Organizational cultureFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search This article may require cleanup to meet

Wikipedia's quality standards. (Consid er using more specific cleanup instructions.) Please help improve this article i f you can. The talk page may contain suggestions. (September 2010) This article may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without impar ting verifiable information. Please remove or replace such wording, unless you c an cite independent sources that support the characterization. (February 2011) Organizational culture is defined as A pattern of shared basic assumptions invent ed, discovered, or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with its prob lems of external adaptation and internal integration" that have worked well enou gh to be considered valid and therefore, to be taught to new members as the corr ect way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems Schein[1] . It has also been defined as "the specific collection of values and norms that are s hared by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they inte ract with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization."[2] Ravasi and Schultz (2006) state that organizational culture is a set of shared mental a ssumptions that guide interpretation and action in organizations by defining app ropriate behavior for various situations. Contents [hide] 1 Views on organizational culture 1.1 Something that an organization has 1.2 Something that an organization is 2 Indicators 2.1 Hofstede 2.2 O'Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell 2.3 Deal and Kennedy 2.4 Edgar Schein 2.5 Factors and elements 2.6 Communicative Indicators 2.6.1 Schema 3 Typologies (How organizations are labeled and categorized) 3.1 Strong/weak cultures 3.2 Healthy organizational cultures 3.3 Charles Handy 3.4 Robert A. Cooke 3.4.1 Constructive cultures 3.4.2 Passive/defense cluster 3.4.3 Aggressive/defensive cultures 3.5 Stephen McGuire 3.5.1 Elements 4 Impacts 5 Assessment 6 Change 6.1 Mergers, organizational culture, and cultural leadership 6.2 Corporate culture and organizational culture 7 Critical views 8 See also 9 Notes 10 References 11 External links [edit] Views on organizational culture[edit] Something that an organization hasC ulture as Variable takes on the perspective that culture is something that an or ganization has. Culture is just one entity that adds to the organization as a wh ole. Culture can be manipulated and altered depending on leadership and members. This perspective believes in a strong culture where everyone buys into it.[3]

[edit] Something that an organization isCulture as Root Metaphor takes the persp ective 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 o rganization is created through communication and symbols. There can be competing metaphors. [4] The organizational communication perspective on culture views culture in three d ifferent 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 w ell as the power struggles created by a similar network of competing meanings [edit] IndicatorsSeveral methods have been used to classify organizational cultu re. While there is no single type of organizational culture and organizational cul tures vary widely from one organization to the next, commonalities do exist and some researchers have developed models to describe different indicators of organ izational cultures. Some are described below: [edit] HofstedeHofstede (1980[5]) demonstrated that there are national and regio nal cultural groupings that affect the behavior of organizations. Hofstede looked for national differences between over 100,000 of IBM's employees in different parts of the world, in an attempt to find aspects of culture that might influence business behavior. Hofstede identified four dimensions of culture in his study of national influenc es: Power distance - The degree to which a society expects there to be differences i n the levels of power. A high score suggests that there is an expectation that s ome individuals wield larger amounts of power than others. A low score reflects the view that all people should have equal rights. Uncertainty avoidance reflects the extent to which a society accepts uncertainty and risk. Individualism vs. collectivism - individualism is contrasted with collectivism, and refers to the extent to which people are expected to stand up for themselves , or alternatively act predominantly as a member of the group or organization. H owever, recent researches have shown that high individualism may not necessarily mean low collectivism, and vice versa[citation needed]. Research indicates that the two concepts are actually unrelated. Some people and cultures might have bo th high individualism and high collectivism, for example. Someone who highly val ues duty to his or her group does not necessarily give a low priority to persona l freedom and self-sufficiency Masculinity vs. femininity - refers to the value placed on traditionally male or female values. Male values for example include competitiveness, assertiveness, ambition, and the accumulation of wealth and material possessions[citation neede d]. [edit] O'Reilly, Chatman, and CaldwellTwo common models and their associated mea surement tools have been developed by O Reilly et al. and Denison. O Rielly, Chatman & Caldwell (1991) developed a model based on the belief that cul tures can be distinguished by values that are reinforced within organizations. T heir Organizational Profile Model (OCP) is a self reporting tool which makes dis tinctions 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 organi

zational performance, rather it measures associations between the personalities of individuals in the organization and the organization s culture. 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 int ernally-focused as well as flexible versus stable. The model has been typically used to diagnose cultural problems in organizations. [edit] Deal and KennedyDeal and Kennedy[6] 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 o f organizations. They each focus on how quickly the organization receives feedba ck, the way members are rewarded, and the level of risks taken. [7] Deal and Ken nedy's Four Cultures: Work-hard, play-hard culure[8] This has rapid feedback/reward and low risk Resul ting in: Stress coming from quantity of work rather than uncertainty. High-speed action leading to high-speed recreation. Examples: Restaurants, software compan ies. Tough-guy macho culture[9] This has rapid feedback/reward and high risk, resulti ng in the following: Stress coming from high risk and potential loss/gain of rew ard. Focus on the present rather than the longer-term future. Examples: police, surgeons, sports. Process culture[10] [11] This has slow feedback/reward and low risk, resulting i n the following: Low stress, plodding work, comfort and security. Stress that co mes from internal politics and stupidity of the system. Development of bureaucra cies 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 i n the following: Stress coming from high risk and delay before knowing if action s have paid off. The long view is taken, but then much work is put into making s ure things happen as planned. Examples: aircraft manufacturers, oil companies. [edit] Edgar ScheinEdgar Schein,[12] an MIT Sloan School of Management professor , defines organizational culture as: "A pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked we ll enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way you perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems"(Sch ein, 2004, p. 17). According to Schein, culture is the most difficult organizational attribute to c hange, outlasting organizational products, services, founders and leadership and all other physical attributes of the organization. His organizational model ill uminates culture from the standpoint of the observer, described by three cogniti ve levels of organizational culture.

