PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Vol.

9,357-368 (1989)

Bureaucracy, organization culture and development

TOM FRANKS
University of Bradford

SUMMARY
The first part of the paper discusses the concept of organizational culture and highlights its value as an aid to understanding the way organizations work. Using four basic models of organization culture (power, role, task and person) the paper then goes on to describe a questionnaire survey of cultures in development organizations. The questionnaire required two sets of responses: firstly an indication of preferred organization culture and secondly the respondents perception of the way their organization actually works. Whilst the vast majority of respondents prefer task-orientated cultures, most actually perceive themselves to be operating in a role culture (bureaucracy), whilst a large minority perceives a power (political) culture. These results demonstrate an inherent tension in many peoples working lives. They also indicate the necessity of taking into account the political environment of work when designing training courses; few organizations appear to operate in the rational way upon which many development techniques and practices are posited. In the final part of the paper there is discussion of the need to make a modification to the basic cultural models in order to make them particularly relevant to developing countries.

THE CONCEPT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

It has long been recognized that organizations, like societies, have distinctive cultures within them. The concept of organizational culture has therefore been much studied by theorists. Some of this study has roots in sociology and some in anthropology, though to the non-specialist and practitioner there are more points of similarity than of difference in the two approaches. Ouchi and Wilkins (1985) have provided a good overview of the sociological approaches, whilst Allaire and Firsirotu (1984) analyse the various schools of thought in the anthropological framework. Allaire and Firsirotu see three elements of an organization (Figure 1):its structure, its cultural system and its individual members. Each of these elements affects and is affected by the others, and all are influenced by the culture and political systems of the ambient society, the organizations history (and goals) and contingent factors such as technology and the economic environment. The separateness of the organizations formal structures and its symbolic,affective dimensions (its culture) emphasize the potential for dissonance and tension between them. From their review of the various anthropological insights into organizational culture, Allaire and Firsirotu propound a concept which they label a symbolicideational system. This system puts great emphasis on meaningsshared by organization
Tom Franks is a member of the Development and Project Planning Centre, University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD7 1DP.

0271-2075/89/040357-12$06.00 01989 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

358

T. Franks

( )-< ] =,, =

THE ORGANISATION
7

Individual members

Environment

Society

The organisations goals and history

Figure 1. Elements of organisations

members. Organisations create and sustain systems of symbols which serve to interpret and give meaning to members subjective experience and individual action and to . . . rationalise their commitment to the organisation (Allaire and Firsirotu, 1984,p. 220). According to this school of thought, (organizational) culture is the fabric of meaning in terms of which human beings (organization members) understand their experience and guide their actions. For an alternative but related definition we can turn to Schein, who talks about basic assumptions, rather than meanings.For Schein, culture is a pattern of basic assumptions-invented, discovered or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration-that has 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 relations to those problems (Schein, 1985). The set of basic assumptions that constitute culture is the property of an independently defined stable social unit, and is a learned product of the experience of that group. These assumptions have worked repeatedly in the past in relation to the group experience and have now dropped out of awareness; that is, culture is a subconscious property of the group. Elements of the cultural system include myths, values and ideologies, the most basic of these being the myths (the ritual and lore of the organization) and the values which provide standards for social behaviour. Values are sometimes taken up into a unified system of beliefs which then becomes an ideology. Clearly, many organization members may operate to a common system of values which do not, however, constitute an ideology. The reflections of culture in operation include observed

Bureaucracy and Development

359

behavioural regularities, the feeling or climate of the group, the dominant values and guiding philosophy espoused by the group and the working norms, or rules of the game. Culture does not necessarily include overt behaviour patterns, which may be determined by external factors in a given situation at a particular time.

