By George Muhongo
Hatch (1997) asserted that the term organization is a very broad term and can be described in multiple ways.
Traditionally an organization was an intentionally designed social unit that consists of a team or a group of people that work together for the benefits of an organization on a continuous basis to get the organizational targets and goals. Robin and Langton (2010) further contend that organizations can be located in the public sector or in the private sector, they can be unionized or not, they can be publicly traded or they can be privately held.
If they are publicly traded, senior managers typically are responsible to a board of directors, which may or may not take an active role in and how the firm is running. If the firm is privately held, it may be run by the owners or the managers’ who report to the owners.
In the same vein, Senior and Fleming (2006) also describe an organization as a combination of individuals, people or groups trying to influence others to achieve certain objectives by using different processes and technologies in a structured way. They may consist of social arrangements of certain groups in a formal way to achieve certain objectives and having well defined boundaries and limitations.
The nature of organizational culture according to Pascale (1990) more than any other factor, will dictate an organization’s ability to survive.
It also delves an important component in explaining the success of an organization. Studies by Denison (1990), Denison and Mishra (1995) and Kotter and Heskett (1992) all provide support for the link between organizational culture and performance.
Fisher and Alford (2000) concluded that regardless of the size, sector, industry, or age of a business, culture affects organizational performance. Schein’s (1992) theory, organizational culture is defined as a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that works well enough to be considered valid and to be taught to new members as a correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems.
In one such study, Gordon and DiTomaso (1992) investigated the relationships between culture and values and organizational performance.
Culture strength was measured by the consistency of responses to survey items across people, and cultural values were measured by items on the survey that related to either adaptability or stability. The results indicated that both a strong culture and a value placed on adaptability were related to better performance on both criterions.
Schein further contends that organizational culture is the learned result of group experiences, and it is to a large extent unconscious (Schein, 1999). In the same way, Robbins and Judge (2009) further describe organizational culture as a system of shared meaning held by members that distinguishes the organization from other organizations. Put in another way, (Poškien, 2006), contends that organizational culture refers to the complex set of ideologies, traditions, commitments, and values that are shared throughout the organization and that influence how the organization conducts its whole performance becoming a potential source of innovation, advance and advantage.
Cameron and Quinn (1999) have classified organizational cultures based on two basic dimensions (internal/external orientation, and flexibility/control orientation), and developed a typology identifying four organizational cultures (group, developmental, hierarchical, and rational). Group cultures are defined as internal and flexible in their orientation, with a tendency to people orientation within the organization.
The core values are loyalty and the protection of the existing group. Developmental cultures are defined as external and flexible in their orientation, with an emphasis on dynamic creativity and adaptability, and recognition of the importance of external clients. Hierarchical cultures are characterized as internal and control oriented, and inclined to promote values like formality, rules, clear roles, tasks and documentation.
Rational cultures are described as external and control oriented, focusing on production and emphasizing values like goals and task accomplishment (Skogstad and Einarsen, 1999).
Cameron and Quinn (1999) have developed an organizational culture framework built upon a theoretical model called the “Competing Values Framework.” This framework is based on six organizational culture dimensions and four dominant culture types (that is, clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy). Accordingly, clan culture is described as a very friendly place to work where people share a lot to themselves.
It is like an extended family. The organization is held together by loyalty and tradition. Commitment is high. Success is defined in terms of sensitivity to customers and concern for people. The organization places a premium on teamwork, participation, and consensus. Adhocracy culture can be characterized as a dynamic, entrepreneurial and creative place to work. The leaders are considered innovators and risk takers.
The glue that holds the organization together is commitment to experimentation and innovation. Success means gaining unique and new products or services. The organization encourages individual initiative and freedom.
The hierarchy culture can be defined as a very formalized and structured place to work. Procedures govern what people do. Maintaining a smooth-running organization is most critical. Formal rules and policies hold the organization together. The long-term concern is on stability and performance with efficient, smooth operations (Cameron and Quinn, 1999).
Finally, the market culture can be typified as a results oriented organization whose major concern is with getting the job done. People are competitive and goal oriented. The leaders are hard drivers and competitors. The glue that holds the organization together is an emphasis on winning. The long-term focus is on competitive actions and achievement of measurable goals and targets. The organizational style is hard-driving competitiveness (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). In a more comprehensive fashion, Henry (2008) defined culture as the values and beliefs that members of an organization hold in common. On the other hand Huczynski and Buchanan (2001) describes organization culture as the collection of relatively uniform and enduring values, beliefs, customs, traditions and practices that are shared by an organization’s members, learned by new recruits, and transmitted from one generation of employees to the next.
