Active7 years, 3 months ago

Got a question that you can’t ask on public Stack Overflow? Learn more about sharing private information with Stack Overflow for Teams.

European Scientific Journal November 2014 /SPECIAL/ edition vol.2 ISSN: 1857 - 7881 (Print) eUNDERSTANDING ORGANISATIONAL CULTURESKaren Cacciattolo D.Soc.Sci. (Leic.) 0M.Sc. (Trng 0HRM) (Leic.) 00 University of Malta , MaltaThe paper aims to offer a better understanding of the various types of organisational culture. A brief introduction discusses the two main approaches for analyzing the culture of an organisation and includes the web model of Johnson & Scholes and the definitions of Charles Handy. The paper also presents the various classifications, levels and structures of organisational culture, namely those of Hofstede, Schein, Trompenaars, and Deal & Kennedy. All of these classifications, levels and structures offer an explanation of how an organisational culture works and the various definitions are included to enhance the meaning and how cultures work.Organisational Culture; Power in Organisations; Cultural Dimensions-IntroductionThe interpretive view and the structural view are two main approaches for analysing theculture of an organisation. The interpretive view, which follows the work of Goffman inTrevi-O (2003), implies that culture is shaped and continued through the organisationalenvironment. An example of the interpretive perspective is the work of Johnson and Scholes(1993).On the other hand, the structural view, which follows the work of Weber and Marx inLevine (2006), focuses more on how positions are structured within organisations. Thefocus, which comes from a functionalist/materialist school of thought, in this case is on howrelationships are structured rather than how they are perceived. An example of the structuralperspective is the work of Charles Handy (1993).The work of Peters and Waterman (1982) also falls within the structural school ofthought, and they argue that there is an informal link between culture and performance.Peters and Waterman suggest that decentralised organisations which place individuals at thecentre of attention, and thus training and developing appropriately their employees, are themost successful.The Paradigm represents the purpose of the organisational business, its mission andits values and the Control Systems are the procedures set to control what happens in theorganisation (Johnson 2000:405). Undoubtedly, organisations with a role culture wouldhave a large amount of regulations and there would be more dependence on individualism inorganisations with a power culture.Organisational Structures deal with hierarchies and the way work flows through theorganisation and they are likely to reflect power structures (Johnson 2000:406). PowerStructures deal with the kind of power adopted in an organisation, the persons in charge ofdecision-making and how broadly power is spread in the organisation (Johnson 2000:406).Symbols relate to logos and designs used in an organisation. However, these mayextend to status symbols such as signposting-reserved parking spaces for top executives.Moreover, Gagliardi (1992), as cited in Johnsons (2000) article, argues that these visibleelements influence the way in which employees make sense of events (2000:406).Rituals and Routines refer to automatic repetitive routines such as managementmeetings and board of directors reports (often these may become just a matter of routineonly), and next come the simple decision rules which might be employed consciously(Johnson 2000:416).Finally, Stories are anecdotes made up about employees and actions. These mayreveal what is appreciated in an organisation. Moreover, people in an organisation mayperceive charismatic leaders of the past and individualists as the standard model of behaviour(Johnson 2000:406).All the above culture basics may overlie and power structures may depend on controlmethods, which may take advantage of the habits that create an account. Johnson (2000)postulates that as a model, the cultural web has been widely used for research as an analyticalframework, since it includes practical elements (2000:406).The Structural Approach to CultureCharles Handy and the Four Power StructuresCharles Handys method of looking at culture prompted researchers to use it to linkorganisational structure to culture. Handy identified four types of cultures, namely PowerCulture, Role Culture, Task Culture and Person Culture.According to Handy, Power Culture can be symbolised as a web and it refers tocontrol that is spread out like a network from the centre to the rest of the organisation (Handy1993:184). Power cultures are often found in small entrepreneurial organisations such asproperty, trading and finance companies. When organisations adopt a power culture, rulesand bureaucracies are kept to the minimum. These types of organisations are also political,where decisions are taken mainly upon persuasion rather than on bureaucratic or rationalbasis (Handy 1993:184).Role Culture refers to a highly defined structured organisation in which employeeshave specified delegated authorities and which are offered security and predictability (Handy1993:185). Handy (1993) describes the structure of this type of organisation as a