Three team and organisational culture myths and their consequences for sport psychology research and practice

Abstract

In this article, three prevailing myths about team and organisational culture – an increasingly popular topic in applied sport psychology research and practice – are identified, reviewed and challenged. These are; that culture is characterised only by what is shared, that culture is a variable and therefore something that a particular group has, and that culture change involves moving from the old culture to an entirely new one. We present a challenge to each myth through the introduction of alternative theoretical and empirical material and discuss the implications for sport psychology research and practice. The intent of this endeavour is to stimulate debate on how to best conceptualise and study culture. More broadly, we aim to encourage sport psychologists to consider team and organisational culture in new and/or varied ways, beyond current conceptualisations of consensus, clarity, integration and as a management tool to facilitate operational excellence and on-field athletic success.

Full text

Running Head: Culture myths and sport psychology
Three Team and Organisational Culture Myths and their Consequences for
1
Sport Psychology Research and Practice
2
Michael McDougalla,b, Noora Ronkainenc, David
3
Richardsona, Martin Littlewooda, and Mark Nestia
4
a School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK
5
6
b Turock School of Arts & Sciences, Keystone College, Pennsylvania, USA
7
c Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Finland
8
9
Contact Author: Michael McDougall. m.mcdougall@2011.ljmu.ac.uk
10
11
This is a ‘pre-corrections’ manuscript. The Version of Record of this manuscript has been
12
published and is available in the International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology
13
“4th July, 2019” https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2019.1638433
14
>
15
16
17
18
19
20

Culture myths and sport psychology
Three Team and Organisational Culture Myths and their Consequences for Sport
21
Psychology Research and Practice
22
23
Abstract
24
In this article, three prevailing myths about team and organisational culture – an increasingly
25
popular topic in applied sport psychology research and practice - are identified, reviewed and
26
challenged. These are; that culture is characterised only by what is shared, that culture is a variable
27
and therefore something that a particular group has, and that culture change involves moving from
28
the old culture to an entirely new one. We present a challenge to each myth through the
29
introduction of alternative theoretical and empirical material and discuss the implications for sport
30
psychology research and practice. The intent of this endeavour is to stimulate debate on how to
31
best conceptualise and study culture. More broadly, we aim to encourage sport psychologists to
32
consider team and organisational culture in new and/or varied ways, beyond current
33
conceptualisations of consensus, clarity, integration and as a management tool to facilitate
34
operational excellence and on-field athletic success.
35
Keywords: Elite sport; applied practice; critical realism; interpretation; conflict
36
37
38
39

Culture myths and sport psychology
Three Team and Organisational Culture Myths and their Consequences for Sport
40
Psychology Research and Practice
41
Myths, in at least in one sense of the word, are beliefs and ideas that are widely held but
42
which are ultimately false, exaggerated or idealised (Cohen, 1969). As they are told and re-told,
43
myths are perpetuated and over time often become the starting point for all discussion in a
44
particular area. It is only when subjected to empirical scrutiny and critical evaluation, that they
45
are revealed as tenuous and less definite than they originally seemed or was claimed.
46
There has been a tradition of challenging well-established perspectives, or myths in sport
47
psychology. For instance, Professor Lew Hardy in his Coleman Griffith Address and subsequent
48
article (1997) outlined the myths of applied consultancy work. Hardy challenged existing
49
thought in three areas: that cognitive anxiety is always harmful to performance and should be
50
reduced whenever possible, that outcome goals and ego orientations have a detrimental effect on
51
a number of performance-related variables, and that internal visual imagery is more beneficial to
52
performance than external visual imagery. More recently, Professor Dave Collins - on award of
53
the ‘DSEP Distinguished Contribution Award for 2013’ and in the related paper (2014) -
54
described ‘Three More Myths of Applied Sport Psychology Practice’. This comprised a
55
constructive challenge to the widely held assumptions that we are an applied science, that we are
56
focused on client experience, and that we do have a secure basis for development through our
57
literature base. Challenging myths is an essential endeavour because it is through the critical
58
appraisal of current literature, that we can ensure ‘our educated guesses are truly educated’
59
(Hardy, 1997, p. 291). Moreover, it is a process that can ‘stimulate debate’ and ‘take things
60
forward’ (Collins, 2014, p. 37). In this article, we build on this important tradition and challenge
61

Culture myths and sport psychology
three myths in an area that increasingly fascinates both research and applied sport psychologists
62
– team and organisational culture.
63
While we acknowledge that some authors (e.g., Cruickshank & Collins, 2012;
64
Cruickshank, Collins, & Minten, 2013a, 2013b) have attempted to delineate their research on
65
team culture from an organisational level focus (in accordance with their precise aims of study),
66
our review incorporates sport psychology literature from both team culture and organisational
67
culture levels of analysis. We do this primarily on the grounds that we focus on and describe
68
observed commonalities that link this culture literature in terms of definition, conceptualisation
69
and operationalisation. For instance, and as one example of necessary conflation, some sport
70
psychology researchers have acknowledged their reliance on Edgar Schein’s well-cited definition
71
(cf. Cruickshank & Collins, 2012) and conceptualisation (cf. Henriksen, 2015) of organisational
72
culture to ground and advance empirical research at the team level within sport. The
73
development of team culture literature and culture change research (e.g., Cruickshank et al.,
74
2013a, 2013b; Cruickshank, Collins, & Minten, 2014, 2015; Henriksen, 2015) in sport
75
psychology has therefore been abstracted from ideas of organisational culture in other domains.
76
Thus, no matter the level of foci, these associations and origins are not easy to disregard, because
77
they have provided a base from which subsequent work has emerged.
78
Regardless of the line of cultural inquiry, the extant team and organisational culture
79
literature in sport psychology has also been bound by a similar research agenda, which has
80
typically been one of performance enhancement and culture change. There are other
81
commonalities: most of this research has been explicitly leader-centric and managerialist,
82
whereby scholars have developed a view of culture as a singular, uniformed and easily
83

