INTRODUCTION
The literature surveyed here attempt to define the concept of culture in the organizational context, to measure it (either quantitatively or qualitatively), to derive conclusions on its relationship with organizational performance, and to discuss if and how our knowledge of corporate culture may be used to improve organizational communication.
Mallak (1993), in taking the quantitative route to these goals, narrowly defines culture as "the set of values (the content) common to a work group (the boundary)", and culture strength as "the extent of agreement on values held by members of work groups and their organizations" or "the ability of the work group or organization to withstand external forces". He focuses solely on the task of developing and applying a measure of culture strength in two organizations.
Furnham and Gunter (1993) aim for wider coverage of the topic of organizational culture. They present a more comprehensive overview of various earlier definitions given to the concept by reputed writers in the field. The authors also address the popular idea of corporate culture management and give samples of quantitative culture measures, although their purpose is not to apply them in any real setting.
Kunda (1992), on the other hand, does a focused, in-depth qualitative study of the culture of a particular organization --- the Lyndsville engineering facility of High Technologies Corporation (a.k.a. "Tech") in America's Technology Region. His exploratory research reveals the techniques used to manufacture a unique corporate culture, and the impact of this culture on the employees and consequently on the organization's performance.

QUESTION & HYPOTHESIS
To investigate the relationship between organizational culture and organizational performance, we start with the hypothesis that organizations with strong cultures and key human traits perform more effectively than organizations with weaker cultures and 'unproductive' traits.
The strength of a culture covers such factors as the extent of agreement on values across an organization and the prevalence of stable core values. Key human traits include a concern for quality and innovation, risk-taking, and initiative.