At the first and most cursory level of Schein's model is organizational attribut es that can be seen, felt and heard by the uninitiated observer - collectively k nown as artifacts. Included are the facilities, offices, furnishings, visible aw ards and recognition, the way that its members dress, how each person visibly in teracts with each other and with organizational outsiders, and even company slog ans, mission statements and other operational creeds. Artifacts comprise the physical components of the organization that relay cultur al meaning. Daniel Denison (1990) describes artifacts as the tangible aspects of culture shared by members of an organization. Verbal, behavioral and physical a rtifacts are the surface manifestations of organizational culture. Rituals, the collective interpersonal behavior and values as demonstrated by tha t behavior, constitute the fabric of an organization's culture The contents of m yths, stories, and sagas reveal the history of an organization and influence how people understand what their organization values and believes. Language, storie s, and myths are examples of verbal artifacts and are represented in rituals and ceremonies. Technology and art exhibited by members or an organization are exam ples of physical artifacts. The next level deals with the professed culture of an organization's members - t he 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 org anization 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 ar e the elements of culture which are often taboo to discuss inside the organizati on. 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 interv iews with organizational members cannot draw out these attributes rather much more in-depth means is required to first identify then understand organizational cul ture 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 m oral standards at the second level of Schein's model while simultaneously displa ying curiously opposing behavior at the third and deepest level of culture. Supe rficially, organizational rewards can imply one organizational norm but at the d eepest level imply something completely different. This insight offers an unders tanding of the difficulty that organizational newcomers have in assimilating org anizational culture and why it takes time to become acclimatized. It also explai ns why organizational change agents usually fail to achieve their goals: underly ing tacit cultural norms are generally not understood before would-be change age nts begin their actions. Merely understanding culture at the deepest level may b e insufficient to institute cultural change because the dynamics of interpersona l relationships (often under threatening conditions) are added to the dynamics o f organizational culture while attempts are made to institute desired change. [edit] Factors and elementsGerry Johnson[13] described a cultural web, identifyi ng 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 val ues. Control Systems: The processes in place to monitor what is going on. Role cultur es 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 f lows through the business. Power Structures: Who makes the decisions, how widely spread is power, and on wh at is power based? Symbols: These include organizational logos and designs, but also extend to symb ols of power such as parking spaces and executive washrooms. Rituals and Routines: Management meetings, board reports and so on may become mo re 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, whic h 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 organiz ations is due to external adaptation and internal integration. External adaptati on reflects an evolutionary approach to organizational culture and suggests that cultures develop and persist because they help an organization to survive and f lourish. If the culture is valuable, then it holds the potential for generating sustained competitive advantages. Additionally, internal integration is an impor tant function since social structures are required for organizations to exist. O rganizational practices are learned through socialization at the workplace. Work environments reinforce culture on a daily basis by encouraging employees to exe rcise cultural values. Organizational culture is shaped by multiple factors, inc luding the following: External environment Industry Size and nature of the organization s workforce Technologies the organization uses The organization s history and ownership Organizational values, role models, symbols and rituals shape organizational cul ture. Organizational values, can be descirbed as "beliefs and ideas about what k inds of goals members of an organization should pursue and ideas about the appro priate kinds or standards of behavior organizational members should use to achie ve these goals. From organizational values develop organizational norms, guideli nes, or expectations that prescribe appropriate kinds of behavior by employees i n particular situations and control the behavior of organizational members towar ds one another."[2] Organizations often outline their values in their mission st atements, although this does not guarantee that organizational culture will refl ect them. The individuals that organizations recognize as role models set, by ex ample, the behavior valued by the organization. In addition, tangible factors su ch as work environment act as symbols, creating a sense of corporate identity. The founding of an organization is a critical period in the life of the organiza tion and the development of its culture. An organization's founder or chief exec utive has an influential impact on the development of the organization's culture since that person is likely to have control in hiring people with the same valu es and influence the choice of strategy. By screening candidates for a cultural fit, organizations select those employees that will be able to uphold the organi zational culture. Additionally, leaders embed culture in organizations by what t hey pay attention to, measure, and control; how they react to critical incidents and crises; the behaviors they model for others; and how they allocate rewards and other scarce resources.

Additionally, the legacy of an organizational founder may be reflected in the cu lture long after that person leaves through the processes of cultural transmissi on (e.g. rites, stories) where the culture perpetuates itself. The values of fou nders and key leaders shape organizational cultures, but the way these cultures affect individuals is through shared practices. [edit] Communicative IndicatorsThere are many different types of communication t hat contribute in creating an organizational culture:[14] Metaphors such as comparing an organization to a machine or a family reveal empl oyees shared meanings of experiences at the organization. Stories can provide examples for employees of how to or not to act in certain si tuations. Rites and ceremonies combine stories, metaphors, and symbols into one. Several d ifferent 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 a ctions. 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 so cial rules they follow. Fantasy Themes are common creative interpretations of events that reflect belief s, values, and goals of the organization. They lead to rhetorical visions, or vi ews of the organization and its environment held by organization members. [edit] SchemaSchemata (plural of schema) are knowledge structures a person forms from past experiences, allowing the person to respond to similar events more ef ficiently in the future by guiding the processing of information. A person's sch emata are created through interaction with others, and thus inherently involve c ommunication. Stanley G. Harris argues that five categories of in-organization schemata are ne cessary 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 expectati ons of other individuals within the organization. Organization schemata: a subset of person schemata, a person's generalized persp ective on others as a whole in the organization. Object/concept-in-organization schemata: knowledge an individual has of organiza tion 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 organizati on. 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 schemat a because of mutual organizational involvement), primarily done through organiza tional communication, as individuals directly or indirectly share knowledge and meanings. [edit] Typologies (How organizations are labeled and categorized)[edit] Strong/w

eak culturesStrong culture is said to exist where staff respond to stimulus beca use of their alignment to organizational values. In such environments, strong cu ltures help firms operate like well-oiled machines, cruising along with outstand ing execution and perhaps minor tweaking of existing procedures here and there. Conversely, there is weak culture where there is little alignment with organizat ional values and control must be exercised through extensive procedures and bure aucracy. 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 e specially beneficial to firms operating in the service sector since members of t hese organizations are responsible for delivering the service and for evaluation s important constituents make about firms. Research indicates that organizations may derive the following benefits from developing strong and productive culture s: 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 compan y Shaping employee behavior at work, enabling the organization to be more efficien t Where culture is strong, people do things because they believe it is the right t hing to do, and there is a risk of another phenomenon, groupthink. "Groupthink" was described by Irving L. 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 coh esive in-group, when members' strive for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternatives of action." This is a state in which ven if they have different ideas, do not challenge organizational thinking, and therefo re there is a reduced capacity for innovative thoughts. This could occur, for ex ample, where there is heavy reliance on a central charismatic figure in the orga nization, or where there is an evangelical belief in the organization' values, o r also in groups where a friendly climate is at the base of their identity (avoi dance 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 a s a negative influence by the rest of the group because they bring conflict. Innovative organizations need individuals who are prepared to challenge the stat us quo, groupthink or bureaucracy, and need procedures to implement new ideas ef fectively. [edit] Healthy organizational culturesOrganizations should strive for what is co nsidered a healthy organizational culture in order to increase productivity, growt h, efficiency and reduce employee turnover and other counterproductive behavior. 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 emplo yee 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 c ompany 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 statistic

