QUALITY MANAGEMENT O r ga n i za t i on a l Cul t ur e D yn a mi c s
A C ri tic a l Ov e rv ie w of th e Or g an i z ati on a l Cu ltu re Valentina Mihaela GHINEA* Abstract
If previously the effort of Human Resources specialists was focused on the recruitment-selection process, lately it has been noticed an increase of interest related to the employees retention. The change of perspective is mainly given by the spread of open markets concept and by the globalization itself, as well as by the employees’ awareness of their value and the various opportunities at their hand. Together with the financial advantages, many companies make also use of extrinsic motivational factors intrinsically motivating the employees, such as: space design, reinforced behaviour, communication type, manner and procedure, valid rules and regulation, vertical and/or horizontal amplitude of the hierarchy, decision making process, performance appraisal and reward, etc. The present paper carries out a critical overview of the organizational culture significance, of its constitutive elements, as well as of the main most used models. A particular attention is paid to the study of the organizational culture dynamics, together with the few already existent models meant to catch exactly this evolution in a time span. Keywords: organizational culture, model, dynamics.
1. Introduction
Our world is continuously changing. This fact leads to a continuously changing world economy, as well. As a consequence, the labor market is subjected to major changes, its structure being nevertheless modified: one can find more women and older people hired nowadays, for example, together to a special attention paid to the minorities. Among the driving factors of this concatenation could be listed: women emancipation, life condition improvement, Information and Communication Technology revolution, etc. The new reality broadly described by the technical dimension (causing the distance reduction and all the processes acceleration), and the political-economic one (European markets unification, the use of single European currency, the fast increase of the supply and demand in Asia and not only there) revealed a surprising key of success: the ability of being present on the world market (Dessler, 2004), therefore beyond the geographical boundaries of the home country. On the one side, this impedes the companies to retain longer periods of time its employees. The broad implementation of the open markets concept, the globalization itself, and nevertheless the employees awareness relating to their values and opportunities, made the lifelong labor contract superfluous and outdated (Harvard Business School Press, 2006). On the other hand, the easy access of everybody everywhere enhances and encourages human diversity not only in terms of age, education, knowledge and competencies, but also in terms of cultural foundation, nationality, etc. This is a bipolar process afterwards: it works from outside in as well as from inside out. In the first case, human diversity of the targeted market makes necessary the employees variety, while in the second case, once the company develops its business abroad, because of the increased mobility of the workforce, the probability of occurrence of different nationalities employees is higher. While slaloming in and out of the advantages and disadvantages of this evolutionary leap, companies become aware of the necessity of having well-educated and qualified employees, possessing multiple abilities and skills. This leads to a very curious paradox: the more skillful and multitasking are the employees, the higher is their turnover. In a word, general features
such as accurate execution, task accomplishment, creativity, emotional intelligence, eloquence and persuasion, etc. are looked for by almost all the companies, therefore it is not a surprise to find that they ease the access to the jobs offered by the competitors (Holbeche, 2001). This results in a huge and complex pressure put both on each individual apart (as potential employee), and the organization as employer. Constrained, the latter make use not only of the financial tools, but also of some extrinsic motivational factors able to intrinsically motivate the employees. Here we mention space design, reinforced behaviour, communication type, manner and procedure, valid rules and regulation, vertical and/or horizontal amplitude of the hierarchy, decision making process, performance appraisal and reward, etc. Given this context, both theoreticians and practitioners are equally interested of the possibility to select and retain the most valuable employees. As an outcome, we witness a change of paradigm: it is no longer the negative approach of the psychological field prevailing, but on the contrary, the positive one. If before, the number of published books and articles focused on negative moods and disorders (including mental illness) was in a ratio of 14:1 in relation to that of the positive research, nowadays the interest lies more on the understanding of the factors driving towards success, with the ultimate aim of enhancing the flourish of communities and societies (Fredrickson, 2001). Concepts like Positive Organisational Behavior, POB, and Positive Organisational Scholarship, POS, thus appeared. While the former targets the analysis of each individual psychological moods and their importance for the organizational requirements achievement, the latter is focused more on the positive aspects of the organizational context and their power of influence over the employees’ effort (Bakker and Schaufeli, 2008). Recent studies such as the Fredrickson and Losada’s performed in 2005, which involved 60 managerial teams, the Hakanen et al., from the same time span, performed within the Finnish dental field, or the Bakker et al. (two years later), within the Finnish educational system, proved a higher correlation between the gradients in organizational outcomes and positive organizational phenomena, than between the former and the negative organizational phenomena (Bakker and Schaufeli, 2008). It thus becomes clear the importance of the organizational culture in the evolution of organization itself. If initially this orga-
——————— * The Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, Romania, E-mail:
[email protected].
