ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
Organizational culture is the collective
behavior of humans who are part of an organization and the meanings that the
people attach to their actions. Culture includes the organization values,
visions, norms, working language, systems, symbols, beliefs and habits. It is
also the pattern of such collective behaviors and assumptions that are taught
to new organizational members as a way of perceiving, and even thinking and
feeling. Organizational culture affects the way people and groups interact with
each other, with clients, and with stakeholders.
Ravasi and Schultz (2006) state that
organizational culture is a set of shared mental assumptions that guide
interpretation and action in organizations by defining appropriate behavior for
various situations. At the same time although a company may have "own
unique culture", in larger organizations, there is a diverse and sometimes
conflicting cultures that co-exist due to different characteristics of the
management team. The organizational culture may also have negative and positive
aspects.
Schein (2009), Deal & Kennedy (2000), Kotter
(1992) and many others state that organizations often have very differing
cultures as well as subcultures.
Usage
Organizational culture refers to culture in any type
of organization be it school,
university, not-for-profit groups, government agencies or business entities. In
business, terms such as corporate culture and company
culture are sometimes used to refer to a similar concept.
Although the idea that the term became known in
businesses in the late 80s and early 90s is widespread,[1][2] in fact corporate
culturewas already used by managers and addressed in sociology, cultural
studies and organizational theory in the beginning of the 80s.[3][4]
The idea about the culture and overall environment and characteristics of organization, in fact, was first and
similarly approached with the notion of organizational climate in the 60s and 70s, and the terms now are
somewhat overlapping.[5][6]
Part of or equivalent to:
As a part of organization
When one views organizational culture as a
variable, one takes on the perspective that culture is something possessed by
an organization. Culture is just one entity that adds to the organization as a
whole. Culture can be manipulated and altered depending on leadership and
members. This perspective believes in a strong culture where everyone buys into
it[clarification needed].[7]
The same as the organization
Culture as root metaphor sees the organization
as its culture, created through communication and symbols, or competing
metaphors. Culture is basic with personal experience producing a variety of
perspectives.[7]
The organizational communication perspective on
culture views culture in three different ways:
·
Traditionalism: views culture through objective things such as
stories, rituals, and symbols
·
Interpretivism: views culture through a network of shared meanings
(organization members sharing subjective meanings)
·
Critical-interpretivism: views culture through a network of shared
meanings as well as the power struggles created by a similar network of
competing meanings
Types
Several methods have been used to classify
organizational culture. While there is no single "type" of
organizational culture and organizational cultures vary widely from one
organization to the next, commonalities do exist and some researchers have developed
models to describe different indicators of organizational cultures. Some are
described below:
Hofstede
Hofstede (1980) looked for
global differences between over 100,000 of IBM's employees in 50 different countries and three
regions of the world, in an attempt to find aspects of culture that might
influence business behavior. He suggested about cultural differences existing
in regions and nations, and the importance of international awareness and
multiculturalism for the own cultural introspection. Cultural differences
reflect differences in thinking and social action, and even in "mental
programs", a term Hofstede uses for predictable behaviour. Hofstede
relates culture to ethnic and regional groups, but also organizations,
profession, family, to society and subcultural groups, national political
systems and legislation, etc.
Hofstede suggests of the need of changing
"mental programs" with changing behaviour first which will lead to
value change and he suggests that however certain groups like Jews, Gypsies and
Basques have maintained their identity through centuries without changing.
Hofstede demonstrated that there are national
and regional cultural groupings that affect the behavior of organizations and
identified fourdimensions of culture (later five[8]) in his study of
national cultures:
·
Power distance (Mauk Mulder, 1977) - Different societies find different
solutions on social inequality. Although invisible, inside organizations power
inequality of the "boss-subordinates relationships" is functional and
according to Hofstede reflects the way inequality is addressed in the society.
"According to Mulder's Power Distance Reduction theory subordinates will
try to reduce the power distance between themselves and their bosses and bosses
will try to maintain or enlarge it", but there is also a degree to which a
society expects there to be differences in the levels of power. A high score
suggests that there is an expectation that some individuals wield larger
amounts of power than others. A low score reflects the view that all people
should have equal rights.
·
Uncertainty avoidance is the coping with uncertainty about
the future. Society copes with it
with technology, law and religion(however different
societies have different ways to addressing it), and according to Hofstede
organizations deal with it with technology, law and rituals or in two ways - rational and
non-rational, where rituals being the non-rational. Hofstede listed as rituals
the memos and reports, some parts of the accounting system, large part of the
planning and control systems, and the nomination of experts.
·
Individualism vs. collectivism - disharmony of interests on personal and
collective goals (Parsons and Shils, 1951). Hofstede brings that society's
expectations of Individualism/Collectivism will be reflected
by the employee inside the organization. Collectivist societies will have more
emotional dependence of members on their organizations, when in equilibrium -
organization is expected to show responsibility on members. Extreme
individualism is seen in the US, in fact in US collectivism is seen as
"bad". Other cultures and societies than the US will therefore seek
to resolve social and organizational problems in ways different than the
American one. Hofstede says that capitalist market economy fosters
individualism and competition and depends on it
but individualism is also related to the development of middle class. Research
indicates that some people and cultures might have both high individualism and
high collectivism, for example, and someone who highly values duty to his or
her group does not necessarily give a low priority to personal freedom and
self-sufficiency.[citation needed]
·
Masculinity vs. femininity - reflect whether
certain society is predominantly male or female in terms of cultural
values, gender
rolesand
power relations.
