the problematic nature of organization culture and a changing control context

The problematic nature oforganization culture and a changingcontrol contextBill Ryan*School of Management, Royal Holloway, UK

� This paper is about the interaction in organizations between the organization cultureor cultures, the individual, the systems of organizational control and the possible disconnections between them.

� The paper draws on a lengthy study undertaken in a company where there was a chang-ing culture as a result of changing modes and intensities of control. The organizationhad a culture and history of encouraging individual contribution.

� This history of individual encouragement was all the more important as the companyendeavoured to move from a reliance on tangible product output to one that is moreintangibly knowledge-based and where the knowledge resource of the individualbecomes increasingly important.

� The name of the case organization has been disguised for reasons of confidentiality.Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, December 2005

environment and its influence on organiza-tions have impacted on individuals in such away as to undermine their history and capac-ity for giving in full of their productive contribution ability to the organization.Specifically, the paper documents the increas-ing influence of the outside investment com-munity on corporate strategy.

The current emphasis on the importance ofshareholders has led to a changing controlenvironment, one that is geared towards themeeting of short-term investor demands. Thischanging context has brought with it a changein the internal means of controlling output,including a move to a more individualizedintensive control environment — one that isnot in keeping with the historical culture ofthe case organization.

Strat. Change 14: 431–440 (2005)Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jsc.740 Strategic Change

* Correspondence to: Bill Ryan, School of Management,Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, SurreyTW20 OEX, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction

This paper examines the extent to which anorganization’s culture can be affected bycurrent approaches to management controlsystems. The focus is upon aspects of organi-zational culture and the manner in which thatmay affect the individual and his/her contri-bution to organizational activity. Whilst theindividual is the primary unit of analysis, he orshe cannot be viewed in an organizationalcontext without taking due account of thefactors that also affect the organization itself.The issue is whether the changing business

432 Bill Ryan

While the primary focus within the paper isthe individual organization members, themutuality of the dependence between boththe organization and its members is recog-nized. The paper draws on case study datafrom a large public US corporation calledEurel, with a history and culture of innovationand of valuing the individual and their contri-bution to organization performance.

Organization culture

The emphasis in this paper is on organizationculture that comes from the history and prac-tices of its members. It represents the oftenunwritten sense of identity, feeling part of theorganization. It provides a ‘glue’ and under-standing in that it can help individualmembers make sense of events and changeactivities. Within the literature there arevarious definitions, but general agreement onthe importance of organization culture (Stonerand Wankel, 1986; Daft, 1988). Culture in theorganizational sense is usually defined as theshared guiding beliefs and values held by thosewithin the organization. Over time, there maybe multiple cultures and emerging aspectswithin the same organization. From an orga-nization viewpoint, where cultural values arein alignment with structure, goals, systems,technology, etc., then culture becomes animportant part of the accomplishment of organizational outcomes. In this paper and thecase organization, it is not argued that there isone overriding organization culture; there mayindeed be many functional cultures andemerging cultural issues. This paper attemptsto make sense of just such an emerging culturechange situation.

Culture is usually definedas the shared guiding

beliefs and values held bythose within the

organization

Company values and theencouragement of the individual

Eurel has a history and culture of innovationthat not only refers to its multiplicity of prod-ucts, but also permeates the organization in itssystems and thinking. Its history and growthis steeped in a culture and achievement of new product innovation. The company has ahistory of achieving about 30% of its sales fromproducts that were developed in the previousfour years. This involves a contribution to thatgrowth from all employees. The companyhistory and values includes a forgiving/encour-aging approach to its employees. As Weick (inMintzberg 1989: 275) argues, ‘A corporationdoes not have a culture, a corporation is aculture’, and Eurel would see itself as such,with a culture that has a strong emphasis onpeople and their encouragement. Given theview that the organization has a strong culturethen the notion of how it may be changed andits effects becomes problematic. In the case ofEurel it appears that the growing importanceof financialization has driven change to theorganizational control systems, and in doing sohas impacted on the individual organizationmembers. This means that there is a need toconsider changes outside the organizationitself, that will then promote organizationalculture change.

Changing times

The company culture of tolerance and its aspi-ration in being an employer for life perhapscreates an amount of stagnation in terms ofbeing slow to change. A recent chief executivehad been with the company for 42 years. Thisexample shows how culture can have disad-vantages when it makes difficult the possibil-ity of needed change but it also provides manyadvantages, being the ‘glue’that helps the orga-nization to operate collectively.

