The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm

Dominant,
Dominant, emergent, and residual emergent, and
culture: the dynamics residual culture
of organizational change
743
Jane Bryson
Victoria Management School, Victoria University of Wellington,
Wellington, New Zealand

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce a practical conceptual tool for analysing the
dynamics of cultural change in organizations. In so doing it seeks to address two concerns in the
organization culture literature: issues of time and perspective which underlie the contested nature of
culture; and limitations of existing analytical frameworks to cater for differing perspectives in a
manner which is accessible to academics and practitioners.
Design/methodology/approach – Williams’ notion of culture as a constant negotiation between
the dominant, the emergent, and the residual cultures mediated by the processes of selective tradition
and incorporation is discussed. For illustrative purposes this model is then used to analyse material
collected in a case study of a growing IT organization.
Findings – The analysis framework identifies the paradoxes and potential tensions in the ongoing
development of this organization. As a result it promotes questioning, and clarifies where choices are
to be made.
Research limitations/implications – The paper shows how this framework can be used to assist
investigation. Although the usual limitations of case study research apply, the framework facilitates a
wider view of change over time.
Practical implications – The paper provides an accessible reflective framework that affords a more
dynamic, contextual, evolutionary, and nuanced view of organizations. It accommodates multiple
perspectives within an organization and facilitates their exploration.
Originality/value – The paper introduces the ideas of Raymond Williams to a wider organizational
audience, and demonstrates how they can be adapted to make complex accounts of culture and
organization more accessible.
Keywords Organizational culture, Organizational change
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The theory and practice of organizational change and development are intimately
linked to our understandings of organizational culture. However, there are a variety of
perspectives on the concept of organizational culture both in academic debates, and in
organizations themselves. These varying perspectives are often portrayed as
“struggles”: by academics for intellectual dominance (Martin and Frost, 1996), or by
organizations for normative control (Kunda, 1992). This paper suggests that these
different representations of organizational culture are all useful, but that there is a need
Journal of Organizational Change
Management
This research was made possible by funding from the New Zealand Foundation for Research, Vol. 21 No. 6, 2008
Science and Technology for the “Competitive Advantage New Zealand”, “Language in the pp. 743-757
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Workplace”, and the “Developing human capability: employment institutions, organisations and 0953-4814
individuals” projects. We also thank the IT company for their openness. DOI 10.1108/09534810810915754
JOCM for more research and theory that can practically inform the actions of organizational
21,6 practitioners and academic researchers. As Martin and Frost (1996, p. 613) note “none
of the cultural approaches . . . have gone very far in helping improve the lives of people
who work in organizations”.
This paper argues that the practical limitations in some views of organizational culture
have been perpetuated by research and analysis frameworks that are not widely
744 accessible. It is proposed that a richer view of culture, and organizational culture, can be
developed from the work of cultural theorists and in particular that of Raymond Williams.
The paper uses the theoretical ideas of Williams (1980) as a way of analysing differing
perspectives on organizational culture, within organizations and within the organizational
culture industry. His work allows one to understand culture as a dynamic, constantly
negotiated phenomenon with breadth and depth across all aspects of how one lives, and
has lived, throughout time. Thus, Williams’ framework allows one to combine attention to
temporal concerns about the study of culture (Parker, 2002; Pettigrew, 1979; JOCM special
issue, 2002) with attention to the contested nature of culture (Alvesson, 2002; Martin and
Frost, 1996; Martin, 2002; Riad, 2005). The applicability of this model of culture to
organizational analysis is demonstrated through discussion of a case study conducted by
a cross-disciplinary research team in which I was involved. The study uses the lens of
Williams’ notions of dominant, emergent, and residual culture to examine their negotiation
and manifestation in a rapidly changing IT company. This also allows the researcher to
situate organizational culture in the wider system of culture, and locates dominant
academic and practitioner beliefs about organizational culture as part of the selective
tradition of the wider cultural system, i.e. what we educate others to believe about
management, organizations, business and culture. Importantly, it also affords a view of
cultural change over time. Finally, suggestions are made on this model as a tool for
analysis in both academic research and practitioner change processes.