Culture myths and sport psychology
manipulatable entity. These commonalities bind the body of work and, we think, challenge the
84
idea that team and organisational culture are completely distinct lines of inquiry.1 Given that we
85
focus closely on these congruities in the myths we present and challenge, we feel it is appropriate
86
(and necessary) to refer to both team and organisational culture literature within sport
87
psychology as part of our broader critique. We therefore primarily adopt the term culture
88
throughout the article but make distinctions to guide readership and denote the level of analysis,
89
or particular focus of research, where appropriate.2
90
Moreover, and acknowledging that the meanings of ‘culture’ are numerous and debated
91
(Geertz, 1973; Martin, 2002) for the purposes of this paper, we use the term to refer broadly to
92
cultural symbolic phenomena that people interpret and ascribe meaning to (Alvesson, 2002;
93
Geertz, 1973; Maxwell, 2012). In this way culture is fundamental to an understanding of
94
everyday practices, ideas, events, structures and processes, but is also the setting in which such
95
phenomena are grasped and found meaningful (Alvesson, 2002).
96
In our critique of identified myths, we draw on critical realist positioning, combining
97
ontological realism (the world is how it is) and constructivist epistemology (our theories and
98
explanations are social constructions) (cf. Maxwell, 2012). From this perspective then, we
99
assume that culture is real – it is embedded in the action and processes of real life and has
100
consequences for how we live and see ourselves (Ortner, 1999) – but that our knowledge of it is
101
far from straightforward and inevitably predicated on interpretation. Consistent with many forms
102
of realism, we do not seek a single ‘correct’ or authoritative understanding (Maxwell, 2012) of
103
culture; but do think it critical that the sport psychology community, still in the early stages of
104
research in this area, searches rigorously and creatively for theories and interpretations that can
105

Culture myths and sport psychology
more accurately explain, depict and make novel use of the culture concept. We consider this a
106
vital endeavour, since there is a general complacency that underlies the uniform approaches to
107
team and organisational culture within sport psychology, and because the very fate of culture is
108
argued to hinge on its uses and the diversity with which it is located and examined (cf. Alvesson,
109
Kärreman, & Ybema 2017; Ortner, 1999). Where appropriate, we also integrate critique from
110
interpretive positions (e.g., Alvesson, 2002; Geertz, 1973; Smircich, 1983) that have contributed
111
to challenging positivist conceptualisations of culture. Interpretivist approaches are generally
112
accepted to stem from traditions in hermeneutics and phenomenology and are grounded in a
113
concern with meaning, and the subjective experiences and meaning-making activities of social
114
actors that are to be made sense of through interpretation (Schwandt, 1994). While different in
115
ontological positioning, contemporary realist (critical or otherwise) and interpretivist scholars
116
often share assumptions about the importance of meaning, complexity of social phenomena and
117
theory-laden knowledge, and realist conceptualisations of culture are in many ways similar to
118
those advanced in interpretivist and postmodernist approaches (Maxwell, 1999, 2012). Research
119
and commentary from these approaches have consistently offered original critique and
120
alternatives to stagnant and well-worn conceptualisations and accounts of culture. They retain
121
the capacity to do the same for sport psychology research into team and organisational culture.
122
Team and Organisational Culture Research in Sport Psychology
123
The study of culture in the performance enhancement discourses of sport psychology has
124
emerged from the growing realisation that individual-focused ‘traditional’ methods of sport
125
psychology were limited in their capacity to help applied practitioners to understand and
126
influence team and organisational performance issues (e.g., Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996, Jones,
127

Culture myths and sport psychology
2002; Nesti, 2004). A number of scholars have since highlighted that expertise in team and
128
organisational culture, as it relates to performance, is necessary for effective sport psychology
129
delivery (e.g., Cruickshank & Collins, 2012, 2013; Cruickshank et al., 2013a, 2014, 2015;
130
Eubank, Nesti, & Cruickshank, 2014; Fletcher & Arnold, 2011; Fletcher & Wagstaff, 2009;
131
Henriksen, 2015; McDougall & Ronkainen, 2019; Nesti, 2010; Wagstaff & Burton-Wylie, 2018,
132
2019); particularly at the elite-professional levels of sport where more than the application of
133
mental skills techniques is demanded (McDougall, Nesti, & Richardson, 2015; McDougall,
134
Nesti, Richardson & Littlewood, 2017; Nesti, 2010). Working in a broader capacity across the
135
team or organisation, the sport psychologist has often been portrayed as an agent of culture
136
change, intentionally influencing culture (or at least supporting others, such as performance
137
leaders in this task), to facilitate athletic and operational excellence (e.g., Cruickshank & Collins,
138
2012, 2013; Cruickshank et al., 2013a; Eubank et al., 2014; Fletcher & Arnold, 2011; Henriksen,
139
2015).
140
While the literature on team and organisational culture has grown steadily, a
141
preoccupation with how to use culture for high performing ends has preceded more focused
142
attempts at first trying to understand what culture is or might be. Aside from some recent
143
attempts to clarify the concept and expand its meaning(s) (McDougall et al., 2017; McDougall &
144
Ronkainen, 2019; Wagstaff & Burton-Wylie, 2018, 2019), a number of assumptions about
145
culture (i.e., the myths we will subsequently outline) seem to have been widely accepted within
146
sport psychology without much discussion. This typical line of inquiry has arguably fostered a
147
superficial appreciation of what is widely regarded as a notoriously complex concept (cf.
148
Alvesson, 2002; Geertz, 1973; Martin, 2002; Schein, 2010). As McDougall and Ronkainen
149

Culture myths and sport psychology
(2019) noted, shallow understandings of culture operating in tandem with leader-led and
150
managerialist perspectives have already contributed to considerable intellectual stagnation within
151
wider organisational and management culture scholarship. They urged the sport psychology
152
community to be mindful of this point and to recognise that as a discipline we are presently
153
travelling on the same path that led to the decline of culture study (both in volume and
154
intellectual vitality) in organisational studies almost three decades ago. Alongside Wagstaff and
155
Burton-Wylie (2019), they further recommended that sport psychology scholars do not
156
oversimplify culture, and continue to cultivate a deeper appreciation of it, its foundations, and
157
the variety of perspectives that can be used to understand and communicate its meanings.
158
Our primary aim within this paper is to support a progression of understanding of culture
159
by identifying and challenging three myths that have gathered significant traction within the
160
team and organisational literature. These are: that culture is defined and characterised only by
161
what is shared; that culture is a variable and therefore something that a group has; and finally,
162
that culture change involves creating a completely new culture. We offer observations
163
constructively in the hope they will stimulate debate and dialogue among scholars and
164
practitioners and encourage others to question taken for granted threads that run through the
165
spine of our discipline’s team and organisational culture literature.
166
Myth 1: Culture is Defined and Characterised ‘Only’ by what is Shared
167
There is almost complete consensus in the performance discourses of sport psychology
168
literature that culture is characterised purely by what is shared (e.g., Bailey, Benson, & Bruner,
169
2017; Cruickshank & Collins, 2012, 2013; Cruickshank et al., 2013a, 2014, 2015; Fletcher &
170

