ad-a126 613 organizational culture: a dynamic ...ad-a126 613 organizational culture: a dynamic...
TRANSCRIPT
-
AD-A126 613 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE: A DYNAMIC MODEL(U) ALFRED P 1/1SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT CAMBRIDGE MA E H SCHEINMAR 83 T 13 -ONR N00014-80-C-0905
UN5/ NL
* I END
SELLc
-
I 36 I*WE
1111. 112.0
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963-A
-
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE fIfien 00 r. ____________________READ UNSTRUCTtONS
REPORT DOCUMENTATION4 PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM~I. REPORT NUMBER 12. GOVT ACCESSION NC0 3. RECIPIENIT'S CATALOG NUMBER
TR-ONR-13 N -/,1 P(C*4. TI'LIC (and Subtie) S. TYPE OF REPOP - PERIOD COVERED
V* ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE: A DYNAMIC MODEL Interim Technical Report
6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER
7. AUTHOR~e) 6. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMINFRO)
CEdgar H. Schein N00014- 80-C- 0905
"4 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASKSloan School of ManagementMassachusetts Institute of Technology NR 170-911-qn Memorial Drive, Cambridee. MA 02139 _____________
11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE
Office of Naval Research February 1983Organizational Effectiveness Group (Code 442, 1'- NUMBER OF PAGES30
1.MONITORING AGENCY NAME A ADDRESS(i1 different Imes Centreliad Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of mei repo")
Office of Naval Research UnclassifiedResident Representative ______________M.I.T. -- E19-628 1Is. DECASSI Fi CATION/ DOWNGRADINGCambridge, MA 02139 SCHEDULE_________
1S. DISTRISUTION STATEMENT (of thuU. Report)
Approved for public release: Distribution Unlimited
Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted for any purpose of
the U.S. Government
17. DIST RI DUTION ST ATEMENT (of theo beire uwiered Ien Blook ",If 01fferent 40sm Rept)
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
19. KEY WORDS (Contibme M loer@*e side if 0106ee880 end idnttf7 6F Noo6k am16e1)1641e
C>Organizational Culture- n*C-.1)Culture as Learning Process
External and Internal Group IssuesLUj Group Evolution
20. ABSTRACT (Centrw en roereee side Hf meep end IdlmeW by leeS um=er)
A formal definition of organizational -culture is -given, and each element in~ the definition is explored theoretically. Culture is treated in a dynamic
learning theory context.
DORM 1473 EDITION oF I Nov so is owsoLmTg9/111 0102-14-6601 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (RueN11 2004 110I'
~3 U~07 12
-
ONI
N00014-80-C-0905
ME 170-911
Massachusetts Institute of TechnologySloan School of Management
Cambridge, MA 02139
TECHNICAL REPORTS IN THIS SERIES
TR-I Edgar H. Schein. w Does Japanese Management Style have aMessage for American Managers?"January, 1982, Sloan Management Review; Fall, 1981.
TR-2 John Van Maanen. "Some Thoughts (and Afterthoughts) onContext, Interpretation, and Organization Theory"February, 1982.
TR-3 John Van Maanen. "The Mobilization of Effort: Sergeants,Patrol Officers, and Productivity in an American Agency"February, 1982.
TR-4 Lotte Bailyn. "Inner Contradictions in Technical Careers"March, 1982; Working Paper 1281-82.
TR-5 John Van Maanen & Deborah Kolb. "The Professional Apprentice:Observations on Fieldwork Roles in Two OrganizationalSettings" (in S.B. Bacharach, ed.) Research in
Organizational Sociology, Vol. 3., Greenwich. CT.: JAIPress, forthcoming (1983).June, 1982; Working Paper 1323-82.
TR-6 Lotte Bailyn. "Problems and Opportunities for the MaturingEngineer"June 1982.
TR-7 W. Gibb Dyer, Jr. "Patterns and Assumptions: The Keys toUnderstanding Organizational Cultures"June, 1982.
TR-8 Lotte Bailyn. "Work and Family: Testing the Assumptions"August, 1982.
TR-9 Jeanne Lindholm. "Mentoring: The Mentor's Perspective"September, 1982.
TR-10 John Van Maanen & Stephen R. Barley. "Occupational I't0
Communities: Culture and Control in Organizations" 24November, 1982. ' 004
TR-11 Lotte Bailyn. "Engineering as a Life-Long Career: It 1kio
Meaning,Its Satisfactions, Its Difficulties" 4- PNovember, 1982.
,t. 'C .,
&.9" ,/1I -. //
-
TR-12 Edgar H. Schein* wThe Role Of the Founder in the Creation ofOrganizational Culture."March, 1983
TR-13 Edgar H. Schein "Organizational Culture: A Dynamic Model
March, 1983
-
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE: A DYNAMIC MODEL 1
Edgar H. Schein
Sloan School of ManagementMassachusetts Institute of Technology
March, 1983
MIT WP 0086H
TR-ONR 13
Approved for public release: distribution unlialted.
Prepared with the support of: Chief of naval Research, PsychologicalSciences Division (Code 452), Organizational Effectiveness Research,Office of Naval Research, Arlington, VA 22217, under Contract1N0014-80-C-0905: 1@ 170-911.
~~~ .... . m~m- - ... .
-
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to describe and argue for a formal
model of organizational culture which is built on a dynamic model of
learning and group dynamics. I will present a formal definition of
organizational culture and then elaborate each element of the definition
as a way of explicating the implications of this way of thinking.
My purpose in approaching the concept in this manner is to lay a
conceptual foundation for analyzing organizational cultures which will
make it possible for different observers and students of organizations to
begin to use a common frame of reference. The approach taken here falls
into what Sanday (1979) would call the "holistic" approach, as distin-
guished from the "seniotic" or "behavioral," though I hope to show that by
taking a dynamic evolutionary point of view one can incorporate in a
useful way all three of these approaches. I am making the assumption that
one needs to know more than the "shared understandings" which the semiotic
view advocates, in that even if we understand an organization well enough
to live in it, wv do not necessarily understand how an organization got to
be that way, or where it is headed in the future. I also believe that we
cannot really begin to manage or change organizational culture until we
have a model of culture which is based on learning theory, and until we
understand the dynamic evolutionary forces which govern how culture grows
and changes.
Organizational Culture: A Formal Definition
Organizational culture is the pattern of basic assumptions which a
given group has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope
with its problems of external adaptation and internal Integration, which
-1-
-
have worked well enough to be considered valid, and, therefore, to be
taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in
relation to those problems.
1. Pattern of Basic Assumptions
Organizational culture can be analyzed at several different levels,
starting with the visible artifacts - the constructed environment of the
organization, its architecture, technology, office layout, manner of dress,
visible or audible behavior patterns, public documents such as charters,
employee orientation materials, etc., etc. (See Fig. 1) This level of
analysis is "tricky" because the data are easy to obtain but hard to
interpret. We can describe how a group constructs its environment, and
what behavior patterns are discernible among the members, but we oftern
cannot understand the underlying logic, the "why" of what we observe.
- Insert Figure 1 about here -
To begin to deal with the question of why members behave the way they
do, we often look for the "values" which govern behavior, the second level
in Figure 1. Values are harder to observe directly. Often they require
us to interview key members of the organization or to do fairly complex
content analyses of artifacts such as documents and charters (Martin &
Siehl, 1981) in order to infer then. Once we have identified such values
we often note that they represent accurately one level of the culture, the
level that is manifest and espoused, by which I mean what people say is
the reason for their behavior, what they ideally would like those reasons
to be, and what are often their rationalizations for what they have done,
where the "true" reason or "latent functions" of the behavior re in
unconscious (Merton, 1957; Argyris, 1982).
-2-
-
The model of culture for which I am arguing in this paper requires
us to go still deeper to the underlying patterns of assumptions which are
typically unconscious but which actually ietermine how group members per-
ceive, think about, and feel about things, and which, therefore, determine
both values and overt behavior in a more complete fashion (Schein, 1981).
As will be spelled out below, such unconscious assumptions are themselves
learned responses, and, at an earlier time, will have been espoused
values. But, as a value leads to behavior, and as that behavior solves
the problem which motivated it in the first place, the value gradually
becomes transformed into an assumption about how things really are and, as
it is increasingly taken for granted, drops out of awareness.
