Post on 08-Jan-2023
HOW DOES A CULTURE INFLUENCE THE ORGANISATIONS THAT
OPERATE WITHIN IT. HOW IT MAY BE APPLIED TO BUSINESS
PRACTICE.
COURSE CODE A41OC
COURSE TITLE: ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
PROGRAMME : Msc BUSINESS PSYCHOLOGY
HABIBU FATIHU HAMZA
HW PERSON ID: H00144557
SECOND SEMESTER 2012/2013
BIENG A COUSEWORK SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL OF
LIFE SCIENCES IN HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY,DUBAI CAMPUS.
21st MARCH, 2013.
INTRODUCTION.
The organizational culture is the way of life
followed consciously or subconsciously in the day-to-
day activities of the organization (Ashby, 2000).
Martin’s (1992) identified three different perspectives
that provide a more comprehensive examination of
organizational culture as follows (1). The integrated
or unified perspective, (2). The second one is
differentiated perspective, and (3). The third is
called fragmented perspective.
Organizational culture is influence by so many factors
among those that this essay will view are the
management practice of the organization, technological
progress, the national culture, the customs, dominant
personalities of the founder or senior manager, the
community in which it operate
A general understanding of an organization’s
culture is often indicative of successful transition
from newcomer to full member. Most definitions of
culture exist, but most agree that culture includes an
organization’s assumptions, practices, and habits which
reflect the values and beliefs of it is collective
membership.
Although organizational scholar’s argue that
culture is something that organization performs or does
rather than something it has (Pacanowsky and O’Donnell-
Truijillo, 1983), most researchers avoid such
distinctions and simply examine manifestations of
organizational culture (Hofsetede 1997).
MANIFESTATION OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
An organization’s culture is manifested in various
ways including artifacts, individuals, language,
language or stories, norms, and rituals ((Pacanowsky
and O’Donnell-Truijillo, 1983). Each of these
contributes to member’s understanding of organization’s
values.
The organizational culture’s physical
manifestations are typically referred to as artifacts.
This includes objects which communicate organizational
values such as the company logo, historic objects,
buildings and documents. For example, the metallic
lettering with a slanted E in Dell’s corporate symbol
suggests a value of innovation and cutting – edge
technology.
THE PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE.
Martin’s (1992) explicated three different
perspectives that provide a more comprehensive
examination of organizational culture as follows:
a.The first perspective is the integrated or unified
perspective, using this perspective, one examines
areas of consensus and consistency across the
organization. the focus is on values and beliefs that
are embraced by nearly all organizational members.
This perspective looks for umbrella culture that
encompasses all organizational members.
b.The second one is differentiated perspective, which
focuses on inconsistencies across the
organization .the inconsistencies result in subgroups
or subcultures within the umbrella culture. Each
subculture likely has it is own unified culture
(mini-culture) with clarity and consistency within
it, but the various subcultures differ from each
other as a result of different experiences and
interpretations. As a result, there may be conflict
between subcultures.
c.Martin’s third perspective is called fragmented
perspective. This culture is complex and filled with
ambiguities. There is very little consistency or
consensus; when it occurs, it is temporary with a
return to ambiguity and inconsistency. There is no
shared understanding of these parts of the culture.
A study of the formative years of
Microsoft Corporation supports the value of viewing
organizational culture from all the three perspective
(Andrews, and G. L. Peterson, 2000). From an integrated
perspective, there were a number of shared values at
Microsoft at the time. For example, the presence of
multiple and up-to-date technological gadgets in each
office emphasized a value of cutting edge technology
and creative thinking. The lack of clocks and
unassigned parking spaces indicated valuing working
long hours. Those who bought into the dominant
integrated culture considered Microsoft a great place
to work and saw themselves as future millionaires,
while those who were less enamored by it saw it as a
“velvet sweat shop” with “golden handcuffs”. A
fragmented perspective provided a frame for viewing the
issue of speaking to the case-study authors. Current
employees were warned to clear any statements they made
with the corporate communication department. Former
employees were sometimes concerned about negative
consequences from having spoken to the authors and
checked to make sure that quotes could not be
attributed to them. It is difficult to determine what
these experiences mean in a great place of work.
Combining the three perspectives provides a more
complex and complete understanding of Microsoft culture
than any one perspective.
THE MANAGEMENT PRACETICE AS AN INFLUENCIAL FACTOR TO
ORGANISATION CULTURE.
