Integritas - Jurnal Manajemen Bisnis | Vol. 1 No. 2 | Agustus - November 2008 (203 - 218) The Role of Culture and Community - Achmad Setyo Hadi

commitment: the missing link,” Ivey Stun, D.L. 1998, “Five ingredients for an Business Journal 65(3), pp. 70-79. employee retention formula,” HR Focus THE ROLE OF CULTURE AND COMMUNITY 75(9), pp. 9-11. Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie and W.H. in Developing Effective Organization Bommer, 1996, “Transformational Solomon, C.M. 1995, “Brace for Change,” leader behaviors and substitutes for Workforce 78(1), pp. 6-11. leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust and Whitener, E.M. 2001, “DO “high commitment” organizational citizenship behaviors,” human resource practices affect Achmad Setyo Hadi Journal of Management 22, pp. 259-98. employee commitment? A cross- Prasetiya Mulya Business School, Jakarta level analysis using hierarchical linear [email protected] Perry-Smith, J., and T.C. Blum, 2000, “Work modeling,” Journal of Management 27(5), family human resource bundles and pp. 515-64. perceived organizational performance,” Academy of Management Journal 43(6), Walker, J.W. 2001, “Perspectives,” Human pp. 1107-12. Resource Planning 24(1), pp. 6-10.

This paper analyzes the relations between culture and communities. The interesting Risher, W., and W.G. Stopper, 2002, “Corporate Wright, P., Dunford, B. B., and Snell, S.A. 2001, Abstract cultural aspects of organizations are, as we have seen, not what is unique for a Sponsor Forum,” Human Resources “Human resources and the resource single organization, but deeper and broader patterns that to some extent are part Planning 25(1), pp. 5-10. based view of the firm,” Journal of of a more general business, industrial, or community culture. Understanding of Management 27(6), pp. 701-21. cultural manifestations in organizations, even those that are dominant and broadly Stein, N. 2000, “Winning the war to keep top shared on the local level, is that it makes us realize the management’s influence is, talent: Yes you can make your workplace Williams, K. 1999, “Rewards encourage loyalty, after all, restricted. National culture, class culture, and the cultures of professional invincible!” Fortune 141(11), pp. 132-38. increase performance,” Strategic Finance and occupational communities put strong imprints on organization. 8(6), pp. 75-82.

Sheridan, J.E. 1992, “Organizational culture An important additional factor, not often addressed in either research or theorizing, Wetland, D. 2003, “The strategic training and employee retention,” Academy of that may help explain the variation in the communal nature of organizations over Management Journal 35(5), pp. 1036- of employees model: balancing time and across locales are the social values and norms that get embedded in 57. organizational constraints and training particular theories and perspectives about people and organizations, perspectives content,” S.A.M. Advanced Management that do not simply take place but that are promulgated by interest groups with Schein, E.H. 1990, “Organizational culture,” Journal Winter, Cincinnati. particular agendas and beliefs. American Psychologist 45, pp. 109-19. Keywords: Community, corporate culture, culture, effective organization.

218 219 Integritas - Jurnal Manajemen Bisnis | Vol. 1 No. 2 | Agustus - November 2008 (219 - 231) The Role of Culture and Community - Achmad Setyo Hadi

ommunities can be used as a the espoused values, the deeper assumptions of running a company, that these beliefs structure, specifying the boundaries of means to organizational learning and the immediate requirements of the influence how leaders behave, and that in references groups, the appropriate forms of Cand knowledge management. situation. Overt behavior alone cannot be current times, such ways of managing do not authority, and the division of labor. Many organizations have the knowledge used to decipher culture because situational much include thinking of organizations as Identity: To be effective as an organizing and skills (the intellectual capital) that contingencies often make us behave in a communities and as employees as important. principle, community must become they need to become high performing manner inconsistent with our deeper values But another equally important question is internalized in personalities and motivational organizations but institutional structures and and assumptions. It is for this reason that how social expectations and norms about systems (Heckscher and Adler: 16-17). human resource practices stand in the way. one often sees “inconsistencies” or “conflicts” appropriate models of organization get Because of functional boundaries or rigid job in overt behavior or between behavior and established in the first place. Community requires the internalization of descriptions, the employees who possess the espoused values. To get at the basic elements motives in a stable self, because only if one requisite knowledge and skill are prevented of culture one must either observe behavior Communities in Practice can grasp others’ motivational patterns can from pooling those resources for the purpose over a very long period of time or get directly Community is essential to the human one have confidence in how they will act in of increasing organizational effectiveness. at the underlying values and assumptions condition. Basically, people need to be able the future. Thus character is always central Communities facilitate that social interaction that drive the perceptions and thoughts of to rely on others. Trust is a willingness to act in the generation of trust. Social character is through informal networks and practices that the group members. on the basis of such reliance. Community is the core aspects of mechanism, that enable create opportunities for collective learning people to count on the fact that others will An organization that is able to maintain a the set of institutions that give a basis for this and individual identity enhancement. react predictably (Fromm and Maccoby:, positive culture is likely to enjoy many benefits. confidence, by establishing and enforcing 1970). A culture is a set of basic tacit assumptions When organization members identify with mutual expectation. Communities have about how the world is and ought to be that the culture, the work environment tends to three fundamental dimensions: Organizational structures and processes set is shared by a set of people and determines be more enjoyable, which boosts morale. This Values: Community is first a set of value the stage for organizational learning but their perceptions, thoughts, feelings and, to leads to increased levels of teamwork, sharing orientations shared by all members of a learning is ultimately a phenomenon that some degree, their overt behavior. Culture of information, and openness to new ideas. group. Everyone can assume that the others occurs at the individual level and is dependent manifests itself at three levels, the level of the The resulting increased interaction among will orient to those values and can therefore on the subjectively derived meaning that deep tacit assumptions that are the essence employees activates learning and continuous predict their actions and responses. The emerges from social interactions that are part of the culture, the level of espoused values improvement because information flows highest value is interdependent contribution, of organizational practices. Wenger (1998) which often reflect what a group wishes to be more freely throughout the organization. as distinct from loyalty or individual proposes a social theory of learning that ideally and the way it wants to present itself integrates both macro and micro levels of The question reflects the correct belief that integrity. publicly, and the day to day behavior which organizational functioning in Communities there are socially accepted and valued ways represents a complex compromise between Organization: Community is also social of Practice. The social theory of learning

220 221 Integritas - Jurnal Manajemen Bisnis | Vol. 1 No. 2 | Agustus - November 2008 (219 - 231) The Role of Culture and Community - Achmad Setyo Hadi

that he proposes “integrates the components of learning indicated, the ways of talking compromise between the espoused values, service culture reveals still greater cultural necessary to characterize social participation about our experiences and social interactions the deeper assumptions and the immediate differentiation among communities, as a process of learning and knowing” (ibid. inform the meanings we derive from them requirements of the situation. Overt behavior occupational specialties, specific units 5). and contribute to the development of our alone cannot be used to decipher culture within the service, and between line and identities. The patterns of discourse that because situational contingencies often make staff personnel. Communities of practice are a means to emerge through social participation, shape us behave in a manner inconsistent with our organizational learning and knowledge Research conducted by John Van Maanen not only what we do, but also who we are deeper values and assumptions. It is for this management. Many organizations have the and Steven Barley (1984) provides some and how we interpret what we do. Over reason that one often sees “inconsistencies” knowledge and skills (the intellectual capital) insight to this question. They discovered that time, the shared histories of learning become or “conflicts” in overt behavior or between that they need to become high performing the content of the interaction is behavioral embedded in the organizational culture behavior and espoused values. To get at the organizations but institutional structures and and cognitive in nature. During initial (Schein, 1992) and partially determine what basic elements of culture one must either human resource practices stand in the way. interactions with newcomers, the established we come to accept as common sense. For observe behavior over a very long period of Because of functional boundaries or rigid job occupational community transmits to that reason, it is critical to come to a better time or get directly at the underlying values descriptions, the employees who possess the new members those shared occupational understanding of the ways that sense making and assumptions that drive the perceptions requisite knowledge and skill are prevented practices (including norms and roles), values, processes function in organizations. and thoughts of the group members. from pooling those resources for the purpose vocabularies and identities-all examples of of increasing organizational effectiveness. Organizations consist of subgroups that the explicit social products that are indicative The Concept of Culture in Organization Communities of practice facilitate that have specific characteristics and a sense of of culture in organizations. social interaction through informal networks A culture is a set of basic tacit assumptions identification. Within organizations, people These findings were reinforced by Sonja and practices that create opportunities for about how the world is and ought to be that can easily classify themselves and others into Sackmann’s research on subcultures in a collective learning and individual identity is shared by a set of people and determines various social categories or groups based medium sized conglomerate in the United enhancement. their perceptions, thoughts, feelings and, to on identification with their primary work States. She found that subcultures were found some degree, their overt behavior (Schein, group, occupational or professional skills, In the process of participation in joint to form on the basis of functional domains; 1992). Culture manifests itself at three levels, union membership, or age cohort (Ashforth enterprises, new meanings are negotiated principally in their biased knowledge of the level of the deep tacit assumptions that and Mael 1989). Subgroups in organizations from work experiences, principally through events in the organization, in their biased are the essence of the culture, the level of can and do create subcultures that comprise dialogue (Senge, 1990). The importance explanations of cause and effect relationships, espoused values which often reflect what specific networks of meaning; yet, at the of dialogue can not be over-estimated in and in their patterns of behavior. a group wishes to be ideally and the way it same time, they remain associated with the generative social practices. As the definitions wants to present itself publicly, and the day ideologies and values of the organization’s of the four components of a social theory to day behavior which represents a complex leadership. A closer examination of each

