Küng-Shankleman (2000) “Inside the BBC or CNN: Managing media organisations”. (London:Routledge)

Organisational Culture can be seen as the soft, irrational, symbolic aspects of an organisation which are hard to grasp but nonetheless exert a powerful effect on what happens both inside and outside

Culture is to the organisation what character is to the individual

Culture is essentially nothing more than the accumulated learning shared by a set of members of an organisation. New members learn these assumptions as part of their socialisation, and thus culture is perpetuated

Artefacts. Alles wat binnen gebeurt. Verhalen, fysieke omgeving, communicatie stijl

Espoused values: officially expressed strategies, goals and philosophies. Often how they feel they would like to be ideally.

Basic Assumptions: Taken 4 granted, unconscious, the complex interrelations between these.

(Zekerheden) --> hidden and seldom confronted. Difficult to change.

Culture is a process and a product.

The differential process of meaning construction undermines cultural uniformity and reinforces culture’s evolutionary characteristics.

Also extra- and interorganisational cultural influences

There also are national cultures of course. Common heritage, language, approaches to dealing with each other and with the world outside.

This assumption set can be accessed by holding  broad-based discussions with members of the organisation about strategic issues core mission an strategy, environment, core competencies and stakeholders.

Virtuous circle: cultural assumptions  - strategic process – environmental developments

The stronger the culture, the greater the risk of organisational inflexibility

Competencies are distinctive organisational attributes that crease sustainable competitive advantage and, critically, a platformfor future growth.

QUESTION:  why don’t Küng and Shankleman discuss the internal disagreements within corporates in relation to organisational culture?

ANSWER: It is strange to notice the way Küng and Shankleman nowhere seem to adress to the fact that within companies there are many battleling cultures that are hold together with cultures dropped from above to keep employees quiet while hidding their true culture. Why do organisations create and hold on to a culture? To bond and to give their employees a reason to work. Is this the way it happens in real life? To my opinion it is important to say something about strikes, bonds and also about stakeholders. In many cases people are working to make a living without really liking what they do. For these people organisational culture is different than for a bunch of lawyers at a big lawfirm, who are involved with how the companie is making a profit and feel the connection. For these a organisational culture is indeed a band that can form a unity, that has a core mission. But fore the lower fabric worker this unity means little. Their wants and needs and vission are different than that of the marketing division. The board of directors even got to negotiate with the bonds to make agreements about how business is done. Here is an often vissible clinch between two organisational cultures Küng and Shankleman should have mentioned to give a clear view.