Culture is difficult to change but can be amajor asset in its ability to help cope and bepositive in the approach to change. AsMintzberg (1989) argues, ‘In metaphoricalterms, it is not so difficult to change hats in


an organisation, when they are all embla-zoned with the same insignia’. This is not tosay that culture can be changed like a hat, butrather that it can help organizations and theirmembers cope with periods of change. Theimportance of people and their empowermentand encouragement in times of change are notjust words. Researchers, including Mintzberg,have suggested that ‘a critical ingredient isauthenticity’(Mintzberg, 1989: 272–276).Thisauthenticity, accepted into an organization,can help its members cope with change.

The type of people hired and how they actand react to each other in the organization iscritical to that organization’s success. Exceptin start-up cases, most organizations do notstart any change process with a ‘green field’.In the case of Eurel, there is an existing orga-nization whose members are steeped in tradi-tion and experience of the past when Eurelhad fewer competitors and sales came rela-tively easier. However, 15 years of experiencein some cases means 15 years of doing thesame thing rather than a period that mightdevelop the sort of organization resilience nec-essary for the current business environment.This dynamic environment, where change and‘kicks’ have influenced major changes to theorganization, may be helped or impeded bythe values and experiences of the individualmembers.

One example of the uncertainty that Eurelfaces is the organization’s approach to itsemployees and the way in which it will beargued that this is changing. Eurel had a par-ticular set of people practices (see below) thatwere part of the organization culture andwhich served to stabilize the internal environ-ment of the organization. Lessons and experi-ence from the past appeared to give Eurelgenuine learning and the ability to cope withthe future.

Eurel has always claimed to value people.One of its founding members in a speech in1945 spoke about people and empowerment— which has long become part of the valuesof the organization. It is this history andculture of valuing people repeated below thatcould be argued to now be threatened.

As our business grows, it becomes increas-ingly necessary to delegate responsibilityand to encourage men and women toexercise their initiative. This requires considerable tolerance. Those men andwomen, to whom we delegate authorityand responsibility, if they are good people,are going to want to do their jobs in theirown way. Mistakes will be made. But if aperson is essentially right, the mistakesthat he or she makes are not as serious inthe long run as the mistakes managementwill make if it undertakes to tell those inauthority how they must do their jobs.Management that is destructively criticalwhen mistakes are made kills initiative.And it is essential that we have peoplewith initiative if we are to continue togrow. (Founding President of Eurel, 1946)

The issue for the company is that this rhetoricof valuing people is in sharp contrast to theviews currently expressed by many of the casestudy individuals, who see an increasing inten-sity and individualization of control. Thischange appears to also be affecting a changein the historic culture of ‘giving’ to the orga-nization. As one member noted, ‘There are nobest guesses because you get beaten up if youdon’t meet it’ (Sales 1). The traditional view ofpeople and their contribution ability appearsto be in stark contrast to the views of many ofthe current company members, who feel thatthe current short-term emphasis and thechanging control context is militating againstthe stability of these aspects of culture.Whether or not the historic rhetoric of valuingpeople was ever totally true, it is certainly thecase that it has become a major comparativeissue for employees of the organization as theyattempt to come to terms with the effects oftheir changing circumstances. ‘The sharehold-ers are more important than the employees’(Logistics 3).

Changing structure

Forrester (1965), Drucker (1988) and Giddensand Hutton (2000) all point to a movement in

The nature of organization culture 433


434 Bill Ryan

organizational forms that are flatter, moreknowledge-based and where there is anincreased acknowledgement of the new intel-ligence factor of production. Eurel, along withmany other corporations, have flattened theirstructure and moved from a divisional to amatrix-type structure in Europe. Structure canbe seen as a means of coping with and con-trolling complexity. The simpler the business,the less complexity there is and hence thestructure can be relatively simple in form. Themove to a flatter structure was not only in linewith customer and market expectations, butwas an attempt to make business activity morevisible and accountable. Much of the companyinternal documentation during the 1990smakes reference to seeing Eurel in Europe asone entity rather than the disparate individualcountry organizations that existed before theestablishment of the European matrix. Havingless management layers also meant that indi-viduals have a more visible responsible role.However, issues that are more problematichave replaced the rhetoric of simplicity. Muchof the debate within the company is aboutissues of control, individualization and fearsabout the future — all of which are argued tobe affecting the history and culture of indi-vidual contribution.