As a value becomes transformed into an assumption it ceases to be
debatable and confrontable. Thus we know we are dealing with an assump-
tion when we encounter In our Informants a refusal to discuss something,
or when they consider us "insane" or "ignorant" for bringing something
up. In this sense, the notion that businesses should be profitable, that
schools should educate, that medicine should prolong life, are assumptions
even though they are often stated as if they were "merely" values. Or, to
put the matter another way, the domain of "values" can be divided into
1) ultimate, non-debatable, taken-for-granted values for which the term
"assumptions" is more appropriate, and 2) debatable, overt, espoused
values for which the term "values" is more appropriate.
In making the distinction in this manner I as deliberately ignoring
the distinction between "physical" reality and "social" reality because I
believe that assumptions and values in the above sense operate in both
domains. In fact, what is defined as physical is itself in part ultina-
tely a matter of what assumptions we make and, therefore, a part of a
given culture.
-3-
-
In stating that basic assumptions are unconscious I am not arguing
that this is a result of repression. I am arguing that as certain
motivational and cognitive processes are repeated and continue to work,
they drop out of awareness. They can be brought back to awareness by a
certain kind of focused inquiry process of the sort which anthropologists
use with their informants, but such surfacing always requires the efforts
of both an insider who is making the unconscious assumptions and an out-
sider who helps to surface them by asking the right kinds of questions.
Because of the human need for an optimal stimulus load and
consistency, assumptions come to be patterned into what we might think of
as cultural "paradigms" which tie together the basic assumptions about
man, nature, and activities. To understand a given culture means to
understand the paradigm, and the pattern of basic assumptions. To do that
one needs some categories for analyzing assumptions. The categories
presented in Table 1 are based on Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's (1961)
original research, and are elaborated to be more useful in thinking
specifically about organizational phenomena: 2
- Insert Table 1 -
A given organization's basic assumptions will ultimately derive from
two sources: 1) the prior assumptions of organization founders, leaders,
and members based on their own experience in the parent or host culture,
and 2) the actual experiences which that organization has as it copes
with its external and internal problems (as described below). The learn-
ing of organizational culture is never from ground zero, but always a
combination of prior assumptions and new learning experiences.
Cultural Paradigms. A cultural paradigm is a set of
Interrelated assumptions which form a coherent pattern. Not all
-
assumptions are mutually compatible or consistent. Hence, if there is a
cognitive drive for order and consistency, one can assume that groups will
learn sets of assumptions which are compatible and consistent. For
example, if a group holds the assumption that the ultimate good comes
through individual effort, it cannot easily hold the assumption that truth
is a function of or derived from group consensus, an assumption more
consistent with the assumption that the ultimate good comes from group
harmony. If a group assumes that the way to survive is to conquer nature,
i.e. aggressively manage its environment, it cannot simultaneously assume
that the correct way for members to relate to each other is to passively
seek harmonious relationships. Kluckhohn & Stodtbeck exemplify this way
of thinking by noting that Western culture tends to be oriented toward the
mastery of nature, based on an active orientation, individualistic
competitive relationships, a "future" oriented, linear, monochronic
concept of time (Hall, 1959), a view of space and resource.i as infinite,
and a view of human nature as neutral and ultimately perfectible. In
contrast, some Eastern cultures are oriented toward nature in a passive
way, seek to harmonize with it and each other, view the group as more
important than the individual, are "present" or "past" oriented, see time
as polychronic and cyclical, view space and resources as very limited, and
see reality as based more on revealed truth than empirical experimentation.
Organizational culture paradigms will be adapted versions of such
broader cultural paradigms. For example, Dyer (1982) identifies one such
paradigm in a company by noting that it operates on the Interlocking as-
sumptions that truth comes ultimately from individuals, that truth can be
pragmatically determined only by "fighting" things out and testing, that
people are responsible, motivated, and capable of governing themselves,
-
and that the members of the organization are a "family" and will take care
of each other, which makes it safe to fight and be competitive around
ideas.
By way of contrast, I have observed another organization which
operates on the paradigm that truth comes ultimately from older, wiser,
better educated, higher-status members, that people are capable of loyalty
and discipline in carrying out directives, that relationships are basical-
ly lineal and vertical, that each person has a niche which is his or her
territory, and that the organization is a "solidary unit" which will take
care of all its members.
Needless to say, the manifest behaviors one observes in these two
organizations are totally different, but those behavioral differences do
not make any sense until one has discovered and deciphered the underlying
cultural paradigm. To stay at the level of artifacts or values is to deal
with the manifestations of culture, but not the actual cultural essence.
2. Given Group
There cannot be any culture unless there is a group which "owns"
it. Culture is created by groups, hence the creating group must always be
clearly identified. If we want to define a cultural unit, therefore, we
must be able to locate a group which is independently defined as the
creator, host, or owner of that culture. We must be careful not to define
the group in terms of the existence of a culture, however tempting that
may be, because we then would create a completely circular definition.
A given group is a set of people who 1) have been together long
enough to have shared significant problems, 2) to have had opportunities
to solve those problems and to observe the effects of their solution
attempts and 3) have taken in new members. In other words, we camot
-6-
,~ - : -,,. '.-.w.,. .z:.'.. ,-
-
determine whether or not a group has a culture unless we have a definable
set of people with enough of a shared history to have solved problems and
have had the opportunity to pass on those solutions to new members.
The passing on of the solutions to new members is required in the
definition because the decision to pass something on to a new member is
itself a very important test of whether a given solution is shared and
perceived as valid. If a group has not faced the issue of what to pr - on
in the process of socialization, it has not had a chance to test i own
consensus and commitment to a given belief, value, or assumption. 'he
other hand, if we observe a group passing on, with conviction, eleme
its way of perceiving, thinking, and feeling, we can assume that that
group has had enough stability and has shared enough common experiences to
have developed a culture. The "strength" or "amount" of culture can then
be defined in terms of 1) the strength of the assumptions of the founders
of the group; 2) the degree to which the founders imposed their
assumptions on the group; and 3) the amount and intensity of shared group
experience.
Though these are variables which may be difficult to measure) it is
crucial that they be conceptualized as independent of the direct measures
of cultural "strength" in order to make it possible to treat the growth
and evolution of a culture as a dependent variable predictable from other
empirically observable variables. Such variables may be 1) degree of
homogeneity of the founding members of the group in terms of their own
personality and cultural origins; 2) degree of stability of membership as
the group evolves; 3) degree of homogeneity of new members acquired by
the group; 4) intensity and number of significant experiences shared by
group members in their coping with external and internal problems; and 5)
-7-
-
degree of homogeneity of those experiences in the sense of the degree to
which all members shared the identical experiences.
The point to be emphasized is that to measure "cultural strength"
directly is not only conceptually weak but probably also more difficult
than to identify the factors which would create a strong culture and then
to determine to what extent those factors are present in a given group's
history. One would then hypothesize that given sets of shared experiences
would lead to "strong" cultural elements and check whether or not one
finds such elements.
3. Invented, Discovered, or Developed in Learning to Cope
Cultural elements are defined as learned solutions to problems. I
will detail the nature of those problems in the next several sections and
concentrate in this section on the nature of the learning mechanisms which
are involved. Structurally there are two types of learning situations
that require solutions: 1) positive problem solving efforts which produce
positive or negative reinforcement, in terms of whether the effort worked
or not; and, 2) anxiety avoidance efforts which produce positive or
negative reinforcement in terms of whether the response does or does not
avoid anxiety.
In practice these two types of situations are intertwined, but they
are structurally different and need to be carefully distinguished. In the
positive, problem solving situation the group tries out various responses
until something works and then will be more likely to continue to use that
response until it ceases to work. Once it no longer works, forcing the
group to try different responses, the data will clearly show that the old
solution is no longer working. By contrast, in the anxiety avoidance
situation, once a response is learned because it successfully avoids
-8-
.-.. -%i.
-
anxiety, it is likely to be repeated indefinitely. The reason is that the
learner will not willingly test the situation to determine whether or not
the cause of the anxiety is still operating. Thus all rituals and
patterns of thinking or feeling which may originally have been motivated
by a need to avoid a painful, anxiety provoking situation are going to be
very stable, even if the causes of the original pain are no longer acting.
To fully grasp the importance of anxiety reduction in culture
formation, we have to consider, first of all, the human need for cognitive
order and consistency (Hebb, 1954) which serves as the ultimate motivator
for common language and shared categories of perception and thought. In
other words, in the absence of such shared cognitive maps the human
organism experiences a basic existential anxiety which is intolerable, an
anxiety which one observes only in extreme situations of isolation or
captivity (Schein, 1961).
