Shared lenses: general semantics and the organizational culture perspective.

GENERAL SEMANTICS has been applied to many academic, professional, and personal areas and is a unique, alternative lens through which to view the world. G.S. i a non-linear, non-reductionistic, process-oriented perspective which examines, among other things, the use of language on different levels (see Bois, 1957; Bois 1966; Korzybski, 1948). G.S. can be applied from a low level of descriptio (e.g., pointing at something with our mouth covered) to geopolitical considerations (e.g., the G-7 response to Yugoslavia). Much has been written about the use of G.S. in business and it has been applied to a variety of organizational contexts. Recently, a new paradigm for organizational research has developed which parallels many of the assumptions of G.S. This new paradigm is called The Organizational Culture Perspective (hereafter TOCP) and it can be supported by adopting a G.S. perspective.

Ott (1989), an advocate of TOCP, indicates that researchers need to find new ways of looking at organizations and that TOCP is a unique way to do so.

Instead of viewing an organization as a goal-oriented structure (formal or informal) with functions, information systems, and decision processes, or as groups of members, the organizational culture perspective puts on a different set of "lenses" through which to "see" an organization. When we look through these special organizational culture lenses, we see a mini-society made up of social constructions.

Ott is a firm believer in the social construction of reality whereby all that i known to a culture (facts, values, beliefs, truths, etc.) are agreed upon perceptions.

This perspective is anathema to more popular methods of organizational research which study parts of the organization in isolation to determine what works and what does not. Ott (1989), considers TOCP to be:

a call for balance; a plea for the acceptance of diverse views about and approaches to studying organizations; a cry for breaking out of the information systems/logical-positivist/quasi-experimental mold that has placed a mental and emotional straight jacket on organization theory and theorists for too many years.

This perspective is clearly non-Aristotelian and would be congruous with G.S., in that we need a radical change of thinking about how our world works around us. In particular, we spend most of our lives in some type of organizational setting and understanding that setting is crucial to our sense-making. If TOCP and G.S. can help us in that understanding, then they may serve as useful and viable research methods.

Another perspective of organizational culture embraces a pragmatic, functional, strategic approach, which differs from the social constructionist approach. Thi approach suggests that while organizational cultures do exist, they can also be manipulated if change in the culture is desired. "This explicitly managerial orientation views culture as an organizational variable (something an organization has) which can be manipulated to best suit the needs of the organization -- normally the rationale for changes lies with efficiency, productivity, and worker morale" (Mumby, 1988, p. 7).

Conrad (1990), who adopts this strategic view, sees culture as a communicative creation. Cultures emerge, are maintained, and change through communication. Consequently, the combination of culture and communication is the root of Conrad's perspective. "This dual relationship between communication and culture is the basis of strategic organizational communication. Choosing among availabl communication strategies involves analysis of cultural characteristics and predicting the probable impact those strategies will have in particular organizational situations".

Given either perspective, organizational culture is an elusive concept. "The word 'culture' is a little like the word 'love' -- almost everyone has experienced it and knows what it means, but almost no one can explain what it is" (Conrad, 1990, p. 6). In an attempt to help describe and capture this elusive concept, general semantics can be a way to view organizational culture and think critically about what happens in the organizational world around us.

Exton (1991), advocates the use of G.S. and critical thinking in terms of makin managerial judgments. Many of the same arguments can be made for applying G.S. to TOCP. The G.S. formulations of the map is not the territory, the map is not all the territory, the map is self-reflexive, and the consciousness of abstracting (Korzybski, 1948) are essential if organizational culture is to be "found."

"The map is not the territory" suggests that a word is not the thing, but a symbolic representation of the thing. Thus, the word chair can refer to but is not something wooden or metal with four legs. This principle is helpful to the understanding of organizational culture by helping those researching an organization to realize that the many words employed in an organization are abstractions of events and/or concepts.

An example would be an organization's philosophy for doing business. This philosophy could be articulated through a written mission statement or it could be implied through corporate members' actions. If the written statement is examined, a researcher must remember that the map is not the territory and that the statement may only represent the organizational culture, it is not the organizational culture. Thus, the words in the statement are not the thing (the culture).

"The map is not all the territory" can also be applied to an organization's mission statement. Even if the statement attempted to define and state everything the organization did or did not do, it would still not describe all of the organization or its culture. An organization can never be completely described and, by extension, neither can its culture. Consequently, an organization's culture can never be completely "found" but inferences can be made from its members.

"The map is self-reflexive" can be applied to the written mission statements as well as an implied organizational philosophy. An organization's written statement is most likely written by a group of people, but if the map-maker is always in the map, then are those writing the mission statement truly representative of the organization they are writing about? A more serious problem arises when trying to find out the implicit organizational philosophy. If one were to interview every member of an organization, then one would receiv as many perspectives as employees. Hence, you would have, given the map-maker i always in the map, many different organizational philosophies. It would be very difficult to ascertain one, coherent organizational philosophy.

Consciousness of abstracting is also important when trying to "find" or describ organizational culture. It is important to understand that each person is going to view, or abstract, differently. If an organization were trying to find out about a particular problem within a certain department, the employees might be asked to tell their side of the story. Realistically (non-metaphysically speaking), a researcher would come up with a series of abstractions with which to make sense of the problem. With a consciousness of abstracting, the researcher would know this and not tell his/her superiors what the problem "is, but what it "appears" to be, given the interpretations of the employees within the department. If the superiors asked the question, "Have you found out all th facts?" the answer, from a G.S. perspective, should be a resounding "No!" No problem or perspective can ever truly be "known."