An important indicator of an organization’s
culture is it is management theory or philosophy. Each
management theory has assumptions that indicate certain
values. To the degree that the management theory
pervades organizational attitudes and practices, it is
part of it is culture.
An explanation on how the four main management
theories can influence the culture will be given now.
For example, classical management theory is the oldest
of the theories developed around the turn of the
twentieth century the time of Industrial Revolution.
Well-known explications of this approach include
Taylor’s (1911) scientific management, Fayol’s (1949)
industrial management, and Weber’s (1947) bureaucracy.
Although there are important variations across the
approaches, they all represent very structured, fairly
rigid, and autocratic approaches to management. They
assume that employees are motivated primarily by
financial gains and must be carefully monitored and
directed to maintain standards and productivity.
Research designed to support classical
management theories led to the development of the human
relations management theory after World War ii. One part of the
famous Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger, 1941)
attempted to find the optimum lighting to increase
productivity, but instead found that workers developed
social relations with co-workers that influence
productivity norms. In the end, the researchers
concluded that pay and directives from management were
insufficient to explain employee motivation and
productivity; social relationships were important
motivators. Listening to employees and social
interactions between employees were important aspects
of organizational management.
During the second half of the twentieth century,
the human resource management theory gradually developed. In
part based on psychological findings such as Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs, researchers and managers began
recognizing that employees were motivated by factors
other than money or social relationships (example,
McGregor, 1960). As the workforce shifted from
manufacturing jobs to information and service jobs,
employees become more concerned about opportunities for
advancement and the ability to find fulfilling work.
Human resource management focused on providing
employees opportunities for job enrichment and added
responsibility to make work more fulfilling.
Teamwork as a management theory holds somewhat
different assumptions about employees. Teamwork can be
an organizing structure in which people work in groups,
and/or a philosophical approach. Generally, management
sets a broad goal or vision, but team members make
decisions, possibly including hiring or firing
decisions and setting schedules. Rewards are given at
the group rather than individual level. For example,
teamwork at the Harley Davidson Corporation was
associated with increased group cohesion, productivity,
and commitment (Chansler, Swamidass, and Cortlandt,
2003). Alternatively, teamwork can create an oppressive
work atmosphere when group pressure becomes a form of
concretive control (Barker, 1993). In an electronics
company, the team developed rules that were more rigid
and oppressive than those of management, including
publicly posting tardiness and attendance records and
requiring team members to work long hours to meet
productivity goals.
Although many organizations include combinations
include combinations of these management practices, the
particular approach has important implications for the
for the organization’s culture. The practices, rituals,
and norms of a classically managed organization are
quite different from those of a teamwork organization.
Members learn to work with the management culture. If
the organization’s culture changes over time or differs
from one department or division to another, it can be
challenging to make sense of that culture. In the
scenario, the culture of library materials been kept
mostly as hardcopy books and journals in the early
ninetieth centaury has been changed with the
advancement in the information technology in the
twentieth century now most of the reading materials are
in softcopy, students can access them via internet.
This change in culture caused universities to improve
their internet service so that students can access
those materials 24 hours a day and universities without
such facilities to lunch them.
TECHNOLOGY AS A FACTOR OF CHANGE TO CULTURE
The last few decades have seen remarkable changes
in information and communication technologies.
Computers made the typing pool obsolete. Technology has
changed organization’s cultures by changing the
organizational practices, rituals, and norms.
Technology allows for more varied work practices which
change organizational structures. In some
organizations, field workers no longer needed to report
to the office as often because they submitted reports
and responded to supervisor inquiries electronically;
field and office workers have different experiences as
a result (Rosenfeld, Richman, and May, 2004). Field
workers emphasized productivity and following rules and
procedures closely while office workers felt more
pressure and time urgency, perhaps due to the
supervisor’s presence.
NATIONAL CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
Because organizations exist in a context, the
organization’s culture is influenced in part by the
national culture. According to Hofstede (1997),
national cultures can be described along four primary
dimensions:
(1) Individualism versus collectivism describes the
degree to which the culture focuses on individual
rather than group needs and accomplishments.
(2) Masculinity versus femininity indicates whether or
not the culture emphasizes stereotypical gender
roles, and segmentation between work and non-work.
(3) Power distance relates to whether the culture
accepts and emphasizes status differences and
resulting inequities or not.
(4) Uncertainty avoidance describes whether the culture
encourages information sharing to manage uncertainty
or tolerates ambiguity.