Beyond this cognitive level, humans experience the anxiety of being
exposed to hostile environmental conditions and to the dangers inherent in
unstable social relationships, forcing groups to learn ways of coping with
both external and internal problems which will be detailed below. The
only point to be made here is that the ultimate motivator for this level
of coping is also anxiety.
At a more immediate level, we can identify the anxiety associated
with certain occupational roles such as coal mining and nursing, where the
Tavistock socio-technical studies have shown clearly that the social
structure and operation of the group can be conceptualized best as a
"defense" against the anxiety which would be unleashed if work were done
in another manner (Trist & Bamforth, 1951; Menzies, 1960).
-9-
-
If an organizational culture is composed of both types of elements,
those designed to solve positive pr. Isms and those designed to avoid
anxiety, it becomes necessary to analyze which is which if one is
interested in changing any of those elements. In the positive learning
situation one need only find a better solution to the problem; in the
anxiety avoidance situation one must first find the source of the anxiety
and then show the learner that it no longer exists, or provide an
alternative source of avoidance, either of which is more difficult to do.
In other words, cultural elements which are based on anxiety reduction
will be more stable than those based on positive problem solving. And
this stability will rest on both the nature of the anxiety reduction
mechanism and on the fact that human systems need a certain amount of
stability to avoid cognitive and social anxiety. Stability itself is
anxiety reducing, giving cultural elements of all sorts an anxiety
reduction function.
Where do solutions initially come from? Most cultural solutions in
new groups and organizations come from the founders and early leaders of
those organizations (Pettigrew, 1979). Typically, the process would be
one of advocacy of certain ways of doing things which are then tried out
and adopted or rejected in terms of how well they work out. Initially the
founders have the most influence, but, as the group ages and acquires its
own experience, group members will find their own solutions and these will
compete with the ones advocated so that ultimately the process of
discovery will be a more interactive shared one. But leadership will
always play a key role at those moments where the group faces a new
problem and, therefore, must develop new responses to the situation. In
fact, one of the crucial functions of leadership is to provide guidance at
-10-
• • "~ ~ ~~~ , ' h -r --:,,,,, .. A., ,,,.
-
precisely those times when habitual ways of doing things no longer work,
or when there has been a dramatic change in the environment which requires
new responses.
Leadership must then not only insure the invention of new and better
solutions, but must: provide some security to enable the group to tolerate
the anxiety of giving up old, stable responses while new ones are learned
and tested. In the Lewinian change framework, this means that the
"unfreezing stage" must involve both enough disconfirmation to motivate
change and enough psychological safety to permit the individual or group
to pay attention to the disconfirming data (Schein, 1961; Schein & Bennis,
1965)
4. Problems of external adaptation and internal integration.
If culture is a solution to the problems a group faces, what can we
say about the nature of those problems? Most group theories agree that a
useful distinction is to separate those problems which deal with the
group's basic survival, what has been variously labeled the primary task,
basic function, or ultimate mission of the group from those problems which
deal with the group's ability to function as a group, what have often been
labeled socio-emotional, group building and maintenance, or integration
problems (Rice, 1963; Bales, 1950; Parsons, 1951). Homans (1950)
distinguishes between the external system and the internal systam and
notes that the two are reciprocally interdependent, highlighting the fact
that one can conceptually distinguish the ezternal and internal problems,
but that in practice both sets are always highly interrelated.
External Adaptation Problems. Problems of external adaptation are
those problems which ultimately determine the group's survival in its
environment. While it must be granted that a part of the group's
-.1-
-
environment is "enacted," in the sense that prior cultural experience
predisposes members to perceive the environment in a certain fashion and
even to control that environment to some degree, there will always be some
external environment which is clearly beyond the control of the group and
which will, to a certain degree, determine the fate of the group -
weather, natural circumstances such as economic and other resources,
political upheavals, etc. (Weick, 1979; Van Maanen, 1979).
How one categorizes the problems of survival is to some degree a
matter of arbitrary choice. I prefer a set of categories which mirrors
the problem solving cycle in that survival, maintenance and growth of any
open system is like a perpetual problem solving process. The culture of
the group or organization will develop in part as the solution to the
problems shown in Table 2.
- Insert Table 2 -
The basic underlying assumptions of the culture from which the
founders of the organization come will determine to a large extent the
initial formulations of core mission, goals, means, criteria, and remedial
strategies, in that those ways of doing things are the only ones with
which the group members will be familiar. But as an organization develops
its own life experience it may begin to modify to some extent the
assumptions of its "parent" culture. For example, a young company may
begin by defining its core mission to be to "win in the marketplace over
all competition," but may at a later stage find that "owning its own niche
in the marketplace, "co-exiating with other companles," or even "being a
silent partner in an oligopolistic industry" is a more workable solution
to survival.
-12--- Ado ML
-
Internal Integration Problems. A group or organization cannot
survive if it cannot manage itself as a group. External survival and
internal integration problems are, therefore, two sides of the same coin,
totally intertwined with each other. The categories presented in Table 3
draw heavily on group theory. Again, they are not presented as
necessarily the correct set, but as a first approximation to a useful set
to help classify cultural data.
- Insert Table 3 -
These categories provide the major areas around which cultural
solutions must be found. While the nature of the solutions will vary from
one organization to another, by definition every organization will have to
face each of these issues and develop some kind of solution. Because the
nature of that solution will reflect the biases of the founders and
current leaders, the prior experiences of group members, and the actual
events experienced, it is, therefore, likely that each organizational
culture will be unique, even though the underlying issues around which it
is formed will be common.3
At the theoretical level one can ask whether, as organizations grow
and evolve, there is an inherent cultural trend such as one sees in
developing societies from more of a comunity, personal type of system to
more of a bureaucratic, impersonal type of system. Once we study a larger
number of organizations we can determine whether or not there are
overarching causal determinants of organizational cultures such as the
nature of the technology underlying the organization, the age of the
organization, the size of the organization, the nature of the parent
culture within which the organization evolves, and so on.
-13-
- .r "'-, b' .. " ' . • ,, '% -
-
5. Worked well enough to be considered valid
The crucial difference between what is being defined here as
organizational culture and what has previously been thought of as the
norms or values of a group is that culture is a more ultimate outcome,
based on repeated success and a gradual process of coming to take things
for granted. To me what makes something "cultural" is this "taken-
for-granted" quality which makes it virtually undiscussable.
Culture is perpetually being formed in the sense that there is
constantly some kind of learning going on about how to relate to the
environment and to manage internal affairs. But this ongoing process
should not be confused with the already existing outcomes, those things
which are so thoroughly learned that they come to be a stable element of
the group's life. The basic assumptions which make up an organization's
culture serve the secondary function of stabilizing much of the internal
and external environment for the group, a stability which is sought as a
defense against the anxiety which comes with uncertainty and confusion.
6. Taught to new members
Because culture serves the function of stabilizing the external and
internal environment for an organization, it must be taught to new
members. It would not serve its function if every generation of new
members could bring in new perceptions, language, thinking patterns and
rules of interaction. For culture to serve its function it must be
perceived as correct and valid, and if it is perceived that way, it
automatically follows that those perceptions, etc. must be taught to
newcomers.
~-14-
. -,- *"
-
But we know that new members bring in new ideas and produce culture
change. It remains to be settled empirically whether and how this
happens. For example, does the new member have to be socialized first and
accepted into a central and powerful position before that person can begin
to change things, or do new members bring in new ways of perceiving,
thinking, feeling, and acting which produce immediate changes (Schein,
1971)? Is the manner in which new members are socialized influential in
determining what kind of innovation they will produce (Van Maanen &
Schein, 1979)? Much of the work on innovation in organizations is
confusing because it is not clear whether the elements that are considered
as "new" are new elements of the culture, or simply new versions of old
cultural assumptions. And what makes it difficult to be clear about this
is the fact that we have not had clear ways of specifying what the present
culture of an organization is.
To summarize, if culture provides the group members with a paradigm
of how the world "is," it goes without saying that such a paradigm would
be passed on without question to new members. It is also the case that
the very process of passing on the culture provides an opportunity for
testing, ratifying, and reaffirming it. For both of these reasons, the
process of socialization, i.e. the passing on of the group's culture, is
strategically an Important process to study if one wants to decipher what
the culture is and how it might change (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979).
