The impact of subcultures

From its theoretical origins in sociology and anthropology, the term “subculture” has been associated with images of deviants. Subcultural theories are used in criminology as a means towards gaining better understanding of criminal deviants, and theories such as labelling

Change issue

Formation of subcultures for admin and management staff at BBS

Driving force (positive) Restraining force (negative) location - office/

department

stable organization

High levels of interaction

Interdisciplinary due to lack of specialisation / crossing boundaries

Career filters e.g. long tenure

low autonomy / centrality of workflow high task

interdependence Fear of change: Post-merger HEI, disruption, conflict, technological innovation

Driving / restraining

Psychological reactance – resistance to change

Level of satisfaction and commitment with dominant culture (individual’s propensity to join subcultures)

Informal groups

62 theory (Cohen, 1972) were developed through studies into delinquents, gangs, and other nonconformists. With an association with deviance and non-conformity, subcultures are likely to be associated with a negative impact upon the world around them. As mentioned earlier, there are a variety of types of organizational subcultures, not all of which are based on expressing opposing views (Jermier et al., 1991; Martin and Siehl, 1983; Sackmann, 1992), as in the case of orthogonal and enhancing organisational subcultures where some values and norms may differ from those of the dominant culture, but there is still adherence to the core or pivotal values. Thus, these subcultures do not impede organisational performance through conflict and resistance to organisational values and norms. In an organisation with heterogeneous subcultures, competing subcultures may cause conflict but the competition between the subcultures may enhance members’ roles in the organisation, as, for example, they strive to acquire more skills than the members of other subcultures (Sackmann, 1992).

Perhaps in a higher education setting, this competitive aspect could be seen in the number of papers produced per department or rivalries based upon prestige or reputation.

When considering the potential impact of occupational subcultures, Trice (1993) claims that conflicts have arisen between managerial subcultures which aim to control work within the organisation and other occupational subcultures that seek autonomy. Van Maanen and Barley (1985) characterized subcultures as ‘containing seeds of conflict’ as conflict may emerge when members of differing subcultures confront one another. Gregory (1983) noted that in multicultural organizations; members of subcultures perceived things only from their cultural perspective (ethnocentrism), also perpetuating conflict. Bokor (2000) found there were some typical cultural clashes between subcultures as seen in the following table:

Table 5: Matrix of conflict types

Task Contextual

Role Professional conflict Prestige conflict Person Decision or communication

conflict

Political or personal conflict

Source: Bokor (2000; 6)

In Bokor’s (2000) cultural typologies (see section 3.3), it was found that the strongest conflict existed between the Market and Profession subcultures as they differ in almost every way,

63 although the other typology (Return subculture) also experienced conflict to some extent (see earlier for explanation of these typologies). In the table it can be seen that based upon the type of subcultures interacting with one another, the resulting type of conflict was also found to vary.

Martin (1992) puts forward that subcultures may potentially have a negative impact upon certain cultures, in particular strong organizational cultures. Boisnier and Chatman (2002), on the other hand, claim that subcultures have a positive effect upon strong culture organizations as such organisations become ‘agile’ by allowing subcultures to emerge. This agility is achieved through subcultures providing the flexibility and responsiveness that a unitary culture may limit, although it seems that multiculturalism is a pre-condition for this positive impact. Boisnier and Chatman (2002) also claim that subcultures may actually strengthen an organization’s dominant culture rather than cause it detriment and in particular there are three findings which are used to support this. Firstly, it was found that subcultures vary in the extent to which they disrupt the overarching culture. Boisnier and Chatman (2002) point out that smaller groups, such as subcultures, are associated with being strategically weak and, therefore, not threatening (Galunic & Eisenhardt, 2001). Secondly, subcultures often emerge in response to changing demands and can serve as an outlet for members to express conflict and dissent arising during turbulent times. These emerging subcultures are seen as a mechanism for changing less central values as well as a means by which members can express themselves. This aspect of responding to changing demands may be seen as a strength of subcultures due to their smaller size in relation to the larger organisation, as Boisnier and Chatman (2002; 10) emphasise that subcultures are “more malleable and responsive than an entire organisation”. Finally, through considering the impact of subcultures upon the organisation, appropriate attention is given to the complexities and sensitivity involved in changing an organisation’s culture or subculture, as supported by Trice & Beyer (1984).

