The impact of different types of cultures on human behaviour

Culture had a significant impact on both the individual as well as

corporate behaviour of members (Bates, 1981; Davies & Weiner, 1985; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Dyer, 1985; Etzioni, 1964). Strong cultures had a much larger impact than weaker cultures (Schein, 1985) and were the most resistant to change (Gordon, 1985).

Organisational cultures may be categorised according to generic archetypes. Some studies grouped organisations according to their organisational processes and observed behaviours (Bennis & Nanus, 1985), information processing styles (Quinn & McGrath, 1985) and organisation types and technology used (Roberts, Rousseau, & La Porte. 1994). The literature showed strongly that different studies described organisational culture using different criteria. Examining both the

behaviour and processes on board ship are important, as the main focus of this study is on the impact of seafarer behaviour on the safety culture of a ship.

Bennis and Nanus (1985) stated that most organisational cultures

displayed the general characteristics of one or more of three distinct types, namely: Collegial, Formalistic, and Personalistic.

In a collegial organisation the dominant emphasis was on consensus, peer- group membership and teamwork (Bennis & Nanus, 1985). The cues for such a style were discussions, participation, and consensus by members. The management of these organisations viewed the maintenance of cohesion as a desirable objective. This was usually achieved by paying close attention to the climate, morale, and by fostering teamwork among members (Quinn & McGrath, 1985).

A formalistic culture prescribed behaviour according to explicit rules and policies (Bennis & Nanus, 1985). Documentation, computation, and evaluation were the observable cues. Issues such as stability, control, and coordination formed the main focus of the management of such an

organisation. The desirable objective for the culture was the continuity of the organisation (Quinn & McGrath, 1985).

A personalistic culture’s dominant theme was on the person, where the locus of decision-making rested with each individual (Bennis & Nanus, 1985). Desirable objectives for such a culture were the revitalisation of an organisation using external support, resource acquisition, and growth as the necessary tools.

The study by Roberts et al., (1994) is important to this thesis as it is the only study that investigated seafarer responses on the subject of organisational culture. Roberts et al’s., (1994) research, which was conducted on an aircraft carrier, focused on four areas, namely,

operational decision-making, interdependence of units, culture of high reliability and adaptation of an organisation to technology. It also focussed on issues that resulted in paradoxes or tensions in a ship’s operations. Only two of the areas researched by Roberts et al., (1994) were directly relevant to the current study, these were operational decision-making and interdependence of units (i.e., seafarers).

Roberts et al’s., (1994) study grouped responses into dimensions or styles; the first, labelled ‘Satisfaction style’, revealed the dominant values of ‘achievement’, ‘self-actualisation’, ‘humanist-helpful’ and ‘affiliation’. The style supported innovation, risk taking and teamwork as means of

achieving listed values. This description matches that provided by Bennis & Nanus (1985) for the behaviour displayed by members of a Collegial organisation.

Another dimension labelled ‘Task security style’ revealed the value of ‘predictability’. The style supported ‘control’ and ‘regulation of task behaviour’ as means of achieving the organisation’s goals. When the style was split between other factors the study found that though the culture supported the maintenance of security-oriented relations, these relations involved a strong task component. ‘Predictability’ ‘control’ and ‘regulation of task behaviour’ matched the description provided by Bennis & Nanus (1985) for the behaviour displayed by members of a Formalistic

organisation.

The findings by Roberts et al., (1994) pointed to a conundrum; where on the one hand the ‘Satisfaction style’ suggested that seafarers valued a ‘Collegial’ style of functioning, whilst on the other hand the ‘Task

Orientation’ style suggested that seafarers operated at a ‘Formalistic’ level as well. The two styles demand significantly different behaviour from

members. A collegial culture promoted a high level of interaction between organisation members and it was likely that in similar circumstances a collegial organisation may use a different solution to address similar issues, i.e., the solution arrived at was tailored to the specificity of the different circumstances. This is something a Formalistic organisation avoided, as it demands a uniform response for categorised issues. Seafarers, while working aboard ship, could thus be presented with a situation that required them to choose between a standardised response or a tailored one which addressed the complexity of the situation. It is clear that each organisational culture described above would produce a

different response to the situation. The impact that this decision had on the safety culture of a ship is important to this study.

Roberts et al’s., (1994) study also found a strong ‘Avoidance’ style loading on all factors. This suggested that avoidance behaviour played a complex role in the organisational culture of an aircraft carrier. Earlier in this thesis some of the circumstances that encouraged the display of avoidance behaviour by seafarers were outlined. The study by Roberts et al., (1994) provided the first published empirical evidence that seafarers did indeed display defensive behaviour. The precise causes that triggered this

defensive behaviour are an area that this study is very concerned with as it could adversely impact on the safety culture of a ship.