Organizational Culture of the Pennine Centre - Case Study Example

Organizational Culture of the Pennine Centre Introduction Organizational culture remains one of the most complicated and, simultaneously, most well-documented organizational phenomena. Globalization and elimination of geographical borders create new organizational forms. The latter, in turn, result in the development of new organizational cultures. In this situation, managers and leaders in contemporary organizations need detailed knowledge of their cultures. The organizational culture construct typically encompasses a wide range of variables, processes, and factors. The current state of organization research provides a wealth of information on organizational cultural analysis and culture analysis frameworks. Hofstede’s Onion structure and the Competing Values Framework are probably the most popular instruments of culture analysis within organizations. The Pennine Centre project was established in 1998 and opened in 2002. The leisure centre at the Pennine Centre is the source of unique, sophisticated impressions. The organizational culture at the Pennine Center is characterized by a complex system of values, rituals, practices, and symbols; from the viewpoint of the Competing Values Framework, the organizational culture of the Pennine Centre is purely rational, with the emphasis made on goals, rules, and control. Organizational culture: Defining the boundaries The word “culture” was first used in the English language in 1871, when Tylor published his book Primitive Culture (Kroeber 1949). At that time, culture was first defined as “a complex whole which includes knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, laws, customs, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (Kroeber 1949, p.1). Today culture is defined in multiple ways and has multiple meanings; one of the most common uses of the culture definition usually occurs within organizations. Despite the growing body of literature, the concept of organizational culture remains extremely thorny (Straub et al. 2002). It was not before 1979 that the term “organizational culture” was first used in American academic literature (Hofstede et al. 1990). Today the meaning of organizational culture is taken for granted, and its significance is almost equal to that of organizational strategy and control (Hofstede et al. 1990). Wieck (1985) even argued that strategy and culture were overlapping; but without a clear definition of the culture construct investigating the culture of the Pennine Centre would be impossible. For the purpose of this paper, the organizational culture of the Pennine Centre will be defined as “the pattern of beliefs, values, and learned ways of coping with experience that have developed during the course of an organization’s history, and which tend to be manifested in its material arrangements and in the behaviors of its members” (Brown 1995; Sun 2008, p.137). This being said, values will become the basic measure of the organizational culture at the Pennine Center. Based on this information, the organizational culture of the Pennine Centre will be assumed to be (1) holistic; (2) socially constructed; (3) flexible and soft; and (4) difficult to change (Hofstede et al. 1990; Weick 1985). The culture will be assumed to have multiple layers, which are changeable and permeable (Straub et al. 2002). Simultaneously, the roots of the organizational culture at the Pennine centre will be assumed to come from leaders, not individuals (Straub et al. 2002). In this paper, culture is viewed as a learned entity (Schein 1984; Williams et al. 1994). That is, managers observe and map future employee behaviors, whereas employees learn which behaviors fit in their culture and which behaviors can lead them toward the desired goal. Second, culture is treated as a complex system of beliefs (Bate 1995 Davis 1984). These are the basic rules of everyday behavior and the feelings employees may have about these behaviors. Third, the organizational culture at the Pennine Centre must be viewed as an integral element of the organizational strategy (Brown 1988; Deal & Kennedy 1982). In this sense, values are always at the core of organizational culture dynamics, followed by the practices, rituals, and symbols (Hofstede et al. 1980). Analyzing culture of the Pennine Centre: The Onion Framework The onion framework is one of the most frequently used instruments of organizational culture management and analysis. Developed by Geert Hofstede in 1997, the onion framework exemplifies a complex but comprehensive approach to analyzing organizational culture (Hofstede et al. 1997). The Onion diagram shows that, as always, values create the foundation for the development and establishment of organizational culture (Hofstede et al. 1997). Then come rituals, heroes, and