Culture myths and sport psychology
Arnold, 2011; Henriksen, 2015; McCalla & Fitzpatrick, 2016). In a study of performance
171
leadership, Fletcher and Arnold referred to culture as ‘shared beliefs and expectations’ (2012, p.
172
228), while Bailey and colleagues (2017, p. 228) in an examination of the organisational culture
173
of CrossFit used the extensively cited work of organisational scholar Edgar Schein (2010) to
174
define organisational culture as:
175
a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of
176
external adaption and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be considered
177
valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and
178
feel in relation to those problems. (Schein, 2010, p. 18)
179
Cruickshank and Collins (2012) also drew upon the scholarship of Schein to help define
180
team culture as ‘a dynamic process characterised by the shared values, beliefs, expectations, and
181
practices across the members and generations of a defined group’ (p. 340). This latter definition
182
is one that has been utilised frequently in research and commentary (including our own), as a
183
base from which to further examine ideas of team and organisational culture and associatively
184
ideas of culture change (e.g., Cruickshank et al., 2013a, 2014, 2015; Eubank, Nesti, &
185
Littlewood, 2017; McCalla & Fitzpatrick, 2016; McDougall, et al., 2015; McDougall et al,
186
2017).
187
Following these definitions, successful cultures, at any level of analysis (e.g., team,
188
performance department, organisation), are argued to be ones built on the creation and regulation
189
of shared cultural elements such as beliefs, expectations, values and practices (e.g., Bailey et al.,
190
2017; Cruickshank & Collins, 2012, 2013; Henriksen, 2015). Themes of unity, togetherness,
191

Culture myths and sport psychology
cohesion, coherence, clarity and commonality of goals and vision are frequently extolled (e.g.,
192
Bailey et al., 2017, Cruickshank & Collins, 2012, 2013; Cruickshank et al., 2013a, 2013b, 2014,
193
2015; Fletcher & Arnold, 2011; Henriksen, 2015). There are now also specific courses of action,
194
models and guides to best practice that performance leaders (and supporting sport psychologists)
195
can adopt to maximise these themes to facilitate a high performing and ‘shared in’ culture
196
(Cruickshank et al., 2013a, 2014, 2015; Henriksen, 2015).
197
The precise strategies and practices recommended within these guidelines and
198
frameworks to engender a high performing culture within a team or organisation are varied,
199
spanning a range of planning, evaluation and management activities that help to promote shared
200
perceptions and acceptance of change (Cruickshank et al., 2014, 2015; Henriksen, 2015). Such
201
activities include, for instance, embedding ‘agreed’ upon group values into day-to-day existence
202
and behaviours (Henriksen, 2015); the subtle and covert shaping of the physical, structural, and
203
psychosocial context in which culture members make choices (Cruickshank et al., 2014); and
204
increasing political influence through seeking social allies and cultural architects and aligning the
205
perceptions of key personnel (Cruickshank et al., 2014, 2015). Those who toe the line and live
206
the desired values will likely be rewarded (Henriksen, 2015). Conversely, it is suggested that
207
some cultural members should be ignored so as to subliminally create shared expectations and
208
adherence to the focus and principles of the performance programme (Cruickshank et al., 2014).
209
From this view, culture involves ‘singing from the same hymn sheet’ (Cruickshank et al., 2015 p.
210
46), and is labelled as ‘the way things are done around here’ (Cruickshank & Collins, 2013, p. 9;
211
Cruickshank et al., 2013b, p. 323), ‘the way we do things here’ (Bailey et al., 2017, p. 2) or ‘how
212
we do things’ (Henriksen, 2015, p. 146).
213

Culture myths and sport psychology
This way of describing culture is a cross-discipline commonality indicative of excessive
214
reliance (either knowingly or unwittingly, but often unacknowledged) upon structural-
215
functionalist traditions that were developed within British social anthropology (Radcliffe-Brown,
216
1952) from the social theory of Emile Durkheim (1893/1984). Central to this school of thought is
217
the idea that social systems have a high degree of cohesion and stability, with unity, consistency
218
and harmony characterising relationships between members of a given group or society. While
219
anthropology and sociology became increasingly critical of this idea of culture, structural-
220
functionalism found new life in its profound, even overbearing influence on the rapid
221
development of the organisational culture concept in the 1980s (Meek, 1988; Ouchi & Wilkins,
222
1985). It is highly visible in the lifetime work of influential organisational culture authority
223
Edgar Schein (cf. 2010), and therefore often present within a significant body of academic
224
literature that adopts Schein’s work as an intellectual default position from which to consider
225
culture. In essence, the premises of structural-functionalism – while not always translated
226
faithfully – have been melded to a distinctly managerialist approach which has seen the concept
227
of culture frequently equated with social cohesion on the one hand and group functioning and
228
effectiveness on the other (Meek, 1988).
229
The Challenge
230
In the described conceptualisation of culture, there is limited room for contestation,
231
ambiguity and variability of interpretation. For example, in a critique of Cruickshank et al.’s
232
(2013a) study of culture change within a professional sport team, Gilmore (2013) observed that
233
the creative capacity by which group members as culture-makers can resist the dominant culture
234
is missing from the account. It is an omission that we believe extends throughout sport
235

Culture myths and sport psychology
psychology team and organisational culture research to date. Yet, as Gilmore (2013) noted,
236
athlete autobiographies are replete with stories of resistance and rebellion to cultural and
237
managerial regimes. Elite sport environments are also consistently distinguished as socially
238
complex, volatile and ridden with conflict and unique flows of power (Cruickshank & Collins,
239
2012; Cruickshank et al., 2014; 2015; Nesti, 2010); characteristics that would seem to necessitate
240
a closer cultural inspection of contestation and uncertainty. However, it seems as though
241
anything not clearly shared in by all group members is viewed in performance enhancement
242
discourses as somehow lying outside of culture. The implicit assumption is that culture is a
243
naturally homogenized and homogenizing phenomenon and that anything that is not ‘shared’ in
244
is not cultural, but rather a ‘temporary’ blip to be managed out on the road to unity.
245
There are other established traditions in wider culture scholarship that resist such neat
246
presentations of culture. For instance, in his phenomenally influential book Interpretation of
247
Cultures (1973), anthropologist Clifford Geertz declared that ‘nothing has done more to discredit
248
cultural analysis than the construction of impeccable depictions of formal order in whose actual
249
existence nobody can quite believe’ (p. 18). Indeed, anthropologists have become increasingly at
250
ease with the need to rethink culture in terms of being a singular, shared set of meanings that
251
distinguish one culture from another (Abu-Lughod, 1999) and have offered persistent theoretical
252
and empirical challenges to this outdated conceptualisation (cf. Maxwell, 2012). In
253
organisational domains, many well-known culture researchers have also been sceptical of
254
definitions and accounts of culture that are devoid of attention to difference, variability, conflict,
255
contestation and ambiguity (e.g., Alvesson, 2002; Martin, 2002, 2004; Meyerson & Martin,
256
1987; Willmott, 1993). Joanne Martin, for example, suggested that what the shared culture
257