ORGANIZATION CULTURE AS AN AID TO UNDERSTANDING ORGANIZATIONS

The concept of organization culture has been used as an aid to understanding organizations for trainees at the Development and Project Planning Centre at the University of Bradford, UK. Through a combination of short post-experience courses and a year-long M.Sc, over 200 trainees from developing countries pass through the Centre each year. Typically these trainees are graduates in their mid30s, working in public or parastatal organizations, with backgrounds which range from the rural and agricultural sectors, through infrastructure and industry to development finance organizations. Many have, additionally, a project background-that is, they may be working on a project and sponsored through that project-though the proportion of these in the total number is decreasing as the activities of the Centre widen to take in programme development. Understanding organizations is a very important part of learning for these trainees. All of them will be working in some type of organization-that is in fact about the only working experience that they universally share-and little effort is needed to persuade them that it is impossible to get anything done except by working through the organization. Those who are politically astute will already be aware of this. Those who are technocratically minded would prefer to dismiss the workings of organizations as insubstantial, and concentrate instead on the practice of their techniques and skills. To some extent they use their knowledge of their expertise to shelter themselves from their knowledge of the reality of their working life. Like it or not, even technocrats have to work within their organization to achieve the best results from their competence. For such technocrats the concept of organizational culture widens thinking beyond conventional organigrams and hierarchical structures. Marshall, in a recent perceptive article (1987, p. 181), has drawn a distinction between the skeletons of development training institutions (their structures, techniques and hardware) and their life(their philosophy, values and ways of operating), and emphasizes the importance of the latter to a successful institution. Although Marshall is writing specifically about training institutions, the ideas can be applied equally to the general areas of development and development management. The concept of organizational culture provides a framework by which trainees can begin to understand the organization in and through which they work, which is part of the lifeof development. Culture does not, by itself, provide an answer, though, interestingly, some of our trainees ask the question-which is the best culture?-as though there were a quick fix or technique to be applied which would provide a solution in the way that critical-path methods provide an optimal solution to a scheduling problem. Because there is no bestculture, it would be wholly inappropriate to try to teachorganization culture prescriptively. Rather, sensitivelyused, the concept provides a way for participants to begin to think about their organization. It is, above all, a framework for understanding and learning, and not for teaching.

360

T. Franks
A TAXONOMY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES

Whilst there are many writers on organizational culture, few have been bold enough to provide an overall taxonomy of the types of culture that may be found in organizations. Indeed, many of these writers are working in management studies and use the term corporate culture, thus applying it specifically to a business organization. However, others have pursued a more fruitful line by trying to apply the concept across all types of organizations such as community and health organizations, schools and the like. Thompson and Wildavsky (1986) identified four cultural types:hierarchical collectivism,sects, markets and fatalism, which they postulate categorize most organizational relationships. On a more practical level Harrison (1972) described four ideologieswhichmight be found in different organizations. Handy took up Harrisons ideas and developed them further (Handy, 1983). He used the same names for Harrisons ideologies but changed the word ideologyto culture, thus widening the concept to include the values and myths, the working norms and unwritten rules of the organization, as well as its articulated set of beliefs. In this way, Handy was correctly reflecting the importance of the deep, underlying, often subconscious aspects of culture emphasized in Scheins definition. Handy, following Harrison, presents four models of culture commonly found in organizations. These cultures, power, role, task and person, are described briefly, with Handys very useful symbols, in Figure 2. The first of Handys cultures, the power culture, is the political or entrepreneurial culture, found in those organizations closely associated with a dominant central figure, such as small private companies, trade unions and the like. In this type of organization the central figure is the major source of influence and power. The organization emphasizes the qualities of individuals, rather than roles and positions. There are few rules and procedures. The role culture, by contrast, depends on the strength of its functional specialities (the pillars of the temple). In this bureaucratic type of culture, the role is more important than the individual. Rules and procedures are very important. Role organizations offer security and predictability and are appropriate in stable conditions or where accountability is important. They may be found commonly in public sector organization, such as tax departments. The task culture is job- or project-orientated and emphasizes judgement by results. It is a culture dedicated to fulfilment of specificgoals, to getting things done through the use of appropriate resources. Influence is based on expert power, and there are few rules and procedures. It is a flexible and adaptable team culture (a network), but difficult to control and manage. Typical examples of task cultures are those parts of consultancy organizations which work directly on projects. The last culture, the person culture, is less common in economically based organizations, whether public or private. In this culture the organization exists only for the good of the people within it and there is no superordinate organizational goal. Control and management is by mutual consent. People work in, rather than for, organizations which have a person culture: examples may be found in voluntary organizations and academic groups. While these are useful models with which to begin thinking about organizational culture, it should not be thought that the cultures actually found in an organization are either monolithic or static. Thus there is nearly always more than one type of culture in a particular organization at a given time, and the relative mix and predominance of cultures may well change with time and as the environment of the organization

Bureaucracy and Development

361

CULTURE Power

SYMBOL Web or wheel

DESCRIPTION Control exercised from the centre. Decisions taken on influence rather than procedural grounds Few rules. individual more important than position.

