Upload
alexandra-maria-bebitza
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
1/22
Influences of Organizational Culture
on Learning in Public Agencies
Julianne Mahler
George Mason University
ABSTRACT
Thisarticleexamines anunderappreciated influence on
organizationallearning: th ecultureofthe organization. Because
organization culture informsthe sensemaking an dinterpretation
ofthe kindsofambiguities seeninpuzzling data, problematic
situations,uncertainprogram
technologies,
and obscurelinks
betweenproblems and solutions, it m ay beusefulto consider
someparticular ways thatculture guideslearning.Culturepro-
vides a reservo ir oforganizational meanings againstwhich
results,
experience,
an dperformancedata are interpreted and
inquiries
about
changes in
procedures
and program technologies
can
proceed.
The
more
equivocal
the data or technologies, the
more
influence
the
culture
is likely to have in shaping the course
of
learning. The examples
g iven in the article suggest
this
pattern
and offer a basis for a m odel ofthe influences thatcultureh as on
learning inpublic
organizations.
Organization learning refers to the capacity of organizations
to change themselves in response to experience. Learning is con-
cerned with how organizations monitor their operations, their
results, their environments, and their clients for clues to the
adequacy of their performance. It focuses on how organizations
come to identify some situations as problems and how they
attempt to correct them. Learning organizations do not ignore the
consequences of their actions, try to shift the blame for failures,
establish policies to subvert the detection of errors (Argyris
1991),
or redefine what counts as success. They embrace error
(Korten 1980) and try to understand its sources. Learning organi-
zations change themselves by altering their rules, strategies,
structures, routines, program technologies, or even their goals in
an attempt to come closer to achieving their objectives.
Not all change is learning, but learning is thought to be an
J-PART7(19 97):4:5 19-54 0 especially informed and effective type of change because it
519/Journal ofPublic dministrationResearch and Theory
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
2/22
Influences of Organizational Culture on Learning
represents a conscious effort to interpret and analyze results in
order to correct problems rather than a blind reaction to crises or
to the latest management fad. Interest in organizational learning
has grown among public administrators because it addresses the
issues of change, innovation, and environmental adaptation, all
major concerns in organization theory and practice for decades
and clearly important now as public organizations are being rein-
vented and reengineered. The organizational learning approach
highlights
the act ofchanging
by examining how agency mem-
bers struggle to apply experience and information to entrenched
routines, to attribute causes to the problems they face, and to
create remedies for these problems. Individual learning becomes
organizational when these lessons are institutionalized, making
them available to other members.
But not all organizations do learn. The converse of the
learning organization is a static organization, in which pro-
cedures, routines, and objectives persist in the face of perceived
inadequacies. Perhaps even more commonly, inaction results
because members remain unaware of problems or accept them as
unalterable conditions (Barzelay 1992, 22-33).
CULTURE AND LEARNING
This article examines an underappreciated influence on
learning: the culture of the organization. Because organization
culture informs the sense making and interpretation of the kinds
of ambiguities seen in puzzling data, problematic situations,
uncertain program technologies, and obscure links between prob-
lems and solutions, it may be useful to consider some particular
ways that culture guides learning. Specific elements of an organi-
zation's culture may affect the capacity of the organization to
learn and may influence what it learns and how it learns. Though
culture has most often been seen as a source of resistance
(Schein 1992, xiv) or source of defensive routines (Argy ris
1991) to learning and change, we might also consider its more
creative potential as a basis for the interpretation of situations and
experiences that could prompt learning and the construction of
effective solutions. Examples of both patterns are seen in the
cases reported here. Though the more interesting influence of
culture may be how it guides or inspires learning, whether it
fosters or blocks it, culture's effects on learning deserve study.
Several examples from the cases of organizational change
efforts described below suggest the outline of a model of the
relationship between culture and learning. The model highlights
the role of culture in influencing how agency actors make sense
of equivocal program results and the implications of these results
520/J-PART
October 1997
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
3/22
Influences of Organizational CultureonLearning
for program and management procedures. The case examples
show the particular importance that beliefs about the legitimacy
of various sources or types of information sometimes have for
organizational learning. Correspondingly, the cases suggest some
of the ways that cultural values that surround existing procedures
influence the kind of changes that would be seen as feasible,
valid, or professional. These beliefs and values might be thought
of as constituting a culture of information and a culture of
organizational technology.
The thesis offered here is that together these elements of
culture influence the capacity of the agency to learn and the
direction that learning will take. Agency beliefs may spur the
recognition of problems or justify the status quo. They may
inspire innovative technologies or prescribe greater orthodoxy.
All this implies that learning by agency actors depends not only
on the collection and retrieval of output data and other kinds of
information, it also depends on the culture of beliefs, norms, and
professional identities that provides the context of meaning for
this information.
THEORIES OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
Organizational learning is a very broadly defined
phenomenon, with no one widely accepted characterization (Fiol
and Lyles 1985). An overview of this large literature cannot be
offered here (but see Cohen and Sproull 1996; Daft and Huber
1987;
Dixon 1992). However, two models of learning capture
much of the diversity in theoretical formulations in the field. A
distinction in versions of learning exists between those who view
learning as the working of a rational, information-based system
(Levitt and March 1988; Huber 1991) and those who see it as a
socially constructed process (Daft and Huber 1987; Morgan
1986; Dixon 1992). The former version is an elaboration of the
information-processing model of organizations while the latter is
indebted to interpretive theories in the social sciences (Rabinow
and Sullivan 1987; Burrell and Morgan 1979; Rosenberg 1988).
Rational-Analytic Theories of Learning
Most writers characterize the learning process as a more or
less analytic activity in which members assemble information
about past efforts, search out problems and solutions, and adopt
incremental or fundamental changes in operations, routines, or
standards to improve the organization's responses. The key
element in all this is the processing of information, which
includes collecting, distributing, storing, and retrieving infor-
mation (Huber 1991; Walsh and Ungson 1991) and using this
521IJ-PART
October 1997
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
4/22
Influences of Organizational Culture on Learning
information in analysis, search, decision making, and subsequent
monitoring. This view of learning is linked closely to cyber-
netics-inspired information-processing models of decision making
such as the several forms of rational and bounded rational choice.