LITERATURE REVIEW
What constitutes an organization's culture?
To explain the concept of culture as completely as possible, Furnham and Gunter (1993) give an extensive accumulation of definitions from the likes of Kroeber and Kluckhohn, Crombie, Schein, and Sackmann. The authors eventually decompose the concept into three levels, according to Schein's model: behaviors & artefacts (company logos, office building architecture and interior design, technology and equipment, language systems, gestures, dress codes, rites & rituals, ceremonies, behavioral norms, symbols, heroes, myths, legends, metaphors), beliefs & values (shared value systems), and underlying assumptions (shared ideas and experiences that shape members' collective "worldview").
Moving down the list from visible, observable phenomena to unconscious assumptions enables the deconstruction of any corporate culture, and enhances the comprehension of that organization's nature and operation.
The authors distinguish between two approaches to the study of corporate culture.
The functionalist school takes the culture-as-variable perspective, treating culture as simply one of several organizational variables that can be managed and directed toward the achievement of organizational success. Culture is thus a means to the end of survival.
The interpretive school sees culture as a complex realm of symbolic meaning with several dimensions or characteristics, such as the organization's relation to its environment, and what it understands 'truth', 'time', and 'human nature' to be. Culture-as-dimension is thus an end in itself, and proponents of this view attempt to interpret and understand this final product of evolution, rather than try to manipulate it to achieve some other goal.
Kunda defines corporate culture "as the shared rules governing cognitive and affective aspects of membership in an organization, and the means whereby they are shaped and expressed" (Kunda, 1992, p8). He describes the three levels of culture found at Tech, and "the symbolic, textual, and narrative structures in which they are encoded" (Kunda, 1992, p8).
He describes an informal, flexible, and yet successful Tech, with cultural manifestations such as open office space, a cafeteria grapevine, leisure lunch breaks (when employees play cards or do sports), independent work-time management known as "flexitime", egalitarian relations, technical accomplishment, presentation rituals, initiative, bottom-up decision-making, risk-taking, and employee identification with company goals. There is also mention of "technet", which gives Tech employees uncontrolled access to the organization's computer terminals worldwide.
Rather than analyze the content of culture, Mallak looks at its strength. He develops a procedure for measuring culture strength, which he implements in two organizations. His research contributes to the understanding of culture's role in behavior and performance outcomes, and of organizational cultural management, and to the identification of the most effective measure or indicator of culture strength.
His hypotheses and assumptions point toward the functionalist conception of organizational culture as a manipulable variable, a means to the end of survival, rather than as a continually evolving realm of symbolic meaning, the end attained through an ongoing process of natural or manufactured cultural change, as seen from the interpretivist point of view.
Mallak suggests that an organization whose values are strongly held by its members, that is, one with a stong culture, has highly committed employees, and that this commitment translates into high performance.
Mallak acknowledges the difficulty of defining culture strength when he says that "authors have infrequently and inconsistently operationalized their concepts of strength" (Mallak, 1993, p1). He does not focus on a single measure, but designs a procedure to test the effectiveness of five culture strength measures --- intensity, core values, cultural behavior, effects from external forces, and the gap between existing and desired cultures.
Mallak (1993) also points out that many researchers have operated on the wrong assumption that strong cultures are functional cultures, that is, cultures that generate high performance, job satisfaction, group cohesion, and committed employees. He rebuts this proposition with the example of a terrorist organization, which could have a strong culture built around 'unproductive' values such as anarchy, hate, and subversion. Thus his definition of culture strength is only partially dependent on the extent of agreement on values, the intensity measure.
Mallak's conceptual framework centers on two analogies.
He uses physical science's stress-strain model (Mallak, 1993, p26) in the organizational context. Internal and external forces (stress) act on an organization, causing it to react --- adapt, withstand, or disintegrate --- according to its capacity to endure the strain, its culture strength and resistance.
From the psychology of personality arena, he borrows the central / peripheral values model. He transplants the concepts of stable core values and changing peripheral values into the organizational context, defining culture strength as the extent of agreement on values among the members of a work group or organization. Core values hold stable over long periods of time, and thus play an important role in unifying the organizational elements, strengthening the culture.
For the purpose of his study, Mallak narrowly defines culture as "the set of values (the content) common to a work group (the boundary)" (Mallak, 1993, p35).
How does an organization develop a culture?
Furnham and Gunter identify three sources of organizational culture.
First come the founders & leaders. Having a natural monopoly on the organization's value system, they inculcate their attitudes, values, and vision in the new staff whom they recruit.
Second, the external environment shares a symbiotic relationship with the organization, which must adapt its own value system (maintain values that support survival; dispose of those that hinder it) in order to find its niche in the environment and fit in.
Third, the necessity of performance demands the establishment of effective working relationships, whose nature varies with the kind of business the organization is engaged in and the kind of people that make up the organization. This, in turn, requires a process of storming out the plethora of values in a new organization, and of norming and cementing the desired ones as the values of the organization.
In the case of Tech, Kunda identifies three levels of corporate ideology that converge to produce a coherent cultural framework consisting of two main themes --- the company's social attributes and the employees' member roles.
At the managerial level, senior managers create abstract "party line" themes / principles of honesty, profit, quality, responsibility, informality, trust, employee maturity and self-direction, etc. These, transmitted via official statements and publications, provide a prescriptive foundation for the organization's culture.
Internal staff experts build on this with a more concrete "description of the social environment". Manuals, seminars, and workshops serve as practical, self-help guides on interpreting and internalizing company philosophy and on learning "member role" ideas of hard work and fun, demonstrated commitment, harsh self-criticism, and self-initiative.
The outsider perspective validates the internal prescriptions and descriptions. Tech watchers (academics, consultants, and journalists) act as nonpartisan, objective third parties, observing and commenting on "Tech culture" and performance. According to Kunda, books, articles, and journals on Tech share a common theme --- that "membership in Tech implies heavy involvement and a strong emotional bonding of the individual to the company" --- and present this as "the key to economic success".
Employees assimilate themselves into their company's culture through a process of organizational socialization. Furnham and Gunter describe this as occurring in three steps.
In the anticipatory stage, individuals not yet part of the organization learn about it from primary agents (family members and friends already members of the organization), professional sources (the media, company annual reports), and recruitment procedures (interviews, presentations).
The encounter stage sees new recruits, aided by orientation and training programs, learning basic and essential job skills and company practices and procedures, and getting to know their co-workers.
The final step is their metamorphosis into full-fledged members, the recognition of which is reflected in some formal or informal ritual such as a dinner reception, a new office, or an invitation to lunch by co-workers.
To deepen the understanding of the concept of corporate culture, Furnham & Gunter elaborate on various systems of categorization. Models presented include Deal & Kennedy's 'tough-guy macho', 'work hard - play hard', 'bet-your-company', and 'process' cultures; Williams, Dobson, & Walters' power, role, task, and people orientations; and Graves' barbarian, monarchical, presidential, and pharaonic cultures.