ally better financial growth. Such cultures possess high employee involvement, s trong internal communications and an acceptance and encouragement of a healthy l evel of risk-taking in order to achieve innovation. Additionally, organizational cultures that explicitly emphasize factors related to the demands placed on the m by industry technology and growth will be better performers in their industrie s. According to Kotter and Heskett (1992), organizations with adaptive cultures per form much better than organizations with unadaptive cultures. An adaptive cultur e translates into organizational success; it is characterized by managers paying close attention to all of their constituencies, especially customers, initiatin g change when needed, and taking risks. An unadaptive culture can significantly reduce a firm's effectiveness, disabling the firm from pursuing all its competit ive/operational options. [edit] Charles HandyCharles Handy[15] (1985) popularized the 1972 work of Roger Harrison of looking at culture which some scholars have used to link organizatio nal structure to organizational culture. He describes Harrison's four types thus : A Power Culture which concentrates power among a few. Control radiates from the center like a web. Power and influence spread out from a central figure or group . Power desires from the top person and personal relationships with that individ ual matters more than any formal title of position. Power Cultures have few rule s and little bureaucracy; swift decisions can ensue. In a Role Culture, people have clearly delegated authorities within a highly def ined structure. Typically, these organizations form hierarchical bureaucracies. Power derives from a person's position and little scope exists for expert power. Controlled by procedures, roles descriptions and authority definitions. Predict able and consistent systems and procedures are highly valued. By contrast, in a Task Culture, teams are formed to solve particular problems. P ower derives from expertise as long as a team requires expertise.These cultures often feature the multiple reporting lines of a matrix structure. It is all a sm all team approach, who are highly skilled and specialist in their own markets of experience. A Person Culture exists where all individuals believe themselves superior to the organization. Survival can become difficult for such organizations, since the c oncept of an organization suggests that a group of like-minded individuals pursu e the organizational goals. Some professional partnerships can operate as person cultures, because each partner brings a particular expertise and clientele to t he firm. [edit] Robert A. CookeRobert A. Cooke, PhD, defines culture as the behaviors tha t members believe are required to fit in and meet expectations within their orga nization. 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 a nd approach tasks in ways that help them meet their higher-order satisfaction ne eds. Passive/defensive cultures, in which members believe they must interact with peo ple in ways that will not threaten their own security. Aggressive/defensive cultures, in which members are expected to approach tasks i n forceful ways to protect their status and security. [edit] Constructive culturesConstructive cultures are where people are encourage d to be in communication with their co-workers, and work as teams, rather than o nly as individuals. In positions where people do a complex job, rather than some thing simple like a mechanic one, this sort of culture is an efficient one.[16] Achievement Self-actualizing

Humanistic-encouraging Affiliative 1. Achievement: completing a task successfully, typically by effort, courage, or skill (pursue a standard of excellence) (explore alternatives before acting) -B ased on the need to attain high-quality results on challenging projects, the bel ief 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 th ink ahead and plan, explore alternatives before acting and learn from their mist akes. 2. Self-Actualizing: realization or fulfillment of one's talents and potentialit ies - considered as a drive or need present in everyone (think in unique and ind ependent 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 realist ic thinking and a balanced concern for people and tasks. 3. Humanistic-Encouraging: help others to grow and develop (resolve conflicts co nstructively) -Reflects an interest in the growth and development of people, a h igh positive regard for them and sensitivity to their needs. People high in this style devote energy to coaching and counselling others, are thoughtful and cons iderate 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. Peo ple high in this style share their thoughts and feelings, are friendly and coope rative 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, serv ice quality, and sales growth. Constructive norms are evident in environments wh ere quality is valued over quantity, creativity is valued over conformity, coope ration 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 c ultural norms are consistent with (and supportive of) the objectives behind empo werment, total quality management, transformational leadership, continuous impro vement, re-engineering, and learning organizations.[17] [18] [19] [edit] Passive/defense clusterThe passive/defense cluster involves members of an organization to approach tasks in a more fearful and tentative way. Their goal is to protect their status and security. The four Passive/Defensive cultural nor ms are:[20] Approval Conventional Dependent Avoidance 1. Approval: This style reflects workers who try hard to be accepted. They view themselves as worthless if not approved by their peers. People who follow this n orm try hard to make good impressions, be obedient, and please others. 2. Conventional: This style reflects workers who try not to draw attention to th emselves. People want to blend in and not cause attention to themselves. If this norm is followed, workers stick to their status quo and maintain their own rout ines and procedures. They do not like to veer off the beaten path. 3. Dependent: This style reflects workers who feel like they need protecting. Th ey tend to seek others to make decisions for them and are willing to obey orders . Workers following this morn believe they have little control over events.

4. Avoidance: In this style workers tend to be very apprehensive. They draw from threatening situations fast and play it safe often. People in this style ten d to be introverted and shy away from group interaction or conversation. Workers f ollowing this norm tend to be indecisive. Security is the largest motivator for following this norm. Those who feel threat en or fearful tend to fit into this cluster. In organizations with passive/defense clusters, members feel pressured to think and behave in ways that are inconsistent with the way they believe they should i n order to be effective. People are expected to please others (particularly supe riors) 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 member s report lower levels of motivation and satisfaction.[21] [edit] Aggressive/defensive culturesThis style in characterized with more emphas is 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 t end to make decisions based on status as opposed to expertise.[22] Oppositional Power Competitive Perfectionistic 1. Oppositional- This y that takes the form e this style are more question often leads d to be over critical to put others down.

cultural norm is based on the idea that a need for securit of being very critical and cynical at times. People who us likely to question others work, however asking those tough to a better product. However, those you use this style ten and point of others small flaws and use it as a mechanism

