Environment

EnvironmentFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look up environment in

Wiktionary, the free

dictionary.

Environment may refer to:

Environment (biophysical), the physical and biological factors along with their chemical interactions that

affect an organism

Environment (systems), the surroundings of a physical system that may interact with the system by

exchanging mass, energy, or other properties

Environments (series), a series of LPs, cassettes and CDs depicting natural sounds

Built environment, constructed surroundings that provide the setting for human activity, ranging from the

large-scale civic surroundings to the personal places

Knowledge environment

Social environment, the culture that an individual lives in, and the people and institutions with whom they

interact

In computing:

Desktop environment, in computing, the graphical user interface to the computer

Environment variables, the dynamic set of variables defined in a process

Integrated development environment, a type of computer software that assists computer programmers in

developing software

Runtime environment, a virtual machine state which provides software services for processes or programs

while a computer is running

In Functional programming, the environment is "a function which maps variable names on to their

values" [1]

In Unified Process the Environment discipline "refers to the tools and customizing the process for the

project" [2]

Environmental may refer to:

Environmental art

Environmental determinism

Environmental epidemiology

Environmental health

Environmental movement

Environmental policy

Environmental psychology

Environmental quality

Environmental science, the study of the interactions among the physical, chemical and biological

components of the environment

Other

Internal and External AnalysisInternal | External | SWOT Matrix | Competitive Analysis | Market Analysis

SWOT AnalysisSWOT is an acronym used to describe the particular Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats that are strategic factors for a specific company. A SWOT analysis should not only result in the identification of a corporation’s core competencies, but also in the identification of opportunities that the firm is not currently able to take advantage of due to a lack of appropriate resources. (Wheelen, Hunger pg 107)The SWOT analysis framework has gained widespread acceptance because it is both simple and powerful for strategy development. However, like any planning tool, SWOT is only as good as the information it contains. Thorough market research and accurate information systems are essential for the SWOT analysis to identify key issues in the environment.(Marketing and Its Environment, pg 44)Assess your market:

What is happening externally and internally that will affect our company? Who are our customers? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each competitor? (Think Competitive Advantage) What are the driving forces behind sales trends? What are important and potentially important markets? What is happening in the world that might affect our company? What does it take to be successful in this market? (List the strengths all companies need to compete

successfully in this market.)Assess your company:

What do we do best? What are our company resources – assets, intellectual property, and people? What are our company capabilities (functions)?

Assess your competition:

How are we different from the competition? What are the general market conditions of our business? What needs are there for our products and services? What are the customer-market-technology opportunities? What are the customer’s problems and complains with the current products and services in the industry? What “If only….” Statements does a customer make?

Opportunity an area of “need” in which a company can perform profitably.

Threatchallenge posed by an unfavorable trend or development that would lead (in absence of a defensive marketing action) to deterioration in profits/sales.

An evaluation needs to be completed drawing conclusions about how the opportunities and threats may affect the firm.

EXTERNAL: MACRO- demographic/economic, technological, social/cultural, political/legal MICRO- customers, competitors, channels, suppliers, publics INTERNAL RESOURCES: the firm

Competitor analysis is a critical aspect of this step. Identify the actual competitors as well as substitutes. Assess competitors’ objectives, strategies, strengths & weaknesses, and reaction patterns. Select which competitors to attack or avoid.

The Internal Analysis of strengths and weaknesses focuses on internal factors that give an organization certain advantages and disadvantages in meeting the needs of its target market. Strengths refer to core competencies that give the firm an advantage in meeting the needs of its target markets. Any analysis of company strengths should be market oriented/customer focused because strengths are only meaningful when they assist the firm in meeting customer needs. Weaknesses refer to any limitations a company faces in developing or implementing a strategy (?). Weaknesses should also be examined from a customer perspective because customers often perceive weaknesses that a company cannot see. Being market focused when analyzing strengths and weaknesses does not mean that non-market oriented strengths and weaknesses should be forgotten. Rather, it suggests that all firms should tie their strengths and weaknesses to customer requirements. Only those strengths that relate to satisfying a customer need should be considered true core competencies. (Marketing and Its Environment, pg 44)The following area analyses are used to look at all internal factors effecting a company:

Resources: Profitability, sales, product quality brand associations, existing overall brand, relative cost of this new product, employee capability, product portfolio analysis

Capabilities: Goal: To identify internal strategic strengths, weaknesses, problems, constraints and uncertainties

The External Analysis examines opportunities and threats that exist in the environment. Both opportunities and threats exist independently of the firm. The way to differentiate between a strength or weakness from an opportunity or threat is to ask: Would this issue exist if the company did not exist? If the answer is yes, it should be considered external to the firm. Opportunities refer to favorable conditions in the environment that could produce rewards for the organization if acted upon properly. That is, opportunities are situations that exist but must be acted on if the firm is to benefit from them. Threats refer to conditions or barriers that may prevent the firms from reaching its objectives.(Marketing and Its Environment, pg 44)The following area analyses are used to look at all external factors effecting a company:

Customer analysis: Segments, motivations, unmet needs Competitive analysis: Identify completely, put in strategic groups, evaluate performance, image, their

objectives, strategies, culture, cost structure, strengths, weakness Market analysis: Overall size, projected growth, profitability, entry barriers, cost structure, distribution

system, trends, key success factors Environmental analysis: Technological, governmental, economic, cultural, demographic, scenarios,

information-need areas Goal: To identify external opportunities, threats, trends, and strategic uncertaintiesThe SWOT Matrix helps visualize the analysis. Also, when executing this analysis it is important to understand how these element work together. When an organization matched internal strengths to external opportunities, it creates core competencies in meeting the needs of its customers. In addition, an organization should act to convert internal weaknesses into strengths and external threats into opportunities.

SWOT

Focus on your strengths. Shore up your weaknesses. Capitalize on your opportunities. Recognize your threats.Identify

Against whom do we compete? Who are our most intense competitors? Less intense? Makers of substitute products? Can these competitors be grouped into strategic groups on the basis of assets, competencies, or strategies? Who are potential competitive entrants? What are their barriers to entry?

Evaluate What are their objectives and strategies? What is their cost structure? Do they have a cost advantage or disadvantage? What is their image and positioning strategy? Which are the most successful/unsuccessful competitors over time? Why? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each competitor? Evaluate competitors with respect to their assets and competencies.