In Hofstede's classification, a low power distance culture features less centralization, a flatter chain of command, and smaller wage differentials than a culture in which less powerful members accept greater inequality in power distribution. His individualism-collectivism dimension ranges from the familial organization whose members perform out of a sense of loyalty and duty to the group, to the impersonal organization in which employees pursue and defend their own self-interests independent of group interests. Hofstede's two other dimensions are masculinity-femininity and uncertainty avoidance.
Kunda's description of "a fluid and ambiguous structure, rapid internal mobility, and flexible spatial and time boundaries" (Kunda, 1992, p48) in the organization of well-reputed Tech probably puts Tech in the low power distance range. This suggests that less formal structures of organization contribute to higher employee productivity and organizational performance.
However, although Tech uses metaphors of "family", "religion", and "marriage" to describe collective, group membership, there have been casualties of Tech's high demands. Employees who are unable to fit into the cultural mould either distance themselves in some way or burn out and leave the scene (voluntarily or otherwise) completely. Tech's position in this dimension is further blurred by the existence of marginal members who do not enjoy the full privilege of being part of this "family".
How is organizational culture measured?
Furnham and Gunter present two methodology categories; the choice of which to use depends on the researcher's definition of culture.
Observable phenomena, and even beliefs, attitudes, values, and expectations can be measured using an etic or standard-criteria perspective, which utilizes quantitative instruments. The Norms diagnostic index measures 7 behavioral norms, and the Organizational beliefs questionnaire measures ten values shared by employees (Furnham & Gunter, 1993, p96).
Mallak (1993) uses this approach. He hypothesizes that the 'independent variables' of intensity, core values, cultural behavior, effects of external forces, and existing / desired culture gaps are predictive of the 'dependent variables' of employee commitment, job satisfaction, and group cohesion. He uses this relationship in the construction of his questionnaire and in his findings.
He distributed his questionnaire to employees in two organizations, Management Systems Laboratories (MSL) and Shenandoah Life Insurance Company.
His findings displayed evidence of core values being an effective measure of culture strength (Mallak, 1993, p183). The effects scale to capture culture strength in a method analogous to the stress-strain model, however, was not effective. Mallak attributed this to a deficiency in scale design.
His work provides a standardized procedure, which allows any trained researcher to identify and quantify the core values of a work group, relate culture strength measures to performance criterion variables, and relate gaps between existing and desired values to employee commitment, job satisfaction, and group cohesion.
Other contributions he makes are a definition of core values to use in measuring culture strength among work groups, a measure to capture the behaviors reflecting the desired values, and a new way to measure culture gaps.
However, his etic approach may not be very effective in handling the ambiguous concept of culture strength, describing it in absolute terms when it deserves more comparative treatment. And although a standardized procedure should facilitate the generalization of findings, Mallak's samples come from only two relatively small service organizations, which may not be representative of organizations in general.
The emic approach that Kunda takes, on the other hand, addresses the particular situation and needs of the organization, rather than apply itself rigidly across all organizations.
This unique-culture perspective, which utilizes qualitative methods, also enables the analysis of unconscious assumptions, the deepest level of culture.
Kunda's study describes an organization that not only possesses a unique culture that seems to contribute to its reputation of being "on the 'leading edge' of high technology", but also engages in an active process of shaping that culture. His ethnographic approach thus aims to "document and interpret the culture of culture management" in Tech's "self-conscious attempts to design and manage culture" (Kunda, 1992, p23).
Are culture and performance related?
Furnham and Gunter posit corporate culture as having a direct impact on employee motivation, satisfaction, and morale, and as influencing organizational success in two ways --- as the "social glue", which integrates members into a collective whole and generates a "we-feeling", and as a shared system, which bases mutual understanding and facilitates communication to coordinate the organization's operations.
They qualify these claims with the requirements of culture strength and key traits, such as concern for quality and innovation, and humanistic values.
Mallak delivers support for the strong culture argument. His findings show significant correlation between his culture strength measures and his performance criterion variables (Mallak, 1993, p180). Group cohesion, job satisfaction, and / or employee commitment registered higher for smaller culture gaps, greater value-intensity, and stronger core values.
The popularity of and interest in the idea of the strong corporate culture encompasses the widespread belief that cultures can be diagnosed and changed to serve organizational effectiveness.
Furnham & Gunter support this idea of managing corporate culture. They propose that culture gaps can be closed, by manipulating culture components, to bring the existing culture toward the desired one.
However, they acknowledge problems with this proposition --- it assumes that an organization has a single, unitary culture; there are different definitions, and therefore measures, of culture strength; and there is no definite proof that the cultural criteria for performance are absent in less successful organizations.
The relationship between culture and the "bottom line" appears true in Tech's case. Kunda's examination of Tech culture probes into the basis of this suggested connection, to try to understand how "Tech's strong culture" contributes to its high industrial performance.
Proponents of "the art of creating strong corporate cultures" support a transition from traditional, utilitarian forms of control to what is called normative control. While bureaucratic work organizations use economic rewards to stimulate compliance with rules and regulations, organizations with strong cultures operate on the internalization of company values over and above formal control structures. Strong emotional attachment to and identification with company goals, along with intrinsic job satisfaction, mean that members receive not only a "behavioral or economic transaction" but an "experiential transaction" as well (Kunda, 1992, p11).
Such organizations need no strict and rigid external control to keep in check employees, who remain productive through "a combination of self-direction, initiative, and emotional attachment". Having moved beyond the need for economic and material gain, they look to symbolic rewards and personal development.
The argument that the explicit design and management of organizational culture can improve performance by combining the company's concern for productivity with the employee's self-actualizing needs (that is, by avoiding a conflict between organization and individual) is, however, not untouchable.
The critical voice speaks of normative control as a "sophisticated and manipulative form of tyranny in the workplace, a threat to both freedom and dignity, an unwarranted invasion of privacy" (Kunda, 1992, p15).
While Kunda presents the proposition that "what is in the 'hearts and minds' of employees… can and should be managed in the organizational interest" (Kunda, 1992, p9), he also elaborates on this negative view of corporate culture management.
Tech's practice of normative control so ingrains desired organizational values in individual members, that it constitutes a "subtle form of domination" perhaps more dangerous than traditional methods of control. He talks about a management that "indeed resembles Big Brother" with its group testimonials, management presentations, training workshops, work group meetings, and face-to-face monitoring "reminiscent of brainwashing techniques" (Kunda, 1992, p223).
Yet this does not result in a total homogenizing effect on the entire workforce of the organization. Kunda includes analyses of Tech's sub-cultures, in the form of marginal members (secretaries, security guards), who do not receive the complete set of privileges and responsibilities that central members do, and central members who struggle with the conflict they encounter between Tech's engineered value system and their personal principles.

