The Concept of Organizational Culture and Leadership - Coursework Example

ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE AND LEADERSHIP First Last Name Name of Institution Date Introduction Schein carefully analyzed the concept of organizational culture and leadership and was able to derive some of the main factors that affect the above named phenomena. We see that he had various approaches to these topics and his concepts are believed to be of great influence in day to day organizational leadership. He was able to breakdown the concepts and explain them bit by bit in a way that is comprehensive to all. He was able to show all the ways in which the organizational culture and leadership manifests itself: Both in the overt ways and the ways that are deemed basic assumptions. The organization culture, as we see in the book by Schein was broken down into levels. These levels were elaborate and expressive ways that could be studied and seen in the human interpretation. We see that the culture was divided into three levels. All in which sought to explain the behavior of a people in a certain community. Organizational culture is the patterns and norms in behavior that are practiced by a specific group of people. Schein was able to break down these behaviors and group them into levels. A level, according to Schein, is “the degree to which the cultural phenomenon is visible to the observer” These levels are; 1. Artifacts 2. Exposed beliefs and values 3. Underlying assumptions I believe that this approach of dividing organizational culture in different levels leads to insights that are useful for today’s organizational leaders. I think that in this way we see that leaders are able to take care of their subjects needs meticulously, knowing exactly where to focus their energies. Discussion The three levels of culture each have tips that are useful for today’s organizational leaders. We see that each level explains the reasons behind a certain behavior noticeable among the people. I will discuss how each level gives insight in leadership for today’s organizational leaders. Artifacts This is the level that is usually at the surface. The level that one sees immediately they are in association with a group of people. It is the phenomena that one sees hears and feels when one approaches a people with different culture: environment; its language; its technology and products; its artistic creations; its style, as embodied in clothing, manners of address, emotional displays, and myths and stories told about the organization; its published lists of values; its observable rituals and ceremonies; and so on (Edgar, 2004, p. 25). Artifacts also feature the processes by which the culture of a people is made routine and the analysis of the culture. This mainly involves the chronological activities and rules that resulted in the adaptation of a certain culture. It also features formal descriptions on the organizational culture of a certain people (Bailyn, 1985, p. 56). This may be in form of charters and other legal documents. Charts that show the organizational culture of the people may also be involved in this level of culture. This level is easy to observe. However, it is very hard to decipher what most of the observable features mean. An example of these is the pyramids in Egypt. It is very easy to see them when you get to the country however it is very difficult for an individual to know the main reason for the presence of this particular architectural design. The reasons can be assumed but the conclusions are often ambiguous. A leader may come into an area with a new culture. In this event, he is able to see the basic ways in which people carry out their day to day activities in an institution or an organization (Ciampa, 1992, p.789). He is able to see the architectural methods of the people in question. These vary from various reasons. It maybe the climate of a region in which a people are based. An example of this is the hot coasts and the cold poles of the world. The architectural designs observed in these two areas are completely different. They are designed to support the climate of the areas respectively. Another cause of difference in architectural design may be the culture of a people. Most of the people that are still strongly tied to the roots of their culture may have a different method of building their homes. An example of these is the “maasai” community in Kenya. They build their houses from animal products and mud. This is the complete opposite of the house seen in modern countries. He is also able to see the way in which the people dress. In most cultures there are various ways in which people dress, some may dress in turbans and robes, others in normal attire in pieces. Others may dress in animal skins as seen in some of the cultures in interior Africa. The mode of dressing is also affected by religion. We see that Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Christians, among others, all dress in diverse ways. Language is also a phenomenon that will be observed at this level of culture (Ciampa, 1992, p.789). The language structures and the way of addressing people also vary from place to place. In the example of a company, the way junior officials address the senior officials may be different. This is also observed in various domestic scenarios. The way children address their parents is different from the way they address their peers. Language may also vary according to the region one is situated. There are regions where the official language is English, others French, others Italian. This will all be observed by an individual who holds a position of leadership in an organization. It all serves to give an individual tips on proper leadership. If a leader fails to observe the culture that is displayed in this level of culture he is bound to face opposition and ultimate failure in his leadership (Deal & Kennedy, 1999, 45). A leader should ensure that he does not try to alter the way of life of the people in his authority. He