·
Long- Versus Short-Term Orientation [8] which he describes
as "The long-term orientation dimension can be interpreted as dealing with
society’s search for virtue. Societies with a short-term orientation generally
have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth. They are normative
in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively
small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick
results. In societies with a long-term orientation, people believe that truth
depends very much on situation, context and time. They show an ability to adapt
traditions to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest,
thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results." [9]
O'Reilly, Chatman, and
Caldwell
Two common models and their associated
measurement tools have been developed by O’Reilly et al. and Denison.
O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell (1991)
developed a model based on the belief that cultures can be distinguished by
values that are reinforced within organizations. Their Organizational Profile
Model (OCP) is a self reporting tool which makes distinctions according seven
categories - Innovation, Stability, Respect for People, Outcome Orientation,
Attention to Detail, Team Orientation, and Aggressiveness. The model is not
intended to measure how organizational culture effects organizational
performance, rather it measures associations between the personalities of
individuals in the organization and the organization's culture.
Employee values are measured against
organizational values to predict employee intentions to stay, and predict
turnover.[10] This is done
through instrument like Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) to measure
employee commitment.[10]
Daniel Denison’s model (1990) asserts that
organizational culture can be described by four general dimensions – Mission,
Adaptability, Involvement and Consistency. Each of these general dimensions is
further described by the following three sub-dimensions:
·
Mission - Strategic Direction and Intent, Goals and Objectives and
Vision
·
Adaptability - Creating Change, Customer Focus and Organizational
Learning
·
Involvement - Empowerment, Team Orientation and Capability
Development
·
Consistency - Core Values, Agreement, Coordination/Integration
Denison’s model also allows cultures to be
described broadly as externally or internally focused as well as flexible
versus stable. The model has been typically used to diagnose cultural problems
in organizations.
Deal and Kennedy
Deal and Kennedy (1982) defined organizational
culture as the way things get done around here.
Deal and Kennedy created a model of culture that
is based on 4 different types of organizations. They each focus on how quickly
the organization receives feedback, the way members are rewarded, and the level
of risks taken:[11]
1.
Work-hard, play-hard culture: This has rapid feedback/reward and low risk resulting
in: Stress coming from quantity of work rather than uncertainty. High-speed
action leading to high-speed recreation. Examples: Restaurants, software
companies.[11]
2.
Tough-guy macho culture: This has rapid feedback/reward and high risk,
resulting in the following: Stress coming from high risk and potential
loss/gain of reward. Focus on the present rather than the longer-term future.
Examples: police, surgeons, sports.[11]
3.
Process culture: This has slow feedback/reward and low risk,
resulting in the following: Low stress, plodding work, comfort and security.
Stress that comes from internal politics and stupidity of the system.
Development of bureaucracies and other ways of maintaining the status quo.
Focus on security of the past and of the future. Examples: banks, insurance
companies.[11][12]
4.
Bet-the-company culture: This has slow feedback/reward and high risk,
resulting in the following: Stress coming from high risk and delay before
knowing if actions have paid off. The long view is taken, but then much work is
put into making sure things happen as planned. Examples: aircraft
manufacturers, oil companies.
Edgar Schein
According to Schein (1992), culture is
the most difficult organizational attribute to change, outlasting
organizational products, services, founders and leadership and all other physical
attributes of the organization. His organizational model illuminates culture
from the standpoint of the observer, described by
three cognitive levels of
organizational culture.
At the first and most cursory level of Schein's
model is organizational attributes that can be seen, felt and heard by the
uninitiated observer - collectively known as artifacts. Included
are the facilities, offices, furnishings, visible awards and recognition, the
way that its members dress, how each person visibly interacts with each other
and with organizational outsiders, and even company slogans,mission statements and other
operational creeds.
Artifacts comprise the physical components of
the organization that relay cultural meaning. Daniel Denison (1990) describes
artifacts as the tangible aspects of culture shared by members of an
organization. Verbal, behavioral and physical artifacts are the surface
manifestations of organizational culture.
Rituals, the collective interpersonal behavior
and values as demonstrated by that behavior, constitute the fabric of an organization's
culture The contents of myths, stories, and sagas reveal the history of an
organization and influence how people understand what their organization values
and believes. Language, stories, and myths are examples of verbal artifacts and
are represented in rituals and ceremonies. Technology and art exhibited by
members or an organization are examples of physical artifacts.
The next level deals with the professed culture
of an organization's members - the values. Shared values are
individuals’ preferences regarding certain aspects of the organization’s
culture (e.g. loyalty, customer service). At this level, local and personal
values are widely expressed within the organization. Basic beliefs and
assumptions include individuals' impressions about the trustworthiness and
supportiveness of an organization, and are often deeply ingrained within the
organization’s culture. Organizational behavior at this level usually can be
studied by interviewing the organization's membership and using questionnaires
to gather attitudes about organizational membership.
At the third and deepest level, the
organization's tacit assumptions are found. These
are the elements of culture that are unseen and not cognitively identified in
everyday interactions between organizational members. Additionally, these are
the elements of culture which are often taboo to discuss inside the
organization. Many of these 'unspoken rules' exist without the
conscious knowledge of the membership. Those with sufficient experience to
understand this deepest level of organizational culture usually become
acclimatized to its attributes over time, thus reinforcing the invisibility of
their existence. Surveys and casual interviews with organizational members
cannot draw out these attributes—rather much more in-depth means is required to
first identify then understand organizational culture at this level. Notably,
culture at this level is the underlying and driving element often missed by
organizational behaviorists.