2. Power- This cultural norm is based on the idea that there is a need for prest ige and influence. Those who use this style often equate their own self-worth wi th controlling others. Those who use this style have a tendency to dictate other s 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 themselv es to other individuals and outperforming them. Those who use this style are see kers of appraisal and recognition from others. 4. Perfectionistic- This cultural norm is based on the need to attain flawless r esults. Those who often use this style equate their self-worth with the attainme nt of extremely high standards. Those who often use this style are always focuse d 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 ga ins associated with these strategies are often at the expense of long-term growt h.[23] [edit] Stephen McGuireStephen McGuire[24] defined and validated a model of organ izational culture that predicts revenue from new sources. An Entrepreneurial Org anizational Culture (EOC) is a system of shared values, beliefs and norms of mem bers of an organization, including valuing creativity and tolerance of creative

people, believing that innovating and seizing market opportunities are appropria te behaviors to deal with problems of survival and prosperity, environmental unc ertainty, and competitors' threats, and expecting organizational members to beha ve accordingly. [edit] ElementsPeople 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[25] [edit] ImpactsResearch suggests that numerous outcomes have been associated eith er directly or indirectly with organizational culture. A healthy and robust orga nizational 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 organizati onal culture and organizational performance, there is little doubt among experts that this relationship exists. Organizational culture can be a factor in the su rvival or failure of an organization - although this is difficult to prove consi dering the necessary longitudinal analyses are hardly feasible. The sustained su perior performance of firms like IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Procter & Gamble, and McD onald's may be, at least partly, a reflection of their organizational cultures. A 2003 Harvard Business School study reported that culture has a significant imp act on an organization s long-term economic performance. The study examined the ma nagement practices at 160 organizations over ten years and found that culture ca n enhance performance or prove detrimental to performance. Organizations with st rong performance-oriented cultures witnessed far better financial growth. Additi onally, a 2002 Corporate Leadership Council study found that cultural traits suc h as risk taking, internal communications, and flexibility are some of the most important drivers of performance, and may impact individual performance. Further more, innovativeness, productivity through people, and the other cultural factor s cited by Peters and Waterman (1982) also have positive economic consequences. Denison, Haaland, and Goelzer (2004) found that culture contributes to the succe ss 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 t hat 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 objecti ves, and administer the necessary resources to achieve objectives. Culture affec ts the way individuals make decisions, feel, and act in response to the opportun ities 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 subcul ture 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 con sequences including lower job satisfaction, higher job strain, general stress, a nd turnover intent. It has been proposed that organizational culture may impact the level of employe

e creativity, the strength of employee motivation, and the reporting of unethica l behavior, but more research is needed to support these conclusions. Organizational culture also has an impact on recruitment and retention. Individu als tend to be attracted to and remain engaged in organizations that they percei ve to be compatible. Additionally, high turnover may be a mediating factor in th e relationship between culture and organizational performance. Deteriorating com pany performance and an unhealthy work environment are signs of an overdue cultu ral assessment. [edit] AssessmentRobert Quinn and Kim Cameron researched what makes organization s effective and successful. Based on the Competing Values Framework, they develo ped the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument that distinguishes four cul ture types. Competing values produce polarities like: flexibility versus stability and inter nal versus 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 fathe r figures. Adhocracy Culture -External focus and flexible - A dynamic workplace with leaders that stimulate i nnovation. 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 lea ders act like coordinators. Cameron & Quinn found six key aspects that will make up a culture. These can be assessed in the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) thus produci ng a mix of these four archetypes of culture. Each organization or team will hav e 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 w ith innovation and financial effectiveness criteria. The primary belief in marke t cultures is that clear goals and contingent rewards motivate employees to aggr essively perform and meet stakeholders' expectations; a core belief in clan cult ures is that the organization s trust in and commitment to employees facilitates o pen communication and employee involvement. These differing results suggest that it is important for executive leaders to consider the fit, or match, between st rategic initiatives and organizational culture when determining how to embed a c ulture that produces competitive advantage. By assessing the current organizatio nal culture as well as the preferred situation, the gap and direction to change can be made visible. This can be the first step to changing organizational cultu re. [edit] ChangeWhen 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 spe cific company goals and results. Culture change is impacted by a number of eleme nts, including the external environment and industry competitors, change in indu stry standards, technology changes, the size and nature of the workforce, and th

e organization s history and management. There are a number of methodologies specifically dedicated to organizational cul ture change such as Peter Senge s Fifth Discipline. These are also a variety of ps ychological approaches that have been developed into a system for specific outco mes such as the Fifth Discipline s learning organization or Directive Communication s orporate 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 rathe r than 'management', and describe the difference.[26] When one wants to change a n 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 t o change and employees need time to get used to the new way of organizing. For c ompanies with a very strong and specific culture it will be even harder to chang e. Prior to a cultural change initiative, a needs assessment is needed to identify and understand the current organizational culture. This can be done through empl oyee surveys, interviews, focus groups, observation, customer surveys where appr opriate, and other internal research, to further identify areas that require cha nge. The company must then assess and clearly identify the new, desired culture, and then design a change process. Cummings & Worley (2005, p. 491 492) give the following six guidelines for cultu ral change, these changes are in line with the eight distinct stages mentioned b y 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 stra tegy, shared values and behaviors is needed. This vision provides the intention and direction for the culture change (Cummings & Worley, 2005, p. 490). 2. Display top-management commitment (stage 4) It is very important to keep in mind that culture change must be managed from th e top of the organization, as willingness to change of the senior management is an important indicator (Cummings & Worley, 2005, page 490). The top of the organ ization should be very much in favor of the change in order to actually implemen t the change in the rest of the organization. De Caluw & Vermaak (2004, p 9) prov ide 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 t o symbolize the kinds of values and behaviors that should be realized in the res t 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 ma nagers, or similar. Change agents are key in the process and key communicators o f the new values. They should possess courage, flexibility, excellent interperso nal 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 n eed to be changed in order to align with the new values and desired culture. Thi

