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