Beliefs about organizational culture

Culture is territory that has been examined and theorised from many different disciplinary
perspectives. It has consequently been explored at several levels from societal, national to
organizational, and individual experiences at all these levels. However, there are a number
of problems with discussions to date on organizational culture. These can be summarized
as lack of definitional agreement on the concept of organizational culture, and limitations
of the research and analysis frameworks commonly employed.
In the ongoing study of organizational culture a few key definitions are dominant.
The commonly accepted dichotomy of definitional approaches portrays organizational
culture as either a critical variable or a root metaphor (Smircich, 1983). Definitions and
theories with a critical variable orientation emphasise culture as something an
organization “has” which is observable, also referred to more recently as culture as
property (Linstead, 2001). Those with a root metaphor orientation (or, more recently,
culture as process) emphasise culture as something an organization “is” which is
negotiated and not always observable. The former stream was dominant throughout the
1980s, and one could argue is still a dominant belief amongst consultants and managers.
The latter stream has gained greater prominence academically in the past ten years.
Built on these different definitional orientations, debate has raged in the academic
domain of organization culture between competing theories, methodologies,
epistemologies, and political orientations. Martin and Meyerson categorised these
academic struggles into three main perspectives dominating the literature: integration, Dominant,
differentiation, and fragmentation (Martin, 1992). Integration perspectives conceptualise emergent, and
cultural change as an organization-wide transformation. In this formulation homogeneity,
harmony and a unified culture are achievable, because culture is something an residual culture
organization “has”, that can be observed, manipulated and managed. The differentiation
perspective sees culture as constituted of inconsistencies, with consensus only existing
in subcultures. It focuses not only on values, meanings and symbolism, but also on 745
documented organizational practices as evidence of cultural orientation. Within the
differentiation view there are different schools of thought, primarily critical theory views
which are portrayed as critiquing the hegemony of management, and the interpretative or
pluralistic view which documents pluralism within culture but does not fundamentally
challenge management (Martin and Frost, 1996). Despite this recognition of inconsistency
and conflict, many differentiation studies still take a critical variable orientation to
organization culture. The fragmentation perspective regards the essence of culture as
ambiguity, inconsistency, and lack of consensus. In this view change is constant flux
rather than a disturbance of a stable state. Ambiguities exist because there are a myriad of
possible interpretations. Thus, culture as process and root metaphor, underpins the
contested and ultimately indecipherable terrain from a fragmentation viewpoint. Latterly,
post modern approaches to organization culture have added another layer to the
fragmentation perspective.
However, challenges in the research and analysis framework of organizational
culture remain. Despite the emergence of culture as process perspectives the dominant
tendency has been for the organizational culture literature to take an organizationally
isolated or closed system view. This is evidenced in a focus on the internal signals of
culture (organizational ritual, stories, values, symbols, etc.) while attending less to the
impact of societal institutions and beliefs about organizations, managers,
professionals, work, etc. It is only in recent years that attention has been paid to a
more comprehensive picture. For instance, work by Sackmann (2001) captured the
complexity of cultural influences by depicting the different levels of culture that
influence culture at the firm level. These range across culture at national, regional,
industry and firm levels, and are intersected by the sub cultures of gender, ethnicity,
profession, and within the firm by functional domain, hierarchy and tenure. Alvesson
(2002, p. 190) argues for a perspective he names “multiple cultural configuration”
which portrays organizational culture as mixtures of cultural manifestations of
different levels and kinds affected by the societal level and its interpretation by
individuals and organizations. Most recently Riad (2005) takes a Foucauldian stance in
analysing the use of organizational culture in a merger situation. She illustrates how
organizational culture is used in merger (and academic) discourse to sustain a regime
or regimes of “truth”. However, although these types of views are becoming common
currency in the organizational culture literature they, arguably, are yet to dislodge
widespread organizational practices grounded in culture as property.
To understand organizational culture one also needs to think about the wider
culture that has influenced beliefs about organization culture. For instance, one could
argue that because of their education, reading, socialisation and interaction with
consultants, managers tend to believe that organizations “have” a culture and that it is
controllable in the sense that they are able to change it in predictable ways. A massive
literature on organizational culture and organizational change is underpinned by this
JOCM view made popular by writers such as Peters and Waterman (1982), Deal and Kennedy
21,6 (1982), and Schein (1985, 1990, 1996). As a result culture has become an organising
principle through normative control, “the desire to bind employees hearts and minds to
the corporate interest” (Kunda, 1992, p. 218). At another level, Collins (1998) argues that
the increasing focus in the 1980s on management and management of organization
culture is a direct reflection of a (societal) cultural shift in countries such as the USA
746 and the UK which focused on economic restructuring to create an “enterprise culture”
in which the organization and its performance became the centre of attention.
Martin and Frost (1996) reflect on the competing views in the study of organizational
culture and observe that, while no one theory is superior, none have really assisted
people in the workplace. They suggest that integration studies, although flawed, have
perhaps gone the farthest in practical assistance to organizations. Differentiation studies
describe cultural features and inconsistencies well but shed less light on how to work
with this in organizations. Similarly, fragmentation, symbolic and post-modern
approaches provide ample description and analysis but very few tools for action. This
paper argues that those that have provided the most practical assistance, the
integrationist approaches, have enjoyed ongoing popularity precisely because they are
accessible, if somewhat flawed. What is needed from the differentiation or
fragmentation perspectives, is accessible guidance which facilitates organizations
(managers, employees, and consultants) to be more reflective and thus contribute to
informed decision making; and which assists academic researchers to understand and
explain cultural dynamics.
Research that can contribute practical assistance to achieving a dynamic and broad
contextual perspective is sparse throughout the literature on organizational culture.
Although culture as process and more critical views have increased in popularity,
emphasising the need for greater reflexivity in organizational research (Alvesson, 2002;
Weick, 1999; Hawkins, 1997), where empirical studies are reported they still tend to
reflect one point in time and thus fail to capture the process of cultural negotiation. As far
back as Pettigrew (1979, p. 570) argued for a longitudinal-processual approach to the
study of organizations noting that “sound theory must take into account the history and
the future of a system and relate them to the present”. More recently, this sentiment was
reinforced in a special issue of the Journal of Organizational Change Management, which
focused on the strategic use of past and future in organization change (Carroll, 2002). In
that issue, Parker (2002) demonstrates that because organizational members do not see
the past of the organization in the same way, they orient themselves to different futures.
This is a key point to appreciate in understanding multiple perspectives within
an organization. In addition, Kunda (1992) suggests that for those analysing
organizations:
[. . .] the struggle between organizations bent on normative control and individuals subjected
to it, is over the definition of reality, and it is a difficult one, for meanings both personal and
collective have become part of the contested terrain (Kunda, 1992, p. 227).
One solution, advocated by Martin and Frost (1996), is to take a post modern
perspective in managing cultural change, noting that the cultural theorist or consultant
is providing only one version of reality or the truth. Riad (2005) ably illustrates the
multiple versions or perceptions of “truth” about an organization culture, and
managerial attempts to have their version accepted, in a merger situation. It has been
suggested that acceptance rests not so much on “truth” but on issues of credibility Dominant,
(Martin and Frost, 1996; Riad, 2005). This, it is suggested indicates a need for more emergent, and
emphasis on dialogue, process, co-creation, and credibility building in studying
cultural change in organizations. residual culture