7. Perceive, think and feel
The final element in the definition reminds us that culture is
pervasive and ubiquitous. The basic assumptions which we make about
nature, humanity, relationships, truth, activity, time and space cover
-15-
-I II I r - . . . . . . . , . . . .. . . . ,
-
virtually all of human functioning. This is not to say that any given
organization's culture will have developed to the point of "controlling"
all of its members' perceptions, thoughts, and feelings; what I am trying
to say is that the process of learning to manage the external and internal
environment does involve all of the cognitive and emotional elements so
that as cultural learning progresses, more and more of the person's
responses will become involved. The longer we have lived in a given
culture, and the older that culture is, the more it will influence our
perceptions, thoughts, and feelings.
By focusing on perceptions, thoughts, and feelings I am also making
a statement about the importance of those categories relative to the
category of overt behavior. Can one speak of a culture in terms of just
the overt behavior patterns one observes? My view is that the culture is
manifested in overt behavior, but that the idea of culture goes deeper
than behavior. Indeed, the very reason for elaborating an abstract notion
like "culture," is that we find it too difficult or lacking in credibility
to try to explain what goes on in organizations if we stay at the
descriptive behavioral level.
Or, to put it another way, behavior is, to a large extent, a joint
function of what the individual brings to the situation and the
situational forces which are, to some degree, unpredictable. If we want
to know what portion of what the individual brings to the situation is
acultural" as opposed to idiosyncratic or situational, we must look into
that individual's pattern of perceiving, thinking about, and emotionally
reacting to various situations. It is how individuals define situations
that leads us to the cultural components, not what they, in the end, do in
the situation.
-16-
-
Implications for the Study of Organizational Culture
Organizational culture as defined here is difficult to study. It is
not as difficult as studying a different society where language and
customs are so different that one needs to live in the society to get any
feel for it at all. Organizations exist in a parent culture, and much of
what we find in them is derivative from the assumptions of the parent
culture. The problem of deciphering a particular organization's culture,
then, is more a matter of surfacing assumptions which we will be able to
recognize once they are surfaced. We will not find alien forms of
perceiving, thinking, and feeling if the investigator Is from the same
parent culture as the organization being investigated' On the other hand,
the particular pattern of assumptions which has here been called an
organization's cultural paradigm will not reveal itself easily because it
is so taken for granted.
How then do we gather data and decipher the paradigm? There are
basically four approaches which should be used in combination with each
other:
1) The process and content of socialization of new members. By
interviewing socialization agents and new members both in an open-
ended, and a focused manner around external adaptation-internal
integration issues, one can identify some of the important areas of the
culture. But some elements of the culture will not be revealed to
newcomers, hence cannot be discovered by this method.
2) Analysis of the responses to critical incidents in the
organization's history. By constructing a careful "organizational
biography" from documents, interviews, and perhaps even surveys of present
and past key members, it is possible to identify the major times of
-17-
-
culture formation. For each crisis or incident identified it is then
necessary to determine what was done, why it was done, and what the
outcome was. In such a biography of the organization one would then look
for the major themes in the reasons given for actions taken.
3) Analysis of the beliefs, values, and assumptions of founders,
current leaders, and others identified as "culture creators or carriers."
Such interviews should initially be open-ended chronologies of each
person's own history in the organization, his or her goals, modes of
action, and assessment of outcomes. The list of external and internal
issues can be used as a checklist later in the interview to cover areas
more systematically.
4) Joint exploration and analysis between outsider and insider of
anomalies or puzzling features observed or uncovered in interviews. It is
this Joint inquiry process that will surface basic assumptions and permit
the exploration of how they might interrelate, and thus form, the cultural
paradigm. The insider must be a culture carrier, and be interested in
surfacing his or her own basic assumptions to test whether or not they are
cultural prototypes. This process works best if one works from
observations which puzzle the outsider or which seem like anomalies,
because assumptions are most easily surfaced through being contrasted to
the assumptions which the outsider would initially hold about what is
observed.
The first three methods mentioned above should enhance and
complement each other, though none is necessary, so long as one of the
others has covered all of the external adaptation and internal integration
issues. If one is interested in surfacing the assumptions and eventually
-18-
-
deciphering the paradigm, the fourth method is necessary in that the
insider can only get at his or her own cultural assumptions with the help
of the outsider's probing and searching (Evered & Louis, 1981).
If a given organization's culture is not well developed, or if the
organization consists of important stable subgroups which have developed
subcultures, one must modify the above methods to allow for those
phenomena to show up (Louis, 1981). For example, the organizational
biography might reveal that the organization is at a certain point in its
life cycle, and one may hypothesize about the functions that the culture
plays at that point in the life cycle (Schwartz & Davis, 1981; Kimberly &
Miles, 1981).
Summary and Conclusions
In this paper I have attempted to lay out a formal definition of
organizational culture which derives from a dynamic model of learning and
group dynamics. The definition highlights that culture is always in the
process of formation and change, tends to cover all aspects of human
functioning, is learned around the major issues of external adaptation and
internal integration, and comes to be embodied ultimately as an
interrelated, patterned set of basic assumptions which deal with ultimate
issues such as the nature of humanity, human relationships, time, space,
and the nature of reality and truth itself.
If we are to decipher a given organization's culture we must use a
complex interview, observation, and joint inquiry approach in which
selected members of the group work with the outsider to surface the
initially unconscious assumptions which are hypothesized to be the essence
of the culture. I believe we need to study a large number of organizations
-19-
~ . .
-
by these methods, using similar kinds of variables, in order to determine
the utility of the concept of organizational culture and in order to be
able to relate cultural variables to other variables such as strategy,
organizational structure, and, ultimately, organizational effectiveness.
If such studies show this model of culture to be a useful one, one
of the major implications will be that our theories of organizational
change will have to give much more attention to the opportunities and
constraints which organizational culture provides. Clearly if culture is
as powerful as I am arguing here it will be easy to make interventions
which are congruent with present assumptions, and very difficult to make
changes which are not. As Schwartz and Davis (1981) point out,
organizational change proposals need to be assessed in terms of the degree
to which they are counter-cultural and managers need to learn how to make
those assessments. The understanding of organizational culture would then
become integral to the process of management itself.
-20-
-
FOOTNOTES
I. This paper was prepared for the special issue of the
Administrative Science 2uarterly on "Culture and Organization
Studies." The research on which the paper is based was supported by
the Chief of Naval Research, Psychological Sciences Division (Code
453), Organizational Effectiveness Research Programs, Office of
Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia, 22217, under Contract Number
N00014-80-C-0905, NR 170-911.
Special thanks go to my colleagues Lotte Bailyn, John Van
Maanen, and Meryl Louis for helping me to think through this murky
area, and to Gibb Dyer, Barbara Lawrence, Steve Barley, and Mary Nur
whose research on organizational culture has begun to establish the
utility of these ideas.
Many people's writings have influenced this line of thinking,
but, in order to keep the flow of the paper, I have put references
to their work only in a few key places. A more complete account of
these ideas and their implication with more thorough documentation
is currently in preparation in book form.
2. An application of these ideas to the study of organizations
across cultures, as contrasted with the culture of organizations can
be found in Evan (1976, Ch. 15). Other studies of cross-ci tural
comparisons are not reviewed in detail here, e.g., Hofstede, 1980;
England, 1975.
-21-
-
3. An important area of Investigation as we study many different
organizations will be to determine whether the deeper paradigms
which eventually arise in each organizational culture are also
unique or whether they will fit into certain categories such as
those which the typological schemes suggest. For example, Randy
(1978) describes a typology based on Harrison's work (1972) which
suggests that organizational paradigms will revolve around one of
four basic issues - I) personal connections, power and politics;
2) role structuring; 3) tasks and efficiency; or 4) existential
here and now issues.
-22-
-
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. The Executive Mind and Double-Loop Learning.
Organizational Dynamics, Autumn 1982, 5-22.
Bales, R.F. Interaction Process Analysis. University of Chicago
Press, 1950.
Dyer, W.G., Jr. Culture in Organizations: A Case Study and Analysis.
Sloan School of Management, MIT, Working Paper #WP 1279-82, 1982.
England, G.W. The Manager and His Values. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger,
1975.
Evan, W.M. Organization Theory. New York: Wiley, 1976.
Evered, R. and M.R. Louis Alternative Perspectives in the
Organizational Sciences: "Inquiry from the Inside" and "Inquiry from
the Outside." Academy of Management Review, 1981, 6, 385-395.