72
Vol. 1 6, No. 145/April 2015
QUALITY
access to success
QUALITY MANAGEMENT nizational culture was perceived only as a tool enhancing internal integration and coordination, nowadays it is recognized as a vital ingredient for the organizational adaptability to the environment. Because of the continuous changes that must be assimilated, more specialists then ever plead for the necessity of a powerful organizational culture, still flexible in designing and reinforcing norms and behavioral patterns (Collins and Porras, 2002). We like it or not, we all are born in a certain culture, grow up in certain values and we are both creators and recipients of the promoted cultural ideas. Therefore, understanding ourselves involves possessing the ability of analysing the cultural aspects perceived along the time (values, symbols, etc.), together with their significance. By analogy, Schein stated that the culture represents for a group exactly what the personality or temper is for the individual: “even if we can see the resulted behavior, most of the time we cannot identify the forces causing the behavior in case. Yet, similarly to the personality and temper that guides and constrains one individual’s behavior, the culture guides and constrains the behavior of its very own members by means of its shared norms within the respective group” (Schein, 2004, p. 8). In what the organization is concerned, when people live and work together over a longer period of time, they end up sharing the same values and opinions related to organization’s existence, and to those things that actually supports and enhances its success and progress. Thus, they contribute to the creation of the common thinking models and behaviors patterns which are implicitly aligned to their experience within the organization, as well as to the strategic objectives of the organization. All these thinking and behavioral models, together with the tradition capitalization form the organizational culture (Hill and Jones, 1998; Nicolescu and Verboncu, 1999).
2. Meanings and approaches
Metaphors and symbols, stories and myths, ceremonies and rituals, norms and rules of conduct, organizational philosophy (attitudes and believes), stated and unstated values, as well as the most profound and ingrained assumptions, all these represents elements of the organizational culture. However, none of these, by itself, does constitute the organizational culture. Only by considering them all together one can catch its essence. The tricky thing is that the organizational culture is not even by far something given as a gift to the organizations, but on the contrary, something made and accomplished along the time. No matter if the organizational culture is a positive one (responsive to the external environment changes, and thus supporting the internal integer and the remarkable performances achievements), or a negative one (does not adapt to the exterior environment changes, does not maintain the internal integer, and it jeopardizes the organizational performance), it is always present by default. Because of the numerous forms and typologies that the organizational culture can be pictured like, a unique definition would be practically impossible. Analysed from various perspectives, from anthropology and organizational sociology to the most modern disciplines focused on organizational behavior (management and organizational communication), the organizational culture continues to arouse the interest. Along the time, researches concentrated on its nature, its driving factors, on its government (meant to maintaining and changing it), and nevertheless on its impact over the organization performance (Lau and Ngo, 1996). The outcomes highlights a direct influence of the organizational culture over the personnel satisfaction and commitment, its intention to resign, as well as over its involvement and adaptability, work relationships, and ultimately its desire to support the company’s competitive advantage (MacIntosh and Doherty, 2010), and performance (Peters and Waterman, 1982). In their attempt to define the concept of organizational culture, researchers used also metaphors such as the compass showing the direction followed by the organization or that of the glue gathering the parts. These were thought to ease the emphasis of the organizational culture effect over each individual’s attitudes and behavior, as well as over the organization as a whole.
QUALITY
access to success
Vo l. 16, No . 14 5/Ap ri l 2 015
Thus Becker and Geer appealed to set of common understandings (Redman and Wilkinson, 2006), while Clifford Geertz, a renowned symbolist anthropologist, studied the patterns of significances inherited and transmitted between generations under the form of symbols, that people has been using for communication and perpetuation of their life philosophy (Geertz, 1973). In 1979, Pettigrew considered a new approach: the organizational culture as longitudinal sequence (over a time span) of the social dimension. He proved the utility of concepts like symbolism, language and ritual in the case of organizational life analysis and understanding. He also highlighted the multitude of meanings assigned to the daily tasks and objectives at the work place (Pettigrew, 1979). In 1982, Deal and Kennedy defined the organizational culture as a system of stated informal rules that imposes a certain common conduct (Deal and Kennedy, 1982). Later on, in 1983, being inspired by his forerunners’ studies (Swarty and Jordon), Uttal describes the organizational culture as a set of shared values and believes that interacts with the organizational structure and its control system aiming the norms of conduct creation (Cooper, 2002). In 1995, Moorhead and Griffin propose the portrayal of the organizational culture by means of those values that help employees to better understand the scope of their organization, and the allowed ways of action for achieving that respective scope (Griffin and Moorhead, 2006). At the beginning of ‘80s, Hofstede recommended the consideration of the inter-cultural dimension of the organizational values. From his point of view, this thing was able to provide a broader picture, and implicitly a better understanding of the organizational culture (Hofstede, 1980). The latter was thought as being raised on the cultural inheritances (thinking and feeling patterns, most of them being learnt from the very early childhood). These individual possessions are quite likely to more or less subsequently influence the group affiliation. It was the managerial team that had to recognize the organizational culture and its potential impact over the respective organization: starting with the extrinsic constrains and ending with the very own nature, mentalities and habits of the organization’s members (Lau and Ngo, 1996). Afterwards, in 1991, Hofstede defined the organizational culture as the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes between the members of one group/category of people from others (Hofstede, 1991). At the same time, the interaction between national and organizational culture was taking shape and Hofstede was entitled to point out its complex character (liable to create tensions): at national level, cultural differences were mainly being reflected in the differences in values, rather than in practices (despite being globally and homogenously shared, certain proper practices can cause local cultural conflicts), while at organizational level, the differences were noticed in practices and less frequently in values (the global accession towards the code of good practices can be problematic if it is proved to be contrary to national cultural values).
In present, completing Hofstede’s thesis, the interaction between national and organizational culture and its influence on employees are subjects to two different streams of study:
On the one hand, there is the view according to which the national culture does not influence dramatically human behavior (therefore, it is not constrained). It is assumed that each individual gets into an organization as a malleable and independent entity, capable of adopting a certain behavior, thus countering the effects of national culture (Naor, et al., 2010). As a result, the management team can create, maintain or change the organizational culture without major problems, irrespective of the nationality of its employees. On the other hand, there is assumed that the national culture could further influence the organizational culture,
73
QUALITY MANAGEMENT
since the assumptions of the management team regarding the nature and behavior of its employees can be significantly influenced by their own national culture. The Aycan et al. study made at the end of last century, concerning cultural appropriateness, supports Hofstede’s beliefs (high value of the “power distance” and “uncertainty avoidance” dimensions nationally dictated can be translated through a low level of autonomy at the organizational level; moreover, dimensions of national culture such as “paternalism”, “loyalty to the community” and “autonomy” influence managers’ assumptions about the reaction and indebtedness of the employees). Likewise, Schneider concluded that both the employees and the managers bring their cultural experiences at work (Naor, et al., 2010).
Tyrrell’s hypothesis also falls into the second category of ideologies, claiming that organizational culture is subject to continuous negotiations between the members of the organization, while being the simple result of human interaction (MacIntosh and Doherty, 2010). Being fully aware of the influence of national culture on the organizational culture, Ouchi distinguishes between three types of organizational culture (specific to Japanese, American and Z-type companies), thus creating a correlation between the main features of organizational culture and the national one (Ouchi, 1981). As far as Verboncu and Nicolescu are concerned, the organizational culture is represented by the totality of values, believes, aspirations and behaviors continuously shaped within the organization, which determine directly or indirectly its functionality and performances (Nicolescu and Verboncu, 2001). In spite of all the reformulations, one can easily observe a perpetual return to Schein’s definition (1992), which assigns a significant degree of importance to employees’ values and assumptions in regards to the organization, as well as to general methods of solving problems within that organization. A model of common and valid assumptions, designed through the solving process of external, adaptation problems and internal, integration problems, is imposed by the organization to its new members as being the correct pattern of thinking, feeling and acting (Reiman and Oedewald, 2002). As shown, there are both differences and similarities in approaches to organizational culture, special attention being paid to values, believes and common expectations, which, in turn, will induce a particular behavior. Lastly, the following are required for the correct interpretation of an organizational culture: the analysis of material elements – employees’ work clothing, furniture and accessories types and arrangement, space usage (openness and generosity), etc.; the analysis of communication elements – general conduct in the communication process, approaches to discussions, language, flexibility and adaptability, etc.; the analysis of employees’ behaviour patterns – ceremonial events, methods of transmitting information (written or oral), etc.; the analysis of physical manifestations of the organization’s behaviour – written rules, organizational structure, office appearance policy.
This analysis is essential to be made due to the many complex facets exposed by the culture itself: a) historical (social heritage, traditions transmitted to future generations), b) behavioural (learned and shared human behavior, lifestyle), c) normative (ideals, values, rules), d) functional (problem solving in relation to the environmental adaptation), e) mental (sets of ideas and habits for social control), f) structural (patterns, interconditioned ideas, symbols and behaviors), and g) symbolic (based on arbitrarily assigned meanings by the organization) (Aiman-Smith, 2004). Therefore, the multi- and inter-disciplinary nature of this field (gathering focus point information from psychology, sociology, medicine, history and economics) must be taken into
74
consideration when analyzing the organizational culture; as a consequence, it is very difficult to draw a clear demarcation line and accept/reject a point of view or another. On the other hand, the inter-disciplinary attitude precisely requires a high level of objectivity and a critical assessment of the information provided by different approaches, even if sometimes certain conceptual clarifications seem to be antagonistic. As stated by both Hofstede et al., 1990 (cited by MacIntosh and Doherty, 2010), and Vlasceanu and Zorlenþan at the end of last century, an organizational culture is: a) holistic, representing the result of an integration process; b) historically determined, reflecting the organization’s evolution through time; c) anthropologically determined and socially-based, because it is created and maintained by the group of people that make up the organization. Simultaneously, the organizational culture is a synthesis of conscious and unconscious, rational and irrational, individual and group-based elements, developing dynamic connections between them, with a strong impact on the performance of the organization (Brãtianu, 2007).
