The Question To Be Answered: 'What managers most often want to know about their organization’s culture is how to change it.'
The primary inquiry of this analysis revolves around understanding how different perspectives on organizational culture—specifically Modernism and Symbolic Interpretive—assist managers in influencing and potentially changing organizational culture. This exploration entails examining the foundational assumptions, views, and advice each perspective offers concerning organizational culture and the role of managerial influence. Both perspectives provide contrasting approaches—one more structural and deterministic, the other more interpretive and subjective—that shape the strategies recommended for managerial action.
Introduction
Organizational culture, described as the shared values, beliefs, and norms that shape how work and relationships are conducted within an organization, has garnered significant attention from both scholars and practitioners. Top managers, wielding substantial influence due to their authority, are often concerned with understanding and shifting this culture to align with strategic goals, improve organizational effectiveness, or facilitate change initiatives. Different theoretical perspectives offer diverse understandings of what culture is and how managers can effectively influence it. This paper compares two influential perspectives—Modernism and Symbolic Interpretive—highlighting their contrasting views on organizational culture and their specific advice to managers seeking to enact change.
Modernism Perspective
The Modernist perspective on organizational culture is rooted in a structural and functionalist understanding. It considers culture as a set of observable artifacts, values, and underlying assumptions that can be systematically studied and managed. Prominent scholars like Schein (2010) interpret culture as a relatively stable and thus modifiable structural element that influences organizational performance and behavior. Within this view, culture is seen as something that can be deliberately shaped through strategic interventions, leadership initiatives, and management practices.
From a Modernist standpoint, managers are positioned as proactive agents capable of diagnosing cultural problems through organizational analysis, and then implementing targeted change strategies. Typical advice includes conducting cultural assessments, articulating desired values, and deploying communication and training programs aimed at shifting shared beliefs and behaviors (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2013). For
example, if an organization aims to foster a culture of innovation, managers are advised to embed innovation into performance metrics, recruit innovative personnel, and reinforce new values through formal policies and leadership exemplification.
This perspective emphasizes a top-down approach, where managerial authority and structured change initiatives are effective mechanisms for cultural transformation. The assumption is that culture can be and should be managed with clear objectives in mind, with measurable outcomes guiding the process. Consequently, managers are advised to develop change plans that incorporate communication strategies, reward systems, and training programs to nurture the target culture.
Symbolic Interpretive Perspective
The Symbolic Interpretive perspective, contrasting sharply with Modernism, views organizational culture as a social construction rooted in shared meanings, symbols, stories, and rituals that are interpreted and reinterpreted by organizational members (Geertz, 1973). It emphasizes the fluid, subjective, and dynamic nature of culture, which cannot be fully controlled or managed by top-down imposition. Instead, culture is expressed through symbols and practices that reflect the collective worldview of organizational members (Meyerson & Martin, 1987).
Within this perspective, managers are seen as interpretive actors who participate in, influence, and are influenced by ongoing cultural processes rather than controlling them. Advice to managers focuses on understanding the existing cultural narratives, symbols, and rituals, and engaging in meaningful dialogue with employees. The goal is to facilitate shared understanding and foster authentic cultural development through participatory approaches (Wilson, 2014). Managers are encouraged to become cultural storytellers, to listen actively to employees’ stories, and to act as facilitators that support emergent cultural traits rather than imposing predefined values.
This view suggests that attempts to forcibly change culture may be superficial or counterproductive, as culture resides primarily in shared meanings that are often resistant to direct manipulation. Instead, cultural change is seen as a process of continuous interpretation, negotiation, and reflection, where managers influence culture by creating environments conducive to positive cultural shifts without dictating specific values (Fleming & Spicer, 2003). An example would be a manager fostering a sense of trust and openness by modeling authentic communication, thus gradually influencing cultural perceptions and practices through ongoing social interactions.
Contrasting Views and Managerial Advice
The modernist perspective advocates for deliberate, planned interventions aimed at aligning culture with organizational goals. It suggests that managers identify targeted cultural elements and utilize formal strategies such as policy changes, communication campaigns, and leadership modeling to effect change (Schein, 2010). Change is viewed as an achievable and measurable process, emphasizing structure and control.
In contrast, the Symbolic Interpretive perspective stresses the importance of understanding and engaging with the cultural meanings that employees assign to various symbols and stories. Managers are encouraged to participate in cultural narratives, listen to employees' interpretations, and cultivate authentic conversations that promote shared understanding over top-down directives (Wilson, 2014). Cultural change, in this view, is a gradual, emergent process that cannot be fully controlled or mandated but can be guided through participatory and interpretive strategies.
Therefore, while Modernists recommend strategic and systematic change initiatives, Symbolic Interpretive advocates promote a more organic, participative approach that respects the socially constructed and interpretive nature of organizational culture. Managers influenced by Modernism might focus on restructuring policies and formal practices, whereas those guided by Symbolic Interpretive approaches might focus on storytelling, rituals, and dialogue to influence culture.
Implications for Managers
For managers seeking to influence organizational culture, the choice of perspective significantly affects their approach. A Modernist approach encourages managers to conduct cultural audits, set clear cultural objectives, and implement targeted change programs. This approach is particularly effective when the existing culture is misaligned with strategic objectives or when rapid change is necessary. However, it risks oversimplifying the complexities of culture and neglecting the importance of employees' interpretive processes.
On the other hand, a Symbolic Interpretive approach emphasizes understanding existing cultural narratives and fostering participative dialogue. This approach may be more suitable in contexts where culture is deeply embedded, resistant to superficial change, or where authenticity and shared meaning are critical. By engaging employees in ongoing conversations, managers can facilitate a more genuine and sustainable cultural evolution.
In practice, a hybrid strategy that combines the structured, goal-oriented methods of Modernism with the participative, meaning-focused strategies of Symbolic Interpretive may provide the most comprehensive approach to influencing organizational culture effectively.
Conclusion
Understanding the contrasting perspectives of Modernism and Symbolic Interpretive offers valuable insights into how managers can approach cultural change. While Modernism offers a pragmatic, structured route emphasizing direct intervention and control, Symbolic Interpretive advocates for nuanced, participative processes emphasizing shared meanings and authenticity. Recognizing these differences enables managers to choose and tailor their strategies based on the specific cultural context, organizational goals, and the nature of the desired change—an essential competence for effective leadership in complex organizational environments.
References
Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2003). Working at a cynical distance: Implications for power, subjectivity, and resistance. Human Relations, 56(4), 383-404.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books.
Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2013). Organizational Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives. Oxford University Press.
Meyerson, D., & Martin, J. (1987). Cultural change: An integration of emergent and planned approaches. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23(4), 473-486.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Wilson, F. (2014). Chapter 11: Culture. In Organisational Behaviour and Work. Routledge.
Zhang, C., & Iles, P. (2014). Organizational culture. In G. Rees & P. Smith (Eds.), Strategic Human Resource Management: An International Perspective (pp. 154-176). Sage.
Xu, Y., & Weller, P. (2014). Inside the World Bank: The Staff and Their Organization Culture. World Bank Publications.
Martin, J., & Frost, P. (2012). Chapter 30: The organisational culture war games. In J. H. Gittell, M. Gittell & M. Gittell (Eds.), Sociology of Organizations: Structures and Relationships. Sage.
Reprinted content and additional scholarly sources available as needed.