Using Schein's model, understanding paradoxical
organizational behaviors becomes more apparent. For instance, an organization
can profess highly aesthetic and moral standards at the second level of
Schein's model while simultaneously displaying curiously opposing behavior at
the third and deepest level of culture. Superficially, organizational rewards
can imply one organizational norm but at the deepest level imply something
completely different. This insight offers an understanding of the difficulty
that organizational newcomers have in assimilating organizational culture and
why it takes time to become acclimatized. It also explains why organizational
change agents usually fail to achieve their goals: underlying tacit cultural
norms are generally not understood before would-be change agents begin their
actions. Merely understanding culture at the deepest level may be insufficient
to institute cultural change because the dynamics of interpersonal
relationships (often under threatening conditions) are added to the dynamics of
organizational culture while attempts are made to institute desired change.
Factors and elements
Gerry Johnson (1988) described a cultural web,
identifying a number of elements that can be used to describe or influence
organizational culture:
·
The paradigm: What the organization is about, what it does, its mission, its
values.
·
Control systems: The processes in place to monitor what is
going on. Role cultures would have vast rulebooks. There would be more reliance
on individualism in a power culture.
·
Organizational structures: Reporting lines, hierarchies, and the way that
work flows through the business.
·
Power structures: Who makes the decisions, how widely spread is
power, and on what is power based?
·
Symbols: These include organizational logos and designs, but also extend
to symbols of power such as parking spaces and executive washrooms.
·
Rituals and routines: Management meetings, board reports and so on
may become more habitual than necessary.
·
Stories and myths: build up about people and events, and convey a
message about what is valued within the organization.
These elements may overlap. Power structures may
depend on control systems, which may exploit the very rituals that generate
stories which may not be true.
According to Schein (1992), the two main reasons
why cultures develop in organizations is due to external adaptation and
internal integration. External adaptation reflects an evolutionary approach to
organizational culture and suggests that cultures develop and persist because
they help an organization to survive and flourish. If the culture is valuable,
then it holds the potential for generating sustained competitive advantages.
Additionally, internal integration is an important function since social
structures are required for organizations to exist. Organizational practices
are learned through socialization at the workplace. Work environments reinforce
culture on a daily basis by encouraging employees to exercise cultural values.
Organizational culture is shaped by multiple factors, including the following:
·
External environment
·
Industry
·
Size and nature of the organization’s workforce
·
Technologies the organization uses
·
The organization’s history and ownership
Communicative Indicators
There are many different types of communication
that contribute in creating an organizational culture:[13]
·
Metaphors such as comparing an organization to a machine or a
family reveal employees’ shared meanings of experiences at the organization.
·
Stories can provide examples for employees of how to or not to act
in certain situations.
·
Rites and ceremonies combine stories, metaphors, and symbols into
one. Several different kinds of rites that affect organizational culture:
·
Rites of passage: employees move into new roles
·
Rites of degradation: employees have power taken away from them
·
Rites of enhancement: public recognition for an employee’s
accomplishments
·
Rites of renewal: improve existing social structures
·
Rites of conflict reduction: resolve arguments between certain
members or groups
·
Rites of integration: reawaken feelings of membership in the
organization
·
Reflexive comments are explanations, justifications, and
criticisms of our own actions. This includes:
·
Plans: comments about anticipated actions
·
Commentaries: comments about action in the present
·
Accounts: comments about an action or event that has already
occurred
Such comments reveal interpretive meanings held
by the speaker as well as the social rules they follow.
·
Fantasy Themes are common creative interpretations of events that
reflect beliefs, values, and goals of the organization. They lead to rhetorical
visions, or views of the organization and its environment held by organization
members.
Schemata
Schemata (plural of schema)
are knowledge structures a person forms from past experiences, allowing the
person to respond to similar events more efficiently in the future by guiding
the processing of information. A person's schemata are created through
interaction with others, and thus inherently involve communication.
Stanley G. Harris (1994) argues that five
categories of in-organization schemata are necessary for organizational
culture:
1.
Self-in-organization schemata: a person's concept of oneself within the
context of the organization, including her/his personality, roles, and
behavior.
2.
Person-in-organization schemata: a person's memories, impressions, and
expectations of other individuals within the organization.
3.
Organization schemata: a subset of person schemata, a person's
generalized perspective on others as a whole in the organization.
4.
Object/concept-in-organization schemata: knowledge an
individual has of organization aspects other than of other persons.
5.
Event-in-organization schemata: a person's knowledge of social events within
an organization.
All of these categories together represent a
person's knowledge of an organization. Organizational culture is created when
the schematas (schematic structures) of differing individuals across and within
an organization come to resemble each other (when any one person's schemata
come to resemble another person's schemata because of mutual organizational
involvement), primarily done through organizational communication, as
individuals directly or indirectly share knowledge and meanings.
Strong/weak cultures
Strong culture is said to exist
where staff respond to stimulus because of their alignment to organizational
values. In such environments, strong cultures help firms operate like
well-oiled machines, engaging in outstanding execution with only minor adjustments
to existing procedures as needed.
