outcomes within and between domestic culture groups: A comparison of intracultural and intercultural conversations among acquaintances

PDF

Individual media dependency relationships and movie-going

PDF

Chicanismo in selected poetry from the Chicano movement, 1969-1972: A rhetorical study

Asset Metadata

Creator Davis, Lynn (author)

Core Title Building a model of organization acculturation: an interpretive study of organizational culture and stories

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Communication Arts and Sciences

Degree Conferral Date 1991-08

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,sociology, organizational

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Riley, Patricia (committee chair), [illegible] (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-728970

Unique identifier UC11343900

Identifier DP22465.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-728970 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP22465.pdf

Dmrecord 728970

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Davis, Lynn

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA