The Anioma culture over the time has become distinct and typical to the region, thus no ethnicity or group of people can justifiably lay claims to this culture because it is unique to the region. The uniqueness of this culture has ordinarily on its own tended to fend off arguments from quarters laying claims to the beautiful culture of this people. The Anioma culture they say speaks for itself. It has also beaten the imagination of several cultural observers on how speedily the culture and tradition of Anioma people have become homogenous in spite of the group not having common ancestral history as many historians mistakenly assume.

Although certain communities in this region can lay claim to Igbo ancestry as supported by oral history, many of these group have their histories obviously not linking them with Igbo home as their place of origin. It is for this reason that those ignorant on Anioma history fail to understand that in Anioma more than 12 languages exists in this region alone. The Agbor people who are of Ika ethnic group but agreed to join the union of Anioma with the rest of their neighbouring communities scattered around the region chiefly because all the towns and communities in this region have had a common history of relationship even many centuries before the arrival of the Europeans, and have shared common culture speak Ozzara and Ika.

The Ika people in their native language know and acknowledge this; only early Europeans and visitors to the region failed to understand this because they were particularly not interested in studying the social aspects of the people but greedily centered their interest on trade. The Ugbodu speak Olukumi (extinct form of Yoruba language,) Igbo and Igara. The Igara language is not typical to Ugbodu, else where in Evbu this language is also in use in addition to Igbo language. In Igbodo, Igbo and Ika is spoken by the people. Ika is a language similar to Bini. These languages strange to Igbo reflect in everyday usage in names of humans, articles, and chieftaincy titles shared with the Edos believed to be the ancestral home of many of these Anioma communities.  

It is therefore wonderful that in spite of difference in the histories of Anioma communities unique fusions hold the people together, though some would argue that the fact that these people have related socially and politically have been a major  factor responsible for this. Consider also that the Old Benin kingdom has also played a greater role in re-shaping and binding the region together with certain ideas and values typical to Edo.

If you have ever taken your time to watch Anioma people thrill you with any particular aspect of their culture you will surely be full of excitement. The Anioma kind of dance which requires so much energy to do is so unique that you cannot help but fall in love with the people, especially if you watch the Anioma lady traditionally appear in akwa-ocha, with white blouse and red beads, or even in just akwa-ocha tied around her waist up to her chest with her red beads and traditionally dressed her typical of Edo culture, you will indeed admire the Anioma people in their attractive traditional attire.

Several traditional kinds of dances are in existence in Anioma some of which are the Aguba Royal Dance, Uloko Dance, Egu Amala, Okanga, Egwu Osusu (Ukuani,) Egwu Oshushu (Enuani)  etc. Many of these dances are typical to the Anioma people, and the people of this region have come to master the art with ease over the time, adding fun to them. I would at this juncture advise many of our cultural organizations to find a way of making sure that our youths is trained in these our dances in order to continue to preserve them.

At the 2008 Anioma cultural fiestas put together by the enviable Organization for the Advancement of Anioma Culture held in Asaba Delta State, Otu One mind from Owa in Ika North East displayed a remarkable feat as the group emerged as the winner of the cultural show. The Uloko Cultural Group of Ndemili, Utagba-Uno in Ndokwa West Local Government had held the record of having won the even twice, in 2005 and 2006. The Otu Chukwuenyirinma of Agbor came second while Uloko Cultural Group of Ndemili, Utagba-Uno in Ndokwa came third.

Other Anioma cultural groups such as Otu Egwu Udo of Afor in Ndokwa East, Otu Egwu Aduko of Eweshi Onicha-Ukwuani in Ndokwa West, Aguba dance Band of Ubulu-Unor, Otu Chukwuedo Cultural Group of Owa-Oyibu In Ika North east, Otu Ita of Ogwashi-Uku in Aniocha south, Otu Egwu Onicha-Olona in Aniocha North have all proved to be force to reckon with in this fiesta. We wonder what happened to cultural groups from Ibusa often referred to as ‘the Congo of Africa”

Kudos should go to the organizers for believing in the distinct and uniqueness of Anioma culture, that not capable of being assimilated by any external ethnic group. One must not also fail to express much gratitude to Anioma Association USA Inc for striving and succeeding in also advancing the course of Anioma unequivocally demonstrating that the future of Anioma is not in doubt and that Anioma’s identity still lies with the group because we have not in any way lost our sight, we are relevant indeed. This is what the group tells us. I love this Anioma culture.   

Most people don’t give much thought to the actual cross cultural communication process prior to their first real cross cultural negotiation. They get obsessed with secondary details.

Cross Cultural Negotiation Skills

Imagine you are in a long line of people waiting for a taxi at the busy Paris airport. With people swarming everywhere. The noise of the street traffic competing with the noise from the airplanes in the background.

And then you hear such a large commotion, right up at the front of your taxi line. You think it is yet another bomb scare and crane your neck to get a closer look with your bags in your hands ready to move. But out of the confusion you hear laughter.

What happened?

It was only someone who began to try bargaining the price of his ride before he got inside the taxi…with a Parisian taxi driver. The tension breaks as a ripple of laughter mixed with annoyance runs down the taxi line.

It is an old story. But it does highlight cultural differences in negotiation very well.

Different Cultures Have Different Negotiation Practices

Negotiation practices differ from country to country. Some cultures expect clients to negotiate over things that would be totally unacceptable in other countries. Some cultures get upset or angry by things that are totally acceptable in other cultures.

Different cultures simply have different approaches when it comes to negotiation.
This can be intimidating when you travel to a new country to negotiate for business.
And even more so if it is your first time.

It is important to know what is culturally expected of you when it comes to negotiation.

If you are just starting out in developing your international markets, it is wise to do some homework and identify the standard expected negotiating habits in the country you are travelling to.

No matter how much research you do prior to your first cross cultural negotiation communication road blocks can easily come up. This is even more likely if your negotiation is taking place in a foreign environment to what you are used to.

So it is even more important to develop skills to ride through communication hurdles.

A Beginners Guideline

Prior to your first cross cultural negotiation give some thought on how you will keep on track.

Here is a guideline to help beginners.

If you find yourself on your own in a country where negotiation practices are different to your own, there is a strategy to follow.

Prior To Your Negotiations

Do your research on what will be expected of you. Define your schedule, and what you are expected to wear and bring. If you are a woman, be sure to verify standard practices beforehand.

Are there any standard culturally specific negotiating practices? Remember to ask for advice prior to cross-cultural negotiations.

If you feel you will be in a different environment than you are used to you have two options to consider:

Hire local representation. Some large multi-national companies hire local company representatives to facilitate all business procedures in certain countries in the Middle East and the Far East.

Arrange for a local third party to accompany you. Look for someone who can tell you if you are making any cultural blunders. This will give you a certain peace of mind.

Prior research helps, but even so, it is not always easy. You will also need to keep your own behavior and attitudes turned towards your negotiation.

This is where the following 8 points are important.

Best Practices During Your First Cross Cultural Negotiation

Ask and find out what is expected of you.

Explain that you are looking forward to the business opportunities open to both of you.

Explain that this is your first trip and you have not done business in their country before.

State your good will and that you do not mean to do anything awkward.

Ask to be told or shown what to do.

Apologize if you do or say something that seems to be out of place.

Continue to show your desire to proceed in the negotiations.

Continue to say that your look forward to doing business with them and learning more about their culture.

Keep this guideline in mind during your negotiations.

Remain constantly aware of your environment so you can implement any of these points if needed.

Use each point appropriately when needed.

Do not go overboard. Overly stating your enthusiasm or apologizing incessantly can be destructive to your negotiations in some cultures.

Use this guideline as a gentle reminder to stay tuned to where the other party is at. If you feel in any way that you need to refer to one of the points above, do so, and continue your negotiation.

Cross cultural communication is a process where you adjust your communication a little and learn to meet another culture in the area where you both feel comfortable. It is about knowing when to ask discretely for feedback to make sure you are all on the same path.

Your first cross cultural negotiation will simply be a first step in the process of adjusting to another culture. Your cross cultural communication skills improve with practice.

Follow these guidelines for your first cross cultural negotiation and you will not make people laugh.

Are you wondering if there is one simple thing you could add to your current business mix that would help you a lot throughout the whole process?