Conversely, there is weak culture where
there is little alignment with organizational values, and control must be
exercised through extensive procedures and bureaucracy.
Research shows that organizations that foster strong
cultures have clear values that give employees a reason to embrace the culture.
A "strong" culture may be especially beneficial to firms operating in
the service sector since members of these organizations are responsible for
delivering the service and for evaluations important constituents make about
firms. Research indicates that organizations may derive the following benefits
from developing strong and productive cultures:
·
Better aligning the company towards achieving its vision, mission,
and goals
·
Increased team cohesiveness among the company's various
departments and divisions
·
Promoting consistency and encouraging coordination and control
within the company
·
Shaping employee behavior at work, enabling the organization to be
more efficient
Where culture is strong, people do things
because they believe it is the right thing to do, and there is a risk of
another phenomenon,groupthink. "Groupthink"
was described by Irving
Janis.
He defined it as "a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that
people engage when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members'
strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise
alternatives of action." (Irving Janis, 1972, p. 9) This is a state
in which even if they have different ideas, do not challenge organizational
thinking, and therefore there is a reduced capacity for innovative thoughts.
This could occur, for example, where there is heavy reliance on a central
charismatic figure in the organization, or where there is an evangelical belief
in the organization' values, or also in groups where a friendly climate is at
the base of their identity (avoidance of conflict). In fact, groupthink is very
common and happens all the time, in almost every group. Members that are
defiant are often turned down or seen as a negative influence by the rest of
the group because they bring conflict.
Healthy organizational
cultures
Organizations should strive for what is
considered a "healthy" organizational culture in order to increase
productivity, growth, efficiency and reduce counterproductive behavior and
turnover of employees. A variety of characteristics describe a healthy culture,
including:
·
Acceptance and appreciation for diversity
·
Regard for and fair treatment of each employee as well as respect
for each employee’s contribution to the company
·
Employee pride and enthusiasm for the organization and the work
performed
·
Equal opportunity for each employee to realize their full
potential within the company
·
Strong communication with all employees regarding policies and
company issues
·
Strong company leaders with a strong sense of direction and
purpose
·
Ability to compete in industry innovation and customer service, as
well as price
·
Lower than average turnover rates (perpetuated by a healthy
culture)
·
Investment in learning, training, and employee knowledge
Additionally, performance oriented cultures have
been shown to possess statistically better financial growth. Such cultures
possess high employee involvement, strong internal communications and an
acceptance and encouragement of a healthy level of risk-taking in order to
achieve innovation. Additionally, organizational cultures that explicitly
emphasize factors related to the demands placed on them by industry technology
and growth will be better performers in their industries.
According to Kotter and Heskett (1992),
organizations with adaptive cultures perform much better than organizations
with unadaptive cultures. An adaptive culture translates into organizational
success; it is characterized by managers paying close attention to all of their
constituencies, especially customers, initiating change when needed, and taking
risks. An unadaptive culture can significantly reduce a firm's effectiveness,
disabling the firm from pursuing all its competitive/operational options.
Charles Handy
Charles Handy (1976),
popularized Roger Harrison (1972) with linking organizational structure to organizational culture. The described
four types of culture are:[14]
1.
Power culture: concentrates power among a small group or a central figure and its control is
radiating from its center like a web. Power cultures need only a few rules and
little bureaucracy but swift in
decisions can ensue.
2.
Role culture: authorities are delegated as such within a highly defined
structure. These organizations form hierarchical bureaucracies, where power
derives from the personal position and rarely from an expert power. Control is
made by procedures (which are highly valued), strict roles descriptions and
authority definitions. These organizations have consistent systems and are very
predictable. This culture is often represented by a "Roman Building"
having pillars. These pillars represent the functional departments.
3.
Task culture: teams are formed to solve particular problems. Power is derived
from the team with the expertise to execute against a task. This culture uses a
small team approach, where people are highly skilled and specialized in their
own area of expertise. Additionally, these cultures often feature the multiple
reporting lines seen in a matrix structure.
4.
Person culture: formed where all individuals believe themselves superior to the
organization. It can become difficult for such organizations to continue to
operate, since the concept of an organization suggests that a group of
like-minded individuals pursue organizational goals. However some professional
partnerships operate well as person cultures, because each partner brings a
particular expertise and clientele to the firm.
Kim Cameron and Robert
Quinn
Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn
(1999) made a research on organizational effectiveness and success. Based on
the Competing Values Framework, they developed the Organizational Culture
Assessment Instrument that distinguishes four culture types.
Competing values produce polarities like
flexibility vs. stability and internal vs. external focus - these two
polarities were found to be most important in defining organizational success.
The polarities construct a quadrant with four types of culture:
·
Clan culture (internal
focus and flexible) - A friendly workplace where leaders act like father
figures.
·
Adhocracy culture (external
focus and flexible) - A dynamic workplace with leaders that stimulate
innovation.
·
Market culture (external focus and controlled) - A competitive
workplace with leaders like hard drivers
·
Hierarchy culture (internal focus and controlled) - A structured
and formalized workplace where leaders act like coordinators.
Cameron & Quinn designated six key aspects
that will form organizational culture which can be assessed in the
Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) thus producing a mix of the
four archetypes of culture. Each organization or team will have its unique mix
of culture types.
