Organizational culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Organizational culture is the behavior of humans who are part of an organization and the meanings that the people reach 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.[1] At the same time although a company may have their "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 which can affect employees own perceptions and identification with the organizational culture. [2]

Schein (2009), Deal and Kennedy (2000), Kotter (1992) and many others state that organizations often have very differing cultures as well as subcultures.[3][4][5]

According to Needle (2004),[6] organizational culture represents the collective values, beliefs and principles of organizational members and is a product of such factors as history, product, market, technology, and strategy, type of employees, management style, and national cultures and so on. Corporate culture on the other hand refers to those cultures deliberately created by management to achieve specific strategic ends.

Usage[edit]

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 new idea that the term became known in businesses in the late 80s and early 90s is widespread,[7][8] in fact corporate culture was already used by managers and addressed in sociology, cultural studies and organizational theory at the beginning of the 80s.[9][10]

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.[11][12]

Part of or equivalent to[edit]

As a part of organization[edit]

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].[13]

The same as the organization[edit]

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.[13]

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

Types[edit]

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[edit]

Main: Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory

Hofstede (1980) looked for differences between over 160 000 IBM 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 things 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 the need for changing "mental programs" with changing behaviour first, which will lead to value change. Though 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 four dimensions of culture (later five[14]) 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 of 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 from the American one. Hofstede says that a 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 roles and power relations.
  • Long- Versus Short-Term Orientation [14] 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." [15]

O'Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell[edit]

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[clarification needed]. Their Organizational Cultural Profile (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 also suited to measure how organizational culture effects organizational performance, as it measures most efficient persons suited in an organization and as such organizations can be termed as good organizational culture. Employee values are measured against organizational values to predict employee intentions to stay, and predict turnover.[16] This is done through instrument like Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) to measure employee commitment.[16]

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[edit]

Deal and Kennedy (1982)[4] 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:[17]

  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.[17]
  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.[17]
  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.[4][17]
  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[edit]

According to Schein (1992),[3] 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[edit]

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),[3] 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[edit]

There are many different types of communication that contribute in creating an organizational culture:[18]

  • 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[edit]

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[edit]

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
  • High employee motivation and loyalty
  • 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[edit]

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),[5] 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[edit]

Charles Handy (1976), popularized Roger Harrison (1972) with linking organizational structure to organizational culture. The described four types of culture are:[19]

  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[edit]

See also: Archetype.

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[edit]

Robert A. Cooke 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[edit]

In constructive cultures 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 culture is efficient.[20]

  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.[5][21][22]

Passive/defensive cultures[edit]

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[edit]

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.[23]

  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.[23]

Entrepreneurial[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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
  • Emphasis on the future[24]

Tribal culture[edit]

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:[25]

  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 culture[edit]

Main: Personality psychology, Identity (social science)

Organizational culture is taught to the person as culture is taught by his/her parents thus changing and modeling his/her personal culture.[26] Indeed employees and people applying for a job are advised to match their "personality to a company’s culture" and fit to it.[27] Some researchers even suggested and have made case studies research on personality changing.[28]

National culture[edit]

Corporate culture is used to control, coordinate, and integrate of company subsidiaries.[29] However differences in national cultures exist contributing to differences in the views on the management.[30] 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) Perhaps equally foundational; observing the vast differences in national copyright (and taxation, etc.) laws suggests deep rooted differing cultural attitudes and assumptions on property rights and sometimes; the desired root function, place, or purpose of corporations relative to the population.

Multiplicity[edit]

See also: Biculturalism

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.

Impacts[edit]

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[edit]

When an organization does not possess a healthy culture or requires some kind of organizational culture change, the change process can be daunting. One major reason why such change is difficult is that organizational cultures, and the organizational structures in which they are embedded, often reflect the "imprint" of earlier periods in a persistent way and exhibit remarkable levels of inertia.[31] 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;[4] 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 [32] 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 and cultural leadership[edit]

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[edit]

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.[33]

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[edit]

Corporate culture can legally be found to be a cause of injuries and a reason for fining companies in the US, e.g. when the US Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration levied a fine of more than 10.8 million US dollars on Performance Coal Co. following the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster in April 2010. This was the largest fine in the history of this U.S. government agency.[34]

Critical views[edit]

Criticism of the usage of the term by managers began already in its emergence in the early 80s.[10] 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.[9][35] 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?