222 223 Integritas - Jurnal Manajemen Bisnis | Vol. 1 No. 2 | Agustus - November 2008 (219 - 231) The Role of Culture and Community - Achmad Setyo Hadi

Cultures in this sense arise within organizations applications. Whether between people, be the source of cooperation, cohesion, and to have or develop certain common cultural based on their own histories and experiences. nations, organizations, appreciating its progress, instead of conflict, disintegration, attributes)(pp. 39-47). Starting with the founders, those members meaning is at the very center of effective and failure. Generally, the idea of a single, organizational of the organization who have shared in communications and relationships. To In influential local approach to culture, Van level corporate culture, frequently the successful growth of an organization survive and thrive in this 21st century, Maanen and Barley (1984) call attention to the accompanied by the assumption of will have developed a set of assumptions individuals and institutions need to acquire existence within organizations of groups that management being able to shape it, was about the world and how to succeed in it, and practice cross-cultural sensitivity and have different backgrounds and professional very popular earlier (e.g. Davis, 1985; Martin and will have taught those assumptions to skills in dealing with diversity issues. But affiliations and high degrees of internal et al., 1985). A strong case can be made that new members of the organization (Schein, before this can happen, they need to interaction and consequently share rather societies – nations or groups of nations with 1983). understand the meaning of culture in its little. Van Maanen and Barley (1985) argue similar characteristics – put strong imprints broadest sense. Shared assumptions also typically form around that ‘unitary organizational cultures evolve on organizational cultures. The idea of an

the functional units of the organization. Culture is a distinctly human capacity when all members of an organization face industrial subculture draws attention to the We all know that getting cross-functional for adapting to circumstances, and then roughly the same problems, when everyone fact that culture most fully corresponds to project teams to work well together is being able to transmit this knowledge and communicates with almost everyone else, a society and that the sphere of industry difficult because the members bring their experience to subsequent generations. and when each member adopts a common includes a distinctive set of meanings shared functional cultures into the project and, as a Culture gives a particular people a sense set of understandings for enacting proper by a group of people whose forms of behavior consequence, have difficulty communicating of who they are, of belonging, of how they and consensually approved behavior’ (p. 37). differ to some extent from those of the wider with each other, reaching consensus, and should behave, and of what they should be These conditions are, of course, rare. These community (Turner, 1971: 1). Turner’s point implementing decisions in an effective doing. Culture impacts behavior, morale, researchers emphasize subcultures created of departure is his experience that when manner. The difficulty of communication and performance. It influences perceptions through organizational segmentation moving from one industrial organization across these boundaries arise not only and attitudes, values and actions. Yet, many (division of labor hierarchically and vertically), to another, it is possible to observe certain from the fact that the functional groups persons are totally unconscious of their important (through mergers, acquisitions, similarities which differ from behavior have different goals, but from the more cultural conditioning, and do not fully and the hiring of specific occupational elsewhere in society. Here the entire industry fundamental issue that the very meaning of utilize this valuable insight into human groups), technological innovation (which is conceptualized as subculture. Individual the words they use will differ. activity. For culture provides a context for creates new group formations), ideological organizations then may appear as sub-sub- comprehending so much that occurs in our differentiation (e.g. when some people adopt culture. By drawing attention to the cultural Macro Understandings of Organizational daily lives, be it education or economics, a new ideology of work), counter-cultural context of the focal object, it encourages a Culture: Reflections of Communities politics or productivity, science or religion, (oppositional) movements, and career filters broader view of it. or even commerce and industry! Culture can (the tendency for people moving to the top Culture is a fascinating concept with myriad