3. Organizational culture models
Eventually, three distinct categories of concern in defining and measuring the dimensions of organizational culture have been identified: a) finding the key elements that make up the organizational culture; b) creating a model of organizational culture; c) creating certain models for evaluating the results of the existing organizational culture. Relating to the first category, researchers such as the anthropologist Edward B. Taylor or the sociologist Max Weber must be also mentioned in as much as they focused on finding the key elements of organizational culture. Therefore, in 1971, Taylor defined this concept as the totality of knowledge, believes, skills, common sense, legalities, customs and other abilities acquired by employees as part of an organization. Webber added to the existing theories the concept of charismatic leadership, leading to the recognition of other features of organizational culture imposed by the manifestation of the “Great Man” and materialized by organizational characteristics such as the type and number of standardized rules, the maintained traditions, the degree of ambiguity and apparent irrationality, etc. (Khan et al, 2010). Additionally, the majority of researchers falling into this category also acknowledge the hypothesis representing the second category, aimed at developing models of organizational culture: Hermman with his distinction made between the formal aspects of the organization (systems, structures, policies, technologies) and the informal ones (attitudes, believes, values and perceptions), Rousseau with his outer rings containing visible signs of culture and inner rings containing its hidden elements (Rousseau, 1990), Schein with three different levels of culture – artifacts (the external layer composed by visible and audible behaviour patterns and physical and social environmental elements), espoused believes and values (the intermediate layer reflecting the believes about the nature of reality and the right way to approach it) and basic assumptions (the deepest layer composed of invisible elements that define the relationship of the individual with the environment) (Schein, 2004), etc. Furthermore, there are also several organizational culture assessment models such as:
models that assess the effects of organizational culture on the organization’s effectiveness: for example, Denison’s model, which determines the consistency vs. the adaptability of the organization as well as the vertical transmission of the vision –from top to bottom–, opposite to the involvement level of the personnel – from bottom to top –, two paradoxes that each company struggles to balance (Denison and Mishra, 1995; Mobley et al, 2005); models that explain the relationship between the elements of organizational culture (such as the one promoted by Perfect 10 Corporate Culture).
Vol. 1 6, No. 145/April 2015
QUALITY
access to success
QUALITY MANAGEMENT Generally, researchers use certain query and analysis tools in order to assess the impact of organizational culture on the performance indicators of the company. These tools have the advantage that they can be replicated, used for comparative studies and they provide the managers with a profile that can be tracked through time (MacIntosh and Doherty, 2010). Nowadays, many questionnaires aim to assess the effects of organizational culture, namely: “Organizational Culture Inventory” (OCI), measuring 12 cultural styles are thought to exist in all types of organizations, “Organizational Culture Profile” (OCP), measuring 8 generic cultural dimensions, and “Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument” (OCAI), analyzing the organization’s focus on the 4 common competing values, etc. However, despite their popularity, these generic tools do not take into account the evolution of cultural forms due to the potential influence factors, for example the dynamic elements specific to the economic sector of origin. Consequently, these organizational culture assessment tools have attracted as many opponents as supporters: for example, there are opinions according to which the industry itself is a key determinant of organizational culture. The analysis of the aforementioned concepts reveals the existence of two separate perspectives: a) The phenomenological approach, which focuses on defining and understanding of the concept (its empirical study regards culture in terms of its intensity, traits, congruence, shared values, etc., and their influence on organizational performance and employee loyalty); b) The functionalist approach, which tackles the problem of consequences of organizational culture, assuming that the leader is the main creator and shaper of culture. It is acknowledged the difference between his contribution to the substance of organizational culture through his own actions and behaviors (independent role) and the influence of employees’ perception on the leader (symbolic role) (Tsui, et al, 2005). The second approach is closer to the anthropological one, which argues that leaders do not create the culture, instead they are only a part of it. While the former ideological current supports the dependence of organizational culture on the leader’s vision and its ability to (re)invent culture according to the needs of the market, the latter one focuses on Calder’s attribution theory of leadership (1977), which assigns a cause to each effect (Winkler, 2010): assigning meanings and explanations to leader’s intentions by each employee influences the common evaluation, interpretation and classification process of the leader’s influence as being either a real transformational leadership or a concealed one (Dasborough and Ashkanasy, 2002). Besides the two previously mentioned perspectives that emphasize the close relationship between leadership and organizational culture, another view may be approached, namely the circumstantial perspective that highlights the importance of conjuncture in the process of influencing organizational culture by the leaders (crisis periods, uncertain economic environment, etc.) (Drazin and Van de Ven, 2007).