Role

Temple

Organisation rests on functions or specialities. Role more important than individual. Many rules and procedures. Provides security, predictability and accountability. Culture based on fulfillment of specific goals. Free of rules and procedures. Expert power important. Flexible team culture but difficult t o control. Organisation exists for the good of the people within it. No super-ordinate org a n isa ti ona I g oa I .Control and management only by mutual consent.
Organisation cultures

Task

Net

Person

Cluster

. ...
Figure 2.

changes. Many factors affect this process. Amongst those that can be briefly mentioned are age, size, ownership, technology and environment. These, and other aspects of culture, are well described by Handy (1983). The cultural models formulated by Harrison, and further developed by Handy, have the advantage that, by looking beyond corporate culture, they widen the concept sufficiently to address many of the different forms of organizational culture in which our trainees may operate. In particular, the task culture is an appropriate conceptual framework for those who come from a project organization, and, as we shall see later, the power culture may be more widespread in development organizations than many of our development techniques might imply.

362

T. Franks A STUDY OF CULTURES IN DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS

Harrison developed a questionnaire designed to assist peoples understanding of the different models of organizational culture. This questionnaire was modified by Handy, and is given in Understanding Organisations (1983). The questionnaire consists of 15 questions which cover the key aspects of the workings of organizations and the behaviour of people within them, such as motivation, communication, decision-making, the basis of task allocation and the like. It is thus, in its own right, a useful aid to understanding, since it may be, for many people, the first time they have had to think through these important questions in a logical manner. In answering the questionnaire, respondents are asked to make two sets of responses-firstly indicating their own preferred way of working and secondly indicating their perception of the way their organization actually operates. In each case they are asked to rank four alternatives, which correspond to the four cultural models identified by Harrison. This questionnaire has been in use for some time at the Development and Project Planning Centre. However, this has been generally on an ad-hoc basis for an individual session or group of sessions for a particular course. In the academic year 1986/87the questionnaire was administered on a systematic basis to all trainees who came through the Centre in that year. A total of 188valid responses were received out of a population of 230, thus providing fairly comprehensive coverage of that particular group. Table 1gives details of the respondents. It must, of course, be borne in mind that this is not a strongly representative sample of the total population of those working in development organizations, since all of the respondents were attending an overseas training course, and many of them were from a project background. As well as the questionnaire itself, respondents filled in a single sheet of questions concerning themselves, for example age, background, country, educational qualifications, and the organization,
Table 1. Respondentss details Average age Average no. of years in organization Geographical location Caribbean West Africa North-east Africa East Africa Southern Africa South Asia (excluding India) India South-east Asia Pacific Others Total
Type of Organization Public sector Parastatal Private Total

3.5 4.5
No. 7 24 17 32 23 17 29
%

4 13
9

25 7 7
188
14.5 42 1 I88

17 12 9 1.5 13
4 4

100 77 22 1 100

Bureaucracy and Development

363

its age, size, location and type (project/operations/training, etc.). Some revealing insights occurred even during the administration of the questionnaire: for instance some respondents were reluctant to define how the organization appears to work because they believed themselves to be too low down the hierarchy. It was instructive for them to consider that their responses remain valid, whatever their level in the organization. Yet others, those in very senior positions, believe that they are the organization and directly determine its culture, an idea which finds some support amongst organizational theorists (e.g. Schein, 1985). The administration of the questionnaire was supplemented by a programme of interviews with selected respondents. There were nine of these in all, designed to provide a reasonable spread of respondents backgrounds (nationality, age, sector, etc.). Thus interviews were carried out with respondents from Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, India and Indonesia, working in Planning Ministries, Line Ministries, and Integrated Rural Development Projects. These interviews were designed to supplement the formal structure of the questionnaire by eliciting qualitative, more reflective information from the respondents. Typically the interview lasted over an hour, one of its important functions being to allow the respondent time to develop ideas which may be deeply held and not immediately articulated. The often subconsciousnature of organizational culture is an important element of the concept, which the interviews were designed to bring out. In general terms the interview covered the same ground as the questionnaire, seeking information on the respondents background and asking such questions as: What is a good boss? How do people get on in your organization? What motivates you to work?

