Schein Model of Organizational Culture

What the Schein model of organizational culture is

The Schein model of organizational culture (نموذج شاين للثقافة المؤسسية) is a framework that describes the culture of an establishment in three levels, running from the visible to the hidden: visible artifacts, then espoused values and beliefs, then implicit basic assumptions. It is attributed to the American psychologist Edgar H. Schein and is associated in the literature with his 1985 book “Organizational Culture and Leadership”. Its idea is that what a visitor sees in an establishment says little about its culture unless it is interpreted through the values and assumptions underneath.

The model concerns how culture is interpreted. What follows is an explanation of the model and of its limits. It does not claim that one culture is better than another, or that changing one level changes the others.

Where the model comes from

The existence of the book and its publication details are recorded in Crossref through two reviews of it: a review by Wilkins in Human Resource Management, volume 24, issue 3, 1985, and a review by Hofstede in Organization Studies, volume 7, issue 2, 1986. Crossref also records an article by Schein titled “Organizational culture” in American Psychologist, volume 45, issue 2, 1990, pages 109 to 119.

We did not verify the text of any of them, so we quote nothing from them. Our description of the levels is a summary in our own wording of what writers circulate.

The three levels

• Artifacts. These are everything that a person entering the establishment can see and hear, such as office design, dress style, the wording of messages, meeting rituals and the structure of positions. They are easy to observe and hard to interpret, since an open plan office can mean openness and can mean saving space.
• Espoused values. These are what the establishment declares in its documents and in leaders’ speeches, such as transparency, quality or customer service. They are deliberate and public, but they can differ from what actually happens.
• Basic underlying assumptions. These are convictions that people in the establishment take for granted, mostly without awareness, about the nature of work, people, information and time, until nobody discusses them. In presentations of the model they are described as the root from which values and artifacts grow.

Each level calls for a different way of reading it. An artifact is observed, a value is asked about, and an assumption is inferred from repeated patterns of behaviour and is not stated openly.

A general illustration, not tied to any establishment, shows the difference between the levels. Take an establishment that declares “respect for time” as a value (second level), hangs clocks in every room and sets meeting times to the minute (first level). If someone who arrives late to a meeting is not asked about it while someone who leaves early is, that may point to a different implicit assumption, such as long attendance being evidence of seriousness. This is a possible interpretation that needs examination, and it is not a judgement on the establishment.

Working through the levels in order

An analyst can start from the easiest level. The analyst records the artifacts without interpreting them: how a visitor is received, how rooms are arranged, which words repeat in messages, and who sits at the head of the table. The analyst then moves to the espoused values, collects them from documents and speeches, and asks which values are mentioned on every occasion and which only on formal occasions. The analyst next sets the artifacts next to the values and looks for conflicts.

Where the stated and the visible conflict is the way into the third level. The analyst puts open questions to the people of the establishment about particular incidents. When did you disagree with your manager, and what happened? How were you treated the last time you made a mistake? Who is consulted on a decision like this?

This does not lead the analyst to a final truth, but to a hypothesis that the analyst puts to the people of the establishment for them to correct. If they say that it describes what they live, it is closer to correct. If they find it strange, it may be the analyst’s reading and not the culture of those people. The test takes time and participation, and anyone who thinks the model gives a reading at a glance is mistaken.

How the model differs from organizational culture

Culture means the values, assumptions and patterns of behaviour that govern how work is actually done, and the stated culture differs from the actual one; for both points, see organizational culture. The Schein model is a framework for reading culture. It arranges what is observed in layers, and it makes the gap between the stated and the actual a question put to each layer.

The two concepts complement each other and do not duplicate each other: one defines culture and the other offers a method of analysing it.

How the model shows in work

Researchers, consultants and human resources use the model in situations such as:

• Onboarding. A new employee learns the artifacts first, as in employee onboarding, and discovers what lies behind them gradually by seeing how mistakes are treated and who is promoted.
• Recruitment. Asking what a candidate adds to the culture, and not what matches it, is the idea behind culture add, and it needs an understanding of what lies under the surface.
• Change. A project can be delivered on time and its team can still return to the old way of working, which is a reason to look behind the visible procedure. The human side of such a change is covered in change management.
• Diagnosing problems. Repeated patterns of behaviour appear in a toxic workplace, and the model is a way of asking what assumptions support them.
• Declaring values. Writing an establishment’s values as written behaviour is the role of a code of conduct, and testing it means comparing it with what is actually rewarded and held to account.

A hypothetical example: reading the levels of culture in an establishment

Suppose a hypothetical establishment declares “transparency” as one of its values (second level). Its artifacts (first level) include a board displaying its values, open plan offices and an internal indicator board that everyone can see. The human resources team wanted to test this picture, so it reviewed six decisions that management took in a quarter. It found that four were announced to employees after implementation began, which is 4 ÷ 6 = 66.7%, and that only two were announced before it, which is 2 ÷ 6 = 33.3%. The total is 4 + 2 = 6 decisions.

The team might propose, as a hypothesis and not a judgement, that an implicit assumption operates in the establishment: that information stays with whoever decides and passes to others only when needed. This assumption needs testing through questions, interviews and the observation of other decisions, and not an inference from six decisions. The number is small, and some decisions may have been urgent and quick.

The figures are hypothetical and set to illustrate. They do not represent a real establishment or a study. The value of the example is that it shows how a stated value is compared with behaviour that can be counted, and how the assumption is kept as an open hypothesis and not a confirmed fact.

Questions the team can put on the same result include these. Do the decisions differ according to whom they affect? Does the picture differ between departments? What do employees say about the reason? If the answers differ between job levels, the establishment may have more than one subculture, which does not appear when decisions are only counted.

Where the model is limited

• Assumptions are inferred and not observed. Whoever infers them supplies an interpretation, and two readers can disagree about the root they see behind one behaviour.
• The model is descriptive and not predictive. It arranges what is seen and interprets it, and it does not predict an establishment’s performance. No study that links its levels to results underlies what we say about it.
• A single homogeneous culture is assumed. One establishment can hold subcultures in its departments and branches, and the presentation of the model in circulation does not detail how to interpret them.
• No method of change. The model helps in understanding where the root lies, and the presentation in circulation does not say how to change it.
• One framework among several. Other frameworks exist for reading culture, and each shows something and hides something.

How the model is misunderstood

• Thinking that changing slogans changes culture. A change at the visible level does not necessarily reach what is beneath it, and it can widen the gap between the stated and the actual.
• Treating espoused values as the culture. They are one layer, and they can be less honest than the artifacts.
• Inferring an assumption from one incident. A pattern is drawn from repetition.
• Treating the model as a measure of good culture. The model does not judge. It describes.

The role of human resources

Human resources can use the model to ask sharper questions about culture. Which declared value is not supported by repeated behaviour? Which artifact gives a signal opposite to what the establishment says? Who is promoted, and why? What happens when someone makes a mistake?

Human resources can gather the answers from exit interviews, employee surveys and the observation of meetings, and not from one person. Human resources can then present the result to leaders as open questions and not as a verdict, because an implicit assumption is hard for its holder to see. What the establishment promises its employees is set out in an employee value proposition, and the model is a way of comparing that promise with what the employee finds day to day.

What the evidence allows

We do not state that the three levels have a measured effect on an establishment’s performance or on employees’ satisfaction. We did not verify the text of the book, and in the sources we reviewed we found no figures that we adopt for such an effect, so we do not judge whether the book presents experimental evidence or reflections from consulting experience.

The model is treated as a tool for organising observation and formulating questions, and it is judged by what it reveals. Did a gap appear, previously unnoticed, between what is said and what is done? Did it lead to a clearer decision?

The Schein model remains a way of reminding the reader that what is seen in an establishment is part of the picture. What is decided afterwards depends on the case and on whoever has the power to change what the analysis revealed.

This is an explanation of the concept, not legal advice.