4. The organizational culture dynamics
Retrospectively, together with the popularization of cultural consequences brought in discussion by Geert Hofstede (Hofstede, 1980), researchers began to focus on identifying essential cultural values liable to differentiate between various cultures. For example, the GLOBE project carried out an exhaustive analysis of how culture influences the desired characteristics of leadership (GLOBE, 1999); other studies have addressed the need to customize the human resources practices, but also the identification of variances in cognitive attributes, negotiation style, motivation levels, etc. of the leader, depending on the different organizational and/or national cultures within his framework. Despite of the fact that the perfect match between cultural characteristics and managerial practices was and it still is considered extremely important (Harzing, 2001), only few studies have examined the effect of organizational culture on the phenomenon of change (Harzing and Hofstede in the mid-90s), or have
QUALITY
access to success
Vo l. 16, No . 14 5/Ap ri l 2 015
admitted that the culture has been changing through time, the most influential identified factors being ecological, socio-political and/or even cultural (Erez and Gati, 2004). Therefore, based on the general interest aroused by organizational culture, the dynamic cultural modeling is proving to be almost nonexistent, the few already developed models concentrating on:
how to (re)define the culture according to the external environment (see the continuous adaptation to the historical and socio-political realities proposed by Berry et al. in 1992, following the development of Triandis from 1972 and studying the modification of the fundamental values caused by the economic development– Inglehart and Baker, 2000); anthropologically speaking, Hannerz confirms in 1992 the reciprocal relationship between culture and the people who compose it, considering that not only the culture is the result of human creation, but also the people who compose it, as creators, are the product of culture related to the society they live in (Hannerz, 2002); how to incorporate and transform the milestones of an organizational culture (categorized by Schein in 1985 in artifacts, values and fundamental assumptions) (e.g., Erez and Gati, 2004); the organizational culture regarded as a system for facilitating the perception of its dynamic nature, opposite to its perspective as a static entity. In 2001, Kitayama argued that the psychological processes of each individual are organized so as to match with the public meanings and cultural practices of the system which the individual belongs to; thus, it is highly probable to differentiate according to socio-cultural active groups (Kitayama, 2002).
Together with the enhancement of thorough going studies in the field of leadership, the interaction with the organizational context was inevitable – the characteristic features and efficiency of the leader. Previously, the attention paid to the individual or to the group was not correlating the organizational context with their level of motivation, (un)success of the communication process, team work or even leadership. In 1996, Porter himself stated that the intensive studies of micro-organizational behavior focused unjustifiedly on behavior rather than on organizational vision, thereby neglecting both the internal factors that are able to exercise significant influence over the whole system and its ability to affect its own components (Porter and McLaughlin, 2006). As a result of a comprehensive review conducted in 19902005, there was an indirect tendency to focus on the constitutive elements of organizational culture, through a disparate assessment, and a direct interest expressed towards the organizational culture and climate in terms of typology (bureaucratic, adaptive, etc), normative rules and ethics (Porter and McLaughlin, 2006). Subsequently redefined in the 80s and perceived as a visible expression of an organizational culture, the organizational climate tends to attract less interest for organizational culture (Reiman and Oedewald, 2002). If in the early 90s Waldman’s studies were supporting the responsiveness to transformational leadership of learning-based cultures, at the same time Hunt and Ropo were proving conservative organizational cultures to be the result of strong leaders’ success; moreover, Hambrick et al. were examining the stress levels of certain cultures and the manner in which they negatively affect the strategic decision of the executive managers. In 2000, Avolio et al. proposed a thesis on the emergence of culture based on trust, as a result of the advanced computer technology consistency – leadership style. In 2001 by analyzing the relationship between culture and leadership style in several schools and universities, Bess and Goldman had concluded that the identified cultural differences are trigger factors of the effectiveness of the leadership exercised within. In other words, the mutual influence exercised within the organization becomes essential, from the organizational culture towards leaders, leadership and other members, and from the latter to their specific organizational culture; it is utterly important
75
QUALITY MANAGEMENT
to accept these permanent adjustments, mainly due to the difference between the perception of the individual and the perception of the community (Dutton and Dukerich, 1991). Within this context, the studies on cultural dynamics were integrated into a broader and comparative analysis of the dynamics of identityimage vs. identity-culture, references to the latter being however predominantly anecdotal or illustrative, such as the ones belonging to Fiol et al., Rindova and Schultz (Ravasi and Schultz, 2006). Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning the theoretical research conducted by Hatch, resulting in the exposure of the Cultural Dynamics Model (Hatch, 1993), further taken up by Ravasi and Schultz and explained through a model focused on organizational response to situations likely to impede identity.