METHODOLOGY
Furnham & Gunter's corporate culture questionnaire (Furnham & Gunter, 1993, pp100-105) is here described with respect to the purposes of testing the cultural perspective in reality and linking cultural factors (values, norms, legends, myths, stories, rituals, beliefs) with performance factors (productivity, commitment, satisfaction, motivation, morale, absenteeism).
Out of a total of 94 items in 15 sections, only two from each section are presented here for expedience.

A. Task dimension
1. Initiative-taking orientation Great extent Not at all
1. It is vital for business success to keep up with new development. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
3. Successful organizations generally keep one step ahead of the rest. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2. Risk-taking orientation
10. Caution is the best policy. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
11. Nobody got anywhere without taking a chance every once in a while. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
3. Performance quality orientation
16. Those who know their business well will succeed. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
17. Always try to pursue a standard of excellence. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
4. Strategic planning
23. A successful organization always knows where it is going. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
24. Too much attention to planning can slow you down. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
B. Interpersonal dimensions
1. Power orientated
27. Successful people are those who are loyal to their boss. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
28. You need to be firm and decisive to survive. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2. Achievement orientated
33. Success comes to those who believe in getting the job done. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
34. Personal commitment to attaining goals is of utmost importance. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
3. Co-operation orientated
40. Success comes to those who get on with others. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
41. You've got to look out for yourself first and foremost. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
4. Supportive orientation
47. Show concern for the needs of others. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
48. Always try to help your colleagues. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
5. Communication orientation
52. People at work need encouragement. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
53. Ideas should flow freely. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
6. Rewards orientation
60. People need regular awards. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
61. Rewards should go to those who are committed to their work. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
7. Moral orientation
67. Happy workers are more productive. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
68. A healthy team spirit is important to a successful organization. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
C. Individual-level orientation
1. Autonomy orientation
72. Final decisions should always be checked with superiors. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
75. Strict management procedures build a tight ship. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2. Self-expression orientation
79. Be spontaneous. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
83. Order and discipline are essential to business success. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
3. Diversity orientation
85. Employees should concentrate on mastering just a few clearly
defined duties and responsibilities. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
87. Employees can benefit their organization by trying different jobs. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
4. Personal growth orientation
93. People should put the needs of the company ahead of their of their personal growth. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
94. A company can only grow if it allows its work-force the freedom to develop. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