Another view on culture – Raymond Williams’ ideas

This paper proposes that the concept of the constant negotiation between dominant, 747
emergent and residual cultures, theorized by Raymond Williams, is a useful and
accessible framework for analysis and reflection on organizations. Williams, variously
described as a cultural historian, theorist and polemicist, provided important insights
into the sociology of culture, and particularly the impact of the mass media, language,
and communication. His interest in culture, and the tensions between democracy and
industrial capitalism led him to examine and critique Marxism. Beginning from a
critique of Marxist cultural theory Williams (1980) argues for a model of culture which
allows for a more complex understanding of the role and process of hegemony as part
of ongoing cultural change.
Williams’ theoretical model is based on an assumption of society being in a state of
constant cultural change and negotiation. This is theorized as a struggle between the
dominant, residual and emergent cultures. He argues that in any society in any
particular period there is a central, effective, and dominant system of meanings and
values which are not merely abstract but which are “organized and lived”. This is
manifested in our expectations, what we put energy into, how we understand the
world. Crucially he maintains that this is not a static system and that to understand
this dominant culture we need to understand both the process of selective tradition,
and the social process of incorporation.
Selective tradition he explains as the selectivity exhibited by the effective dominant
culture, that is, it chooses to emphasise some meanings and practices from the past and
present while also choosing to exclude others. Hence, the processes of education and of
socialisation via the family and work continually make and remake the dominant
culture by selecting, organizing and interpreting our experience. Williams believes
that educational institutions are often the main agencies of transmission of the
dominant culture in society.
Also central to Williams’ theory is that part of this continual remaking of the effective
dominant culture is through incorporation and non-incorporation of alternative and
oppositional forms of social life and culture. Williams provides a theoretical distinction
between these forms by characterising alternative as “someone who finds a different
way to live and wishes to be left alone with it”, and oppositional as “someone who finds a
different way to live and wants to change society in its light” (Williams, 1980, p. 42).
Hence, one can surmise that oppositional forms are more overtly challenging to a
dominant culture, although one could speculate that a critical mass of alternative forms
would also be perceived by the dominant culture as potentially challenging: en masse the
alternative becomes the oppositional.
Williams also distinguishes between residual and emergent forms of alternative and
oppositional cultures. The residual culture he explains as the still practiced residue of
previous social formations (e.g. certain religious values, notions from a rural past, and
notions from a colonial past) that are often retained in order to make sense of the dominant
culture. The emergent culture he explains as the new meanings, values, practices,
JOCM and experiences which are continually being created, some of which are incorporated into
21,6 the dominant culture and some of which are not. Thus, hegemony of the effective
dominant culture is characterised as a complex, multilayered negotiation and
renegotiation of the emergent and residual cultures and of those cultures relative to the
dominant culture. This occurs through processes of incorporation and selective tradition.
This rich and complex account of the process of cultural change has much to offer to
748 the understanding of organizations. At the societal level it helps us to understand
organizations in the context of the hegemony of western capitalist, post industrial,
individualist, rights based thought perpetuated by such means as the mass media, our
national and international legislative and regulatory regimes, our education systems,
our lived experiences of work and organizations. Within organizations it helps us to
understand managerial hegemony or professional hegemony, and the processes of
social formation or cultural change peculiar to a specific organization. Characterising
organizational life as a constant negotiation between the effective dominant culture
and the residual and emergent cultures (in their alternative and oppositional forms)
allows a broader, more complex view of the multiple interests that constitute
organizations. In particular, it permits exploration of power and conflict as a matter of
course, rather than as an exception. Williams’ model accommodates and helps to
explain the social construction of culture in organizations. It also allows, for example,
a view of “subcultures in organizations” as important alternative forms which in some
circumstances become oppositional cultures. Thus, it does not force an artificial single
culture or unitarist view of organizations. Rather it promotes an understanding of
the pluralist nature of all communities including organizations.