These four principles can also be applied to elements or levels of organizational culture. Artifacts, values, and basic assumptions have been identified as levels central to organizational culture (Dyer & Dyer, 1986; Ott, 1989; Sankar, 1988; Schein, 1990). Ott (1989) advocates researching organizational culture based on these three levels. Investigating level 1A, artifacts, requires examining how the organization is physically structured, looking through its archives and other records, and listening to the language o the organization (e.g., jargon, humor, metaphors).

The G.S. principles discussed apply at this level and remind the researcher to not stop at this level and point to the artifacts and say, "This is the organizational culture." Artifacts may say something, but they certainly do not tell all.

Level 1B of Ott's approach focuses on patterns of behavior. Here we attempt to study the rites and rituals of an organization along with its behavioral norms. This can be done through participant observation, interviews, or other narrativ approaches. It is very important to understand that the information gleaned at this level is the abstraction of the researcher which is based on the abstractions of the employees, which is based on their abstractions of the observation/interview, etc. Without infinitely regressing, the researcher must realize the many lenses through which the information is being filtered.

Level 2 of Ott's method studies belief and values. As the levels increase so does the level of difficulty in tapping into the organizational culture. "Artifacts and patterned behaviors can be seen, touched, or heard. Norms can be inferred from patterns of behavior. Beliefs, values, and ideologies are a step further removed from observable behaviors...". Hence, the researcher is moving up the abstraction ladder and away from being able to point at what it is he/sh is trying to define. Usually questionnaires are employed to try to tap into the culture. There are, of course, limitations to such a method and G.S. would increase consciousness of that limitation. As the researchers move away from th observable, they must deal with more abstractions.

At level 3 we examine the basic underlying assumptions of the organization, which Ott argues is the closest one can get to knowing an organization's culture. Level 2, if researched well, can get very close to level 3 but may never reach it. An employee may have a belief or value about something in the organization that s/he can articulate, but s/he may not know or be able to articulate the underlying assumption behind the belief or value. The underlying assumptions are generally thought to be the subconscious or unconscious part of an organization whereby the employees behave in a certain way without knowing why or what they are doing.

The G.S. principles are especially helpful at this level. Ott advocates an ethnographic approach when trying to tap into level 3. The G.S. principles can help researchers understand the limits of their findings and heighten awareness of the complexity of trying to ascertain an organization's culture. Realizing that the words are not the thing, that all cannot be described, that the researcher is always included in the research, and that the information found i but an abstraction of an abstraction, etc., helps the researchers move in the direction of consciousness of the process. That is, attempting to describe an organizational culture is a very difficult task, but inferences can be made to formulate a coherent answer, just not a complete answer. Everything cannot be known about an organizational culture. There is always be more to learn. Such a mindset is especially healthy in a corporate environment that may insist there is "one" best answer to any of the problems that organizations encounter.

I would also note that although Ott's approach was described here, there are many other ways in which to tap into organizational culture. G.S. can help whatever the method or combinations of methods used. Indeed, many in this field advocate mixing both qualitative and quantitative methods in gathering organizational culture data (e.g., Conrad, 1990; Ott, 1989).

At this point, G.S. has been applied to the study of organizational culture. Specifically, Ott's qualitative approach has been offered as a methodological example of how organizational culture information can be gathered. G.S. was applied to the qualitative researcher by injecting a "to me" mindset or lens through which to view the cultural information gathered.

The study of organizational culture seems appropriate when one looks at the multitude of mergers and acquisitions that have taken place in the last decade. Not only are billions of dollars in assets, equipment, and buildings involved, so are people and the shared norms, beliefs, and values that they bring with them. Organizational cultures may clash as a result of a merger or acquisition but these effects have largely been ignored (Buono & Bowditch, 1989).

There is a real need to manage organizational transformations and TOCP and G.S. can help the situation by getting beyond what organizational culture means "to me" and moving in the direction of making cultures work together given differen abstractions of organizational reality.

One way to get beyond the "to me" syndrome is to move up and down the "abstraction ladder" and check the perceptions of the employees within an organization. If a company that has merged is having problems at the higher levels of abstraction that exist in the minds of the employees from the former, separate, companies, then have them indicate, via the abstraction ladder, what they believe ought to be happening or what used to happen that should be happening now. If there are shared beliefs and values among employees that can be addressed, then the study of organizational culture and G.S. has gotten beyond the "to me" mindset to a more pragmatic orientation.

G.S. has been and will be applied to many academic, professional and personal areas. The organizational setting is a functional arena in which G.S. can be applied. Moreover, The Organizational Cultural Perspective is rich with ideas that can be supported by a General Semantics viewpoint.

REFERENCES

Bois, J. S. (1957). Explorations in Awareness. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Bois, J. S. (1966). The Art of Awareness. Dubuque, IA: WM. C. Brown Company.

Buono, A., & Bowditch, J. (1989). The Human Side of Mergers and Acquisitions: Managing Collisions Between People, Cultures, and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Conrad, C. (1990). Strategic Organizational Communication: An Integrated Perspective, Second Edition. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.

Dyer, W. G., & Dyer, W. G. (1986, February). Organization Development: System Change or Culture Change? Personnel, 14-22.

Exton, W. (1991, Spring). Managerial Judgment and Critical Thinking. ETC., 48 (1), 16-21.

Korzybski, A. (1948). Science and Sanity. Lakeville, CT: The International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Company.

Mumby, D. (1988). Communication and Power in Organizations: Discourse, Ideology and Domination. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Ott, J. (1989). The Organizational Culture Perspective. Chicago: The Dorsey Press.

Sankar, Y. (1988). Organizational Cultures and New Technologies. Journal of Systems Management, 39, 10-17.

Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109-119.

John Burk is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Speech Communication at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale. This manuscript was presented at the 1993 joint Central/Southern Communication Association Convention in Lexington, Kentucky. The author wishes to thank Dr. Thomas J. Pace for his support and guidance in the creation of the manuscript.