ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses why the notions are interrelated are spelt out partly by using historical evidence, and suggests by way of explanation for them both that they are underpinned by Arcadian assumptions and urges. It argues that concern with culture at the organizational level of analysis and experience might have been predicted from knowledge of a historic lack of concern for task-relevant, sector-specific skills in British systems of education and training. The chapter shows that attempts to alter organizational culture which are meant to effect improvements in performance necessarily have a shallow, remedial, short-term quality, and that it is very difficult for any improved performance to be sustained over the long term. It also shows that the post-industrial thesis is inaccurate in most of its details, highly misleading in terms of what it is generally understood to imply and most comprehensively appreciated if it is classified as a mainly anti-industrial one.