Clan cultures are most strongly associated with
positive employee attitudes and product and service quality, whereas market
cultures are most strongly related with innovation and financial
effectiveness criteria. The primary belief in market cultures is that clear
goals and contingent rewards motivate employees to aggressively perform and meet
stakeholders' expectations; a core belief in clan cultures is that the
organization’s trust in and commitment to employees facilitates open
communication and employee involvement. These differing results suggest that it
is important for executive leaders to consider the match between strategic
initiatives and organizational culture when determining how to embed a culture
that produces competitive advantage. By assessing the current organizational
culture as well as the preferred situation, the gap and direction to change can
be made visible as a first step to changing organizational culture.
Robert A. Cooke
Robert A. Cooke, PhD, defines culture as the
behaviors that members believe are required to fit in and meet expectations
within their organization. The Organizational Culture Inventory measures twelve
behavioral norms that are grouped into three general types of cultures:
·
Constructive cultures, in which members are encouraged to interact
with people and approach tasks in ways that help them meet their higher-order
satisfaction needs.
·
Passive/defensive cultures, in which members believe they must
interact with people in ways that will not threaten their own security.
·
Aggressive/defensive cultures, in which members are expected to
approach tasks in forceful ways to protect their status and security.
Constructive cultures
Constructive cultures are where people are
encouraged to be in communication with their co-workers, and work as teams,
rather than only as individuals. In positions where people do a complex job,
rather than something simple like a mechanic one, this sort of culture is an
efficient one.[15]
1.
Achievement: completing a task successfully, typically by effort, courage, or
skill (pursue a standard of excellence) (explore alternatives before acting) -
Based on the need to attain high-quality results on challenging projects, the
belief that outcomes are linked to one's effort rather than chance and the
tendency to personally set challenging yet realistic goals. People high in this
style think ahead and plan, explore alternatives before acting and learn from
their mistakes.
2.
Self-actualizing: realization or fulfillment of one's talents
and potentialities - considered as a drive or need present in everyone (think
in unique and independent ways) (do even simple tasks well) - Based on needs
for personal growth, self-fulfillment and the realisation of one's potential.
People with this style demonstrate a strong desire to learn and experience
things, creative yet realistic thinking and a balanced concern for people and
tasks.
3.
Humanistic-encouraging: help others to grow and develop (resolve
conflicts constructively) - Reflects an interest in the growth and development
of people, a high positive regard for them and sensitivity to their needs.
People high in this style devote energy to coaching and counselling others, are
thoughtful and considerate and provide people with support and encouragement.
4.
Affiliative: treat people as more valuable than things (cooperate with
others) - Reflects an interest in developing and sustaining pleasant
relationships. People high in this style share their thoughts and feelings, are
friendly and cooperative and make others feel a part of things.
Organizations with constructive cultures
encourage members to work to their full potential, resulting in high levels of
motivation, satisfaction, teamwork, service quality, and sales growth.
Constructive norms are evident in environments where quality is valued over
quantity, creativity is valued over conformity, cooperation is believed to lead
to better results than competition, and effectiveness is judged at the system
level rather than the component level. These types of cultural norms are
consistent with (and supportive of) the objectives behind empowerment, total
quality management, transformational leadership, continuous improvement,
re-engineering, and learning organizations.[16][17][18]
Passive/defensive
cultures
Norms that reflect expectations for members to
interact with people in ways that will not threaten their own security are in
the Passive/Defensive Cluster.
The four Passive/Defensive cultural norms are:
·
Approval
·
Conventional
·
Dependent
·
Avoidance
In organizations with Passive/Defensive
cultures, members feel pressured to think and behave in ways that are
inconsistent with the way they believe they should in order to be effective.
People are expected to please others (particularly superiors) and avoid
interpersonal conflict. Rules, procedures, and orders are more important than
personal beliefs, ideas, and judgment. Passive/Defensive cultures experience a
lot of unresolved conflict and turnover, and organizational members report
lower levels of motivation and satisfaction.
Aggressive/defensive
cultures
This style is characterized with more emphasis
on task than people. Because of the very nature of this style, people tend to
focus on their own individual needs at the expense of the success of the group.
The aggressive/defensive style is very stressful, and people using this style
tend to make decisions based on status as opposed to expertise.[19]
1.
Oppositional - This cultural norm is based on the idea that a need for
security that takes the form of being very critical and cynical at times.
People who use this style are more likely to question others work; however,
asking those tough question often leads to a better product. Nonetheless, those
who use this style may be overly-critical toward others, using irrelevant or
trivial flaws to put others down.
2.
Power - This cultural norm is based on the idea that there is a
need for prestige and influence. Those who use this style often equate their
own self-worth with controlling others. Those who use this style have a
tendency to dictate others opposing to guiding others’ actions.
3.
Competitive - This cultural norm is based on the idea of a need to
protect one’s status. Those who use this style protect their own status by
comparing themselves to other individuals and outperforming them. Those who use
this style are seekers of appraisal and recognition from others.
4.
Perfectionistic - This cultural norm is based on the need
to attain flawless results. Those who often use this style equate their
self-worth with the attainment of extremely high standards. Those who often use
this style are always focused on details and place excessive demands on
themselves and others.
Organizations with aggressive/defensive cultures
encourage or require members to appear competent, controlled, and superior.
