To What Extent Is It Possible to Manage Organizational Culture - Coursework Example

To what extent is it possible to manage organizational culture? Comparing the mainstream understanding to organizational culture with the critical understanding or organizational culture, in relation to culture management in a public sector organization. Introduction Can an organization manage its culture? To evaluate whether this is possible we must first highlight the key aspects that culture has and what it means for an organization. It will then be possible to examine the two important areas; the mainstream approach to culture and the critical approach to culture. For example a theory that the mainstream approach uses it that culture is ‘something that an organization has’ (Knights and Willmott, 2007). Whereas, the critical theories believe that culture is ‘something that an organization ‘is’’ (Knights and Willmott, 2007). From discussing both of these areas, it will then be possible to distinguish whether the organization we have chosen uses particular culture theories to manipulate their culture. Background on organization The public sector organization that we have chosen is the National Health Service (NHS). The NHS was created in 1948 and the idea of it was that all health services that are required will be ‘available to all and financed entirely from taxation’ (Department of Health, 2012). This meant it brought services such as doctors, dentists and pharmacists into one organization. The organization is unique as it is the main source of health care for people in the UK; therefore it does dominate the health care market and has very few competitors. These key aspects of the NHS determine the culture that runs through it. Even though the NHS is fragmented into different areas such as hospitals, primary care trusts and GP surgery’s, the culture of the NHS in general is consistently bureaucratic. However, has the NHS controlled or managed its organizational culture since its creation? Organizational Culture Organizational Culture became a main point of discussion in the 1970’s ‘as a result of a series of challenges facing the western management’ (Knights and Willmott, 2007). These challenges included; a decline in religious beliefs, innovative production methods and the ‘Japanese miracle’ as stated by Knights and Willmott (2007). A decline in religious beliefs was a result of alienation of modern society, therefore an individual’s work was seen their identity. Innovative production methods required organizations to have a great commitment and flexibility from their employees. This is because more efficient methods where being used such as ‘just-in-time’. Finally the ‘Japanese miracle’ saw the economic power that Japan had after the Second World War. These three factors all impacted organizational culture as the workplace became more significant in the lives of the individuals. Edgar Schein defines cultural as ‘the deeper level of basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an organization, that operate unconsciously, and that define in a basic, “taken-for-granted” fashion, an organization’s view of itself and its environment’ (Fulop and Linstead, 1999). Schein recognised that there were three levels of culture. These levels were artifacts, values and assumptions. Artifacts are visible structures such as the organizations buildings and the office layout, the values are not visible but take the form of the organizations strategies and goals, lastly the assumptions are the beliefs and perceptions taken from the unconscious of the employees in an organization. Mainstream Approach Organization culture is fundamental to management theorists. The change of culture means shifting the organization standards, the images and values, which appraise actions, while this modern way of indulgence in organizational life must be brought into the management process. In order to manage culture, a number of central aspects of culture need to be addressed. Firstly, culture is an elusive element, which involves social expectations and standards. These are the values and believe that the people who are central to the organization bind them together. Secondly, the organization should realize that culture is asset of material elements or artefacts. This include the signs and symbols that the organization which distinguishes one organization from another. Moreover, they include the events, behaviours and the people who embody the organization culture (Bate, 1994). In addition, the organization should realize that the medium of culture in an organization is the social interaction. This creates the web of communication, which make up an organization community. It is particularly important to share a common language, which expresses and signals a distinctive organizational culture. This culture is in line with the company’s strategic management objectives (Collins & Porras, 1994). Some arguments such as the Deal and Kennedy of 1982 argue that culture is the single most important aspect that constitutes an organization failure or success. In their argument, they argued that there are four key dimensions of organization culture, one of which is value. They mean that value is the beliefs, which lie in the midst of the organization culture. Secondly, they identified heroes as people who embody those values (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). The third element is the rites and rituals in which they argued that the routines of interaction have strong symbolic qualities which an organization needs to uphold if its organization culture is going to be manageable. Lastly, they identified that the cultural network needs to be maintained. Cultural network is the information communication system or the hidden hierarchy of power in an organization. These factors are vital if the organizational culture is going to be maintained in any operational firm (Davis, 1985). Another argument hints to the importance of psychological theory. They argue that this forms the link between the organization culture and business performance. Culture can be looked upon as a reward of work. It is more to the sacrifice in which the employs have put in order for the organization to achieve the present status (Handy, 1993). Moreover, in another argument by handy in 1993, he refers to the management of culture as a paradox that is implicit in linking culture with change. He argues that culture has essentially traditional and stable qualities. This argument mainly focuses on the management of the organization culture, which aims to bring success to the organization (Gordon, 1991). Organization culture can be managed to create change. For real change to occur in organizations, it has to be on the cultural level. Organization culture has many influential attractions as a measure for change and therefore, a great extent should be made to achieve this. Primarily, organizational culture can be explicitly created (Linstead, & Grafton-Small, 1992). The organization has to be mindful of what it takes to change an existing culture. This means that the aptitude of enterprises to be culturally innovative is connected to management and top administration must be liable for building robust cultures (Trompenaars, 1993). In another argument, Shelby notices that there are four focal point of consideration in an organization culture. They include the proficiency, the management, the subordinate staffs or employees, and the team leader (Sveiby, 1997). He notes that this element has to be put in the mainstream approach consideration for organization culture to function effectively. Shelby’s clarifies that professionals are dedicated to their duties. They