No attempt was made to review the responses to the questionnaire directly. Rather, the intention was to collect a series of descriptions of particular organizations which would fill out these responses.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STUDY

The 188valid responses were enumerated on a first-past-the-postbasis, in which the respondent ranks all the responses to each question, adds the scores and identifies the single culture with the highest rank overall. The results of this enumeration are given in Table 2. The preferred culture was overwhelmingly the task culture (83 per cent of all respondents), which was by no means unexpected. Trainees who come to the Development and Project Planning Centre are nearly all graduates, and many have some formal professional qualification. The task culture is the professionals culture, appropriate to those who wish to use their skills and expertise to achieve specific tasks. They are attracted by the idea of flexible team working and the value placed on expert power in a task culture. Additionally, many of the respondents in this survey come from project organizations, and therefore are implicitly likely to value a projectorientated culture. The next largest group preferred the role (bureaucratic) culture. In this case it may be the apparent rationality and sense of order which is appealing to the respondents. For both those at the top and the bottom, organizations which

364

T. Franks
Table 2. Results of questionnaire Preferred culture
No.
%

Perceived culture
No.
%

Power Role Task Person Totals

5.5 21 156.5
5

3 11 83 3 100

57.5 99 30.5 1 188

31 53 16

188

100

(appear to) operate to known systematic procedures may be an attractive culture, contributing to a sense of security on the part of respondents and shielding them from a threatening or demanding environment. A small and approximately equal number of respondents preferred the other two cultural models, the power culture and the person culture. The power culture is not likely to be preferred culture by many who work in the public sector. All public sector activity is likely to involve bureaucratic procedures to some degree, for reasons of public accountability. If peoples character and background tends to incline them towards a power culture because they value the opportunities for advancement and feel happy working in an environment where influence is important, they are much more likely to work in the private sector for a strong entrepreneur or individual. The person culture, with its emphasis on personal freedom and development, is, on the face of it, the one most likely to be preferred by the majority of respondents. Many, however, probably think it impossible to find such a culture in any large organization, particularly in the public sector, and thus automatically dismiss it as a viable model. Whilst a clear picture emerged from the survey of the predominant preferred culture, the situation in relation to the cultures perceived to be actually operating were by no means so clear-cut. We would probably expect that a majority of respondents from public sector organizations in developing countries would see themselves as working in bureaucracies, in line with the popular belief that many developing countries are dominated by bureaucratic practices and ways of thinking. This was borne out to some extent by the results of the survey, which showed that the role culture (bureaucracy) was the culture most commonlyperceived to be operating in the respondents organizations. This was, however, only for a small majority (53per cent) of respondents. A large minority (31 per cent) in fact see themselves operating primarily in a power culture; that is, the very political culture in which influence and connections are more important than rules and procedures. Some reflection confirms that this is by no means surprising, given the importance of figures of authority in many developing countries and the difficulties of operating bureaucratic procedures effectively in the face of resource constraints and logistical difficulties. A small but significant number (16 per cent) of respondents see themselves operating in a task culture. It is possible that some of these organizations may be influenced by the presence of staff from international agencies. By the nature of their background and situation these staff are likely to be particularly task-orientated. Only one respondent perceived himself to be operating in a person culture. Unfortunately he was not amongst the sample interviewed, so it was not possible to investigate this case further.

