the organization together via patterns of shared meaning, while Swartz and Jordon (1980)
suggested that culture is the composition of expectations and beliefs about behavior
shared in the organization. Therefore, organizational culture is expected to have an
important bearing on behavior (Cooke & Szumal, 2000; Chatman & Barsade, 1995;
Martin & Siehl, 1983; Schein, 1985).
There are some natural drawbacks to attempts to empirically measure culture due
to its inherent subjectivity (Geertz, 1973; Rousseau, 1990). Culture is a socially
constructed phenomenon and as such may be difficult to capture and quantify (Denison,
1996). Geertz (1973), in an attempt to emphasize the subjective nature of culture cites
Goodenaugh, who believed that culture was embedded in the minds and hearts of people.
Therefore, it could be maintained that culture has infinite forms such as is the number of
possible subjective interpretations. Such a conclusion precludes the quantifiable
measurement of organizational culture.
A debate making the culture literature even more complicated has revolved
around the methods of culture measurement (Denison, 1996; Denison & Mishra, 1995).
In the emic measurement tradition, researchers have advocated qualitative methods of
measurement capturing the native point of view (Denison, 1996), while the etic
perspective, which allows for quantitative measurement with instruments theoretically
developed by the culture researcher has been applied more consistently to the
measurement of climate rather than culture. In spite of the ongoing disagreements over
the nature and measurement of culture, a number of quantitative instruments have been
developed through a combination of methods that allow for the quantifiable measurement