are keen on solving inconveniences and do not like to manage people. This makes it difficult to manage the organization culture. In contrast, he presents managers as people who are capable of and enjoy managing and organizing people. In another argument by Fong and Choi, they depict an organization with less concern on for its culture as one that is bound to fail. They both agree that managers are supposed to provide the professionals with better working conditions in order to enhance organization culture. NHS is characterized by a mainstream organizational culture in its operations. According to the realms of mainstream organizational culture, NHS has a management structure that controls all the functions of the organization. The government will, every now and then, introduce new policies to NHS in the efforts of making it a better organization as well as making it match the needs of modern society. A good example is the healthcare reforms initiative that the government implemented. Due to the mainstream approach to organizational culture that characterizes NHS, the government was solely responsible for managing the organizational culture from top management to the base level. It can be posited that the recent changes that have been recorded in NHS after implementation of healthcare policy are a good measure of possibilities of managing organizational culture (Doherty, 2009). Limitations to Mainstream Approach Mainstream approach has its advantages and disadvantages. Mainstream is a strong tool for boosting the performance of any organization. However, strong culture may work against the organization ((Fulop and Linstead, 1999). The issue is even more pronounced when top leadership is primarily responsible for creating and nurturing organizational culture. The decisions made at top level are responsible for the organizational culture and therefore, poor decision making at higher levels of management means that the organizational culture will also be poor. Additionally, mainstream approach may hinder creativity especially in cases where culture is generated and disseminated from a central point. Other personnel may not have a chance to influence the organizational culture positively (Knights and Willmott, 2007). Most notably, mainstream approach has a tendency of emphasizing on one cultural factor that is believed to be the key to organizational performance. Therefore, there are possibilities that the organization may not reap the benefits of diversity. For instance, NHS uses the mainstream approach in its operations. Whereas NHS approach has enabled it to establish autonomy as a health care provision infrastructure, the single-minded approach cultivated by the mainstream approach to organizational culture makes the organization to fall short of success when healthcare demands change (Department of Health, 2012; Fulop et al., 2004). For organization culture to be managed effectively and efficiently, all this factors has to be taken into consideration. We can learn that the organization culture is a delicate process, which changes with the organization and its employees. Changing the employees or the senior management means that the organization culture will be altered. Critical Approach to Organizational Culture The critical approach to organizational culture views organizational culture as “something an organization is.” In this context, organization comprises of structures that can be combined together to make an identifiable culture. Ideally, critical approach is a contrast to the mainstream approach in that mainstream approach sees culture “as something an organization has” whereas critical approach sees “organizational culture as something an organization is.” Therefore, there is a tendency of looking at the organization as an ultimate “thing” that cannot be changed (Hatch, 2006; Morgan, 2006). Managing an organizational culture where critical approach is prevalent is quite a challenge for the top management. This is because the organization is seen as a conglomerate of subcultures, which makes up the organizational culture. Managing organizational culture at this instance becomes even more difficult considering that the subcultures have a far-reaching influence outside the organization. It would therefore be difficult to instill a new culture into the organization without resistance, at least from a section of the subcultures that may not necessarily agree with the new organizational culture (Knights and Willmott, 2007). Whereas it is difficult to manage all the subcultures due to their entrenched norms and values, it may be possible for the management to handle each subculture at a time especially considering that subcultures have no absolute power (Hatch, 2006). Considering the organization consists of many of such subcultures then, it is true that managing such an organizational culture may take considerable time but it is at least possible. Sadly, these subcultures, according to Morgan (2006), may have values and norms that may jeopardize the ultimate goals of the organization. For instance, the reforms intended for NHS by the government did not go so well with nurses and other medical practitioners especially considering that NHS consists of subcultures that make it have a critical approach type of organization structure (Doherty, 2009). Whereas the government intended to introduce new system of norms and values with intent of changing the culture, nurses felt dispirited by the government’s initiative since it interfered with their natural way of handling patients. A similar resistance effect is felt, according to Fulop et al (2004), when organizations seek to merge two or more systems thereby creating an atmosphere of cultural chaos. References Hatch, M. (2006) Organization theory, second edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pages 175-219 Knights, D. and Willmott, H (eds.) (2007) Introducing Organizational Behaviour and Management, London: Thomson Learning. Pages 362-374 Morgan, G. (2006) Images of organization, updated edition: Sage publications. Pages 125-134 Doherty, C (2009) ‘A qualitative study of health service reform on nurses’ working lives: Learning from the UK National Health Service (NHS)’, International Journal of Nursing Studies 46: 1134-1142 Fulop, N. et al. (2004) ‘Changing organizations: a study of the context and processes of mergers of health care providers in England’, Social Science & Medicine 60: 119-130 Fong, P and Choi, S 1997, the processes of knowledge management in professional services firms in the construction industry: a critical assessment of both theory and practice 1997, Viewed 6 March 2012 Hasanali, F 2002, Critical Success Factors of Knowledge Management 2002, Viewed 6 March 2012, Sveiby, K 1997, Manage knowledge workers 1997, Viewed 6 March 2012 Sveiby, K 2001, A Knowledge-based Theory of the Firm 2001, Viewed 6 March 2012 < http://www.sveiby.com/articles/knowledgetheoryoffirm.htm> Bate, S 1994, Strategies for Cultural Change, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford. Collins, J & Porras, J 1994, Built to Last, Century, London. Deal, T & Kennedy, A 1982, Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life, Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts. Davis, T 1985, Managing Culture at the Bottom in gaining Control of the Corporate Culture, Handy, C 1993, Understanding Organizations, Penguin, London. Gordon, G. 1991, Industry Determinants of Organizational Culture, Academy of Management Linstead, S & Grafton-Small, R 1992, On Reading Organizational Culture, Organization Trompenaars, F 1993, Riding the Waves of Culture, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London. Read More