Applying the model to analyse growth and change in an IT company

To illustrate the usefulness of Williams’ cultural model in an organizational setting the
author applied it in the analysis of a recent case study. The organization studied was a
small high profile IT consulting company. A cross-disciplinary research team (linguists,
organizational psychologists, industrial relations, and management researchers)
entered this organization to document the evolution of the organization, its business,
and the drivers of its success.
The research utilized a multi-method approach including face to face interviews with
eight key staff (including the company founders, and current managers); a survey of all
staff (which yielded a 30 percent response rate); two focus groups with a range of staff; a
researcher as participant observer (working for two weeks on the reception desk); audio
and videotaping of staff meetings and team meetings (over a period of several months);
and review of documents (marketing materials, organizational policies, etc.). These
were all aimed at tracking the path of the organization from inception to present day. As
part of the research team I conducted the interviews and the focus groups. In addition I
had access to the wealth of data collected by other team members. The approach of the
research team was to utilise these multiple sources of data in order to construct a rich
range of perspectives of the organization– its history, its present, and future. Data were
analysed in various ways including: statistical analysis of survey data; and analysis of
transcripts, field notes and company documentation. For the purposes of investigating
the organization all documents, survey, data and transcripts were analyzed for common
themes. From this emerged a variety of perspectives of repeated key notions about the
organization and changes over time.
 Williams’ cultural framework was then used to analyse these key notions in the Dominant,
following ways:
emergent, and
(1) To assign organizational features and practices to culture categories on the
basis of how these things were reported or evidenced, either:
residual culture
.
Dominant (the practices and beliefs which are organized and lived, that
organization members put energy into).
749
.
Emergent (the new practices and beliefs which are continually being created,
that may or may not be incorporated).
. Residual (the still practiced or believed residue of earlier life in this
organization, that assists in making sense of the present).
(2) To identify and reflect on elements of:
.
selective tradition (what is emphasised from the past and the present); and
.
incorporation (what practices and beliefs are being brought into the
dominant culture).

Findings
In the course of the research a number of accounts of this organization, its culture and
evolution were found in the business and academic media. This is not surprising.
Theirs is an interesting small business story, and the founders really enjoy telling it.
Drawing on Williams, one could reflect that this is part of their selective tradition, and
variously these media are reinforcing two dominant cultures. One is the dominant
culture of the field of organizational culture which attributes founders with the creation
of culture, and the other is the dominant culture of this organization and its evolution.
This is my interpretation of the story that the founders tell:
They established the business ten years ago driven mainly by frustration with their previous
employer and a desire to do business differently and better. In a tale typical of small
entrepreneurial start-ups the “selective tradition” of their history starts in the founders’ lounge
rooms doing small consultancy assignments, some without payment. As the story goes they
move to humble offices operating in a family style with a few staff, and experience a period of
steady and then spectacular growth led by a few key individuals. They then suffer a brief
decline in business, and engage in a problematic takeover of another small consultancy. Both of
these events result in redundancies and people choosing to leave which reduces the family
feeling of the organization. This coupled with the demands of size (now over 200 staff), leads to
the introduction of another layer of management. A move to new corporate offices confirms
the more formal “corporate” feel of the organization and is accompanied by an increasing
drive towards formalisation of structures, systems and procedures in the organization. This is
the basic story of the company but using the lens provided by Williams allows us to take a
different perspective on how the organization may have evolved.
Ironically, the establishment of the organization was a result of the two founders
exhibiting oppositional cultural desires to that of the organization, which employed
them. The dominant culture of that employing organization was unable to incorporate
their emergent views, hence they left to establish their own alternative organization.
It is not unusual for new organizations and new modes of work to emerge from
dissatisfaction with the dominant culture as a result of its inflexibility or unwillingness
to engage with another way of doing things. And often, until a critical mass of
disgruntled people has left, the selective tradition will mean that organizations ignore,
JOCM or choose not to incorporate, these alternative viewpoints. The two founders set out in
21,6 business together “to do things differently and better” for clients. This desire was the
central feature of the effective dominant culture of their organization. In the early years
the hegemony of the founders’ vision and values pervaded the small organization: be
better and different, have a good time, survive. Now, in the larger organization, the
hegemony of managerial will (and the capitalist business model) are assuming
750 dominance: increase profits, do better, have fun.
Thus, Williams’ concepts of selective tradition and incorporation aid exploration of
the reported central themes in the evolution of this organization. We examined the
repeated notions of the organization identified by the case research: culture, family and
fit; desire to be different, open, flexible and creative; becoming corporate. Some of these
notions are dominant, others clearly were but have now become key components of the
residual culture, and others are emergent (Table I).

