What Constitutes an Organizational Culture of Medecins Sans Frontieres - Term Paper Example

An Analysis of the Culture of an Organization Introduction This report defines an organization, and culture, and then focuses on the analyses of +organizational culture. This process will employ Schein’s analytical model in examining the organizational culture of Médecins Sans Frontier’s (MSF) with the aim of establishing the reason why MSF upholds its autonomy in the humanitarian field in the hope that by identifying its cultural aspects, one can then see how MSF’s organizational culture supports its success (MSF, 2005). An organization is a social unit of people that is structured and managed to meet a need or to pursue collective goals. All organizations have a management structure that determines relationships between different activities and the members and assigns roles and responsibilities to actualize different tasks. Since time immemorial, human beings had to organize the activities that were paramount to their survival. According to Hatch (4), as organizations evolve and become more dynamic, coping systems and methods of how to manage change continue to be refined. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF, or Doctors Without Borders) is a renowned, independent international non-governmental organization that responds to emergency humanitarian situations by delivering emergency aid to people afflicted by natural or man made catastrophes, armed conflict, epidemics, and healthcare exclusion.This organization combines medical, charitable, witnessing or (témoignage) and advocacy in a unique way. Since its inception in 1971, MSF has grown from a small, charismatic lobby group into a large institution comprising of 19 sections, and 25,000 staff members, 20 presidents, 20 directors, and more than 200 board members. It operates in not less than 77 countries, with 365 projects. Culture The term culture encompasses the primary values, attitudes and regulations that make a society what it is. A community’s customs, the self-image of its people and the attributes that distinguish it from other societies are its culture. Culture is strongly personal and mirrors the meanings that are naturally linked to situations, and the solutions, that resolve common problems. Schein (1985) argues that culture includes the fundamental assumptions that any given group of individuals have formulated or gained while learning to deal with its issues of exterior or internal adjustment and can be considered suitable enough to be imparted to new members as the acceptable way to perceive and react to these problems. Since an organization comprises of people from different backgrounds and exists in an environment, certain behaviors emerge consequently forming the culture of that organization. At the same time, an organization can define or create its own culture based on its circumstances and endeavors. Furthermore, people enter organizations from the surrounding community and bring their culture with them. It is still possible for organizations to have cultures of their own, as they possess the paradoxical quality of being both ‘part’ of and ‘apart’ from society. They are embedded in the wider societal context but they are also communities of their own with distinct rules and values. MSF includes a work force recruited from all over the world that blend well to breed a unique culture. The fact that MSF offers its assistance worldwide, it encounters people with a wide range of cultures causing it to align itself with different cultures to enable it integrate and achieve its purpose. At the same time, MSF is not alone in the field of international non-governmental organizations. Despite this background, MSF is envied for its ability to remain steadfastly independent. Organizational Culture Schein (1992) defines the culture of a group or organization as a model of shared basic statements the group acquires as it works out its dilemma of external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be adapted and entrenched as the blueprint and accepted mode of socialization within an organization. Schein (1992) also asserts that organizational learning, development, and planned change cannot be comprehended without acknowledging culture as the primary source of resistance to change. If leaders are not conscious of the culture in which they are embedded, those cultures will manage them. Cultural understanding is not only desirable, but it is essential to leaders if they are to lead effectively. MSF’s leadership has consistently remained focused on boosting their independence and breaking away from traditional NGOs’ ethics especially on issues pertaining to impartiality and witnessing. An Introduction to the Focus of the Report As an organization, MSF majors in responding to medical humanitarian emergencies, manmade or natural calamities. MSF’s organizational culture in relation to its practices or what it does, as an organization will be the focus. The main highlight is MSF’s ability to uniquely and successfully uphold its autonomy in a complex environment. It will also shed light on how Schein’s theoretical framework applies to gaining insight about the culture in that organization, and how this culture enables MSF’s autonomy. Médecins Sans Frontières The unfortunate catastrophe on December 26, 2004, when an earthquake pursued by a tsunami destroyed the coastlines along the Indian Ocean, taking the lives and livelihoods of thousands of innocent people, triggered an exceptional humanitarian response. Hundreds of international and local organizations and over $14 billion in public and private donations were in sight to provide support (Flint & Goyder, 2006). Most international humanitarian non-governmental organizations (INGOs) tussled to establish and enlarge their relief efforts but MSF a surprising step that roused panic within the humanitarian arena. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), one of the most prominent humanitarian INGOs, placed a notice on its worldwide website, six days after the tsunami, announcing that its tsunami response was adequately funded hence did not need any more financial contributions (MSF, 2004). On the other hand, MSF was eager to respect donors’ intentions yet reluctant to have these determine operations and budgeting, therefore, MSF instead requested for the donations to be directed to the general emergency relief fund, which the organization could utilize at their discretion. This move drew substantial disapproval from the media and other humanitarian organizations that felt threatened by MSF’s bold move, which they thought would undercut the flow of donations and endanger other emergency responses (Bennhold, 2005). Nevertheless, these criticisms barely deterred MSF from maintaining that fundraising prospects and donor opinions must not subdue its self-determination and sovereignty over its relief functions (Barbagallo, 2005). In its 40-year history, MSF has in numerous occasions demonstrated that it is an exceedingly autonomous organization, able to stand firm against external demands. Additionally, this organization has successfully maintained authority over the contents and execution of its relief assignments and organizational procedures. As a result, MSF is sometimes branded as bigheaded and “self-righteous” (Bortolotti, 2004). Particularly, in a field where institutions are consistently under pressure to stick to standards under the authority of coordination bodies, enter into competition for funds and access and adjust their programs to political agendas (Lindenberg & Bryant, 2001). As a result, humanitarian INGOs erode their integrity causing their autonomy and independence to suffer as many of them slowly but surely transform into sub-contractors of governments, while being closely inspected by the media and the public. In the background of heightened peripheral control and increased attention to humanitarian organizations, MSF’s strong independent position is baffling. Analysis of Organizational Culture Organizational culture is increasingly growing in popularity and is an enticing element to organizational change. For this reason, managers find a pressing need for methods by which culture and culture change can be systematically and reliably evaluated. According to Schein (1996), one of the key levels at which the culture manifests itself is quite basic and looks for demonstrations of underlying assumptions about how the organization relates to its environment, reality and truth, and the nature of people in general. Schein’s Theoretical Framework According to Schein (1996), organizational culture exists simultaneously on three levels; on the surface are artifacts, underneath artifacts lie values and at the nucleus are basic assumptions. Assumptions represent taken-for-granted beliefs about reality and human nature. Culture thrives through social interaction, the network of communications that make up a group of people or society. Here, a common language is predominantly important in articulating and signifying a distinct organizational way of life. Espoused Values The values an organization upholds can be viewed as its deliberate strategies, aspirations, and philosophies that have intrinsic significance. Organizational groups are glued together by evaluative factors entailing social expectations and standards or the values and beliefs that keep people together. The Advantages of Using Schein’s Model Schein’s theoretical framework is easy to understand because it is made up of three basic levels by which one can easily apply in examining the culture of an organization. This model is practical because it takes into account the fundamental scope of culture, which has been found to make a difference in organizations’ achievement. Again, the process of diagnosing and creating a strategy for change can be accomplished in a reasonable amount of time. This procedure also involves every member of the organization but more importantly involves all the people responsible for establishing guidance, reinforcing values and direct fundamental change. At the same time, the method of investigating an organization’s culture can be carried out by the members of that organization, usually the management team without the need for external consultants for successful implementation. Finally, the analytical process is built on a structure, which makes