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Ravasi, D., Schultz, M. (2006), "Responding to organizational identity threats: exploring the role of organizational culture", Academy of Management Journal, Vol.49, No.3, pp. 433–458.
  2. ^ Schrodt, P. (2002). The relationship between organizational identification and organizational culture: Employee perceptions of culture and identification in a retail sales organization. Communication Studies, 53, 189-202.
  3. ^ a b c Schein, Edgar (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. p. 9. 
  4. ^ a b c d Deal T. E. and Kennedy, A. A. (1982, 2000) Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1982; reissue Perseus Books, 2000
  5. ^ a b c Kotter, J. P.; Heskett, James L. (1992). Corporate Culture and Performance. New York: The Free Press. ISBN 0-02-918467-3. 
  6. ^ Needle, David (2004). Business in Context: An Introduction to Business and Its Environment. ISBN 978-1861529923. 
  7. ^ ""Culture is everything," said Lou Gerstner, the CEO who pulled IBM from near ruin in the 1990s.", Culture Clash: When Corporate Culture Fights Strategy, It Can Cost You, knowmgmt, Arizona State University, March 30, 2011
  8. ^ the application of the term culture to the collective attitudes and behavior of corporations arose in business jargon during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Unlike many locutions that emerge in business jargon, it spread to popular use in newspapers and magazines. Few Usage Panelists object to it. Over 80 percent of Panelists accept the sentence The new management style is a reversal of GE's traditional corporate culture, in which virtually everything the company does is measured in some form and filed away somewhere.", The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
  9. ^ a b One of the first to point to the importance of culture for organizational analysis and the intersection of culture theory and organization theory is Linda Smircich in her article Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis in 1983. See Linda Smircich, Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis, Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume: 28, Issue: 3, Publisher: JSTOR, doi:10.2307/2392246, 1983, pp. 339-358
  10. ^ a b "The term "Corporate Culture" is fast losing the academic ring it once had among U.S. manager. Sociologists and anthropologists popularized the word "culture" in its technical sence, which describes overall behavior patterns in groups. But corporate managers, untrained in sociology jargon, found it difficult to use the term unselfconsciously." in Phillip Farish, Career Talk: Corporate Culture, Hispanic Engineer, issue 1, year 1, 1982
  11. ^ Halpin, A. W., & Croft, D. B. (1963). The organizational climate of schools. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center of the University of Chicago.
  12. ^ Fred C. Lunenburg, Allan C. Ornstein, Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices, Cengage Learning, 2011, pp. 67
  13. ^ a b Modaff, D.P., DeWine, S., & Butler, J. (2011). Organizational communication: Foundations, challenges, and misunderstandings (2nd Ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. (Chapters 1-6)
  14. ^ a b Hofstede, Geert H. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Sage Publications.
  15. ^ http://geert-hofstede.com/dimensions.html
  16. ^ a b Becky H. Takeda, Investigation of employee tenure as related to relationships of personality and personal values of entrepreneurs and their perceptions of their employees, ProQuest, 2007, p. 2
  17. ^ a b c d Deal and Kennedy's cultural model, ChangingMinds.org
  18. ^ Islam, Gazi and Zyphur, Michael. (2009). Rituals in organizatinios: A review and expansion of current theory. Group Organization Management. (34), 1140139.
  19. ^ Enrique Ruiz, Discriminate Or Diversify, PositivePsyche.Biz Corp, 2009
  20. ^ Cooke, R. A. (1987). The Organizational Culture Inventory. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics, Inc. 
  21. ^ "Using the Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI) to Measure Kotter and Heskett's Adaptive and Unadaptive Cultures". Human Synergistics. Retrieved 6 October 2011. 
  22. ^ "Constructive Styles". Human-Synergistics. Retrieved 6 October 2011. 
  23. ^ a b "Aggressive/Defensive Styles". Retrieved 6 October 2011. 
  24. ^ Dr. Lindle Hatton, Elements of an Entrepreneurial Culture (.ppt), College Of Business Administration, California State University, Sacramento
  25. ^ Logan, Dave; King, John; Fischer-Wright, Halee (2009). Tribal Leadership: Leveraging Natural Groups to Build a Thriving Organization. HarperCollins. ISBN 0061251305. 
  26. ^ Cindy Gordon, Cashing in on corporate culture, CA magazine, January–February 2008
  27. ^ Personality and Corporate Culture: Where’s a Person to Fit?, Career Rocketeer, July 11, 2009
  28. ^ Christophe Lejeune, Alain Vas, Comparing the processes of identity change: A multiple-case study approach,
  29. ^ Susan C. Schneider, National vs. corporate culture: Implications for human resource management, Human Resource Management, Volume 27, Issue 2, Summer 1988, pp. 231–246, doi:10.1002/hrm.3930270207
  30. ^ Li Dong, Keith Glaister, National and corporate culture differences in international strategic alliances: Perceptions of Chinese partners (RePEc), Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24 (June 2007), pp. 191-205
  31. ^ Marquis, Christopher; Tilcsik, András (2013). "Imprinting: Toward A Multilevel Theory". Academy of Management Annals: 193–243. 
  32. ^ Molly Rose Teuke, Creating culture of innovation, Oracle Magazine, February 2007
  33. ^ Montana, P., and Charnov, B. (2008) Management (4th ed.), Barrons Educational Series, Hauppauge:NY
  34. ^ US Labor Department’s MSHA cites corporate culture as root cause of Upper Big Branch Mine disaster, MSHA News Release, US Department of Labor, May 12, 2011
  35. ^ Joanna Brewis, "Othering Organization Theory: Marta Calás and Linda Smircich" (abstract), The Sociological Review, Special Issue: Sociological Review Monograph Series: Contemporary Organization Theory, editors Campbell Jones and Rolland Munro, Volume 53, Issue Supplement s1, pp. 80–94, October 2005