Figure 1. Cultural Dynamics Model Source: (Hatch, 1993)
The first model has as its starting points the levels of visibility and depth of the components of organizational culture (Schein, 1992), which, after being reformulated and developed, have led to the thesis of a culture consisting of the processes of manifestation, realization, symbolization and interpretation. The aforementioned processes may occur both clockwise (proactive processes/prospective) and counter-clockwise (retrospective processes/retroactive); the proactive/retroactive models represent the role of activity in culture, while the prospective/retrospective ones represent the possibility of reflexivity and cultural consciousness (see figure 1). The second model presumes the separation of organizational identity and the organizational culture, while acknowledging their interdependence (regarding the cognitive dissonance – the difference between the existing external image and individual believes). Several different factors are also involved in the dynamics of this relationship such as sense-making (interpretation of unclear ambient stimuli) and sense-giving (deliberate attempt to model the interpretation of others). Notwithstanding, there is a clear line definition that separates the alleged identity, the existing external identity, organizational culture and the desired identity/ image; their interaction can change the members’ perception regarding certain attributes of the organization (Ravasi and Schultz, 2006). Earlier in 2002, Hatch and Schultz had developed a model of relationships between culture and identity, also claiming that organizational identity must be theorized in connection with both organizational culture and organizational image; in this way, the Organisational Identity Dynamics Model was created, linking cultural identity and image through mirroring (the process by which identity is mirrored in the images of others), reflecting (the process by which identity is embedded in cultural understandings), expressing (the process by which culture makes itself known through identity claims), and impressing (the process by which expressions of identity leave impressions on others) (Cheung et al., 2010) (figure 2).
76
Figure 2. Organisational Identity Dynamics Model Source: (Hatch and Schultz, 2002, cited by Cheung et al., 2010)
Unlike Hatch and Schultz, Cheung et al. (2010) analyzes cultural identity as one of the possible manifestations of organizational culture, referring to the epistemological dialectic: generally, the organizational culture is able both to define appropriate behavior and to motivate individuals, influencing the manner in which the organization processes information, diversification, integration of new technologies, compared to the concept of cultural identity proposed by Mead in 1934. This concept suggests that the identity arises during the process of social work experience and, therefore, it develops together with the relations with that process taken as a whole and with the other individuals of the same process. Firstly introduced in 1972 by Tajfel, social identity was perceived as providing an integrated theoretical perspective of the relationship between the concept of self-determination and group behavior (the social identity theory, outlining how individuals define themselves within a group, the process of identity defining being known as “self-categorization”) (Cheung et al., 2010). Starting from Mead’s idea, Jenkins aimed in 2008 to clarify the concept of identity, extracting it from the definitions focused only on the inside of an organization (organizational culture) and concentrating on the outside of an organization (organizational image), thus managing to explain the creation, maintenance and transformation of the organizational identity (Jenkins, 2008). On the contrary, the research of Erez and Gati (2004) proposes a similar model characterized by dynamic structural dimensionality (see figure 3), linked to Rousseau’s layered model from 1990.
Figure 3. The structural dynamics model of organizational culture Source: (Erez and Gati, 2004)
The structurality of the model is related to the hierarchical arrangement of different levels, the deepest one being given by the individual cultural representation, a part of the groups, organizations, nations, and ultimately global culture. From this perspective, the culture, as a system of shared meanings, may be formed at each of these levels. The dynamics of the model outline the interrelationship between the different cultural levels and how they influence each other. Through socialization processes, individuals internalize the system of shared meanings corresponding to the resident company, and whose values are represented by the individual self-
Vol. 1 6, No. 145/April 2015
QUALITY
access to success
QUALITY MANAGEMENT representation. Then, the aggregation process and the shared values further lead to the formation high-level cultural entities, such as those belonging to a group, organization and even the nation (Erez and Gati, 2004).