224 225 Integritas - Jurnal Manajemen Bisnis | Vol. 1 No. 2 | Agustus - November 2008 (219 - 231) The Role of Culture and Community - Achmad Setyo Hadi

The so-called institutional theory school emphasizing interpretive and cultural frameworks and ideas originating from broad and services. A basic consideration is how emphasizes isomorphism, a trend implying depth and, as a consequence, may over- occupational communities. much of business practice is culturally that organizations become more and more emphasize homogeneity and conflate influenced by a particular time or place. Wilkins and Dyer (1987) talk about ‘frames’ alike. Meanings patterns are imported meaning. Nevertheless, it draws attention to In the 21st century, it would seem that or definitions of situations and view a from various instances outside individual valuable macro aspects of meaning creation executive managers might benefit from change in ‘frame’ as a cultural change. organizations. For reasons of legitimacy as and the large amount of studies clearly cultural insights, regardless of national This approach diverts attention from the well as for reasons of adapting a cognitive shows the need to go outside the individual origin. The global marketplace, especially in broader meanings and understandings best view of the social world as ordered and organizational level and consider the macro Europe, is marked by diversity (Wedersphan, understood on a macro level that inform comprehensible, people in organizations aspects in operation. 2000) Furthermore, international business change in ‘frames’. One and the same ‘macro are sensitive to the meanings, ideas and is in transition because of mergers, making A macro view on organizations does not culture’ can help us make sense of quite definitions of what is natural, rational and acquisitions, or negotiating strategic alliances necessarily mean a neglect of variation within different situations. The high degree of good developed by various institutions, – each partner in such processes have unique organization. Quite the contrary, appreciating commitment and productivity were based, such as professions, state agencies, science, organizational cultures to merge with the the role of ethnic groups, classes, gender, age, then, on the broader cultural understanding management consultants and so on other. For such unions to succeed, executives occupations and another sources of social that this situation is exceptional. When this (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Meyer and should be seeking to create a synergy differentiation that in no way are restricted to relations were perceived to have changed, Rowan, 1977; Scott, 1995). Local meaning between the two or more institutional be characterizing the individual organization, a new understanding (frame) was indeed creation is thus seen as less relevant, as it cultures involved. Business and its systems mean that variation at the organizational created, but this cannot be understood on is assumed to exhibit fairly little variation. worldwide reflect different cultural practices level can be taken seriously. the group level alone. If the employees had Instead the overall level driving organizations (Elashmawi and Harris, 1998). not proceeded from certain general cultural to conformity is viewed as more crucial in In-depth cultural studies of organization assumptions about normality, they might order to understand organizational reality. typically offer a careful investigation of a Conclusion have defined the situation in many ways – From a cultural point of view institutional limited empirical terrain and frequently lead to for example, judging their employers frauds The idea of unique and unitary organizational theory tends to embrace a rather crude idea a strong focus on cultural orientations shared or crazy, showing erratic and unpredictable culture is contested, then, from two different of meaning. Institutional theory illuminates by a group within an organization. Exceptions behavior. viewpoints: first, that organizations are structural arrangements (organizational are typically critically oriented studies which basically products of macro level phenomena forms, techniques, policies) associated relate organizational manifestations to the Comprehending the concept of culture is (society, class, industrial sector) and, secondly, with fairly standardized meanings and capitalist economy or class relations (e.g. essential for business practitioners, especially are normally similar and that variations within constructions rather than more nuanced Rosen, 1985) or studies involving groups of among those who seek to keep it cultural organizations are much more profound than and specific meaning-creating processes professionals which clearly are informed by relevant, while increasing sales of products unitary patterns because of the diversity of and symbolism. Institutional theory is not

