Models of Cultural Classifications - Research Paper Example

Models of Cultural ifications Models of Cultural ifications Business studies nowadays are moving their focus away from traditional business strategies and research. Instead, cultural perspectives and global paradigms are paving way for research in business studies adding to literature explaining how organizational cultures are being influenced. Currently, the social scientists have been able to generate an array of classification for culture to identify behavior with reference to the features of the typologies. Various perspectives may be incorporated to further model typologies to classify organizational cultures. In this paper multi-dimensional perspectives will be analyzed after studying typologies from various empirical studies. Thus, the typologies explicated by R Harrison and C Handy (1998) will be studies, also those of T J Peters, Deal and Kennedy, Chatman and Caldwell and also those of O Reilly would be incorporated in an effort to classify organizational cultures. Furthermore, the paper will try to determine a paradigm so that behavior of those participating in these given cultures can be predicted to address organizational issues. Also, most of the models being addressed in the paper take functionalist paradigm approach to explain their typologies, thus they focus primarily on interrelationship between the internal dynamics of the organization and effectiveness. Thus, comparative research will aim at determining models of cultural classification, further aiming at predicting future behavior of those participating in the culture of the organization (Harrison & Handy 1998). Analyzing the model proposed by Harrison and Handy is one of the most credible, the oldest and the most cited one amongst all. Though the typologies proposed by both these researchers are distinct, there are many similarities in their models. Harrison identified four distinct kinds of organizations; based on the power, tasks, roles and people of the organization. Since an organization contains employees who share a sense of values, thus the system or culture of the organization is shaped by the values identified by Harrison (Hofstede 2002). The culture of power can be identified in an organization where there is immense rivalry amongst people, centralization of power exists with an intensified presence of rivalries alongside intense competition amongst various actors in the organization. Similarly, Culture of roles is found in an organization where there is stability and order, proper hierarchy, and a sense of security with apparent competition. Also, the culture of tasks is the one where goals are central to the organization, team building measures and cooperation exists, specific tasks are assigned based on knowledge and competence and cooperation and self control is also central to the organization. However, culture of people is one where the goal is to satisfy the needs of the people, there isn`t a distinct hierarchal order, and self reliance and individualistic skills are the core values of the organization. Thus, based on these values an organization may be rated and understood as one of the four types. However, sometimes values from contrasting groups may also overlap. Yet, the presence of all four classifications in one organization is not possible, and thus, to some extent the future behavior of the employees and the management may be predicted by virtue of these values (Hofstede 2012). Kennedy and Deal (1982) further carried the discussion and identified two distinct criteria to classify organizational cultures. They have taken risk factor which decision making as central factor to classify the organization while calculating the deliverance of results for the organization. The first kind of organization is the one which is quite dynamic, with young individuals striving to seek new ideas for the success of an organization. Individualistic values are respected in such an organization and brilliant minds are worshipped which also involves a lot of risk taking for newer ideas implementation (Deal & Kennedy 1982). The second kind of organization is where the entire focus is on the company itself. The employees are mature and responsible, and only those employees are considered as heroes who complete the plans in the time allocated. The decision making, however, isn`t risky since environment is taken as a threat, and thus much thought goes into business strategy designing. Hierarchy and technicalities in such kind of an organization are central concern of the management (Deal & Kennedy 1982). The third kind of organization is one where everyone is supposed to work as hard as they can. Only those who are perfectly devoted to work are considered the heroes of the organization, also personal contacts are the central focus due to which many events and meetings are a routine affair. The management and also the employees seek opportunities to see if chances of taking risk are present. Lastly, the culture pertaining to process is the one where rules are superior and impersonality is dominant in all affairs. People are very hardworking and space for committing mistakes is minimal. Hierarchy is central to all affairs and key people who are trustworthy are appointed for important positions. Thus, in such a scenario, interpersonal affairs aren’t given much importance and chances for taking risks are also quite low. Thus, this model revolves around risk taken factor along with the values which lead to results (Deal & Kennedy 1982). The model identified by T J Peters is one which is considered comparatively a more controversial and complicated one. This model focuses on chances for change and innovation in an organization as the central factor used to identify the organizational culture. Two dimensions are central to this model, which determine the classification typology of the organizational culture. These dimensions are orientation i.e. either towards the organization or towards the achievements. Thus, four kinds of organizational cultures may be identified via this model as well. The first one is the quality oriented culture, i.e. culture of innovation (Rowe 1990). This kind of organization has immense tendency to take risks and thus, it has a room for innovation and new ideas. The second one if the culture of action, which implies that achievements and outcomes are what drive the decision making process. In other words, initiatives are encouraged and professional attitude aiming at enhances outcomes are respected. Thus, change is accepted though delegating responsibilities in this culture may turn out to be an issue (Rowe 1990). The third kind of culture is the culture which respects harmony, i.e. deliberation drives the entire organizational values. Teamwork and the people of the organization are considered the assets for the firm and external values and ideas are only encouraged in they are in sync with the internal values. In other words, room for changes is limited and the entire focus is on cultural values which are quite firm in