Size and Growth What are important and potentially important markets? What are their size and growth characteristics? What markets are declining? What are the driving forces behind sales trends?Profitability For each major market consider the following: Is this a business are in which the average firm will make money? How intense is the competition among existing firms? Evaluate the threats from potential entrants and substitute products. What is the bargaining power of suppliers and customers? How attractive/profitable are the market now and in the future?Cost Structure What are the major cost and value-added components for various types of competitors?Distribution Systems What are the alternative channels of distribution? How are they changing?Market Trends What are the trends in the market?Key Success Factors What are the key success factors, assets and competencies needed to compete successfully? How will these change in the future?Environmental Analysis An environmental analysis is the four dimension of the External Analysis. The interest is in environmental trends and events that have the potential to affect strategy. This analysis should identify such trends and events and the estimate their likelihood and impact. When conducting this type of analysis, it is easy to get bogged down in an extensive, broad survey of trends. It is necessary to restrict the analysis to those areas relevant enough to have significant impact on strategy.This analysis is divided into five areas: economic, technological, political-legal, sociocultural, and future.

Economic What economic trends might have an impact on business activity? (Interest rates, inflation, unemployment levels, energy availability, disposable income, etc)Technological To what extent are existing technologies maturing? What technological developments or trends are affecting or could affect our industry?Government What changes in regulation are possible? What will their impact be on our industry? What tax or other incentives are being developed that might affect strategy development? Are there political or government stability risks?Sociocultural What are the current or emerging trends in lifestyle, fashions, and other components of culture? What are there implications? What demographic trends will affect the market size of the industry? (growth rate, income, population shifts) Do these trends represent an opportunity or a threat?Future What are significant trends and future events? What are the key areas of uncertainty as to trends or events that have the potential to impact strategy?Internal Analysis Understanding a business in depth is the goal of internal analysis. This analysis is based resources and capabilities of the firm.Resources A good starting point to identify company resources is to look at tangible, intangible and human resources.Tangible resources are the easiest to identify and evaluate: financial resources and physical assets are identifies and valued in the firm’s financial statements.

Intangible resources are largely invisible, but over time become more important to the firm than tangible assets because they can be a main source for a competitive advantage. Such intangible recourses include reputational assets (brands, image, etc.) and technological assets (proprietary technology and know-how).

Human resources or human capital are the productive services human beings offer the firm in terms of their skills, knowledge, reasoning, and decision-making abilities.

strategic planning analysis

CapabilitiesResources are not productive on their own. The most productive tasks require that resources collaborate closely together within teams. The term organizational capabilities is used to refer to a firm’s capacity for undertaking a particular productive activity. Our interest is not in capabilities per se, but in capabilities relative to other firms. To identify the firm’s capabilities we will use the functional classification approach. A functional classification identifies organizational capabilities in relation to each of the principal functional areas.

strategic planning swot

Organizational structureFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An organizational structure consists of activities such as task allocation, coordination and supervision, which

are directed towards the achievement of organizational aims.[1] It can also be considered as the viewing glass

or perspective through which individuals see their organization and its environment.[2]

Organizations are a variant of clustered entities.[citation needed]

An organization can be structured in many different ways, depending on their objectives. The structure of an

organization will determine the modes in which it operates and performs.

Organizational structure allows the expressed allocation of responsibilities for different functions and processes

to different entities such as the branch, department, workgroup and individual.

Organizational structure affects organizational action in two big ways. First, it provides the foundation on which

standard operating procedures and routines rest. Second, it determines which individuals get to participate in

which decision-making processes, and thus to what extent their views shape the organization’s actions.[2]

Contents

  [hide] 

1     Operational organizations and informal organizations   

2     History   

o 2.1      Organizational structure types   

2.1.1      Pre-bureaucratic structures   

2.1.2      Bureaucratic structures   

2.1.3      Post-bureaucratic   

2.1.4      Functional structure   

2.1.5      Divisional structure   

2.1.6      Matrix structure   

o 2.2      Organizational circle: moving back to flat   

o 2.3      Team   

o 2.4      Network   

2.4.1      Virtual   

o 2.5      Hierarchy-Community Phenotype Model of Organizational Structure   

3     See also   

4     References   

[edit]Operational organizations and informal organizations

See also: Informal organization and Formal organization

The set organizational structure may not coincide with facts, evolving in operational action. Such divergence

decreases performance, when growing. E.g., a wrong organizational structure may hamper cooperation and

thus hinder the completion of orders in due time and within limits of resources and budgets. Organizational

structures shall be adaptive to process requirements, aiming to optimize the ratio of effort and input to output.

[edit]History

See also: Hierarchical organization and Flat organization

Organizational structures developed from the ancient times of hunters and collectors in tribal organizations

through highly royal and clerical power structures to industrial structures and today's post-industrial structures.

As pointed out by Mohr (1982, pp. 102–103), the early theorists of organizational structure, Taylor, Fayol, and

Weber "saw the importance of structure for effectiveness and efficiency and assumed without the slightest

question that whatever structure was needed, people could fashion accordingly. Organizational structure was

considered a matter of choice... When in the 1930s, the rebellion began that came to be known as human

relations theory, there was still not a denial of the idea of structure as an artifact, but rather an advocacy of the

creation of a different sort of structure, one in which the needs, knowledge, and opinions of employees might

be given greater recognition." However, a different view arose in the 1960s, suggesting that the organizational

structure is "an externally caused phenomenon, an outcome rather than an artifact."[3] In the 21st century,

organizational theorists such as Lim, Griffiths, and Sambrook (2010) are once again proposing that

organizational structure development is very much dependent on the expression of the strategies and behavior

of the management and the workers as constrained by the power distribution between them, and influenced by

their environment and the outcome.[4]

[edit]Organizational structure types

[edit]Pre-bureaucratic structures

Pre-bureaucratic (entrepreneurial) structures lack standardization of tasks. This structure is most common in

smaller organizations and is best used to solve simple tasks. The structure is totally centralized. The strategic

leader makes all key decisions and most communication is done by one on one conversations. It is particularly

useful for new (entrepreneurial) business as it enables the founder to control growth and development.