Culture, family, and fit

The idea of “having a great culture” and “being a great place to work” was regularly
reported by staff, managers and the founders of this organization. This may reflect the
wider cultural influence of an emphasis on culture by management books, educators,
and consultants, that is, the culture of organizational culture. Writers and researchers
such as those cited earlier in this article facilitate the promotion of a view that
organization culture is the key to organization success, staff satisfaction and
managerial power. In this regard “good” cultures are to be desired, and “bad” ones are
to be blamed for a range of organizational ills (e.g. merger failure, system breakdown,
corruption, poor performance, high staff turnover, etc.).
As referred to previously, the selective tradition of the company involved an element
of talking-up the culture by senior managers that was evidenced by a high profile in the
media. This was compounded by entry into, and success in, competitive benchmarking
procedures (e.g. business excellence awards). The founders have great pride in the
organization, which derives from its evolution and to some of the now residual features

Residual Dominant Emergent

Family style organization Client focus, key individuals as
(families are loyal, trustworthy, leaders, closed membership of
and reliable) the organization
The desire to be different Openness, flexibility, creativity,
informality, different but similar
to other small IT companies
Going with instincts Importance of “fit” with the
organizational culture (choosing
one’s friends); importance of
Table I. retaining good culture but do not
Plotting cultural know how
dynamics at the time Everyday is different, change is Internal change happens in
of the case study inherent to the organization response to critical events
Business focus. Big
organizations need systems,
policies, rules, order and
consistency, strategic, planful
and business-like. Managers not
leaders
The desire to be more like other
big businesses, seeking the
normative influence of
consultants
Less personal, less family thus
increasing uncertainty as
behaviour not as predictable
(until managed by rules and
systems)
Change is planned, controlled
of the culture which still loom large in the founder visions. It is this pride in their Dominant,
alternative or oppositional culture, living an organizational life differently, which emergent, and
inspired them to enter competitive benchmarking and to allow outsiders, such as our
research team, to look at the organization. Interestingly, allowing outsiders into observe residual culture
the company, which is touted as part of their openness, also serves to reinforce the image
of an in-group/out-group divide by emphasising organizational boundaries and
membership. This highlights closed membership as a core feature of the dominant 751
culture of this company. The recruitment process, and the preference for employees
rather than contractors, also reinforced a closed membership. In the survey
questionnaire staff reported that the organization had a “good culture” and their
intention to remain while they “enjoyed it”. This gave the impression of loyalty
contingent on a great culture. An assumption, prior to redundancies in the organization,
by managers, that the culture could be “bottled and used by other offices”, has been
replaced by a management fear of the culture changing. This is manifested in an
interesting mixed view of culture as property but somehow uncontrollable:
You don’t design your culture, you can’t have someone come in and create a culture for you.
Culture is the way we demonstrate things by actions, it’s the way we communicate by words
and by documents. We didn’t set out to create it it’s just the way it is. Perhaps, because we’re
honest, perhaps it’s because we recruit the people, but having got that culture we defend it
jealously because if we lose that then all the people who enjoy working within that culture are
going to leave. So it’s very very important that we maintain that and basically you can’t
change people to fit into it so we recruit people who already fit the culture (senior manager).
This drive for individual fit with the company has been managed from early in the
organization history via the recruitment and selection process. All candidates are
subjected to three interviews, the first focusing on personality, the second on technical
skills, and the third a peer review process:
There’s very few people that I actively dislike here [. . .] they’re cool people nice people bright
people, and I mean well after all we chose each other didn’t we, I mean there’s the peer review
process [. . .] people have said that maybe it’s not a good thing that you end up with people
who are too similar but I don’t think that’s necessarily the case you don’t give the thumbs up
to someone because they’re like you it’s because you think they will fit in and be fun to work
with and do a good job (staff).
This concept of individual fit with company has remained a core feature of the dominant
culture, it is how life in this company is organized and lived. As a core feature one can
trace “fit” (and the recruitment and selection procedure) to the establishment of the small
alternative/oppositional culture organization by two like minded people and their wives.
They brought other people with similar views and motivations into their “family”. These
people, like friends and family members, could be relied on:
If you understand how the people around you are going to react to certain things, or that they
will all dig deep and help you out if the need arises [. . .] that’s the sort of thing you’d expect
from a friend [. . .] really so it’s much easier to work in that environment (senior manager).
This notion of the family-style organization is an important part of the now residual
culture of the organization, i.e. it is a still practiced residue of the previous social
formation of the organization as a small, struggling business. This notion is very
important to the founders and those who have been with the organization for a number
JOCM of years. It represents where the company has come from, it explains the quirks and
21,6 inadequacies of the organization in dealing with increased numbers of staff and
diversity of needs. It excuses communication gaps, and failure to delegate. Thus, it
gives sense and reason to why the organization is the way it is. It is conveyed mainly
by stories and everyday statements of the senior management team, e.g. “we used to be
able to hold a meeting in the corridor”, and “ it’s hard to let go, you forget other
752 managers don’t think the same way”. This was part of the dominant culture, but
growth and then the threat and actuality of redundancies forced the emergent business
imperatives to become dominant and the family needs residual.
Staff talked about change in the culture “I think there’s a certain point at which
people that had made it, that put it together, could no longer manage the number of
staff that we had”, and redundancies:
[. . .] fundamentally changed the family culture. You don’t fire someone from the family [. . .]
you felt quite betrayed [. . .] others felt it was a good commercial decision [. . .] they said I don’t
know what took you so long.
The previous strong family culture explains an emphasis on key individuals, their
vision, energy and commitment and ability to bring in business. The senior
management team at the top of the flat hierarchy make the big decisions, determine
the strategic direction, throw the parties. They have the high profile in the media,
are the ones seen to be pushing the company to better things. They have the parental or
guardian role. Thus, the history of the organization and its residual culture are
essential to understanding how it operates now:
[. . .] the senior management have to be a lot stronger [. . .] in terms of making decisions and
making consistent decisions being seen in the business as not like parents where if you don’t
get the answer you like from one person you go to another [. . .] there is still an element of that
but not hugely (staff).
Of course, as the company has expanded it has recruited staff members who have only
worked in larger organizations, who are not interested in family cultures or different
ways of doing things.