is also supposed to ensure that he too, is a participant in the culture if the people and if not, he grants the freedom of practice to his subjects. Artifacts layer clearly shows a leader what his people are used to doing. He is able to find out, for example, the way in which his subjects communicate. Communication is the key toward proper governance (Deal & Kennedy, 1999, 45). In case of a language barrier then a leader is unable to come through to the people in his authority. It helps a leader to equip with the required language, be it French, English or Swahili. This way he is able to pass on the requirements and the rule she intends to have in place. A leader is also able to find out the method in which the people address each other. He is able to find the language that workers, say, in a company, easily respond to. Is it command or persuasion? (Deal & Kennedy, 1999, 50) Finding out this is able to foster the appropriate relationship between a leader and those under his authority. In the event that a leader uses the wrong approach to communicate with the people under his authority there may arise a sour relationship between them. In a company scenario, this may cause reduction in production. In severe cases it may lead to strikes and boycotts. In an organization, a coup may also result from this type of sour relationship. It is not only the communication phenomenon that may cause a problem in leadership, the processes that lead to the routine of an organization are also key in ensuring that a leader is able to succeed in his authority. A leader should find out the reason behind the organizational structure of a certain people or organization. For example, there is a reason why Christians go to church on Sunday. They believe this to be day God rested and thus they rest from work and go to their churches to praise God. A leader may be appointed at a Christian based organization and decide to force his workers to work on Sunday. Evidently, this would be faced with scorn and opposition. A leader from observing the artifacts level of culture is able to find out the reasons behind the routine of a people. This thus enables him to work round the given explanation. It not only ensures that subjects are happy but also creates a feeling of harmony between the leadership and those under authority (Deal & Kennedy, 1999, 56). Espoused beliefs and values In all groups and scenarios, there is always what an individual perceives as right or wrong (Edgar, 2004, p. 35) Every individual has a sense of what is right and wrong as opposed to what is already there. Every time there is a new project at hand or a new task to be carried out, the people involved always have an opinion on what will work and what will not work. The first idea that an individual has in such a situation explains what the individual thinks to be right. These ideas and opinions are based on what a person feels as morally wrong and right. It also may depend on what a person feels will work and what will not. (Edgar, 2004, p.30) In an organization scenario, in the event of a problem, an individual who comes up with an idea about how to solve it is considered a leader (Edgar, 2004, p.35) This opinion, as I explained, is usually a result of what the individuals sees fit in terms of feasibility and morality. Once an individual comes up with an idea like this he is considered a leader. This is because they are the only ones with an idea that seems to be a viable solution. However, the solution is not put into place unless the masses agree to the above mentioned proposal. In culture espoused beliefs are shared among majority of the individuals (Denison, 1990, p.56). Most of the norms that are put in place are a result of espoused beliefs. People felt that the best way to avoid diseases is by maintaining hygiene and using water to wash their hands and it was widely agreed upon because it seemed relatable and reasonable (Denison, 1990, p.56). These are some of the things a leader should observe n the event that he is placed at a position of leadership in an institution. A leader is able to mobilize the people into accepting the beliefs that he proposes (Denison, 1990, p.58). In the event that a problem arises in an organization, a leader may come up with a solution that they think may work. However this opinion will just be viewed as what the leader thinks as opposed to what should be done. Unless the leader is able to mobilize the people to accept his or her beliefs the opinion may not become a widely accepted assumption to be applied in case of a recurrent such problem. In this scenario, we see that espoused beliefs become widely accepted as soon as they are validated by society to be functional and feasible. Various organizations have some values and beliefs that were once opinions and as time went by they became assumptions (Denison, 1990, p.59). We see that in most religions there are some values that are widely accepted and practiced. An example is that men should not have long hair while women should have long hair. This is not practiced in all religions. It is only practiced in some. This is simply because it is not written anywhere that men should have short hair while women should have long hair. As we see, this was once proposed by an individual and was spread widely and hence widely spread and affected. This is seen in any institution that has culture. A leader should observe this level of culture. This is the level that makes individuals feel like they are worthy in an institution (England, 1975, p.41). There are the things that individuals feel to be wrong while others may not find wrong. In this scenario, a leader is supposed to create the necessary balance to ensure that none under his authority feel oppressed (England, 1975, p.49). Espoused beliefs and values is a critical level of culture because it depends on what the people feel is right. In case a leader goes contrary to what the `people see is right, he is painted as incompetent. This layer of culture gives