Hall, E.T. The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday, 1959.
Handy, C. The Gods of Management. London: Penguin, 1978.
Harrison, R. How to Describe Your Organization. Harvard Business
Review, Sept.-Oct., 1972.
Hebb, D.O. The Social Significance of Animal Studies. In Lindzey, G.
Handbook of Social Psychology, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1954.
Rofstede, G. Culture's Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1980.
Homans, G. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1950.
Kimberly, J.R. & R.H. Miles The Organizational Life Cycle.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1981.
Kluckhohn, F.R. & F.L. Strodtbeck, Variations in Value Orientations.
Evanston, IL: Row Peterson, 1961.
-23-
-
Louis, M.R. A Cultural Perspective on Organizations. Human Systems
Management, 1981, 2, 246-258.
Martin, J. & C. Siehl Organizational Culture and Counter-Culture:
General Motors and DeLorean. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Graduate School of Business, 1981.
Merton, R.K. Social Theory and Social Structure. Rev. ed. New York:
Free Press, 1957.
Menzies, I.E.P. A Case Study in the Functioning of Social Systems as
a Defense Against Anxiety. Human Relations. 1960, 13, 95-121.
Parsons, T. The Social System. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1951.
Pettigrew, A.M. On Studying Organizational Cultures. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 1979, 24, 570-581.
Rice, A.K. The Enterprise and its Environment. London: Tavistock,
1963.
Sanday, P.R. The Ethnographic Paradigm(s). Administrative Science
Quarterly, 1979, 24, 527-538.
Schein, E.H. Coercive Persuasion. New York: Norton, 1961.
Schein, E.H. & W.G. Bennis Personal and Organizational Change Through
Group Methods. New York: Wiley, 1965.
Schein, E.H. The Individual, The Organization, and The Career: A
Conceptual Scheme. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1971, 7,
401-426.
Schein, E.H. Personal Change Through Interpersonal Relationships.
In W.G. ennis, J. Van Maanen, E.H. Schein, & F.I, Steele, Essays in
Interpersonal Relationships. Homewood, IL: Dorsey, 1979.
Schein, EdH. Does Japanese Management Style Have a Message for American
Managers? Sloan Management Review, 1981, 23, 55-68.
-24-
I
-
Schwartz, H. & S.M. Davis Hatching Corporate Culture and Business
Strategy. Organizational Dynamics, Summer 1981, 30-48.
Trist, E.L. & Bamforth, K.W. Some social and psychological consequences
of the long-wall method of coal getting. Human Relations, 1951, 4,
1-38.
Van Maanen, J. & Schein, E.H. Toward a theory of organizational
socialization. In Staw, B. (ed.). Research in Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 1. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1979.
Van Maanen, J. The Self, the Situation, and the Rules of
Interpersonal Relations. In W.G. Bennis, J. Van Maanen, E.H.
Schein, & F.I. Steele, Essays in Interpersonal DynaMics. Homewood,
IL: Dorsey Press, 1979.
Weick, K.E. Cognitive Processes in Organizations. In Staw, B.
(ed.) Research in Organizational Behavior, 1979, 1, 41-74.
-25-
-
Table 12
Basic Underlying Assumptions Around Which Cultural Paradigms Form
1. The Organization's Relationship to its Environment: Reflecting
even more basic assumptions about the relationship of humanity to nature,
one can assess whether the key members of the organization view the
relationship to be one of dominance, submission, harmonizing, finding an
appropriate niche, and so on.
2. The Nature of Reality and Truth: The linguistic and behavioral
rules which define what is real and what is not, what is a "fact," how
truth is ultimately to be determined, and whether truth is "revealed" or
"discovered;" basic concepts of time as linear or cyclical, monochronic
or polychronic; basic concepts of space as limited or infinite, communal
or individual property, etc.
3. The Nature of Human Nature: What does it mean to be "human,"
and what attributes are considered intrinsic or ultimate? Is human nature
good, evil or neutral? Are humans perfectible? Theory X or Theory Y?
4. The Nature of Human Activity: What is the "right" thing for
humans to do, based on the above assumptions about reality, the
environment, and human nature; is it right to be active, passive,
self-developmental, fatalistic, etc.? What is work and what is play?
5. The Nature of Human Relationships: What is considered to be
the "right" way for people to relate to each other, to distribute power
and love? Is life cooperative or competitive, individualistic, group
collaborative or communal, based on traditional lineal authority, law, or
charisma, etc.?
-26-
-
Table 2
The Problems of External Adaptation and Survival
1. Developing consensus on the primary task, core missiontor manifest
and latent functions of the group, eogo,strategy.
2. Developing consensus on goals, such goals being the concrete
reflection of the core mission.
3. Developing consensus on the means to be used in the accomplishment
of the goals, e.g., division of labor, organization structure, reward
system, etc.
4. Developing consensus on the criteria to be used in measuring how
well the group is doing against its goals and targets, e.g., information
and control systems.
5. Developing consensus on remedial or repair strate&ies as the group
finds the need because it is not accomplishing its goals.
-27-
-
Table 3
The Problems of Internal Integration
1. Common language and conceptual categories - if members cannot
communicate with and understand each other, a group is impossible by
definition.
2. Developing consensus on group boundaries and criteria for inclusion
and exclusion - one of the most Important areas of culture is the shared
consensus on who is in and who is out and by what criteria one determines
membership.
3. Consensus on criteria for the allocation of power and status
every organization must work out its pecking order and its rules for how
one gets, maintains, and loses power; consensus on how one manages one's
feelings of aggression.
4. Consensus on criteria for intimacy, friendship, and love - every
organization must work out its rules of the game for peer relationships,
for relationships between the sexes, and for the manner in which openness
and intimacy are to be handled in the context of managing the
organization's tasks.
5. Consensus on criteria for allocation of rewards and punishments
every group must know what its heroic and sinful behaviors are, what gets
rewarded with property, status, power, and what gets punished in the form
of withdrawal of the above and, ultimately, excommunication.
6. Consensus on ideology and "religion" - every organization, like
every society, faces unexplainable and inexplicable events which must be
given meaning so that members can respond to them and avoid the anxiety of
dealing with the unexplainable and uncontrollable.
-28-
-
FIGURE 1. The Levels of culture
and their Interaction.
LEVELS OF CULTURE
AnTimuCs, CREATIONS
TECHNOOGY - VISIBLE BUT OFTENART NOT DECIPHERT LEVISIBLE AND AUDIBLE
BEHvIOR PATTERNS
VALUES - 6REATER LEVEL OFAVAIENESS
BASIC ASSUWPTIONS
RELATION IP TO - TAKEN FOR 6BANTE]EvIRONNENT - INVISIBLE
NATURE OF REALITY, - PRE-CONSCIOUSTIM., AND SPACE
NATURE OF HuAN ATUM
NATURE Of HUMAACTIVITY
NATURE OF %OMNRELATIONSHIPS
-29-
-
I.- 1-. 892-a - .P
C, 0 ac 0 P
-p .4 - Z 6eb A .0 PC C2 2lI n W ( n O
_j CI 4j -2 C11 -j - C
W 1. w a 2 of L. 2 0%011 It 2.K0 O4 CA KL 91ico. 4L *.A 1. :i. .Ia. I u 0
U A 91-I all Ls 4 4.) A 4 L0 .4 u4 C. MI 0 aw L-ii ., - Cd .4 5.. .d La * Li w 714 0
4Cda. i t6'4.J P~ 4AJI Cd Q(JJ IT 2p P4Cd.9)* a au esI m8) Li P iJ n I I. .4i .4 M ms-nAjd O.
.nWa .42 1 10 :: 42- e nL 20 L: - L0. . (L A L c: LI .0
-0 r a -c C 2(9 -j Z) i- on u 2 r K.T'L W2 I L I 71-4 LJI i - L) 2 4 I I. It n C. -A
.4( 20 7 L)4 7%- A ou54- A a n00 'Ad L30 -4'f 200 6iI 0 0 ad Eb -11p 2
CLi UJ4 uJ*I.K 2 LJ 4 CZ.I 4 Ii a
0W~~~hJ~~~h.4 ~~ C3,Z .4., .5.J 51 ~ .. 4.X C.iM -054 )11
Z- a 1-J-C W a r %
Z 2 2 42. A2-0
(V 40 PC 2 . 2K b Li (4- a
. 1 -, _j -A 0 Kd -4 y LA V.e .2V c .
2 1 2i 4.1 2 * ~ 24u 0 -A 2 -4 1, 0 . 1. 0 .4 (0 9 i 6 -I0
.1?~~ ~ . 2 .. 2 - C .4 - 1 9g.8il 45V ~ 2.1 1.200 Ui ~cc. 00.f.. mD l 1 or4 1-0 -.4 4 sa
42 Z cO CZ X-- 2a C-) 29 a. 49
- ~ ; -~Li. '- -.L j .g -K . C.. LJC~ 4.~iPL~ 46 -1. 9LJW mL 1 -4 iW .8 1.Jw -96JM 31c c- L..4 J 61LJ "1..5
U5.1 6: 14.w 4- i&ai.4 J40i5 2:ii~4 .4 C ) =5-W .. 8 ILICf _ . . .. 1i2Lu - j- . 1.LLi ~ .L l. stj , .164 OLIZ4
A ~ ~ L u L4V i 9 Q V ' 9 ju' i . j2
4 b 41
II~ 114 4 3 2- 2L
Co 0- a. 'Ia a 44 44 h
01 10 C4£ )2 4 0 LO P) 6. ~i -m ca--K 4.4 2 C 4242 Cd. 4Cd..42 ae w24 .9 11 C L1 C
19,1462 es .1.I V, 0 p a V 21j.J .4 6)
4 360.9 0 (2 2 L - * O0.2 It 94 '4 0 cCV)' L I j1 0 22 4 22
Li2.. 24~.C.i 2.i ~ .. Z.4. La 42a, 4Is109 LI6 e2 Is 202 K% 20a 30 20 .0 .2 5.
(46 to 29 P- ) Q00 x 6 230 caA a , a 0.4 a2002 " 2 i0( LI 412a: 0 w L w or a 54 o 4 L .4 go 2..Li " .4 27;.. u .2K WLLI 2.4 -
I&. 'a 66 2 ta 16 .0 ou VC 4l CD P 4 -M ~ '*I 2Ws 4 i . a .l .9 L., 14WS ".h - -14 wQ 2U I- 2 C Ia. . T. *OiJ 1 1 A.2J rta @a A, I . a C j I0A I- I 'a j C a0. C. 1.0 .
4? -4 9- 4 ~.6 4 4 .4 -6 w0- ps-9 .4 4tj o_ W-9 _ 4W .4 4Ao. AK. MI. 3 ( e 44i.# ev r WC t( 194545)15 .919 101 % A (94(5555 (44 '81 4 (9 50 I 2oint
- .:go- -
-
42 en4) jW j
* a OL. 24JW . .1
. -W 0. -N 0 4 'A ca . 3(Xe. ".31165i .12 wlA to 0 &n W E . e n. .W~a n 4A8 4&A 0. 4L VB 4. w8 6) (O 10W*r t A 3 tat ., C', 0 z. ca /1. 2.U lopf 2(5 ... on .e, Coe.4 4an UP..
U. wu w0 2 Cm0. 93 20. .4, C J.,. egs a.N o & C
Li - 4 0 -9 t 4 6 ~ L .18 1.4 it aA C2 (Ad Z N96L., CJ' -. * a8 to 2. CL -j LI 2
Co hi 19 1, aa B f - en. . UP v a- n n 0 6.2-i
.. I., F A 1.-f P9 -40 U.P w- f A -4 a8 s-" 0.A
C2 6.:7 2( 9-2 cy n3 4. Ae' mCY W .2'r85. .Jr (5 z .- . "1 4 :P .W. w (2 BS..4 w I A.2 .44C Pj NP F3.2
L w - 0 Cd No0. .1 0
44na .4 8Z~ B. Z0'. ft- Wt V)( t-4 f 'a-~ M. U.6. S.J -A S..-fl CA 4A ~ /U .(A'A4-9 0 IB.N.-1 :I= uLa en.a .) 0TC 4 0 4q4La1*VU 0 le CA 4 004 x -9 m -
CIO ~~ u U.6- b-M'V~~ x z 0w -
%nW- . C2 0I N8. -4 u. 7 Y
* WIN hi -9 i 609 4 L.s I- 3:4 ul 44 Wccg4 0 .X I' WP8 ac4 ((8 .. v 0 & e "J .iCCA '
w UA 18-W U. z 4 tI: BU, al .4.x Li 1- 4A 04- E B84 w.la U CA~h 2.
C 3 u5 a.Z.' 9 a0N Q~ U. -4 u0 hi
Li VP53 Ldt. C.-0 ~ 2 - .
0- W22'.J I0 LU Ba- a:4Z orJ C. b-..8 03. 0j0d
.12(248X z' *a.4.l .. s-0.C CCI o-C. ~ :2 n-0 C 24 .022C- 4 4 4 L BA I. .0 1.8 ki .7 c-1 0 el or .9 e ir V) v 4, 4r 8? 0 2044 28
a f , o .--' O 03. - C CAN :0zz z- --:2 : .20 . 2 LAN A-C3UZUP1.z"a 02
-9-WCA-Won ta 11 tCI ta O N 1 I W-9c V . g 91 0 1. - C .
3co - AU8.a B.1 23 5.
P. 4 A In -4
4 &44 60 z(1 n/8I.EC' 0 .3P42 04 -9 c a.1or.40.-1 -4 .4 4 S.21 4 C4 0..1 -0N (.( Li Ab ItN- m"
Oz. z.4 US W40 is -A c% to,.2 U 6 i W. 0 z l. -A2. 0 01 C. Ui uj/Li 04 c. a .0 42 1Ba 0 21-a4
z Ae Z4 i.58 20 .2 B-: A. 2
-iS 5. . . j~ 4 M a- ,J. Q 'r a: to (0UAf -0.- %Aat IdB..J8 - U. & a9-f- 4 2 LIN A.t do:4fa
c, C' .5S( (A. . CON 02 % 55 91) es Pi P v 8 0M w B2 -R.2%(0 n0 A I. A8 PB5 B.4 8.8Z 0. *3 D.Wh 8. .4 0 rl.w 0- 4 8 N2 ! : on I4.1~~~1 -N 0 U * - 8B . *A.. 5 Cl-e0 J .4 #
a NC=--6u a,48 0 8 .4 8CI 4~- 0- 88I 4U*C
AN, Is ON M Ol f.%i to 1, ~ '. ~ ' % . . 00 o t
-
14 w u 0 x4 -9 a2z
W 49 0 is o 401 Wi aw
elU WKI, ,a Ge 4p.1""= 0u 0 $-8 -A-ra4. at 0 0 C2tUs" 4.504.b-0 4-3.40 7p .3W. m6 de
e .hi zhift v .9 onth .6 ; CAZ .6Ir C - 41 IJIZO .-. .9 1.6 w3 I3 or or 43 V* 1., 6.6 a Alf -S -.n 3 )4%4
A" i I e m 404.0 -C 'a1 ff UsE &- S.-
0 I -- 1 - wl L z~W U to L.,I t m5 Is. u 4 .~.6.6 w IC6454 CD 9f de L hi U4 L Ww. .4 cER of.: 31
-. 3 s. ..i 4-6.0 Li Go - L I O 3-0 A rb4 as0 W 3(40, 92 CA6 nR w 7. V)n. 'm .A6f
C, w c a 6 - o 02 (A4 20 at 4-4 0 e2 0.3 K 0 2 P7 0a 2. 7
Ge1,.60 Cj - 04..& .. e.Z 4 3. 2- z .61 034 034 z* 04 ~ .- 4-.13 . 6-4. .. LV.4 3. C 3 -!;
4.1.64.144.5.6~ ~ -. 4..66 .44G.4 WI CLJ ..64 1W4. -C%~2.74 a-. 77 IR 74 4 -C0 0r I0 . ci K. (IT Z.
w8 z
w 6 A6 46'.UsW9 44 u .
z i .J 4- .I Li %A". a- nA a4 404!)s: C0 J l .6 w hi4 L, 4.4 c 0 rv z U I U -LI 4.6 (4zcc.