Different, open, flexible, and creative

The desire to be different, the growth from an oppositional culture was also important
to the founders. At a wider cultural level this is a mirror of the IT industry as a whole
which projects an image of IT people as nonconformist loners. Now the organization is
another business trying to make a profit, difference is negotiable when salaries need to
be paid. But the desire to be different explains the organization’s support of creativity,
and regular company meetings devoted to fun coupled with a business message or
strategy statement. The physical design of space and resources of the organization also
reflect the desire to be different to mainstream companies (although not dissimilar to
other start-up IT companies), e.g. presence of a “goof-off” room with arcade games,
pool table, basketball hoop, great coffee, and comfortable meeting rooms with couches
(as well as standard meeting rooms). However, many IT companies aspire to be
different in very similar ways (Alvesson, 2002; Kunda, 1992) and one could argue that
this is part of the culture of the IT industry. So, although there has been a clear drive to
be different as an organization, i.e. as a collective, this mirrors other IT companies and
has been in tension with a desire for like minded staff to fit the company culture.
Paradoxically the desire to be different and to preserve the organizational culture Dominant,
through people that “fit”, ultimately leads IT companies to be very similar. emergent, and
The company has also prided itself on its openness, flexibility and creativity. Again
one could argue that these concepts are oddly in tension with the strong drive for fit. residual culture
Senior managers reported going with their “instincts” and “gut feel” on business
diversification, and at the strategic level this epitomised the informality of the
organization. It is also consistent with a fairly pervasive image of entrepreneurial 753
start-ups within the popular business literature, and with the informal nature of the
national culture in which the company operates (Campbell-Hunt et al., 2001).
Typically staff reported:
[. . .] we’ve got a fairly sort of flexible structure [. . .] and I have to think twice about am I in the
project managers group or am I in the business analysts group [. . .] the boundaries get
blurred [. . .] I don’t think that’s necessarily as bad as it sounds (staff).
This flexibility again mirrors beliefs about the IT profession as a whole:
[. . .] In the IT world you never have ten or 20 years experience, you have one or two years
experience seven times over. It’s only the last one or two years that’s got any real relevance.
The rest is just background knowledge [. . .] it’s one profession where you do need continuous
learning (senior manager).

