Organisational Culture as a Conditional Strategic Asset, Governed by Authenticity

 Introduction

In the twenty first century, the distinction between market leader and market failure is often linked to not to technology or capital, rather the invisible force of organisational culture. It is defined as the common assumptions, values, and beliefs that influence behaviour (Bratton and Gold, 2017), which promises an extra ordinary competitive advantage. However, underneath the corporate slogans, a strong academic debate remains: is culture a powerful strategic asset that leaders can purposefully design for improved performance? Or is the concept of "managing culture" an sophisticated managerial illusion, that conceals the reality of an ambiguous social construct? This article explores into the core theoretical concepts by comparing the functionalist perspective, culture as a lever for productive success, with the interpretivist perspective, culture as an evolving reality, to establish a balanced, evidence based conclusion about culture's practical status.

The Functionalist Perspective: Why Culture is Your Most Valuable Strategic Asset

The functionalist perspective is based on the idea that culture is a dependent variable that can be shaped by the management to achieve specific outcomes. Advocates of this view argue that strategically aligned cultures offers a strong competitive advantage (Barney, 1986).

Strategic alignment is the main way that culture works as an asset. According to Purcell and Boxall (2022), when HR practices are integrated with organisational strategy, they reinforce a high performance culture, by creating internal consistency and external differentiation. This intentional shaping process ensures that employee behaviour is aligned with organisational objectives (Boxall, Purcell, and Wright, 2008).

Moreover, the functionalist perspective focuses on the performance impact of a efficient culture. Studies shows that a well defined culture promotes improved employee motivation, higher retention rates, and organizational adaptability in times of change (Gilmore and Williams, 2009; Marchington and Wilkinson, 2020). From a managerial perspective, culture is a resource that can be evaluated and measured using metrics, and strengthened through recruitment and development processes (Kew and Stredwick, 2016). Therefore, the functionalist perspective concludes that culture is an essential and manageable asset that significantly improves organizational effectiveness.

The Interpretivist Perspective: Culture as an Emergent, Uncontrollable Social Construct

In contrast to the managements’ optimism on functionalism, the interpretivist perspective believes that culture is not something an organization possesses, but rather something an organization is. This view regards culture as an evolving concept that is constantly being designed and molded by employee interactions and shared experiences (Farnham, 2015).

Drawback of this view is that it challenges the idea that management can fully control culture. Interpretivists believe that culture is flexible, depends on the situation, and cannot be completely created by organizational leaders (Edwards and Rees, 2011). The real forces of culture are the shared experiences, informal relationships, and beliefs and assumptions of employees, which often make formal management programs or initiatives only surface-level and ineffective.(Rose, 2008). This complexity is increased in global contexts, where attempts to enforce a singular corporate culture across national boundaries often fail due to different local norms and systems (Briscoe, Schuler, and Tarique, 2012; Brewster et al., 2017).

Critically, the interpretivist view often links with theories of power and control. As Clegg, Courpasson, and Phillips (2006) explain, the effort to create a "strong culture" can be viewed as an ideological exercise. Management may promote shared values to encourage self regulation among employees, effectively turning culture into a mechanism for subtle management control rather than a genuine shared asset (Williams and Adam Smith, 2010; Tjosvold and Wisse, 2009). When the gap between the values management talks about and the practices employees experience becomes too wide, the cultural message become empty words, instead of an influence.

The Interdependence of Asset and Construct

Neither the functionalist perspective nor the interpretivist perspective fully explains culture. Culture is an integrated approach. It is both a strategic asset and a social construct. While the functionalist perspective focuses on culture’s ability to drive performance, its success depends on the points suggested by the interpretivist perspective.

For an effective culture, it must be authentic  and consistent. Management should show values through their actions, not only just talk about them. (Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell, 2013). When leaders act consistently, they gain the trust needed and turn values into real shared beliefs (Bratton and Gold, 2017).

