Corporate Culture Models

Why This Matters

Corporate culture models are the analytical lenses business anthropologists use to decode what's really happening inside organizations. When you're analyzing a company's performance, diagnosing dysfunction, or advising on mergers, you need frameworks that go beyond surface-level observations. These models help you understand why employees behave certain ways, how values translate into daily practices, and what invisible forces shape decision-making. You're being tested on your ability to apply these frameworks to real organizational scenarios—not just define them.

Each model approaches culture from a different angle: some focus on depth and visibility (what's seen vs. what's assumed), others on cultural dimensions (how societies differ), and still others on organizational typologies (what kind of culture produces what outcomes). Don't just memorize the names and components—know which model to reach for when analyzing a specific organizational problem, and understand how they complement or contradict each other.

---

Depth-Based Models: Peeling Back the Layers

These frameworks treat culture as something with layers—visible elements on the surface, deeper values beneath, and often unconscious assumptions at the core. The key insight: what you see isn't necessarily what drives behavior.

Schein's Three Levels of Organizational Culture

• Artifacts are the visible, tangible elements—dress codes, office layouts, logos, and stated mission statements—but they're the least reliable indicators of actual culture
• Espoused values represent what the organization says it believes—official policies and stated norms—though these often contradict actual behavior
• Basic underlying assumptions are the unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs that truly drive behavior—these are what anthropologists dig for and what make culture change so difficult

Johnson's Cultural Web

• Six interconnected elements—stories, rituals, symbols, power structures, organizational structures, and control systems—together form the cultural "paradigm" at the center
• Stories and rituals reveal what the organization actually values by showing what gets celebrated, repeated, and passed down to newcomers
• Power structures often diverge from formal org charts—identifying who really has influence is critical for understanding how decisions actually get made

---

Dimensional Models: Measuring Cultural Variation

These frameworks identify specific dimensions along which cultures vary, allowing for cross-cultural comparison. The key insight: cultural differences can be systematically measured and compared across organizations or nations.

Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory

• Power distance measures acceptance of unequal power distribution—high power distance cultures expect hierarchy; low power distance cultures challenge authority
• Individualism vs. collectivism captures whether identity comes from personal achievement or group membership—this dimension predicts everything from compensation preferences to decision-making styles
• Uncertainty avoidance indicates tolerance for ambiguity and risk—high uncertainty avoidance cultures create more rules and resist innovation

Trompenaars' Seven Dimensions of Culture

• Universalism vs. particularism distinguishes rule-based cultures ("treat everyone the same") from relationship-based cultures ("context matters")—critical for understanding ethics and negotiation across cultures
• Specific vs. diffuse measures how much personal and professional lives overlap—diffuse cultures expect relationship-building before business; specific cultures separate the two
• Individualism vs. communitarianism parallels Hofstede but emphasizes the moral dimension—where do rights and responsibilities ultimately reside?

---

Typology Models: Categorizing Culture Types

These frameworks classify organizations into distinct culture types based on key characteristics. The key insight: different environments and strategies require different cultural configurations.

Cameron and Quinn's Competing Values Framework

• Four culture types—Clan, Adhocracy, Market, and Hierarchy—emerge from two axes: internal vs. external focus and flexibility vs. stability
• Clan cultures prioritize collaboration and employee development; Adhocracy cultures emphasize innovation and risk-taking—both are flexible but differ in focus
• Market cultures drive toward results and competition; Hierarchy cultures value efficiency and control—both emphasize stability but differ in orientation

Deal and Kennedy's Cultural Model

• Four types based on risk and feedback speed—Tough-Guy/Macho (high risk, fast feedback), Work Hard/Play Hard (low risk, fast feedback), Bet-the-Company (high risk, slow feedback), Process (low risk, slow feedback)
• Tough-Guy cultures thrive in high-stakes environments like surgery or trading floors where quick decisions matter and failure is immediately visible
• Bet-the-Company cultures characterize industries like pharmaceuticals or aerospace where decisions take years to validate—patience and long-term thinking are essential

Handy's Four Types of Organizational Culture

• Power culture concentrates authority in a central figure or small group—fast decisions but dependent on leader quality; often seen in entrepreneurial startups
• Role culture emphasizes defined positions and procedures over individuals—predictable and stable but potentially slow to adapt; classic bureaucratic model
• Task culture organizes around projects and teams with expertise-based influence—flexible and collaborative but can struggle with resource allocation

---

Performance-Linked Models: Culture as Driver of Effectiveness

These frameworks explicitly connect cultural characteristics to organizational outcomes. The key insight: specific cultural traits predict specific performance outcomes.

Denison's Organizational Culture Model

• Four traits—Involvement, Consistency, Adaptability, and Mission—each correlate with specific performance outcomes and can be measured through validated surveys
• Involvement and adaptability (flexibility traits) predict innovation and customer satisfaction; consistency and mission (stability traits) predict profitability and quality
• The tension between flexibility and stability is built into the model—organizations must balance all four traits rather than maximizing one

Goffee and Jones' Double S Cube Model

• Sociability measures friendliness and warmth—high sociability creates pleasant workplaces but can suppress honest feedback and difficult conversations
• Solidarity measures shared purpose and task focus—high solidarity drives results but can feel cold and transactional to employees
• Four culture types emerge from combining high/low sociability and solidarity: Networked, Mercenary, Fragmented, and Communal—each with distinct strengths and pathologies

Schneider's Culture Model (ASA Framework)

• Attraction-Selection-Attrition explains how cultures self-perpetuate—organizations attract people who fit, select those who match, and lose those who don't
• Cultural homogeneity increases over time through this cycle—which strengthens culture but can reduce diversity and adaptability
• Implications for hiring and retention are significant—"culture fit" can be a legitimate criterion or a bias mechanism depending on how it's applied

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. You're consulting for a company where stated values ("we're innovative!") contradict actual behavior (punishing failed experiments). Which model best explains this gap, and which specific concepts would you reference?

2. Compare Hofstede's individualism/collectivism dimension with Trompenaars' individualism/communitarianism. What do they share, and how do their emphases differ?

3. A pharmaceutical company and a day-trading firm both operate in high-risk environments, but their cultures feel completely different. Using Deal and Kennedy's model, explain why.

4. If you were assessing whether a merger between two companies would face cultural integration challenges, which two models would you combine, and what would each reveal?

5. Using Schneider's ASA framework, explain why organizations often struggle to increase diversity even when leadership genuinely wants to—and what intervention points the model suggests.