For a concept so central to organizational behaviour, the meaning of organizational culture continues to be vague, diverse and contradictory. In part this conceptual confusion was imported with the basic analytical framework from anthropology. To some extent, however, the original ambiguity of the term has been exacerbated by the wide range of uses that organizational theorists and practitioners have made out of it.

The vagueness and diversity of the concept have been a hindrance to the development of a theory of culture as it makes comparison and accumulation of results extremely difficult. On the other hand the lack of a paradigmatic definition has meant that theorists have been free to apply the concept of culture and its derivatives to a wide variety of settings.

Exactly when and where the concept of culture entered organization research has been the subject of some debate and conjecture. What is clear is that its early use was nearly coincidental with widespread interest in the way that national culture affected the operation and efficiency of organizations, specifically Japanese organizations. Thus the term 'culture' has always had two major, closely related meanings within organization theory. First, it has stood for the body of values, myths, symbols, stories and artefacts that are held in common by members of an organization. Second, it has represented the value-based commonalities that exist within a nation (or some other large political unit). Despite the early influence of the comparative approach to the study of organization culture and the commonality of methodological tools, the two areas have remained largely separate.

David Cray