Corporate Culture - Literature review Example

Organizational culture Name Course Tutor Date Organizational culture With the quick expansion of economy and technology advancement, individuals from various parts of the globe have been regularly created close connections with one another. The technology has increased communication and connections with people from different cultural diversity and backgrounds (Denison, Haaland & Goelzer, 2004, p.105). Similarly companies have come up with a way of making maximum profit. In that case companies are opening their branches in many other countries. Thus, the organizational cultures of different countries become an important matter which managers must strongly take into consideration since the organizational cultures are cannot be similar with that of another country (O'Donovan, 2006). With this realization, this essay seeks to define what organizational culture is, analyze Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner perspective on organizational culture and use 5 ‘value’ dimensions by Geert Hofstede to explain how cultural differences work. To analyze organizational culture deeply the discussion will assess Goffee and Jones’ two concepts and their four resulting mixes in determining who maintain an organization’s culture. Lastly the essay will contextualize Schein’s three levels of observable culture. Ravasi & Schultz (2006, p.449) define organizational culture as a collection of shared mental suppositions that steer action and interpretation in an organization by identifying suitable behavior for different situations. Culture comprises of the business values, norms, and visions, systems, working language, symbols, habits and beliefs. It is can also be regarded as the pattern of a set of suppositions and behaviors which are demonstrated to new members of an organization as a way of thinking, perceiving and feeling (O'Donovan, 2006). Each progressing organization has its own defined culture. It expresses the attitudes, psychology, and the methods of doing things as well as both cultural and personal value. Sopow (2007) argues that fundamentally, organizational culture is considered the organization’s personality. The idea concerning the features of organization, culture and general setting was initially confused with organizational climate in the 1960s and 1970s (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006, p.445). The two terms may look similar but was established to be different and somewhat overlapping. Various theorists have cooperated and researched on organizational culture and given their perspective on how it is used by different managers to lead or manage their organizations. Some of these theorists include Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, Geert Hofstede, Goffee and Jones’ among others (Hartnell, Ou & Kinicki, 2011). Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner developed a model which viewed culture in seven dimensions. In the book ‘Riding The Waves of Culture’ (1997) they categorize cultures as a mix of value and behavioral patterns. Their study revolved around business managers and cultural dimensions (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997). Some of these dimensions are almost similar to Hofstedes dimensions while some are total different. The seven value dimensions determined consisted of Universalism versus particularism, communitarianism versus individualism, neutral versus emotional, defuse versus specific cultures, achievement versus ascription, human-Time relationship and human-nature relationship (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997). Universalism vs. particularism portrays how individuals critic behavior of other people. This is where a person comes to an organization and judge the behavior of their work mates without taking much time to know them. The Universalist connects great significance to the observance of regulations. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner believe that in a rule-based organization there must be definite absolutes which everyone has to follow; and this where rules comes in (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997). Universalism concept supposes that when rules are set in an organization, they apply despite the events or certain situations. Black (2003) states that rules made are universal and apply to everybody regardless of the race, religion and ethnic background in the organization. Therefore, when contracts are employed with regard to doing business, laws within the contact is employed to establish what is right hence contracts should never be changed. On the other hand Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner believe that using Particularism in an organizational setting is equally important. This is because Particularism is based on making relationships (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997). For an organization to coordinate well employees must create some form of relationship with one another which also extend to the top management. Based on the friendship or relationships individuals can establish what ethically acceptable (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997). In that manner ethically acceptable business deals can be made based on these friendships. It is also notable that agreements can be altered because individuals hold different opinions concerning reality. Individualism vs. collectivism dimension and homonymous dimension that is fronted by Hofstede is almost similar. Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner (1997) explains individualistic culture as a way of a modernizing society (organization), whilst collectivism may happen in a modern society when looking at popularism and mass media control. Individualism creates a culture where every person at times has to take responsibility an individual. This starts with a top management. The board most of the time make decision that is binding and everybody has to follow. However, there are situations where the CEO is called upon to make a final decision on very important matters pertaining leadership (Denison, Haaland & Goelzer, 2004, p.103). Similar to CEO’s individual decision, employees sometimes are required to make personal decision regarding individual assignments. Denison, Haaland & Goelzer (2004, p. 106) state that a culture that promotes individual decisions promotes personal growth and experience. On the other hand, the concept of collectivism is attributed by the word “we” (Hartnell, Ou & Kinicki, 2011). In this regard, organization is view as a collection of people. Even though they have different cultures, they have to make decisions and work in a manner that promotes cohesion (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997). Hence, the company has the board that makes decisions that bind. To make organizational culture to work properly, managers use the concept of collectivism to set up groups and assign them duties. In an organization where there is neutral culture individuals do not