Towards a more self-reliant individual

The evolution of both the organization and thesubsequent changes in the cultural atmos-phere and control would appear to be encour-aging this notion of a more individual,self-reliant and self-preserving organizationmember. Organization members are increas-ingly moving in a self-reliant protective way,both in terms of their own development/pro-motion prospects as well as increasingly onlycommitting to targets that are more easilyattainable. The notion of ‘stretch’, historicallyso prevalent, is being replaced by the ever-increasing corporate search for certainty inoperating results.

The issue of the individual and his/her contribution ability is problematic. As noted

earlier, researchers such as McGregor (1960)and Thomas (1983) have argued that it is nota simple cause and effect contingency whereoutput is contingent on economic rewards.Individual motivation and commitment isaffected by a range of issues such as a chang-ing corporate context and individual social circumstances. The case data which describeschanging patterns of individual employmentdevelopment, along with an increasing defen-siveness in the commitment to organizationcontribution, all point to a differentiation in the organization social world that is not naturally evolving but more immediatelyforced.

Roberts (1996) sees individual developmentinitially as a process that starts with the accep-tance of attitudes of others as in, for example,their cultural values as to how we do thingsaround here, etc. This is in keeping with ideasof social evolution. In the case of Eurel, thedata shows that organization members are stillwavering as to whether to confirm this newisolated individual sense of self, especially asit differs markedly from the historic culture ofthe closeted valued individual. The individual-ized control milieu would appear to be forcinga more selfish view, whilst on the other handthe history of the organization provides thecultural glue from which individual opinionsare reluctant to change.The evidence from thedata would suggest that individuals hope thatthe current penal-type climate is temporaryand that there will be a return to the histori-cally more forgiving and people-valuingculture.

Eurel and innovation

Eurel has always been known for its innova-tion as part of its culture. Similar companieshave been written about extensively in thepopular management control literature.Mintzberg (1989) and Peters and Waterman(1982) have studied similar cultural aspects,and generally see it as companies that thriveon and succeed through innovation. Whetherdeliberate or not, the company strategy ofencouraging the individual and an atmosphere


of innovation is very important to their results.In the case of Eurel, the control environmentand the collective responsibility for attainingresults may become problematic by what theemployees feel are undue control pressures.

Eurel has always beenknown for its innovation

as part of its culture

Control, strategy and culture are also linkedin Eurel through what they see as innovativeactivity. Innovation is seen as part of theprocess that has led to a constant search forquality and change in both products andprocesses. Space to experiment and the for-giveness of failure (within reason) are part ofthe history of the company and acceptedwithin the culture of the company. Eurel haslong been recognized as a ‘well-oiled’ innova-tion machine that has created a steady streamof internally developed products that havebecome well established in the marketplace.These include some world-famous productitems. However, it has been almost 20 yearssince the development of their most famousinnovation and in latter years the company,although generally succeeding, has struggledin its objective to have 30% of its yearly salesfrom products developed in the previous 4years. It has struggled to continuously kick-start the growth machine. The rhetoric ofinnovation in the literature appears to bebased on the historic picture of the organiza-tion in terms of its public reputation for thisconstancy of innovation.The reality is that thisflow of new products is becoming difficult toattain, with the investment community ques-tioning the organization’s ability to sustain thislevel of new product growth.

The company historically had a traditionwhere all employees could more or less‘bootleg’ about 15–20% of their time on indi-vidual projects. This referred to the informalsituation where employees were allowed to

spend up to 20% of their time developing pro-jects of their own that could eventually be putforward for commercialization. This was alsoin keeping with the company culture of allow-ing employees freedom to grow — and thiswas how they developed many of their world-famous product lines.

As noted above, it took 15 years to bringtheir most famous developed idea to market.In the current business climate of shorterproduct lifecycles, this situation is not tenablein the sense that products need to be broughtto market more quickly.The company now hasa much more formalized product developmentprocess. The issue is, with all the otherchanges that the organization is goingthrough, whether the individual drive and persistence illustrated by innovative pastmembers will survive and prosper. The inter-view data suggests that the cultural environ-ment of space and freedom as characterizedby the founder’s principles (see above) is fastdisappearing. Whether this culture was evertrue is difficult to prove. However, from a corporate viewpoint, it was certainly the casethat the association of the freedom to act and innovation appears to have rewarded theorganization with a constant flow of new products. From a sales growth and earningsviewpoint this needs to continue, not least to fulfil the expectations of the investmentcommunity.