symbols; practices transcend all layers of the organizational culture (Hofstede et al. 1997). These practices can also be called “conventions”, “traditions”, “customs”, and usages (Burrell & Morgan 1979; Raelin 1986; Wilkins & Ouchi 1983). In the Pennine Center, values come from and are established by the organization’s leader, William Carroll. In this sense, the Pennine Centre differs greatly from the majority of other organizations, where values come from the bottom of the cultural hierarchy and exemplify a continuum of behaviors and attitudes shared by employees (Cook & Campbell 1979; Kroeber 1952; Murdock 1965). Moreover, the onion structure of the organizational culture at the Pennine Centre does not look dynamic: the values layer at the center of the “cultural onion” constantly interacts with other layers and is being influenced by external factors (Evaristo et al. 2000).The values promoted and communicated by Carroll include aggressive commitment to workplace goals, persistence and hard work without limits, blind dedication to the strategic goals of the Pennine Center and ability to assume challenging responsibilities and tasks. These values give rise to the rituals layer; actually, work at the Pennine Center is considered as the main, central, foundational cultural ritual. It is a collective entity, an activity that is considered socially and culturally essential (Hofstede et al. 1997; Sun 2008). Those who successfully carry and fulfill these rituals have all chances to become the company’s heroes – those who are prized for their endeavors and believed to be winners of the cultural situation (Deal & Kennedy 1982). According to Deal and Kennedy (1982), these winners are the central motivators and the carriers of the organization’s mission. In the Pennine Center, William Carroll is the central winner, followed by those sales representatives and employees who manage to deal with his authoritative style, challenging workplace demands, and unprecedentedly difficult strategic objectives. These “winners” are those few sales representatives who have their bonuses paid by the company. All these layers of the onion create a foundation for the development of a cohesive system of cultural symbols, which exemplify the most salient and overt layer of any organizational culture (Brown 1988; Deal & Kennedy 1982; Hofstede et al. 1997). Symbols are the elements of the organizational culture that represent a subconscious or overt association with the wider, abstract meaning of culture (Dandridge et al. 1980; Gioia 1986; Hatch 1993). In the culture of the Pennine Center, these symbols include dedication to work, interactive incentive packages that are associated with the abstract meanings of perseverance and commitment. Another important symbol is the emphasis on teamwork and customer-oriented service, which are abstractly associated with the values of hard work, aggressiveness, and striving to achieve strategic goals by all possible means. In these sense, there is a number of cultural practices that transcend all layers of Pennine’s cultural onion. These practices change do fit in the changeable conditions of cultural performance at the Pennine Center and, simultaneously, operate as the glue tying the various layers of the cultural onion together (Daft et al. 1987; Straub et al. 2001; Webster & Trevino 1995). These practices are various. Basically, the company runs general conferences where employees are rewarded and criticized for their achievements and failures, accordingly. Actually, criticism is one of the most salient practices exercised by the company; criticism is an indispensable element of the organizational culture at the Pennine Center. As a reflection of the blind commitment to work, personal goals and tasks are treated as secondary to workplace obligations: it is a common practice for the company to monitor employee performance and their contribution to the organization, even when they are on vacation or pregnancy leave. The competing values framework The competing values framework is another element of organizational cultural analysis at the Pennine Centre. The competing values framework is a metatheory that was develop to support and complement other organizational culture and effectiveness models (Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1981). The competing values framework was extended in 1984 by Quinn and Kimberly, to make it suitable for the analysis of organizational culture. In its current state, the framework allows exploring the deepest underlying elements of organizational leadership, effectiveness, values, and motives – everything directly or indirectly related to organizational culture. The competing values framework operates through the two axes, with one end targeting flexibility and spontaneity and the other one directed towards