carry with them their personal feelings but control them and deal with them cautiously (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997). This culture can actually help individuals to act with decorum even if they don’t like certain decisions made by their bosses. The problem with culture is that it can be viewed dictatorship because do not express their opinions openly. Once in a while employees may show displeasure. On the contrary, in a culture where employees are emotionally high they show their feelings openly (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997). In this kind of organization displeasure can be seen on their faces. In a nutshell find instant vents for their emotions. This can normally send a statement that can actually be read by the managers. Another cultural dimension established by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner is the Specific vs. diffuse. In this dimension employees show commitment or concern at various levels. Another attribute of this culture is that the employee is direct on issue, straight to the point and hold moral position independent of an individual they are addressing (House.et.al, 2004). In diffuse-based culture individuals talk about both their work and family matters but closely. A diffuse-cultured individual is much more reserved in public but very open while in private (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997). Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner describe achievement vs. ascription as culture where the organization calculates the status of the employee by considering their capabilities, performance among other issues (achieved status) or calculates the status by considering gender, age, potential, seniority, education among some other ascribed status (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997). In achieved-based cultures a title is applied just when it is related to competence and ability of a person it regards to the task he has done (Trompenaars& Hampden-Turner, 1997). Manager’s respect is related to his skills. In this culture, decision making is confronted on functional and technical grounds. House.et.al (2004) claims that in ascribed-based culture a title is widely applied when it clarifies someone in the organization. Manager’s respect is anchored in hierarchy and seniority. Sequential vs. synchronic dimension deals with how employees who are from different cultures manage organizational time (House.et.al, 2004). Sequential and Synchronic culture requires that the manager to take the appropriate decision as fast as possible i.e. consider time as a sequence or consider that there is a connection between past, present and future hence the manager should take time to arrive at decision (time as synchronization) (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997). In this culture decision may take a lot of time because the managers believe that they should take appropriate decision at appropriate time. Internal vs. external control dimension that deals the attitude towards the environment. Internal control culture view organization as machine that conforms to the will of its managers while external control culture perceives an organization as a product of environment owing its expansion to the things that revolve around (Sopow, 2007). Another theorist that has contributed to the topic of organizational culture is Geert Hofstede (1980-1999). The theorist carried one of the most famous researches about value relates to culture. In his research conducted between 1967 and 1973 on over one million IBM Company employees he found out five value dimensions that influenced culture (Hofstede, 1991). These dimensions comprise of power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, long versus short term orientation (Hofstede, 1991). Hofstede associates culture with regional and ethnic groups as well as profession, organizations, family, society and national political systems among other groups. In his power distance concept Hofstede consider that individuals have various degree of power depending on their status or positions in the organization. Hofstede define power distance as the degree to which the employees who are less powerful accept and expect power to be distributed unequally in an organization (Hofstede, 1991, p. 28). Different organizations have different resolutions to deal with social inequality. Even though unseen, within the organization power inequality of the "boss to subordinates relations" is practical and Hofstede argues that it reflects the manner in which inequality is tackled in the society (Hofstede, 1991). With power distance subordinates will attempt to cut the distance between them and their managers and managers will attempt to maintain or widen it, although there is an extent in which a society supposes there to exist differences in the degree of power. High power distance implies that employees expect that some people exercise more powers than others. A low power distance implies that employees expect that everybody should be treated equally (Hofstede, 1991 p. 28). Uncertainty avoidance deals with how much an employee are keen to go to achieve their goals without undergoing unforeseen challenges. Hofstede (1991 p.110) argues that intense uncertainty results to unbearable anxiety. Every organization has created methods to ease this anxiety. These are the methods that help an organization deal with challenges like technology, laws and different religion among others. Societies that have low uncertainty avoidance, uncertainties are believed to be a typical part of life. The company may have few laws that apply to everyone and are greatly tolerated (Hofstede, 1991, p.106). In organizations having high uncertainty avoidance, uncertainty is regarded to be a threat; there are strict laws which make individual conservative with risks. In an organization, this may create a framework where one ma deal or negotiate with other parties in different cultural backgrounds. Individualism versus collectivism dimension tries to describe the degree to which people associate themselves with social groups in a particular culture. Individualism “reflects a society where relationships between people are considered loose; each person looks after himself” (Hofstede, 1991, p 51). This kind of culture is promoted in the US where capitalism is the style of economy. Collectivism in contrast “relates to a society where people are work together into strong and cohesive in-groups that protect them as they remain loyalty to the group” (Hofstede 1991, p 51). Masculinity vs. femininity dimension reflects whether a given society is largely dominated by male or female in relation to gender roles, cultural values and power relations. Masculinity relates to an organization where gender roles are evidently distinct while femininity relates to an organization where gender roles overlap (Hofstede 1991 p. 82-83). In an organization setting, the masculinity and femininity can influence the human resource strategies. It will also influence the research and development department of an organization since they must to design products which fulfill the masculine or feminine attributes of the society. Hofstede included long-versus short-term orientation dimension following his research on the Buddhist culture in 2001. LTO deal with fostering of virtues that are based towards future rewards particularly thrift and perseverance (Hofstede, 2010, p. 1341). It determines how individuals in a society prefer long-term over short-term. It attempts to describe the level of effort a people in a group are considering forging so as to reap profits in future. Other theorists who have contributed understanding organizational culture are Goffee and Jones. According to Goffee and Jones, an organization culture can be established and understood with regard to 2 concepts and their 4 resultant mixes. Goffee and Jones (2009) argued that culture is basically a ‘community’. Actually, it is the result of how people share knowledge on a particular topic with each other. Societies are built based on common interests and shared responsibilities and prosper on friendships and cooperation (Goffee & Jones, 2009). While conducting sociology of lens, Goffee and Jones analyzed and managed to split society into two unique human relationships dimensions, that is sociability and solidarity. Sociability aspect of culture is where employees view themselves as friends in the organization (Black, 2003; Goffee & Jones, 2009). Therefore, these employees tend to spend a lot of time in sharing thoughts possibly via in person communication in maintain a high degree of unexpressed reciprocity. The advantages of high degree of sociability consist of informal knowledge sharing, high esprit de corps and thinking out of the box (Goffee & Jones, 2009). In contrast, solidarity culture looks at the ability of employees to pursue common goals based on reliability and cooperativeness rapidly and efficiently, despite their personal relationships (Goffee & Jones, 2009) which can be at the interest of the company. Even if the employees do not know one another, a high degree of solidarity will bring the two together to work effectively. The benefits of solidarity culture include a strong degree of reaction to competitive influences and other organizational challenges (Goffee & Jones, 2009). Both sociability and solidarity are plotted against one another so as to relate them to culture. This result to four mixes of culture, these mixes is networked culture, communal culture, fragmented and mercenary culture as shown on Figure 1. A networked culture is considered to have a high level of trust because the employees will be eager to share knowledge provided that they will be offered good reason for that (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Goffee & Jones, 2009). In a communal based culture, the eagerness to share knowledge is integrated with a clear emphasis on what is required. This could be an ideal situation for the creating of teamwork amongst employees. Goffee & Jones (2009) argue that in a mercenary dimension of culture employees concentrate on making sure that duties are carried out, as a way of having utilitarian strategy to knowledge. Hence, this culture focuses on reasonable short-term solutions which create value rather than accumulation of knowledge (O'Donovan, 2006). Lastly, fragmented dimension promotes culture where employees work as individuals. Therefore, organizations integrating cooperation between employees have to share knowledge that will require appealing to the self-centeredness of every worker (Goffee & Jones, 2009). Figure 1: The four mixes resulting from Goffee and Jones’s two concepts Source: Goffee & Jones (2009). Schein on his contribution on organizational culture stated that culture is set of fundamental tacit assumptions concerning the way society ought to be in relation to people, their perceptions, feelings, thoughts and behavior (Schein 1992 p.9). In his analysis of culture Schein designed model which identified three distinctive levels in organizational culture comprising of behaviors and artifacts, espoused values and underlying assumptions (check Figure 2). The three levels means the extent to which various cultural experiences are noticeable to the viewer. Artifacts consists of any tangible, verbally or overt identifiable components in the organization. Sopow (2007) argues that organizational culture defines artifacts in the context of the architecture, dress code, furniture, office jokes. Espoused values in an organization exemplify the stated rules and vales. It is portrays how the employees represent that particular organization at an individual level and to other members of the society (Schein 1992 p.9). An example includes employee’s professionalism. Figure 2: Schein's model on organizational culture In conclusion, the management most understand that in every organization around the world, employees have a different backgrounds and mindset and for them to work together in a harmonized way they must be assigned duties and be supervised by a leader. To minimize supervision and ensure that they deliver good results, the organization has to create a culture that is balanced and promotes performance. The management also have to ensure that all its workers work in unity with no differences and this can only be achieved through a common, workable and clear organizational culture implemented in that organization. References Black, R. (2003). Organizational Culture: Creating the Influence Needed for Strategic Success, London: Springer. Denison, R., Haaland, S. & Goelzer, P. (2004). Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness: Is Asia Different from the Rest of the World? Organizational Dynamics, p. 98–109. Goffee, R. & Jones, G. (2009). What holds the modern company together? Harvard Business Review,74(6), 133-148. Hartnell, CA., Ou, AY., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational Culture and Organizational Effectiveness: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Competing Values Framework's Theoretical Suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology , 96(4), p. 677-694. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill Professional. Hofstede, G. (2010). The GLOBE debate: Back to relevance. Journal of International Business Studies (Sage Publications), 41 (8), 1339–46. House.et.al. (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations. The Globe Study of 62 Societies. United Kingdom: Sage Publications. O'Donovan, G. (2006). The Corporate Culture Handbook: How to Plan, Implement and Measure a Successful Culture Change Programme. London: The Liffey Press. Ravasi, D. & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal. 49(3), pp. 433–458. Shein, E. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sopow, E. (2007). Corporate personality disorder. Lincoln NB: iUniverse. Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C .(1997). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. London: Nicholas Brealey. Read More