They are usually based on traditional domination or charismatic domination in the sense of Max

Weber's tripartite classification of authority

[edit]Bureaucratic structures

Weber (1948, p. 214) gives the analogy that “the fully developed bureaucratic mechanism compares with other

organizations exactly as does the machine compare with the non-mechanical modes of production. Precision,

speed, unambiguity, … strict subordination, reduction of friction and of material and personal costs- these are

raised to the optimum point in the strictly bureaucratic administration.”[5] Bureaucraticstructures have a certain

degree of standardization. They are better suited for more complex or larger scale organizations, usually

adopting a tall structure. The tension between bureaucratic structures and non-bureaucratic is echoed in Burns

and Stalker's[6] distinction between mechanistic and organic structures.

The Weberian characteristics of bureaucracy are:

Clear defined roles and responsibilities

A hierarchical structure

Respect for merit.

[edit]Post-bureaucratic

The term of post bureaucratic is used in two senses in the organizational literature: one generic and one much

more specific.[7] In the generic sense the term post bureaucratic is often used to describe a range of ideas

developed since the 1980s that specifically contrast themselves with Weber's ideal type bureaucracy. This may

include total quality management, culture management and matrix management, amongst others. None of

these however has left behind the core tenets of Bureaucracy. Hierarchies still exist, authority is still Weber's

rational, legal type, and the organization is still rule bound. Heckscher, arguing along these lines, describes

them as cleaned up bureaucracies,[8] rather than a fundamental shift away from bureaucracy. Gideon Kunda, in

his classic study of culture management at 'Tech' argued that 'the essence of bureaucratic control - the

formalisation, codification and enforcement of rules and regulations - does not change in principle.....it shifts

focus from organizational structure to the organization's culture'.

Another smaller group of theorists have developed the theory of the Post-Bureaucratic Organization.,[8] provide

a detailed discussion which attempts to describe an organization that is fundamentally not bureaucratic.Charles

Heckscher has developed an ideal type, the post-bureaucratic organization, in which decisions are based on

dialogue and consensus rather than authority and command, the organization is a network rather than a

hierarchy, open at the boundaries (in direct contrast to culture management); there is an emphasis on meta-

decision making rules rather than decision making rules. This sort of horizontal decision making

byconsensus model is often used in housing cooperatives, other cooperatives and when running a non-

profit or community organization. It is used in order to encourage participation and help to empower people

who normally experience oppression in groups.

Still other theorists are developing a resurgence of interest in complexity theory and organizations, and have

focused on how simple structures can be used to engender organizational adaptations. For instance, Mineret

al. (2000) studied how simple structures could be used to generate improvisational outcomes in product

development. Their study makes links to simple structures and improviser learning. Other scholars such as Jan

Rivkin and Sigglekow,[9] and Nelson Repenning [10] revive an older interest in how structure and strategy relate

in dynamic environments.

[edit]Functional structure

Employees within the functional divisions of an organization tend to perform a specialized set of tasks, for

instance the engineering department would be staffed only with software engineers. This leads to operational

efficiencies within that group. However it could also lead to a lack of communication between the functional

groups within an organization, making the organization slow and inflexible.

As a whole, a functional organization is best suited as a producer of standardized goods and services at large

volume and low cost. Coordination and specialization of tasks are centralized in a functional structure, which

makes producing a limited amount of products or services efficient and predictable. Moreover, efficiencies can

further be realized as functional organizations integrate their activities vertically so that products are sold and

distributed quickly and at low cost.[11] For instance, a small business could make components used in

production of its products instead of buying them. This benefits the organization and employees faiths.

[edit]Divisional structure

Also called a "product structure", the divisional structure groups each organizational function into a division.

Each division within a divisional structure contains all the necessary resources and functions within it. Divisions

can be categorized from different points of view. One might make distinctions on a geographical basis (a US

division and an EU division, for example) or on product/service basis (different products for different customers:

households or companies). In another example, an automobile company with a divisional structure might have

one division for SUVs, another division for subcompact cars, and another division for sedans.

Each division may have its own sales, engineering and marketing departments.

[edit]Matrix structure

The matrix structure groups employees by both function and product. This structure can combine the best of

both separate structures. A matrix organization frequently uses teams of employees to accomplish work, in

order to take advantage of the strengths, as well as make up for the weaknesses, of functional and

decentralized forms. An example would be a company that produces two products, "product a" and "product b".

Using the matrix structure, this company would organize functions within the company as follows: "product a"

sales department, "product a" customer service department, "product a" accounting, "product b" sales

department, "product b" customer service department, "product b" accounting department. Matrix structure is

amongst the purest of organizational structures, a simple lattice emulating order and regularity demonstrated in

nature.

Weak/Functional Matrix: A project manager with only limited authority is assigned to oversee the cross-

functional aspects of the project. The functional managers maintain control over their resources and

project areas.

Balanced/Functional Matrix: A project manager is assigned to oversee the project. Power is shared

equally between the project manager and the functional managers. It brings the best aspects of functional

and projectized organizations. However, this is the most difficult system to maintain as the sharing power

is delicate proposition.

Strong/Project Matrix: A project manager is primarily responsible for the project. Functional managers

provide technical expertise and assign resources as needed.

[edit]Organizational circle: moving back to flat

The flat structure is common in small companies (enterprenerial start-ups, university spin offs). As the company

grows it becomes more complex and hierarchical, which leads to an expanded structure, with more levels and

departments.

Often, it would result in bureaucracy, the most prevalent structure in the past. It is still, however, relevant in

former Soviet Republics, China, and most governmental organizations all over the world. Shell Group used to

represent the typical bureaucracy: top-heavy and hierarchical. It featured multiple levels of command and

duplicate service companies existing in different regions. All this made Shell apprehensive to market changes,

[12] leading to its incapacity to grow and develop further. The failure of this structure became the main reason for

the company restructuring into a matrix.

Starbucks is one of the numerous large organizations that successfully developed the matrix structure

supporting their focused strategy. Its design combines functional and product based divisions, with employees

reporting to two heads.[13] Creating a team spirit, the company empowers employees to make their own

decisions and train them to develop both hard and soft skills. That makes Starbucks one of the best at

customer service.[citation needed]

Some experts also mention the multinational design,[14] common in global companies, such as Procter &

Gamble, Toyota and Unilever. This structure can be seen as a complex form of the matrix, as it maintains

coordination among products, functions and geographic areas.

