General Nature of Organizational Culture - Coursework Example

Organizational Culture Culture in general is that set of belief values, practices and perceptions that govern a particular society or social group.In the context of organizations this is not entirely different but certainly has peculiar nuances. Organizational culture is a commonly held –in-the-mind framework of organizational members. This framework contains basic assumptions and values. These basic assumptions and values are taught to new members as the way to perceive, think, feel, behave, and expect others to behave in the organization (Aiman - Smith 2004). Going beyond this idea of organizational culture the essential question that must next be answered is what comprises it? This is important in the sense that exploring its rudiments and thus gain a deeper understanding of it. Organizational culture comprises the attitudes, experiences, beliefs, and values of the organization, acquired through social learning, that control the way individuals and groups in the organization interact with one another and with parties outside it (Serrat 2009). This characterizes the culture in organizations as having the same components as culture in social groups and society at large. Another vital point that must be considered is the value of such culture. What are they good for and why are they essential in organizations? Organizational culture is one of the most important factors of company’s success or failure. Each company has an organizational culture, and depending on its strength. The organizational culture may have a prominent impact on the members of organization, their values and behavior (Kulvinskienė and Šeimienė 2009). In exploring the implications of organizational culture it is necessary to look at its impact on the organization if there is any. The fact is that the intangible nature of cultures makes it difficult to gauge in the tangible structure of organizations. Since culture is a complex phenomenon that ranges from underlying beliefs and assumptions to visible structures and practices, healthy skepticism exists with respect to whether organizational culture can actually be “measured” in a comparative sense. Furthermore, research on the link between organizational culture and effectiveness is limited by lack of agreement about the appropriate measures of effectiveness (Fey and Denison 2004). Kharakim (2007) explains further within larger structural goals, it’s the culture that carries organizational objectives. While the broad purposes of grassroots organizing are to bring together low- and moderate-income families for their political, economic, and social interests, goals that are laid out in basic documents, it’s our more specific and immediate objectives for organizing membership drives, campaigns on issues, and program development that bring those goals to life. The objectives themselves are mostly within the culture of the organization. Moreover, Hofstede (1983) contends that activities like "management" and "organizing" are culturally dependent. They are culturally dependent because managing and organizing do not consist of making or moving tangible objects, but of manipulating symbols, which have meaning to the people who are managed or organized. Last but not the least in discussing organizational culture is the various models or modes by which they are used to rationalize what occurs in an organization. Mobley, Wang and Fang (2005) forwarded the 4 traits model; Involvement is about building employees capability, ownership, and responsibility. Your organization’s score on this trait reflects how much the organization focuses on developing, informing, involving your people and getting them engaged. Consistency is to examine whether you have a strong and cohesive internal culture. Adaptability is focusing on an organization’s ability of adapt quickly to the signals from the external environment, including customers and the marketplace. Mission. Successful organizations have a clear sense of purpose that defines long-term directions. The Mission trait is useful in identifying whether you are in danger of shortsightedness or you are equipped with systematically defined strategic and action plans. In comparison Tharp (2009) provides an overview of four organizational culture types: Control (hierarchy), Compete (market), Collaborate (clan), and Create (adhocracy). He further characterizes these as follow: Hierarchical organizations share similarities with the stereotypical large, bureaucratic corporation. They are defined by stability and control as well as internal focus and integration. They value standardization, control, and a well-defined structure for authority and decision making. Effective leaders in hierarchical cultures are those that can organize, coordinate, and monitor people and processes. Compete (market) organizations. These companies are similar to the Control (hierarchy) in that they value stability and control; however, instead of an inward focus they have an external orientation and they value differentiation over integration. Collaborate (clan) are similar to Control (hierarchy) in that there is an inward focus with concern for integration. However, Collaborate (clan) emphasize flexibility and discretion rather than the stability and control of Control (hierarchy) and Compete (market) organizations. Create (adhocracy) are similar to Collaborate (clan) in that they emphasize flexibility and discretion; however, they do not share the same inward focus. Instead they are like Create (adhocracy) in their external focus and concern for differentiation. This lays down the premise in terms of further discussions. In analyzing the organizational culture of the organization in the subject video the typology of Tharp (2009) will be adapted. This is due to the descriptive nature of the model by which he assesses organizational culture. Moreover, in the further analysis the four traits model discussed by Mobley, Wang and Fang will be employed due to its holistic nature in terms of analyzing the prevailing culture of an organization on the level of its individual members. In addressing the question what is the organizational culture exhibited in the video? Applying Tharp’s typology it is clear that the prevailing culture is control or hierarchal in nature. But despite this the strengths of an organization under this typology it is undermined on the individual level where there is significantly high degree of negativity. The culture of the organization is one which typifies the Control or Hierarchal kind? In assessing the organization presented certain traits are clear there is significant attachment as to control and stability. This evidenced when the Finance Director Harry McLeod conducts meetings. He makes it clear that he has the final say in matters being discussed when he approved the office automation project. This is further seen when he makes budget cuts as to the project despite the concerns raised by the Office Manager, Barbara Mitchell. These actions denote exhibit an authoritative approach to running the organization by directly intervening in activities. Another instance that the control typology can be seen in the subject organization is when Barbara Mitchell, the Office Manager comes up with the office automation system. The importance she puts into it is that of centralizing as well consolidating the operations of the company. These goals in the context of the organization exhibit the drive to impose a system which will be collectively controlling the operations of the business. Though her goal of organizational efficiency via consolidation, uniformity and collectivism this still shows that the organization’s members like Ms. Mitchell are geared towards improving, extending and forwarding control & stability in one form or another. Motivation Motives are reasons people hold for initiating and performing voluntary behavior. They indicate the meaning of human behavior, and they may reveal a person’s values. Motives often affect a person’s perception, cognition, emotion, and behavior (Reiss, 2004). Work motivation is the process that initiates and maintains goal-directed performance. It energizes our thinking, fuels our enthusiasm and colors our positive and negative emotional reactions to work and life. Motivation generates the mental effort that drives us to apply our knowledge and skills (Clark, 2003). A theory on motivation-to-work must at least answer the following questions: Why do people work in the first place? (the decision to work) Why do people choose a particular occupation? (the occupation choice) Why do individuals join a particular organization? (the decision to join an organization) Why do some individuals decide to use their abilities to the maximum? (the decision to use abilities to the maximum) Why do some people leave an organization in search of other position? (the decision to leave an organization) (Li n.d.). The motivations of certain personalities of the organization have to be appreciated in terms of the organizations goals and operations. Meaning the assessment of these reasons that determine actions will be in the context of the organization. Barbara Mitchell’s motivations reflect a degree of vested interest. She came up with the office automation scheme which is in the interests of the company. Her pursuit of personal advancement is not separate. She even admitted to this during the meeting when she said that yes she on an “ego trip” if it is egotistic to want what is best for the company. The underlying meaning of this is that in this particular case her own interests are, at this point, tied to the company. However, this does not necessarily mean that this will be true in the future. Her actuations as well as words all also denote a degree of ambition. She proposed the office automation scheme to showcase that she can come up with revolutionary changes to the company and perhaps later merit career advancement. This is further established when the Finance Director Harry McLeod asked her to make budget cuts to the project she refused initially but later agreed when Mr. McLeod hinted at her removal with the words would be a shame to loose you.” She immediately agreed to the budget cuts. This had serious implications for the company. Her insistence to implement her proposal was undervalued the lack of the organization’s proper preparation and assessment of its long term impact. The project was implemented with the organization not being able to grasp fully the results that it would entail. On the other hand, John Franks, Data Processing Manager can be characterized with a more or less different motivation. His motivation for supporting the office automation proposal made by Barbara Mitchell was so that he could also pursue his own ends. He can be classified as an opportunist but this does not mean that his opportunism is negative. The need of his department is what comes first in his agenda. When he realized that this can be forwarded by supporting Barbara Mitchell’s proposal, he used his discretion to give a favorable assessment of the proposal even though he also did not yet fully understand its impact on the company. His failing was that he only saw the proposal in the relation to his own department and not the company as a whole. Both motivations of John Franks, Data Processing Manager and Barbara Mitchell, Office Manager through individual in nature had important repercussions on the organization. The myopic view of and opportunism of John Franks enabled the adoption of the office automation scheme that would later be mishandled by the company thus creating