s may include a change to accountability systems, compensation, benefits and rew ard 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 cult ure 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, peop le can be selected and terminate in terms of their fit with the new culture (Cum mings & Worley, 2005, 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 a rticulate the connections between the desired behavior and how it will impact an d 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 in terests, which can result in ethical and legal problems for practitioners. This is particularly relevant for changes in employee integrity, control, equitable t reatment and job security (Cummings & Worley, 2005, p. 491). It is also beneficial, as part of the change process, to include an evaluation p rocess, 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, whi ch will also encourage continued change and evolvement. It may also be helpful a nd 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 sub stantially different from what prevails in existing cultures. Cultural innovatio n[27] is bound to be more difficult than cultural maintenance. People often resi st changes hence it is the duty of the management to convince people that likely gain will outweigh the losses. Besides institutionalization, deification is ano ther process that tends to occur in strongly developed organizational cultures. The organization itself may come to be regarded as precious in itself, as a sour ce of pride, and in some sense unique. Organizational members begin to feel a st rong bond with it that transcends material returns given by the organization, an d they begin to identify with in. The organization turns into a sort of clan. [edit] Mergers, organizational culture, and cultural leadershipOne of the bigges t obstacles in the way of the merging of two organizations is organizational cul ture. 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. Organizatio nal leaders must also be cultural leaders and help facilitate the change from th e two old cultures into the one new culture. This is done through cultural innov ation followed by cultural maintenance. Cultural innovation includes: Creating a new culture: recognizing past cultural differences and setting realis tic 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 culture s and the new one Embodying the new culture: Establishing, affirming, and keeping the new culture [edit] Corporate culture and organizational cultureCorporate culture is the tota l sum of the values, customs, traditions, and meanings that make a company uniqu e. Corporate culture is often called "the character of an organization", since i t embodies the vision of the company's founders. The values of a corporate cultu re influence the ethical standards within a corporation, as well as managerial b ehavior.[28] Senior management may try to determine a corporate culture. They may wish to imp ose corporate values and standards of behavior that specifically reflect the obj ectives 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 ex ample, computer technicians will have expertise, language and behaviors gained i ndependently of the organization, but their presence can influence the culture o f the organization as a whole. Corporate culture as humorously defined by the au thors of "Death to All Sacred Cows" takes an interesting twist. Beau Fraser, Dav id Bernstein and Bill Schwab introduce the term 'Sacred Cow' as the ultimate sin to corporate culture. Their book is dedicated to killing these "fundamental ten ets of commerce by emphasizing that these 'Sacred Cows' "survive by keeping every thing the same." [29][30] Organizational culture and corporate culture are often used interchangeably but it is a mistake to state that they are the same concept. All corporations are al so organizations but not all organizations are corporations. Organizations inclu de religious institutions, not-for-profit groups, and government agencies. There is even the Canadian Criminal Code definition of "organized crime" as meaning " a group comprised of three or more persons which has, as one of its primary acti vities or purposes, the commission of serious offences which likely results in f inancial gain." Corporations are organizations and are also legal entities. As S chein (2009), Deal & Kennedy (2000), Kotter (1992) and many others state, organi zations often have very differing cultures as well as subcultures. [edit] Critical viewsWriters from critical management studies have tended to exp ress skepticism about the functionalist and unitarist views of culture put forwa rd by mainstream management thinkers. While they do not necessarily deny that or ganizations are cultural phenomena, they would stress the ways in which cultural assumptions can stifle dissent and reproduce management propaganda and ideology . After all, it would be naive to believe that a single culture exists in all or ganizations, or that cultural engineering will reflect the interests of all stak eholders within an organization. In any case, Parker[31] has suggested that many of the assumptions of those putt ing forward theories of organizational culture are not new. They reflect a longstanding tension between cultural and structural (or informal and formal) versio ns of what organizations are. Further, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest tha t complex organizations might have many cultures, and that such sub-cultures mig ht overlap and contradict each other. The neat typologies of cultural forms foun d in textbooks rarely acknowledge such complexities, or the various economic con tradictions that exist in capitalist organizations. One of the strongest and widely recognized criticisms of theories that attempt t o categorize or 'pigeonhole' organizational culture is one that was put forward by Linda Smircich[citation needed]. She uses the metaphor of a plant root to rep resent culture, describing that it drives organizations rather than vice versa.

Organizations are the product of organizational culture, we are unaware of how i t shapes behavior and interaction (also recognized through Scheins (2002) underl ying assumptions) and so how can we categorize it and define what it is? [edit] See alsoAmbidextrous organization Institutional memory Integrated marketing Organizational learning Onboarding Toxic workplace Text and Conversation Theory [edit] Notes1.^ Shein, Edgar (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dy namic View. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. pp. 9. 2.^ a b Charles W. L. Hill, and Gareth R. Jones, (2001) Strategic Management. Ho ughton Mifflin. 3.^ Modaff, D.P., DeWine, S., & Butler, J. (2011). Organizational communication: Foundations, challenges, and misunderstandings (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Educa tion. (Chapters 1-6) 4.^ Modaff, D.P., DeWine, S., & Butler, J. (2011). Organizational communication: Foundations, challenges, and misunderstandings (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Educa tion. (Chapters 1-6) 5.^ Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Wor k Related Values, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Publications 6.^ Deal T. E. and Kennedy, A. A. (1982) Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Ritua ls of Corporate Life, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books. 7.^ http://changingminds.org/explanations/culture/deal_kennedy_culture.htm 8.^ http://changingminds.org/explanations/culture/deal_kennedy_culture.htm 9.^ http://changingminds.org/explanations/culture/deal_kennedy_culture.htm 10.^ Deal T. E. and Kennedy, A. A. (1982) Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Ritu als of Corporate Life, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books. 11.^ http://changingminds.org/explanations/culture/deal_kennedy_culture.htm 12.^ Schein, E.H. (1985-2005) Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd Ed., Jo ssey-Bass ISBN 0-7879-7597-4 13.^ Johnson, Gerry (1988) "Rethinking Incrementalism", Strategic Management Jou rnal Vol 9 pp75-91 14.^ Islam, Gazi and Zyphur, Michael. (2009). Rituals in organizatinios: A revie w and expansion of current theory. Group Organization Management. (34), 1140139. 15.^ Handy, C.B. (1985) Understanding Organizations, 3rd Edn, Harmondsworth, Pen guin Books 16.^ Cooke, R. A. (1987). The Organizational Culture Inventory. Plymouth, MI: Hu man Synergistics, Inc.. 17.^ Kotter, J. P. (1992). Corporate Culture and Performance. New York: The Free Press. 18.^ "Using the Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI) to Measure Kotter and Hes kett's Adaptive and Unadaptive Cultures". Human Synergistics. http://www.trainer sdirect.com/resources/articles/changemanagement/orgcultureinventory.htm. Retriev ed 6 October 2011. 19.^ "Constructive Styles". Human-Synergistics. http://www.human-synergistics.co m.au/content/products/circumplex/constructive.asp. Retrieved 6 October 2011. 20.^ Cooke, R. A. (1987). The Organizational Culture Inventory. Plymouth, MI: Hu man Synergistics, Inc. 21.^ "Passive/Defensive Styles". http://www.humansynergistics.com/system/passive .aspx. Retrieved 8 October 2011. 22.^ "Aggressive/Defensive Styles". http://www.human-synergistics.com.au/content /products/circumplex/aggressive.asp. Retrieved 6 October 2011. 23.^ "Aggressive/Defensive Styles". http://www.human-synergistics.com.au/content /products/circumplex/aggressive.asp. Retrieved 6 October 2011. 24.^ McGuire, Stephen J.J. (2003). Entrepreneurial Organizational Culture: Const ruct Definition and Instrument Development and Validation, Ph.D. Dissertation, T he George Washington University, Washington, DC.