Members who seek assistance, admit shortcomings, or concede their position are
viewed as incompetent or weak. These organizations emphasize finding errors,
weeding out "mistakes" and encouraging members to compete against
each other rather than competitors. The short-term gains associated with these
strategies are often at the expense of long-term growth.[19]
Entrepreneurial
organizational culture
Stephen McGuire (2003) defined and validated a
model of organizational culture that predicts revenue from new sources. An
Entrepreneurial Organizational Culture (EOC) is a system of shared values,
beliefs and norms of members of an organization, including valuing creativity
and tolerance of creative people, believing that innovating and seizing market
opportunities are appropriate behaviors to deal with problems of survival and
prosperity, environmental uncertainty, and competitors' threats, and expecting
organizational members to behave accordingly.
Elements
·
People and empowerment focused
·
Value creation through innovation and change
·
Attention to the basics
·
Hands-on management
·
Doing the right thing
·
Freedom to grow and to fail
·
Commitment and personal responsibility
Tribal culture
David Logan and coauthors have proposed in their
book Tribal Leadership that organizational cultures change in
stages, based on an analysis of human groups and tribal cultures. They identify
five basic stages:[21]
1.
Life sucks (a subsystem severed from other functional systems like
tribes, gangs and prison--2 percent of population);
2.
My life sucks (I am stuck in the Dumb Motor Vehicle line and can't believe
I have to spend my time in this lost triangle of ineffectiveness--25 percent of
population);
3.
I'm great (and you're not, I am detached from you and will dominate
you regardless of your intent --48 percent of population);
4.
We are great, but other groups suck (citing Zappo's
and an attitude of unification around more than individual competence--22
percent of population) and
5.
Life is great (citing Desmond Tutu's hearing on truth and values as the
basis of reconciliation--3 percent of population).
This model of organizational culture provides a
map and context for leading an organization through the five stages.
Personal and
organizational culture
Organizational culture is taught to the person
as culture is taught by his/her parents thus changing and modeling his/her
personal culture.[22] Indeed employees
and people applying for a job are advised to match their "personality to a
company’s culture" and fit to it.[23] Some researchers
even suggested and have made case studies research on personality changing.[24]
National and
organizational culture
Corporate culture is used to control,
coordinate, and integrate of company subsidiaries.[25] However
differences in national cultures exist contributing to differences in the views
on the management.[26] Differences
between national cultures are deep rooted values of the respective cultures,
and these cultural values can shape how people expect companies to be run, and
how relationships between leaders and followers should be resulting to
differences between the employer and the employee on expectations. (Geert
Hofstede, 1991)
Multiplicity
Xibao Zhang (2009) carried out an empirical
study of culture emergence in the Sino-Western international cross-cultural
management (SW-ICCM) context in China. Field data were collected by
interviewing Western expatriates and Chinese professionals working in this
context, supplemented by non-participant observation and documentary data. The
data were then analyzed in grounded fashion to formulate theme-based
substantive theories and a formal theory.
The major finding of this study is that human
cognition contains three components, or three broad types of "cultural
rules of behavior", namely, Values, Expectations, and Ad Hoc Rules, each
of which has a mutually conditioning relationship with behavior. The three
cognitive components are different in terms of the scope and duration of their
mutual shaping with behavior. Values are universal and enduring rules of
behavior; Expectations, on the other hand, are context-specific behavioral
rules; while Ad Hoc Rules are improvised rules of behavior that the human mind
devises contingent upon a particular occasion. Furthermore, they need not be
consistent, and frequently are not, among themselves. Metaphorically, they can
be compared to a multi-carriage train, which allows for the relative lateral
movements by individual carriages so as to accommodate bumps and turns in the
tracks. In fact, they provide a "shock-absorber mechanism", so to
speak, which enables individuals in SW-ICCM contexts to cope with conflicts in
cultural practices and values, and to accommodate and adapt themselves to
cultural contexts where people from different national cultural backgrounds
work together over extended time. It also provides a powerful framework which
explains how interactions by individuals in SW-ICCM contexts give rise to
emerging hybrid cultural practices characterized by both stability and change.
One major theoretical contribution of this
"multi-carriage train" perspective is its allowance for the existence
of inconsistencies among the three cognitive components in their mutual
conditioning with behavior. This internal inconsistency view is in stark
contrast to the traditional internal consistency assumption explicitly or
tacitly held by many culture scholars. The other major theoretical
contribution, which follows logically from the first one, is to view culture as
an overarching entity which is made of a multiplicity of Values, Expectations,
and Ad Hoc Rules. This notion of one (multiplicity) culture to an organization
leads to the classification of culture along its path of emergence into
nascent, adolescent, and mature types, each of which is distinct in terms of
the pattern of the three cognitive components and behavior.
Research suggests that numerous outcomes have
been associated either directly or indirectly with organizational culture. A
healthy and robust organizational culture may provide various benefits,
including the following:
·
Competitive edge derived from innovation and customer service
·
Consistent, efficient employee performance
·
Team cohesiveness
·
High employee morale
·
Strong company alignment towards goal achievement
Although little empirical research exists to support
the link between organizational culture and organizational performance, there
is little doubt among experts that this relationship exists. Organizational
culture can be a factor in the survival or failure of an organization -
although this is difficult to prove considering the necessary longitudinal
analyses are hardly feasible. The sustained superior performance of firms
like IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Procter & Gamble, and McDonald's may be, at least
partly, a reflection of their organizational cultures.