a leader guidelines on how to go about his authority. He is able to learn by what to abide in his day to day activities. We also see that this level gives the basis for communal leadership. This level creates the ground for subjects giving their opinions in relation to solving problems. It gives the people mandate to say what they would love to be done. An example of this is in a company (England, 1975, p.47). If there is a poor market for a certain manufactured item or a new service being given, a certain group of workers may suggest that more advertising be practiced for the goods or the services while another group of workers may suggest that the goods or services be taken off the market completely. The above dilemma is upon a leader to solve. The espoused beliefs and values level thus enables the leader to know that use of his own ideas may be catastrophic to his leadership. For this reason a leader may decide to leave the decision on a vote. Democracy in leadership goes hand in hand with the espoused beliefs and values in culture. Democracy is the form of leadership that involves the people in making decisions that affect an organization (England, 1975, p.45). The people mostly accept some rules imposed on them depending on what they believe and what they feel is right. In case a leader takes away this right from the people he may cause rivalry between the people and his government. A leader should ensure that what the people think will work and is morally upright should be put into consideration as he makes decisions affecting them in order to maintain harmony. Basic underlying assumptions Basic underlying assumptions are those beliefs that are taken for granted. This is in that they are so widely accepted and have been repetitively used to solve problems such that they have become a widely accepted truth (Geertz, 1973, p. 90). They are solutions that have been given to a particular problem over and over such that they have become taken for granted. Individuals assume that that is the way things should be. Anyone who acts without this premise is deemed to be doing something wrong. An example of this is in an organization that believes that the preferences of the majority are more important than those of the minority. In the case of decision making, following the choice of the majority will not be seen as unfair because it is a given fact. It is a solution that has continued to work over time. Anyone with a different approach would be seen as inappropriate since the method is assumed to be a basic truth (Geertz, 1973, p. 79). Another example is in the medicine profession. It is inconceivable to do something that would deliberately be detrimental to the health of a patient. It is a basic assumption that a doctor should do everything in their ability to ensure that a patients gets better. In such a scenario the fact that one should ensure that they work to help the patient is taken for granted. It is assumed to be a basic truth and anyone who does contrary to this is declared careless and inappropriate (Geertz, 1973, p. 87). It is also seen as a truth that if a worker closes their eyes at work they are sleeping and slacking at work as opposed to meditating on better ways to improve work (Geertz, 1973, p. 79). If a worker is late it is also automatically assumed that they are slacking as opposed to have been taking time to improve their performance. Not coming to work is taken as an offence as opposed to working at home. These basic underlying assumptions are taken for granted and declared truths. A leader should know when to observe this and when to give it a twist. A leader should know when to make sure that he is not blinded by the basic underlying assumptions. An example is when workers, for example in accompany, do not come to work. A leader should be open-minded towards the reasons behind the absenteeism of the workers. Basic underlying assumptions should not blind him (Hirschhorn, 1988, p. 46). This may result in a leader punishing workers for reasons that were unavoidable to them. A leader should be able to listen to the workers reasons as opposed to making assumptions. If he does not do this, we see workers may become bitter about the authority of the leader that would ultimately result in his failure. A leader should also know the basic assumptions that are practiced in an organization among his people to avoid conflict (Hirschhorn, 1988, p. 54). Basic assumptions enable a leader to relate to the people he governs. This he is not seen to be inappropriate or inconceivable. A leader should ensure that he takes these into consideration. From the above discussion we see that the most basic of all ways that the levels of culture help leaders to practice their leadership is by explaining the reason behind the behavior of a people. The levels of culture help leaders to understand the people they intend to govern. Without this understanding leaders are not able to know what the people expect of them and in what areas to practice their jurisdiction and what areas not to (Hirschhorn, 1988, p. 57). The levels all have specific tips they give leaders that help as they exercise their authority. References Adorno, T., & others (1950). The authoritarian personality.New York: HarperCollins. Allan, J., Fairtlough, G., & Heinzen, B. (2002). The power of the tale.London: Wiley Bailyn, L. (1985). Autonomy in the industrial R&D lab. Human Resource Management, 24,129–146. Ciampa, D. (1992).Total quality: A user’s guide for implementation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1999). The new corporate cultures. New York: Perseus. Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New York: Wiley. England, G. (1975). The manager and his values. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Edgar. H.(2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures.New York: Basic Books. Hirschhorn, L. (1988). The workplace within: Psychodynamics of organizational life.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Read More