Becoming corporate
There are a number of features that one might classify as part of the emergent culture of
the organization. Paramount amongst these appear to be sets of beliefs (from the wider
cultural system) about the nature of organizations of a certain size, how they are organized
and behave. There is a strong sense of “we need to do what other organizations our size
do”. This could be summarised as bigger organizations need to be more strategic, planful
and business-like. They need systems, policies, rules, order, and consistency. These reflect
the orthodoxy conveyed in management texts, case studies, and practitioner guidance.
Even deeper than this culturally societies over time have practiced more formality with
larger groups, for example, when families become tribes, and tribes become part of larger
communities.
The strong pull to be more like other businesses is evidenced in the use of outside
consultants to advise on talent management and human resource strategy, i.e. allowing
the normative influence of consultants to make the organization more like other
organizations. The founder declares “our managers are full time managers now”,
implying that the focus of the company is now about management as well as IT business.
Also the strategic vision “is quite a substantial difference to the company’s direction in
the past which has been growth, so profitability growth rather than revenue growth is
quite a different focus”. These are fundamental changes for the organization and they
are expressed at every level, and are contested in large and small ways:
I would like to see the people within the organization thinking about the good of the company as
a whole and not of the good of themselves [. . .] they have a duty of care to the company to do the
best they can for the company in all ways, so like recognising cost savings [. . .] it’s getting
better but there is still very much the me culture, what’s in it for me is the first question that a
consultant asks, why should I do this will I get incentive on this?” (team leader).
Definitely a perception I feel throughout the whole of the company that if you’re not working
on chargeable work your validity is somewhat lower (staff).
JOCM Despite significant change, the senior managers still cling to the hope that the culture
21,6 has not changed, believing that they have “gone from having the small family feel to a
small corporate feel. But a lot of the culture hasn’t changed. We’re still very focused on
our people” (CEO).
However, it is clear that the senior managers have less control over all the decisions.
Allied to this is the push of increasing diversity emerging mainly due to increased
754 numbers and diversification into different business streams. The trust implicit in
family bonds is being replaced by trust in corporate consistency, policy and rules. The
desire to be different from other organizations is being subsumed by the desire to be
like other so-called well-managed businesses. This process of cultural change has not
been easily negotiated; staff have expressed feelings of impending change but are
getting tired of waiting; managers do not know how to behave differently, and
consultants regard this as just another organization that needs straightening out.

Discussion
This is by no means a complete portrayal of the experience of organizational culture in
this company. However, the application of Williams’ ideas in the research has permitted
a more complex picture to emerge than would have been possible from a recording of
current organizational rituals and practices. For instance, a strong theme in the case was
a desire to preserve the organizational culture, and indeed a fear of it changing markedly.
This desire existed even though members of the organization were largely unable to
quantify the culture. This came from management and from staff who believed that
loyalty and commitment to the organization were contingent on the culture remaining
the same. It also derived from the strong residual culture of wanting to be different from
other organizations, but also wanting to be a tight knit family. Williams’ framework
allows us to see that such beliefs are underpinned by our wider cultural notions of
“family” (e.g. ideal size, parental and other roles, rules of inclusiveness, loyalty,
reliability, etc.), and beliefs that “good” cultures lead to organizational success
(particularly in the IT industry).
This desire to preserve the culture “as it is” also illustrates an absurdly static view
of ourselves and organizations that we are encouraged to develop. Williams allows us
to view the culture of organizational culture in which managers live. This is a culture
we help to create and perpetuate, and which a management trade media prefers to
market as freeze-frame views of ideal company cultures and practices. The ability of
management to control and manipulate organizational culture is a key strategy
underpinning most organizational and change management theories. In the case study
company there was a clear belief in continuous learning and development of managers
and staff. Learning and development are synonymous with change. How then can a
company reasonably expect the culture to remain unchanged, and why would it want it
to? This case viewed through the lens of constant cultural negotiation highlights the
paradox of the strong hegemonic drive to control culture (either to manipulate it or to
protect it) alongside the unpredictable changes to culture as a result of critical events
(e.g. the growth of the organization).
Smircich (1983) observed that “it is difficult to engage in contextual, reflexive
management and research but that is what a cultural framework for management and
research urge us to do” (p. 355). The Williams’ model applied organizationally is in line
with fragmentation perspectives of change as constant flux rather than merely an
interruption to a stable state. But, it is also a departure from many fragmentation Dominant,
studies in that it provides an accessible framework within which to consider the emergent, and
elements in flux. It affords us a different perspective of organizational culture and the
forces for change that develop within organizations, often in response to those forces in residual culture
society, e.g. capitalist business model and normative views of organizations.
At the outset this article highlighted that the literature identifies the need for
reflexivity and notes the lack of impact that academic research on organizational 755
culture has had on improving the lives of people who work in organizations. This
dominant-residual-emergent framework addresses both these gaps in a theoretically
appealing and practically helpful way. The case contributes to the emergent culture of
organization change and development by exploring a more reflexive account of culture.
It is, of course, not without limitations. Williams’ ideas, while useful as a lens through
which to question and explain, do not provide a research method or a full blown
analysis method. However, they do enable the generation of new insights by adding
explanatory depth and breadth to organizational analysis in a number of ways.
First, Williams forces us to think of the present, the past and the future. Contrary to
many approaches to examining organizations as an historical phenomenon, the vehicle
of dominant, residual and emergent culture allows a more complex and meaningful view
of an organization and cultural change. This in turn can lead us ultimately to
more interesting and informative research activities. Second, Williams reminds us that
we are seldom revealing the full story of the organizations we study. The notions of
selective tradition and incorporation clearly signal that the process of cultural change
always involves rationalisations and hegemony to the exclusion of other views. Third,
Williams connects us to the wider cultural context by reminding us that the world in
which people exist is more extensive than the organizations in which they work.
Organizations are not closed systems. Culture within and outside them is shaped by
social institutions, e.g. the mass media, education systems, family, government, and
industry groups. Fourth, because Williams’ ideas focus us on cultural change over time,
on the selective tradition and processes of incorporation, and wider cultural influences, it
confronts the researcher with the dynamic and contested nature of culture.
Importantly, Williams’ model assists us to be reflective and reflexive in our
deliberations on organizations. The notion of selective tradition applies to the
practitioner and academic researcher as much as it applies to the organization. In terms
of practical impact in workplaces, the dominant, residual, emergent framework can be
picked up and used by organizations. For instance, it is a useful facilitation tool to
structure exploration of organization change with groups of employees and managers.
It acknowledges and uses their histories, varying perspectives, and range of possible
futures, thus leading to consideration and debate rather than recrimination. As a result
it offers a process for employees to have a meaningful voice in organisational change.
For the academic it presents an analytical framework which has explanatory power
from a culture as process perspective, accommodating the essential complexity of
reflection on culture and providing the greater reflexivity identified as missing in
organizational research.
As Smircich stated:
A cultural mode of analysis encourages us to recognise that both the practice of organizational
inquiry and the practice of corporate management are cultural forms, products of a particular
socio-historical context and embodying particular value commitments (Smircich, 1983, p. 355).
JOCM Because the Williams’ model facilitates viewing culture in organizations as dynamic,
21,6 negotiated, selective, and nuanced, it highlights the shortcomings of organizational
research techniques and points to ways we can move beyond them. Research into
organizational culture has largely relied on methods such as case study and survey,
which even when used longitudinally, can only provide a static snapshot in time. In the
absence of full-scale participant observer studies, which entail their own research
756 shortcomings, we as organizational researchers remain the interpreters and purveyors
of organizational snapshots. The organizational application of Williams’ cultural
model reinforces this and importantly confronts the researcher as interpreter with the
knowledge that the snapshot is constrained by the selective tradition and processes of
incorporation of the organization being studied and of the researchers themselves.
Hence, Williams’ model allows us to view cases more dynamically, to reconcile that
there are multiple views in and of organizations.