A 2003 Harvard Business School study reported that culture has a
significant impact on an organization’s long-term economic performance. The
study examined the management practices at 160 organizations over ten years and
found that culture can enhance performance or prove detrimental to performance.
Organizations with strong performance-oriented cultures witnessed far better
financial growth. Additionally, a 2002 Corporate Leadership Council study found
that cultural traits such as risk taking, internal communications, and
flexibility are some of the most important drivers of performance, and may
impact individual performance. Furthermore, innovativeness, productivity
through people, and the other cultural factors cited by Peters and Waterman (1982) also have positive economic consequences.
Denison, Haaland, and Goelzer (2004) found that
culture contributes to the success of the organization, but not all dimensions
contribute the same. It was found that the impacts of these dimensions differ
by global regions, which suggests that organizational culture is impacted by
national culture. Additionally, Clarke (2006) found that a safety climate is
related to an organization’s safety record.
Organizational culture is reflected in the way
people perform tasks, set objectives, and administer the necessary resources to
achieve objectives. Culture affects the way individuals make decisions, feel,
and act in response to the opportunities and threats affecting the
organization.
Adkins and Caldwell (2004) found that job
satisfaction was positively associated with the degree to which employees fit
into both the overall culture and subculture in which they worked. A perceived
mismatch of the organization’s culture and what employees felt the culture
should be is related to a number of negative consequences including lower job
satisfaction, higher job strain, general stress, and turnover intent.
It has been proposed that organizational culture
may impact the level of employee creativity, the strength of employee
motivation, and the reporting of unethical behavior, but more research is
needed to support these conclusions.
Organizational culture also has an impact on
recruitment and retention. Individuals tend to be attracted to and remain
engaged in organizations that they perceive to be compatible. Additionally,
high turnover may be a mediating factor in the relationship between culture and
organizational performance. Deteriorating company performance and an unhealthy
work environment are signs of an overdue cultural assessment.
Change
When an organization does not possess a healthy
culture or requires some kind of organizational culture change, the change
process can be daunting. Culture change may be necessary to reduce employee
turnover, influence employee behavior, make improvements to the company,
refocus the company objectives and/or rescale the organization, provide better
customer service, and/or achieve specific company goals and results. Culture
change is impacted by a number of elements, including the external environment
and industry competitors, change in industry standards, technology changes, the
size and nature of the workforce, and the organization’s history and management.
There are a number of methodologies specifically
dedicated to organizational culture change such as Peter Senge’s Fifth
Discipline. These are also a variety of psychological approaches that have
been developed into a system for specific outcomes such as the Fifth
Discipline’s "learning organization" or Directive
Communication’s "corporate culture evolution." Ideas and
strategies, on the other hand, seem to vary according to particular influences
that affect culture.
Burman and Evans (2008) argue that it is 'leadership' that affects culture
rather than 'management', and describe the
difference. When one wants to change an aspect of the culture of an
organization one has to keep in consideration that this is a long term project.
Corporate culture is something that is very hard to change and employees need
time to get used to the new way of organizing. For companies with a very strong
and specific culture it will be even harder to change.
Prior to a cultural change initiative, a needs
assessment is needed to identify and understand the current organizational
culture. This can be done through employee surveys, interviews, focus groups,
observation, customer surveys where appropriate, and other internal research,
to further identify areas that require change. The company must then assess and
clearly identify the new, desired culture, and then design a change process.
Cummings & Worley (2004, p. 491 – 492)
give the following six guidelines for cultural change, these changes are in
line with the eight distinct stages mentioned by Kotter (1995, p. 2):
1.
Formulate a clear strategic vision (stage 1, 2, and 3). In order
to make a cultural change effective a clear vision of the firm’s new strategy,
shared values and behaviors is needed. This vision provides the intention and
direction for the culture change (Cummings & Worley, 2004, p. 490).
2.
Display top-management commitment (stage 4). It is very important
to keep in mind that culture change must be managed from the top of the
organization, as willingness to change of the senior management is an important
indicator (Cummings & Worley, 2004, page 490). The top of the organization
should be very much in favor of the change in order to actually implement the
change in the rest of the organization. De Caluwé & Vermaak (2004, p 9)
provide a framework with five different ways of thinking about change.
3.
Model culture change at the highest level (stage 5). In order to
show that the management team is in favor of the change, the change has to be
notable at first at this level. The behavior of the management needs to
symbolize the kinds of values and behaviors that should be realized in the rest
of the company. It is important that the management shows the strengths of the
current culture as well, it must be made clear that the current organizational
does not need radical changes, but just a few adjustments. (See for more: Deal
& Kennedy, 1982; Sathe, 1983; Schall; 1983; Weick, 1985; DiTomaso, 1987).
This process may also include creating committee, employee task forces, value
managers, or similar. Change agents are key in the process and key
communicators of the new values. They should possess courage, flexibility,
excellent interpersonal skills, knowledge of the company, and patience. As
McCune (May 1999) puts it, these individual should be catalysts, not dictators.
4.
Modify the organization to support organizational change. The
fourth step is to modify the organization to support organizational change.
This includes identifying what current systems, policies, procedures and rules
need to be changed in order to align with the new values and desired culture.
This may include a change to accountability systems, compensation, benefits and
reward structures, and recruitment and retention programs to better align with
the new values and to send a clear message to employees that the old system and
culture are in the past.
5.