I- 44* -a ism" 4c I" C3 % or 4~t- 0v
64 -C~ -i L. ai W0 h. a r u Us
Li 4-0 K1- 0% It.6 4h4 C',W
V, a o i. Vr 2 P.4 .6- 6.4 $-3 r wis V- (1.cc
00 -9 -11 * - w 4 6 ... 6U A-.0RC.JO4.!4 4.j A 0 -4 49 t- 3w 0 cc P .4 IO ; h .-
-j w w. g U . 0 C. 3 CL 1. .0 4r~ U3 04.. ahzI - cwmv
- 14, 4 4 .4 -j W 4L 0JO In-~ 67h 4 .74 . 08 4) ;e A4 -
(.~4-A4,.- Co0.0 ' - (2 2 v-4 - 0)..3 -.1 - CA .. 4.0 94 I i 1 4 4 1-4.14 is.W - 0 n U.44-9P (. M. I.4
40%t4 K0 24C R
aB0. 1.
hi 0 U0 0 Er 4IS0 0 hila
U3 44I z4 W 0 A4 i4
.944 op414 0 41, U6 %a 4 %.a ". UU a S. C. It ER @- 4ER I. hi r La 0 560is6
-- 4 40U ra ..h4 4-0 a, .0 or5 40 VI -At- . t A CY s- 3 a, -9 Ka( Z UU w
Ir -9 u6 - 6%
~40 j. 00 0 .541 a gEC &a a.1) U .544g.4 40 %91,C0 - 00.14 4-444. 40WUsI . hi .10 awW4.0 toRI w7444.f 4 46 m 1 0do. & 4.1 awwI v..54 W or 04b rt
02 z 14-2 2o "d *44 2%0. n4 c CA m.~
H v -.61-C 9L.~d- I374 NO11 W .W l- 324c4 04- 0 4.1544 ..- 0 .a.6 . 0- -4 .4 m. C's 01g60J
4aL t1 45 3 4 JIs2 %f o- 0 wIPI 0wt -.6E A* 4 14 40, o% 3o 0 7-.1 w t4-4f
* @ 0 * - '' ~ ' o'4
-
Li 2. 4.1 4 G0
KK 42L 4. f
L., C., U.L)=
'A a! IL 0 a,4j .6 C2u 0 :
go 4. a La n840.9 ua 0 1.1-4A at0 ri W O -4
--j
-3 3 : . 1 Se C 5 L a C D 4 0 O f j
.:r cm -W A I-. ;p * C411
W ,4 . t o C Y Ai z z Z-C E .4 Lt tIA -
IIu W. ZU4 OrD nIuW.W C A 4 - .8 M-u.
La. 'm 'n w u Du UU P20L
oarw~~~~ -9 ~ ia e..4P
fa 2.44
u.. 0 1 "4 P 19 0 z9 L x.
P.8 1. In 46.) .2.Zw
3cP 4N4. IAe 2c. 01. zW x 10 L. Li, 1
-2 V4 0001t .4.,4 &4 J tmi ..* 0.8W
C4l2A~ u30 A 0'.OOG f-P LL.- 'A~U ev0.
9-2 a-w3" 44w .2A LLL aWL
2-4 42 M. w8 41I
iLi
V! XI cce 0 -j .89
.,j~('4 i4.'20 .11* 0 LPO 0 UPP *.1c
L2 . C, LP 4W8- w - t--L .g --.. 2LiL (La_. Li (j
.4 ;j4~ a~ (1 02f4 C1 4a.Ll
ZP W.8 0 w CtV z 4 J.t..)-A20
LA~~T V. cl
20 . 0 . .h 9 4 5 4 .T9 t** 4)
.1 wa L5J4 1. 1"Z ~ ~ l...
C'~~ I4 42 .4Z.1Ai210..C- 1 L' i i4 14 tI00 a
61 43j1 aw! 36 3k
Z -"1 it"4.c L 6-f00 W01La cc z U
1. t@. 49 2.
K~~~ La0. 26. 9 i044)04.0 .0. .8 A
.P.
%J 8- wu...4 LiO 42 USi 2.4 4
ff4 to 01) or04 14( 'AA3.8.~ a-K .Z '9 4 ,
m 1 I Z .4 'I 6A41 .J4 -1 *t2 f-. - 4
AD1 SW iP54 .6 .4 90 ' 3G Wi.E - 4.4 0!
or *0 6* .2 2W z Go* .2 0 -4 4 * 2w-
g8 19 X ..
0 0~.
pm)
-
ini
-A 0 0I4~ CI :)
I. -. *W 24 C, J1
Ur wV 401 1- -nK
W. CCi 4Gi -AJ- b- w
LAe 6- C3 24 a 0 2
on w1 61 af -'aI
8K * 2 0
fia. C f119w 2! .11 u-- A0 w4 --
IS I CA O
00.1 .9 2 s u La. 7U co) w0 CL 4 o- w
LI c 04 91C cl u4 4. PC 1 70.
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q &, t A41.. l s.5.-0 IV n ~ a-)-EI~ IA 0- -A C.1 mAP
0 LitJ Z4 L UP p 1L 7 * 8 - LiU
4 - 1 f
a p ~ C ML A $ A l.) .0 C ) 0 e -r L A I 2 0 C , L A L- 0- *4 0
(11.1Wa. W -3C'- 6JI2 V.I.J 00 .Wz0 7
.4
CA U. A 'A C
91 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V -1P 91 laL - n 7wa.I .L
on S.
4v -C -*
41- aP1 n%
u1 LA 3- 1: - -Aa z-0~~~~~L IA Li 408 -0 .4
P10 P
*~2 nA LA -r (A1 T- . 10 -C 41L
P1 .j~5C 40 0 1.c -r .A .8 .1 ~ ~ 4 5
-W 3 &A I's107 In~ f CA -Wri a 1 Z04 I.IZ
* 2 ~~ -A -4. 4 * C. -9 u -A r ~ 1 .L .. A '.~00 2j .10-0 11a-= . 4
CA 411- O..0 't . 4.JI
U zi~~ c 2. --148 j ii.
0 -9 w.I a Car CC 41 0 It Ki w10~ j W2~J
a-. . c
P, Li £w 001- .*1 CONLi3 .1 AZ.x 4E Ix4 0 ~ .elf
w 3.
n 0m In
to, CA 0 intow n-
I'l CL $- 494
A.4 AA .3 &a 0 i1m-40
gm me I4.1.
Id~~~ LA N A 3W4 3P- 0. 34 %a u-
A2 me VU C' - oz %.Io-4w 4 04 - IILIc
ZF 4 3," e-4 COO- 20 vA 0 -j W08 ca4 -h a
*4p * 2I cc- 'A 0 20 a4 .U T CU !
4 ~I 08 0 04 S-0 :2 1-4 ;Lr o i4 _v I -dw 0j z401
u* 4TjC I P001 . 4 0
4 a 01 vo0( 0SI1P11 'AI,*04 05. 1 i 441
P - 1 .-91 11 4 m1 - . . W U WW -4O 2 Z0 0 n A dc
- I4 12 SF5 3W2L1% -V e.8 2-LA Ir O..RO n4I
to106 as42 %#0u0410V O -b O I 3 01-l I5IL11V
lJ1-o cN2.2 ~ 4J4 WL4WL-IJf~ 1.-1 414
4l~,b Ii&1*~~ WV~41.foow-V
-
LL. En
all 3-
6.94 09 " 4co.
4w PM anr-( c -i GA 0'A x 0 4 em C, I- 4 cc 9 0 42.. E a dy IJ ' . -A C W 3,
- En Aa a-a (A 4. L nW. 19 3. 9 L3 .1 ( 4- . 2 1
.#
19..5 k" it - nC " 09 . W. u. W .. 3 V-9icc71 . 9 W)U 2- . L .3 9 C2 'w7-C 0, 7--a . a.-1.1 L"I . -W A 00 -.W1 Li uJ ni 0 m -e
6. a .. I- -aCw 044 C, m .9 0w6a 40. 1.9C2 z 1. c. d 6 2! a- CD 1 _j. . rh oe
F..t -V. t-. X~ a- Ui C' 2oCC 00 C 60 L4 A4 o 06C2 m ) a n L C C Oe'% 72 19. c- 7 -t 44 . P-
-W -a I 2W9.3 0 -9 m.4 w4 6 4 W4 9- v ' z X ., *On
cc 42
21 3-U U. i9- ~- a at -
o :) m - 9C U.
Z M -n x- x- ?. )- C
%a 2 ai de ca - :;1-S9' e9.*L Li a C2 P. Cz -a -. LA9
LiL 04 4z -W 49WL 0 'a 11 3-- P 4ow 4 "a .14 Vs M.Qi 0 z 44 r-. -I C W) 9 .