sense to people as they reflect on their own organization and is sustained by an extensive empirical literature and core dimensions that have a proven scholarly base. However, Schein’s model may not be the single best approach, but it is considered a vital strategy in an organization’s list for evaluating culture to attain better performance. Schein's Model of Organizational Culture According to Schein, organizational culture exists simultaneously on three levels: on the surface are artifacts, underneath artifacts lie values, and at the core are basic assumptions. Assumptions represent taken-for-granted beliefs about reality and human nature. Culture thrives through social interaction, the network of communications that make up a group of people or society. Here a common language is predominantly important in articulating and signifying a distinct organizational way of life. MSF’s foundational principles are considered relevant not only to the way that the organization offers medical attention to the most susceptible individuals and communities in grave and catastrophic conditions, but also to the solidarity of the dealings among MSF’s workforce and the equality of their working conditions. Superlatively, MSF’s functions and relations with both patients and staff are projected to go beyond the boundaries of nation, and culture, and to observe impartiality and tolerance with regard to sex, race, customs, creed, political opinions, social status, or any such particularistic attributes. Espoused Values Beneath artifacts are espoused values, which are conscious strategies, goals and philosophies. Organizations values are the social ideologies, beliefs, goals, and standards measured to have intrinsic significance. Organizational groups are glued together by an evaluative factor entailing social expectations and standards or the values and beliefs that hold people together. A major attribute influencing MSF’s individuality is its founding myth that insists on MSF’s decisive spirit, the employment and training of autonomy-conscious professionals and a broad financial supply base facilitates the ground of its personality as a distinctive and independent organization. Secondly, a high degree of standardization of operational and organizational procedures reflects a strong chain of command. In addition, decision-making in MSF is typified by a chronological sense that assesses alternatives in connection to organizational objectives, thus indicating a high degree of judiciousness. Altogether, these factors allow organizational autonomy and independence, which in turn enables exceptionalism. Finally, to maintain legitimacy, MSF exploits the lenient order of humanitarian goals and principles, whose definite standards implementation are absent. This discrepancy allows originally contentious acts to be exposed either as alternative avenues to accomplish desired universal goals or as resulting from a different prioritization of principles. In doing so, the ultimate goals and principles of the field are not dishonored and can still be used as a point of reference in order to establish legitimacy. This allows MSF to identify itself as a weighty and significant performer, keen to scrutinize and improve the standards of its humanitarian field. As a result, MSF’s controversial behavior no longer constitutes a threat to other players in its arena, but conversely, becomes a basis of its legitimacy. In its 40-year history, MSF’s has consistently expressed deeds that roused contentions in the humanitarian field. For instance, the creation of the theory of witnessing, the deterring of aid put aside for the tsunami response, its pulling out during the Great Lakes predicament, and the negative response to field-wide coordination efforts. MSF was on the receiving end as substantial criticism for its contentious actions was hurled at it. Yet, MSF had been honored with a noble peace prize in 1999, which was cause for praise and admiration. Against this backdrop of being popular and facing criticism at the same illustrates a measure of autonomy that is scarce in the humanitarian arena. This is because the humanitarian sector is an area in which donor anticipation and a greater inclination toward professionalism, increasingly curtails the self-determination and dominion of charitable organizations. Artifacts Culture is neatly expressed through artifacts, which are the visible, tangible, and audible results of activity anchored on values and assumptions. These artifacts are the symbols that an institution is acknowledged by. Additionally, they may also be descried as the events, behaviors and individuals that exemplify culture. MSF’s emblematically expressed name Sans Frontières meaning “without borders” is a classic example. Its name symbolizes and portrays its commitment to trans-national, universalistic, and egalitarian values, which are well defined in the basic principles of its founding Charter and the 1997 Chantilly Document, which interprets and expands it. The combination of a distinctive and strong identity is constitutive for strong public actor organizations and facilitates their independence, autonomy and sovereignty (Brunsson & Sahlin-Andersson, 