Notes[edit]

  • Adkins, B. and Caldwell, D. (2004). "Firm or subgroup culture: Where does fitting in matter most?" Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8) pp. 969–978
  • Burman, R. and Evans, A.J. (2008) "Target Zero: A Culture of safety", Defence Aviation Safety Centre Journal, pp. 22–27.
  • Cameron, Kim S. & Quinn, Robert E. (1999), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework, Prentice Hall, ISBN 978-0-201-33871-3, reprinted John Wiley & Sons, 2011
  • Chatman, J. A., & Jehn, K. A. (1994). "Assessing the relationship between industry characterestics and organizational culture: How different can you be?". Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 522-553.
  • Cummings, Thomas G. & Worley, Christopher G. (2004), Organization Development and Change, 8th Ed., South-Western College Pub.
  • Denison, Daniel R. (1990) Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness, Wiley.
  • Denison, Daniel R., Haaland, S. and Goelzer, P. (2004) "Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness: Is Asia Different from the Rest of the World?" Organizational Dynamics, pp. 98–1 09
  • Janis, Irving L. (1972). Victims of groupthink; a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-14002-1. 
  • Handy, Charles B. (1976) Understanding Organizations, Oxford University Press
  • Harris, Stanley G. (1994) "Organizational Culture and Individual Sensemaking: A Schema-Based Perspective." Organization Science, Vol. 5,(3): pp. 309–321
  • Harrison, Roger (1972) Understanding your organisation's character, Harvard Business Review
  • Hofstede, Geert (1980) Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Publications, reprinted 1984
  • Hofstede, Geert (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind., McGraw-Hill Professional
  • Johnson, Gerry (1988) "Rethinking Incrementalism", Strategic Management Journal Vol 9 pp. 75–91
  • McGuire, Stephen J.J. (2003). "Entrepreneurial Organizational Culture: Construct Definition and Instrument Development and Validation, Ph.D. Dissertation", The George Washington University, Washington, DC.
  • Mulder, Mauk (1977) The daily power game, Martinus Nijhoff Socìal Sciences Division
  • O’Rielly, Chatman & Caldwell (1991). "People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit". Academy of Management Journal, 34, pp. 487–516
  • Parker, M. (2000) Organizational Culture and Identity, London: Sage.
  • Parsons, Talcott, Shils, Edward (1951), Toward a General Theory of Action, reprinted as Parsons, Talcott, Shils, Tolman, Stouffer and Kluckhohn et al., Toward a General Theory of Action: Theoretical foundations of the Social Sciencies, Transaction Publishers, 2001
  • Peters and Waterman (1982). In Search of Excellence. Harper & Row (New York).
  • Stoykov, Lubomir (1995). Фирмената култура и комуникация (Bulgarian) (Company culture and communication), Stopanstvo, Sofia.
  • Zhang, Xibao (2009). Values, Expectations, Ad Hoc Rules, and Culture Emergence in International Cross Cultural Management Contexts. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Further reading[edit]