Greektemple since this culture works by logic and rationality (1993:185). Organisations with arole culture put their strengths in their pillars, their roles and areas of expertise. The pillarsoften include the finance department and the purchasing department, and the interactionbetween them is regularly controlled by rules and procedures, which are the major methodsof influence (Handy 1993:185).According to Handy (1993), these type of organisations form hierarchicalbureaucracies, and power is derived from an individuals position and not according to onesexpertise and professionalism. Furthermore, organisations with role cultures are slow inrecognising the need for change, and if the need is recognised, it takes a long time for changeto be implemented (Handy 1993:186).Task Culture, on the other hand, is job oriented and it is present in organisationswhere individuals work as a team and power is derived only from expertise and only whenrequired (Handy 1993:188). Handy (1993) represents this type of organisation as a net inwhich much of the power and influence lies at the interstices of the net (1993:188). Thetask culture puts complete emphasis on getting the job done and hence, this type of culturetries to assemble the suitable resources, the right employees at a suitable rank in theorganisation, and to let them knuckle down (Handy 1993:188). This type of culture is verycompliant, it is the most type in which managers in middle, and first levels like to work.A Person Culture is quite unusual and it reflects organisations in which individualsbelieve to be superior to the organisation they are employed in (Handy 1993:190). A groupof employees who are in accord often follows goals and objectives. Control systems andmanagement hierarchies are not viable in these cultures except by mutual approval. Influenceis mutual and the power-base is usually expert, meaning that individuals do what they aregood at and are paid attention to on apposite matters (Handy 1993:190). Handy (1993)postulates that individuals within this type of culture are difficult to manage, and there is littleinfluence that can be conveyed to tolerate on them (1993:191). This is because alternativeemployment is often easy for them to find due to their specialisations.Handy (1993) argues that each of the above types of cultures may be fine, butsometimes, employees are often inflexible with regards to culture, meaning that they oftenbelieve in the myth that what works well in one organisation may also be successful inanother (1993:183). In addition, Handy (1993) adds that an employee who is successful inone type of culture may not always do well in another (1993:204). Moreover, it is up to theexecutive of the organisation to handle all four cultures, to distinguish and to amalgamatewithin (Handy 1993:216).Classifications of Organisational CulturesOther key figures in organisation culture, starting from the national types of culture ofGeert Hofstede, the deep levels of culture of Edgar Schein, and other types such as those ofDeal and Kennedy, and Fons Trompenaars, all offered various classifications oforganisational cultures. These classifications aid in the understanding of organisations.Furthermore, by understanding a typical organisational culture one may make improvementswhere a dysfunctional culture is identified.Geert Hofstede and the Five Cultural DimensionsGeert Hofstede, who is probably the most important key figure in organisationalculture, established the presence of local and national cultural groups that affectorganisational behaviour. Hofstede also identified five cultural dimensions in his research,namely Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism versus Collectivism,Masculinity versus Femininity and Long versus Short-term Orientation. Thesedimensions offer insights into various cultures so as to have a better understanding of these.Power distance relates to the degree to which a low-status individual accepts andbears out the power and influence of high-status persons (Chhokar et al 2001:83). A highscore on power distance suggests that there is a belief that a number of individuals exertlarger amounts of power than others (Hofstede 2003:35). On the other hand, a low scorereplicates the outlook that all individuals should have equal rights.Uncertainty avoidance replicates the degree to which people accept ambiguity andrisk, and it relates to a culture where individuals are disturbed by change and threats(Chhokar et al 2001:82). A high uncertainty avoidance culture has a tendency to showworrying behaviours about the future, and employees in this type of culture hesitate to changetheir employer (Chhokar et al 2001:82).Individualism versus Collectivism refers to the degree to which individuals areexpected to defend themselves and it describes the manner in which an employee relates tocollectivity (Hofstede 2003: 63). In other words, this dimension relates to the degree towhich personal versus group objectives rule an individuals way of life. Severalindustrialized Western countries have an individualist culture, while the rest of the world,which include almost all developing countries, apply a collectivist culture (Hofstede 2003:63).Hofstede (2003) argues that employees in an organisation with an individualist