226 227 Integritas - Jurnal Manajemen Bisnis | Vol. 1 No. 2 | Agustus - November 2008 (219 - 231) The Role of Culture and Community - Achmad Setyo Hadi

the groups involved. These viewpoints are not (e.g., DeParle, 2005). Therefore, management Therefore, culture matters, but not just or including the organizational world (Ferraro, contradictory: for example, some of the social practices reflect general trends in beliefs perhaps even primarily the national culture Pfeffer, and Sutton, 2005). In that sense, and cultural variations within organizations about people, their responsibilities, and how but more particular social values embedded the waxing and waning of an organization can often be related to similar variations they relate to each other, as well as what in people’s implicit assumptions about human as community model is a consequence of on the societal level. There are several makes organizations effective. The rise of behavior and organizations and what makes more general changes in views of human and reasons why it is important to consider the neoclassical economics with its assumptions each effective. As extensively documented organizational behavior that are the result relations between organizations and ‘macro of methodological individualism, the pursuit elsewhere (e.g., Kuttner, 1996), such beliefs of political action by advocates favoring a culture’ (national, regional, etc.). There is an of self-interest (e.g., Miller, 1999), individual and ideologies about human behavior are particular conception and point of view. obvious interplay between these ‘entities’ in choice and responsibility, and the importance neither simply subject to empirical proof The production of culture in the public sphere, the production of cultural manifestations of market-mediated exchanges (Kuttner, of their validity nor emergent from society, particularly through mass communication (Hofstede, 1985). The interesting cultural 1996) is at once inconsistent with a view but instead, are promulgated by foundations (including ideas on management and aspects of organizations are, as we have seen, of organizations as communities of mutual and organizations that are active in the organization), is of obvious significance. But in not what is unique for a single organization, responsibility and shared obligation and also political discourse precisely to shape not organization theory the relationship between but deeper and broader patterns that to some helps to explain why a communal organizing only specific policies but more importantly, ‘environment’ and culture is normally treated extent are part of a more general business, model may be particularly scarce at times to influence the language and assumptions as weak and indirect. Direct and open cultural industrial, or social culture. Understanding such as the present and in places. that shape how people see the world, flows are seldom seriously considered. of cultural manifestations in organizations, The view of organizations having unique even those that are dominant and broadly and unitary cultures is widespread, and it shared on the local level, is that it makes encourages the treatment of their cultural us realize the management’s influence is, Adler, P.S. dan C. Heckscher, 2006, “Towards Davis, T., 1985, “Managing Culture at the Bottom.” dimensions as closed systems. That people after all, restricted. National culture, class Collaborative Community,” dalam C. In Kilmann, R.H., Saxton, M., Serpa, R. et al. References sometimes emphasize the impact of the Heckscher dan P.S. Adler (Eds.) The Firm as (Eds) (1985) Gaining Control of Corporate culture, and the cultures of professional A Community: Reconstructing Trust in the Culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass ‘environment’ on culture does not mean and occupational communities put strong Knowledge Economy, Oxford, UK: Oxford that they advocate an open view of culture imprints on organization. University Press. DeParle, J., 2005, Goals Reached, Donor on Right in organizations; the ‘environment’ is viewed Closes Up Shop, New York Times, May 29, Ashforth, B. E. and F. Mael, 1989, “Social identity A1, 21. At the societal level, the waxing and waning here as non-cultural and as affecting theory and the organization,” Academy of of ideology that informs management organizational culture only through reactions Management Review, 1, 20-39. DiMaggio, P., and W. Powell, 1983, “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and practice is not exogenous but is, instead, to circumstances and conditions that have Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C., 2003, “The collective rationality in organizational driven by the political agendas of groups consequences for operations. network Paradigm in Organizational fields,” American Sociological Review, 48, with money and a point of view to advance Research: A Review and Typology,” Journal pp. 147 –160 of Management, 29(6), 991-1013.

228 229 Integritas - Jurnal Manajemen Bisnis | Vol. 1 No. 2 | Agustus - November 2008 (219 - 231) The Role of Culture and Community - Achmad Setyo Hadi