25.^ Elements of an Entrepreneurial Culture 26.^ Burman, R. & Evans, A.J. (2008) Target Zero: A Culture of safety, Defence A viation Safety Centre Journal 2008, 22-27. http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/849892 B2-D6D2-4DFD-B5BD-9A4F288A9B18/0/DASCJournal2008.pdf 27.^ http://www.oracle.com/oramag/profit/07-feb/p17andrew.html 28.^ Montana, P., and Charnov, B. (2008) Management (4th ed.), Barrons Education al Series, Hauppauge:NY 29.^ . ISBN 9781401303310. 30.^ Fraser, Beau; Bernstein,, David, Schwab, Bill (2007). Death to all sacred c ows : how successful business people put the old rules out to pasture (1st ed. e d.). New York: Hyperion. pp. 4 11. ISBN 9781401303310. 31.^ Parker, M. (2000) Organizational Culture and Identity, London: Sage. [edit] ReferencesBarney, J. B. (1986). Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Sourc e of Sustained Competitive Advantage?. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656665. Black, Richard J. (2003) Organizational Culture: Creating the Influence Needed f or Strategic Success, London UK, ISBN 1-58112-211-X Bligh, Michelle C. (2006) "Surviving Post-merger Culture Clash : Can Cultural Leade rship Lessen the Casualties?" Leadership, vol. 2: pp. 395 - 426. Cameron, Kim S. & Quinn, Robert E. (2005) "Diagnosing and Changing Organizationa l Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework", The Jossey-Bass Business & Management Series, ISBN 13 978-0-7879-8283-6 Chatman, J. A., & Jehn, K. A. (1994). ASSESSING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDUSTR Y CHARACTERISTICS AND ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE: HOW DIFFERENT CAN YOU BE?. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 522-553. Corporate Leadership Council (October 2003). Building Organizational Culture for High Performance. Corporate Executive Board. Retrieved from www.corporateleader shipcouncil.com. Corporate Leadership Council (June 2003). Defining Corporate Culture. Corporate Executive Board. Retrieved from www.corporateleadershipcouncil.com. Corporate Leadership Council (July 2002). Tools to Assess Organizational Culture . Corporate Executive Board. Retrieved from www.corporateleadershipcouncil.com. Cummings, Thomas G. & Worley, Christopher G. (2005), Organization Development an d Change, 8th Ed., Thomson South-Western, USA, ISBN 0324260601 Harris, Stanley G. (1994) "Organizational Culture and Individual Sensemaking: A Schema-Based Perspective." Organization Science, Vol. 5,(3): pp. 309 321 Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011, January 17). Organizational Cul ture and Organizational Effectiveness: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Comp eting Values Framework's Theoretical Suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology . Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0021987 Jex, Steven M. Jex & Britt, Thomas W. (2008) Organizational Psychology, A Scient ist-Practitioner Approach, Wiley, USA ISBN 978-0-470-10976-2. Kotter, John. 1992 Corporate Culture and Performance, Free Press; (April 7, 1992 ) ISBN 0-02-918467-3 Markus, Hazel. (1977) "Self-schemata and processing information about the self." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 35(2): pp. 63 78. O'Donovan, Gabrielle (2006). The Corporate Culture Handbook: How to Plan, Implem ent and Measure a Successful Culture Change Programme, The Liffey Press, ISBN 1904148-97-2 Papa, Michael J., et al. (2008). Organizational Communication Perspectives and T rends(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. Stoykov, Lubomir. 1995 Corporate culture and communication, Stopanstvo, Sofia. [edit] External linksOrganizational Culture and Institutional Transformation - F rom the Education Resources Information Center Clearinghouse on Higher Education Washington, DC.( Broken Link) [hide]v d e Aspects of organizations

See also: template Aspects of corporations template Aspects of occupations templ ate Aspects of workplaces

Architecture Blame Burnout Capital Chart Citizenship behavior Climate Commitm Communication Complexity Configuration Conflict Culture Design Development nostics Dissent Ecology Effectiveness Engineering Ethics Field Hierarchy Id ication Intelligence Justice Learning Life cycle Mentorship Network analysis udsman Onboarding Patterns Perceived support Performance Politics Proactivity ychology Resilience Retaliatory behavior Safety Space Storytelling Structure dies Suggestion box

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_culture &oldid=465107737" View page ratingsRate this page Rate this page Page ratings What's this?Current average ratings. Trustworthy Objective Complete Well-written I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional) I have a relevant college/university degreeIt is part of my professionIt ep personal passionThe source of my knowledge is not listed here I would help improve Wikipedia, send me an e-mail (optional) We will send you a ation e-mail. We will not share your e-mail address with outside parties our feedback privacy statement.Submit ratings is a de like to confirm as per

Saved successfullyYour ratings have not been submitted yetYour ratings have expi redPlease reevaluate this page and submit new ratings. An error has occured. Please try again later. Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.Please take a moment to complete a short su rvey.Start surveyMaybe later Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.Do you want to create an account?An account will help you track your edits, get involved in discussions, and be a part of t he community.Create an accountorLog inMaybe later Thanks! Your ratings have been saved.Did you know that you can edit this page?Ed it this pageMaybe later Categories: Organizational studies and human resource ma nagementCultural economicsCorporatismHidden categories: Articles needing cleanup from September 2010All articles needing cleanupArticles with peacock terms from February 2011All articles with peacock termsAll articles with unsourced stateme ntsArticles with unsourced statements from October 2008Articles with unsourced s tatements from March 2011Personal tools Log in / create accountNamespaces ArticleDiscussionVariantsViews ReadEditView historyActions Search Navigation Main pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to Wikipedia InteractionHelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact WikipediaToo lboxWhat links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkCite thi s pageRate this page