5. Conclusions
Regardless the category they belong to (either defining organizational culture or evaluating its dimensions), all the aforementioned models present a static approach to organizational culture. It is very seldom that visual models suggest a certain evolution, even though several specialists sustain the idea of manifestation of organizational culture as an evolutionary process (eg. Schein’s behavioural patterns have been suffering continuous modifications over time due to investments made in recruits for adapting them to changes in internal and external environment). Until now, intense debates on organizational culture and its transformation have been occurring, contradicting managerial mechanistic theories that support the importance of hierarchy and control mechanisms and propose a broader view of the organization as a complex adaptive system whereby decentralized flexibility and continuous learning become essential (Zimmerman
et al., 1998). The followers of this new perspective analyze the crucial role of individual mental models, descriptive linguistic conventions and beliefs systems in order to develop a successful business. Nonetheless, clear strategies for changing organizational culture in a positive manner are almost nonexistent, being first of all insufficiently documented (Funderburk, 2003). Part of a more extensive piece of work focused on the dynamics of organizational culture, this paper hereby only presents the awareness status of the persons solely entitled to take measures regarding the impact that the evolutionary factor might have. To conclude, a first step was made towards the dynamics’ assertion of organizational culture; paraphrasing the motto of “Bang & Olufsen” company (published in “What magazine?” and cited by Ravasi and Schultz, 2006), if it is desired to maintain the organizational culture, it has to be renewed.
Acknowledgement This work was cofinanced from the European Social Fund through Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development 2007-2013, project number POSDRU/159/1.5/S/ 142115 “Performance and excellence in doctoral and postdocQ-as toral research in Romanian economics science domain”.
References [1] Aiman-Smith, L. (2004), What do we know about developing and sustaining a culture of innovation, What Do We Know Journal Review. [2] Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B. (2008). Positive organisational behaviour: Engaged employees in flourishing organisations, Journal of Organisational Behavior, 29, pp. 147-154, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [3] Brãtianu, C. (2007). An integrative perspective on the organizational intellectual capital, Review of Management and Economical Engineering, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 107-113. [4] Cheung, S.O., Pang, H.Y., Tam, S.Y., Chan, H.Y. (2010), Identity as a manifestation of organisational culture, The Construction, Building and real Estate Research Conference of Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors held at Dauphine Universite, Paris, 2-3 September, 2010, published by RICS, London, United Kingdon. [5] Collins, J., Porras, J. (2002), Build to last. Successful habits of visionary companies, Harper Business Essentials: New York. [6] Cooper, D. (2002), Safety culture. A model for understanding & quantifying a difficult concept, www.asee.org, accessed on 18th of February 2015. [7] Dasborough, M.T, Ashkanas y, N.M. (2002), Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leader-member relationship, revised paper submitted for inclusion in the Special Issue of Leadership Quarterly on „Emotions and Leadership“, guest Editor Ron Humphrey. [8] Deal, T.E., Kennedy, A.A. (1982), Corporate Cultures, Reading MA, Addison-Wesley. [9] Denison, R.D., Mishra, A.K. (1995), Toward a theory of organisational culture and effectiveness, Organisation Science, vol. 6, no. 2, March-April, pp. 204-223. [10] Dessler, G. (2004), A Framework for Human Resource Management, third edition, Pearson, Prentice Hall. [11] Drazin, R., Van de Ven, A.H. (2007), Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory, Jstore: Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 4 (1985). [12] Dutton, J.E., Dukerich (1991), Keeping an eye on the mirror: image and identity in organizational adaptation, The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 517-554. [13] Erez, M., Gati, E. (2004), A Dynamic, Multi-Level Model of Culture: From the Micro Level of the Individual to the Macro Level of a Global Culture, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(4), pp. 583-598. [14] Fredrickson, B.L. (2001), The role of positive emotions in positive psychology, The Broaden-and-Build theory of positive emotions, American Psychologist, vol. 56, no. 3, 218-226. [15] Funderburk, F.R. (2003), Organisational Culture from a Complex Dynamic System Perspective: Moving from Metaphor to Action in Healthcare, System Models of Organisational Behavior, In*Compass System. [16] Geertz, C. (1973), The interpretation of cultures. Selected essays, New York, Basic Books. [17] GLOBE Research Program (1999), Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed, Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219-256, Elsevier Science Inc. [18] Griffin, R.W., Moorhead, G. (2006), Fundamentals of organizational behavior, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. [19] Hannerz, U. (2002), Cultural complexity: studies in the social organization of meaning, Columbia University Press, New York, USA, http://books. google.ro/books ?id=Lw1eEocCj60C&printsec=frontcover&hl=ro&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=culture%20is %20the% 20meaning%20that%20people%20create&f=false, accessed on 24th of February 2015. [20] Harzing, A-W. (2001), Who’s in charge? An empirical study of executive staffing practices in foreign subsidiaries, Human Resource Management, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 139-158. [21] Harvard Business School Press (2006), The Essentials of Strategy. [22] Hatch, M.J. (1993), The Dynamics of Organisational Culture, the Academy of Management Review, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 657-693. [23] Hill, C.W.L., Jones, G.R. (1998), Strategic management, 4th edition, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. [24] Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage Publications Inc., USA, http://books.google. ro/books?id=Cayp_Um4O9gC&printsec=frontcover&hl=ro&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false, accessed on 24th of February 2015. [25] Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations, London, Harper Collins Business, pag. 5. [26] Holbeche, L. (2001), Aligning Human Resources and Business Strategy, Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, 296-297. [27] Inglehart, R., Baker, W.E. (2000), Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values, American Sociological Review, vol. 65, 1, p. 19-51.