In general, over the last decade, it has become increasingly clear that through the forces of globalization,

competition and more demanding customers, the structure of many companies has become flatter, less

hierarchical, more fluid and even virtual.[15]

[edit]Team

One of the newest organizational structures developed in the 20th century is team. In small businesses, the

team structure can define the entire organization.[14] Teams can be both horizontal and vertical.[16] While an

organization is constituted as a set of people who synergize individual competencies to achieve newer

dimensions, the quality of organizational structure revolves around the competencies of teams in totality.[17] For

example, every one of the Whole Foods Market stores, the largest natural-foods grocer in the US developing a

focused strategy, is an autonomous profit centre composed of an average of 10 self-managed teams, while

team leaders in each store and each region are also a team. Larger bureaucratic organizations can benefit

from the flexibility of teams as well. Xerox, Motorola, and DaimlerChrysler are all among the companies that

actively use teams to perform tasks.

[edit]Network

Another modern structure is network. While business giants risk becoming too clumsy to proact (such as), act

and react efficiently,[18] the new network organizations contract out any business function, that can be done

better or more cheaply. In essence, managers in network structures spend most of their time coordinating and

controlling external relations, usually by electronic means. H&M is outsourcing its clothing to a network of 700

suppliers, more than two-thirds of which are based in low-cost Asian countries. Not owning any factories, H&M

can be more flexible than many other retailers in lowering its costs, which aligns with its low-cost strategy.

[19] The potential management opportunities offered by recent advances in complex networks theory have been

demonstrated [20] including applications to product design and development,[21] and innovation problem in

markets and industries.[22]

[edit]Virtual

A special form of boundaryless organization is virtual. Hedberg, Dahlgren, Hansson, and Olve (1999) consider

the virtual organization as not physically existing as such, but enabled by software to exist.[23] The virtual

organization exists within a network of alliances, using the Internet. This means while the core of the

organization can be small but still the company can operate globally be a market leader in its niche. According

to Anderson, because of the unlimited shelf space of the Web, the cost of reaching niche goods is falling

dramatically. Although none sell in huge numbers, there are so many niche products that collectively they make

a significant profit, and that is what made highly innovative Amazon.com so successful.[24]

[edit]Hierarchy-Community Phenotype Model of Organizational Structure

Hierarchy-Community Phenotype Model of Organizational Structure

In the 21st century, even though most, if not all, organizations are not of a pure hierarchical structure, many

managers are still blind-sided to the existence of the flat community structure within their organizations.[25]

The business firm is no longer just a place where people come to work. For most of the employees, the firm

confers on them that sense of belonging and identity- the firm has become their “village”, their community.

[26] The business firm of the 21st century is not just a hierarchy which ensures maximum efficiency and profit; it

is also the community where people belong to and grow together- where their affective and innovative needs

are met.[4]

Lim, Griffiths, and Sambrook (2010) developed the Hierarchy-Community Phenotype Model of Organizational

Structure borrowing from the concept of Phenotype from genetics. "A phenotype refers to the observable

characteristics of an organism. It results from the expression of an organism’s genes and the influence of the

environment. The expression of an organism’s genes is usually determined by pairs of alleles. Alleles are

different forms of a gene. In our model, each employee’s formal, hierarchical participation and informal,

community participation within the organization, as influenced by his or her environment, contributes to the

overall observable characteristics (phenotype) of the organization. In other words, just as all the pair of alleles

within the genetic material of an organism determines the physical characteristics of the organism, the

combined expressions of all the employees’ formal hierarchical and informal community participation within an

organization give rise to the organizational structure. Due to the vast potentially different combination of the

employees’ formal hierarchical and informal community participation, each organization is therefore a unique

phenotype along a spectrum between a pure hierarchy and a pure community (flat) organizational structure."[4]P

[edit]See also

References

1. ̂  Pugh, D. S., ed. (1990).Organization Theory: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

2. ^ a b Jacobides., M. G. (2007). The inherent limits of organizational structure and the unfulfilled role of hierarchy: Lessons from a near-war.

Organization Science, 18, 3, 455-477.

3. ̂  Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining Organizational Behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

4. ^ a b c Lim, M., G. Griffiths, and S. Sambrook. (2010). Organizational structure for the twenty-first century. Presented at the annual meeting of The

Institute for Operations Research and The Management Sciences, Austin.

5. ̂  Weber, M. (1948). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, translated, edited and with an introduction by H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills. London:

Routledge and Kegan Paul.

6. ̂  Burns, T. and G. Stalker. (1961) The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.

7. ̂  Grey C., Garsten C., 2001, Trust, Control and Post-Bureaucracy, Sage Publishing)

8. ^ a b Heckscher C. (Editor), Donnellon A. (Editor), 1994, The Post-Bureaucratic Organization: New Perspectives on Organizational Change, Sage

Publications

9. ̂  Nicolaj Sigglekow and Jan W. Rivkin, October 2003, Speed, Search and the Failure of Simple Contingency, No. 04-019

10. ̂  Repenning, N. (2002). A Simulation-Based Approach to Understanding the Dynamics of Innovation Implementation. Organization Science, 13, 2:

109-127.

11. ̂  Raymond E. Miles, Charles C. Snow, Causes of Failure in Network Organizations, California Management Review, Summer 1992

12. ̂  Grant, R.M. (2008). History of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group. Available at:http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/grant/docs/07Shell.pdf (accessed

20/10/08)

13. ̂  (Starbucks.com (2008). Starbucks Coffee International. Available at:http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/international.asp (accessed 20/10/08))

14. ^ a b Robbins, S.F., Judge, T.A. (2007). Organizational Behaviour. 12th edition. Pearson Education Inc., p. 551-557.

15. ̂  Gratton, L. (2004). The Democratic Enterprise, Financial Times Prentice Hall, pp. xii-xiv.

16. ̂  Thareja P(2008), "Total Quality Organization Thru’ People,(Part 16), Each one is Capable",FOUNDRY, Vol. XX, No. 4, July/Aug 2008

17. ̂  (Thareja P(2007). A Total Quality Organisation thru'People Each One is Capable. Available at: http://www.foundry-planet.com

18. ̂  Gummesson, E. (2002). Total Marketing Control. Butterworth-Heinemann, p. 266.

19. ̂  Capell, K. H&M Defies Retail Gloom. Available at:http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/sep2008/gb2008093_150758.htm(accessed

20/10/08).

