y is based on interviews with a small sample of high-flier managers; a bigger sample might have helped to explore the wider diversity of views that probably exists amongst IP managers. We are, however, mindful of Yin's (1989) view that qualitative analysis facilitates 'generalization' across theoretical propositions, rather than across populations and universes. Also, the adequacy of small samples has been noted where the emphasis is on phenomenological experience, use of language and analysis at the level of 'meaning' (see, e.g., Easterby-Smith et al. 1991). The extent to which career expectations are consistent with the internalization of the dominant culture amongst low-achievers is a possible area for further research. Second, we should treat with caution the argument that self-interest alone drives managers to accept the 'integrative' corporate ideology. Clearly we need further research to examine how managers would behave if the ideology was no longer able to deliver desirable material and symbolic consequences, and if popular support for organizational values declined. An interesting parallel is found in Kraimer's (1997) argument that when one has very strong beliefs in his/her own values, this may negatively impact on the outcomes of socialization to the organization's goals and values. Third, it would have been helpful to interview managers at IPI at the time of the research and to know from the 'senators' exactly what their role was in managers' career development. Informal discussions suggested that 'getting to know senators' was an euphemism for politics. Given the role of senior executives in shaping culture, further research could examine the role of management teams in fostering corporate ideologies, particularly at the global level where multiple national/economic ideologies exist.In spite of these limitations, it is evident that bringing together functionalist and symbolic analytical perspectives allows us to reconstruc...