Print/exportCreate a bookDownload as PDFPrintable version Languages????????????????DeutschEspaolFranaisHrvatskiBahasa Indonesia?????Lietuviu MagyarBahasa MelayuNederlandsPolskiPortugus???????Sloven cinaSuomiSvenska?????????? ???Ti?ng Vi?t??This page was last modified on 10 December 2011 at 11:56. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; add itional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-prof it organization. Contact us Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersMobile view

Leadership and OB:

HomeSite MapAboutLeadershipTrainingLearningHistoryKnowledgePerformanceJavaEtc.Ne wsBlog

Leadership and Organizational Behavior Organizational Behavior (OB) is the study and application of knowledge about how people, individuals, and groups act in organizations. It does this by taking a system approach. That is, it interprets people-organization relationships in ter ms of the whole person, whole group, whole organization, and whole social system . Its purpose is to build better relationships by achieving human objectives, or ganizational objectives, and social objectives. As you can see from the definition above, organizational behavior encompasses a wide range of topics, such as human behavior, change, leadership, teams, etc. Si nce many of these topics are covered elsewhere in the leadership guide, this pap er will focus on a few parts of OB: elements, models, social systems, OD, work l ife, action learning, and change. Elements of Organizational Behavior The organization's base rests on management's philosophy, values, vision and goa ls. This in turn drives the organizational culture which is composed of the form al organization, informal organization, and the social environment. The culture determines the type of leadership, communication, and group dynamics within the organization. The workers perceive this as the quality of work life which direct s their degree of motivation. The final outcome are performance, individual sati sfaction, and personal growth and development. All these elements combine to bui ld the model or framework that the organization operates from.

Models of Organizational Behavior There are four major models or frameworks that organizations operate out of, Aut ocratic, Custodial, Supportive, and Collegial (Cunningham, Eberle, 1990; Davis , 1967): ?Autocratic The basis of this model is power with a managerial orientation of au thority. The employees in turn are oriented towards obedience and dependence on the boss. The employee need that is met is subsistence. The performance result i s minimal.

?Custodial The tation of money. s and dependence The performance

basis of this model is economic resources with a managerial orien The employees in turn are oriented towards security and benefit on the organization. The employee need that is met is security. result is passive cooperation.

?Supportive The basis of this model is leadership with a managerial orientation of support. The employees in turn are oriented towards job performance and parti cipation. The employee need that is met is status and recognition. The performan ce result is awakened drives.

?Collegial The basis of this model is partnership with a managerial orientation of teamwork. The employees in turn are oriented towards responsible behavior and self-discipline. The employee need that is met is self-actualization. The perfo rmance result is moderate enthusiasm. Although there are four separate models, almost no organization operates exclusi vely in one. There will usually be a predominate one, with one or more areas ove r-lapping in the other models. The first model, autocratic, has its roots in the industrial revolution. The man agers of this type of organization operate mostly out of McGregor's Theory X. Th e next three models begin to build on McGregor's Theory Y. They have each evolve d over a period of time and there is no one best model. In addition, the collegi al model should not be thought as the last or best model, but the beginning of a new model or paradigm.

Social Systems, Culture, and Individualization A social system is a complex set of human relationships interacting in many ways . Within an organization, the social system includes all the people in it and th eir relationships to each other and to the outside world. The behavior of one me mber can have an impact, either directly or indirectly, on the behavior of other s. Also, the social system does not have boundaries... it exchanges goods, ideas , culture, etc. with the environment around it. Culture is the conventional behavior of a society that encompasses beliefs, cust oms, knowledge, and practices. It influences human behavior, even though it seld om enters into their conscious thought. People depend on culture as it gives the m stability, security, understanding, and the ability to respond to a given situ ation. This is why people fear change. They fear the system will become unstable , their security will be lost, they will not understand the new process, and the

y will not know how to respond to the new situations. Individualization is when employees successfully exert influence on the social s ystem by challenging the culture. The quadrant shown below shows how individualization affects different organizat ions (Schein, 1968):

?Quadrant A Too little socialization and too little individualization creates is olation. ?Quadrant B Too little socialization and too high individualization creates rebe llion. ?Quadrant C Too high socialization and too little individualization creates conf ormity. ?Quadrant D While the match that organizations want to create is high socializat ion and high individualization for a creative environment. This is what it takes to survive in a very competitive environment... having people grow with the org anization, but doing the right thing when others want to follow the easy path. This can become quite a balancing act. Individualism favors individual rights, l oosely knit social networks, self respect, and personal rewards and careers it may become look out for Number One! Socialization or collectivism favors the group, harmony, and asks What is best for the organization? Organizations need people to challenge, question, and experiment while still maintaining the culture that bi nds them into a social system. Organization Development Organization Development (OD) is the systematic application of behavioral scienc e knowledge at various levels, such as group, inter-group, organization, etc., t o bring about planned change (Newstrom, Davis, 1993). Its objectives is a higher quality of work-life, productivity, adaptability, and effectiveness. It accompl ishes this by changing attitudes, behaviors, values, strategies, procedures, and structures so that the organization can adapt to competitive actions, technolog ical advances, and the fast pace of change within the environment. There are seven characteristics of OD (Newstrom, Davis, 1993): 1.Humanistic Values: Positive beliefs about the potential of employees (McGregor 's Theory Y). 2.Systems Orientation: All parts of the organization, to include structure, tech nology, and people, must work together. 3.Experiential Learning: The learners' experiences in the training environment s hould be the kind of human problems they encounter at work. The training should NOT be all theory and lecture. 4.Problem Solving: Problems are identified, data is gathered, corrective action is taken, progress is assessed, and adjustments in the problem solving process a re made as needed. This process is known as Action Research. 5.Contingency Orientation: Actions are selected and adapted to fit the need. 6.Change Agent: Stimulate, facilitate, and coordinate change. 7.Levels of Interventions: Problems can occur at one or more level in the organi zation so the strategy will require one or more interventions.