The questionnaire seeks to reveal the values of an organization through the perceptions of its employees. The questions ask the respondent what it means to be an employee of the organization and what he / she thinks the organization's values are.
The task dimension addresses attitudes toward initiative, risk, and quality, to discover the organization's cultural traits. The interpersonal dimensions look into the organization's orientations in terms of power distribution, supportiveness versus competition, reward systems, etc. to understand the organization's cultural dimensions. The individual-level orientation section addresses attitudes towards personal growth and welfare within the organization, to uncover the relationship between employee and organization.
Besides gathering data on the content of the organization's culture, the distribution of this questionnaire to a representative sample of employees also indicates the strength of the culture through the intensity of agreement of perceptions and attitudes.

CONCLUSION
Despite the near impossibility of proving a direct relationship between organizational culture and performance, and the potentially negative impacts of deliberate culture 'manipulation', the argument that corporate culture influences corporate performance still stands on stable foundations. This is evidenced by the persistence of the 'culture school' for over thirty years, continued research in this arena, and findings that, though unable to provide definitive conclusions, add on to the hypothesis that a strong corporate culture (with the right traits) does indeed contribute to high performance.
Problems in proving such a relationship lie in the breadth and ambiguity of the concept of culture. As an encompassing 'environmental' feature, it inevitably coincides and overlaps with other areas in the field of organizational communication. Hence the ongoing disagreement over what is corporate culture, and where it starts and stops.
Writing this paper, we discovered much difficulty in keeping human relations theories out of the picture. We feel that culture and performance are connected through the human relations perspective.
On the one hand, the specific culture of an organization exerts a direct influence on its members' worldview by presenting them with a system of assumptions, beliefs, and behaviors, which either contribute to or detract from organizational performance and success.
On the other hand, the culture works through the 'medium' of human relations, in the form of concern for the individual and integration of his / her needs with those of the organization, to create a healthy company that functions productively.
As human beings understand and interpret their world symbolically, culture plays a dominant role in shaping their realities and worldviews. Hence the immense differences in conceptions and perceptions across ethnographic cultures. Nations vary in the level and degree of "success" (economic, political, military, etc.) due, in large part, to these cultural differences.
It is not much different when the concept of culture is adapted to the organizational setting. Every organization develops its own little culture (some more obviously than others) to define its role in its environment and how it wants to go about 'doing its thing'. How successful it is depends on the strength of its culture and the traits it comprises, as demonstrated in both Mallak and Kunda's field studies.

*****************************************************************
REFERENCES
Mallak, L. A. (1993). The development and application of a procedure to measure culture strength in organizations. Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106: UMI Dissertation Services, A Bell & Howell Company. HD58.7.M252 (NTU library 2).

Furnham, A. & Gunter, B. (1993). Corporate assessment: Auditing a company's personality. New York, NY 10001: Routledge. HD58.7.F988 (NTU library 2)

Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Philadelphia 19122: Temple University Press. HD58.7.K96 (NTU library 2)

************************************************************************