QUALITY
access to success
Vo l. 16, No . 14 5/Ap ri l 2 015
77
QUALITY MANAGEMENT [28] Jenkins, R. (2008), Social Identity, third edition, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. [29] Khan, U.I., Usoro A., Majewski, Koufie, M. (2010), An Organisational Culture Model for Comparative Studies: A Conceptual View, International Journal of Global Business, 3 (1), 53-82. [30] Kitayama, S. (2002), Culture and Basic Psychological Processes – Toward a System View of Culture: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002), Psychological Bulletin, vol. 128, no. 1, pp. 89-96, American Psychological Association, Inc. [31] Lau, C-M, Ngo, H-Y. (1996), One country Many Cultures: Organizational Cultures of Firms of Different Country Origins, International Business Review, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 469-486, Elsevier. [32] MacIntosh, E.W., Doherty, A. (2010), The influence of organisational culture on job satisfaction and intention to leave, Sport Management Review 13, pp. 106-117, Elsevier. [33] Mobley, W.H., Wang, L., Fang, K. (2005), Organisational culture: measuring and developing it in your organisation, The Link, Knowledge@CEIBS. [34] Naor, M., Linderman, K., Schroeder, R. (2010), The globalization of operations in Eastern and Western countries: Unpacking the relationship between national and organizational culture and its impact on manufacturing performance, Journal of Operations Management, 28, pp. 194205, Elsevier. [35] Nicolescu, O., Verboncu, I. (2001), Fundamentele Managementului Organizaþiei, pag. 273, Editura Tribuna Economicã, Bucharest. [36] Nicolescu, O., Verboncu, I. (1999), Management, Editura Economicã, Bucharest. [37] Ouchi, W. G. (1981), Theory Z: how American business can meet the Japanese challenge, Addison-Wesley. [38] Peters, T, Waterman, R.H.Jr. (1982), In search of excellence. Lessons from American’s best-run companies, Harper Collins Business: London. [39] Pettigrew, A.M. (1979), On Studying Organisational Cultures, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 4, Qualitative Methodology, pp. 570581. [40] Porter, L.W., McLaughlin, G.B. (2006), Leadership and the organizational context: like the weather?, The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 559-576, Elsevier. [41] Ravasi, D., Schultz, M. (2006), Responding to organisational identity threats: exploring the role of organisational culture, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 433-458. [42] Redman, T., Wilkinson, (2006), Contemporary human resource management: text and cases, 3rd edition, New York: Prentice Hall. [43] Reiman, T., Oedewald, P. (2002), The assessment of organisational culture. A methodological study, VTT Industrial Systems, Publisher: Julkaisija – Utgivare, Finland. [44] Rousseau, D.M. (1990), Assessing organizational culture: The case for multiple methods, in B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass. [45] Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. [46] Schein, E.H. (2004), Organizational Culture and Leadership, third edition, Jossey-Bass. [47] Tsui, A.S., Zhang, Z-X., Wang, H., Xin, K.R., Wu, J.B. (2005), Unpacking the relationship between CEO leadesrhip behavior and organisational culture, Elsevier, The Leadership Quarterly, 17 (2006), 113-137. [48] Winkler, I. (2010), Comtemporary leadership theories. Enhancing the understanding of the complexity, subjectivity and dynamic of leadership, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, http://books.google.ro/books?id=0SsbA kCd9gYC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=Davis+%26+Luth ans,+ 1 9 80 & s o u r c e = b l& o t s = B 7Z C o Y F 4 t I & s i g = o A E 9x n xk g z P E J - _ F 0Y N r k t 8p L D U & h l= r o & s a = X & e i= 3a C e U K 6 u H M q U sw a 0 y I H 4 Aw & v e d = 0CEcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Davis%20%26%20Luthans%2C%201980&f=false, accessed on 4th of March 2015. [49] Zimmerman, B.J., Lindberg, C., Plsek, P.E. (1998), Edgeware: Insights from Complexity Science for Health Care Leaders, Dallas, TX: VHA Publishing. [50] http://www.perfect10cc.com/speaking-opportunities.aspx, accessed on 8th of March 2015.
78
Vol. 1 6, No. 145/April 2015
QUALITY
access to success