Culture myths and sport psychology
position actually offers is ‘a seductive promise of harmony and value homogeneity that is
258
empirically unmerited and unlikely to be fulfilled’ (Martin, 2004, p. 7). In cross-cultural
259
literature (e.g., Triandis, 1995), scholars have also pointed out that conflict and variability of
260
interpretation are not only present but also sometimes valued in individualistic cultures (the main
261
context of team and organisational culture research in sport). These challenges denote a common
262
critique directed at ‘impeccable’ accounts of culture; that a concept of culture wed to ideas of
263
consensus and clarity is simply too undifferentiated, too homogeneous. Given various forms of
264
social difference and inequality, how could everyone within a group hold the same worldview
265
and orientation towards it (Ortner, 2005)?
266
The implication of this challenge is that regardless of the unit of cultural analysis (e.g.,
267
team, performance department, or organisation), the conceptualisation and operationalisation of
268
culture must include more than what is coherent and shared simply because cultural members
269
interpret, evaluate and enact it in various ways. Many organisational management researchers
270
have therefore recognised the purposeful existence and development of sub-cultures and
271
countercultures which can support, contest, or be indifferent to the culture articulated and
272
espoused by upper management (e.g., Martin, 2002). Elite sport, having undergone rapid
273
professionalisation and expansion within global economies and multicultural societies, are
274
increasingly acknowledged as diverse - occupationally, demographically and culturally (Nesti,
275
2010; Ronkainen & Blodgett, in press; Ryba, Schinke, Stambulova, & Elbe, 2018). It follows
276
that the existence of multiple subcultures imbued with alternative interpretations of how things
277
are - rather than one unitary culture - is likely in most sporting contexts. We may also reasonably
278
add that people are usually part of a number of cultures (both within and outside of an
279

Culture myths and sport psychology
organisation or team) and derive their identity(s) and values from many sources. Various
280
identities and identifications can include, for instance, gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, politics,
281
religion, spirituality, family, class, and meaningful experiences (Blodgett, Schinke, McGannon,
282
& Fisher, 2015). Cultural learning and the identities that stem from these important sources are
283
unlikely to be completely dissolved, forgotten or entirely ignored, even in the face of managerial
284
processes and the forceful promotion of a unitary culture and a ‘way things are around here’
285
philosophy.
286
Together, these ideas challenge notions of a single, shared, monolithic culture;
287
highlighting the very premise as unrealistic and even harmful. For example, in cultural sport
288
psychology (CSP) literature, it has been suggested that athletes negotiate their identities in
289
relation to multiple sources; but that identity can become oppressed and marginalised within
290
sport cultures or particular contexts, such as in the face of discrimination and social exclusion
291
(Blodgett, Ge, Schinke & McGannon, 2017). CSP scholars (e.g., Schinke & Hanrahan, 2009)
292
and applied practitioners (e.g., Nesti, 2004) within our discipline have therefore called for the
293
development of more nuanced understandings of cultural variability in motivation,
294
communication, and meanings that athletes ascribe to sport.
295
There are also concerns outlined in non-sport psychology organisational culture literature
296
that consultants who cultivate a perspective of culture based only on what is ‘shared’ risk
297
developing a narrow approach replete with a number of cultural blind spots (cf. Maitland, Hills,
298
& Rhind, 2015; Martin, 2002). Specifically, these might include downplaying, dismissing or
299
misunderstanding other types and sources of cultural content that are not shared, clear, or
300
coherent (Martin, 2002). Without this broader view, the complexity of day-to-day cultural life as
301

Culture myths and sport psychology
experienced by coaches, managers, and athletes with marginalised identities or lower status and
302
authority is potentially excluded (Maitland et al., 2015). We suggest that Martin and Meyerson’s
303
organisational culture scholarship (cf. Martin, 2002) and their distinction between integration
304
(what is shared), differentiation (what is contested), and fragmentation (what is unclear and
305
ambiguous), is particularly useful for sport psychology researchers and practitioners who are
306
looking for practical ways to consider culture beyond patterns of sharedness. For an excellent
307
overview of this influential work and its adoption in wider sport literature, we also direct
308
readership to Maitland et al.’s recent (2015) systematic review of organisational culture in sport.
309
Myth 2: Culture is a Variable and Therefore Something that a Team or Organisation has
310
In sport psychology team and organisational culture research and commentary, culture is
311
primarily treated as something that a group has rather than as something a group is (i.e., that
312
permeates its whole existence) (McDougall et al., 2017; Ronkainen & Blodgett, in press). In this
313
way, culture is considered as something that a group has ownership over. As property of a group,
314
culture is framed as a clear entity that is ‘out there’ in the environment, and therefore easily
315
discoverable. In part, what renders culture discoverable is the distinct features and processes that
316
it is assumed to be comprised of. In sport psychology, the most commonly identified core
317
elements of culture are values, practices, expectations and beliefs that group members share
318
(Cruickshank & Collins, 2012, 2013; Cruickshank et al., 2013a, 2014, 2015; Fletcher & Arnold,
319
2011; McCalla & Fitzpatrick, 2016). It is through the identification of these, and similar
320
elements, that culture is seemingly transformed from a slightly ethereal phenomenon with non-
321
observable properties into something more concrete and that a group can ‘possess’.
322

Culture myths and sport psychology
From this acceptance of a somewhat positivist view of social reality, culture has
323
frequently been operationalised in a manner comparable to how experimental scientists treat
324
variables. As a variable, culture can be isolated, regulated, mechanically manipulated and
325
ultimately changed through strategy, planning and intervention to support the aims and agendas
326
of decision makers. Research within this perspective primarily adopts a functional approach
327
(Alvesson, 2002), whereby the emphasis becomes how the cultural parts that comprise the whole
328
(such as beliefs, values, and practices) function to maintain social control (Ouchi & Wilkins,
329
1985). Following in this structural-functionalist tradition, sport and organisational researchers
330
have attempted to distinguish between cultures that are more or less functional (e.g., Cruickshank
331
& Collins, 2012; Henriksen, 2015; Schein, 2010). Certain types of cultures are assumed to lead
332
to desirable outcomes such as employee commitment, motivation, adherence to values and
333
effectiveness. In this way, culture is framed as the critical variable to improve or reinvigorate
334
performance.
335
The intuitive value of thinking about culture in this manner is continually reinforced by
336
the sport media and performance leaders, who regularly espouse the benefits of getting a
337
‘strong’, ‘right’, or another particular type of culture in place as if it is easily manoeuvrable. At
338
the same time, those who do not fit the idealised culture are often marginalised and could be
339
labelled in various ways such as ‘team cancer’ (McGannon, Hoffmann, Metz, & Schinke, 2012)
340
or lacking mental toughness (Coulter, Mallett, & Singer, 2016). Typically and in relation to Myth
341
1, this often revolves around the desire for having cultures that are underpinned and regulated by
342
consensus, unity, and coordinated action.
343
The Challenge
344