Select and socialize newcomers and terminate deviants (stage 7
& 8 of Kotter, 1995, p. 2). A way to implement a culture is to connect
it to organizational membership, people can be selected and terminate in terms
of their fit with the new culture (Cummings & Worley, 2004, p. 491).
Encouraging employee motivation and loyalty to the company is key and will also
result in a healthy culture. The company and change managers should be able to
articulate the connections between the desired behavior and how it will impact
and improve the company’s success, to further encourage buy-in in the change
process. Training should be provided to all employees to understand the new
processes, expectations and systems.
6.
Develop ethical and legal sensitivity. Changes in culture can lead
to tensions between organizational and individual interests, which can result
in ethical and legal problems for practitioners. This is particularly relevant
for changes in employee integrity, control, equitable treatment and job
security (Cummings & Worley, 2004, p. 491). It is also beneficial, as
part of the change process, to include an evaluation process, conducted
periodically to monitor the change progress and identify areas that need
further development. This step will also identify obstacles of change and
resistant employees and to acknowledge and reward employee improvement, which
will also encourage continued change and evolvement. It may also be helpful and
necessary to incorporate new change managers to refresh the process. Outside
consultants may also be useful in facilitating the change process and providing
employee training. Change of culture in the organizations is very important and
inevitable. Culture innovations is bound to be because it entails introducing
something new and substantially different from what prevails in existing cultures.
Cultural innovation [27] is bound to be
more difficult than cultural maintenance. People often resist changes hence it
is the duty of the management to convince people that likely gain will outweigh
the losses. Besides institutionalization, deification is another process that
tends to occur in strongly developed organizational cultures. The organization
itself may come to be regarded as precious in itself, as a source of pride, and
in some sense unique. Organizational members begin to feel a strong bond with
it that transcends material returns given by the organization, and they begin
to identify with it. The organization turns into a sort of clan.
Mergers, organizational
culture, and cultural leadership
One of the biggest obstacles in the way of the
merging of two organizations is organizational culture. Each organization has
its own unique culture and most often, when brought together, these cultures
clash. When mergers fail employees point to issues such as identity,
communication problems, human resources problems, ego clashes, and inter-group
conflicts, which all fall under the category of "cultural
differences".
One way to combat such difficulties is through
cultural leadership. Organizational leaders must also be cultural leaders and
help facilitate the change from the two old cultures into the one new culture.
This is done through cultural innovation followed by cultural maintenance.
·
Cultural innovation includes:
·
Creating a new culture: recognizing past cultural differences and
setting realistic expectations for change
·
Changing the culture: weakening and replacing the old cultures
·
Cultural maintenance includes:
·
Integrating the new culture: reconciling the differences between
the old cultures and the new one
·
Embodying the new culture: Establishing, affirming, and keeping
the new culture
Corporate subcultures
Corporate culture is the total sum of the
values, customs, traditions, and meanings that make a company unique. Corporate
culture is often called "the character of an organization", since it
embodies the vision of the company's founders. The values of a corporate
culture influence the ethical standards within a corporation, as well as
managerial behavior.[28]
Senior management may try to
determine a corporate culture. They may wish to impose corporate
values and standards of behavior that specifically reflect the objectives of
the organization. In addition, there will also be an extant internal culture
within the workforce. Work-groups within the organization have their own
behavioral quirks and interactions which, to an extent, affect the whole
system. Roger Harrison's four-culture typology, and adapted by Charles Handy,
suggests that unlike organizational culture, corporate culture can be
'imported'. For example, computer technicians will have expertise, language and
behaviors gained independently of the organization, but their presence can
influence the culture of the organization as a whole.
Legal aspects
Corporate culture can be found as a cause of
injuries and be a reason for fining companies in US like in the case of U.S.
Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration that fined of
$10,825,368 Performance Coal Co. in April 2010, the largest fine in agency
history, following its investigation of explosion at the Upper Big Branch-South
Mine, operated by Performance Coal Co., a subsidiary of Massey Energy Co.[29]
Critical views
Criticism of the usage of the term by managers
began already in its emergence in the early 80s.[4] Most of the
criticism comes from the writers in critical management studies who for example express skepticism about
the functionalist and unitarist views about
culture that are put forward by mainstream management
writers. They stress the ways in which these cultural assumptions can stifle
dissent management and reproduce propaganda and ideology. They suggest that
organizations do not have a single culture and cultural engineering may not reflect the interests of all
stakeholders within an organization.
Parker (2000) has suggested that many of the
assumptions of those putting forward theories of organizational culture are not
new. They reflect a long-standing tension between cultural and structural (or
informal and formal) versions of what organizations are. Further, it is
reasonable to suggest that complex organizations might have many cultures, and
that such sub-cultures might overlap and contradict each other. The neat
typologies of cultural forms found in textbooks rarely acknowledge such
complexities, or the various economic contradictions that exist in capitalist
organizations.
Among the strongest and widely recognized
writers on corporate culture with a long list of articles on leadership, culture, gender and their intersection is Linda Smircich, as a part of the
of critical management studies, she criticises theories that attempt to categorize
or 'pigeonhole' organizational culture.[3][30] She uses the
metaphor of a plant root to represent culture, describing that it drives
organizations rather than vice versa. Organizations are the product of
organizational culture, we are unaware of how it shapes behavior and
interaction (also recognized through Scheins (2002) underlying assumptions[clarification needed]) and so how can we
categorize it and define what it is?
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar