Organizational culture is a new construct in organizational psychology, which is meant to explain organizational behavior. Until today, there is no consensus in defining culture. For almost twenty years, researchers from various scientific disciplines have been trying to answer to a seemingly easy question "what is organizational culture?" Organization in general exists because of its people and their interactions. These interactions are based on set of rules that are social in nature and tend to influence the employees in their performance of organization related activities. Scholars assert that people with their sets of values contribute to the organizational values. Traditions, norms and culture from employees pool in and integrate with organizational values so that they become a new set of values and culture. Over the years, scholars observed that a tendency to replicate certain cultures exists in organizations, which benefits the nature of their business and the environment they want to breed. Depending on the kinds of products and services they offer as well as the values they want to pursue, organizations develop certain construct to suit their purpose. They implement these cultures to not only appeal to the employees but also to the stakeholders. Thus, the choice of organizational culture is a careful deliberation with business and social objectives in mind (Susanj 2005).
Definitions of culture primarily refer either to the way people behave or to the way they think. Culture is defined as "a way how we work" or "a way how we think". According to one of the simplest definitions, culture is a series of values, norms and convictions. Some researchers consider culture as a group of symbols, ceremonies and myths, which communicate values and beliefs of an organization to employees. Others simply define culture as philosophy, which aims at organizational politics towards an employee or a customer.
Some other authors define culture in both terms of thought and behavior. Therefore, culture signifies common beliefs, values and forms of behavior, which exist within an
organization. Organizational culture refers to a larger number of specific elements: common business philosophy, common values, specific customs and rituals and also clear, although informal, directions of communication.
Hofstede (1991), according to analogy of the way computers are programmed, defines culture as a "collective programming of consciousness, which distinguish members of one organization from another". The culture of an organization is made of thought, feelings and activities, which Hofstede calls metal programs. From this Hofstede derives subheading of his second book about organizational culture, which is called "Software of the Mind".
Some definitions stress normative function of the culture. One of the early ones defines culture as forms of values, ideas and other symbolic systems, which shape behavior. Culture is also defined as values, beliefs and expectations, which were shown to be shared by the members of an organization. Culture is also seen as a system of social control, which is based on norms or expectations about which attitudes and behaviors are suitable in an organization, and which are not.
From the above examples of definitions, it is clear that organizational culture is not a clear and precise concept. Although we could say that cognitive perspective dominates its characterization, definitions differ according to the use of central concept. The concept varies from ideology, coherent group of beliefs, common thought, and basic presumptions, and common beliefs, group of basic values, important understandings, and collective wishes to collective programming of consciousness. Although valuable efforts to find common and key characteristics of culture definitions exist, we can conclude that in this stage of theological development, it is unclear, which of the stated terms best introduces culture. Instead of choosing one or some of these definitions, it seems more justifiable to explain reasons for such similarities.
Reasons for unequal defining of organizational culture can be accredited also to the historical development of culture within different scientific disciplines, first of all anthropology, and then sociology and psychology. Although there are alternative classifications, one given by Smircich (1983) introduces the widest accepted and the most quoted review of fundamental scholastic opinions in the field of organizational culture. However, Smircich limits her views in comparison with classical schools of opinions about culture, which originates from anthropology and its corresponding approaches in organizational theory and investigations. She identified five approaches to understanding culture.
Two approaches, which in ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Reasons for unequal defining of organizational culture can be accredited also to the historical development of culture within different scientific disciplines, first of all anthropology, and then sociology and psychology. Although there are alternative classifications, one given by Smircich (1983) introduces the widest accepted and the most quoted review of fundamental scholastic opinions in the field of organizational culture. However, Smircich limits her views in comparison with classical schools of opinions about culture, which originates from anthropology and its corresponding approaches in organizational theory and investigations. She identified five approaches to understanding culture.
Two approaches, which in anthropology represent classic functional tradition, treat culture as a variable. One of them treats culture as an independent and external variable. In anthropology this refers to viewing culture as an instrument, which is used by fundamental needs of human communities, and corresponding view in organizational theory is best introduced by classical school of management where organizations are treated as social instruments whose goal is to execute assignments (Smircich 1983). Cross-cultural organizational researches (for example, Hofstede) are based on this theoretical presumption. External perspective of culture aims attention at work and organizational values, beliefs and predispositions of individuals, who make an organization, and which are developed outside of organizational context. Culture is, therefore, independent variable, "bind" in an organization from outside, and by its members.