References
Alvesson, M. (2002), Understanding Organizational Culture, Sage, London.
Campbell-Hunt, C., Brocklesby, J., Chetty, S., Corbett, L., Davenport, S., Jones, D. and Walsh, P.
(2001), World Famous in New Zealand: How New Zealand’s Leading Firms became World
Class Competitors, Auckland University Press, Auckland.
Carroll, C.E. (2002), “Introduction”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15 No. 6,
pp. 556-62.
Collins, D. (1998), Organizational Change: Sociological Perspectives, Routledge, London.
Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (1982), Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life,
Addison-Wesley, MA.
Hawkins, P. (1997), “Organizational culture: sailing between evangelism and complexity”,
Human Relations, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 417-40.
Kunda, G. (1992), Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High Tech Corporation,
Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Linstead, S.A. (2001), “Organizational culture”, in Smelser, N. and Baltes, P.B. (Eds), International
Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, Elsevier, New York, NY.
Martin, J. (1992), Cultures in Organizations: Three Perspectives, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Martin, J. (2002), Organizational Culture: Mapping the Terrain, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Martin, J. and Frost, P. (1996), “The organizational culture war games: a struggle for intellectual
dominance”, in Clegg, S., Hardy, C. and Nord, W. (Eds), Handbook of Organization Studies,
Sage, London, Ch. 3.6, pp. 599-621.
Parker, M. (2002), “Contesting histories: unity and division in a building society”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 589-605.
Peters, T. and Waterman, R. (1982), In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-run
Companies, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Pettigrew, A. (1979), “On studying organizational cultures”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 24, pp. 570-81.
Riad, S. (2005), “The power of “organizational culture” as a discursive formation in merger
integration”, Organization Studies, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 1529-54.
Sackmann, S. (2001), “Cultural complexity in organizations: the value and limitations of qualitative Dominant,
methodology and approaches”, in Cooper, C.L., Cartwright, S. and Earley, P.C. (Eds),
The International Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate, Wiley, Chichester. emergent, and
Schein, E. (1985), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA. residual culture
Schein, E. (1990), “Organizational culture”, American Psychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 109-19.
Schein, E. (1996), “Culture: the missing concept in organization studies”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 229-38. 757
Smircich, L. (1983), “Concepts of culture and organizational analysis”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 339-58.
Weick, K. (1999), “Conclusion: theory construction as disciplines reflexivity: tradeoffs in the
1990s”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, pp. 797-806.
Williams, R. (1980), Problems in Materialism and Culture, Verso, London.

Further reading
Osborne, D.E. and Gaebler, T. (1992), Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is
Transforming the Public Sector, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Corresponding author
Jane Bryson can be contacted at: jane.bryson@vuw.ac.nz

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints