The idea of viewing organisations as cultures is a relatively recent phenomenon where
there is a system of shared meaning among members. Earlier
organisations were seen as rational means to plan, organise, coordinate and control a group of people and its activities were understood by its strategy and structure.
Organisational theorists in recent years began to acknowledge that organisations, just like individuals,have personalities and possess an unique character which distinguishes them from one another. Organisational culture becomes a metaphor for understanding the organisation when viewed as embedded in the wider socio-cultural system. It can be seen alternatively as an organisational variable within the organisational context, as a tool to be managed to achieve better control and organisational effectiveness.
Culture plays an important role in the lives of organisational members. Enmeshed in a set of
'shared values', norms and meaning, it helps to promote organisational objectives. Being a part of an organisation entails being part of its culture and it goes to explain much of what goes on in organisations. The culture of an organisation as Hunt (1986) claims, is the collective shared values, ideologies and beliefs of members including the transmitting media of language, stories, symbols, myths and legends and the manifestation of those values in rituals, rites and ceremonies. Organisational culture can be described as a conceptualisation through which to characterise and interpret these collectivities.
Culture is a framework for understanding and attributing meaning to the structures, systems, events, interactions and other phenomena that take placein organisations (Smith 1995). Culture is the corporate glue that links diverse and often strangely different individuals together into a productive collective. According to Brewerton et al (1999), it provides a tangible account of the meaning invested in organisational events and behaviours by an organisation's members. It has since become inevitable for organisations to focus on culture as a critical lever for success (Srivatsava 2001; Walker 1992), and to perform and compete in a changing uncertain business environment.
Edward Deming, who is credited with rescuing Japan's economy after World War II, has turned his focus on the need for management to work toward changing an 'organisation's culture'. In trying to comprehend the great success of Japanese organisations in the 1970s, many theorists (Pascale et al 1981; Ouchi 1981) have set their eyes on the concept of 'culture'. Their findings suggest that culture is as important as it is for the wider society and it holds the key to corporate success. Japanese companies, with strong cultures,bond their members into highly cohesive and effective teams. Subsequently, a number of researchers, notably Deal et al (1982), Peters et al (1982) and Kanter (1983) have stressed the importance of culture, symbols, including myths, logos and artefacts for organisational success. Many current researchers prefer to approach culture as overlapping and often contradictory cultural and symbolic layers (Frost et al 1991) rather than viewing organisations as having uniform and shared cultures. However, strong cultures, according to many others, are the bricks from which are constructed the temple of corporate excellence.
Echoing Comte's (1980) concern for the advcancement of society said to be capsuled in over-production, Lynd (1939) observes that industrialisation is a condition precedent to increase the standard of living of people by increased production. The industrial mode of production has not only given rise to economic organisations (Miller et al 1980; Etzioni 1969), but has also brought men and women possessing varying degrees of skills together under one roof (Hyman 1971). The economic organisations, also termed as 'utilitarian' organisations (Etzioni 1961) rely on 'remunerative' power. t is to be appreciated that masculine pride born of the belief that man alone could support his wife and children would not have been brought to its knees but for the emergence of a host of organisations providing employment to women consequent upon the removal of discrimination and weakening of social disapproval coupled with increased social awakening. With the ushering in of 'dual-career' families, a 'higher per capita quality of life (Russell et al 1923) is envisioned. Opportunity, capacity, and motivation are the other factors which facilitate increased number of women in general, and married women in particular to take up employment. While increased cost of living and heavy taxation have paved the way for 'two-spouse' income, longer periods of education and training have created man-power shortage, thus making it necessary for the frozen fruits of culture prohibiting women's entry into occupations to thaw. Labour saving devices have not only 'unburdened' the 'burden' of women at the domestic level, but have also rteleased some women to install
'dual-career' families, thereby making them 'burden' themselves at the occupational level. Though 'robbing peter to pay paul' situation has arisen, Indian women may be seen as caught in a 'double bind'.