20. ̂  Amaral, L.A.N. and B. Uzzi. (2007) Complex Systems—A New Paradigm for the Integrative Study of Management, Physical, and Technological

Systems. Management Science, 53, 7: 1033–1035.

21. ̂  Braha, D. and Y. Bar-Yam. (2007) The Statistical Mechanics of Complex Product Development: Empirical and Analytical Results. Management

Science, 53, 7: 1127–1145.

22. ̂  Kogut, B., P. Urso, and G. Walker. (2007) Emergent Properties of a New Financial Market: American Venture Capital Syndication, 1960–2005.

Management Science, 53, 7: 1181-1198.

23. ̂  Hedberg, B., G. Dahlgren, J. Hansson, and N.-G. Olve (1999). Virtual Organizations and Beyond: Discover Imaginary Systems. Chichester: John

Wiley & Sons.

24. ̂  Anderson, C. (2007). The Long Tail. Random House Business Books, pp. 23, 53.

25. ̂  Butler Jr., J.K. (1986). A global view of informal organization. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 3, 39-43.

26. ̂  Stacey, M. (1974). The myth of community studies. C. Bell, H. Newby, (Editors), The Sociology of Community: A Selection of Readings. London,

Frank Cass, 13-26.

Organizational behaviorFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (September 2010)

Organizational behavior is a field of study that investigates the impact that individuals,groups and structures have on

behavior within an organization.It is an interdisciplinary field that includes sociology, psychology, communication, and

management; and it complements the academic studies of organizational theory (which is more macro-level) and human

resource studies (which is more applied and business-related). It may also be referred to as organizational

studies or organizational science. The field has its roots in industrial and organizational psychology.

Contents

  [hide] 

1     Overview   

2     History   

3     Current state of the field   

4     Methods used in organizational studies   

o 4.1      Quantitative methods   

o 4.2      Computer simulation   

o 4.3      Qualitative methods   

5     Theories and models   

o 5.1      Systems theory   

o 5.2      Decision making   

5.2.1      Theories of decision making can be subdivided into three categories   

5.2.2      Managerial roles   

o 5.3      Organization structures and dynamics   

o 5.4      Personality traits theories   

o 5.5      Control and stress modelling   

o 5.6      Motivation in organizations   

6     Organization-focused journals   

7     See also   

8     References   

9     Further reading   

[edit]Overview

Organizational studies encompass the study of organizations from multiple viewpoints, methods, and levels of analysis.

For instance, one textbook[1] divides these multiple viewpoints into three perspectives: modern, symbolic, and postmodern.

Another traditional distinction, present especially in American academia, is between the study of "micro" organizational

behaviour — which refers to individual and group dynamics in an organizational setting — and "macro" strategic

management and organizational theory which studies whole organizations and industries, how they adapt, and the

strategies, structures and contingencies that guide them. To this distinction, some scholars have added an interest in

"meso" scale structures - power, culture, and the networks of individuals and i.e. ronit units in organizations — and "field"

level analysis which study how whole populations of organizations interact.

Whenever people interact in organizations, many factors come into play. Modern organizational studies attempt to

understand and model these factors. Like all modernist social sciences, organizational studies seek to control, predict,

and explain. There is some controversy over the ethics of controlling workers' behavior, as well as the manner in which

workers are treated (see Taylor's scientific management approach compared to the human relations movement of the

1940s). As such, organizational behaviour or OB (and its cousin, Industrial psychology) have at times been accused of

being the scientific tool of the powerful.[citation needed]Those accusations notwithstanding, OB can play a major role

in organizational development, enhancing organizational performance, as well as individual and group

performance/satisfaction/commitment.

One of the main goals of organizational theorists is, according to Simms (1994) "to revitalize organizational theory and

develop a better conceptualization of organizational life."[2] An organizational theorist should carefully consider levels

assumptions being made in theory,[3] and is concerned to help managers and administrators.[4]

[edit]History

Kurt Lewin attended theMacy conferences and is commonly identified as the founder of the movement to study groups scientifically.

While Classical philosophies rarely took upon a task of developing a specific theory of organizations, some had used

implicit conceptions of general organization in construct views on politics and virtue; the Greek philosopher Plato, for

example, wrote about the essence of leadership, emphasized the importance of specialization and discussed a primordial

form of incentive structures in speculating how to get people to embody the goal of the just city in The

Republic. Aristotle also addressed such topics as persuasive communication. The writings of 16th century Italian

philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli laid the foundation for contemporary work on organizational power and politics. In

1776, Adam Smith advocated a new form of organizational structure based on the division of labour. One hundred years

later, German sociologist Max Weber wrote about rational organizations and initiated discussion of charismatic leadership.

Soon after, Frederick Winslow Taylor introduced the systematic use of goal setting and rewards to motivate employees. In

the 1920s, Australian-born Harvard professor Elton Mayo and his colleagues conducted productivity studies at Western

Electric's Hawthorne plant in the United States.

Though it traces its roots back to Max Weber and earlier, organizational studies began as an academic discipline with the

advent of scientific management in the 1890s, with Taylorismrepresenting the peak of this movement. Proponents of

scientific management held that rationalizing the organization with precise sets of instructions and time-motion studies

would lead to increased productivity. Studies of different compensation systems were carried out.

After the First World War, the focus of organizational studies shifted to how human factors and psychology affected

organizations, a transformation propelled by the identification of theHawthorne Effect. This Human Relations

Movement focused on teams, motivation, and the actualization of the goals of individuals within organizations.

Prominent early scholars included Chester Barnard, Henri Fayol, Frederick Herzberg, Abraham Maslow, David

McClelland, and Victor Vroom.

The Second World War further shifted the field, as the invention of large-scale logistics and operations research led to a

renewed interest in rationalist approaches to the study of organizations. Interest grew in theory and methods native to the

sciences, including systems theory, the study of organizations with a complexity theory perspective and complexity

strategy. Influential work was done by Herbert Alexander Simon and James G. March and the so-called "Carnegie School"

of organizational behavior.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the field was strongly influenced by social psychology and the emphasis in academic study was

on quantitative research. An explosion of theorizing, much of it at Stanford University and Carnegie Mellon,

produced Bounded Rationality, Informal Organization, Contingency Theory, Resource Dependence, Institutional Theory,

and Organizational Ecology theories, among many others.