this case. The fourth the most rigid of all these cultures though is the culture of control which instigates a strong control over its employees. Conservatism also prevails and old traditions are respected. Formal contacts are important and written contacts are the ones which hold real value. Thus, the organization is quite reluctant to take risks. Thus, it is a closed organization with no space for change and innovation. Almost all organization functional in this current age can be classified via this model proposed by Peters (Rowe 1990). Authors like O Reily and Chatman & Caldwell (1991) have also proposed their versions of classification models. They have identified around seven dimensions to make clear distinctions and design accurate models. These dimensions include innovation, respect for others, stability, accuracy, affects` efficiency, aggressiveness and teamwork. According to this model, the organization`s values and profile are more like diagnostic tools which contribute towards correlation amongst various organizational cultures; also it aims at identifying loyalty and contribution of various employees towards the outcomes. Furthermore, effectiveness of the culture may also be measured via this model. In addition, the model also aims at pointing out to issues in the organization and also acts as a tool to incorporate remedial measures to enhance outcomes. Thus, based on the model, four distinct models can be identified. The core assumption, however, is that there must be harmony and coherence in strategy and organizational culture. The first culture as per this model implies that the mission of the organization drives the culture into certain aims and vision. Thus, mission drives the cultural values of the firm. Secondly, ability to adapt may be central to the culture and changes in the organization will follow changes in external environment i.e. customer oriented approach would be undertaken. Thirdly, the model suggests that use of empowerment along with team building recognizes the skills required by the employees, which in turn drives the cultural values of the organization. Lastly, it may be assumed that coherence in values and consistency in decision making also adds up a create a cultural environment classification. Thus, various complexities have been addressed in this model and it may be considered as a way forward where a more holistic approach has been taken (Chatman et al 1991). Though the models discussed above are quite accurate in describing what they intend of describing, yet a gap in literature may still be pointed out. Firstly, the models focus on functionalistic paradigms, which imply that the dimensions undertaken for the formation of the model are the one which focus on the functionalities of the organization. In other words, these models successfully manage to generalize ways in which organizations can be classified solely based on the functions of various segments in the organization, also in accordance to the room for change and innovation. However, the approach has several drawbacks as well and it sets limitations. In other words, the models can then be challenged for issues over credibility in terms of generalizations, since accurate predictions may not be made by using just the functionalist approach. Also, taking similar conceptions and basing classifications over that is an approach which the social scientists have been taking for many years now. The advent of social media, joint ventures, incorporation of intercultural values, global marketplace, intense competition, distinct functionalities in various franchises of similar organizations along with other factors limit the scope of these models. Thus, the research should now ensure that they don’t rely solely on functional paradigm and rather utilize cross comparison approach where various approached are intermingled. In other words, incorporating post modernistic approach and coupling it with critical management studies or other similar approached will lead towards better understanding of distinct cultures. Also, various approached will add diversity to the central dimensions which act as factors contributing to model building. When the factors will be more incorporative of major values in organization, the model will also naturally follow lead and would be more inclusive of major themes are perspectives. Thus, such a model will be a generalized form of classification which would meet the needs of modern day transformed organizations. In conclusion, Business studies nowadays are moving their focus away from traditional business strategies and research. Instead, cultural perspectives and global paradigms are paving way for research in business studies adding to literature explaining how organizational cultures are being influenced. Therefore social scientists are currently focusing on developing holistic classification models to understand and classify organizational culture. In an effort to predict future behavior of organizations and participating actors the models must be inclusive of major themes and dimensions. In this paper multi-dimensional perspectives have bee analyzed after studying typologies from various empirical studies. Thus, the models proposed by by R Harrison and C Handy will be studies, also those of T J Peters, Deal and Kennedy, Chatman and Caldwell and also those of O Reilly have been discussed in an effort to classify organizational cultures. Also, the models that have been analyzed in the paper take functionalist paradigm approach to explain their typologies, thus they focus primarily on interrelationship between the internal dynamics of the organization and effectiveness. Thus, comparative research will aim at determining models of cultural classification, further aiming at predicting future behavior of those participating in the culture of the organization. However, after an analysis of the models, gap in literature can be sensed where there is absence of cross comparative approach i.e. other approaches haven’t been added. Thus, if research aim is to predict future behavior of organizations, the gap must be filled and social scientists should start researching on modern areas of business organizations where various approaches can be used. References Charles A., O’Reilly III, Chatman J., Caldwell D.F. (1991), People and Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit, Academy of Management Journal”,Vol. 34, No. 3. Deal T.E., Kennedy A.A. (1982), Corporate Cultures: Te Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life, Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, Massachusets. Harrison, D.A., K.H. Handy, (1998) Beyond relational demography: time and the effects of surface- and deep level diversity on work group cohesion, Academy of Management Journal 41(1): 96–107. Hofstede, G. J., Pedersen, P., & Hofstede, G. H. (2002). Exploring culture: Exercises, stories, and synthetic cultures. Yarmouth, Me: Intercultural Press. Rowe A.J. et al (1990), Strategic Management: A Methodological Approach, Addison- Wesley Pub. Co., Reading, MA. Read More