control, stability, and order (Burns & Stalker 1998). The second axis links organizations’ internal and external environments; this is the organizational dichotomy that has long been a matter of organizational analysis (Lawrence & Lorsch 1967; Thompson 1967). With these dimensions, the competing values framework divides organizational cultures into the four different types: group culture, developmental culture, rational culture, and hierarchical culture. Based on the competing values framework, the organizational culture at the Pennine centre is a bright example of the rational culture (Gershon et al. 2004; Helfrich et al. 2007; Ostroff et al. 2003). The rational culture is characterized by excessive reliance on planning, productivity, efficiency, measurable outcomes and clear goals (Helfrich et al. 2007; Quinn & Spreitzer 1991). Achievement, goal fulfillment, and performance are the foundational elements of the rational culture, and the Pennine centre runs a sophisticated system of values and beliefs that reinforce the importance of goal fulfillment and accomplishment at all levels of its organizational hierarchy. Looking at the competing values circle proposed by Quinn (1988), it is clear that the culture at the Pennine Centre emphasizes rules, control, and goals. The rules dimension is essentially about authority (in case of the Pennine Centre, autocracy), division of obligations/ functions, and rationality of all procedures. The goal dimension focuses on “emphasizes concepts such as rationality, performance indicators, accomplishment, accountability, and contingent reward” (Muijen et al. 1999). Apparently, these dimensions also imply that the organizational culture of Pennine Centre is strictly hierarchical, with William Carroll at its top. Apparently, employees at the Pennine Center are expected to follow a whole range of hierarchical procedures and rituals, to successfully cope with their functions, obligations, and workplace tasks. Unfortunately, hierarchical and rational cultures leave little room for innovativeness and novelty (Denison 1990). The rational organizational culture is responsible for the development of complex organizational climates (Denison & Mishra 1995). Innovative cultures naturally demand greater flexibility and more transparent lines of accountability and performance (James et al. 1990; Quinn 1988; Trice & Beyer 1993). This being said, it is high time the Pennine Centre reconsidered its approaches to innovativeness and flexibility, to ensure continued growth and innovations in the organization. Recommendations It is high time for the Pennine Centre to move away from the rational to group type of organizational culture. The competing values framework will become the foundational ingredient in the development of new, group values and cultural principles. The basic goal of the proposed cultural change is to retain the most important elements of the rational culture, namely, goal attainment and accountability and, simultaneously, reduce the lines of authority and the pressure of Carroll’s authoritarian leadership. To make it happen, the organization should not praise individual accomplishments per se but, rather, judge their contribution to team achievements and group work. According to Garmston (2005), creating group cultures presupposes having leaders communicate clear and measurable goals and, simultaneously, participate in practices they seek to implement. Innovative approaches to traditional practices should be encouraged. Close process monitoring is to be abandoned: employees must have sufficient flexibility and autonomy of decision-making as long as they meet the goals set for them. Finally, participative decision making and goal setting need to be encouraged; this, according to the goal setting theory, will enhance employee self-regulations and motivate them to attain to challenging goals (Latham & Locke 1991). Conclusion The competing values framework and the Onion framework provide unique lenses for analyzing culture in organizations. The organizational culture in the Pennine centre is characterized by high levels of rationality and autocracy, which create the foundation for the development of cultural symbols, practices, and rituals. The culture in the Pennine center leaves little room for flexibility and innovations. It is high time the Pennine Centre reconsidered its approaches to innovativeness and flexibility, to ensure continued growth and innovations in the organization. References Bate, P 1995, Organizational culture, Pitman Publishing. Burns, T & Stalker, GM 1968, The management of innovation, London: Tavistock. Burrell, G & Morgan, G 1979, Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life, London: Heineman. Cook, TD & Campbell, DT 1979, Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Daft, RL, Lengel, RH & Trevino, LK 