cultureare expected to perform according to their own interest, and the organisation of tasks shouldcoincide with the employers interest (2003:63). On the other hand, in a collectivist culture,the type of relationship between employees and their organisation is probable to be based oncontractual obligation (Jackson 2001:1272).Masculinity versus Femininity refers to the male and female traditional values, and itrelates to how much assertiveness and material possessions are appreciated in a society inopposition to healthy interpersonal relationships and quality of life style (Chhokar et al2001:83). For example, the accumulations of wealth and material possessions relate more tothe male values and hence to masculine cultures (Handy 1993:196). On the other hand,feminine cultures value strong relationships with superiors and they strongly believe in groupdecision-making (Chhokar et al 2001:83).Long versus Short-term Orientation relates to the significance attached to the futureversus the past and present. In long-term orientation societies, individuals value savings anddetermination, whilst short-term oriented societies respect tradition, nepotism andreciprocation of donations (Chhokar et al 2001: 84).Hofstedes above dimensions signify that there are key differences that instigateindividuals from differing cultures to have differing views. Hofstede (2003) illustrates hisconcern that an increase in the awareness of understanding the cultural environment would bebeneficial (2003:5).The first level deals with artefacts or the physical attributes of an organisation(Williams et al 1993:138). These may include amenities, offices, furniture, rewards andcredits, the dress code, and the visible interaction between employees themselves and otherstakeholders.The second level deals with espoused values or the apparent culture of theorganisations stakeholders (Williams et al 1993:139). This includes the expression of themission statement, strategies, goals, philosophies and the functioning beliefs throughout theorganisation.The third inmost level deals with the organisations implicit hypothesis. These areelements of culture that are not visible and which are unmentionable inside the organisation(Williams et al 1993:140). These may include unspoken rules that employees are notconsciously aware of, but which are deep rooted and may provide an explanation tounderstanding why things take place in a particular way.According to De Jonge (2006), surveys and interviews with employees are not enoughto draw out these attributes, and other more in-depth means may be required, such asrepetitive clinical sessions similar to a therapeutic rapport between a psychologist and apatient. Moreover, this level is the basic dynamic element of organisational culture that isoften overlooked by organisational behaviourists.Fons Trompenaars and the Four Corporate CulturesTrompenaars (1993) argues that the culture of a company includes the models andstandards that influence how employees act, and the organisations cultural setting isreflected by the corporate culture that a company adopts (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner2003:158). Trompenaars identified four ideal types of corporate culture: The family, TheEiffel Tower, The guided missile and The incubator. All four types suggest the differenttypes of interactions that are present between employees and their organisation.The family culture is a power-based oriented culture that focuses on people and isbased on hierarchies (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 2003:158). In this type of culture, apowerful father-figure type of head leads employees. Promotions in this type of organisationare given according to seniority and employees have a long-term relationship to theorganisation, meaning that they are completely committed to the organisation and their seniorcolleagues.The Eiffel Tower culture is a task-oriented culture based on hierarchies as well.Organisations adopt a rigid division of labour and specific job descriptions. Trompenaars &Hampden-Turner (2003) postulate that similar to the Eiffel Tower of Paris, these types oforganisations give more importance to their structures than the purpose of the business(2003:166).The guided missile culture is driven by tasks where the objectives are mostlycherished, but it is not based on hierarchies (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 2003:172).Employees here are expected to perform all that is required to achieve the companys goalsand objectives, even though roles are not set in advance as in the Eiffel Tower type of culture.The incubator culture values employee development. Organisations with anincubator culture have little structure and the minimum of hierarchies (Trompenaars &Hampden-Turner 2003:172). Employees demand authority only if their ideas are motivatingand innovative.Trompenaars (1993) argues that in reality, the four types of culture do not exist inisolation. This means that more than one type of culture may exist in an organisation. It maybe suggested that in order for a business to be successful, an organisation ought to choose thepositive basics of Trompenaars four types of cultures.Deal and Kennedys Four Generic Cultural TypesDeal and Kennedy (2000) measured organisations in respect of feedback and risk(2000:12), and they used these factors in order to suggest four classifications of culture: TheTough-Guy Macho Culture, The Work Hard/Play Hard Culture, The Bet your CompanyCulture and The Process Culture.The tough-guy is a macho culture in which employees often take high risks and obtainfast feedback on their actions (Deal & Kennedy 2000:12). Rewards in this type of culturemay be high even though it may be quite demanding to work within. An example oforganisations with tough-guy cultures may be stockbrokers, due to their hectic monetarydeeds.The work hard/play hard culture represents sales organisations, which do their utmostfor high quality customer service and employees, take few risks but receive fast feedback.Employees operating in this type of culture are required to be highly active and positive mostof the time (Deal & Kennedy 2000:13).In a bet-your-company organisational culture big stakes decisions are taken butresults, and whether the decisions were right or wrong, are known after a very long period ofyears (Deal & Kennedy 2000:13). Typical organisations may include development andconstruction businesses where the end result comes after a number of years.The process culture reflects organisations that take no risks, there is very littlefeedback and employees are more concerned with how the work is done rather than what isthe end result (Deal & Kennedy 2000:14). Organisations in the public service adopt this kindof culture, where high bureaucracy and red tape are present.Similar to Trompenaars, Deal & Kennedy (2000) argue that no organisationcorresponds specifically to any one type of culture and, hence a combination of all four mayexist (2000:14). In addition, Deal & Kennedy (2000) postulate that organisations with strongcultures, artfully blend the essential positive characteristics of all four types and shape themup in a manner that guarantees top performance (2000:15).Final ObservationsVarious writers express scepticism about the functionalist and unitarist views ofculture offered by the key figures mentioned previously (Williams et al 1993:12), especiallythe ones offered by Hofstede. Hofstedes dimensions have been criticised for the fact that hisviews do not cover diversity within national cultures, and he proposes less of a role forpeople in developing cultures. Moreover, there may be a touch of bias since Hofstede is aEuropean and most other theorists are American.In practice, an organisational culture is not completely homogeneous (Williams et al1993:23). This means that no organisation adopts a single type of culture and complexorganisations might have sub-cultures that overlap and disagree with each other.Trompenaars and Deal & Kennedy agree with this fact. Handy illustrated the fact thatemployees who are successful in an organisation with a particular culture, may not be so inanother, whereas Schein defined culture as an entity which is nearly impossible to measure,study or change.Chhokar , J. et al ( 2001 ) The Impact of Culture on Equity Sensitivity Perceptions and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: A Five-Country Study . International Journal of Value-Based Management , 14 ( 1 ), pp. 79 - 98 .Clark , W. ( 2002 ) People Whose Ideas Influence Organisational Work, Kent-UK .De Jonge , J. H. M. ( 2006 ) Three Levels of Culture (Schein) . 12manage B.V. -The Netherlands [online]. Available: http://www.12manage. com/methods_schein_three_levels_culture.html [ 2014 , July 17].Deal , T. E. & Kennedy , A. A. ( 2000 ) The New Corporate Cultures: Revitalizing the workplace after downsizing, mergers and reengineering , London-UK, TEXERE Publishing Limited.Hampden-Turner , C. ( 1990 ) Creating Corporate Culture: From Discord to Harmony , Massachusetts-USA, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Handy , C. ( 1993 ) Understanding Organizations, London-UK, Penguin Books Ltd, 4th Edition.Hofstede , G. ( 2003 ) Cultures and Organisations: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival: Software of the Mind , London-UK, Profile Books Ltd.Jackson , T. ( 2001 ) Cultural values and management ethics: A 10-nation study . Human Relations , 54 ( 10 ), pp. 1267 - 1302 .Johnson , G. and K. Scholes ( 1993 ) Exploring corporate strategy - Text and Cases, Hemel Hempstead : Prentice-Hall.Johnson , G. ( 2000 ) Strategy through a Cultural Lens: Learning from Managers' Experience .Management Learning , 31 ( 4 ), pp. 403 - 426 .Levine , R. F. ( 2006 ) Social Class and Stratification: Classic Statements and Theoretical Debates , Rowman & Littlefield.Peters , T. J. & Waterman , R. H. ( 1982 ) In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best -Run Companies, New York: Warner Books , pp. 223 - 24 , 286 .Trevi-O , A. J. ( 2003 ) Goffman's Legacy , Rowman & Littlefield.Trompenaars , F. ( 1993 ). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business . London, UK: Economist Books.Trompenaars , F. & Hampden-Turner , C. ( 2003 ) Riding The Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business , London-UK, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2nd Edition.Williamson , A. et al ( 1993 ) Changing Culture: New organisational approaches , LondonUK, Institute of Personnel Management , 2nd Edition.