Bureaucracy and Development

365

Thirty-one out of the 188respondents preferred the same culture as that which they perceived to be operating in their organization. Not surprisingly,the majority of these (20 out of the 31) ranked the task culture highest, both as the preferred and perceived culture, while nearly all the remainder (10) ranked the role culture highest. One respondent who preferred a power culture also perceived that to be the dominant culture in his organization. These findings are broadly supported by the results of the informal interviews. For instance many of those interviewed confirmed that, although superficially the workings of the organization were based on rational rules and procedures, in fact political influence and connections were often of overriding importance, particularly in relation to key aspects such as promotion. Influence overrides output was how one respondent put it during an interview. Another said that pulling strings was an important part of working life, again reflecting the significance of power cultures at work. On the other hand, some of those interviewed said that task allocation was often done on the basis of the best person for the job (i.e. a task culture, with importance being given to expert power), though in at least one case this was qualified by saying that it was due to the presence of advisers from international agencies.All respondents interviewed had a keen understanding of the difference between the formal structure of their organization and its informal operation. A key feature of the interviews was the number of times respondents would initially give the formally correct response before subsequently modifying it during conversation to something which more nearly approached their actual perception. The discrepancy between the formally correct (that which the questionner ought to hear) and the informallyvalid (that which is actually going on) will be familiar to development workers, and probably also to those studying organizations in developed countries. The questionnaire itself, being effectively anonymous (responses were only identified to those being interviewed) should have avoided this problem.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This paper has described the use of the organization culture questionnaire as the basis of a small but systematic study of the cultures commonly operating in development organizations. The final section summarizes the analysis of the study, draws implications from it, and points the way to further development of some of the ideas. It is possible to draw some broad conclusions from the results and analysis so far. For instance the study shows that there is generally a difference between the respondents preferred culture and that which is perceived to be dominant in the organization. Given the potential divergence between the goals of the organization and the goals of the individual within it, this difference is not surprising. Indeed it is likely to operate for respondents from organizations in developed countries as well. Such differences are likely to lead to some tension and conflict for the individual, who would like to operate in one way but who perceive the organization to be trying to make them operate in another. Typically each would like to be part of a flexible, taskorientated team culture, where the individual makes a contribution according to expertise, whereas they actually see themselves in a bureaucracy where rules and procedures must be followed and where status attaches to position, rather than to expertise. This type of conflict and tension has obvious implications for such aspects

366

T. Franks

as motivation and leadership: the concept of organizational culture and the enumeration of the questionnaire often provide a useful way for respondents to begin to consider them. With regard to the respondents preferred culture, there are few surprises. The vast majority of respondents rank the task culture most highly, reflecting their background and training and their desire to be able to use their training in a meaningful way. The ranking of the cultures perceived to be dominant in the respondents organizations, on the other hand, provides more scope for discussion and thought. The culture most commonly perceived to be operating is the role culture (bureaucracy), as would be expected from respondents in public sector organizations in developing countries. However, a very large minority of respondents see the power culture as dominant, reflecting the importance of political decisions and influence, and the part played in organizational life by such processes as bargaining and negotiation. Another significant minority perceive the task culture as the most significant culture: in this case they may be reflecting their projectorientation, a hypothesis which more detailed analysis may be able to validate. The data exists with which it would be possible to investigate whether differences in perception occur due to, for instance, the respondents nationality, age, organization size or other factors. However, whereas the number of respondents is a large sample of the total trainee population in the year 1986/1987, and therefore some general conclusions regarding that population can be drawn from the analysis,it is too early to say whether anything other than very broad generalizations can be drawn from a more detailed analysis. Whatever the explanations for the different cultures or mixes of cultures perceived to be operating in the respondents organizations, the findings at least confirm that those working in development or development training have to recognize the multiplicity and variety of organizational cultures and to take account of them. Just as it is no use ignoring the impact of the working of organizations on performance, so it is equally invalid to treat all organizations as operating in the same way. The findings of the study have implications about the understanding which people from the public sector in developing countries will come to have about their organizations, and the way they and their colleagues behave within them. Thus they have implications for all those who are concerned with learning in the general area of public administration. In particular, the fact that the role (bureaucratic) culture is by no means overwhelmingly dominant as the perceived culture must lead all those who are concerned with training to review critically the basis of their courses. Bureaucracies operate by a set of formalized regulations and procedures. Thus, for given inputs to the organization, the output is known and predictable. Much of the content of training courses is based on the same premise, of rational skills and techniques which will produce predictable outputs for known inputs. For instance, many of the concepts of cost-benefit analysis are based on the premise of economic rationality: invest this quantum of inputs and this level of output will result. Even the situations of doubt are dealt with in a similar logical way, through risk and sensitivity analysis. Critical path methods are another obvious example: given the correct information and a management system which behaves in a rational, formalized way, it is possible to produce an optimum schedule for project implementation. Whilst not wishing to underestimate the importance of these types of approach to development problems, the findings of this study indicate that the organizational framework within which the trainees