As mentioned earlier, Schein (1985) referred to subcultures as containing a combination of both pivotal and peripheral values and so subcultures could be orthogonal, enhancing or counter cultures. This is an important distinction: some subcultures could be destructive to the organisation (countercultures), but some may not (Wolfgang and Ferracuti, 1970; Zellner, 1995). Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1970) see organisational cultures as children who are never entirely different from their parent, although this analogy may also be taken a step further and considered in terms of the potential for conflict between parents and children and the parents’

64 need to have the children conform and be disciplined when the children deviate from desired norms. Schein (1985) divided values into pivotal and peripheral, norms on the other hand are categorized as: peripheral, relevant and pivotal (Schein, 1968). Relevant norms are those specific and important to the functioning of the group or subculture. Although relevant norms are arguably not as essential as pivotal norms, the breaching of these norms can lead to expulsion (non-inclusion) in the group. Thus, breaching of these norms may cause conflict within and beyond the subculture.

In higher education, multicultural student groups are seen as a means of giving a competitive edge through increased creativity, perspective and innovation (Heidrich, 2010) and likewise, Martin and Siehl (1983) found that subcultures can act as “containers of creativity in which ideas can formulate relatively independently of the constraints or influences of the (strong) culture”. The concept of subcultures working alongside a dominant culture was observed by Tushman and O’Reilly (1996; 27) who found multiple cultures within organisations and indicated a potential positive effect of these subcultures due to the variations between them, hence coining the term ‘ambidextrous organisations”. Earlier it was said that common pivotal values are the key to subcultures existing harmoniously with the dominant culture, however Barnett (2000; 48) argues against common pivotal values in a higher education setting and claims it would be incorrect to assume that large multi-faculty universities (referred to as a

‘multiversity’) or even small institutions have something in common or some shared characteristic. Silver (2003) supports this peculiarity in higher education institutions when referring to the 1981 funding crisis in the UK when power of veto was held by the faculties and departments and in some cases departments and faculties vetoed against the interests and concerns of their own institutions. HEIs do seem to have the potential for conflict through groups with conflicting or competing aims as Kuh and Whitt (1988) assert that in a college or university, the antagonism between subgroups may result in member conflict and so they stop talking resulting in the formation of two distinct subcultures. Such subcultures are referred to by Van Maalnen and Barley (1984: 344) as subcultures “delimited mainly by their scorn for one another”.

Boisnier and Chatman (2002) declare that even countercultures may strengthen rather than harm organisational cultures. This idea stems from the belief that the counterculture challenges the dominant values with resistance, and in doing so, rather than weakening the dominant culture, it actually acts as a ‘value-reinforcing response’. This is based on the

65 concept that a contrary point of view can strengthen beliefs, values or behaviour as they are then put to the test and any challenge to existing beliefs is thus a tool for reinforcement of values, beliefs and behaviour. There are however certain environmental conditions which may be conducive to countercultures having a profoundly destabilising effect upon the organisation, as Boisnier and Chatman (2002; 12) reveal: “countercultures may be more disruptive… when the organisational environment is unstable and an organisation’s strategic direction is unclear”.

According to Graham (1986) employees may try to modify those values of employees which seem inappropriate to achieving their own goals or the success of the organisation. Boisnier and Chatman (2002; 19) claim that “disagreeing with an organisation’s values while continuing to work is a disable state”. These views not only stress the dynamic nature of subcultures but also that there is a tendency to reduce the cultural distance between the subculture and the dominant culture (Aronson, 1968; Staw, 1977). This is another indication that the impact may not necessarily be a negative one. Boisnier and Chatman (2002) consider this issue within the context of the exit-voice-loyalty model of Hirschman (1970) in that the subcultures may provide an exit from the dominant culture or a means of voicing differences and giving criticism and feedback. The issue of loyalty is thus highlighted as affecting subculture formation (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986), as seen in the force field analyses in section 3.7 in the case of mergers with loyalty to pre-merger hierarchies, commitment and ensuing conflict in the face of change.

Finally, a subculture in any organisation may judge the others behaviour as ‘abnormal’

(Morgan, 1986; 120). In the context of HEIs, if faculty or disciplines form subcultures with different behaviours and values (Becher, 1984) then there are issues such as alienation, potential for misunderstanding, lack of appreciation and conflict. Kuh and Whitt (1988; 63) claim that HEIs have more than one dominant subculture and an impact of this is that it prevents the emergence of an institutional ethos.

66

Chapter four: The Market-orientation of HEIs