Rethinking Organizational Culture and Systems: A Relational Approach

I came across this post of Peter Stoppelenburg and would like to share some reflections from the perspective of a relational cognition expert. There are a few key points in this post that could be further explored or reconsidered, particularly when it comes to the over-categorization of organizational cultures.

While Goffee and Jones' two dimensions of solidarity and sociability are insightful, the framework risks oversimplifying the complexity of organizational dynamics by neatly slotting cultures into four distinct types. Human relationships and behaviors in organizational contexts are highly fluid, and influenced by numerous external and internal factors. The dichotomy between "task-oriented" and "people-oriented" approaches doesn’t fully capture how individuals and teams can balance these needs in different circumstances.

For example, the idea of “networked” or “fragmented” cultures might not accurately reflect how relationships evolve over time. The focus on high or low sociability doesn’t consider the nuances of how people’s relational behaviors can change depending on the context (e.g., during times of stress, leadership change, or organizational transformation). Relationships in these types might seem informal or distant, but could still foster critical interdependencies and collaboration in unrecognized ways.

Moreover, the categorization of the "mercenary" culture as one focused solely on results and efficiency doesn’t account for the complexities of how task-oriented organizations build informal networks to support their performance. Even in high-performance, result-driven cultures, relationships and trust still matter, even if they’re not the primary focus. In fact, many mercenary organizations may rely on task-based relationships that are efficient and functional, but which are still governed by a shared sense of purpose or commitment to performance.

The concept of a "communal" culture being a panacea for high performance is also overly reductive. While communal environments can foster strong interpersonal relationships and a sense of shared purpose, they also bring their own set of challenges, particularly when conflict arises or when there is tension between personal goals and organizational priorities. Cultures that balance both solidarity and sociability are not inherently better—they are more adaptable to certain contexts, but not immune to dysfunction. The idealized vision of a "communal" culture overlooks the potential friction that may exist between interpersonal harmony and the pressures of performance.

In sum, the focus on categorizing organizational culture types can be useful for framing discussions, but it risks oversimplifying how people relate to each other in complex, changing environments. A relational cognition approach would push for a more nuanced understanding of how individuals and groups adapt to the dynamic interplay between relationships and tasks, recognizing that organizational culture is not static and that the “best” culture type depends on context, leadership, and the interplay of individual and collective goals.