However, there is a risk that the culture might become an illusion. If management treats culture only as a tool to control employees, ignoring how it naturally forms from shared experience , the effort can fail. When HR systems do not reflect the stated values, employees may become skeptical and disengaged, with low performance (Werner, Schuler, and Jackson, 2012). Successful organizations balance leadership with attention to the culture that emerges from employee interactions.

Conclusion

Overall, organizational culture is both a strategic asset and a social construct. The functionalist perspective is correct that culture can improve performance and give a competitive advantage. On the other hand, the interpretivist perspective explains that culture emerges from everyday interactions and cannot be fully controlled by management. If micromanaged, it can become empty words.

For the culture to be a valuable asset of an organization, it must be authentic. Its value depends on managements efforts to employee participation, making sure the culture is real and reflects actual experience. Without this balance, A valuable asset could become just a managerial illusion.

References

Barney, J.B. (1986) 'Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage?', Academy of Management Review, 11(3), pp. 656–665. [Online] Available at: https://jaybarney.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/1-Organizational-Culture-Can-it-Be-a-Source-of-Sustained-Competitive-Advantage-Barney-AOMR-1986.pdf [Accessed 20 October 2025].

Boxall, P., Purcell, J. and Wright, P. (eds.) (2008) The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bratton, J. and Gold, J. (2017) Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice. 6th ed. London: Palgrave. [Online] Available at: https://archive.org/details/humanresourceman0006edibrat/page/n7/mode/2up [Accessed 20 October 2025].

Brewster, C., Houldsworth, E., Sparrow, P. and Vernon, G. (2017) International Human Resource Management. 5th ed. London: Kogan Page.

Briscoe, D.R., Schuler, R.S. and Tarique, I. (2012) International Human Resource Management: Policies and Practices for Global Companies. 4th ed. New York: Routledge. [Online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350654148_International_Human_Resource_Management_System/link/6384ab867b0e356feb92b1c8/download [Accessed 20 October 2025].

Clegg, S., Courpasson, D. and Phillips, N. (2006) Power and Organizations. London: Sage Publications.

Edwards, T. and Rees, C. (2011) 'National Systems of Management and the Multinational Enterprise' in International Human Resource Management: Globalization, National Systems and Multinational Companies. 2nd ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. [Online] Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1744-7941.2011.00012.x [Accessed 20 October 2025].

Farnham, D. (2015) Managing in a Qualified Market Economy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gilmore, S. and Williams, S. (2009) Human Resource Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kew, J. and Stredwick, J. (2016) Business Environment: Managing in a Strategic Context. 4th ed. London: Kogan Page.

Marchington, M. and Wilkinson, A. (2020) Human Resource Management at Work. 7th ed. London: Kogan Page.

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. (2013) A Manager’s Guide to Self-Development. 5th ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.

Purcell, J. and Boxall, P. (2022) HR Strategy: Leading the People Side of the Business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rose, E. (2008) Employment Relations. 3rd ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Tjosvold, D. and Wisse, B. (eds.) (2009) Power and Interdependence in Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Werner, S., Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. (eds.) (2012) Readings in Strategic Human Resource Management. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Williams, S. and Adam-Smith, D. (2010) Contemporary Employment Relations: A Critical Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Badru, A., Chetty, T., Gigaba, S. and Khuluse, H. (2023) 'Case Analysis: Human Resource Management Strategy at Google'. [Online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368987952_Case_Analysis_Human_Resource_Management_Strategy_at_Google [Accessed 20 October 2025].

Donaldson, C. (2004) 'HR Crisis Management: An Enron Case Study'. HRD Magazine. [Online] Available at: https://www.hcamag.com/au/news/profiles/hr-crisis-management-an-enron-case-study/132956 [Accessed 20 October 2025].

CliffsNotes (2025) 'Sustainable HRM Practices at Patagonia: A Case Study'. [Online] Available at: https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-notes/21914961 [Accessed 20 October 2025].