Bureaucracy and Development

367

operate is far from the rational orderly system on which many development techniques are posited. Our task is to try to integrate as effectively as possible the systematic tools and techniques (cost-benefit analysis, critical path methods) and the processes (negotiation, bargaining, compromise) in order to facilitate learning which makes sense within the total environment in which the trainee works. This approach can be summed up by a participant on one of our management courses who, when asked what was the most important skill for a public sector manager in a developing country, said, Man,youve got to be street-wise!.Whatever the street-wise skills are, they are not the product of a rational, orderly, role culture and they cannot be taught solely by reference to a toolbox of techniques. An area of further work concerns the modification of the cultural models used here to make them more appropriate to those from developing countries. The concept of culture is a fruitful way of helping developing country trainees (and people in general) to think about their organizations: it is an invaluable aid to understanding. However, the four models used in this survey have been developed in the industrialized West; whilst they have a wide applicability and are not just appropriate to business organizations, they suffer from being a product of industrialized Western culture. It seems very possible that important elements of organizational and indeed general culture which may be found in developing countries are omitted from the four models (power, role, task and person) of Harrison and Handy. These missing elements concern the strong personal links which may exist between members of an organization or a community in developing countries. Such links are often referred to by trainees when they begin to talk about their organizations, and often said to be very significant in its operation. They are described in many different ways: corruption, patronage, tribalism, kinship, looking after one another. Some of these terms have negative overtones, but the idea itself has a positive aspect which is often missing from Western culture. It is this factor which, for instance, makes it so hard to carry through retrenchment which seeks to reduce the size of the public sector: very often even most junior employees are linked to senior management in such a way that these programmes simply cannot be implemented. Another way of looking at these personal links is through the economyof affection of Goran Hyden (1983, p. 9). Defining the economy of affection as a network of support, communications and interaction among structurally-defined groups connected by blood, kin, community or other activities, Hyden emphasizes its importance in basic survival, social maintenance, and development activities. Although he suggests that the economy of affection is particularly a product of African peasant societies, some of its basic features would appear to operate in many developing countries and at many levels of society. It provides a quite distinctive element to the concept of organizational culture. Some thought therefore needs to be given as to how the Handy models can be modified, or perhaps a new model defined which incorporates the idea of personal linkages within it. It would have elements of both the power and the person culture, but is different from both and probably needs complete redefinition. The person culture is primarily concerned with the growth and development of the individual.The power culture is concerned with the development of the centre of power (the axis of the wheel) and can be very exploitative. The personal linkages between people in organizations in developing countries are concerned with the survival and well-being of groups of individuals within the organization, and need not be exploitative.

368

T. Franks

In conclusion, it should be stressed that we are concerned not to define an organizational culture which is more nearly right for developing countries, but to develop another cultural model which contributes to participants understanding of their organizations and the diverse forces operating within them. The four models defined by Handy and used in the study appear to miss a vital element of the culture of many development organizations, and thus fail to provide as full an understanding as is desirable. With this done, the concept of organization culture would be an increasingly productive way for developing country participants to think about their organizations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is indebted to his colleagues, Philip Amis and Carolyne Dennis, for assistance in carrying out the survey, and for helpful and constructive comments on the draft of this paper.

REFERENCES
Allaire, Y. and Firsirotu, M. (1984). Theories of organizational culture, Organisation Studies, 5,194-226. Handy, C. B. (1983). Understanding Organisations. Penguin, England. Harrison, R. (1972). Understanding your organisationss character, Harvard Business Review, 3,119-127. Hyden, G. (1983). No Short Cuts to Progress. Heinemann, London. Marshall, D. C. (1987). The Mananga Style: an analysis of the educational culture of the Mananga Agricultural Management Centre, Agricultural Administration and Extension, 27, 171-182. Ouchi, W. G. and Wilkins, A. L. (1985). Organisational culture, Annual Review of Sociology, 457-483. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organisational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass, New York. Thompson, M. and Wildavsky, A. (1986). Acultural theory of information bias in organisations, Journal of Management Studies, 23,273-286.