In the last 10 years, the process of productdevelopment has been increasingly formal-ized. Control procedures exist in the technicaland product development areas that wereunknown until relatively recently. As one ofthe interviewees noted:

In Eurel, there is a myth. This revolvesaround the notion of 15% free time or 15%bootlegging. I have never been able to hiveoff 15% of my time. It is a myth. (WM)

The point, however, is that whether myth ornot, the freedom for innovative activity hasbeen assimilated into the culture as a primereason for the history of innovation. The ques-tion now is whether in the current business



436 Bill Ryan

climate, this innovation/sales growth will continue when the individual owners of thatinnovative ability are increasingly exposed toa regime of a more intensive and formalcontrol environment.

This leads to the more direct issues of thecase example, in particular the questions ofhow the organization and its people aredealing and coping with the company’s chang-ing emphasis of its control systems and impor-tantly how those changes may be impactingon the organization culture and members’con-tributions. To understand this, it is necessaryto understand where the organization hascome from, what its history is and the natureand context of the changes that it is attempt-ing to cope with.

The case example covers a specific context(case study) and time frame (mid- to late 1990sin Eurel). This is in keeping with both theessence of a case study as well as the method-ological framework that argues suitability tocontextual case study type issues, but wherehistory and the passage of time influence thepresent context.

Innovation and ‘Pacing Plus’

The Eurel culture and history of innovationhas evolved from the ‘bootlegging’ mythand/or practice as characterized by pastmembers to a more formal regime. PacingPlus is a product development system thatincreases the visibility and control of selectedproducts that are seen to and have passedinternal preliminary ‘hurdle’ tests. The advan-tages of Pacing Plus are that products includedare ‘ring-fenced’ in the sense that they are guaranteed resources and protected from anyrestructuring cutbacks. Products included areexpected to yield high returns for thecompany. To be included, all potential newdevelopments have to pass a rigid series of filtering tests. These include a scoring systemin terms of volume and monetary potential,financial hurdles, length of project, strategicvalue in terms of key customers, technologiesused, etc. Through its Pacing Plus initiative,the company hopes to accelerate the devel-

opment of high-impact new products andbring them to market faster. Sales from PacingPlus were expected to top 1.5 billion dollarsin 1999. Because of their importance to cor-porate success, Pacing Plus products are monitored quite intensively throughout theirdevelopment and sales life. The process of for-malized product development has been intro-duced gradually over the last 10 years and hasbeen formally adopted as a corporate objec-tive. This is encapsulated in the new productintroduction objective that would give thecompany 30% of its sales each year from prod-ucts developed in the previous 4 years. Whilethe company generally achieves this objective,as noted earlier, it has struggled to do so.Changes, such as in packaging that led to theintroduction of new stock numbers, havebeen classed as new products for the purposeof recording actual sales. Typically, stocknumbers are linked within the computer data-base and new stock numbers will have anintroduction date — it is this date that pro-vides the defining detail required for the newproduct introduced information. As one inter-viewee noted:

We take a very flexible view as to whatconstitutes a new product. (RN)

Despite the emphasis on visibility and controlof Pacing Plus, many of the interviewees havesuggested that the results have not been asexpected and indeed have contributed to theshortfall of corporate results. This in turn hasgiven rise to adverse comments from WallStreet analysts and a subsequent fall in shareprice.

The reason that this point is emphasized isthat growth and attainment of results credibil-ity are major objectives which historicallyEurel had a reputation for achieving and whichit is now struggling to attain. The difference inthe current environment is that this publicperformance credibility appears to be linkedmore to the share price. The influence of theinvestment community and the striving forcredibility and growth in results has alsobrought about changes in internal control and


an emphasis on the short term. This view isreflected by a number of employees, thus:

There is so much pressure from share-holders now for results that we can’t affordto carry either people or businesses thatare not contributing. (WP)It is hard to accept this new formal coldregime — one that is almost totally basedon numbers. (GM)It is about getting the numbers in line.They know we are doing the right thingsbut we must hit our numbers. (MN)At my meetings now, we show the shareprice. It is that important. (DB)

These views emphasize the point that thereappears to be an increased emphasis on the financial numbers. This may be related tothe immediacy of the environment and thedemand for an improvement in the credibilityof results. This emphasis on immediacy andcredibility is affecting the organizationmembers and is a recurring theme throughoutthe interviews and analysis. The pressure tomeet the numbers appears to be an ever-consuming one.