Starting in the 1980s, cultural explanations of organizations and change became an important part of study. Qualitative

methods of study became more acceptable, informed by anthropology, psychology and sociology. A leading scholar

was Karl Weick.

Elton Mayo

Elton Mayo, an Australian national, headed the Hawthorne Studies at Harvard. In his classic writing in 1931, Human

Problems of an Industrial Civilization, he advised managers to deal with emotional needs of employees at work.

Mary Parker Follett

Mary Parker Follett was a pioneer management consultant in the industrial world. As a writer, she provided analyses on

workers as having complex combinations of attitude, beliefs, and needs. She told managers to motivate employees on their

job performance, a "pull" rather than a "push" strategy.

Douglas McGregor

Douglas McGregor proposed two theories/assumptions, which are very nearly the opposite of each other, about human

nature based on his experience as a management consultant. His first theory was "Theory X", which is pessimistic and

negative; and according to McGregor it is how managers traditionally perceive their workers. Then, in order to help

managers replace that theory/assumption, he gave "Theory Y" which takes a more modern and positive approach. He

believed that managers could achieve more if they start perceiving their employees as self-energized, committed,

responsible and creative beings. By means of his Theory Y, he in fact challenged the traditional theorists to adopt a

developmental approach to their employees. He also wrote a book, The Human Side of Enterprise, in 1960; this book has

become a foundation for the modern view of employees at work.

[edit]Current state of the field

Organizational behaviour is a growing field. Organizational studies departments generally form part of business schools,

although many universities also have industrial psychology and industrial economics programs.

The field is highly influential in the business world with practitioners such as Peter Drucker and Peter Senge, who turned

the academic research into business practices. Organizational behaviour is becoming more important in the global

economy as people with diverse backgrounds and cultural values must work together effectively and efficiently. It is also

under increasing criticism as a field for its ethnocentric and pro-capitalist assumptions (see Critical Management Studies).

During the last 20 years, organizational behavior study and practice has developed and expanded through creating

integrations with other domains:

Anthropology became an interesting prism to understanding firms as communities, by introducing concepts 

like Organizational culture, 'organizational rituals' and 'symbolic acts' enabling new ways to understand 

organizations as communities.

Leadership Understanding: the crucial role of leadership at various level of an organization in the process of change 

management.

Ethics and their importance as pillars of any vision and one of the most important driving forces in an organization.

Aesthetics: Within the last decades a field emerged that focuses on the aesthetic sphere of our existence in 

organizations,[5] drawing on interdisciplinary theories and methods from the humanities and disciplines such as 

theatre studies, literature, music, visual studies and many more.[6]

[edit]Methods used in organizational studies

A variety of methods are used in organizational studies, many of which are found in other social sciences.

[edit]Quantitative methods

Further information: Quantitative research

multiple regression

non-parametric statistics

time series analysis

Meta-analysis

ANOVA

[edit]Computer simulation

Main article: computer simulation in organizational studies

Computer simulation is a prominent method in organizational studies and strategic management.[7] While there are

many uses for computer simulation (including the development of engineering systems inside high-technology firms),

most academics in the fields of strategic management and organizational studies have used computer simulation to

understand how organizations or firms operate.

While the strategy researchers have tended to focus on testing theories of firm performance, many organizational

theorists are focused on more descriptive theories[citation needed], the one uniting theme has been the use of computational

models to either verify or extend theories. It is perhaps no accident that those researchers using computational

simulation have been inspired by ideas from biological modeling, ecology,theoretical

physics and thermodynamics, chaos theory, complexity theory and organization studies since these methods have also

been fruitfully used in those areas.

[edit]Qualitative methods

Further information: Qualitative research

ethnography, which involves direct participant observation

single and multiple case analysis

grounded theory approaches

other historical methods

[edit]Theories and models

[edit]Systems theory

Main article: Systems theory

The systems framework is also fundamental to organizational theory as organizations are complex dynamic

goal-oriented processes. One of the early thinkers in the field was Alexander Bogdanov, who developed

hisTectology, a theory widely considered a precursor of Bertalanffy's General Systems Theory, aiming to model

and design human organizations. Kurt Lewin was particularly influential in developing the systems perspective

within organizational theory and coined the term "systems of ideology", from his frustration with behavioural

psychologies that became an obstacle to sustainable work in psychology (see Ash 1992: 198-207).

The complexity theory perspective on organizations is another systems view of organizations.

The systems approach to organizations relies heavily upon achieving negative

entropy through openness and feedback. A systemic view on organizations is transdisciplinary and integrative.

In other words, it transcends the perspectives of individual disciplines, integrating them on the basis of a

common "code", or more exactly, on the basis of the formal apparatus provided by systems theory. The systems

approach gives primacy to the interrelationships, not to the elements of the system. It is from these dynamic

interrelationships that new properties of the system emerge. In recent years, systems thinking has been developed

to provide techniques for studying systems in holistic ways to supplement traditional reductionistic methods. In

this more recent tradition, systems theory in organizational studies is considered by some as

a humanisticextension of the natural sciences.

[edit]Decision making

Rational Decision-Making Model

Garbage can model

[edit]Theories of decision making can be subdivided into three categories

Normative (concentrates on how decision should be made)

Descriptive (concerned with how the thinker came up with their judgement)

Prescripted (aim to improve decision making)

[edit]Managerial roles

Main article: Mintzberg's managerial roles

In the late 1960s Henry Mintzberg, a graduate student at MIT undertook a careful study of five executives to

determine what those managers did on their jobs. On the basis of his observations, Mintzberg classifies

managerial roles into 3 categories 1. Interpersonal Roles 2. Decisional Roles 3. Informational Roles[8]

Scientific management

[edit]Organization structures and dynamics

Incentive theory is a concept of human resources or management theory. In the corporate sense, it states 

that firm owners should structure employee compensation in such a way that the employees' goals are 

aligned with owners' goals. As it applies to the operations of firms, it is more accurately called 

the principal–agent problem.[citation needed]