What if you had a unique cross cultural vision tool in your pocket?

Third Culture Kids

Working with a Third Culture Kid could be the solution for your company.

Third Culture Kids (TCKs) aren’t children. It is a term used in international environments. It is used generally to describe people that grew up in strong international environments.

TCK’s are the children of parents from one culture living in a second culture, and their need to find their own identity in their specific third culture. The term can also go beyond this to refer to people who grew up exposed to different cultures early on in life.

Benefits For Your Companies International Development

Growing up in such environments means these people have a unique skill set.

They have the natural ability to see things from different cultural points of view. They probably do not have one strong national outlook. They immediately look at a situation and be aware of several different cultural points of view.

Even if TCK’s are working in a culture they are unfamiliar with, they will be quicker at understanding the different cultural points of view than someone without cross cultural experience.

This means that TCK’s understand the different expectations in politeness, in respect, in professional behaviors. And they are able to adjust their own behavior, often instantaneously, to navigate through these differences.

Having a TCK on your team should help you avoid cultural communication blunders. Or at least pick up on them faster and learn how to navigate through them effectively.

Differences With Others And Their Approach

People without international experience might think cross cultural communication is only about learning about the manners expected of you in foreign place and the local traditions.

Flexibility and adaptability have more to do with your international business success. Understanding why people behave differently is more important what you see them do differently than yourself.

People with confirmed international experience tend to be more curious, adaptable and quick learners. This can bring your company the fuel it needs to go international if your company is truly motivated to adapt to the international mindset.

Right Adaptation Needed To Work With Third Culture Kids

TCKs are a breed of their own. They are used to navigating in different waters. They can be freedom lovers. They might think your set of rules and orders obsolete, simply because they have been there, done that and moved on to something else.

Does this mean Third Culture Kids’s are prima donnas? No, that would be forgetting one of their main qualities: their deep rooted ability to adapt to different environments. Simply, this will be a cross cultural relationship.

If your company is firmly rooted in one cultural environment you will need to pay attention to how the TCK and your company work together. If your company’s drive is strong enough to go international, your company’s mindset will be open to other cultures.

A Little Effort For A Great International Business “Tool”

The little bit of adjustment you will have to make to work with a Third Culture Kid is well worth the extra vision he will bring to your international business.

Your international communication will be smoother and bring faster results. Third Culture Kids with the right background for your company will probably also provide you with valuable international business insights.

If you are looking for an easy way to speed up your company’s international mindset, working with Third Culture Kids can help put your international business expansion in top gear.

Are you committed to speeding up your international sales cycles?

Learn how to combine cross-cultural marketing tools and international sales strategies for faster sales.

Join us on the International Sales Road Map

Would you like to develop your international business?
Are you a beginner at international sales and marketing?
Read the Beginners Guide Discover Your International Business

I have developed a definition of corporate culture after nearly 20 years of working with organizations and viewing them from the perspective of a cultural anthropologist as well as a strategy consultant with an MBA in finance.

The easiest way to think of corporate culture is that it is an energy field that determines how people think, act, and view the world around them. I often compare culture to electricity. Culture is powerful and invisible and its effects are far reaching. Culture is an energy force that becomes woven through the thinking, behavior, and identity of those within the group.

Corporate culture is created naturally and automatically. Every time people come together with a shared purpose, culture is created. This group of people could be a family, neighborhood, project team, or company. Culture is automatically created out of the combined thoughts, energies, and attitudes of the people in the group.

I have worked with entrepreneurs and venture capitalists involved in the start-up of technology companies. They want to work on the corporate culture once the company is profitable or “in the black”. It is much more difficult to change the corporate culture once it has emerged than to proactively create the corporate culture they want from the start.

The corporate culture energy field determines a company’s dress code, work environment, work hours, rules for getting ahead and getting promoted, how the business world is viewed, what is valued, who is valued, and much more.

Every company or organizations has numerous corporate cultures. For example, the marketing department and the engineering department may have very different corporate cultures which are both influenced by the overall organizational corporate culture. Many times these two sub-cultures clash.

Culture shows up in both visible and invisible ways. Some expressions of corporate culture are easy to observe. You can see the dress code, work environment, perks, and titles in a company. This is the surface layer of culture. These are only some of the visible manifestations of a culture.

Surface Layer of Corporate Culture: Visible Expressions
·Dress Code
· Work Environment
· Benefits
· Perks
· Conversations
· Work/Life Balance
· Titles & Job Descriptions
· Organizational Structure
· Relationships

The far more powerful aspects of corporate culture are invisible. The cultural core is composed of the beliefs, values, standards, paradigms, worldviews, moods, internal conversations, and private conversations of the people that are part of the group. This is the foundation for all actions and decisions within a team, department, or organization.

Core Layer of Corporate Culture: Invisible Manifestations
· Values
· Private Conversations (with self or confidants)
· Invisible Rules
· Attitudes
· Beliefs
· Worldviews
· Moods and Emotions
· Unconscious Interpretations
· Standards
· Paradigms
· Assumptions

Business leaders often assume that their company’s vision, values, and strategic priorities are synonymous with their company’s culture. Unfortunately, too often, the vision, values, and strategic priorities may only be words hanging on a plaque on the wall.

Corporate culture is actually the container for the vision, mission and values. It is not synonymous with them. In a thriving profitable company, employees will embody the values, vision, and strategic priorities of their company.

What creates this embodiment (or lack of embodiment) is the corporate culture energy field that permeates the employees’ psyches, bodies, conversations, and actions.
Companies need a good definition of corporate culture before they can begin to understand how to change the corporate culture.

Improving organizational culture can be a big challenge for the organization and its members. Focusing on a few important steps will help you get started in improving organizational culture Getting the right training for your employees is the first step toward improving organizational culture. The other important steps for enhancing organizational culture include:

Analyze your organization’s existing culture and compare it with customers’ expectations and perceptions.

Form a diverse team of interested and enthusiastic people in an organization to enhance the organizational culture.

Get your team to discuss the current culture and explain the parts of the culture that are already great and need to be supported. Then create a vision of the culture you want to create, taking into account the entire current picture of the organization.

Provide the appropriate training to the team members regarding the vision of the culture.

Communicate to everyone to bring awareness about the team and organizational leadership, that this isn’t a band-aid, quick fix; but an ongoing, strategic intention to build a more attractive culture that fits the needs of the organization and that can improve its culture.

Get the cultural team excited. Help the team recognize that not everyone else in the organization is going to think that these efforts are worthwhile immediately. Remember that enthusiasm is contagious. Do what you can to keep the enthusiasm of your team high. If their excitement falters, remind them of the vision they created to re-invigorate them.

Culture improvement is like any other change, as it requires champions. The champion needs to be someone who is passionate about creating the new culture.

Any change will have a greater chance of success with momentum. Thus, get started but be committed to building momentum and staying with it. It will be one of the most rewarding efforts you and your team will ever engage in and with this you can bring great improvement in your organizational culture.

The above-mentioned lists are the specific tips that have enhanced and improved the organizational culture of various organizations. Obviously, these are not the only things you can do to enhance your culture , but these will provide you with a good starting point.

For further assistance, contact the Organizational Culture Center. Organizational Culture Center is a leader in implementing or changing the organizational culture of organizations, whether a profit or nonprofit entity. To receive special reports on organizational culture that includes resources, ideas and advice you can log on to www.organizationalculturecenter.com.

Before the Dictionary of American Sign Language was published, people involved in the medical field and deaf education only saw deaf people in terms of their deafness or hearing loss. They never would have though that Deaf people had their own culture.

Carol Padden defines a culture as: learned behaviors of a group of people who share a language, rules for behavior, traditions, and values. Deaf culture fits this definition just like every other culture in the world. They have a language, values, rules for behavior, and traditions.

Language

American Sign Language is the language of choice for the members of the culture of the Deaf. If you are not fluent in American Sign Language, you are not part of this culture.

American Sign Language is a real language just like any other language. William Stokoe was the first to publish the truth about ASL–that it has its own structure, grammar, and syntax separate from English.

ASL is a real language and is the natural language of the Deaf.

Values

American Sign Language is the most valued in Deaf culture. Speech and spoken English do not compare to the natural language of the deaf. Even if a deaf person can read lips, comprehension is no where near that of ASL.

The preservation of ASL is also a value in the culture of the Deaf. Sign systems have been invented to try to help deaf children learn English. These systems include Signed English, Cued Speech, and Sign Supported Speech, to name a few. These systems are not supported in Deaf culture and are not even languages. These systems have deprived deaf children of learning their true language and the ability to communicate naturally.

Not speaking is a value in the culture of the deaf. Because speech is often forced on deaf children, it represents deprivation and confinement to a Deaf adult. If you are hearing, know ASL, and are around a Deaf friend, turning and speaking to someone else leaves the Deaf person out and is incredibly rude.

Socializing is highly valued in the culture of the Deaf. When you are deaf, having a social life is very important because there are usually very few Deaf people in a community. In a hearing world, having Deaf friends is necessary for support. Before text messaging phones, Deaf people would only communicate with their deaf friends through letters or in person. Today, Deaf people still take advantage of the time they have with their Deaf friends. They will stay at a gathering for hours and leave very late. Long goodbyes are more than common.

The members of the culture of the Deaf also value the literature of their culture. These are stories and cultural values that are passed down through signed communication. Deaf culture also has its own art, stories, poetry, theatre, jokes, games, and books. These avenues teach about Deaf culture and Deaf pride.

Rules for Behavior

It is not rude to stare in this culture. Not staring is actually rude in this culture. When someone is signing to you, if you break eye contact, you are very rude.

Facial expressions are required when you are signing. Some non-manual behaviors are part of ASL grammar.

When you introduce yourself in Deaf culture, you use your full name. Deaf people also ask each other for information about where they’re from (what city they grew up in), what school they went to (what residential school they attended), etc. The Deaf community is very small, so they try to find these commonalities with each other early in their introductions.

Deaf people also label themselves in different ways. People in hearing culture tend to label deaf people by their hearing loss–hard of hearing, hearing impaired, etc. In hearing culture, being hard of hearing is seen as better than being deaf. These labels are viewed the exact opposite in the culture of the Deaf. Deaf people call themselves one thing and one thing only when they are part of this culture–Deaf. The term “Deaf” has nothing to do with the degree of hearing loss. Using the term “hard of hearing” is actually viewed negatively in the culture of the Deaf. Using it makes it look like you think you’re better than everyone else (because that’s how it’s viewed in hearing culture). Using the term “hearing impaired” insinuates that you think there is something wrong with deaf people and that they desire to be “fixed.” This is actually the opposite of what members of the culture of the Deaf believe; they are Deaf and proud! The terms “deaf” (“little d”) and “Deaf” (“big D”) are also used and have much different meanings. “Little d” refers to someone who cannot hear while “big D” refers to someone who is part of Deaf culture and shares the language, values, behaviors, and traditions of that culture.

A basic definition of organizational culture is the collective way we do things around here. It involves a learned set of behaviors that is common knowledge to all the participants. These behaviors are based on a shared system of meanings which guide our perceptions, understanding of events, and what we pay attention to. As Sun Tzu, a Chinese military general from 3000 BC, indicated in his explanation of strategy, culture forms an integral part of any organizational strategy. It consists of Tao – the created and shared beliefs, values, and glue that holds an organization together, and it also involves the very nature of the organization. Culture is about individuals in a group sharing patterns of behavior. There is no cultural absolute. Because culture is relative, we have the power to create a culture that is the best fit for an organization’s future direction.

Observing Culture

Culture plays out in a variety of ways. We can identify the specifics of it from how information is communicated, feedback is given, performance is managed, and projects are co-coordinated within the organization. It is reflected in the way the corporation or institution is structured; whether work is conducted cross-functionally or within silos, how the hierarchical levels are set up, and the types of job titles used. Culture is often defined by the systems that are used, the processes that are followed, and the rituals, symbols, and stories that abound in the organization. It is even reflected in how meetings are held in an organization.

Corporate Culture as an Obstacle

When working towards company goals or when trying to effect change in the organization, your organizational culture can be the very thing that trips you up. If insufficient effort is put towards identifying aspects of the culture that may impact on what you are trying to achieve, then insufficient actions will be taken to circumvent obstacles in a timely manner or harness the way things are done in an opportune direction. This is best explained through an example.

An organization espouses that “people are our most important asset” as part of its new philosophy. However, employees witness a senior executive being escorted off site with his belongings by security guards after being laid off. They receive an e-mail explaining where they will be sitting and who they will be reporting to in the future restructure – with no fore-warning or personal contact. Training and development opportunities for employees are stopped in order to cut costs. Actions that consistently reflect a certain core culture will more effectively emphasize to employees what the leadership’s true values are than any widely publicized statement. If a direction is truly desired, then all actions that will reflect the required culture need to be considered and instituted accordingly.

Aligning Culture for Success

Once a strategy is set for the organization, the way deliverables are produced in the organization needs to be examined and challenged. This is to ensure that every process is geared towards achieving the strategy.

Every component of the corporate culture needs to underpin what is required from all stakeholders in order to realize the strategic goals. There must be a reinforcing stream of communications. All the actions in the organization need to translate into the cultural realities. A culture can be created or reinforced through the use of socialization. Avenues for socialization abound in functions like selection, placement on the job, job mastery, the measurement and rewarding of performance, and recognition and promotion. Reinforcing a culture can emerge through the stories told and the folklore propagated and, most importantly, through the adherence to chosen important values. The key to the success of the above is to ensure that the culture you wish to socialize others into is an ideal one, necessary for breakthrough performance in your work area or organization. If it is not, then you need to involve everyone in the evaluation and creation of a more suitable culture.

Strong Leadership is Required

One of the surest ways to align the culture to the organization’s strategy is to apply leadership practices that are also aligned. The leaders, at all levels, need to know what the required culture is and then determine ways of establishing practices and procedures in all operations that will closely reflect the desired culture. They also need to role model the very behaviors they wish exhibited by everyone in the organization and provide the necessary support to others that will enable them to function accordingly as well. Particular attention also needs to be given to all communications.

Leadership needs to be front and center to create a corporate culture that works.

For a graphical view of the Cultural Paradigm, click here, http://www.sergaygroup.com/what_is_corporate_culture.html

Every time people come together with a shared purpose, culture is created. This group of people could be a family, neighborhood, project team, or company. Culture is automatically created out of the combined thoughts, energies, and attitudes of the people in the group.

I often compare culture to electricity. Culture is an energy force that becomes woven through the thinking, behavior, and identity of those within the group. Culture is powerful and invisible and its manifestations are far reaching. Culture determines a company’s dress code, work environment, work hours, rules for getting ahead and getting promoted, how the business world is viewed, what is valued, who is valued, and much more.

Culture shows up in both visible and invisible ways. Some manifestations of this energy field called “culture” are easy to observe. You can see the dress code, work environment, perks, and titles in a company. This is the surface layer of culture. These are only some of the visible manifestations of a culture.

The far more powerful aspects of culture are invisible. The cultural core is composed of the beliefs, values, standards, paradigms, worldviews, moods, internal conversations, and private conversations of the people that are part of the group. This is the foundation for all actions and decisions within a team, department, or organization.

Visible Manifestations of Culture
·Dress Code
·Work Environment
·Benefits
·Perks
·Conversations
·Work/Life Balance
·Titles & Job Descriptions
·Organizational Structure
·Relationships

Invisible Manifestations of Culture
·Values
·Private Conversations (with self or confidants)
·Invisible Rules
·Attitudes
·Beliefs
·Worldviews
·Moods and Emotions
·Unconscious Interpretations
·Standards
·Paradims
·Assumptions

Business leaders often assume that their company’s vision, values, and strategic priorities are synonymous with their company’s culture. Unfortunately, too often, the vision, values, and strategic priorities may only be words hanging on a plaque on the wall.

In a thriving profitable company, employees will embody the values, vision, and strategic priorities of their company. What creates this embodiment (or lack of embodiment) is the culture that permeates the employees’ psyches, bodies, conversations, and actions.

The energy fields that make up a group’s culture are dynamic and change continuously. Culture is created and constantly reinforced on a daily basis through conversations, symbols, rituals, written materials, and body language. It is the small, mundane actions and behaviors that create a culture and can shift a culture.

Creating and sustaining a healthy, vibrant culture requires reinforcement of the culture through daily and proactive conversations and communications. The failure to discuss the values, purpose, and rules within a group often leads to a culture that is at cross purposes with the stated intention of the group. Poor communication creates a lot of confusion and often a crisis of meaninglessness.

Since a culture is created every time a group of people come together to form a team, a company will have many sub-cultures that exist within its main culture. For example, the marketing and technology teams may have different worldviews, jargon, work hours, and ways to do things. A big challenge for today’s company is to create a strong, cohesive corporate culture that pulls all of the sub-cultures together and ensures that they can work as a unified team.

Most companies try to “fix” perceived problems by addressing the parts of the corporate culture that are easy to see. Some quick-fixes include holding Friday beer bashes and company picnics or adding fringe benefits and perks. None of these actions will have a powerful or lasting effect on a company’s culture.

So, if the powerful part of culture is invisible, how can you affect it? Through conversation. Conversations have the power to make the invisible visible. Language is not merely descriptive, it is generative. Language and conversations have the power to generate a new, powerful future and to create a cultural energy field that will support and sustain this future.

The CEO and leadership team of a company have a powerful impact on culture through their conversations and behaviors. Business leaders can pro-actively create a thriving culture by understanding what culture is (and is not) and learning how to have fundamental business conversations.

Unfortunately, most business leaders receive little to no education on how to have powerful conversations that generate culture and actions. Culture building can be learned, but it takes an honest commitment from the leadership team of an organization.

Before exploring why hip hop and missional theology would go together well hand in hand, one must first grasp what hip hop culture and missional ecclesiology are first.  To the misunderstandings of many, hip hop is another word for rap music.  This confusion draws from a lack of engagement from those outside the hip hop community with those inside.  In reality rap is just one aspect or cultural artifact that has come out of the hip hop community.  “The hip-hop subculture manifests itself in people, and as people identify the needs in their life that hip-hop meets, the culture is sustained. To minimize hip-hop by saying it is just rap is to disrespect it, because hip-hop is life” (The Hip Hop Church, 66).  Hip hop is a culture, it is a world view, it is a way of life.  “Hip-hop is about dance, art, expression, pain, love, racism, sexism, broken families, hard times, the search for God and overcoming” (The Hip Hop Church, 61). 

For this work, we also make the point that hip hop at its core is urban youth culture, especially culture representing African Americans and Latinos.  In the book, The Hip Hop Church the author agrees that “it encompasses the culture of African Americans, Latinos and urban America more generally” (63).  Now as we will point out later, the influences of hip hop have crossed these racial and geographic boundaries; nonetheless, we attest to its cultural roots and authenticity found in mostly black and brown urban settings.  From the beginning, hip hop has found its birth from the African diaspora.  And then grounded itself in the urban experience largely of the northeast and west coast.  “True Hip-hop is a term that describes the independent collective consciousness of a specific group of inner-city people” (The Hip Hop Church, 63).  And so it is the people’s mundane life activities that make and produce hip hop culture.

The missional community, on the other hand, represents a theologically diverse community who are committed to pursuing God’s Mission.  It seems at this point, that the missional movement (or at least under the title missional) is a mostly white upper and middle class theology.  However, a homogeneous group is not the goal, nor desire of those within that theological framework.  In fact they represent the opposite, a community that wants to cross all boundaries as God does.  They claim that God has and continues to interact in human history, and chooses to use people, specifically the church, to be his hands and feet in this world.  And so according to John 20:21, just as Jesus has been sent into this world,  followers of Jesus likewise are sent into this world.  They are called to share the gospel of Jesus Christ, and to represent the reign of God here on earth.  Practically speaking, they believe that to do this we are called to cross racial, ethnic, demographic, and cultural boundaries.  At the same time we are not to force any particular culture or practice for every context.  In Missional Church it is explained this way,  “to be faithful to its calling, the church must be contextual, that is, it must be culturally relevant within a specific setting.  The church relates constantly and dynamically both to the gospel and to its contextual reality” (18).  And so the charge is to bring the good news of Jesus and his coming Kingdom to a world that is broken, sinful, and in bondage.  Relevance is a key word for this community as they are sent out into the world.  Engaging cultures and recognizing that every culture can have the gospel applied to it is core teaching within the missional community.  “The gospel is always conveyed through the medium of culture.  It becomes good news to lost and broken humanity as it is incarnated in the world through God’s sent people, the church” (Missional Church, 18).  Therefore no culture is beneath redemption, no culture is so lost that it cannot be saved.

It is with this background of missional theology and hip hop culture that we begin to lay foundation to who these communities, cultures, and movements are, as well as why they may go well together; for both are fascinating movements that have deep impact for the world in which we live.  We must begin to acknowledge that while they do not necessarily overlap in terms of human population and demographics, ideologically the two would go hand in hand very well.  We will begin to unpack this further.

Within the hip hop community, there is a debate going on as to what is authentically hip hop, and what is a bi-product of the commercialization of rap music.  Within the confines of rap as a genre you find underground and socially conscious emcees as well as rich and famous rap pop stars.  The Hip Hop Church breaks it down like this, “a rapper is for the industry or produced by the industry; they rap about whatever is popular, and they give the culture of hip-hop a reputation of only being about materialism and sex” (83).  Yet there is another definition for the conscious rapper, or as they call him the emcee.  Here they say that “an emcee, on the other hand, seeks to keep the purity in hip-hop and stays away from the entertainment, performance-only view that rappers consistently have.  The emcee is considered to be a lyricist with something to say that’s for your heart, your soul or your intellect.  They don’t rhyme about what is popular or important to the materialistic hip-hop head because they are stewards of the culture and hip-hop’s message.  Emcees are seeking to drop some knowledge about life and how best to live in this world” (84).  It is this stewardship and consciousness of hip hop that I would like to explore some more as it relates to missional praxis. 

Michael Eric Dyson, a leading black intellectual states in his newest book Know What I Mean? that “conscious rappers are lauded as much for what they don’t say as for what they spit on record. They don’t brag about exorbitant jewelry, excessive women, or expensive automobiles.  Conscious rappers do talk about racial injustice, police brutality, over-incarceration, political prisoners, rampant poverty, radical educational inequality and more” (66).  There is a deep critique of the injustice and white supremacy that has pervaded the United States way of life within the hip hop community.  Dyson reminds the reader that there is plenty of “rap that is socially aware and consciously connected to historic patterns of political protest and aligned with progressive forces of social critique” (64).  No one is safe from the rhetorically resistant hip hop community.  All aspects of life are under the microscope and are seen as fair game for critique.  “Hip-hop, in fact, calls attention to the failures of government, schools, police, preachers and churches, bringing them to light while shaming them at the same time” (The Hip Hop Church, 81).  The rules of American life have never proved itself to be true for the urban youth, especially those who are black and brown, and therefore critique is the natural response from this otherwise powerless and voiceless community.  Hip hop will question “everything from whether the American dream is attainable for urban youth to whether the police force and the national government are systems that can be trusted” (The Hip Hop Church, 106).  Some conscious emcees have gone beyond just the struggles of the ghetto, to tackle more national and global problems that might not benefit them directly.  Dyson explains that “they have also occasionally linked their work to quests for social justice, whether making a song to galvanize social response to police brutality or to dramatize and inspire social outrage against an unjust war” (Know What I Mean?, 64-65).  And so we see a powerful and strong voice critiquing the injustice that dares try to oppress them.

The hip hop generation are the kids of those who lived through the sixties and seventies as adults.  Yet the approach from the hip hop generation is different, they are even more resistant to the status quo.  “Civil rights folk said, ‘We’ll dress up and play the rules the white way and cross over.’ Hip hop seized the reins of its destiny and insisted that it make music its way, and white folk could cross over to them” (Know What I Mean?, 56).  The Hip Hop generation wants to stand its ground and demand that they be recognized with human dignity, and that they will not be forced to assimilate anymore.

This very resistance and social critique arguably goes great with the missional churches social engagement and prophetic voice to oppressive systems.  Preaching the gospel is important for the missional church.  The gospel can be summarized by Jesus’ first teaching in the book of Luke, which states, “the Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (TNIV, Luke 4:18-19).  Freedom and liberation from oppression and poverty become crucial elements to the gospel for those within missional communities.  “Jesus further believed it to be his mission to exhibit the signs of the presence of the reign of God by exercising its authority over brokenness, domination, oppression, and alienation” (Missional Church, 104).  And as they see Jesus throughout the gospels disarm “the powers and authorities” mentioned in Colossians 2:15, the missional community also sees that as apart of the body of Christ’s calling today.  In response to  Jesus’ example may lead Christians to “engage the complexities of corporate modern living: pressuring governments and corporations for the sake of the disadvantaged or the ravaged earth, lobbying for just laws, solidarity with oppressed peoples, initiatives to cease hostilities among nations, care for marginalized peoples and the creation, or compassionate remolding of socioeconomic structures” (Missional Church, 106).  The opportunities and philosophical overlaps are there for missional minded people to take advantage of hip hops similar goals and interests.  For there are few influential cultures that have at the heart of it a passion for justice and truth.  One would be foolish not to benefit from the hip hop culture with its “new voice of resistance for a disenfranchised group of people” (The Hip Hop Church, 68).  For the goals of hip hop and the missional church are both, at least in part, to fight for oppressed people.  Why not recognize that “a voice of a generation is being heard in order to empower an otherwise powerless class of people” and that the goals of the missional church are also to empower the weak, the oppressed, and the poor (The Hip Hop Church, 72).  Seems like a potentially great alliance.

The missional church has also made claims to the value of diversity both racially and ethnically.  I believe that the multicultural pursuits of the missional church again could benefit when engaging in hip hop culture. For while I did mention that hip hip culture at its core is the culture of black and brown urban youth, I must also address the boundary crossing influence hip hop has had thus far.  We must note that “hip-hop is a major cultural force and influence among young people regardless of race, demographic or religious background” (The Hip Hop Church, 36).  For it is definitely not just African American and Latinos who listen to rap music, nor love the style of the culture.  Rather the largest consumers of rap music are actually white.  They are the ones who actually put the money into the industry which makes it so successful.  “As the top consumers of its music, white teenage males in America do a great job of keeping hip-hop culture in business” (The Hip Hop Church, 105).  For about a decade now, hip hop has crossed just about every racial and ethnic boundary imaginable.  Kids from every race and from every geographical location are listening to what is stereotypically thought of as black music.  When this shift happened for many inner city kids “it felt like the voice of urban youth culture, especially those of color, were finally in the mainstream” (The Hip Hop Church, 64).  And so hip hop as a medium by nature will cross racial and cultural boundaries in ways that most cultures cannot.  One must understand that hip hops influence has infiltrated in some way almost every area of American life.  “Hip hop culture is all over the place -movie soundtracks, marketing strategies, music award ceremonies, video games, professional sporting events and of course the radio” (The Hip Hop Church, 37).  For this reason alone, whether or not a community is urban, suburban, or rural, it seems very wise to at least engage hip hop culture on some level to take advantage of its multicultural nature.

Now the boundary crossing nature of hip hop extends pass the national lines.  Hip hop is currently a global phenomenon.  Its music can be found pumping in clubs all over Europe, Asia, and Africa.  “The global impact of hip hop is being studied by scholars like Deborah Wong at the University of California-Riverside, who covers Asian hip hop, and Marcyliena Morgan at Stanford University, who researches hip hop in Cuba and England” (Know What I Mean?, xxvii).  There seems to be no limit to the influence hip hop is having around the globe.  Just as McDonald’s and Pepsi have become global markets so has rap music.  One would wonder why such a despised and feared group of people (African American males) could have such an influential global voice.  Carl Ellis might have the answer in his book Going Global, in which he argues that the African American experience of slavery and oppression has been recognized globally.  He contends that many people around the world actually have a soft spot for the African American community, because they either empathize or can relate to the sufferings black people are overcoming.  He states, “it is astonishing to see how people throughout the world seem to have positive feelings toward African Americans” (Going Global, 85).  Given the global awareness of the African American experience, it makes perfect sense why hip hop, a product of the African American community has become a global favorite.  Therefore, if the missional church plans to be “a blessing to the nations” according to Genesis 12, it would be right on point to align itself at times with the global influence hip hop has.  In the words of Michael Eric Dyson, “I maintain that we should be willing to take a scholarly look at hip hop for no other reason than it has grabbed global attention and sparked emulation in countless different countries and among varied ethnicities” (Know What I Mean?, xxv).

Finally, it would be an incomplete study if one did not look at the soul and spirituality of the hip hop community, and its importance for missional praxis.  For there are plenty of artists like Lauryn Hill, Common, Talib Kweli, and Mos Def to name a few, who along with their social critique also bring a deep sense of spirituality and soul to their music.  It is a music that uplifts the people and encourages them to have hope despite the harsh realities in which many people live.  Each and every word from these cultural prophets are powerful and inspiring, and often times even point the listener to God in the midst of their suffering.  “Words are important, as a means of upward mobility, or as a means to escape suffering, especially by exposing its horrible intrusion into one’s group or neighborhood, or to grapple with a white supremacist society that refuses to acknowledge our fundamental humanity” (Know What I Mean?, 76).  And as these musical movements of hope and truth move forward, they inevitably are at the least in participation with God’s plan of liberation to oppressed peoples.  When one engages with the actual music of some of hip hop’s most conscious and prophetic artists, they will see that “hip-hop spirituality has connections to liberation theology” (The Hip Hop Church, 118).  Hip hop at the heart is a child of R&B, which is a child of Jazz and Blues, which is a child of the Negro Spirituals.  And throughout the history of soul music, there has always been a core element that proclaimed liberation, and recognized it to be of God.  This spiritual side of hip hop is a powerful alliance for the missional church.  For just as Paul was able to go into Athens and notice the altar with the inscription “To an unknown God” and used that sense of spirituality within that context to proclaim that “God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him.”  Likewise, the missional church can also use the deep sense of spirituality and liberation theology found within hip hop culture as a starting point to revealing the one true God  in whom we “live and move and have our being” (TNIV, Acts 17:27-28).

In conclusion, it is clear that there are plenty of areas in which hip hop culture is conducive for missional praxis.  Its social consciousness, multicultural nature, global influence, and soul and spirituality line up well with the missional churches desire to socially engage society, to reconcile across all racial and cultural boundaries, to take the gospel to the whole world, and to encourage faith and spirituality in Jesus Christ.  Other areas one might be interested in looking at are their postmodern approaches, their understanding truth, their authenticity, and their  opposition to too much hierarchical leadership.  Also, it is important to note that while hip hop has many positive norms that lend itself well for missional engagement, it also is a human culture and therefore fallen.  One must beware of some aspects of hip hop culture that have patriarchal tendencies, sexism, materialism, and violence as part of its message.  Nonetheless, it is contended that hip hop culture is indeed extremely conducive for missional praxis because of its cultural norms.  It would be foolish for anyone who seriously engages with missional theology to not at least experiment with the possibilities it can have when allianced with hip hop, no matter where you find yourself.  Most likely wherever you are, aspects of hip hop are there as well.

References:

Dyson, M. E. (2007). Know What I Mean?: Reflections on Hip Hop. New York, NY: Basic Civitas Books.

Ellis Jr., C. F. (2005). Going Global Beyond the Boundaries: The Role of the Black Church in        the Great Commission of Jesus Christ. Chicago, IL: Urban Ministries, Inc.

Guder, D. L. (Ed.). (1998). Missional church: A vision for the sending of the church in

North America. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Smith, E. and Jackson, P. (2005).The Hip Hop Church: Connecting with the movement shaping our culture. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.

(2005) Today’s New International Bible: The Holy Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corporation.

 Dr.N.C.Martin, Ph.D

Lecturer – HOD

Department of Social Work

Shree Chandra Prabhu Jain College

                                                                                                           Minjur, Chennai.

Introduction

A noted scholar recently assessed downsizing as “probably the most pervasive yet understudied phenomenon in the business world” (Cameron, 1994). While we have become numbed by the near daily accounts of new layoffs, a New York Times national survey finding is perhaps more telling: since 1980, a family member in one-third of all U.S. households has been laid off (New York Times, 1996). By some measures, downsizing has failed abjectly as a tool to achieve the main raison d’etre, reduced costs. According to a Wyatt Company survey covering the period between 1985 and 1990, 89 percent of organizations which engaged in downsizing reported expense reduction as their primary goal, while only 42 percent actually reduced expenses. Downsizing for the sake of cost reduction alone has been castigated intellectually as short-sighted and neglectful of what resources will be needed to increase the revenue stream of the future (Hamel and Prahalad, 1994).

A truer and fuller understanding of the forces shaping and thrusting downsizing forward today comes from an appreciation of increased global competition; changing technologies, which in turn are profoundly impacting the nature of work; increasing availability of a contingent work force (Fierman, 1994); and shifting balance of power among organizational constituents away from rank and file employees and in the direction of shareholders and the chief executives who serve as their proxy. When we conceptualize downsizing within these broader frameworks, it becomes clear that we are speaking of downsizing both as a response to and as a catalyst of organizational culture change.

This article will later provide a formal definition of “organizational culture”. For the moment, it is suggested that culture is to an organization what personality is to an individual. As with personality, change takes time and may be hard to discern, especially for persons inside the organization. This article will argue that, ultimately, the most prominent effects of downsizing will be in relation to culture change, not in relation to saved costs or short-term productivity gains. Key drivers of organizational culture will tend to shape an organization’s approach to downsizing. For whose benefit does the organization exist? What are the basic assumptions among people who work in the organization? What are the basic assumptions the organization and the employee make in relation to each other?

Establishing a direct link between downsizing and organizational culture is not an easy matter, however, as the following example will demonstrate. The Chief Executive Officer of Apple Computer recently bought himself more time with disgruntled shareholders by promising to take forceful action on a number of fronts, including downsizing. The executive cited “five crises: lack of cash; declining quality; a failed operating system development project; Apple’s chaotic culture; and a fragmented strategy” (Markoff, 1997). How do you connect downsizing, which is one of a number of actions being taken, with corporate culture, which is only one of a number of “crises” being solved in a manner and to a level that establishes a positive relationship?

Another reason that it is difficult to draw a specific link between downsizing and organizational culture is that there are many different variations and approaches to downsizing. A distinction has been made between proactive downsizing, which is planned in advance and usually integrated with a larger set of objectives, and reactive downsizing, which would be typified by cost-cutting as a last resort after a prolonged period of inattention to looming problems by management (Kozlowski et. al., 1991). Work force reductions can range from forceful in nature, i.e., involuntary reductions, to the milder approaches, such as resignation incentives and job sharing (Sutton and D’Aunno, 1989). There are different ways of deciding “who stays, who goes” from the outwardly arbitrary to criterion-based (Brockner, 1992). There are different modes of planning, ranging from secretive sessions to open discussions and solicitation of ideas from employees. There are different standards of notice of terminations, including relatively harsh same day terminations as well as more generous 90 day or longer notices. There are even differences in intentionality, i.e., reductions can be planned to present employees with as little a break as possible from what they have known in the past or they can be designed to be deliberately disruptive to the status quo (Noer, 1993).

Organizational Culture Defined

It has been observed with respect to the concept of “power” that its omnipresence makes it difficult to usefully apply in specific situations (Pfeffer, 1981). The same may be said of “culture”. If it is everywhere, and pervades every aspect of our existence, then how can it be subject to analysis. Schein (1992) offers at least a partial solution. He divides organizational culture into three levels: 1) at the surface are “artifacts”, those aspects (such as dress) which can be easily discerned, yet are hard to understand; 2) beneath artifacts are “espoused values” which are conscious strategies, goals and philosophies; 3) the core, or essence, of culture is represented by the basic underlying assumptions and values, which are difficult to discern because they exist at a largely unconscious level, yet provide the key to understanding why things happen the way they do. These basic assumptions form around deeper dimensions of human existence such as the nature of humans; human relationships and activity; reality; and truth.

Schein (1992) himself acknowledges that, even with rigorous study, we can only make statements about elements of culture, not culture in its entirety. The approach which Schein recommends for inquiring about culture is an iterative, clinical approach, similar to a therapeutic relationship between a psychologist and a patient. Schein’s disciplined approach to culture stands in contrast to the almost flippant way in which culture is referred to in some of the popular management literature.

Culture Change

Changing an organization is messy, complicated business. A study by Kotter and Heskett (1992) indicated that culture change becomes tougher as organizations become more established and successful. The very bases for a company’s earlier success can be hindrances to needed changes under new and different scenarios from those which existed previously.

Prevailing models provide uncertain guideposts. For example, it is standard fare within the leadership literature (e.g., Bennis, 1994) to depict the need for a “vision” of a desired future state of the enterprise. What if elements of a vision clash with each other? What if a leader, for example, decides to embrace a total quality management culture built upon trust among all parties and, at the same time, embarks upon a series of layoffs which are likely to engender distrust among those same parties? The conventional wisdom in response is to acknowledge that there will be sadness and losses and a murky period which goes under the heading of “the neutral zone”; but, in the end, there will be “new beginnings” (Bridges, 1981). How long does the neutral zone last? Existing research provides no solid answers. How long will a leader with a vision wait for the culture to change in positive ways? Research supports the idea that culture change is a multi-year effort (Schein, 1992).

If we broaden our conceptualization of culture change to include both intended consequences (planned change) and unintended consequences (unplanned change), then it is at least possible to be confident that downsizing is a catalyst for culture change. Organizational theorists from Lewin (1951) forward, including Argyris (1992) have insisted upon the need for a destabilizing element in any change process. The existing status quo is conceptualized as a dynamic in which forces resisting change and forces pushing for change have found a balance. In order to shift the balance (in the favor of change), the situation needs to be “unfrozen”. In other words, people have to be rocked out of their comfortable existence, so they will be alerted to the need for change.

Downsizing qualifies as a destabilizer of status quo ante even under circumstances where departures are voluntary. Hickok (1995), for example, documented symptoms of survivor illness at an Air force installation that had, up to the point of the research, experienced only voluntary departures. The literature is replete with examples of burnout, depression, anger, and betrayal as common responses by survivors of layoffs (e.g., Noer, 1993; Brockner, 1992). Not all responses are negative: there are reports of people getting “charged up”, finding new excitement in their work, being challenged by the prospect of “doing more with less” or saving the organization (e.g., Noer, 1993). Hickok (1995) found that “implementors” of layoffs (i.e, those “pulling the strings”) had more positive reactions than did “implementees” (i.e., those who were having the layoffs “done to them”).

In any event, it should be acknowledged that downsizing has altered the rule of the employment “game”. The way these changes have tended to be theoretically euphemized is by indicating that the “psychological contract” between employers and employees has been violated (Rousseau, 1995). No longer can the employer offer job security. The “new” psychological contract being marketed is conditional employment, with the availability of training and development opportunities to help keep employees “employable”, even if not at this particular company (e.g., Tichy and Sherman, 1994; Waterman, Waterman, and Collard, 1994).

From a broader cultural perspective, downsizing can be seen as the embodiment of the “creative destruction” inherent in capitalism. As Schumpeter (1950) wrote about capitalism, downsizing may not be pretty to watch and people will get hurt for sure, but this is the way the market takes care of itself. There is no entitlement to a job any more than there is entitlement for a corporation to exist. People, as well as organizations, need to gear up to compete in the marketplace. Bridges (1994) and others warn anyone within hearing distance that only the foolish will let their fates be decided by those they work for; the wise ones will think and act like entrepreneurs even if they fall under the label “employees”.

The symbolic aspects of culture change associated with downsizing should not be overlooked. The very act of downsizing creates an appearance of leadership that is taking charge. In the instance of the United States government, for example, Clinton-Gore make the claim that by eliminating 272,900 federal jobs they have reduced the cost of government. The symbolism associated with the change may weigh more heavily in people’s minds than the costs, which may include contracting out at a much higher price for services previously provided in-house.

The political aspects of culture change associated with downsizing are also quite dramatic. Downsizing represents a power shift in the direction of top management and shareholders. One way of conceptualizing the change is via expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964). The unsaid message is that management is not afraid to decide who “has a future” with this organization and who does not. The message is “if you want to continue to work here, you will have to work harder, be more responsive, be more of a team player, etc.

There are “Theory X” and/or “Theory Y” dynamics (McGregor, 1960) at work with downsizing as well, depending upon the circumstances. The underlying theme of Theory X thinking is that workers can not be trusted to put forth effort on their own. They need to be externally motivated by the threat of punishment in order to put out their best efforts. Of all the downsizing practices, the one most closely associated with Theory X is the practice of giving people no termination notice. In spite of what would seem the obvious inhumanity of walking people who have worked for an organization for twenty or more years straight to the door, this remains a common corporate downsizing practice. The assumption which would seem to underlie the practice is that people will use notice time to undermine the organization or at least to be unproductive.

From a Theory Y perspective, downsizing may be seen as a way to free up workers to do the good work they care to do. The analysis which precedes downsizing is designed with the intent of reducing unnecessary or low value work, minimizing bureaucratic controls, and eliminating unneeded communications layers. Downsizing intent, from a Theory Y perspective, is to enable workers to be challenged by interesting work and to have the opportunity to produce extraordinary results which are aligned with the organization’s mission and goals.

Connecting the Literature

It has been commented that the literature on downsizing is disjointed and uneven (Kozlowski et. Al., 1993). Cameron (1994:183) identifies, in particular, a lack of empirical data at the organizational level of analysis. Hickok (1995) has identified important insights to be gained both from literature at the organizational level (i.e., focused on strategy, policy, or decision-making) and at the organizational/individual interface level (i.e., concerned with impact of individual and group-level thoughts, feelings, and behaviors on organizational functioning).

Organizational Level Analysis

The primary thrust of organizational level analysis is to emphasize the need to plan, analyze and implement downsizing carefully and within the framework of organizational purpose (e.g., Cascio, 1993; Greengard, 1993). Downsizing is framed within the context of improving and streamlining work processes, as exemplified by total quality management and reengineering (e.g., Cameron, 1991). Key assumptions include a mechanistic notion of organizations, in which the parts are examined to improve fit with the whole. Organizational survival is seen as paramount (e.g., the first order of business is for organizations to thrive and be competitive). Key mental shifts involve development of a “customer first” attitude (stated as part of a total quality management approach) and a realignment of importance among stakeholders, with shareholders coming first (largely unstated).

In one of the key early works on downsizing, Tomasko (1987) identifies corporate cultures based on mistrust as a leading cause of excessive staffing. American corporate culture, he contends, rewards winners, not losers; places control at the top of the agenda; and causes people to believe that it is better to hide mistakes than admit them. In consequence, staff groups (such as planning departments) are formed to serve as watchdogs. Managers respond by attempting to gain control of ever more bloated corporate bureaucracies. Tomasko’s solution is a flatter, leaner organization in which a team environment prevails and people trust each other to contribute to common goals.

Cameron et al (1991) conducted the most extensive single study of downsizing to date in terms of number of organizations involved, breadth of investigation, and time span. The authors conducted a four year longitudinal study of 30 organizations in the automotive industry. Their viewpoint was that downsizing is a necessary and affirmative approach to becoming more competitive, and an appropriate response to the disproportionate growth in the white-collar work force over recent decades. The successful companies in their study did not only reduce the work force, but also engaged in organizational redesign and systematic efforts at quality improvement. Successful companies engaged in downsizing as a purposeful and proactive strategy. Interestingly, only a handful of companies in their study were found to have improved organizational performance.

Two studies of change at major U.S. corporations – Xerox (Kearns and Nadler, 1992) and General Electric (GE) (Tichy and Sherman, 1994) deal explicitly with culture change. Tichy and Sherman refer to a revolution at GE; part of that revolution, under Jack Welch, was to eliminate almost 170,000 positions. One of the basic assumptions at GE: “The ultimate test of leadership is enhancing the long-term value of the organization. For leaders of a publicly held corporation, this means long-term shareholder value” (p.367). GE turned against the notion of lifetime employment in favor of a stated goal of providing employees with the best training and development opportunities, but only conditional employment. Xerox also resorted to massive layoffs. Like GE, this downsizing was framed within the larger picture of adopting a total quality management culture. Kearns believed that the number one key to success was shifting focus outward to the customer.

The Kearns and Nadler book and the Tichy and Sherman book lucidly address the process of culture change management, and they explicitly state what many will not: that part of the intentional aspect of downsizing in the midst of culture change is the infliction of pain on at least some to get the attention of all. Tichy and Sherman talk of avoiding the “boiled frog phenomenon” (p.400) in which frogs boil to death while the water slowly changes from cold to boiling. Kearns and Nadler conclude (p.280): “You also have to create dissatisfaction with the status quo. Otherwise, why are people going to work hard to disrupt it? And you can not wait around until everyone feels induced pain from the marketplace, because then it’s too late. So you need to have induced pain. You need to throw a few punches here and there”.

There are some organizational level analyses which dissent from the litany of praise for downsizing. Handy (1990) argues that an organization does not exist only for profits; that is, profits should be viewed as a means to other desired ends rather than as the sole end. His view is that shareholders have taken over too much of the power. They should, instead, be only one element of a hexagonal ring of stakeholders – which also includes employees, the environment, community, and suppliers. Petruno (1996) reflects the concern that institutional shareholder activists have gotten too greedy and imposed too large a price on the thousands upon thousands of employees who have lost their jobs; performance increases may be at the expense of hollowed out companies. Hamel and Prahalad (1994) do not question the legitimacy of downsizing, but argue that time spent on determining core competencies and relating those competencies to the external marketplace is time much better spent than restructuring and reengineering; the latter may shore up your current position, but does little to prepare you to compete in the future.

Downs (1995) offers an even harsher critique. Downs decries the prevalence and public acceptance of a “culture of narcissism”, in which corporations have only one objective, profit. He contrasts the view of Hewlett-Packard’s David Packard that the secret to successful management was to keep in balance the triangular interests of shareholders, management, and employees. Part of this narcissism is reflected in the increase of senior executive salaries by 1,000 percent between 1980 and 1995, the same period of time in which record layoffs were amassed. In a Newsweek cover story, Sloan (1996: 44) argues that “Firing people has gotten to be trendy in corporate America, in the same way that building new plants and being considered a good corporate citizen gave you bragging rights 25 years ago. Now you fire workers — especially white-collar workers — to make your corporate ‘bones’”.

Organizational/ Individual Level Analysis

The analysis at the organizational/individual interface is primarily focused on documenting and ameliorating the effects of downsizing on those who remain within the organization. A stream of research, both laboratory and field, has provided documentation of the harmful effects downsizing can have on “survivors”; these effects have been described in terms of lower morale (e.g., Armstrong-Stassen, 1993), high stress (e.g., Leana and Feldman, 1992), and a “syndrome” marked by anger, envy, and guilt (e.g., Noer, 1993). The perceived fairness of the downsizing is considered a key mediating variable (e.g., Brockner, 1992), as is the effectiveness of the communication of information (e.g., Bridges, 1987).

Key underlying assumptions include: 1) the pre-eminence of the organization over the individual, accompanied by a strong argument that the organization cannot reach its full potential without maximizing the effective use of human resources; 2) reliance upon the Lewin’s three step approach of unfreezing, moving to a new level, and freezing at a new level; as illustrated by the Xerox and GE cases described above, Lewin argued that to “break open the shell of complacency, it is sometimes necessary to bring about a deliberate emotional stir-up” (Lewin, 1951:229); 3) reliance upon psychological transition models, especially as put forward by Bridges (1991); Bridges theorizes three overlapping phases of transition – the ending of what was, a messy “neutral zone”, or limbo, and a new beginning; 4) the end of the old implicit “psychological contract” assuring lifetime job security as long as the employee “keeps his or her nose clean” and does an adequate job and formulation of a new contract in which employees are more autonomous and self-reliant (e.g., Bridges, 1994).

Brockner and colleagues have studied the “fairness” of layoffs from a procedural justice perspective and have shown a link between perceived fairness of the layoffs and survivor commitment to the organization (e.g., Brockner et al, 1994). Among the fairness factors which Brockner examines is the connection with existing corporate culture. Organizations such as IBM and Digital Equipment which have traditionally had a policy of averting layoffs are likely to be perceived by employees as violating the psychological contract and therefore as more unfair when they do resort to layoffs.

Noer (1993) sees letting go of the old employment contract as tough but necessary. His view is that implicit lifetime employment guarantees are unhealthy both for individuals and organizations. They result in a sort of “organizational codependency” in which individuals invest enormous energy in trying to control the system and at the same time have much of their self-worth tied up in trying to live up to the organization’s, not their own, values. In a similar vein, Hecksher (1995) concludes that management loyalty to the organization is no longer needed; what is needed is more professionalism, evidenced by creative contributions to the organization. Bridges (1994) goes even further; he sees a secular trend away from the traditional job, with security, job description, etc. Like Noer, he sees greater possibility for individuals to achieve autonomy and satisfaction by taking responsibility for their own futures.

Work relationships can become much more testy during periods of organizational decline. That can take the form of “backstabbing, placing of blame, and overt failure to cooperate” (Mohrman and Mohrman, 1983:459). Hickok (1995) analyzed interview responses at two downsizing military bases and found that mentions of increased conflict in the workplace were significantly greater than the more positive mentions of pulling together.

When I was an MBA student, as part of a management course I had the opportunity to conduct a “culture assessment” at the organization where I was working. The organization was somewhat new to me–I had been hired as a senior manager only a year before–and the ability to quantify and analyze the organizational culture was a new concept to me.

As an employee in any type of organization can attest, organizational culture is as prevalent and as varied as individuals themselves. Organizational culture is enduring and complex, and may have both a positive and a negative effect on the staff and the workplace. In many ways culture will determine the survival of an organization over the long term, especially in volatile industries.

Cultures that can be a liability to an organization include those that create barriers to change, create barriers to diversity or barriers to mergers and acquisitions. (Stephen P. Robbins. Organizational Behavior, 8th ed., 602-603.)

Understanding the organizational culture can help you to understand why change does not take place, or why a project fails. It will also help you to determine where to strive to make changes to the culture.

As managers and library leaders, why do we need to get a sense of the prevailing organizational culture? It is essential to understand the organizational culture if you want to make changes to how work is done, what type of work is being done, or at the broadest level, to affect the organization’s standing in its industry. Understanding the culture and, as required, changing it, can mean the difference between attracting and retaining good employees and driving away the best employees with an environment that doesn’t encourage, challenge, or reward them.

The organizational culture assessment that I participated in didn’t provide any surprises regarding the existing culture–most people with any level of sensitivity can get a sense of what type of culture is prevalent in an organization. What was surprising were the results from the survey to determine what type of culture staff would prefer to see the organization develop.

As background, the organization had just gone through a major change. The executive director had departed after 20 years; there had been a period of several months with an acting ED followed by a new, external ED appointment. The assessment took place only a month after the new ED was in position.

Types of Culture

The assessment we used to assess the organization’s culture used questions that sought to determine and enumerate such organizational traits as symbols (such as images, things, events), organizational-espoused values and beliefs (for example, the mission statement, constitution, espoused goals of the ED, slogans). Then the espoused beliefs and values were compared with the symbols and culture identified through the written survey and staff interviews.

The written survey asked staff to answer questions related to the current culture and then asked how they would like to see the culture change. Responses were tabulated to determine which type of culture existed among the four metrics of organizational culture: hierarchy, adhocracy, clan, and market.

The hierarchy aspect of an organization refers to how structured, inflexible, and process-driven an organization is in the way it operates. At the opposite end of the scale, adhocracy refers to how flexible, informal, innovative, and dynamic an organization is. A clan culture supports a very friendly and social environment in which to work, while a market culture is often found in organizations that are results-oriented and sales-driven.

The assessment determined that the existing culture was very hierarchical and quite clannish. The staff also indicated, through the anonymous written survey, that they would prefer the culture to be more adhocratic and less hierarchical, while at the same time being slightly more market culture and clannish. This showed the positive and optimistic view of the staff towards change.

The process I used for assessing the culture involved conducting group employee interviews and written staff surveys, followed by analysis of the information. Staff responded to a series of prompts and questions regarding organizational symbols, organizational-espoused values, and beliefs. These responses were analyzed, creating a pattern showing comparisons between espoused belief/values (in the form of phrases or statements) with their associated symbols (both positive and negative), and related culture types (hierarchy, adhocracy, clan, and market).

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

For a new leader or manager, understanding the organizational culture that is in place is essential for success in providing direction, especially when the direction is different from what has come before. Are staff willing and eager to take on new challenges and to follow a new direction, or will they provide passive or active resistance to any changes? What is important to people today, based on their view of where the organization is and where it should be? Where are there disconnects between espoused values, such as the mission statement, and the over symbols and culture type?

For example, if the organization’s mission is to provide expert customer service, yet the strong hierarchical structure means that employees are not empowered to assist customers by providing creative solutions or don’t have the required authority to provide responses or results, there is a disconnect.

The organization that I surveyed was eager to see positive change and the time was right for providing impetus to staff to follow a new path. The assessment can reveal the opposite, however, which is just as valuable to managers or library leaders. If there is resistance to change, if the espoused values of the organization don’t match with the staff perceptions and prevailing culture, you must try to change the culture or change the objectives and mission to reflect reality.

Conclusion

It is difficult to write with authority about the relationship of downsizing to organizational culture, in part because these are both subject areas in need of clarification and empirical research. It is intuitively evident, even definitional, that a leader’s cultural mind set will have a great deal to do with whether and how downsizing is implemented in an organization. It also seems, beyond question, that downsizing acts as an organizational destabilizer and thus as a catalyst for culture change. Whether resultant cultural change is beneficial to the organization as a whole is open to speculation. Because downsizing is a relatively recent phenomenon at the white-collar level, time will have to differentiate between short-term effects and reactions and the longer-term consequences. Perhaps less bloated bureaucracies will free people to get more work done and to interact more positively. Perhaps a whole generation of management thinkers overstated the value of loyalty and commitment that accrues over a long and stable employment tenure. That, again, will be for time to judge.

This article has noted three observations in relation to the impact of downsizing on organizational culture. First, it clearly appears that power has shifted away from rank-and-file employees in the direction of top management/ownership. Accompanying this change is a shift in emphasis away from the well-being of individuals in the direction of the pre-eminence and predominance of the organization as a whole. Second, it appears working relationships have changed away from being “familial” in the direction of being more competitive. Third, the employer-employee relationship has moved away from long-term and stable in the direction of short-term and contingent.

It was argued in this article that decisions associated with a downsizing action may tend either to be culturally “reinforcing” (i.e., less disruptive, more individual control) or culturally “destabilizing” (i.e., likely to induce pain). Key downsizing practices were categorized by which of these they were more generally associated.

Finally, the author suggested five simple question areas that organizational leaders who are interested in probing the moral and spiritual dimensions of downsizing might usefully consider. These include ensuring the fundamental decency of the approach being considered, engaging in appropriate dialogue, thinking through the consequences for those who may be adversely affected, having ready explanations for multiple constituencies, and offering a realistic opportunity for a better future for the organization and the organization’s stakeholders.

References

American Management Association (1994). 1994 survey on downsizing.

Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bridges, W. (1987). Managing transitions. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bridges, W. (1988). Surviving the survivor syndrome. William Bridges and Associates (pamphlet, 14 pages).

Cameron, K.S. (Summer 1994). Guest editor’s note: “Investigating organizational downsizing–fundamental issues,” Human Resources Management 33(2), pp. 183-188.

Cameron, K.S., Freeman, S.J., and Mishra, A.K. (1991). “Best practices in white-collar downsizing: Managing contradictions,” Academy of Management Executive 5(3), pp. 57-72.

Cascio, W. (1993). “Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned?” Academy of Management Executive 7(1), pp. 95-104.

Downs, A. (1995). Corporate executions. NY: AMACOM (225 pages).

Fierman, J. (January 24 1994). “The contingency work force,” Fortune, pp. 30-36.

Greengard, S. (November 1993). “Don’t rush downsizing: Plan, plan, plan,” Personnel Journal 72(11), 64-76.

Kotter, J. And Heskett, J. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York: The Free Press.

Kozlowski, S., Chao, G., Smith, E., and Hedlund, V. (1993). “Organizational downsizing: Strategies, interventions, and research implications,” International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 8, pp. 263-332.

Leana, C. and Feldman, D.C. (1992). Coping with job loss: How individuals, .

Noer, D. (1993). Healing the wounds: Overcoming the trauma of layoffs and revitalizing downsized organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.