Culture myths and sport psychology
Outside of sport psychology, many researchers discuss the idea that culture is a root-
345
metaphor for group understanding. This means that a group is a culture, or rather, can be seen as
346
if it is one (e.g., Alvesson, 2002; Smircich, 1983; Willmott, 1993). Organisations then, for
347
example, are therefore not ‘understood and analysed in material terms, of which culture is a part
348
but in terms of their expressive, ideational, and symbolic aspects’ (Smircich, 1983, p. 348). This
349
is a perspective more aligned to the way many anthropologists - especially from the 1970s
350
onwards – have treated culture (Meek, 1988; Willmott, 1993). It is also more commensurate with
351
how researchers in the CSP movement – a distinct, yet parallel track to culture research in high-
352
performance sport (e.g., Ryba & Wright, 2005; Schinke & Hanrahan, 2009) – have considered
353
culture.
354
From this alternative position on culture, the social world is conferred a far less concrete
355
(though not necessarily less real) status. As a more fluid and evolving entity culture is no longer
356
viewed as readily quantifiable or easily identifiable (Alvesson, 2002; Geertz, 1973; Smircich,
357
1983). Instead, it is seen as a creation of people; a product of the network of symbols and
358
meanings that cultural members negotiate, produce and reproduce over time (Alvesson, 2002;
359
Geertz, 1973; Meek, 1988; Smircich, 1983). Culture is thus assumed to be borne of social
360
interaction and deeply embedded in and entwined with the contextual richness of the social life
361
of cultural members (Meek, 1988; Smircich, 1983). It is the degree of this embeddedness that
362
renders culture less easy to discover and why it cannot be mechanically moved around (Meek
363
1988) as if it is a ‘thing’ in the natural world.
364
Neither is culture seen as something that can be imported into a group or created by
365
leadership or consultants with expertise (Meek, 1988), as culture change researchers in sport
366

Culture myths and sport psychology
psychology have been inclined to imply (e.g., Cruickshank et al., 2014, 2015; Henriksen, 2015).
367
Rather, because all members of a group are culture makers (Gilmore, 2013), its creation is
368
emphasised as layered and complex, rather than originating or developing from any one person
369
or source (Meek, 1988). Proponents of the root-metaphor view of culture are thus inclined to
370
play down the leadership-driven practical usages of culture that are sought by management; a
371
pursuit that many culture purists have historically deemed unworthy of academic attention
372
(Willmott, 1993). Although this outlook may seem pessimistic and even combative, the link
373
between culture and group performance - while seemingly intuitive – has been elusive, difficult
374
to establish and lacks empirical support (Gregory, Harris, Armenakis, & Shook, 2009; Siehl &
375
Martin, 1990).
376
There is perhaps some valuable middle ground between these two traditions in the study
377
of culture that can be intentionally explored. Awareness and acknowledgement of alternative
378
positions do have practical implications for sport psychologists: Firstly, because theory should
379
inform our practices (and cyclically, practice should also inform theory, so that organic and
380
phenomenological everyday experiences of social actors within sport contexts are reflected in
381
research); and secondly because culture – no matter the orientation towards it - affects social
382
matters and people in deeply profound and practical ways. Moreover, if culture is not fetishised
383
as a variable, then it is immediately rendered messier, more complex, and troublesome. If not a
384
variable, then culture cannot be identified, controlled, or regulated (Alvesson, 2002; Martin,
385
2002; Meek, 1988) to the extent suggested in sport psychology culture change literature (e.g.,
386
Cruickshank et al., 2014, 2015; Henriksen, 2015). This, in turn, affects how sport psychologists
387
‘sell’ their culture expertise and indeed, their overall competency. Sport psychologists who are
388

Culture myths and sport psychology
less inclined to describe and operationalise culture as a variable may find that there is
389
substantially less receptivity to their culture views from sport organisations and performance
390
leaders who are seeking cultural solutions to practical problems (Wagstaff & Burton-Wylie,
391
2018).
392
Although the harder realities of elite sport may seem incompatible with this alternative
393
concept of culture, we believe that cultivation of this perspective also affords an opportunity for
394
sport psychologists. A less mechanistic conceptualisation of culture need not be mutually
395
exclusive with the view that it is important and influences people. Nor does it mean that aspects
396
of it cannot be shaped by individual action (Meek, 1988). Conceivably, sport psychologists may
397
actually be able to deploy their culture expertise more effectively once they have accepted
398
culture cannot be consciously manipulated as a whole, and that it does not stop and start on
399
command. Centralising meaning making and prioritising understanding above concerns with
400
function (e.g., Geertz, 1973) can also inspire both subtle and deep analyses of culture that
401
manage to tease out the contextual richness, cultural diversity as well as the importance of
402
subjectivity and the agency of intentional social actors (e.g., Ortner, 1999). From a consulting
403
perspective, this point of difference with the ‘culture-as-a-variable’ view is substantial. It
404
suggests that the central concern is not to locate culture and link it to other analytically distinct
405
variables, but to understand how culture is already interwoven with and influencing important
406
practical matters such as leadership, strategy, group member behaviour and team/organisational
407
performance.
408
Myth 3: Culture Change Involves Creating a new Culture
409

Culture myths and sport psychology
Central to the functional concerns of team and organisational culture scholars in sport
410
psychology is the process of culture change and in particular, the move towards a new culture. It
411
is a fascination induced by growing interest in organisational and management processes,
412
performance leadership and the need for sport psychologists to be more effective with groups
413
(e.g., Cruickshank & Collins, 2012; Fletcher & Arnold, 2011). Culture change is viewed as a
414
way for performance leaders and supporting sport psychologists to meet unrelenting demands for
415
success and avoid the consequences for not delivering it, such as termination of employment
416
(Cruickshank & Collins, 2012). According to Cruickshank and Collins (2012), this process
417
typically involves a change in culture (i.e., doing what’s already being done but better) or a
418
change of culture (i.e., introducing new principles/practices). It is in the latter that the idea of an
419
entirely new culture is most evident. Change and successful optimisation of an underperforming
420
culture depend on group member acceptance that the old (singular) culture is no longer working
421
or supporting goal attainment, or that the new culture is more rewarding or appealing
422
(Cruickshank & Collins, 2013; Henriksen, 2015).
423
For instance, in a detailed case study of culture change in the Danish orienteering team,
424
Henriksen (2015) repeatedly referred to the shift from the old culture to a new culture. He
425
described ‘the rocky road to the new culture’ (p. 146), ‘designing the pillars of the new culture’
426
(p. 147), and a ‘ritualistic goodbye to the old culture’ (p. 149). During the change journey -
427
spanning initial needs assessment to change program evaluation - anything that opposed this
428
change was cast as villainous, while the new values to be inculcated into the team were heralded
429
as better and heroic. New values described were ultimately positive, inspiring and agreed upon,
430
and became accepted as the team’s espoused values. For culture change to succeed, it was
431