Bureaucracy

Complexity theory and organizations

Contingency theory

Evolutionary Theory and organizations

Hybrid organisation

Informal Organization

Institutional theory

Merger integration

Organizational ecology

Model of Organizational Citizenship behaviour

Model of organizational justice

Model of Organizational Misbehaviour

Resource dependence theory

Transaction cost

Hofstede's Framework for Assessing Cultures

Mintzberg's Organigraph

[edit]Personality traits theories

Big Five personality traits

Holland's Typology of Personality and Congruent Occupations

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

[edit]Control and stress modelling

Herzberg's Two factor theory

Theory X and Theory Y

[edit]Motivation in organizations

Motivation the forces either internal or external to a person that arouse enthusiasm and resistance to pursue a

certain course of action. According to Baron et al. (2008):[9] "Although motivation is a broad and complex

concept, organizational scientists have agreed on its basic characteristics. Drawing from various social sciences,

we define motivation as the set of processes that arouse, direct, and maintain human behavior toward attaining

some goal"

There are many different motivation theories such as:

Attribution theory

Equity theory

Maslow's hierarchy of needs

Incentive theory (psychology)

Model of emotional labor in organizations

Frederick Herzberg two-factor theory

Expectancy theory

[edit]Organization-focused journals

Journal of Organizational Behavior

Other

Journal of Applied Psychology

[edit]See also

Organization design

Organization development

Organizational culture

Organizational dissent

Organizational engineering

Organizational psychology

Organizational studies

Customer dynamics

[edit]References

1. ^ Hatch, M. & Cunliffe, A., 2006

2. ^ Lillian Margaret Simms, Sylvia Anderson Price, Naomi E. Ervin (1994). The professional practice of nursing administration. p.121.

3. ^ Fredric M. Jablin, Linda Putnam (2000). The new handbook of organizational communication: advances in theory. p.146.

4. ^ Michael I. Reed (1985). Redirections in organizational analysis. p.108.

5. ^ Taylor, S. & Hansen, H. (2005) ‘Finding form: looking at the field of organizational aesthetics’ Journal of Management Studies 42 (6): 1211–1231

6. ^ Strati, A. (1999) Organization and Aesthetics. London: Sage

7. ^ Harrison, Lin, Carroll, & Carley, 2007

8. ^ ROBBINS, S. P. (2009). Organisational behaviour : global and Southern African perspectives. Cape Town, Pearson Education South Africa.

9. ^ Baron, Robert A., and Greenberg, Jerald. Behavior in organizations – 9th edition. Pearson Education Inc., New Jersey: 2008. p.248

[edit]Further reading

Ash, M.G. (1992). "Cultural Contexts and Scientific Change in Psychology: Kurt Lewin in Iowa." American

Psychologist, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 198–207.

Hatch, M.J. (2006) , "Organization Theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives." 2nd Ed. 

Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19-926021-4.

Jones, Ishmael (2008) , The Human Factor: Inside the CIA's Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture. New York: 

Encounter Books ISBN 978-1-59403-382-7.

Richmond, Lewis (2000), Work as a Spiritual Practice: A Practical Buddhist Approach to Inner Growth and

Satisfaction on the Job, Broadway

Robbins, Stephen P. (2004) Organizational Behavior - Concepts, Controversies, Applications. 4th Ed. 

Prentice Hall ISBN 0-13-170901-1.

Robbins, S. P. (2003). Organisational behaviour: global and Southern African perspectives. Cape Town, 

Pearson Education South Africa.

Scott, W. Richard (2007). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems

Perspectives. Pearson Prentice Hall ISBN 0-13-195893-3.

Weick, Karl E (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing 2nd Ed. McGraw Hill ISBN 0-07-554808-9.

Simon, Herbert A. (1997) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative

Organizations, 4th ed., The Free Press.

Tompkins, Jonathan R. (2005) "Organization Theory and Public Management".Thompson Wadsworth ISBN 

978-0-534-17468-2

Kanigel, R. (1997). The One Best Way, Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency. London: 

Brown and Co.[hide]

V

T

E

Organizational cultureFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

‹ Whether to make the |reason= mandatory for the {{cleanup}} template is being discussed. See the request for comment to help reach

a consensus.›

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (Consider using more specific cleanup instructions.) Please help improve this articleif you can. The talk page may contain suggestions. (September 2010)

This article may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information. Please remove or replace such wording, unless you can cite independent sources that support the characterization. (February 2011)

Organizational culture is the collective behaviour of people that are part of an organization, it is also formed

by the organization values, visions, norms, working language, systems, and symbols, it includes beliefs and

habits.[1] It is also the pattern of such collective behaviours and assumptions that are taught to new

organizational members as a way of perceiving, and even thinking and feeling.[2] Organizational culture affect

the way people and groups interact with each other, with clients, and with stakeholders. [3]

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.[4]The

organizational culture may also have negative and positive aspects.[4]

Schein (2009), Deal & Kennedy (2000), Kotter (1992) and many others state that organizations often have very

differing cultures as well as subcultures.

Contents

  [hide] 

1     Usage   

2     Part of or equivalent to   

o 2.1      As a part of organization   

o 2.2      The same as the organization   

3     Types of organizational cultures   

o 3.1      Hofstede   

o 3.2      O'Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell   

o 3.3      Deal and Kennedy   

o 3.4      Edgar Schein   

o 3.5      Factors and elements   

o 3.6      Communicative Indicators   

3.6.1      Schema   

o 3.7      Strong/weak cultures   

o 3.8      Healthy organizational cultures   

o 3.9      Charles Handy   

o 3.10      Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn   

o 3.11      Robert A. Cooke   

3.11.1      Constructive cultures   

3.11.2      Passive/defensive cultures   

3.11.3      Aggressive/defensive cultures   

o 3.12      Entrepreneurial organizational culture   

3.12.1      Elements   

4     Personal and organizational culture   

5     National and organizational culture   

o 5.1      Multiplicity   

6     Impacts   

o 6.1      Firing on the base of culture   

7     Change   

o 7.1      Mergers, organizational culture, and cultural leadership   

8     Corporate subcultures   

9     Legal aspects   

10      Critical views   

11      See also   

12      References   

13      Notes   

14      Further reading   

15      External links   

[edit]Usage

While organizational culture is the term that reflects culture in any type of organization be it school, university,

not-for-profit groups, government agencies or business entity, more concrete business terms arecorporate

culture and company culture or company's culture.[5][6]

Although the 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 in 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]

[edit]Part of or equivalent to

[edit]As a part of organization

Culture as a variable takes on the perspective that culture is something that an organization has. 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]

[edit]The same as the organization

Culture as Root Metaphor takes the perspective that culture is something the organization is. Culture is basic,

but with personal experiences people can view it a little differently. This view of an organization is created

through communication and symbols, or competing metaphors.[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 meanings

[edit]Types of organizational cultures

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:

[edit]Hofstede

Main: Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory

Hofstede (1980) looked for national 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 four dimensions of culture 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 therefor 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 roles and power relations.