Second approach treats culture as an internal and dependent variable, which comes from the awareness that organizations produce their own culture. In anthropology this concept of culture is materialized as an adaptive-regulative mechanism, which means that culture regulates interaction between members and combines individuals in social structures. This is
according to systematic theory (Smircich 1983), or according to contingent perspective in organizational theory and researches. According to this theory, members of an organization learn through work experience and adapt to environmental conditions in order to secure their survival.
Generally, organizational culture is defined as a cognitive framework consisting of attitudes, values, behavioral norms, and expectations shared by organization members. The above mentioned components enumerate on the fact that organizational culture is dynamic and it has to be shared by all those involved in the organization. This mandatory aspect of organizational culture helps it influence the activation of different processes within the organization for its survival and success. Processes such as planning, decision making, control and employees.
Another aspect and integral to the development of organizational culture is the collectivity of the members of an organization. Hofstede (1991) and Schein (1999) are of the opinions that the basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an organization tend to be based on the values of its people and their unconscious accepted behaviors. Furthermore it has also been concluded by researchers that organizational culture is not a one time procedure that can be implemented without future consideration. In fact, it has layers of values from different people built over a long period of time so that the substance that comprise of organizational culture are basically the ideologies and beliefs of the people inhibiting it. Scholars describe as follows: "Values have been described as, "broad, nonspecific feelings of good and evil, beautiful and ugly, normal and abnormal, rational and irrational" (Hofstede 1991). Further, values have been characterized as a perception of how things "should be" around here, versus how things are (Hofstede 1991). Organizational members' words have been used in prior studies as measures of
organizational culture based upon the belief that language and verbal responses are an appropriate means of identifying organizational culture and values.
These individuals are often corporate executives or those involved in the decision making. But it must also be noted that the integration or formation of organizational culture is not possible without leadership and people influence. Hence, it can be said that the culture of an organization is the values that are set by groups within the organization based on their ethnic background, individual values, accepted norms and culture developed over the years. In this context culture can be defined as: "... a pattern of basic assumptions invented, discovered, or developed by a group and taught to new members of that group as the correct way to behave" (Schein 1999). More clearly Schein re-defines organizational culture as: A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (Schein 1991).
This definition though restrictive and generalized it however offers various dimensions for exploration. According to the Smircich (1983):
"Culture may be viewed as an external variable that comes to the organization from outside. From this perspective, the organization tends to reflect the beliefs, values, and attitudes of its customers, suppliers, and/or competitors. As an internal variable, organizational culture is a social reality that is formed by the unique transactions of the participants within the organization, which may or may not reflect the external culture. Culture may be viewed as a root metaphor. In this view, organizational culture is no longer a variable, but rather an extension of psychodynamic processes of organization members" (Smircich 1983).
Smircich view opens up new perspectives on organizational culture and its impact on the organization and its stakeholders. Clearly, organizational does not involve a small group of people but rather a large one. It comprise of broad sets of variables that are both internal and external. Internal variables as discussed earlier greatly influence the way organization operate and carry out its production activities for achieving desired outputs, whereas external activities deal with the public. These external variables may be indirectly related or directly related. In either case, the organizational culture helps establish relationships and also helps in categorizing how organizations carry out their transactions. This view implies that organizational culture is no only necessary for executives and workers alone, but also for those linked with the organizations in making it a success. Thus, organizational culture is the emergent result of the continuing negotiations about values, meanings and proprieties between the members of that organization and with its environment. Consequently, one can infer that different organizations adopt differently to suit their infrastructure and at times a culture is planned and developed, not necessarily based on any fixed model but rather a combination of a few (Smircich 1983).
Given these views of culture, any research or analysis of culture must be based upon these questions posed by Wilkins & Patterson (1985):
"Where do we need to be going strategically as an organization?
Where are we now as a culture?
What are the gaps between where we are as a culture and where we should be?