Quality of Work Life Quality of Work Life (QWL) is the favorableness or unfavorableness of the job en vironment (Newstrom, Davis, 1993). Its purpose is to develop jobs and working co nditions that are excellent for both the employees and the organization. One of the ways of accomplishing QWL is through job design. Some of the options availab

le for improving job design are: ?Leave the job as is but employ only people who like the rigid environment or ro utine work. Some people do enjoy the security and task support of these kinds of jobs. ?Leave the job as is, but pay the employees more. ?Mechanize and automate the routine jobs. ?And the area that OD loves redesign the job. When redesigning jobs there are two spectrums to follow job enlargement and job en richment. Job enlargement adds a more variety of tasks and duties to the job so that it is not as monotonous. This takes in the breadth of the job. That is, the number of different tasks that an employee performs. This can also be accomplis hed by job rotation. Job enrichment, on the other hand, adds additional motivators. It adds depth to the job more control, responsibility, and discretion to how the job is performed. This gives higher order needs to the employee, as opposed to job enlargement whi ch simply gives more variety. The chart below illustrates the differences (Cunni ngham & Eberle, 1990):

The benefits of enriching jobs include: ?Growth of the individual ?Individuals have better job satisfaction ?Self-actualization of the individual ?Better employee performance for the organization ?Organization gets intrinsically motivated employees ?Less absenteeism, turnover, and grievances for the organization ?Full use of human resources for society ?Society gains more effective organizations There are a variety of methods for improving job enrichment (Hackman and Oldham, 1975): ?Skill Variety: Perform different tasks that require different skill. This diffe rs from job enlargement which might require the employee to perform more tasks, but require the same set of skills. ?Task Identity: Create or perform a complete piece of work. This gives a sense o f completion and responsibility for the product. ?Task Significant: This is the amount of impact that the work has on other peopl e as the employee perceives. ?Autonomy: This gives employees discretion and control over job related decision s. ?Feedback: Information that tells workers how well they are performing. It can c ome directly from the job (task feedback) or verbally form someone else. For a survey activity, see Hackman & Oldham's Five Dimensions of Motivating Pote ntial. Action Learning An unheralded British academic was invited to try out his theories in Belgium it l ed to an upturn in the Belgian economy. Unless your ideas are ridiculed by expert s they are worth nothing, says the British academic Reg Revans, creator of action learning. Action Learning can be viewed as a formula: [L = P + Q]: ?Learning (L) occurs through a combination of ?programmed knowledge (P) and ?the ability to ask insightful questions (Q).

Action learning has been widely used in Europe for combining formal management t raining with learning from experience. A typical program is conducted over a per iod of 6 to 9 months. Teams of learners with diverse backgrounds conduct field p rojects on complex organizational problems that require the use of skills learne d in formal training sessions. The learning teams then meet periodically with a skilled instructor to discuss, analyze, and learn from their experiences. Revans basis his learning method on a theory rning process should closely approximate the lical you proceed through the steps and when e analysis to the original hypothesis and if he six steps are: called System Beta, in that the lea scientific method. The model is cyc you reach the last step you relate th need be, start the process again. T

1.Formulate Hypothesis (an idea or concept) 2.Design Experiment (consider ways of testing truth or validity of idea or conce pt) 3.Apply in Practice (put into effect, test of validity or truth) 4.Observe Results (collect and process data on outcomes of test) 5.Analyze Results (make sense of data) 6.Compare Analysis (relate analysis to original hypothesis) Note that you do not always have to enter this process at step 1, but you do hav e to complete the process. Revans suggest that all human learning at the individual level occurs through th is process. Note that it covers what Jim Stewart (1991) calls the levels of exis tence: ?We think cognitive domain ?We feel affective domain ?We do action domain All three levels are interconnected, i.e., what we think influences us and is in fluenced by what we do and feel. Change In its simplest form, discontinuity in the work place is change. - Knoster & Vil la, 2000 Our prefrontal cortex is a fast and agile computational device that is able to h old multiple threads of logic at once so that we can perform fast calculations. However, it has its limits with working memory in that it can only hold a handfu l of concepts at once, similar to the RAM in a PC. In addition, it burns lots of high energy glucose (blood sugar), which is expensive for the body to produce. Thus when given lots of information, such as when a change is required, it has a tendency to overload and being directly linked to the amygdala (the emotional c enter of the brain) that controls our fight-or-flight response, it can cause sev ere physical and psychological discomfort. (Koch, 2006) Our prefrontal cortex is marvelous al everyday use, our brain prefers ich has a much larger storage area on, it sips rather than gulps food for insight when not overloaded. But for norm to run off its hard-drive the basal ganglia, wh and stores memories and our habits. In additi (glucose).

When we do something familiar and predictable, our brain is mainly using the bas al ganglia, which is quite comforting to us. When we use our prefrontal cortex, then we are looking for fight, flight, or insight. Too much change produces figh t or flight syndromes. As change agents we want to produce insight into our lear ners so that they are able to apply their knowledge and skills not just in the c lassroom, but also on the job. And the way to help people come to insight is to allow them to come to their own

resolution. These moments of insight or resolutions are called epiphanies sudden intuitive leap of understanding that are quite pleasurable to us and act as rewa rds. Thus you have to resist the urge to fill in the entire picture of change, r ather you have to leave enough gaps so that the learners are allowed to make con nections of their own. Doing too much for the learners can be just as bad, if no t worse, than not doing enough. Doing all the thinking for learners takes their brains out of action, which mean s they will not invest the energy to make new connections. Next Steps Next chapter: Presentations for Leaders Learning Activities: ?Organizational Behavior Survey ?Job Survey Main Leadership Menu References Cunningham, J. B. & Eberle, T. (1990). A Guide to Job Enrichment and Redesign. P ersonnel, Feb 1990, p.57 in Newstrom, J. & Davis, K. (1993). Organization Behavi or: Human Behavior at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill. Davis , K. (1967). Human relations at work: The dynamics of organizational behav ior. 9th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, pp. 159-70. Knoster, T., Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (2000). A framework for thinking about sy stems change. In R. Villa & J. Thousand (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and eff ective education: Piecing the puzzle together (pp. 93-128). Baltimore: Paul H. B rookes Publishing Co. Koch, C. (2006). The New Science of Change. CIO Magazine, Sep 15, 2006 (pp 54-56 ). Also available on the web: http://www.cio.com/archive/091506/change.html Newstrom, John W. & Davis, Keith (1993). Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill. Revans, R. W. (1982). The Origin and Growth of Action Learning. Hunt, England: C hatwell-Bratt, Bickley. Schein, E. (1968). Organizational Socialization and the Profession of Management . Industrial Management Review, 1968 vol. 9 pp. 1-15 in Newstrom, J. & Davis, K. (1993). Organization Behavior: Human Behavior at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill. Stewart, J. (1991). Managing Change Through Training and Development. London: Ko gan Page.

Notes Updated February , 2011. Created March 19, 1998. Find out more about me (copyright, APA formatting, etc.) ~ Email me at donclark@ nwlink.com ~ A Big Dog, Little Dog and Knowledge Jump Production