2000). MSF’s ability to uphold a unique culture gives it as an organization the capacity to independently respond to emergencies worldwide. Over the course of its history, MSF has come forward as one of the best-equipped humanitarian INGOs, with wide-ranging financial resources and considerable know-how in emergency health care and a capacity to act in response to emergencies almost anywhere within 48 hours (Redfield, 2005). Its outstanding position in the field was acknowledged when MSF received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1999 and was labeled as “the most important humanitarian organization” as well as “conscience of the humanitarian world” (Rieff, 2002). Taken together, exhibiting characteristics of a strong social actor appears to be at the core of MSF’s ability to maintain independence and sovereignty in a sector whose members face increasing pressure to adhere to external demands and standards. Identity is a major component of Artifacts. In defining their identity, organizations need to emphasize their resemblance with other organizations, irrespective of their precise activities, as members of a certain field. In this regard, MSF successfully emerged as a major benchmark in the humanitarian aid providers’ league. Secondly, organizational identity encompasses distinctiveness or being extraordinary based on an organization’s purpose, competences, resources, structure, history or culture (Brunsson & Sahlin-Andersson, 2000). Balancing the two components is essential for an organizations continued existence in so far as resemblance is a basis for legitimacy, while individuality trims down competition (Deephouse, 1999). MSF outstandingly displays an identity that grades it as a humanitarian organization, and at the same time calls attention to its distinctiveness as an organization committed to its own beliefs while upholding an important and insightful approach to present conventions (Brauman, 2004). At its inception in 1971, MSF constituted an act of opposition against humanitarian customs as represented and ratified by the Red Cross -the most established and vital of all humanitarian organizations (Dijkzeul, 2004). Nonetheless, having observed ruthless atrocities in the Nigerian civil war as Red Cross volunteers, several French doctors and a group of journalists agreed to form an organization that would not be bound by the rigid neutrality code of the Red Cross, which they felt curtailed the efforts to manage the suffering of the victims of this conflict. This new approach of humanitarianism enabled them to publicly condemn those responsible for grave human rights violations, a theory that came to be known as témoignage or witnessing. This founding myth illuminates MSF’s identity as characterized by a powerful commitment to humanitarian doctrines, which enables it to get involved as an entity in larger humanitarian sector. Yet at the same time, it visibly emphasizes MSF’s uniqueness by placing an act of critical and reflective non-conformity, as expressed in the hands-on re-interpretation of the neutrality principle at the center of its self-conception. Conclusion In analyzing an organizations culture, it is important to understand what an organization is the meaning of culture and what constitutes organizational culture and its importance in the existence and definition of that organization. MSF’s organizational culture has been examined using Schein’s theoretical model with the aim of explaining the aspects that influence MSF’s ability to maintain it outstanding autonomy in the world of humanitarian international non-governmental organizations. References Bennhold, K. (2005). Charity sets off storm with tsunami aid halt Published. Retrieved on 30 November 2012 from: www.nytimes.com/2005/05/28/world/ Bortolotti, D. (2004). Hope in hell: inside the world of doctors without borders. New York, NY: Firefly Books. Brown, A. (1995). Organizational culture. London: Pitman Publishing. Brunsson, N. & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2000). Transnational governance: institutional dynamics of regulation. London: Cambridge University Press Dijkzeul, D. & DeMars, W. (2010). The NGO challenge for international relations theory: Non-state actors in international law, politics, and governance series. Ashgate: Aldershot. Flint, M. & Goyder, H. (2006). Funding the Tsunami: A synthesis of findings. Retrieved 30 November 2012 from: https://www.sida.se/Documents/Import/pdf/Funding-the-Tsunami-Response1.pdf MSF. (2005). MSF's principles and identity: The challenges ahead MSF. Retrieved 30 November 2012 from: http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/publications/ar/report.cfm?id=3251 Rieff, D. (2002). A Bed for the night: humanitarianism in crisis. New York: Simon & Schuster. Redfield, P. (2005). Disquieting gifts: humanitarianism in New Delhi. California, CA: Stanford. Schein, E. H. (1996). Three cultures of management: the key to organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 38(1), 9-20. Schein, E. H. (1985). The role of founder in creating organizational culture. Organizational Dy­namics, 12(1), 13-28. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, SF: Josey-Bass. Read More