Culture myths and sport psychology
advised that these espoused values must be enacted by team members in daily practices and
432
normal routines so that they become part of the team’s identity and basic assumptions.
433
Reflecting on the case study, the culture change (i.e., from old to new) was assessed as
434
successful by Henriksen (2015). One year after the new culture had been completely embedded,
435
the program was evaluated, with group members in agreement that the problematic old culture
436
was no longer a troublesome characteristic of the team. In other work, Fletcher and Arnold
437
(2011) also articulated ‘the creation of a culture’ (p. 234); as did Cruickshank and colleagues
438
across a number of articles, while emphasising that the process of culture change is never-ending
439
(Cruickshank et al., 2014, 2015).
440
The Challenge
441
The myth being perpetuated here is that culture change involves moving from an old
442
culture to an entirely new one. This is an appealing, but a particularly misleading myth, even if it
443
is meant in more symbolic, rather than literal terms. Wider literature and theory from
444
anthropology, sociology and organisational management offers several points of understanding
445
that do not support the premise of culture shifting so completely whenever some form of change
446
or new practice is implemented (e.g., Martin, 2002; Meek, 1988). While recognising that culture
447
is not a static entity, but fluid, importantly, all cultures nonetheless retain elements that have
448
been historically important and that support the group’s existence, growth, and sense of meaning
449
and tradition (e.g., Geertz, 1973; Schein, 2010).
450
Sport lends itself easily to the sourcing of such examples. The New Zealand All Blacks
451
are unimaginable without the Haka. In football, the legendary This is Anfield sign that Liverpool
452

Culture myths and sport psychology
FC players ritually touch as they take the field has endured redesign, restoration and refinement
453
of tradition, but has nonetheless remained (both physically and with regards to symbolic
454
performance). For instance and most recently, Liverpool FC manager Jurgen Klopp ordered
455
players not to touch the sign before a game. It was his opinion that the current squad of players -
456
in trying to emulate the glory of previous generations - must earn the right to touch the sign as
457
they take the field. In this example, new practice indicates how cultural meaning is preserved
458
even in the face of new and amended practices and rituals.
459
Cultural symbols and artefacts are valued and protected by a group because they relate to
460
identity (Hatch, 1993), traditions, customs and a way of life (Harris, 1964). As such, they will not
461
be given up easily even under demands from authority, suggesting that culture cannot be
462
changed as a whole and may not be malleable or entirely susceptible to leader or practitioner-led
463
change. If some of these inner workings of culture seem incompatible with agendas of carefully
464
planned change, then in part, this is because they are tied to concepts of structure, hierarchy
465
power and resistance. By affording these ideas minimal attention, or grounding them primarily in
466
leader-centric points of view, sport psychology literature – and particularly culture change
467
literature - has arguably provided unrealistic expectations that practitioners can easily change a
468
culture in deliberate ways, even into an entirely new one if that is what is required. The danger,
469
however, of such an action-orientated approach, is that the sport psychologist risks
470
misunderstanding the meanings that people in the sporting environment assign, which can lead to
471
a loss of trust in the practitioner (Balague, 1999). Experienced organisational culture consultants
472
try to access important cultural assumptions before seeking to change what they do not yet
473
understand (Schein, 2010). Nesti (2010) referred to this in the context of sport psychology
474

Culture myths and sport psychology
delivery and emphasised the importance of reading the cultural matrix and delivering a service
475
that is informed by the existing culture.
476
With regard to this last point, sport psychologists must be mindful not to fall foul of a
477
progressive mindset, where new is always seen as better, and old is automatically thought of as
478
bad or somehow burdensome. The dangers of this type of thinking have been critiqued
479
extensively by some of our finest minds of the last few centuries, including Nietzsche, Erich
480
Fromm and Karl Marx, amongst others. In studies of culture and change – which in many ways
481
seek to bridge the past, present and future - traditions and history can also be viewed as (at least
482
potentially) good, powerful and worth preserving. To support the development of this type of
483
thinking, sport psychology researchers and practitioners might seek to first become more familiar
484
with the concept of culture itself and how its many forms, such as stories, myths, rituals and
485
language contain, carry and symbolise cultural meaning. Correspondingly, they will have to
486
sharpen the tools of interpretation that will help them to analyse and decipher layered cultural
487
symbols and what they might mean in terms of local knowledge. This could be done, for
488
example, through greater education and training in the ethnographic methods of the
489
anthropologist, or wider incorporation of contemporary organisational methods of understanding
490
complex environments, such as organisational sensemaking (cf. Weick, 1995). More generally, it
491
perhaps also speaks to the willingness and need to locate cultural analysis within and alongside
492
analyses of broader socio-political events and processes; which often necessitate attention to
493
forms of cultural history and ideas of struggle and change (Ortner, 1999). Work in this area may
494
benefit considerably from critical realist ideas of more lasting ideational and material structures
495
that constrain or enable the actions of individual actors. For example, Layder (as cited in Sealey,
496

Culture myths and sport psychology
2007) argued that while social structures are undeniably created and shaped by human
497
endeavours, they are noted to pre-exist and endure beyond the lifespan of the individuals who
498
create them through their actions and intentions; and in this way are hard to change and not
499
always readily apparent at the everyday level of experience, meaning that we cannot be
500
completely sure what the effects of our actions upon them will be. A critical realist approach to
501
culture and associated ideas of change therefore enables researchers to challenge positivist ideas
502
of culture as a variable that is easy to isolate and modify, while encouraging greater focus on
503
social structures, that while not always directly observable are nonetheless theorised and shown
504
to be real with real consequences for the actors involved.
505
Concluding Remarks
506
In this article, we have identified three team and organisational culture myths that are
507
consistently presented in sport psychology literature and have outlined their potential
508
problematic consequences for research and practice. These are (1) that culture is defined and
509
characterised only by what is shared; (2) that culture is a variable and something a team or an
510
organisation has; and (3) that culture change involves a complete transformation from the old
511
culture to an entirely new one. Unquestioned, these myths have the potential to constrain rather
512
than broaden sport psychology understanding of culture. With this in mind, we have discussed
513
alternative culture ideas and theories from wider sources of cultural research. We suggested that
514
conceptualisations of culture must also include attention to what is different, contested and
515
ambiguous; that culture is not a variable but rather permeates all aspects of the groups’ existence;
516
and lastly, that culture does not shift from an old one to an entirely new one whenever new
517
practices and principles are introduced.
518

Culture myths and sport psychology
There are a number of ways researchers and practitioners could build on or examine some
519
of these counterarguments, should they wish to. For instance, they could draw on the
520
organisational scholarship of Martin and Meyerson (e.g., Martin, 2002; Martin & Meyerson,
521
1988) to garner a broader perspective on what might be considered ‘cultural’; mitigating the
522
tautological risk of defining culture in terms of what is shared and obvious and then only seeking
523
out confirming evidence, while omitting the rest. Indeed, in sport psychology, CSP has emerged
524
in response to the need to engage with sociocultural difference and diversity (Ronkainen &
525
Blodgett, in press; Schinke & Hanrahan, 2009). In line with recent observations (McDougall &
526
Ronkainen, 2019; Ronkainen & Blodgett, in press; Wagstaff & Burton-Wylie, 2018), we suggest
527
that CSP literature and perspectives can become a valuable resource for sport psychologists
528
seeking to capture the ways in which culture is not necessarily shared within sport contexts.
529
Sport psychologists might also become more familiar with the anthropological essays and theory
530
of Clifford Geertz and the subsequent work that his interpretivist re-theorisation of the culture
531
concept inspired across the social sciences. Understanding this important movement and modern
532
iterations of it that address important issues of agency, power, identity and so forth, will help to
533
develop studies and applied practices capable of producing more rigorous, sophisticated and
534
‘thick’ rather than ‘thin’ cultural analyses. More broadly, we encourage greater use of realist
535
approaches to the study of culture, which have been used effectively as a basis for noteworthy
536
social and cultural research in anthropology (e.g., Barth, 1987) and are increasingly utilised
537
effectively in organisation and management studies (cf. Fleetwood & Ackroyd, 2004). A
538
consideration of some of these suggestions can help to challenge the underlying positivist tones
539
within functional conceptualisations of culture that are presently dominating sport psychology
540

Culture myths and sport psychology
research into team and organisational culture: for example, that culture is a tool or variable that
541
leaders and sport psychologists can use to easily manipulate the environment – and those in it –
542
to achieve unity, consensus and ultimately high performance on the athletic field and wider
543
operational/organisational excellence off it.
544
Finally, we reiterate the call for all culture scholars in sport psychology to outline more
545
clearly, and thoroughly, their epistemological position and what conceptualisation(s) of culture
546
has informed their work (McDougall et al., 2017; McDougall & Ronkainen, 2019; Wagstaff &
547
Burton-Wylie, 2018). This will sharpen our cultural dialogue and practices. Ultimately, perhaps
548
this also speaks to the need to place greater emphasis on the philosophy upon which our
549
understanding rests if we are to make some sense of the multifaceted, difficult concept that is
550
culture. That is, while a diversity of theory is necessary to do justice to the variety, complexity,
551
and richness of culture we must also start with reality; a phenomenology of culture that considers
552
what it is before we compartmentalise, categorise, measure and try to utilise it.
553
Notes
554
1 We direct interested readership to a valuable exchange on the matter (cf. Cruickshank et al.,
555
2013a, 2013b; Gilmore, 2013).
556
2 We wish to acknowledge and thank the reviewers for their encouragement to include this
557
section on the delineation of team and organisational culture literature and their helpful
558
suggestions in developing it.
559
Acknowledgements
560
Thank you to the anonymous reviewers for their time and constructive comments.
561
Disclosure Statement
562

Culture myths and sport psychology
There is no conflict of interest to report.
563
References
564
Abu-Lughod, L. (1999). The interpretation of culture(s) after television. In S. Ortner (Ed.), The
565
fate of “culture”: Geertz and beyond (pp. 110-135). Berkeley: University of California
566
Press.
567
Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. London: Sage.
568
Alvesson, M., Kärreman, D., & Ybema, S. (2017). Studying culture in organizations: Not taking
569
for granted the taken-for-granted. In A. Wilkinson, S. J. Armstrong, & M. Lounsbury
570
(Eds.), The Oxford book of management (pp. 103–126). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
571
Bailey, B., Benson, A. J., & Bruner, A. W. (2017). Investigating the organisational culture of
572
CrossFit. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1-15.
573
doi:10.1080/1612197X.2017.1329223
574
Balague, G. (1999). Understanding identity, value, and meaning when working with elite
575
athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 89-98. doi:10.1123/tsp.13.1.89
576
Barth, F. (1987). Cosmologies in the making: A generative approach to cultural variation in
577
Inner New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
578
Blodgett, A. T., Ge, Y., Schinke, R. J. & McGannon, K. R. (2017). Intersecting identities of elite
579
female boxers: Stories of cultural difference and marginalization in sport. Psychology of
580
Sport and Exercise, 32, 83-92. doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.06.006
581
Cohen, P. S. (1969). Theories of myth. Man, 4, 337-353.
582
Collins, D. (2014). Three (MORE) myths of applied sport psychology practice. Sport & Exercise
583
Psychology Review, 10, 37-41.
584

Culture myths and sport psychology
Coulter, T. J., Mallett, C. J., & Singer, J. A. (2016). A subculture of mental toughness in an
585
Australian Football League club. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 98-113.
586
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.06.007
587
Cruickshank, A., & Collins, D. (2012). Culture change in elite sport performance teams:
588
Examining and advancing effectiveness in the new era. Journal of Applied Sport
589
Psychology, 24, 338–355. doi:10.1080/10413200.2011.650819
590
Cruickshank, A., & Collins, D. (2013). Culture change in elite sport performance teams:
591
Outlining an important and unique construct. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 9, 6–
592
21.
593
Cruickshank, A., Collins, D., & Minten, S. (2013a). Culture change in a professional sports
594
team: Shaping environmental contexts and regulating power. International Journal of
595
Sports Science and Coaching, 8, 271–290. doi:10.1260/1747-9541.8.2.271
596
Cruickshank, A., Collins, D., & Minten, S. (2013b). Culture change in a professional sports
597
team: A response to commentaries. International Journal of Sports Science and
598
Coaching, 8, 319–325. doi:10.1260/1747-9541.8.2.319
599
Cruickshank, A., Collins, D., & Minten, S. (2014). Driving and sustaining culture change in
600
Olympic sport performance teams: A first exploration and grounded theory. Journal of
601
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 36, 107-120. doi:10.1123/jsep.2013-0133
602
Cruickshank, A., Collins, D., & Minten, S. (2015). Driving and sustaining culture change in
603
professional sport performance teams: A grounded theory. Psychology of Sport and
604
Exercise, 20, 40-50. doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.04.007
605
Eubank, M., Nesti, M., & Cruickshank, A. (2014). Understanding high performance sport
606