Quarterly targets are important. It allhinges around the share price.We must hitour quarterly numbers. (TP)

This atmosphere is argued to have moved fromthe corporate level where share prices drive aresults focus, down the organization to theoperating level. Historically this was not thecase as aggregate corporate results were con-sistently good and the relationship betweenthe company and its shareholders appeared tobe in tune. The company paid out increasingdividends and its share price, historically, hadgood growth. Compared to this, currentresults appear disappointing and would seemto have been a major factor in the outsideinfluence on the organization that has led tothe development of new control systems.

However, while the company may bemaking progress in meeting outside share-holder expectations, inside the company

things are changing.There is a growing feelingof isolation amongst individual members thatis in sharp contrast to the previous ‘closetingof the individual’ characterized by thefounder’s principles noted earlier. It has particular implications, beyond the issue ofpersonal isolation:

We seem to be changing our attitudetowards staff.We are not that committed totraining and development anymore butmore concerned with cutting expenditure.The worry is that this is not just short termbut a longer term trend. (TD)

The concern about the short-term emphasis ofthe organization is one that is echoed by manyorganization members and one that couldimpact long-term viability.

The question is whether, in the current envi-ronment, the individual is being affected tothe extent that the culture of valuing peoplehas changed to one where control, structureand systems are leading to a culture where theindividual is valued less and where the indi-vidual may react by limiting his/her contribu-tion to the company.

The emphasis on the changing cultureappears to be linked to the newer, hardercompany attitude towards results. The outsideinvestment community pressure for resultsappears to be changing the nature of thecontrol systems. Their role is no longer theconsolidation of group results in an environ-ment where results were mostly achieved andwhere systems such as budgeting are con-nected to the longer term and the culture ofencouraging individual contribution in acontext of relative freedom. This freedom toact was part of the organization culture ofinnovation not just relating to product devel-opment but encompassing all individual effort.This history of people, individual contributionand their valuing appears to be not justrhetoric but one that has rewarded the orga-nization with a constant flow of new productsand a reputation for being one of the mostadmired and best managed companies featur-ing regularly in the Fortune 500 annual list-



438 Bill Ryan

ings. The issue is that the organizationmembers see a change in this culture that hasbeen made visible by the changing controlenvironment where the individual is increas-ingly being isolated and seen not perhaps as acontributing member of the organization butas a manageable cost.

The new CEO is on record as saying hedoesn’t believe that we don’t have anypoor performers and wants to know whatwe are doing about it. (RK)The culture of valuing people is going out.The shareholders are more importantthan the employees. (ND)

This emphasis on the changing culture islinked to the new visibility and emphasis onresults.

The issue for the company and its membersis how this is affecting the contribution of its employees. If measurement and controlbecomes so intense there is a danger that theshort-term control perspective will illicit ashort-term contribution from the individual ina context where the imposition of controls isincreasingly seen as penal and manipulative.This is leading to a sense of isolation on thepart of the individual organization members.The traditional functional units have beenreplaced by operating units with an increasedatmosphere of accountability.

Summary and discussion: the individual and a changingculture context

The previous sections noted the increasingemphasis on a changing culture and the pos-sible effects on the individual. This sectioncontinues that theme by making connectionsin this area, particularly as it relates to ideas oforganization culture, the individual, his/hercontribution and the problematic nature ofmanaging that contribution in a context thatincludes changing structures. Structuralchanges, including those in Eurel, are part ofthe control environment in that for Eurel, theyincrease the visibility and accountabilitywithin the flatter structure.

Organization literature makes much of theconnection between the changing businesscontext in terms of flatter structures (Galbraith, 1994; Joyce, 1996) and a changingproduct offering moving from a tangible to amore knowledge-based output (Burgoyne,1995). In this environment there is a logicalreliance on the individual and their knowledge/contribution potential.