1987, ‘Message, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for informational systems’, MIS Quarterly, vol.11, pp.355-366. Dandridge, TC, Mitroff, I & Joyce, WF 1980, ‘Organizational symbolism: A topic to expand organizational analysis’, Academy of Management Review, vol.5, pp.77-82. Deal, TE & Kennedy, AA 1982, Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life, MA: Addison-Wesley. Denison, DR 1990, Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness, NY: Wiley. Denison, DR & Mishra, A 1995, Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organizational Science, vol.6, 204-223. Evaristo, JR, Karahanna, E & Srite, M 2000, Culture and information systems, Proceedings of the Global Information Technology Management World Conference. Garmston, RJ 2005, ‘Group wise: Create a culture of inquiry and develop productive teams’, JSD, vol.26, no.2 [online], accessed at https://www.learningforward.org/news/jsd/garmston262.cfm Geertz, C 1973, The interpretation of cultures, NY: Basic Books. Gerschon, RR, Stone, PW, Bakken, S & Larson, E 2004, Measurement of organizational culture and climate in healthcare, Journal of Nursing Administration, vol.34, pp.33-40. Gioia, DA 1986, ‘Symbols, scripts, and sensemaking’, In HP Sims, The thinking organization, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.49-74. Hatch, MJ 1993, ‘The dynamics of organizational culture’, The Academy of Management Review, vol.18, no.4, pp.657-693. Hofstede, G 1980, Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values, Beverly Hills: Sage. Hofstede, G, Neujin, B, Ohayv, DD & Sanders, G 1990, ‘Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol.35, pp.286-316. Hofstede, G 1997, Culture and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival, McGraw-Hill. James, LR, James, LA & Ashe, DK 1990, ‘The meaning of organizations: The role of cognition and values’, in B Schneider (ed), Organizational climate and culture, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.40-85. Kroeber, AL 1949, Man and his works, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Kroeber, AL 1952, The nature of culture, Chicago: Chicago University Press. Latham, GP & Locke, EA 1991, ‘Self-regulation through goal setting’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol.50, pp.212-247. Lawrence, PR & Lorsch, 1967, Organization and environment, Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press. Muijen, JJ, Koopman, P, Witte, KD, Susanj, Z et al. 1999, ‘Organizational culture: the focus questionnaire’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, vol.8, no.4, pp.551-568. Murdock, GP 1965, Culture and society, Pittsburgh: The University of Pittsburgh Press. Ostroff, C, Kinicki, A & Tamkins, MM 2003, Organizational culture and climate, in WC Borman, DR Ilgen, an RJ Klimoski (eds), Handbook of psychology, NY: Wiley, pp.565-587. Quinn, RE & Kimberly, JR 1984, ‘Paradox, planning, and perseverance: Guidelines for managerial practice’, in JR Kimberly and RE Quinn (eds), Managing organizational transitions, IL: Richard D. Irwin. Quinn, RE & Rohrbaugh, J 1981, A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness, Public Productivity Review, 122-140. Quinn, RE 1988, Beyond rational management, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Quinn, RE & Spreitzer, GM 1991, The psychometrics of the competing values culture instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life, RW Woodman (ed), Research in organizational change and development, JAI Press, pp.115-142. Raelin, JA 1986, The clash of cultures: Managers and professionals, Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Straub, DW, Loch, K & Hill, C 2001, ‘Transfer of information technology to the Arab world: A test of cultural influence modeling’, Journal of Global Information Management, vol.11, pp.10. Straub, D, Loch, K, Evaristo, R, Karahanna, E & Strite, M 2002, ‘Toward a theory-based measurement of culture’, Journal of Global Information Management, January-March, pp.13-23. Sun, S 2008, ‘Organizational culture and its trends’, International Journal of Business and Management, vol.3, no.12, pp.137-141. Thompson, JD 1967, Organizations in action, NY: McGraw-Hill. Trice, HM & Beyer, JM 1993, The culture of work organizations, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Webster, J & Trevino, LK 1995, ‘Rational and social theories as complementary explanations of communication media choices: Two policy capturing studies’, Academy of Management Journal, vol.38, pp.1544-1572. Weick, KE 1985, ‘The significance of corporate culture’, in PJ Frost (ed), Organizational culture, Beverly Hills: Sage, pp.381-389. Wilkins, AL & Ouchi, WG 1983, ‘Efficient cultures: Exploring the relationship between culture and organizational performance’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol.28, pp.468-481. Read More