loses. The vested self interest of Barbara Mitchell in using the office automation scheme as the vessel of her own ambition proved to be a costly undertaking on the part of the company. Motivation prevents or nudges us to convert intention into action and start doing something new or to restart something we’ve done before. It also controls our decisions to persist at a specific work goal in the face of distractions and the press of other priorities. Finally, motivation leads us to invest more or less cognitive effort to enhance both the quality and quantity of our work performance (Clark 2003). The motivations of John Franks and Barbara Mitchell were detrimental to the company. Their motivations in their totality and in the long run serve as a hindrance and obstacle to the development of the company. It served as significant barriers to the attainment of the organization’s goals and its efficient operation. Maslow (1943) suggests that gratification becomes as important a concept as deprivation in motivation theory, for it releases the organism from the domination of a relatively more physiological need, permitting thereby the emergence of other more social goals. The physiological needs, along with their partial goals, when chronically gratified cease to exist as active determinants or organizers of behavior. They now exist only in a potential fashion in the sense that they may emerge again to dominate the organism if they are thwarted. But a want that is satisfied is no longer a want. The organism is dominated and its behavior organized only by unsatisfied needs. If hunger is satisfied, it becomes unimportant in the current dynamics of the individual. By applying Maslow’s concept if motivation based on needs. There is a deficiency as to the gratification of needs on the part of both Ms. Barbara Mitchell and Mr. John Franks. In the case of Mr. John Franks, he is still on a level wherein he needs to satisfy his security needs. He was unsure as to the way he is running his department, so he took the first opportunity that seemed to will secure the stability of his sector in the company. On the other hand, Ms. Barbara Mitchell still needs to fulfill her basic needs. Her ambition, her drive to move up in the company could be motivated by the rewards and tangible benefits she will get. And the pursuit of material gain is often characterized by Maslow (1943) as a product of the lack of gratification in terms of physiological needs. Biological needs are best addressed with the existence of more material wealth and resources. This usually found in the upper echelons in a company’s hierarchy. Change and Resistance For all organization change is a very common phenomenon. It can either yield boundless opportunity or cause grave detriment to an organization. It all depends on response to it as well as the mode of the response. Change is a constant the question is. How does an organization best deal with it? Typically, the concept of organizational change is in regard to organization large change, as opposed to less significant changes such as adding a new person, delegate, and etcetera. Examples of organization large change may include a change in mission, vision, restructuring operations, new technologies, mergers, major collaborations, new programs and re-engineering (Islam, Ali and Wafi 2010). To thrive in the chaotic world we live in, we must embrace strategies that have been developed to successfully manage change. The theory and practice of organizational change contains elements of both behaviorist and cognitive learning theories. An investigation into change within an organizational setting reveals a three-stage process of unfreezing, change and refreezing (Durant 1999). Durant (1999) expounds further. Unfreezing is the first stage of the change process and consist of unlearning past behavior. The change process begins when the organization experiences disconfirmation. Disconfirmation is experienced in the form of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is a concept taken from the field of psychology that refers to incompatibility between two or more attitudes or between behavior and attitudes. The second stage of the change process consists of incorporating new behaviors into organizational processes. Behavior and ideas that are embedded in the corporate culture must be replaced. Redirecting people’s attention is an essential part of change. The development of skills to enable people to do things differently is required. Refreezing is the final stage of the change process. It is comprised of reinforcing and measuring behavior change. After the training requirements are defined, the reward system, reporting relationships and other systems can be designed to reinforce the new behavior. On the other hand there will be an opposition to change. Resistance to change is an essential factor to be considered in any change process, since a proper management of resistance is the key for change success or failure. By resistance to change we understand any phenomenon that hinders the process at its beginning or its development, aiming to keep the current situation (del Val and Fuentes n.d.). Contemporary research and experience at implementing change into organizations suggest that the following are eleven significant factors that influence success at organizational change: The Perceived Need to Change, Culture, Trust in the Management and in the Organization, History of Change, Clear Direction and Authority, Accurate Feedback, Enforced Standards, Equity, Appropriate Consequences, Expectation Success and Expectation Recognition (Mansis 2006). Using the concepts of change and resistance identify the factors that lead to ineffective implementation with reference to the behaviours exhibited by Tom Blyth- The Services Manager Change and resistance as