Along these dimension, the United States is
more individualistic, masculine, with moderate
power distances, and fairly high uncertainty
avoidance. Japanese culture is more collectivistic,
Denmark is more feminine, Finland has more power
distance, and Israel is higher in uncertainty
avoidance
Although oversimplifying national cultures which
are more diverse than this typology recognizes,
particularly if significant migratory populations form
subcultures, this does provide a basis for examining
how the external culture influences the internal
organizational culture. In organizations located in a
highly masculine, highly individualistic, low-power-
distance national culture, internal organizational
culture would be expected to favors those same value.
The culture may be evident in gendered occupations,
independent offices, and informal supervisor-
subordinate communication. In this way the
organizational culture reflects the national culture.
CUSTOMS CONTRIBUTE TO THE CULTURE OF AN ORGANISATION.
Often companies evolve their own customs. For
example, until a few years ago, the Bluebird Beverage
Company paid it is employees in cash. On payday, the
employees lined up at the cashier’s window and were
handed their envelopes by the paymaster, who was
protected by an armed guard. To allow for the time it
took to obtain the pay envelopes, lunch break was
extended for fifteen minutes. When the company shifted
to payment by check, the paymaster went to each
department and distributed the checks. Although there
was no longer the need to line up at the window, the
workers expected to continue to get a longer lunch
break on payday. They considered it an entitlement and
it has remained a custom of that company.(Ashby, 2000).
DOMINANT PERSONALITIES AND ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE.
Often an organizational culture is created by a
dominant person such as a founder or a top manager. His
or her personality sets the organizational culture for
good or bad. In some companies, every decision-
important or trivial-must be made by the senior
executive.
The experience of White Plastics exemplifies this.
When Larry White started this business, he made all the
decisions and knew what was happening in all aspects of
the operation. As business expanded, he began to lose
touch with some of the activities. So he could not keep
informed, he required that all copies of all
correspondence be sent to him every day.
Today, 40 years later, his current successor still
gets a file copy of every letter, fax, and memo. He
rarely has time to even glance at them, yet the
practice continues. When this was brought to his
attention, he refused to change the practice. He
commented: it helped my predecessor and it may come in
handy sometime. (Ashby, 2000).
HOW COMMUNTY INFLUENCE THE ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE.
The community in which a company is located
often influences it is organizational culture.
Companies that open facilities in areas that have
different customs and work practices from those at the
home base have to accommodate local customs. When the
North Atlantic Constructors, a joint venture of four
Midwestern Construction companies, opened it is New
York City office, they established a workday schedule
that started at 8 a.m., the usual starting time in
their home areas. They were shocked to learn that
virtually all New York opened at 9 a.m. in order to
compete for good workers in the city, they had to
adjust their working hours to the usual local hours of
9 a.m. to 5 p.m .(Ashby, 2000).
CONLUSION.
The essay reviewed and discussed some of the
theories and researches made by the psychologist and
management scholars on the how does a culture influence
the organization that operate within it. The
perspective of organizational culture was discussed.
The ways in which management practice influences
organizational culture has been stated, also national
culture and organizational culture differences has
been stated and how former influences the latter.
REFERENCES
Andrews, P. (2000). Part a. Inside Microsoft. In G. L.Peterson (ed.), Communicating in organizations: a casebook.(pp. 17-24).Allyn and Bacan.
Ashby, F. C. (2000) Revitalize Your Corporate Culture.New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited.
Baker, J. R. (1993).Tightening the iron cage:concertive control in self-managing teams.Administrative Science Quarterly , 38, 408-37.
Chansler, P. A., Swamidass, P. M. and Cortlandt, C.( 2003) Self-managing work teams: an empiricalstudy of group cohesiveness in “natural work
groups” at a Harley-Davidson Motor Company plant.Small Group Research, 34, 101-20.
Hofstede, G. (1997). From fad to management tool.In Cultures and organizations: software of the mind (pp. 178-204). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kramer, M. W. (2010) Organizational Socialization.Cambridge CB2, UK 1UR,UK: Polity Press.
Martin, J., (1992). Cultures in organizations: threeperspectives. New York:
McGregor, D. M. (1960). The human side of enterprise.New York: McGrawHill.
Oxford University Press.
Pacanowsky, M. E. and O’Donnell-Truijillo, N.(1983). Organizational communication as culturalperformance. Communication Monographs, 50, 126-47.
Roethlisberger, F. J. (1941). The Hawthorneexperiments. In management and morale. Cambridge, MA. HarvardUniversity Press.