[edit]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.[14] This is done through instrument like Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) to measure

employee commitment.[14]

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.

[edit]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.[15] Deal and Kennedy's Four Cultures:

Work-hard, play-hard culture[15]

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.

Tough-guy macho culture[15]

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.

Process culture[16][15]

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.

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.

[edit]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.

[edit]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

[edit]Communicative Indicators

There are many different types of communication that contribute in creating an organizational culture:[17]

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.

[edit]Schema

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:

Self-in-organization schemata: a person's concept of oneself within the context of the

organization, including her/his personality, roles, and behavior.

Person-in-organization schemata: a person's memories, impressions, and expectations of other

individuals within the organization.

Organization schemata: a subset of person schemata, a person's generalized perspective on

others as a whole in the organization.

Object/concept-in-organization schemata: knowledge an individual has of organization aspects

other than of other persons.

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.

[edit]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, cruising along with outstanding execution and perhaps minor tweaking of existing

procedures here and there.

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' 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.

Innovative organizations need individuals who are prepared to challenge the status quo, groupthink or

bureaucracy, and need procedures to implement new ideas effectively.

[edit]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.

[edit]Charles Handy

Charles Handy (1976), popularized Roger Harrison (1972) with linking organizational structure to

organizational culture. The described four types of culture are:[18]

"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.

In the "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 rearly from an expert power. Control is made by procedures (which are highly valued), strict

roles descriptions and authority definitions. These organizations have consistent system and are

very predictable.

In a "Task Culture" teams are formed to solve particular problems. So power derives from

expertise with team requiring expertise, it is all a small team approach, where people are highly

skilled and specialist in their own markets of experience. These cultures often feature the multiple

reporting lines of a matrix structure.

"Person Culture" is 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.

[edit]Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn

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.

[edit]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.

[edit]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.[19]

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.[20][21][22]

[edit]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.

[edit]Aggressive/defensive cultures

This style in characterized with more emphasis on task then 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. However, those you use this style tend to be over critical and point of

others small flaws and use it as a mechanism 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]

[edit]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.

[edit]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

Emphasis on the future[24]

[edit]Personal and organizational culture

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.[4] Indeed employees and people applying for

a job are advised to match their "personality to a company’s culture" and fit to it.[25] Some

researchers even suggested and have made case studies research on personality changing.

[26]

[edit]National and organizational culture

Corporate culture is used to control, coordinate, and integrate of company subsidiaries.

[27] However differences in national cultures exist contributing to differences in the views on

the management.[28] Ddifferences 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)

[edit]Multiplicity

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 over-arching 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.

[edit]Impacts

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.

[edit]Firing on the base of culture

Usually pointed as a source of creating "family like" environment,[29][30] the notion of

corporate culture is also used for firing, with this practice started from shoe

company Zappos, which granted its fired employees with huge afterwards

compensations.[31] As the corporate culture may mean almost everything,[7][8] firing on the

base of culture means the employer does not accept and desire to be inclusive for the

culture of the employee and thus the employee "does not fit in corporate culture"

(Zappos, Netflix, and many other companies hire and fire based solely on cultural fit[31]),

athough this may fall in the ground of discrimination, there is still not law or case law

resolving or addressing the question making this practice possible and available for

businesses for now. Firing on corporate culture is a resent practice, from the 2008.

[edit]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 [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.

[edit]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

[edit]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.[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.

[edit]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.[34]

[edit]Critical views

Criticism of the usage of the term by managers begane 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?

[edit]See also

Cultural capital

Cultural identity

Diversity

Inclusive business

Inclusiveness

Lifestyle (sociology)

Multiculturalism

Organizational behavior

Organizational studies

[edit]References

1. ^ What is Corporate Culture?, WiseGeek

2. ^ “A pattern of shared basic assumptions invented, discovered, or developed by a given group as it learns to cope

with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration" that have worked well enough to be considered

valid and therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those

problems”,Edgar Schein, 1992

3. ^ "the specific collection of values and norms that are shared by people and groups in an organization and that

control the way they interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization." in Charles W. L. Hill,

and Gareth R. Jones, (2001) Strategic Management. Houghton Mifflin.

4. ^ a b c Cindy Gordon, Cashing in on corporate culture, CA magazine, January-February 2008

5. ^ Corporate culture. The view from the top, and bottom. Bosses think their firms are caring. Their minions

disagree, The Economist, September 24, 2011

6. ^ Stoykov, 1995

7. ^ a b ""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. ^ a b "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 the importance of culture for organizational analysis and the intersection of culture

theory and organization theory isLinda 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 behaviour 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 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

15. ^ a b c d Deal and Kennedy's cultural model, ChangingMinds.org

16. ^ Deal and Kennedy, 1982

17. ^ Islam, Gazi and Zyphur, Michael. (2009). Rituals in organizatinios: A review and expansion of current theory.

Group Organization Management. (34), 1140139.

18. ^ Enrique Ruiz, Discriminate Or Diversify, PositivePsyche.Biz Corp, 2009

19. ^ Cooke, R. A. (1987). The Organizational Culture Inventory. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics, Inc..

20. ^ Kotter, J. P. (1992). Corporate Culture and Performance. New York: The Free Press.

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. ^ Personality and Corporate Culture: Where’s a Person to Fit?, Career Rocketeer, July 11, 2009

26. ^ Christophe Lejeune, Alain Vas, Comparing the processes of identity change: A multiple-case study approach,

27. ^ 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

28. ^ 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

29. ^ Corporate Culture Affect Employees

30. ^ Corporate Culture

31. ^ a b Hiring and firing based on cultural fit

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), TThe 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

[edit]Notes

Adkins, B. and Caldwell, D. (2004). "Firsm 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

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

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

Kotter, John and Heskett, James L. (1992) Corporate Culture and Performance,

Free Press; ISBN 0-02-918467-3

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).

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.

Shein, Edgar (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. pp. 9.

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.

[edit]Further reading

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.

[edit]External links