Put another way, Huczynski and Buchana (2001) described organization culture as a pattern of basic assumptions which a group has invented, discovered on developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and integration, which have 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 problems. Again Huczynski and Buchanan (2001) asserted that culture is the sharing of meanings and the sharing of basic assumptions among organizational employees, it implies that an organization’s senior executives can manage these basic assumptions if they understand what culture is and how it operates.
In another way, Ivancevich and Matteson (1999) contended that culture is a distinctly human means of adapting to circumstances and transmitting this coping skill and knowledge to subsequent generations. Culture gives people a sense of who they are, a sense of belonging, sense of how they should behave, and a sense of what they should be doing. Culture impacts behaviour, morale, and productivity at work, and includes values and patterns that influence company attitudes and actions. Philip et al., (2004:4) also contended that culture is often considered the driving force behind human behaviour everywhere, and that the organization’s culture is the set of values that helps employees understand which actions are considered acceptable or unacceptable
Organizational values are the collection of beliefs that guide and determine the organization’s practices and behaviours. These values help to create the organization’s culture and in turn provide a strong influence on the formal and informal behaviour of its members.
Similarly, Huczynski and Buchanan (2001) describe organization values as those things that have personal or organizational worth or meaning to the founders or senior management. Values are typically based on moral, societal or religious precepts that are learned in childhood and modified through experience.
Therefore, it can be documented that leaders can help develop, shape, and maintain a desired organizational culture and that they may affect organizational effectiveness by creating new sets of shared values. When organizations first form, leaders have a major effect on the emerging values. At that point, they are “definers” and “givers” of culture, who can create and infuse the values, beliefs, and assumptions that they believe are necessary and good for the organization.
A number of authors suggest that the leader’s values for change and innovation influence the organization’s level of effectiveness. By upholding values that support risk taking and innovation, leaders encourage their acceptance by other members of an organization, which will shape the organization’s level of effectiveness.
Waldman and Yammarino (1999) argue that the extent to which organizational values are shared among employees (cultural consensus) is another important point to keep in mind when linking leadership and organizational culture. It has been suggested that the degree of buy-in to the leader’s culture-related messages determines the homogeneity or heterogeneity of organizational culture. In support of the above argument, King and Anderson (1995) also contended that employees would be more likely to be committed to and identify with the leader if this person’s vision is based on the values and moral justifications that are acceptable to the employees.
Thus, if employees do not support the leader’s stance, divergent subcultures may arise in the organization. Increasingly turbulent and complex work environments have affected organizations across all business sectors with today’s challenges and rapid change. Dolan, Garcia, and Richley (2006) suggest that successful organizations manage on the basis of identifying what is equally good for business, employees and society. According to these authors, values can play an instrumental role in managing the tensions among the three perspectives. Values can help to clarify what matters most to an organization by stimulating dialogue and by engaging all people in the process. Values are likened to the glue that connects an organization’s mission to its vision and can serve as a platform upon which shared understanding emerges.
Dolan et al., (2006) further postulate that managing by values (MBV) can facilitate the redesigning of an organization’s culture along more humanistic lines and enables leaders to emerge. Finally, MBV provides the organization and its leaders with an opportunity to intentionally and explicitly communicate the organization’s commitment to living its values. Once embedded into the organization’s culture, MBV becomes more appropriate process of effectively leveraging organizational resources by placing values at the core of the organization.
As such, MBV is a contemporary management philosophy that can be employed across organizations both public and private. It is postulated that, when fully integrated within the organization’s management system, the organization’s leaders can implement MBV to leverage resources and to generate creative responses to the challenges, issues and risks associated with an increasingly complex environment (Dolan et al., 2006).
Argandona (2003) distinguished between personal values and those that are held at different levels within a group, all of which shape the extent to which the values are declared or espoused and/or practiced or lived. The three dimensions form the essence of Management by Values (MBV): “the importance of identifying core values both at individual and organizational level; the centrality of aligning core values with specific objectives; and illuminating the leaders’ personal interest in wanting to manage by values”. Management by Values (MBV) is a relatively new approach to governance and organizational practice concerned with developing management systems that are capable of integrating values into organizational strategies, policies, procedures and programs. Does the current cream of leaders lack values? Watch out for part 4.
• George Muhongo is an independent researcher with a MSc. Leadership & Change Management from Leeds Metropolitan University