U4 -- 4 0, Li m u- ai 1-4 t5E -
5U4 LL.9 -96 oa, A0 40 :" . -6.1 60 to w ~ .8 . 2 .* ; 9- 5: UW %Pd1 1 .ji
6.64 4 76 4.J6& 6rn- El 4 4n6 x-6 Q. 9-9. 66 -9
(01 35W C., 0 0I c -.4 -- a2 C)4 -W u.ZP C-.4(A0L w. C (C J5 -j x C3.1DA r- 40 22AcT a
o* ev-, 1 00 *Z WI n I5 027,4 -S CX t ~ pl 1CW.-, ILEn W tin- r 9- 1J .4 2 o .j
I iA-i =ao-IL V) ix*9 499 .4 74 10 g p0- u-6.-a 9 -669
W) =0.
w I- U 9 Li
- 2, ; 4
.2. Wi 3-i14 z e U. 4 ilW nQO
0.4in998 449-0 j bn . LC4 $.- 42 0 = - 0 r
;-p ft4 En 2 CI .16 (a 1.-(' 9- m0i'cLA.9 de In ccWM-4 zg La 'AL 6*9. - 6A edW .a Li 4 26.8 u=w ww 4 u U "n~ 0i
X44.2- xi 1.5 04 -9L Z4.) =0 14 '4C -a-0.6u 045: * 2-4 j 1a 6-I la2 x- x Zn En M.W
'~~~J *0..i 12 34 2 Aa~i 5 .4 . 7 - .
IL a(6 0 *A q I U.~4 aV)4 0 .4.C ~ ~ a e Go20 Z- 4 1-0. 9-i 04UU1 w .0 -A .96
Ci~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ 'm !: .5. 1 KC iUS5 i4314 .2 0 4 9- C, C ...1 0-4 es 940 0.14 #A5 6- es) r%126wW9W6%90 e%$
mSO 11 & )l Le -a A 4
-
-3 C, '
39 z. 0ow.t
4 - '4 40 CX -c 4n a' .0 'Uv- - u - . . LA CAl C2~
Ae, ~ ~ k 4,.. C4hi .94 0 U ~ 8 .2'AZUt' '4j WI 6z h'sP88~t UA -._ 4 W 2' )(~.i-.~lE'dP b. cr0 ) .. %.Ij '4-8~~3 or.tf =;V A44- d) C ~O t ) '
.8~- d.l tn vs~l4 -Wl4 hi
04 0 -90.4.S8J4
C, cL U7 0h . C2 m ..i 4 0 . . A W 0 4 2 70
AXIZ -Z m44 "7 0. U .- 0 2z 's -c.- 4 P0 P- '4 .d
hi i %C
Lij
z
-4 Li .1 _- 2
a, 0 - s w-
41 .A8 . ) L t
84v W'-L 'A * i
- LaiI 2vz0 CC.. W* .- C' '
W 2 Z 'a '42 CW kn22 I'
02 0 6' .r.* %" 0. 0 4A. Isf.. 4e 4
vi 0 00 0 : .. w a, 84t.0 , 'V x a)-
-9h In dc 40 0~4 2 -10 -9 z hi2 hi CO 12r 0 0020 .x 0W .J 4' aT I 2
I4
1 0 0 *0 i *0CA p i1. - CL...i. O i
7 U. U 4 b Z4L 0.-0*L.C2 .J VU L,.)08 -4.u. .~L 'r0
73 A- COO AhWX V..~ 1-J' 00. 2 0 CI ll'- mW . ~ .L* In S0-0L 4. a...4 C'% ira w
*.n2 sr #A 1 _
0 4 i 00 C)4 L.1 U) 0 84 11. 01 LL CC = 84 haC . 4~h 0-PT47
-.
mtl4~ (0a0. ft Ix -3 VLi) .;n
m --Jx
UL 'A 4 LaZ
'4j ccd - -
hCA O'A 1c.2 '1
0 ei I), C.,£
Z.2V n14 w2Le'4 0048.IWI FfSA n8 -W "DR, ~ 'A
~44 *8i3I C280 C2. 0 * D2Lhit 2-0 1-* 04v W
. .
42 Z aU.J CIAZ~ 02 8..!Z 2.~.
de 3- w~e tjah a20 *P o r-
4. at- o-4 .S. InO3 ~ P8.
"I cm aA &.l 2-3. CA %i 'AJ8 . W CR. L . IA
0~~~I _-2. 2l X4. CA .0 80- 4 2 ) - - 4C~~C @20.
ow= @4D. dig.X p..e -*.8*-C J
02.IA (2.U j 02.4 x1088 a,.20 =4~A- x08-093S at- E 8' 0 9 90''8
%. -c cc U 'j 'U .r
-
6A 2A
all de 2. a IL LL t61i at C4 it ILaa V) .4 4 u
2 0 0. aw aj W de6.5 3'~... 6- a0-4 -Cf
or a2 11 4a4 01 ) 0-IA 0. us 0L2 Cd0
IA01 To m6UV or-ia 9.1. - .(12 0 .. 4.W - C-IN 152 0 O4 -Il
ell - w 02r nrll Z. 4 1.10 re - 0 or
4s-L U - IuiOS LiU 36412 "*I g2c -1 - 0.. .
n 4Q3 -J ~ I V.4 21J -40 cato v 4(j (A - 0 ., * Wb
1.Oc . C* AC WC wa 0 2 0 0z 0 W~ C3 Ll -"TI I 24 .2 CY *4tL u~0 i ziT 0 xL.- 0i x4 ~
wl C, .- *. to -C.4 2 Ctj 31 nZ IN. *u. ?A2 . 0
m CZ. c0 0 .n2 (5 0 V, -Al n 0L 4. -21 0 ~ Li ac 0 U. - 0 4 0 -W 01% wA . a
41
u zP. ca a - ,
6-3 2aI -iCAt4V4atU a La 9 w. Q 4 C.
W .on2 1 - m* 4 i 10 a. P3c La1 M..l no 16. InV)
Li zw a %a 6".- "1
cc(l- i M.1 w4.4 (BC o -. 1 24.1 .4 -to.5 IL wIf 06 .l IV4 u/ .9 a. - .5 4 - Zn (L ifi cl 4. a-.-0 7 -3 fa. -Wax fl
0.1. a .1 7 L War b4 en n I. 1.- 4.44 IA
- m ". I x -.1am .. r-.= 0 n A; to .243 -- Z 01 CatC x&1 .4-U 6jl--c4 W L 011- a: .0 4 w V.4 n3I
ft 0 - --4 *- -7-ct, gL~f C 9 6 at(1 & 0 4q90(.13 90 j r avlp. . II w-rn4. .1 10-e .g MW Go 0. 6,W C n . 46aIL
Z Lw Zo7 .- Q La 1-c x r-IL 4 Q~&a 4.0 0 44 2;. u-3Li
(AUO 1 ( 120 ) 7 - i1 0
IIAI- "
*4 0 . pt 4 -.
W,~~~~~~~~L C._jC4 7 .- 8 AwC .
or1!i T o j* 03- .4 U&, w ztv16. w66It
w -. 4--I A W-i COL'
-
La 9 V .* 9
* 9V) 9 9
3p 9. upg
9L U ..
i dw 0 2pG ;pp9
iC3 1 1%.6- L P.0 I'd0
4 ~ ~ 1 LIb 12 UL ,p9
La .6' L . 61 a U
ia LI0 C.L
.r 0 .. e,,
n. u. Cal * J 9.
-n 9
Y .A- iC V-. w%91
0. 71 vi PS .0 a
a LsC
(A L2 W 9
Le V . WA t- 0-A C, 1. u ca9
0 0r I
Q * 0 0 a z W
4L a- 4 # *
CAC
Ula La N
sw 01 OW. Us9
-1- fA N j ft!. 91s CM" 99
3.2L.- 4.9 3 AU 92 92 0.a.a
.a AL.~L 4. 4P. .2 .6 dl
*U h
.5a 9 9 9 .
!p Z.. 4Z Ah 4P C -S -. .2 q Z 1*
-A- A4 A'
.~.----C CLLlif5 0- 15a4a a a 9
F. or.. Inv .11 rOt W 'm 3Z - P I- F.P.f
~C4 U .3 . ( Lor& d,
-
DATE,
FILMED
.dew
is