exhibited in the video dwell more on specific factors that is proposed by Mansis (2006). The Perceived Need to Change, Culture, Clear Direction and Authority and Accurate Feedback significantly determined the outcome of the change adopted as manifested by the office automation proposal. In the case of Mr. Tom Blyth, the Services Manager, the four factors are made manifest and are brought to light. First on the factor of the Perceived Need to Change Blyth does not see the necessity of the proposal, or if he does he sees that it will move the company forward in terms of only 1 sector. He argues that the proposal that if the proposal will be considered what about his own proposal as to the “computing requirements” of his department. He makes the point that if there will be a change why not make it across the board and not selective. Second on the factor of culture, Mr. Tom Blyth as well as most members of the company hold on the established ways of the firm and is resistant to change. Even if they seem to accept change they end up reverting back to the status quo. This was seen when Mr. Blyth still held on the old system despite the adoption of the new system. In considering Clear Direction and Authority, the automation project lacked that. Each segment of the company is working out the adoption of the new system on its own, and no one was directly in control and overseeing its implementation. This made the adoption of the change pursued more problematic. In terms of the existence of Accurate Feedback, there was significant disregard for this factor in the case shown in the video. First proof of this is during the meeting. Mr. Blyth raised the concern of his department, and it was not considered. Later in the video employees are talking about how the new system will replace them, which is something the management does not address at all. Another instance of this is when the Ms. Mitchell made the proposal and consulted only Mr. Franks and not the other department heads given that the impact of the new system will also affect them. References: Mobley, William H., Wang, Lena and Fang, Kate 2005, Organizational Culture: Measuring and Developing It, The Link, viewed 25 November 2010, http://www.ceibs.edu/link/latest/images/20050701/1394.pdf RESISTANCE TO CHANGE: A LITERATURE REVIEW AND EMPIRICAL STUDY del Val, Pardo, Manuela & Martínez Fuentes, Clara (n.d.), Resistance to Change: A Literature Review and Empirical Study, viewed 25 November 2010, http://www.uv.es/~pardoman/resistencias.PDF Durant, Michael W. 1999, “Managing Organizational Change”, Credit Research Foundation, viewed 25 November 2010, http://www.crfonline.org/orc/pdf/ref4.pdf Clark , Richard E. 2003, “Fostering the Work Motivation of Individuals and Teams”, Performance Improvement, 42(3), 21-29, viewed http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/clark_fostering.pdf Li, Lamp (n.d.), “Human Motivations in the Work Organization: Theories and Implications”, NEW ASIA COLLEGE ACADEMIC ANNUAL VOL. XIX, viewed 24 November 2010, http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=20&ved=0CFIQFjAJOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsunzi.lib.hku.hk%2Fhkjo%2Fview%2F34%2F3400303.pdf&ei=EJXuTN2vH5H0vQOthJH8DQ&usg=AFQjCNHbILzkoFSppQTVviTOUxyP9d8SlQ FACTORS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE CHANGE Kulvinskiene, Violeta Raimonda and Šeimiene, Eleonora Seminogova 2009, “Factors of Organizational Culture Change”, EKONOMIKA 2009 87, viewed 23 November 2010, http://www.leidykla.vu.lt/fileadmin/Ekonomika/87/27-43.pdf Fey, Carl F. and Denison, Daniel R. 2000, Organizational Culture and Effectiveness: The Case of Foreign Firms in Russia”, SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration No. 2000:4, viewed 23 November 2010, http://swoba.hhs.se/hastba/papers/hastba2000_004.pdf Tharp, Bruce M. 2009, “Four Organizational Culture Types”, HAWORTH Organizational Culture White Paper, viewed November 25, 2010, http://www.haworth.com/en-us/Knowledge/Workplace-Library/Documents/Four-Organizational-Culture-Types_6.pdf Maslow, Abraham 1943, “A Theory of Human Motivation”, Psychological Review 50, 370-396, viewed 25 November 2010, http://pdfdatabase.com/download/theory-of-human-motivation-pdf-6767704-html Mansis Development Corporation 2006, Mansis Index of Organizational Change, viewed 26 November 2010, http://www.mansis.com/mioc.pdf Hofstede, Geert 1983, “The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 14, No. 2, viewed 25 November 2010, http://www.jstor.org/stable/222593 Reiss, Steven 2004, “Multifaceted Nature of Intrinsic Motivation: The Theory of 16 Basic Desires”, General Psychology Copyright 2004 by the Educational Publishing Foundation 2004, Vol. 8, No. 3, 179–193 1089-2680/04, viewed on 25 November 2010, http://www.sirhc.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Reiss.pdf Serrat, Olivier 2009, “A Primer on Organizational Culture”, Knowledge Solutions November 2009 68, viewed 24 November 2010, http://www.adb.org/documents/information/knowledge-solutions/primer-on-organizational-culture.pdf Aiman-Smith , L. 2004, What Do We Know about Organizational Culture, viewed 24 November 2010, http://www4.ncsu.edu/~hp/LAS_overview.pdf Resistance To Change Among First Line Managers In Multinational Organizations In Islam, Aminul , Ali, Anees Janee and Wafi, Shaban M.S., “Resistance To Change Among First Line Managers In Multinational Organizations In Malaysia Md.”, International Review of Business Research Papers Volume 6. Number 4. September 2010. Pp. 232 – 245, viewed 25 November 2010, http://www.bizresearchpapers.com/19.%20Aminul.pdf Kharakim, Khevra shel 2007, “Organizational Structure & Culture”, GTP ORGANIZER TRAINING Training Guide #7, viewed 25 November 2010, http://www.gatherthepeople.org/Downloads/007_STRUCTURE_CULTURE.pdf Read More