  • Barney, J. B. (1986). "Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage?". Academy of Management Review, 11(3), pp. 656–665.
  • Black, Richard J. (2003) Organizational Culture: Creating the Influence Needed for Strategic Success, London UK, ISBN 1-58112-211-X
  • Bligh, Michelle C. (2006) "Surviving Post-merger ‘Culture Clash’: Can Cultural Leadership Lessen the Casualties?" Leadership, vol. 2: pp. 395 - 426.
  • Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011, January 17). "Organizational Culture and Organizational Effectiveness: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Competing Values Framework's Theoretical Suppositions." Journal of Applied Psychology (online publication). doi:10.1037/a0021987
  • Jex, Steven M. Jex & Britt, Thomas W. (2008) Organizational Psychology, A Scientist-Practitioner Approach, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 978-0-470-10976-2.
  • Markus, Hazel. (1977) "Self-schemata and processing information about the self." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 35(2): pp. 63–78.
  • Mills, Albert J. (1988) "Organization, Gender and Culture" (abstract), Organization Studies, 9(3), pp. 351–369
  • O'Donovan, Gabrielle (2006). The Corporate Culture Handbook: How to Plan, Implement and Measure a Successful Culture Change Programme, The Liffey Press, ISBN 1-904148-97-2
  • Papa, Michael J., et al. (2008). Organizational Communication Perspectives and Trends (4th Ed.). Sage Publications.
  • Phegan, B. (1996–2000) Developing Your Company Culture, A Handbook for Leaders and Managers, Context Press, ISBN 0-9642205-0-4
  • Sopow, E. (2007). Corporate personality disorder. Lincoln NB: iUniverse.

External links[edit]

All organizations, either larger or small, have cultures composed of shared values, beliefs, and societal norms. Shared values refers to the importance the organization attaches to product quality, customer service, and treatment of employees. Beliefs are the ideas that the people in the organization hold about themselves and the firm. Lastly, norms are the unwritten rules that guide interactions and behaviors. Oftentimes, culture can be the critical factor in competitive success. Culture can facilitate motivation, commitment, and the development of people. A positive, cohesive corporate culture can create an environment that employees are reluctant to leave, an experience for customers that is unique in the industry, and has contributed to profitability.

Types of organizational culture include the following: collaborative, control, create, and compete. Collaborative emphasizes discretion and flexibility; here organizations operate more like families. Control emphasizes standardization and well-structured authority and decision making techniques. Create also emphasizes flexibility and discretion; however, create has an external focus and a concern for differentiation. And finally, compete organizations value stability and control. Instead of an internal focus, these companies have an external focus, and value differentiation over integration; focus is more on relationships with suppliers, customers, contractors, legislators, and unions, etc.