The breakdown of these information processes when technology
is poorly understood or goals are not agreed on leads to organi-
zational anarchy and incomplete, interrupted learning (March and
Olson 1979).
Much of the literature on the information-processing model
of organizational learning focuses on barriers to learning and
searches for ways to improve learning by increasing the quality,
quantity, and distribution of information. For example, learning
from experience requires a diversity of experience and experi-
mentation, but this is curtailed by premature control (Landau and
Stout 1979), routines designed to reduce ambiguity and unpre-
dictability (Levitt and March 1988), and low tolerance for risk
(Huber 1991). Information that is not routinely collected may be
richest in data about the need for change, such as errors in
coordination or conflicts in priorities. But these data are by
definition not systematically collected or assembled, though they
may be reflected in cultural expressions or other forms of
collective m emory (Levitt and March 1988; Huber 1991; Walsh
and Ungson 1991). Learning also requires that information about
experience be routed to those who are making decisions or those
conducting analyses to recommend choices. Howeverespecially
in complex, hierarchical, program agenciesthis often does not
happen (Bushe and Shani 19 91; Huber 1991 ; Pressman and
Wildavsky 1979).
Information collection also may be incomplete or distorted
(Downs 1967), and in some cases administrators do not want to
know about problems or performance gaps (Kaufman 1973).
Even when performance monitoring is reliable, administrators
may have very little idea about how to use the information to
improve performance, because their understanding of program or
task technologies is poor or there is disagreement about the
cause-effect links in the program, such as appears in education
and crime reduction technologies (Wilson 1989). In the absence
of real understanding about the nonobvious twists in relations
between inputs and outputs in dynamic systems, overcorrection
can be much worse than inaction (Senge 1990).
Even when learning is successful, however, it may be diffi-
cult for outsiders to identify. In some cases learned changes may
not have an immediate or evident effect on behavior. Yet die
lessons learned may make it possible for the organization to con-
tinue performing even if circumstances change drastically or
522IJ-PART,
October 1997
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
5/22
Influences of Organizational Culture on Learning
become unfavorable in the future (Cook and Yanow 19%). Some
lessons may be kept in reserve by the affected actors to be put
into practice when the appropriate circumstances arise.
Interpretive Theories of Learning
An alternative model of learning emphasizes the inter-
subjectivity of organizational knowledge and the interpretive
character of the learning process
itself.
Learning proceeds
through sharing interpretations of events and through reflection
on these interpretations, which leads to adjustments in operations
or changes in policies and procedures (Walsh and Ungson 1991;
Daft and Huber 1987; Argyris and SchOn 1978). Learning is
characterized by dialogue, in which the richer the media of com-
munication (e.g., face to face rather than electronic) the deeper
the sharing and the greater the potential for learning (Daft and
Huber 1987). The availability of multiple interpretations, if they
are well understood by actors, is said to increase learning (Huber
1991).
In a similar vein, Jenkins-Smith (1990) and Sabatier and
Jenkins-Smith (1993) found that though policy learning (i.e.,
cognitive change in positions taken by members of policy coali-
tions) was rare, it was most likely to occur in professional
forums where alternative expert interpretations of program tech-
nologies are debated. Policy learning arises from dialogue about
alternatives and reflection about alternative interpretations of
evidence.
Organization learning is propelled by the tension that results
from the basic equivocality of virtually all organizational infor-
mation (Weick 1979). Because the evidence the actors have is
ambiguous, sense must be made of it in the context of existing
beliefs and assumptions of members. This is an act of interpreta-
tion, not solely of data collection and dissemination. This tension
can be seen in the contrast between the new logic of a proposed
innovation and the existing dominant logic. In cases reported by
Bouwen and Fry (1991), tension leads to struggle and confronta-
tion and is resolved through the negotiated reconstruction of the
organization. In their case studies of organizational learning, the
greatest innovations were seen when actors confronted each other
repeatedly over attempts to make changes in the organization
an d
were made aware of their progress or lack of progress. These
cases illustrate the role of interpretation, and conflict among
interpretations, in debating options and the struggle to arrive at
solutions. Learning is preserved in shared interpretations stored
in the organizational memory (Walsh and Ungson 1991) and in
the enacted organizing process (Weick 1979). This view of how
lessons are institutionalized reinforces the point noted earlier that
523/J-PART October 1997
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
6/22
Influences of OrganizationalCulture on Learning
learning may not be immediately evident in new procedures, even
though it has occurred.
There may be less to the distinction between these two
models of learning than most authors suggest, however, espe-
cially with regard to their advice about how to improve learning
or about the role of culture in learning. While they differ in their
characterization of the inquiry process as relatively objective or
interpretive, their advice about improving learning often empha-
sizes increasing the availability of information and becoming
better systems thinkers (Senge 1990). Daft and Huber (1987),
among others, go further to suggest that organizations need a
logistic system to distribute information and an interpretive
system to help actors integrate their interpretations. Little
attention is paid, however, to the specific influences of organi-
zational cultures on learning, which is especially surprising in the
case of the interpretive model, given its concern with social
meaning, the basis of culture.
Who Learns?
Another question that bears on theories of organizational
learning is: Who learns? Since the organization is an abstraction
and does not have a mind that can be changed, organization
learning typically is viewed as dependent on, though different
from, individual learning. This means that lessons learned by
individuals become organizational learning when they are insti-
tutionalized in a variety of formal and informal ways as rules,
routines, standards, technologies, norms, or tacit communities of
practice. In this way the impact of lessons survives over time,
and they can be integrated into other organization processes.
Learning by agency members can fail to become organization
learning when individual knowledge of problems is not institu-
tionalized. Argyris and Schdn (1978, 9) note for example, There
are too many cases in which organizations know
less
than their
members. There are even cases in which the organization cannot
seem to learn what every member knows.
There are contending views about who it is that learns,
however. Some emphasize that learning is a cognitive process
that only individuals can undertake. In this view, organizational
learning is individual learning that occurs in organizations and
from which the organization may benefit. Research then focuses
on finding ways to speed or shape individual learning curves to
improve overall organizational effectiveness. Here the term
organization learning
is used metaphorically. Some research
based on this approach, however, finds evidence for the existence
of organizational learning as defined in the previous paragraph
524/J-PART
October 1997
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
7/22
Influences of rganizational Culture on Learning
'Epple, Argote, and Devadas (1996), for
example, explicitly adopt such a view in
their research on irammg across shifts in
industrial settings to determine if such a
thing as organizational learning apart
from individual learning can be identified.
They conclude that individual learning
that becomes embedded in new technol-
ogies makes some contribution to what
might be called organizational learning.
In another example Cariey (1 996) reasons
that *[s]ince organizational or group
performance is dependent on the experi-
ence and capabilities of individual mem-
bers . . . organizations should learn as
their personnel learn. In her study of
turnover and learning, she simulates indi-
vidual learning and concludes that despite
new recruitment, turnover leads to net
information loss in the memories of indi-
vidual acto n and to poorer organizational
performance. She notes, how ever, that
many other studies have found improved
performance with increases in routiniza-
tion or in "socially shared cognitions or
memories" (p. 2 56) and suggests that if
"knowledge repositories" such as stan-
dardized routines, computer data bases,
or even files had been made part of her
simulation, she would probably have
found less information loss with turnover.
The ideas of a "dominant logic" (Bouwen
and Fry 1991) or "Iogic-in-use* (Argyris
and Schfln 1978) are used in ways that
are somewhat similar to the idea of an
organizational culture, but generally they
do not include the symbolic and emo-
tional attributes of culture. Logk-in-use
likely reflect the imprint of cultural
assumptions of various professional,
occupational, or policy groups within an
organization.
when it concludes that the whole organization is better off when
new individual knowledge can be stored and shared in some way.
This finding is close to the idea of institutionalized knowledge.
1
The other end of the spectrum also is represented in the
literature: organization learning means that organizations them-
selves learn, in ways that are independent of what individual
members are learning. Cook and Yanow (1996, 438) perhaps put
this best when they argue that just as an individual cannot be said
to perform a symphonic work, organizational knowing resides in
the organization as a whole. When a group acquires the know-
how associated with its ability to carry out its collective
activities, that constitutes organizational learning.
The model proposed here takes the first view: Organiza-
tional learning is a distinct and real organizational process, linked
both to individual learning and to organization-wide action to
preserve the lessons learned. The focus here is on seeking out the
effects of culture as they influence learning by individual agency
members acting either in isolation or collectively. The model
proposes that culture can affect the learning seen in the choices
that agency actors make when they identify a situation as a prob-
lem, diagnose the source or character of the problem, devise pos-
sible solutions, and determine how to institutionalize the.lessons
learned. Thus culture's potential influence extends from inter-
preting situations to preserving the lessons learned.
ROLE O F CULTURE IN THEORIES OF
ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
Writers in the field of organizational learning typically
assign one of three roles for organizational culture to play in
learning: storehouse for past history and lessons to be passed on
through socialization (Levitt and March 1988; Walsh and Ungson
1991; Schein 1992; interpretive filter through which members
view events and their own actions (Shrivastiva 1983; Hedberg
1981;
Levitt and March 1988); or source of strategy and action
(Hedberg 1981).
2
1 am not suggesting that these are inappropriate
roles for culture, but the implications of these roles have not
been developed, and their effects on the learning process have
not been investigated. Though it appears that they refer to differ-
ent effects of culture, the case studies that will be described
shortly show them to be different portrayals of the same process.
It is not simply that some cultures are more likely to foster
learning than others (though Schein [1992] does imply this posi-
tion, arguing that a learning culture would be one in which the
organization was assumed to dominate its environment, members
525/J-PART October 1997
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
8/22
Influences of
Organizational
Culture on Learning
collectively adopted a pragmatic view of truth, and human nature
was seen as good
an d
mutable, and so forth [pp. 365-66]). The
learning literature seems to show, however, that learning occurs
in myriad cultures; therefore it makes more sense to look at the
ways that cultural elements define the content and style of learn-
ing than to suppose that only some types of culture allow learn-
ing. If culture influences the uses that
are
made of the informa-
tion an organization has and can learn from, and if it can be seen
to shape the alternatives for change that are considered, we can
see culture-based learning in action.
Before we explore the specific effects of organization
cultures on learning, the idea of culture itself needs clarification.
Like learning, there are numerous formulations of the concept
(Schein 1992; Ott 1989; Trice and Beyer 1993; Van Maanen and
Barley 1985). A common conceptual definition of organization
culture is that it refers to the collectively held and symbolically
represented ideas members of an organization have about the
meaning of the organization and the work they do. Van Maanan
and Barley (1985, 33) describe the evolution of cultures when
they define it as a living historical product of group prob lem
solving . Others take the learning element further, defining
organization culture as the accumulated shared learning of a
group (Schein 1992, 10) or as the . . . collective phenomena that
embody peoples' responses to the uncertainties and chaos that are
inevitable in human experience (Trice and Beyer 1 993, 2) .
Culture often is considered to be composed of two elements:
the overt
signifiers
of culture and the
meanings
the signifiers
have to the actors themselves (Trice and Beyer 1993). The form-
er includes icons, rituals, stories, myths, argot, ceremonies,
office layout and space use, and decorative displays. These con-
stitute the symbols of a culture to the degree they represent or
connote the emotional and ideational content of the culture. These
outward signifiers have been termed
artifacts
(Schein 1992; Ott
1989) or
forms
(Trice and Beyer 1993) though sometimes they
represent the culture
itself.
The interpretation of these artifacts
reveals the content of organizational culture (i.e., the beliefs,
values, philosophies, norms, and justifications that actors
collectively hold about the meaning of the organization and their
work in it). The work identity of members, the assumptions they
hold about how the work is to be done, and the meaning to pro-
fessionals of the program technologies they employ all contribute
to this content. Based on these collectively held beliefs, members
interpret or make sense of events and judge what counts as a pro-
fessional prog ram, valid information, a plausible inference, a just
decision, and so forth. Cultures are created from many sources,
including the larger culture; the socialization that members
526IJ-PART October 1997
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
9/22
Influences of Organizational Culture on Learning
received in prior educational, professional, and work settings; the
history of events and personalities in the organization; and the
accretion of collective efforts to make sense of all these over
time.
All this tells us that the study of organizational culture is
essentially interpretive. It rests on the view that actions of
organizational members are informed not only by rules, incentive
schemes, and orders but also by a collectively created comm on
frame of reference (Van Maanen and Barley 1985, 31). The
ongoing cultural frame of reference takes numerous forms and is
evident in rituals, myths, often-repeated stories, and many other
kinds of artifacts. But the underlying collective beliefs about the
organization that these artifacts represent provide the context for
interpreting organizational data and events.
It is this collectively created frame of reference that makes
culture important to organizational learning. I propose that this
frame of reference fills in the gaps in the inevitably equivocal
information about results and experience. The importance of cul-
ture to the study of organizational learning in public organiza-
tions is that individual and collective behaviors and prescribed
activities are not solely the product of new information or
innovative decision support technologies. Behavior and activity
also depend on the interpretation of that information in the
context of the historically developed organizational meanings
represented or symbolized in the organization's rituals, myths,
and ceremonies.
Inclusion of culture as an element in organizational learning
extends our capacity to explain what happens in the learning
process and why learning often does not occur. The culture-based
approach to learning offered here tempers the information-proces-
sing model of organizational change and learning with an inter-
pretive view of the process.
CULTURAL INFLUENCES ON LEARNING
Specific influences of culture on learning can be observed in
the following assemblage of examples of learning efforts. In these
examples culture sometimes inspires learning and in other instan-
ces blocks it. Together they provide the basis for the model of
culture-based learning that will follow. The examples cluster
around five kinds of direct effects of culture on learning: the role
of culture in interpreting performance results; informing the
meanings inscribed in established routines; defining what consti-
tutes legitimate information; specifying the consideration to be
given to external demands; and defining subculture relations.
527/J-PART October 1997
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
10/22
Influences of
Organizational
Culture on Learning
This list of examples is not meant to be exhaustive but to suggest
the types of linkages between culture, interpretation, and learning
that can be seen in public organizations.
The Role of Culture in Interpreting Performance Results
How does culture influence the interpretation of the events
that we expect will stimulate learning? What meanings do mem-
bers draw from apparent disasters and triumphs? More specif-
ically, how do commonly held beliefs as revealed in myths about
the true mission of the organization, legends about past successes
or failures, or stories about the identity or prowess of its officials
influence the interpretation of prominent or conspicuous events as
problems to be remedied, or situations to be accepted resignedly,
or opportunities to be taken.
We generally expect that failures, especially well-publicized
failures, will lead to a reexamination of procedures or even more
fundamental changes in basic premises and that public success
similarly will lead to efforts to duplicate or extend the triumph.
But a culture-based learning approach would suggest that the
meaning of apparent disasters or successes and the lessons to be
derived from them cannot be assumed. Responses may be influ-
enced strongly by the beliefs officials hold about their profes-
sional identities as revealed in the organization's myths and
legends. All these affect what problems are perceived as real,
what work is deemed good, and what results are expected.
Perhaps the most common and unfortunate instances of this
thesis are the cases in which public failures do not bring self-
study and action because internal professional norms have inured
members to expectations of better things. In other cases, how-
ever, professional definitions of what counts as a good manage-
ment strategy have led to program designs that are innovative and
responsive.
One case that illustrates both patterns over time is described
by Barzelay (1992). In the purchasing department of Minnesota
state government, interorganizational cooperation was rare, which
resulted in a series of costly crises that stretched over many
years.
Routines in the unit were designed to take advantage of
cost minimizing tactics such as holding orders until there were
enough to get volume discounts and taking the lowest bids for
items judged to be comparable by those in the purchasing unit.
Because of these routines lengthy delays for educational com-
puters caused cancellation of classes, and quality of laboratory
equipment was so poor that it could not perform the work for
which it was purchased.
5WJ-PART,
October 1997
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
11/22
Influences of rganizationalCulture on Learning
This situation was accepted all around as undesirable but
unalterable in a state bureaucracy. The long-standing culture
within purchasing and other bureaus included the belief that
program offices could not be trusted to spend state dollars
wisely. State rules also required these practices as economies.
Program staff had learned to accept delays and substandard qual-
ity as the price paid for public service. The culture of distrust
insulated the purchasing department from the kind of feedback it
got from other departments. At this point in the case, the cultural
beliefs surrounding the work technology clearly had blocked
learning.
This began to change, according to Barzelay, only after
newly appointed officials from outside the agency began a long
process of inculcating a new ethos of internal customer service.
Starting from the bottom up, the reformers worked to have
agency members reconceptualize their work as service to profes-
sional workers in other state agencies, rather than as routine
paperwork for greedy, irresponsible bureaucrats. This resocial-
ization took years but began with an understanding of the existing
professional culture of the agency. What emerged finally, accord-
ing to the reports of some participants, might be considered a
culture change. As a result, Barzelay notes, what had been con-
sidered an unalterable condition was redefined as a problem. A
bottom to top search for solutions turned up many changes in the
technology and financing of state procurement. The innovative
procedures that resulted illustrate the new capacity of officials to
learn from their mistakes, using customer feedback and market-
like mechanisms to monitor their performance and spur further
changes. Rules and state laws were changed. Under the emerging
culture of the agency, a new system of financial accountability to
the state was created based on tracking the link between cus-
tomers and payers, by definition not a typical procedure in
bureaucracies. In this case the slow change in beliefs about
service, trust, and responsibility opened the way for innovative
ideas about the design of services.
Argyris collates a number of cases of policy making and
administration at the highest executive levels in which learning is
blocked by specific features of organization culture. The Reagan
White House staff culture of hiding overt conflict (Argyris 1991)
and protecting the presidential staff from criticism (Noonan 1990)
prevented an examination of overall budget planning. This is the
pattern Argyris calls an organizational defensive routine that
blocks the detection and correction of error.
In contrast, David Korten's (1980) analysis of the character-
istics of successful third world development programs illustrates
529/J-PART October 1997
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
12/22
Influences
ofOrganizational
Culture
on
Learning
the ways that culture canstimulateand shape learning. Features
that distinguished successful development programs were prin-
cipally that they started small, accepted responsibility fortheir
errors,
andlookedto thetraditional waysoftheir clientsfor
inspiration in designing local solutionstoproblems.
But behind these good learning strategies were stable pro-
gram structuresandgroupsofprofessional staff. Permitting
project buildersto remain together, maintaining theethosof
planning withthepeople that drovetheprogram,waslinked
more often to program success thanthe common procedure,
whichwas to try toduplicate the formal structural characteristics
of promising programs in other settings with otherstaff. It was
no tthe formal program structuresbut the staffs commitmentto
working closely with local people, their tacit understanding of
how to do so and thecultureof grassroots action among project
builders that shaped
the
program learning
and
made
the
projects
successful. Theprofessional cultureof theagencies provideda
context
for
interpreting local situations
and
choosing
a
method
to
achieve effective development.
The Effects of Collective Meanings Invested
in Existing Routines
What meanings
are
invested
in
existing routines,
and how do
members reacttochallenges to these routines? Whatdoorganiza-
tional rituals, argot,
or
often-told stories symbolize about
the
meaningsofparticular routines, programs,orprocedures? What
do rituals connoting,
for
example,
the
scientific
or
humanitarian
character of agency work tellusabouthow officials will respond
to particular criticisms
of
program paradigms? What does
the cul-
tural contentofprogramsand entrenched routines suggest about
the kinds
of
problems that will
be
recognized
or how
debate
about alternatives will proceed?Towhat kindsof program
changes would
it
even occur
to
officials
to
give serious consider-
ation?
According
to the
information-processing model
of
organi-
zational learning (Daft andHuber 1987;Huber 1991; Walshand
Ungson 1991), learning
is
institutionalized
by
encoding
new
proceduresornorms intotheroutines for search, work tech-
nology, communications,
or
decision m aking.
The
work culture
can tell
us
about
the
meanings
of
the various routines
and
norms
to
the
members
and can
help
us
understand
and
cope with resis-
tancetochanging routines.Insome cases, proposed changesin
routines
may be
defined
in the
culture
as
unprofessional,
as
a quickanddirtyfix orin thecaseofefforts todissem-
inate lessons learned
in a
large organizationas meddling
by
530/J-PART October
1997
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
13/22
Influences of
rganizational
Culture on Learning
headquarters. However, the cultural investment in routines also
may reflect professional values or local priorities that foster
learning by insisting on improved results or valuing constant
experimentation. Thus the specific cultural assumptions built into
routines either can impede or encourage learning.
These influences of culture on learning are illustrated by the
case of a large federal bureau charged with carrying out regula-
tory programs for many other agencies. Bureau personnel include
examiners of several types and investigators with law enforce-
ment responsibilities. Investigators, who are law enforcement
professionals, operate in an aura of particular danger and are said
to enjoy more autonomy and higher salaries than other types of
bureau personnel. The distinctive status of the investigators also
is indicated by their separate chain of command. Examiners, in
contrast, view their jobs as the carrying out of the bureau's core
professional work, and they reportedly feel underappreciated for
their role in identifying many of the cases that the investigators
then pursue to completion. All this contributes to the dominance
of the law enforcement professional culture within the agency, an
emphasis on control, and, until recently, little opportunity for
employee participation.
This cultural setting appears to have limited the capacity of
agency officials to respond to acknowledged problems. External
oversight agencies identified several serious agency failings. In
one case, in response to criticisms of work backlogs, some
agency officials proposed new examination procedures to speed
inspections. These new procedures involved using sampling tech-
niques to select likely lawbreakers, but this innovation was long
resisted because it clashed with the law enforcement ethos within
the agency. Sampling was inconsistent with the collectively held
belief that every guilty party should be apprehended and that the
long-honed skills the officials used to size up likely suspects, not
a statistical interval, should guide their efforts.
In another instance, officials in the central personnel depart-
ment and in some of the regional offices of the bureau proposed
to introduce total quality management (TQM) as the centerpiece
of a new management approach. This approach was meant to
combat a variety of internal and external criticisms of the bureau,
including stress, low morale, and problems with recruitment.
Again, however, consistent with the law enforcement culture of
much of the organization, management finally rejected all the
empowerment and involvement programs, preferring to react to
the criticisms with renewed efforts to monitor and control
employees rather than to experiment with greater autonomy and
531/
J-PART
October 1997
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
14/22
Influences ofOrganizational Culture on Learning
responsibility. In this case the role of culture was to defend
routines from change (Mahler 1995).
The Influence of Cultural Beliefs on the Legitimacy
of Information Sources or Forums
How do rituals surrounding the transmission or communica-
tion of information affect the credibility of the information or
other aspects of its interpretation? Stories, language, and visual
displays are artifacts that can reveal much about the organiza-
tional identity of officials and help explain why some channels or
types of communication are valued over others, influencing what
kinds of reports will be seen as convincing. In some settings,
many forms of data may be used. In others only data secured in
particular, company ways are accepted, or different channels of
communication may invoke different norms. Rituals can tell us
how members identify data that is valid or what forums for
exchange or dialogue are considered appropriate or useful. The
focus of literature on the information processing approach to
learning is mostly on improving and increasing information flow.
While these are important issues, the impact of culture on
communication can provide clues to how an organization actually
uses this data in learning. Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993)
address this process in case studies of policy learning that
illustrate that the professional communications in professional
forums are more likely to lead to real change in the positions of
policy actors than are exchanges that occur at public forums,
which include industry or interest groups. Dialogue in such pro-
fessional settings engages actors in different roles than, does
public d iscourse.
Communications patterns in an agency like the Agency for
International Development (AID) also illustrate this pattern. The
culture of AID very much involves work in the field. One of the
dominant beliefs is that only in the field does one experience
what development work is really aboutworking directly with
people on sustainable projects. Since many staff come to the
agency from the Peace Corps, whose philosophy puts the highest
priority on field work, this is not surprising. According to this
belief headquarters' analysis cannot comprehend the experiential
reality of work in the field (Mahler 1988). Thus, learning is
much more likely to result from field experiences than from
analysis of data in Washington. Communiques from the field are
accorded highest status and quickly passed around the office. To
receive one is an indicator of the importance of one's work.
Lessons drawn from the field are considered the most legitimate
bases for changing policies or procedures.
532/J-PART,
October 1997
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
15/22
Influences ofOrganizational Culture on Learning
This collective cultural belief does not necessarily thwart
change, but it does influence which information about results will
be attended to and what kinds of new solutions are likely. In one
section of the agency, the most favored programs are those that
work directly with the farm sector, rather than through other
development mechanisms such as economic policies. The former
kinds of projects were protected by artful descriptions when the
environment, in the shape of a new presidential administration,
changed the external policy requirements and the resources avail-
able to the agency. The agency learned how to adapt to changed
policy eras while protecting its programs in the field.
The Influence of Culture on the Consideration
Given to External Demands
How does the organization socialize officials to deal with
outsiders, such as clients, oversight institutions, interest groups,
other agencies, or local residents? How does the collective frame
of reference about actors in the external environment influence
the level of attention or inattention that particular outsiders
receiv e? What kinds of needs, requests, or demands will officials
see and put on the agenda for change?
Culture-based assumptions about clients, oversight agencies,
and other organizations and actors articulate the meaning of
power and dependency relations, the legitimacy of external
claims, and service obligations to organization members. There
are vast differences in organizational cultures and ideologies with
regard to environmental relations generally, specific client
relations, and links to interorganizational networks of other
agencies and groups. What assumptions the agency holds about
client services and who it defines as its clients are concerns
highlighted by the present interest in TQM and reinventing
government. These beliefs are represented in various ways
formally in mission statements and rules for treating client
applicants and informally in language use; in stories and rituals;
and even in the physical surroundings in which clients wait, over-
sight hearings are held, or administrators function (Goodsell
1989).
Learning from results is much more likely, of course, when
results in the form of client outcomes or interorganizational
cooperation can be seen to have some effect on the organization.
This effect is notoriously difficult to observe in some types of
public organizations where neither outputs nor outcomes are
directly observable, such as the coping organizations that Wilson
identifies (1989). External sanctions for inadequate client out-
comes often are weak, so learning may depend almost exclusively
53VJ-PART
October 1997
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
16/22
Influences
of
O rganizational Culture
on
Learning
on organizational ethos, professionalism, and thepublic service
ethic,
and
these
may be
part
of
the culture
itself.
Korten's cases illustrate such apatternof responsivenessto
clients.Oneimportant difference between successful andunsuc-
cessful international development projects
was
that
the
successful
projects worked withthe local population. Officials respectedand
builton local traditional solutions (Korten 1980).Aless salutary
example comes from J.S.
Ott
(1989),
who
tells about
the
case
of
an accounting firm that customarily described itsclients in the
most derogatory termsandexperienced, notsurprisingly, avery
high client turnover rate. Complaints from clients were
not
taken
seriously. Because clientsdid notunderstand theservices that
were performed andcouldnotdiscernthequalityofservices,
their questions
and
complaints were seen
as
unworthy
of
attention
by thehighly sophisticated staff. Understanding themeaningof
cultural expressions abouttheenvironmentcantellusmuch about
how learning from failures
and
successes might
be
blocked
and
how learning mightbeencouraged.
The Influence
of
Subcultureson Communication
and Learning Dialogue
What impactdohostile subcultures haveon thespreadof
reforms or innovations?
How do the
norms
of a
subculture influ-
encetheinterpretation of information from other admiredor
despised groups?
Organizational subcultures often arise based
on
differences
in geography, professional orientation, program responsibilities,
functional specialization,
or
other groupings (Trice
and
Beyer
1993). Diverse ideologies often emerge among subcultures,and
these differences canenhanceorimpede learning. Interchange
among subculturescansparknew learning. Communication
across these linescanleadto newperspectivesand insights into
tasksorprogram technologies. Beck (1993) showshow new
organization structures
at
NASA opened multiple lines
of
com-
munication among professionals in different project groupsand
disciplines. This spurrednewcommunications patterns associated
with self-reports
of
greater innovation.
Deep, long-standing divisions between groups
in
organiza-
tions
can
however, limit learning
as
lessons adopted
by
some
groupsarespurnedbyothers.A new widely praised structural
change
was
adopted
by the law
enforcement group
in the
large
federal bureau mentioned earlier. Itseffect was to streamline
administration between headquartersand thefield, agoal across
the organization.
The
change
was not
adopted
by
other divisions,
534/J-PART October
1997
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
17/22
Influences of rganizational Culture on Learning
however, in part because of the distrust between the law enforce-
ment group and the other groups (Mahler 1995).
A MODEL OF THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURE
ON LEARNING
The preceding case examples illustrate the effects of several
different types of cultural elements in organization learning.
These cultural elements included organizational and professional
identities and work standards, rituals that connote the importance
of various sources of communication, subculture factions based
on professional identities, collective beliefs about the deficiencies
of clients or other departments, and beliefs about the wisdom of
clients and their traditional ways. It is time to summarize the
influences of these cultural elements on the course of learning in
a model.
Though there is no suggestion that the few examples sum-
marized here represent all types of organizational learning in
public organizations, the cases do illustrate two specific patterns
of culture's influence on learning. The first concerns the influ-
ential of shared beliefs about the forms and sources of informa-
tion on the interpretations of equivocal performance data. The
examples suggest that the more ambiguous the results appear to
the organization members, the more influential the collective
beliefs about the legitimacy and meaning of information sources
seem to be. These beliefs might be termed the culture of informa-
tion. Put another way, the more difficult that situations are for
officials to assess or the more controversial the agency's results,
the more agency actors will rely on cultural beliefs to determine
if the news is bad, good, or inconsequential. These interpre-
tations of data form the basis for either deciding to go on with
business as usual or launching an effort to improve the situation
(i.e.,
learning). Where there is less ambiguity about what results
might mean, culture should have less influence on learning.
Many factors, including competing professional norms or the
clarity of goals and expectations for the agency, could affect the
degree of ambiguity seen in the results data.
While the case examples presented here do not demonstrate
all these implications, they do illustrate the general pattern. In the
Minnesota case, staff were caught in the controversy between
their own well-entrenched procedures and frequent outside criti-
cism. Their ethos allowed them to label this criticism as irrespon-
sible. This interpretation changed as the culture of customer
service slowly took hold. In the case of the Agency for Interna-
tional Development, requests, inquiries, and other communiques
from the field were accorded the highest priority, and therefore
535/J-PART October 1997
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
18/22
Influences ofOrganizational Cultureon Learning
led to action. In these examples the specific cultural beliefs about
the legitimacy of information sources themselves guided the inter-
pretation of equivocal and controversial situations. These inter-
pretations were critical in blocking self-examination in the firm
Ott studied and in the first years in Barzelay's account of the
Minnesota case. However, later in the Minnesota purchasing
agency and in the AID example, cultural beliefs about informa-
tion spurred the diagnosis of situations as problems and energized
actors to seek solutions.
A second and related pattern that emerged in these examples
concerns culture's role in guiding the analysis and debate about
solutions to acknowledged problems, particularly when existing
technologies are not well understood or are controversial. Collec-
tive beliefs about professional standards and identities and the
meanings attributed to the agency's mission shape perceptions
about legitimate options for new programs and procedures,
including the option of no action. This set of beliefs might be
called the culture of technology in an agency. Culture's role in
influencing the process of procedural analysis and the direction of
change is perhaps especially important for public organizations
because of the inherent ambiguity of many program and mana-
gerial technologies. Both Perrow (1967) and Wilson (1989),
among many others, have defined the technologies of public
organizations to include not only equipment but the whole collec-
tion of program procedures established to transform cases or situ-
ations into the state prescribed in public law or regulation. Often
such technologies are difficult to establish because the intent of
public policy is unclear, as much of the implementation research
demonstrates.
An even greater difficulty, however, in the design or
redesign of program technologies is that many agencies receive
mandates to undertake programs for which effective technologies
have not been discovered, (e.g., to protect neglected children, to
serve internal customers). This means that even if negative per-
formance data were unambiguous, they might not contain much
in the way of clues as to how to rectify problems with a pro-
gram. When program technologies are not well understood or are
controversial, the search for ways to adjust or redesign them
must fall back on other kinds of knowledge, including organiza-
tional beliefs about what it means to do a good, professional job.
Thus culture plays a role in learning by filling in gaps in techno-
logical understanding with the collective wisdom of the organiza-
tion. Again, the less ambiguous or controversial the technology,
the smaller the role for culture.
536/J-PART
October 1997
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
19/22
Influences o f
Organizational
Culture on Learning
This pattern is seen in several examples, particularly those
from the large federal bureau. Here, consistent with the dominant
law enforcement ethos, proposals to adopt sampling techniques to
remedy a work backlog were rejected. Traditional management
controls were continued despite evidence of stress, low morale,
and recruitment problems. Other examples from this agency
illustrate how imitative learning as a means of problem solving
can be blocked by hostile subcultures. These illustrations suggest
that management improvement technologies may be particularly
poorly understood, making them subject to cultural influences.
But cultural beliefs about what constitutes a good program
also can fill in when technology is ambiguous and controversial,
as in the case of international development, where again the
influences of agency culture appear to be important in program
definition. For example, Korten (1980) spotlights the attentive-
ness of program officials to the traditional ways that their clients
devise solutions to development problems; he notes that these
programs are remarkable because of their relative success in a
field where much controversy surrounds methods of development
and sustainability. In one of the program areas at the Agency for
International Development, officials favored hands-on training in
the field, consistent with core culture values, over nationwide
economic policy change.
These observations, along with the existing portrayals of the
organizational learning process, suggest a model of the ways in
which culture influences learning. Culture provides a reservoir of
organizational meanings that agency actors can draw from to help
interpret results and make sense of existing and proposed
procedures and program technologies. The influence of culture is
most likely when agency results or technologies are ambiguous
and controversial. This model builds on the interpretive approach
to organizational learning, which emphasizes the equivocality of
organizational information and the value of reflection and
dialogue, and it also acknowledges the information processing
perspective, which emphasizes the importance of data collection
and analytic problem-solving techniques when ambiguity or
controversy is low. In both cases the lessons learned by
individuals in the context of cultural interpretations become
organizational learning when they are formally or informally
shared with other agency actors as rules, new technologies,
stories, or group norms. Hard lessons may become part of the
agency mythology, contributing to future interpretations. The
examples given above suggest this pattern but do not offer a
systematic test of the model. The exhibit illustrates these
relationships.
531/J-PART
October 1997
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
20/22
Influences of Organizational Culture on Learning
Exhibit
Settings in which the Influence on Learning of Beliefs about
Information Sources and Procedures is Most Evident
Level of ambiguity and equivocality in
performance data and results
Low ambiguity High ambiguity
Low levels of High reliance on High reliance on
know ledge culture of tech- cultures of information
nologies and technologies
Level of knowledge or
agreement about procedures ... :.. .
and technologies
High leve ls of Little reliance on High reliance on
know ledge culture culture of information
The exhibit suggests that the likely influence of culture is
most pronounced when ambiguity or controversy surrounds both
the information about results and the associated procedures or
technologies of the agency. When ambiguity is low, however,
less reliance on cultural interpretations is likely.
Culture clearly is not the only influence in learning, but
given the ambiguity of results and the forces that shape program
technology, its role appears to be significant both in blocking
some changes and in spurring others. These effects of culture
have not been the subject of particular study in research on
organizational learning or in related studies of program imple-
mentation and evaluation. Generally, the meaning of data and
program processes to actors are not considered. The framework
drawn here offers a more systematic basis for studying cultural
influences on learning and the resulting changes in programs and
procedures.
CONCLUSIONS
The exploration of linkages between organizational culture
and learning leads to a model of the specific forms of influence
that culture exerts in the learning process. Beliefs and norms
about information and professional work standards are influential,
particularly when agency events or results are subject to ambig-
uous interpretations and do not clearly indicate a remedy.
53S/J-PART
October 1997
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
21/22
Influences of Organizational Culture on Learning
A model of the conditions under which cultural influences
are particularly important for agency learning makes a contribu-
tion to our understanding of learning in public organizations
because it balances the typical emphasis on devising more sophis-
ticated data collection, retrieval, and dissemination systems with
attention to what the information means to administrators and
how it actually is interpreted and used. It highlights the possi-
bilities for alternative forms of discourse, analysis, and debate in
learning by emphasizing the interpretive elements of learning.
Clues for building more effective learning routines are
especially welcome in public organizations, which are typically
constrained in extraordinarily complex ways from responding
directly to results. James Q. Wilson provides a catalog of the
constraints on the actions and perspectives of public managers
(1989). Learning in governmental organizations requires serving
a variety of external constituents, some of whom are customers,
some professionals, some overseers, and some opponents with a
variety of agendas for the organization. Many current reform
efforts such as reinvention and the National Performance Review
are aimed at altering these external constraints. Studies of the
internal inspirations for innovations and the limitations on change
embedded in the organization's culture have a useful contribution
to make to these efforts.
R F R N S
Argyris, Chris.
1991 "The Use of Knowledge as a
Test for Theory: The Case of
Public Administration."Journal
of Public Administration Re-
search and Theory
1:3:337-54.
Argyris, Ch ris, and SchOn, Donald.
1978 Organ izational Learning: A
Theory of Action Perspective.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-
Wesley.
Barzelay, Michael.
1992
Breaking Through Bureaucracy.
Berkeley: University of Ca li-
fornia Press.
Beck, Richard.
1993 "Engagement: Promoting Inter-
group Collaboration and Innova-
tion in Effective Research and
Development Management."
Ph.D.
diss. George Mason Uni-
versity.
Bouwen, Rene, and Fry, Ronald.
1991 "Organizational Innovation and
Learning."
International Studies
of Management and O rganiza-
tion
21:4:37-51.
Burrell, Gibson, and Morgan, Gareth.
1979 Sociological Paradigm s and
Organisational Analysis.
London: Heinemann.
Bushe, Gervase, and Shani, A.B.
1991 Parallel Learning Structures.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-
Wesley.
Carley, Kathleen.
1996 "Organizational Learning and
Personnel Turnover." In Cohen
and Sproull, eds .
Cohen, Michael, and Sproull, Lee, eds.
1996 Organization Learning. Thou-
sand Oaks,Calif : Sage.
Cook, Scott, and Yanow, Dvora.
1996 'Culture and Organizational
Learning." In Co hen and
Sproull, eds.
Daft, Richard, and Huber, G eorge.
1987 "How Organizations Learn: A
Communications Framework.
Research in the Sociology of
Organizations
5:1-36.
Dixon, Nancy.
1992 "Organizational learn ing: A
Review of the Literature with
Implications for HRD Profes-
sionals.'Human Resource
Development Quarterly 3:1:
29-49.
Downs, Anthony.
1967 Inside Bureaucracy. Boston:
Little, Brown .
539/J-PART October 1997
8/9/2019 J Public Adm Res Theory 1997 Mahler 519 40
22/22
Influences ofOrganizational Culture on Learning
Epple, Dennis; Argote, Linda; and
Devadas, Rukmini.
1996 "Organizational Learning
Curves: A Method for Investi-
gating Intra-plant Transfer of
Knowledge Acquired through
Learning by Doing.* In Cohen
and Sproull, eds.
Fiol, C. Marlene, and Lyles, Marjorie.
1985 'Organizational Learning."
Academy of Management Review
10:4:803-13.
Goodsell, Charles.
1989 'Administration as Ritual."
Public Administration Review
49:161-66.
Hedberg, Bo.
1981 "How Organizations Learn and
Unlearn." In Paul Nystrom and
William Starbuck, eds.
Hand-
book of Organizational Design.
Vol. 1: Adapting Organizations
to Their Environments.
N ew
York: Oxford University Press.
Huber, George.
1991 "Organization Learning: The
Contributing Processes and the
Literatures." Organizational
Science
2:1:88-115.
Jenkins-Smith, H ank.
1990 Dem ocratic Politics and Policy
Analysis Pacific Grove,Calif :
Brooks/Cole.
Kaufman, Herbert
1973 Administrative Feedback : Moni-
toring Subordinates Behavior.
Washington, D.C.: Brookings.
Korten, David.
1980 "Community Organization and
Rural Development."
Public
Administration Review 40:
480-511.
Landau, Martin, and Stout, Russell.
1979 T o Manage is Not to Control:
or the Folly of Type II Errors."
Public Administration Review
39:148-56.
Levitt, Barbara, and March, James.
1988 'Organizational Learning."
Annual Review o f Sociology
14:319-40.
Mahler, Julianne.
1988 "The Quest for Organizational
Meaning: Identifying and Inter-
preting the Symbolism in Organ-
izational Stories,"
Administration
and Society
20:3:344-368.
1995 "Evolution of a Quality Mana ge-
ment Program."
Public Produc-
tivity and Management Review.
18:4:387-96.
March, James, and Olson, Johann, eds.
1979
Ambiguity and Choice in Organ-
izations.
B ergen, Norway: Uni-
versitetsforiaget.
Morgan, Gareth.
1986 Images of Organization. Beverly
Hills.Calif : Sage.
Noonan, Peggy.
1990
What I Saw at the Revolution.
New York: Random House.
On, J. Steven.
1989
The Organization Culture Per-
tpective. Pacific Grove,Calif :
Brooks/Cole.
Perrow, Charles.
1967 "A Framework for the Compara-
tive Analysis of Organizations."
American Sociological Review
32:194-208.
Pressman, Jeffrey, and Wudavsky,
Aaron.
1979 Implementation, 2d ed. Berk-
eley: University of California
Press.
Rabinow, Paul, and Sullivan, W illiam.
1987
Interpretive Social Science: A
SecondLook.
Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California Press.
Rosenberg, Alexander.
1988
Philosophy of Social Science.
Boulder, Colo.: Westview.
Sabatier, Paul, and Jenkins-Smith,
Hank, eds.
1993
Policy Change and Learning: An
Advocacy Coalition Approach.
Boulder, Colo.: Westview.
Schein, Edgar.
1992
Organizational Culture and
Leadership,
2d ed. San Fran-
cisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Senge, Peter.
1990
Th eFifth Discipline: TheAn
and Practice of the Learning
Organization.
New York:
Doubleday.
Shrivastivt, Paul.
1983 "A Typology of Organizational
Learning Sy stems."
Journal of
Management Studies 20:1:7-28.
Trice, Harrison, and Beyer, Janet.
1993 The Culture ofWorkOrganiza-
tions. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
Van Maanen, John, and Barley,
Stephen.
1985 "Cultural Organization: Frag-
ments of a Theory." In Peter
Frost, Larry Moore, Meryl
Louis, Craig Lundberg and
Joanne Martin, ed s.
Organiza-
tional Culture.
Beverly Hills,
Calif :
Sage.
Walsh, James, and Ungson, Geraldo.
1991 "Organizational Mem ory."
Academy of Management Review
16:1:57-91.
Weick, Karl.
1979
The Social Psychology of
Organizing,
2d ed. Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Wilson, James.
1989 Bureaucracy. New York: Basic
Books.
540/J-PART
October 1997