An Examination of the Cultural Frame

Brandy A. Lee
ORGL 500 Organizational Leadership & Development
Dr. “Buck” Rogers
June 6, 2009

In this paper I will be interpreting an organizational problem using The Cultural Frame. It is defined as “interpreting behavior and decisions as motivated by the individual’s desire for meaning, and the group’s cultural development of this need for meaning” (Carey, 14). It is not the most straightforward of the Five Frames because it does not fit into the “certain” and “rational” divisions that the other frames do. According to Carey, the other four frames are outlined as:

“The rational frame focuses on roles, relationships, and formal ways of coordinating diverse efforts into common directions. The human frame views individual needs as central, and the basic issue is how to design settings in which individual and organizational needs can be integrated. The systems frame reflects natural systems in which there is an exchange of both information and energy causing negative entropy. The political frame stresses that organizations are networks of special interests where coalitions, conflict and bargaining translate power into action. Each of the frames assumes a world that is relatively certain: goals provide direction, effectiveness can be seen, needs can be identified, changes can be tracked and adapted to, power can be understood, developed and used. Each of the frames assumes a world that is rational: decisions are made by choosing the best alternative, people act according to their needs, organizations can learn to learn, and groups act according to their own interests” (p. 14).

The last organization I worked for was big on the first principle that, “the organization is a culture through which meaning is constructed for participants” (Carey, 15). Everything from the mission statement, to leadership trainings, to incentives, etc. was centered on creating meaning for the participants. The company wanted people to feel like the had a say, that they were “shareholders” in the company per say.

I remember walking in the doors and speaking with current employees when I was first interviewing for the job. Everything pointed toward and employee centered company. People were mostly outgoing, communicated their issues, and felt like what they had to say really meant something to management. Like Carey, there were other things that didn’t make sense to me. There was a lack of technological innovations, and there was also a lack of other support services.

While I saw many people being open in their communication, I also saw some people who felt oppressed because what they saw was not congruent with the “culture” of the company. Most of the people who worked at this establishment we either related, they worked there almost since the company started, or they were decedents of people who had, or still, worked there.

People who came from the outside also brought with them different cultures, as well as a fresh perspective of how to bring new and innovative solutions to the company. This went against the grain of the second principle of the Cultural Frame that, “organizational culture is made up of the basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by the members of an organization” (Carey, 15). Also, like Carey there were certain things that then made sense to me and other things that didn’t. The third principle of the Cultural Frame then explains the second, “organizational culture is reflected in the observed behavioral regularities, norms, values, philosophy, rules of the game, and feeling or climate of the organization” (Carey, 15).

All of the individuals of the group then come to be defined as members of the group, and not as their individual selves. There is no singular voice, but the voice of the whole. This I find was frustrating as an outsider because I had to figure out a way for everything I wanted to become the “voice of the whole.” In the grand scheme of things, this isn’t a terrible thing, but I believe it can cause the loss of identity, individuality, and creativity.

The whole thus became the cultural value of the company. Carey states that cultural values cannot come into play until the group begins to use them to respond to problems and challenges (p. 15). This leads to the fourth principle that, “the basic assumptions and beliefs are learned responses to a group's problems of survival in its external environment and its problems of internal integration; they come to be taken for granted because they solve problems repeatedly and reliably” (p. 15).

I believe Carey says that they become taken for granted because it always solves a problem or challenge in that particular Frame, in that particular organization. But what happens when the person leaves and goes to another organization? Perhaps the same problem solving skills will not work because it’s a different Culture, the organization works under a different Frame, or the person simply cannot adapt to the circumstances around them.

Under this Frame, I believe that propaganda is not only highly used, but in a sense necessary. Carey states that the leader applies their priorities. In order to do that effectively, people must buy in to what is being said. In Mein Kamp, Adolph Hitler writes about this very thing. Carey quotes the following:
“The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses’ attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. . . . The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. . . . All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be” (p. 15-16).

All of these principles of the Cultural Frame brought together a cohesive group who seemed to be working for a common cause. However, there was a loss of identity, creativity, and individualism that came at a price. Had I stayed at this organization longer, I would have pushed for the ability to have individual ideas brought to the table.

I believe this can still be done using the cultural frame by allowing people within the company to create their own propaganda. The workers who are in the middle of the fire create the best work. The propaganda also will have a higher buy-in rate from outsiders knowing it hasn’t come from the advertising agency, or the management who want their story told “just so.” Workers tell the best story, so let them tell it.

Some companies use the cultural frame effectively and others haven’t quite arrived. In a sense I see the Cultural Frame as a twist on reality, a pair of dark shades if you will. But it can bee used effectively if companies will extend themselves all the way and trust their employees. But showing trust in your employees, a greater sense of unity will happen and the Frame will become more complete.


Brandy – You did a great job with the cultural frame. What about the other 4 frames? ☺ Not a big problem – but you need to follow the assignment. I like your suggestions for dealing with the issues. I wish that you had been the person in charge and could have applied some of your suggestions. Grade 14/15~Buck

REFERENCES
Carey, M.L. (1999). Heraclitean fire: Journeying on the path of leadership. Kendall/Hunt.