Both the corporation and the case businessunits rely heavily on product innovation forvolume growth through the contributionefforts of its members. However, the previousera of encouragement and ‘forgiveness’of non-attainment of objectives has been replaced bya more intense regime of formal controls at atime when there is also a move to a moreintangible product context. This new businesscontext places knowledge as the main sourceof wealth creation. The case business units arealso knowledge-led, relying as they do on moreintangible product innovation for continuedgrowth. The issue for the company is how tomanage this knowledge in the context that itscollective value, or intellectual capital as it isoften referred to (Quintas, 2002; Stewart,2002), continues to grow. In terms of knowl-edge output and its value to the company, it isthe individual members that are the essentialproducers of that knowledge and capital. If,as argued here, the individual continues inbecoming more protectively self-reliant, thenthe issue for the company is problematic. Theissue for the individual and the company isaround the need to make tacit knowledgemore explicit in a way that allows for the com-mercialization potential of that knowledgestock. As noted by Teece (2000), the manage-ment of knowledge has more to do with theculture of the organization than with its phys-ical systems. The individual members of Eureland its business units are the current ownersof the knowledge and contribution potentialto the organization. Company history shows aculture and willingness to contribute substan-tially to organization growth through theattainment of yearly new product targets. Thedata from the case study shows an increasingchange in this culture to one that is as noted,


more satisfying of immediate controlleddemands than maximizing of individual potential.

Within this newer product context, progressand measurement of these intangibles is seenas problematic (Guthrie, 2000; Teece, 2000).The important issue is that knowledge and itsdevelopment is about capturing and tran-scending the self in the larger entity thatincludes the knowledge of others. However,the punitive atmosphere captured in the casedata suggests that this co-operative environ-ment will be difficult to have on a continuedbasis with the consequent possibilities that itmight have for individual contributions andlonger-term product development. Much ofthe empirical data relates to the ‘forcing’ ofindividual and company contributions. Thisgoes against the history and culture of thecompany as characterized by the foundingprinciples. The issue for the individual and thecompany is how this more constitutive envi-ronment affects the development of the indi-vidual members in terms of the mutuality ofdependence that is the relationship betweenthem and the organization.

However, if the organization continues touse control mechanisms to isolate individuals,then it would not be surprising if the currentfeelings of isolation were made more perma-nent, with a consequent effect on the consti-tution of the individual self and his/hersubsequent influence on group culture. Thedanger of this is that the more constitutivelyconstructed self will retreat to the safety ofself-reliance and as noted in the empirics, willcontribute on the basis of satisfying formaldemands rather than maximizing individual ororganization potential. For the individual thereis a developing sense of a short-term outlookthat is starting to show itself in a restrainedcontribution to the organization. The imposi-tion through the changing control environ-ment appears to be militating against thatsame contribution. The short-term outlook isencouraging a short-term contribution fromindividual members that in turn may have a long-term effect on the stability of the organization.

The short-term outlook isencouraging a short-term

contribution fromindividual members

Biographical note

Bill Ryan is a lecturer in accounting at RoyalHolloway, University of London. His career todate has included experience in industry witha range of roles in accounting and change management. His academic career includesteaching in accounting, business strategy andoperations management.

References

Burgoyne J. 1995. Feeding minds to grow the busi-ness. People Management 1 Sept: 22–26.

Daft RL. 1988. Organisation Theory and Design.West Publishing: St Paul, MN.

Drucker PF. 1988. The coming of new organisa-tions. Harvard Business Review 66: 45–53.

Forrester JW. 1965. A new corporate design. Indus-trial Management Review 7: 5–17.

Galbraith JR. 1994. Competing with FlexibleLateral Organizations. Addison-Wesley: NewYork.

Giddens A, Hutton W. 2000. On the Edge. Cape:London.

Guthrie J. 2000. CIMA Lecture, London.Joyce WF. 1996. Megachange: Reforming the

Corporation. Irwin Professional Press: Chicago.McGregor D. 1960. The Human Side of Enterprise.

McGraw-Hill: New York.Mintzberg H. 1989. Mintzberg on Management.

The Free Press: New York.Peters TJ, Waterman RH. 1982. In Search of Excel-

lence. Harper and Rowe: New York.Quintas P. 2002. In Managing Knowledge, Little S,

Quintas P, Ray T (eds). The Open University andSage Publications: Milton Keynes; 4–12.

Roberts J. 1996. Accountability: Power, Ethos andthe Technologies of Managing. InternationalThompson Business Press: London; 40–61.



440 Bill Ryan

Stewart T. 2002. In Managing Knowledge, Little S,Quintas P, Ray T (eds). The Open University andSage Publications: Milton Keynes; 302–313.

Stoner JAF, Wankel C. 1986. Management. Pren-tice-Hall International: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Teece DJ. 2000. Managing Intellectual Capital.Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Thomas A. 1983. In New Perspectives in Manage-ment Control, Lowe T, Machin J (eds). MacmillanPress: London; 178–190.


the problematic nature of organization culture and a changing control context

Documents