What is our plan of action to close those gaps?" (Susanj 2005)
The HP Case
To enumerate the researcher takes the case of HP a computer manufacturing company. HP has been in the business since 1957. With the emergence of globalization the organization also expanded and concentrated on small business units spread out across the world. The management assigned divisional operations to the managers of these units and made them responsible for tailoring products and sells them according to the needs of the local markets. This formed the HP vision. As HP grew its culture also changed. By the 1990s HP the exponential growth also bred problems within the organization and outside. Questions of dynamicism, employee values, attitudes and innovations as well as approach of change cropped up which the management needed to address for HP's growth. The centralized organizational structure further did not complement the management's orthodox style. For this reason those old workers felt secured in their jobs while the new employees felt threatened by the older employees (Gratton 1999).
From the above case one can observe that the organizational dynamics include network based as well as there is a need for building a collaborative vision that would uphold the organization's new and existing values. There seems to be a discrepancy in the management model that eventually would discriminate the management from the workers creating a gap in communication as well as attitudes, behaviors, values and their approach to the ongoing changing business environment.
To resolve the researcher is of the opinion that HP should adopt a culture that would enable it to achieve its vision and mission in the short and long term. As Susanj (2005) writes "culture is the result of all the daily conversations and negotiations between the members of an organization. They are continually agreeing (sometimes explicitly, usually
tacitly) about the 'proper' way to do things and how to make meanings about the events of the world around them."
Thus the first step should be to develop a vision that combines the factors for organizational success as well as presents the values of its people. This should include reward structure, communication patterns both formal and informal, acceptable behavioral norms, customs, language and practices. This creation of shared meanings and values should be backed by a common base which is usually in the form of leadership. Schein (1991) and others believe that leadership is the source to transformation of social aspirations and political demands for followers. They tend to recognize their roles and tasks through the imagery of the leader (Goodwin 1999).
Once the shared vision is established, a network should be developed through similar interests. It is easier to establish this kind of network culture within technology organizations due to the informational culture that prevails and consequently the employees and executives alike tend to promote it with the objective to further their own interests. Sometimes for personal reasons while at other times for official reasons such as advertising, campaigning, and communicating of decisions etc. These attributes of network culture would allow HP to effectively communicate with its branches and the people who work there.
Not only this but according to Schein (1991) network culture operates through the network artifact which tends to promote community based learning. Members produce, share ideas, work and plan together. They are also interested in setting agendas, schemes and work related activities with the idea to network and work at the same time. Participants do not feel the burden of work as they are basically merging with their colleagues and enjoy the experience. For this reason, issues like conflict in beliefs, values and affiliations tend to disseminate and in its place new sets of beliefs and values are created to suit the participants.
Schein believes that people working in an organization find ways to communicate to make their work and job easier which is not the case when they exclude themselves from the network. For this reason network cultures breed shared learning and job enhancement through face to face discussions, technology based communications among members and through the grapevine to share internal and external information without having to resort to formal communication such as policies and procedures.
That is not to say that network culture within HP would negate formal communication. In fact it would promote it because network organizations tend to be appreciating additional information that makes employees roles better and if there is any conflict, it can be resolved immediately.
Conclusion
Thus from the above case one can observe that network culture, one of the organizational cultures, proves to be effective for HP because it would complement the organizational dimensions and paradigms. Implementing and developing organizational culture is imperative as Schein (1991) suggests it would help organizations to:
- coordinate and integrate organizational units for improved efficiency;
- promote product and strategic innovation
- process innovation and acceptance of new technologies
- effective management through the entire network of units
- creates workforce diversity
- cross cultural management in a global enterprise
- create facilitation network for support of teamwork
Given the above, organizations need to adopt culture not necessarily based on network culture but choose among the others such as firm culture, board culture, mercenary culture, fragmented culture and communal culture etc.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
. Gratton L., Strategic Human Resource Management: Corporate Rhetoric and Human Reality, 1999.
2. Hofstede G., Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 1991.
3. Schein E. H., The Corporate Culture Survival Guide, 1999.
4. Smircich L., Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis, 1983.
5. Organizational Culture and Business History, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4339/is_3_20/ai_57816040
6. Schein E. H., Organizational Culture and Leadership, http://www.tnellen.com/ted/tc/schein.html
7. Baker, Kathryn A., Organizational Culture, http://www.sc.doe.gov/sc-5/benchmark/Ch%2011%20Organizational%20Culture%2006.08.02.pdf
8. The Climate for Creativity, Innovation and Change, http://www.cpsb.com/resources/downloads/public/Assesing_Climate.pdf
1