Elashmawi, F., Harris, P.R., 1998, Multicultural Katsioloudes, M.I. , 2002, Global Strategic Planning – “how to make the team: social networks implications for HRD,” Human Resource Management 2000. Cultural Perspectives for Profit and Non-Profit vs. demography as criteria for designing Development Review, 1(4), 468-499. Organizations, Butterworth-Heinemann, effective teams,” Administrative Science Ferraro, F., J. Pfeffer, and R.I. Sutton, 2005, Oxford. Quarterly, 49(1), 101-133. Turner, B. ,1971, Exploring the Industrial Subculture. “Economics language and assumptions: London: Macmillan. how theories can become self-fulfilling,” Kuttner, R., 1996, Everything for Sale: The Virtues Rhee, M., 2004, “Network updating and exploratory Academy of Management Review, 30, and Limits of Markets, Chicago: University learning environment,” Journal of Van Maanen, J. & S. R. Barley, 1984, “Occupational 8-24. of Chicago Press. Management Studies, 41(6), 933-949. communities: culture and control in organizations.” In B. M. Staw and L. L. Fromm, Erich and Michael Maccoby, 1970, Social Martin, J., Sitkin, S., and M. Boehm, 1985, “Founders Rollag, K., S. Parise,R. Cross, 2005, “Getting new Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Character in a Mexican Village, Englewood and the elusiveness of a cultural legacy.” In hires up to speed quickly,” MIT Sloan Behavior. Vol. 6. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. P.J. Frost et al. (Eds) Organizational Culture. Management Review, 46(2), 35-41. Press. Beverly Hills: Sage Gareis, K. C., and R. C. Barnett, 2002, “Under what Rosen, M., 1985, “Breakfirst at spiro’s: dramaturgy Van Maanen, J., and Barley, S.R., 1985, Cultural conditions do long work hours affect Meyer, J., and Rowan, B., 1977, “Institutionalized and dominance,” Journal of Management, organization: fragments of a theory. In P.J. psychological distress: a study of full-time organizations: formal structure as myth and 11, 2, pp. 31- 48. Frost et al. (Eds) Organizational Culture. and reduced-hours female doctors,” Work ceremony,” American Journal of Sociology, Beverly Hills: Sage. and Occupations, 29, 483-497. 83, pp. 340 – 363. Salopek, J. J., 2005, “The New Brain Drain,” ŢD, 59(6), 23-25. Vollhardt, C. , 2005, “Pfizer’s prescription for the Geisel, Jerry, 2002, ”Retirees to Face Higher Costs Miller, D.T., 1999, “The norm of self-interest,” risky business of executive transitions,” for Employer Health Plans,” Business American Psychologist, 54, 1053-1060. Schein, E., 1983, “The role of the founder in Journal of Organizational Excellence, 25(1), Insurance, 36 (Issue 37, September 16), 3. the creation of organizational culture,“ 3-15. Oh, H., M. Chung, & G. Labianca, 2004, “Group Organizational Dynamics, 12(1), pp. 13- Ghoshal, Sumantra, 2005, “Bad management social capital and group effectiveness: the 28. Wedersphan, G.M., 2000, Intercultural Services theories are destroying good management role of informal socializing ties,” Academy of – A Worldwide Buyers Guide, Butterworth- practices,” Academy of Management Management Journal, 47(6), 860-875. Schein, E., 1992, Organizational Culture and Heinemann/Elsevier Science, Oxford, Learning and Education, 4, 75-91. Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- pp.5. Parise, S., R. Cross, R., T.H. Davenport, 2006, Bass. Gittell, Jody Hoffer, 2003, The Southwest Airlines “Strategies for preventing a knowledgeloss Wenger, E., 1998,. Communities of Practice: Learning, Way: Using the Power of Relationships crisis,” MIT Sloan Management Review, Scott, J., 2000, Social Network Analysis: A Handbook, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: to Achieve High Performance. New York: 47(4), 31-38. London: Sage. Cambridge University Press. McGraw-Hill. Perry-Smith, J. E., C.E. Shalley, 2003, “The social Scott, R., 1995, Institutions and Organizations. Wilkins, A.L., and Dyer, W.G., 1987, “Toward a theory Helmers, S., 1991, “Anthropological contributions side of creativity: a static and dynamic Thousand Oakes: Sage. of cultural change: a dialectic and synthesis. to organizational culture,” SCOS Notework, social network perspective,” Academy of “Paper presented at the 3rd International 10, pp 60 – 72. Management Review, 28(1), 89-106. Senge, P., 1990,. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Conference on Organizational Symbolism Practice of the Learning Organization. New and Corporate Culture, Milan, June 1987. Hofstede, G., 1985, “The interaction between Polanyi, M., 1983, The Tacit Dimension, New York: York, NY: Doubleday. In M. Alvesson, 2002, Understanding national and organizational value system,” Doubleday. Organizational Culture. London: Sage, pp. Journal of Management Studies, 22, pp. Storberg, J., 2002, “The evolution of capital theory: 157 - 158. 347 – 357 Reagans, R., E.W. Zuckerman, B. McEvily (2004) a review of a theory of social capital and

230 231