Culture myths and sport psychology
environments: Impact for the professional training and supervision of sport psychologists.
607
Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 10, 30–37.
608
Eubank M., Nesti, M., & Littlewood M. (2017). A culturally informed approach to mental
609
toughness development in high performance sport. International Journal of Sport
610
Psychology, 48, 1-17. doi:10.7352/IJSP 2017.48.001
611
Fleetwood, S., & Ackroyd, S. (2004). Critical realist applications in organisation and
612
management studies. London: Routledge.
613
Fletcher, D., & Arnold, R. (2011). A qualitative study of performance leadership and
614
management in elite sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23, 223–242.
615
doi:10.1080/10413200.2011.559184
616
Fletcher, D., & Wagstaff, C. R. D. (2009). Organizational psychology in elite sport: Its
617
emergence, application and future. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 427–434.
618
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.03.009
619
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
620
Gregory, B. T., Harris, S. G., Armenakis, A. A., & Shook, C. L. (2009). Organizational culture
621
and effectiveness: A study of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes. Journal of
622
Business Research, 62, 673-679.
623
Hardy, L. J., Jones, G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for sport:
624
Theory and practice of elite performers. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
625
Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review,
626
18, 657-693.
627

Culture myths and sport psychology
Hardy, L. (1997). The Coleman Roberts Griffith address: Three myths about applied consultancy
628
work. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 277–94. doi:10.1080/10413209708406487
629
Harris, M. (1964). The nature of cultural things. New York: Random House.
630
Henriksen, K. (2015). Developing a high-performance culture: A sport psychology intervention
631
from an ecological perspective in elite orienteering. Journal of Sport Psychology in
632
Action, 6, 141-153. doi:10.1080/21520704.2015.1084961
633
Jones, G. (2002). Performance excellence: A personal perspective on the link between sport and
634
business. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 268–281.
635
doi:10.1080/10413200290103554
636
Maitland, A., Hills, L., & Rhind, D. (2015). Organisational culture in sport – A systematic
637
review. Sport Management Review, 18, 501-516. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2014.11.004
638
Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
639
Martin, J. (2004). Research paper no. 1847: Organizational culture. In N. Nicholson, P. Audia, &
640
M. Pillutla (Eds.), The Blackwell encyclopaedic dictionary of organizational behaviour
641
(2nd ed., pp. 1-15). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
642
Martin, J., & Meyerson, D. (1988). Organizational culture and the denial, channeling and
643
acknowledgment of ambiguity. In L. Pondy, R. Boland Jr., & H. Thomas (Eds.),
644
Managing ambiguity and change (pp. 93–125). New York: John Wiley.
645
Maxwell, J. A. (1999). A realist/postmodern concept of culture. In E. L. Cerroni-Long (Ed.),
646
Anthropological theory in North America (pp. 143-173). London: Bergin & Carvey.
647
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). A realist approach for qualitative research. London: Sage.
648

Culture myths and sport psychology
McCalla, T., & Fitzpatrick, S. (2016). Integrating sport psychology within a high-performance
649
team: Potential stakeholders, micropolitics, and culture. Journal of Sport Psychology in
650
Action, 7, 33-42. doi:10.1080/21520704.2015.1123208
651
McDougall, M., Nesti, M., & Richardson, D. (2015). The challenges of sport psychology
652
delivery in elite sport: Reflections from experienced sport psychologists. The Sport
653
Psychologist, 29, 265-277. doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2014-0015
654
McDougall, M., Nesti, M., Richardson, D., & Littlewood., M. (2017). Emphasising the culture in
655
culture change: Examining current perspectives of culture and offering some alternative
656
ones. Sport and Exercise Psychology Review, 13, 47-61.
657
McDougall, M., & Ronkainen, N. (2019). Organisational culture is not dead…yet: A response to
658
Wagstaff and Burton-Wylie. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 15, 13-19.
659
McGannon, K. R., Hoffmann, M. D., Metz, J. L., & Schinke, R. J. (2012). A media analysis of a
660
sport celebrity: understanding an informal “team cancer” role as a socio-cultural
661
construction. Psychology of sport and exercise, 13, 26-35.
662
doi:10.1016j.psychsport.2011.08.001.
663
Meek, V. L. (1988). Organizational culture: Origins and weaknesses. Organization Studies, 9,
664
453-473. doi:10.1177/0170840688009004017
665
Meyerson, D., & Martin, J. (1987). Cultural change: An integration of three different views.
666
Journal of Management Studies, 24, 623-647. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1987.tb00466.x
667
Nesti, M. (2004). Existential psychology and sport: Theory and application. New York:
668
Routledge.
669
Nesti, M. (2010). Psychology in football: Working with elite and professional players. London:
670

Culture myths and sport psychology
Routledge.
671
Ortner, S. B. (1999). The fate of “culture”: Geertz and beyond. Berkeley, CA: University of
672
California Press.
673
Ortner, S. B. (2005). Subjectivity and cultural critique. Anthropological Theory, 5, 31–52.
674
doi:10.1177/1463499605050867
675
Ouchi, W., & Wilkins, A. (1985). Organizational culture. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 457-
676
483. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.11.080185.002325
677
Ronkainen, N., & Blodgett, A.T. (in press). Culture. In R. Schinke & D. Hackford (Eds.), The
678
Routledge International Encyclopedia of Sport and Exercise Psychology. London:
679
Routledge.Ryba, T. V., Schinke, R. J., Stambulova, N. B., & Elbe, A. M. (2018). ISSP
680
position stand: Transnationalism, mobility, and acculturation in and through sport.
681
International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 520-534.
682
doi:10.1080/1612197X.2017.1280836
683
Ryba, T. V., & Wright, H. K. (2005). From mental game to cultural praxis: A cultural studies
684
model's implications for the future of sport psychology. Quest, 57, 192-219.
685
doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2005.10491853.
686
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
687
Schinke, R., & Hanrahan, S. J. (2009). Cultural sport psychology. Champaign, IL: Human
688
Kinetics.
689
Schwandt, T. (1994). Constructivist interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. Denzin &
690
Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research(pp. 118-137). London: Sage.
691
Sealey, A. (2007). Linguistic ethnography in realist perspective. The Journal of Sociolinguistics,
692

Culture myths and sport psychology
11, 641–660. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00344.x
693
Siehl, C., & Martin, J. (1990). Organizational culture: A key to financial performance? In B.
694
Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 241-281). San Francisco, CA:
695
Jossey-Bass.
696
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science
697
Quarterly, 28, 339-358. doi:10.2307/2392246
698
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: West View Press.
699
Wagstaff, C. R. D., & Burton-Wylie, S. (2018). Oranisational culture in sport: A conceptual,
700
methodological and definitional review. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 14, 32-52.
701
Wagstaff, C. R. D., & Burton-Wylie, S. (2019). ‘Alive and kicking’: Securing the health of
702
organisational culture in sport: A response to McDougall and Ronkainen. Sport &
703
Exercise Psychology Review, 15, 20-24.
704
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
705
Willmott, H. (1993). Strength is ignorance; Slavery is freedom: Managing culture in modern
706
organizations, Journal of Management Studies, 30, 515-552. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
707
6486.1993.tb00315.x
708
709