Rachel's 10.7 Discussion Questions

Martin (1992) examined the commonalities and conflicts in organizational culture research via three social scientific perspectives: (1) integration, in which consensus and clarity constitute culture, (2) differentiation, in which consensus occurs in subcultures, and (3) fragmentation, in which ambiguity and dissensus constitute the essence of organizational culture.

I appreciate our class theme of “multiperspectivalism” and, for the most part, I agree with Martin’s assertion that we can better understand a given organization when we view it from multiple perspectives than if it were viewed from any single perspective. Still, the critic in me takes issue with the Integration perspective, which assumes that cultures “exist to alleviate anxiety, to control the uncontrollable, to bring predictability to the uncertain, and to clarify the ambiguous” (p. 51).

• How do such normative approaches to organizational culture research legitimate socially unsophisticated understandings of communication as a tool or conduit, and privilege managerial interests over those of other organizational stakeholders?
  
• How might the Differentiation (and Fragmentation-- although we haven’t read about this one in detail yet) perspective(s) enable us to engage in more meaningful research that concerns itself with human, rather than corporate, interests?
• In what ways are uncertainty, ambiguity, and difference strengths of both individuals and organizations, rather than "problems" to be controlled or alleviated?