Organizational Culture
Copyright (c), Micro-Touch & Consult (TM), 2015
Stanford Organizational Culture
Keywords
Cultures - Sub-cultures - Organizational culture - Models - Innovation - Change - Organizational politics - Behavior - Sense of beloning - National cultures - Leading across cultures
Produced by: Micro-Touch & Consult, 2013
Introduction
Organizational culture became more common knowledge when it appeared as “corporate culture” in business periodicals in 1982. Before this period organizational culture was not viewed as being something that could be related to the characteristics of an organization. Organizational culture was ignored as a factor in the performance of an organization. Although the culture is now included when studying organizations, earlier this inclusion was not automatically so because organizational culture is not easily observable (Lewis, 1996; Deal et al, 1982; Holbeche, 2006).
Organizational culture is often described as “The way we do things around here”. A change will be a success if it becomes part of the organizational culture and the way “they do things around there”. The organizational culture can also be defined as “the way things get done around here”. This view is common; from the behavior of an organization its culture can be extracted. The culture is about how the organization or parts of the organization “do things around there” (Holbeche, 2006; Kotter, 1996; Deal et al, 1982; Bower, 1966).
Organizational culture can hardly be explained only by “the way they do things differently”. The things organizations produce dictate often the way they do things but this does not automatically mean they have different cultures at the outset. It is likely that different cultures emerge over time (Carnal, 2007).
Another view is that organizational culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the organization from another. People become part of the characteristics of the organization and behave accordingly and different from people within other organizations. This view is more aligned with the emerging cultures over time (Carnal, 2007; Hofstede, 1991).
Organizational culture is about shared values, experiences and common goals. The harder technical changes within organizations cannot succeed without changes in the social systems of shared values, the people, and culture. The same can be sensed in what is called the deep-set beliefs about the way work should be organized or the importance of shared values. Often only the hard factors get the most attention because they are tangible and measurable. To be able to sense all these different elements, cultural intelligence is needed to make the proper distinctions (Holbeche, 2006; Beer, 2009; Christopher, 2004; Handy, 1985; Peters and Waterman 1982; Livermore et al, 2009).
Organizational cultures can be seen as a representation of the collection of traditions, values, policies, beliefs and attitudes which directs and creates a context for everything that is being done in an organization. This also forms specific thought patterns for organizations and its members. It is not strange to see culture as partly unconscious. It is based on the history of the organization and formed through learned behavior (McClean, 1998; Williams, 1995).
Sub-Cultures
An organizational culture is composed of integrated subcultures. Often these subcultures relate almost directly to the structure of an organization where the functional groups form their own subcultures. These subcultures differ in assumptions, behaviors and expectations and they often reflect parts of the larger culture but do also differ at important aspects. When a leader has the right cultural intelligence, these competing subcultures can be aligned together and shaped into an effective heterogeneous overall organizational culture (Johnson, 2008; Schein, 1984/2003; Christopher, 2004; Riley, 1983; Livermore et al, 2009).
Models to investigate organizational culture
Measuring the organizational culture can be done in different ways. The holistic approach tries to unravel the organizational culture on a very deep level through being part of it. The metaphorical approach tries to define the organizational culture through language patterns, slogans, vision documents, stories and conversations while the quantitative approach analyzes the organizational culture through questionnaires and structure interviews. The Qualitative approach measure the organizational culture through semi structure interviews with more open questions (Johnson, 2008; Mullins, 2005; Cameron, 2006; Yukl, 2010).
Models and Tools
Several assessment tools can be used to measure the culture of an organization, like the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument OCAI of Cameron and Quinn, 1998, the 7s model of Peters & Waterman, the Organizational Character Index of Bridges (2000), the cultural dimensions defined by Schein (1984) and Kotter (1992) or the cultural change management elements of Paul Bate (1984). The three levels of culture defined by Schein (1984) can act as the foundation where upon the other models can be based for further analysis of the dimensions of organizational culture.
The 7s model clarifies the importance of creating a balance between the seven descriptive elements of this model when understanding of the dynamics of organizational change is needed. This model is one of the many existing frameworks to help leaders think systematically when planning organizational change within an organization (Holbeche, 2006; Klatt et al, 2001).
Through the analysis of the six cultural dimension of Bate (1984) the readiness of the people can be analyzed towards change and innovation. The cultural web of Johnson et al (2005) can be used to expand the three levels of Schein (1984) and describe them through the elements of this cultural web to define the overall paradigm. The elements of the cultural web are the different aspects of the organizational culture whereas the three foundational levels of Schein (1984) could act as the basic dimensions from which the aspects can be approached.
OCAI is based on the competing values framework which describes the underlying value orientations that characterize organizations. It can be said that these values often compete or contradict each other. When extracting a profile it can identify how an organizational culture is likely to change as their values change over time (Holbeche, 2006).
The overall purpose of the OCAI is to assess six key dimensions of organizational culture. When applied to a specific organization, it gives some basic values and assumptions. In essence the OCAI will rate an organization. This can be done on different levels: the OC as a whole, the subcultures, teams and individuals. Often it is used for cultural change, so the focus on the cultural unit or aspects of the organization is more logical (Cameron, 2006).
OCAI can be used to check if the current focus is on external customers or if the organization is internal focused. What is the score through OCAI and what is the Organizational Character Index (Bridges, 2000) in relation to that score? The OCI can also be helpful to determine if an organization is extrovert or more introvert; does the company sense the environment or goes on intuition, are there thinkers or feelers and do they judge or perceive for example?
The Organizational Character Index (OCI) tries to map an organization to one of the 16 organizational character types, or a combination of some of them. The archetypes are based on the Meyers Briggs Type Indicator and mapped against four dimensions. You have Extroverted against Introverted, Sensing against Intuitive, Thinking against Feeling and Judging against perceiving. Through a questionnaire an organization is analyzed to which side its organizational culture is most focused (Holbeche, 2006, Bridges, 2000).
It is not hard to extract the static and flexible sides of OC from out this OCI model from Bridges (2000). When combined, OCAI and OCI can give us a clear view on the characteristics of the organizational culture. This can also be used on a smaller scale; the subcultures and even teams. It can help us create successful teams with the right mix of balanced (national) cultures. It is important that the organizations cultural context provides the support these different (national) cultures need, or else its development will become in danger of stagnation (Kouze & Posner, 2007; Belbin, 2012; Hackman, 2012).
The 7s Model of McKinsey is about the importance of achieving balance and consistency between the seven elements. When things are combined then the 7s Model can also be used in relation to OCAI, OCI and the cultural dimensions of Schein (1984). The elements of the 7s model could be used as input elements for the OCAI.
Furthermore, the dimensions of Bate (1984) can be used to check the readiness of people towards change, innovation and relating to others. Bates (1984) dimensions can be complementary to the readiness check of organizations for change and it is about the shared values of the people (Peters and Waterman, 1984). It is interesting to see how the dimensions of the OCAI can be replaced by the spheres of the 7s model and how the dimensions of Bate (1984) can be used for the human focused foundation of the process.
Using more than one tool: triangulation
Several instruments can be used to assess the organizational culture in parallel, allowing the analysis of convergence between these approaches. Where do they differ and where are results more or less the same? This is called triangulation. This can work in two ways. It can mean using different quantitative assessment tools to check given statements, but it can also mean using quantitative and qualitative measurement tools altogether. Especially in social science where constructs are difficult to measure directly, it is important to use at least two measurement approaches as different as possible. Continuing the research should only be done when we find enough convergence in their results. If this is not the case, the results should be analyzed further or different measurement approaches can be used to come up with more usable and trustworthy outcomes. (Hofstede, 2001; Campbell et al, 1966).
Organizational Culture and Innovation
Innovation and change
Organizations are changing their way on the definition of change and how to approach it, but also how the organizational culture influence change. It is efficient to investigate the organizational culture through the different models described in earlier paragraphs. The outcome of that research can be the starting point to see which elements needs to change to make them more adaptable and ready for innovation.
Innovation needs the capacity for change. This means that the organizational culture must be adaptable to change. Innovation without change has no result and can be called useless for the organization. The elements in the organizational culture that must be adjusted for innovation should also be prepared for the readiness for change (Carnal, 2007).
Innovation is not only seen as something that can help organizations work in new ways to produce new products and services, but on itself it can be seen as something that can help changing the organizational culture and sub cultures. If the organizational culture and sub cultures are not adaptable enough to make innovation happen, they become obstacles for the change and innovation needed (Isaksen and Tidd, 2006).
Leadership can influence innovation when it influences the organizational enablers of innovation. These enablers include leadership systems, structures, processes, (organizational) culture, competences and networks. This relationship between leadership, organizational enablers and innovation indicates that organizational culture may impact innovation, and how it may be affected by the leaders of an organization. And while leadership has an influence on the organizational culture, it has a profound effect on how this organizational culture will interact with organizational innovation and its ability to change (Munshi et al, 2005).
Innovation is very important for a healthy organization and globalization creates new opportunities. Globalization also demands a new kind of leadership that is able to guide and integrate different national and organizational cultures. Organizational strategies that support this kind of focus on innovation and leadership become more important. Not only change techniques are needed for innovation, but also a flexible and adaptive innovative culture that holds innovation as one of its basic characteristics (Marklund et al, 2008; Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2008).
Proper leadership is needed to create and guide such an innovative organizational culture, with a clear direction and enough emotional and cultural intelligence to give each (national) subculture its share. (Johnson et al, 2009; Holbeche, 2006).
Organizational Culture and Organizational Politics
Organizational politics
Organizational politics includes the forces used to carry out personal agendas and interests. Organizational politics are any activities which are not required as a part of organizational duties and are used to create personal influence and benefits. Different groups in organizations develop different goals, values, beliefs and interests and compete for the scarce resource to accomplish them. Organizational politics are used for own benefits and influence the normal “way of doing things” within the organization (Robbins, 2003; Nargunde, 2013; Morgan, 2006).
Organizational behavior, culture and politics
Organizational behavior is related to organizational culture and it can be said that the behavior is dictated by the culture of an organization. It seems that this influence is a two-way process. The culture is even so extracted from the behavior of people and groups. Perhaps the study of organizational culture is rooted in organizational behavior (Dauber et al, 2012).
There is the general recognition that organizational politics is something else than rational management. It is more about the study of human emotions, motivations and meaning-making. Micro politics within organizations are concerned with the use of formal and informal power used by individuals and groups to reach their goals within the organization. Many definitions therefore suggest that micro politics is more about protecting and advancing self-interest against opposition. Furthermore it is proposed that an understanding of micro politics is an important element to understanding the organizational culture (Drory et al, 1990).
It seems that organizational politics is the glue between rational management, leadership and organizational behavior and not only does it keep it all together but also it is one of the most important elements in directing these elements to a certain workable coalition. It is not uncommon that the micro politics within the subcultures overrule the hierarchical and official function model. To be successful in implementing stable and static changes within organizations, a guiding coalition is essential. This guiding coalition is often a result from micro politics wherein this guiding coalition is recognized as powerful and influential while the official organizational culture and politics would not have recognized them as such (Kotter, 1996).
Shaping and Changing Culture
Sense of belonging
A healthy balance is needed between the sense of urgency and the sense of belonging when changing culture is needed. It should replace the old ways that relied on command and control. Telling people what to do is different from influencing them to act in new ways. To be successful, creating the sense of urgency for change must be preceded by creating a sense of belonging (Conners et al, 2012).
Companies that get the best out of their people are characterized by a higher set of motivational needs system, which could be related to the motivational steps of Maslow (1954, 1991). An element of that motivational system is creating attachment and affiliation which is about the need for engagement and sharing, a feeling of community and a sense of belonging to the company (Laura Mullins, 2005).
Difficulties around changing the culture
Changing culture is not an easy task. There are several reasons why it is so difficult. The organizational culture is not a phenomenon that lies at the surface of the organization. It is something that lies deep within the organizational nervous system. Several things must be present to create an organizational culture and from these elements we can extract the complexity of it. These elements are structural stability, depth, breadth and patterning integration (Schein, 1985).
Culture can be called the foundation of group identity. It holds people together and even binds subcultures. Because it is so deeply involved with the identification of the people and groups within the organization, it is very difficult to change and shape. Transactional leadership is not the way to approach this. It will not hold people together and gives them an identity. It would be transformational leadership that is best suited to create, shape and change these identities and thus changing the organizational culture.
Many problems of managing change result from a failure to understand, address and change culture. This soft side of HR management can also be linked to the Theory O type of change and both are concerned with the behavior of the people, individually and collectively. To be able to really change the organizational culture the focus must change from the harder Theory E type of changes to the softer Theory O type of changes. This should be an important element of the leader changing the organizational culture (Gerry Johnson, 2008; Carnall, 2007; Holbeche, 2006).
These characteristics are very important for a leader who must change or shape the organizational culture. Their followers must be properly motivated to change or shape the culture. When these characteristics are not present in a leader, changing the culture will often not succeed. To accomplish shared objectives, individual and collective efforts must be facilitated (Yukl, 2002).
The leadership style chosen has a very important influence on the success or failure of shaping or changing the organizational culture. There are three main leadership styles; autocratic, consultative and group oriented. The last two are more related to the softer sides of Theory O type of change and will be more successful in changing the organizational culture than the Theory E type of change (Holbeche, 2006; Isaksen and Tidd, 2006).
Possible approach to change the organizational culture
Culture is not something that can be changed easily. Trying to grab the culture and twist it into new shapes will never work because organizational culture does not let itself being grabbed. This culture can only be changed if you are able to change and alter the people’s actions. If this new behavior will provide benefit for the group for some time and if this new behavior can be linked to performance improvements, then eventually this change can be made enduring (Kotter, 1996).
There are three sources of inertia that prevents the learning process; cognitive frameworks, motivation and obligation. People within organizations often develop a shared cognitive framework or mental model that is of influence on the way they interpret the reality and how they learn. A shared mental model can prevent people from thinking outside that frame. It is important to alter that shared mental model of people to make them more adaptable to change (Gersick, 1991).
Through strategy forums, open-space events, learning maps and workshops new mental models can be build. With new mental models aligned to the change we want to implement, people and groups are better capable of adapting to change (Carnall, 2007; Bruch and Sattelberger, 2001).
Changing organizational culture is not something of the individual alone. There is also group behavior, where the benefit of the individual becomes less important or is aligned with the benefit of the group or subculture where this individual belongs to. The effective management of work groups requires an understanding of the psychological and social influences on behavior within organizations (Mullins, 2006).
National cultures
Cultural differences appear at different levels. Often discrimination by ethnic, regional and religious origins delays the assimilation and forms a real problem in Organizational Cultures. Regional, ethnic and religious cultural dimensions have strong similarities with the characteristics of national cultures. It is impossible for any culture to prove that their religion and moral system is superior to others. Often their members reinforce these beliefs and values on each other until they become the truth. Cultural distance is often increased by religion and social norms. (Hofstede et al, 2010; Schein, 2004; Johnson et al, 2008).
When looking at gender it is mostly the lack of having the right symbols, image and rituals than prevents role changes. This is a very slow process and these symbols, images and rituals must first be learned by the opposite sexes to make these role changes successful on the long run. Social class, race, age and religion are of influence on attitudes, beliefs and values. They on themselves will have an important role upon different understandings of gender. Gender egalitarianism can be seen as the extent to which an organization or society tries to minimize role differences. This is often seen within organizational cultures; but also the opposite can be present (Hofstede et al, 2010; House et al, 2010; Mullins, 2005).
These same rituals, symbols and images do play an important role when analyzing the generation differences. These differences become even bigger in technology based societies where the elder people have difficulties catching up with development of new tools. In agricultural cultures these differences between generations are less evident.
The social class differences are related to education and educational opportunities. Furthermore someone’s occupation or profession often determines the sub-culture this person belongs to. Different countries have their own set of classes. Often symbols like manners, accents of language and the use of certain words in specific situations determines the class a person belongs to. When these symbols are dramatically different between sub-cultures, it is very difficult to integrate them into the overall organizational culture (Hofstede et al, 2010).
Often the higher layers within an organization show the symbols, accent and rituals of the higher social class within a national culture and down the organizational layers these manners, accents and rituals are more related to the middle and lower layers of society, despite many initiatives to make class differences disappear. Just like the French situation where the classes themselves have limited room for change and integration (Bhagat & Steers, 2009; Richardson, 2001).
When above elements are translated to the organizational culture, then they can define the areas where change is needed to dismantle the barriers between sub-cultures. They often form the most important factors of differentiation and by analyzing their presence within the organizational culture, they can help us to make better use of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument OCAI of Cameron and Quinn (1998), the 7s model of Peters & Waterman, the Organizational Character Index of Bridges (2000), the cultural dimensions defined by Schein (1984) and Kotter (1992) or the cultural change management elements of Paul Bate (1984).
Leading across cultures
For successful leadership across cultures it is important to create cross-cultural awareness, which could increases and stimulate self-awareness, sensitivity to differences, questioning own assumptions and lessening of ignorance, prejudice and hatred. Having cross-cultural awareness, although essential for the cross-cultural leader, does not imply that these positive outcomes automatically come to existence. There is evidence that multi-cultural work teams perform much better or much worse than teams with one cultural background. To increase the chance for better multi-cultural team performance, cultural intelligence and cross-cultural awareness are thus necessary elements for leading across cultures. The right cross-cultural elements can then be stimulated and integrated (Mullins, 2005; Yukl, 2010; Saunder et al, 2010).
Language and interpretation of leadership across cultures is another issue. Cultures vary among each other, but also the institutions and leadership within these cultures differ. The type of national or organizational culture determines the possible leadership style which is most effective. An autocratic society or organization demands a different leader than a pure democratic society or organization for example. Having many different (national) cultures within an organization and within different teams means that a leadership style is needed that can address all these differences and make a unit out of them (Mullins, 2005; Bhagat et all, 2009).
Conslusion
This research has analyzed and explained the importance of organizational culture related to change and innovation. This research has investigated the different parts of organizational culture and how it can be influenced to undergo the change needed for innovation. In this analysis, the aim was to clarify how subcultures and national cultures are inseparable from organizational culture and without them proper study of this phenomenon is impossible.
The findings of this research suggest that the different subcultures and national cultures should be part of an overall integrated organizational culture to be effective for innovation and change. One of the more significant findings of this research showed that the quality of health care within a nursing home for elderly people could be dramatically improved if the different subcultures and national cultures shared the same set of basic assumptions and belief system though cultural integration.
There are a number of relevant caveats regarding the present study. A very important caveat is the fact that the study is focused on a very small group of nurses within one nursing home for elderly people. The outcomes of this study can be very different in other national cultures, regions, countries and nursing homes with different types of dependents. Furthermore, the literature review was short and only a narrow focus on the existing material concerning the topic was possible.
Therefore, this research created many new questions in need for further analysis within health care in general and nursing homes for elderly people specifically. Further research in this relative new field regarding the role of organizational culture related to innovation and change within nursing homes for elderly people to improve the healthcare given, would be of great help in better understanding this coherent relationship between these elements. A reasonable approach to tackle this problem could be to broaden the literature on this topic and do the research within more nursing homes for elderly people with a different set of typical dependents and nurses.
Organizational culture became more common knowledge when it appeared as “corporate culture” in business periodicals in 1982. Before this period organizational culture was not viewed as being something that could be related to the characteristics of an organization. Organizational culture was ignored as a factor in the performance of an organization. Although the culture is now included when studying organizations, earlier this inclusion was not automatically so because organizational culture is not easily observable (Lewis, 1996; Deal et al, 1982; Holbeche, 2006).
Organizational culture is often described as “The way we do things around here”. A change will be a success if it becomes part of the organizational culture and the way “they do things around there”. The organizational culture can also be defined as “the way things get done around here”. This view is common; from the behavior of an organization its culture can be extracted. The culture is about how the organization or parts of the organization “do things around there” (Holbeche, 2006; Kotter, 1996; Deal et al, 1982; Bower, 1966).
Organizational culture can hardly be explained only by “the way they do things differently”. The things organizations produce dictate often the way they do things but this does not automatically mean they have different cultures at the outset. It is likely that different cultures emerge over time (Carnal, 2007).
Another view is that organizational culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the organization from another. People become part of the characteristics of the organization and behave accordingly and different from people within other organizations. This view is more aligned with the emerging cultures over time (Carnal, 2007; Hofstede, 1991).
Organizational culture is about shared values, experiences and common goals. The harder technical changes within organizations cannot succeed without changes in the social systems of shared values, the people, and culture. The same can be sensed in what is called the deep-set beliefs about the way work should be organized or the importance of shared values. Often only the hard factors get the most attention because they are tangible and measurable. To be able to sense all these different elements, cultural intelligence is needed to make the proper distinctions (Holbeche, 2006; Beer, 2009; Christopher, 2004; Handy, 1985; Peters and Waterman 1982; Livermore et al, 2009).
Organizational cultures can be seen as a representation of the collection of traditions, values, policies, beliefs and attitudes which directs and creates a context for everything that is being done in an organization. This also forms specific thought patterns for organizations and its members. It is not strange to see culture as partly unconscious. It is based on the history of the organization and formed through learned behavior (McClean, 1998; Williams, 1995).
Sub-Cultures
An organizational culture is composed of integrated subcultures. Often these subcultures relate almost directly to the structure of an organization where the functional groups form their own subcultures. These subcultures differ in assumptions, behaviors and expectations and they often reflect parts of the larger culture but do also differ at important aspects. When a leader has the right cultural intelligence, these competing subcultures can be aligned together and shaped into an effective heterogeneous overall organizational culture (Johnson, 2008; Schein, 1984/2003; Christopher, 2004; Riley, 1983; Livermore et al, 2009).
Models to investigate organizational culture
Measuring the organizational culture can be done in different ways. The holistic approach tries to unravel the organizational culture on a very deep level through being part of it. The metaphorical approach tries to define the organizational culture through language patterns, slogans, vision documents, stories and conversations while the quantitative approach analyzes the organizational culture through questionnaires and structure interviews. The Qualitative approach measure the organizational culture through semi structure interviews with more open questions (Johnson, 2008; Mullins, 2005; Cameron, 2006; Yukl, 2010).
Models and Tools
Several assessment tools can be used to measure the culture of an organization, like the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument OCAI of Cameron and Quinn, 1998, the 7s model of Peters & Waterman, the Organizational Character Index of Bridges (2000), the cultural dimensions defined by Schein (1984) and Kotter (1992) or the cultural change management elements of Paul Bate (1984). The three levels of culture defined by Schein (1984) can act as the foundation where upon the other models can be based for further analysis of the dimensions of organizational culture.
The 7s model clarifies the importance of creating a balance between the seven descriptive elements of this model when understanding of the dynamics of organizational change is needed. This model is one of the many existing frameworks to help leaders think systematically when planning organizational change within an organization (Holbeche, 2006; Klatt et al, 2001).
Through the analysis of the six cultural dimension of Bate (1984) the readiness of the people can be analyzed towards change and innovation. The cultural web of Johnson et al (2005) can be used to expand the three levels of Schein (1984) and describe them through the elements of this cultural web to define the overall paradigm. The elements of the cultural web are the different aspects of the organizational culture whereas the three foundational levels of Schein (1984) could act as the basic dimensions from which the aspects can be approached.
OCAI is based on the competing values framework which describes the underlying value orientations that characterize organizations. It can be said that these values often compete or contradict each other. When extracting a profile it can identify how an organizational culture is likely to change as their values change over time (Holbeche, 2006).
The overall purpose of the OCAI is to assess six key dimensions of organizational culture. When applied to a specific organization, it gives some basic values and assumptions. In essence the OCAI will rate an organization. This can be done on different levels: the OC as a whole, the subcultures, teams and individuals. Often it is used for cultural change, so the focus on the cultural unit or aspects of the organization is more logical (Cameron, 2006).
OCAI can be used to check if the current focus is on external customers or if the organization is internal focused. What is the score through OCAI and what is the Organizational Character Index (Bridges, 2000) in relation to that score? The OCI can also be helpful to determine if an organization is extrovert or more introvert; does the company sense the environment or goes on intuition, are there thinkers or feelers and do they judge or perceive for example?
The Organizational Character Index (OCI) tries to map an organization to one of the 16 organizational character types, or a combination of some of them. The archetypes are based on the Meyers Briggs Type Indicator and mapped against four dimensions. You have Extroverted against Introverted, Sensing against Intuitive, Thinking against Feeling and Judging against perceiving. Through a questionnaire an organization is analyzed to which side its organizational culture is most focused (Holbeche, 2006, Bridges, 2000).
It is not hard to extract the static and flexible sides of OC from out this OCI model from Bridges (2000). When combined, OCAI and OCI can give us a clear view on the characteristics of the organizational culture. This can also be used on a smaller scale; the subcultures and even teams. It can help us create successful teams with the right mix of balanced (national) cultures. It is important that the organizations cultural context provides the support these different (national) cultures need, or else its development will become in danger of stagnation (Kouze & Posner, 2007; Belbin, 2012; Hackman, 2012).
The 7s Model of McKinsey is about the importance of achieving balance and consistency between the seven elements. When things are combined then the 7s Model can also be used in relation to OCAI, OCI and the cultural dimensions of Schein (1984). The elements of the 7s model could be used as input elements for the OCAI.
Furthermore, the dimensions of Bate (1984) can be used to check the readiness of people towards change, innovation and relating to others. Bates (1984) dimensions can be complementary to the readiness check of organizations for change and it is about the shared values of the people (Peters and Waterman, 1984). It is interesting to see how the dimensions of the OCAI can be replaced by the spheres of the 7s model and how the dimensions of Bate (1984) can be used for the human focused foundation of the process.
Using more than one tool: triangulation
Several instruments can be used to assess the organizational culture in parallel, allowing the analysis of convergence between these approaches. Where do they differ and where are results more or less the same? This is called triangulation. This can work in two ways. It can mean using different quantitative assessment tools to check given statements, but it can also mean using quantitative and qualitative measurement tools altogether. Especially in social science where constructs are difficult to measure directly, it is important to use at least two measurement approaches as different as possible. Continuing the research should only be done when we find enough convergence in their results. If this is not the case, the results should be analyzed further or different measurement approaches can be used to come up with more usable and trustworthy outcomes. (Hofstede, 2001; Campbell et al, 1966).
Organizational Culture and Innovation
Innovation and change
Organizations are changing their way on the definition of change and how to approach it, but also how the organizational culture influence change. It is efficient to investigate the organizational culture through the different models described in earlier paragraphs. The outcome of that research can be the starting point to see which elements needs to change to make them more adaptable and ready for innovation.
Innovation needs the capacity for change. This means that the organizational culture must be adaptable to change. Innovation without change has no result and can be called useless for the organization. The elements in the organizational culture that must be adjusted for innovation should also be prepared for the readiness for change (Carnal, 2007).
Innovation is not only seen as something that can help organizations work in new ways to produce new products and services, but on itself it can be seen as something that can help changing the organizational culture and sub cultures. If the organizational culture and sub cultures are not adaptable enough to make innovation happen, they become obstacles for the change and innovation needed (Isaksen and Tidd, 2006).
Leadership can influence innovation when it influences the organizational enablers of innovation. These enablers include leadership systems, structures, processes, (organizational) culture, competences and networks. This relationship between leadership, organizational enablers and innovation indicates that organizational culture may impact innovation, and how it may be affected by the leaders of an organization. And while leadership has an influence on the organizational culture, it has a profound effect on how this organizational culture will interact with organizational innovation and its ability to change (Munshi et al, 2005).
Innovation is very important for a healthy organization and globalization creates new opportunities. Globalization also demands a new kind of leadership that is able to guide and integrate different national and organizational cultures. Organizational strategies that support this kind of focus on innovation and leadership become more important. Not only change techniques are needed for innovation, but also a flexible and adaptive innovative culture that holds innovation as one of its basic characteristics (Marklund et al, 2008; Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2008).
Proper leadership is needed to create and guide such an innovative organizational culture, with a clear direction and enough emotional and cultural intelligence to give each (national) subculture its share. (Johnson et al, 2009; Holbeche, 2006).
Organizational Culture and Organizational Politics
Organizational politics
Organizational politics includes the forces used to carry out personal agendas and interests. Organizational politics are any activities which are not required as a part of organizational duties and are used to create personal influence and benefits. Different groups in organizations develop different goals, values, beliefs and interests and compete for the scarce resource to accomplish them. Organizational politics are used for own benefits and influence the normal “way of doing things” within the organization (Robbins, 2003; Nargunde, 2013; Morgan, 2006).
Organizational behavior, culture and politics
Organizational behavior is related to organizational culture and it can be said that the behavior is dictated by the culture of an organization. It seems that this influence is a two-way process. The culture is even so extracted from the behavior of people and groups. Perhaps the study of organizational culture is rooted in organizational behavior (Dauber et al, 2012).
There is the general recognition that organizational politics is something else than rational management. It is more about the study of human emotions, motivations and meaning-making. Micro politics within organizations are concerned with the use of formal and informal power used by individuals and groups to reach their goals within the organization. Many definitions therefore suggest that micro politics is more about protecting and advancing self-interest against opposition. Furthermore it is proposed that an understanding of micro politics is an important element to understanding the organizational culture (Drory et al, 1990).
It seems that organizational politics is the glue between rational management, leadership and organizational behavior and not only does it keep it all together but also it is one of the most important elements in directing these elements to a certain workable coalition. It is not uncommon that the micro politics within the subcultures overrule the hierarchical and official function model. To be successful in implementing stable and static changes within organizations, a guiding coalition is essential. This guiding coalition is often a result from micro politics wherein this guiding coalition is recognized as powerful and influential while the official organizational culture and politics would not have recognized them as such (Kotter, 1996).
Shaping and Changing Culture
Sense of belonging
A healthy balance is needed between the sense of urgency and the sense of belonging when changing culture is needed. It should replace the old ways that relied on command and control. Telling people what to do is different from influencing them to act in new ways. To be successful, creating the sense of urgency for change must be preceded by creating a sense of belonging (Conners et al, 2012).
Companies that get the best out of their people are characterized by a higher set of motivational needs system, which could be related to the motivational steps of Maslow (1954, 1991). An element of that motivational system is creating attachment and affiliation which is about the need for engagement and sharing, a feeling of community and a sense of belonging to the company (Laura Mullins, 2005).
Difficulties around changing the culture
Changing culture is not an easy task. There are several reasons why it is so difficult. The organizational culture is not a phenomenon that lies at the surface of the organization. It is something that lies deep within the organizational nervous system. Several things must be present to create an organizational culture and from these elements we can extract the complexity of it. These elements are structural stability, depth, breadth and patterning integration (Schein, 1985).
Culture can be called the foundation of group identity. It holds people together and even binds subcultures. Because it is so deeply involved with the identification of the people and groups within the organization, it is very difficult to change and shape. Transactional leadership is not the way to approach this. It will not hold people together and gives them an identity. It would be transformational leadership that is best suited to create, shape and change these identities and thus changing the organizational culture.
Many problems of managing change result from a failure to understand, address and change culture. This soft side of HR management can also be linked to the Theory O type of change and both are concerned with the behavior of the people, individually and collectively. To be able to really change the organizational culture the focus must change from the harder Theory E type of changes to the softer Theory O type of changes. This should be an important element of the leader changing the organizational culture (Gerry Johnson, 2008; Carnall, 2007; Holbeche, 2006).
These characteristics are very important for a leader who must change or shape the organizational culture. Their followers must be properly motivated to change or shape the culture. When these characteristics are not present in a leader, changing the culture will often not succeed. To accomplish shared objectives, individual and collective efforts must be facilitated (Yukl, 2002).
The leadership style chosen has a very important influence on the success or failure of shaping or changing the organizational culture. There are three main leadership styles; autocratic, consultative and group oriented. The last two are more related to the softer sides of Theory O type of change and will be more successful in changing the organizational culture than the Theory E type of change (Holbeche, 2006; Isaksen and Tidd, 2006).
Possible approach to change the organizational culture
Culture is not something that can be changed easily. Trying to grab the culture and twist it into new shapes will never work because organizational culture does not let itself being grabbed. This culture can only be changed if you are able to change and alter the people’s actions. If this new behavior will provide benefit for the group for some time and if this new behavior can be linked to performance improvements, then eventually this change can be made enduring (Kotter, 1996).
There are three sources of inertia that prevents the learning process; cognitive frameworks, motivation and obligation. People within organizations often develop a shared cognitive framework or mental model that is of influence on the way they interpret the reality and how they learn. A shared mental model can prevent people from thinking outside that frame. It is important to alter that shared mental model of people to make them more adaptable to change (Gersick, 1991).
Through strategy forums, open-space events, learning maps and workshops new mental models can be build. With new mental models aligned to the change we want to implement, people and groups are better capable of adapting to change (Carnall, 2007; Bruch and Sattelberger, 2001).
Changing organizational culture is not something of the individual alone. There is also group behavior, where the benefit of the individual becomes less important or is aligned with the benefit of the group or subculture where this individual belongs to. The effective management of work groups requires an understanding of the psychological and social influences on behavior within organizations (Mullins, 2006).
National cultures
Cultural differences appear at different levels. Often discrimination by ethnic, regional and religious origins delays the assimilation and forms a real problem in Organizational Cultures. Regional, ethnic and religious cultural dimensions have strong similarities with the characteristics of national cultures. It is impossible for any culture to prove that their religion and moral system is superior to others. Often their members reinforce these beliefs and values on each other until they become the truth. Cultural distance is often increased by religion and social norms. (Hofstede et al, 2010; Schein, 2004; Johnson et al, 2008).
When looking at gender it is mostly the lack of having the right symbols, image and rituals than prevents role changes. This is a very slow process and these symbols, images and rituals must first be learned by the opposite sexes to make these role changes successful on the long run. Social class, race, age and religion are of influence on attitudes, beliefs and values. They on themselves will have an important role upon different understandings of gender. Gender egalitarianism can be seen as the extent to which an organization or society tries to minimize role differences. This is often seen within organizational cultures; but also the opposite can be present (Hofstede et al, 2010; House et al, 2010; Mullins, 2005).
These same rituals, symbols and images do play an important role when analyzing the generation differences. These differences become even bigger in technology based societies where the elder people have difficulties catching up with development of new tools. In agricultural cultures these differences between generations are less evident.
The social class differences are related to education and educational opportunities. Furthermore someone’s occupation or profession often determines the sub-culture this person belongs to. Different countries have their own set of classes. Often symbols like manners, accents of language and the use of certain words in specific situations determines the class a person belongs to. When these symbols are dramatically different between sub-cultures, it is very difficult to integrate them into the overall organizational culture (Hofstede et al, 2010).
Often the higher layers within an organization show the symbols, accent and rituals of the higher social class within a national culture and down the organizational layers these manners, accents and rituals are more related to the middle and lower layers of society, despite many initiatives to make class differences disappear. Just like the French situation where the classes themselves have limited room for change and integration (Bhagat & Steers, 2009; Richardson, 2001).
When above elements are translated to the organizational culture, then they can define the areas where change is needed to dismantle the barriers between sub-cultures. They often form the most important factors of differentiation and by analyzing their presence within the organizational culture, they can help us to make better use of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument OCAI of Cameron and Quinn (1998), the 7s model of Peters & Waterman, the Organizational Character Index of Bridges (2000), the cultural dimensions defined by Schein (1984) and Kotter (1992) or the cultural change management elements of Paul Bate (1984).
Leading across cultures
For successful leadership across cultures it is important to create cross-cultural awareness, which could increases and stimulate self-awareness, sensitivity to differences, questioning own assumptions and lessening of ignorance, prejudice and hatred. Having cross-cultural awareness, although essential for the cross-cultural leader, does not imply that these positive outcomes automatically come to existence. There is evidence that multi-cultural work teams perform much better or much worse than teams with one cultural background. To increase the chance for better multi-cultural team performance, cultural intelligence and cross-cultural awareness are thus necessary elements for leading across cultures. The right cross-cultural elements can then be stimulated and integrated (Mullins, 2005; Yukl, 2010; Saunder et al, 2010).
Language and interpretation of leadership across cultures is another issue. Cultures vary among each other, but also the institutions and leadership within these cultures differ. The type of national or organizational culture determines the possible leadership style which is most effective. An autocratic society or organization demands a different leader than a pure democratic society or organization for example. Having many different (national) cultures within an organization and within different teams means that a leadership style is needed that can address all these differences and make a unit out of them (Mullins, 2005; Bhagat et all, 2009).
Conslusion
This research has analyzed and explained the importance of organizational culture related to change and innovation. This research has investigated the different parts of organizational culture and how it can be influenced to undergo the change needed for innovation. In this analysis, the aim was to clarify how subcultures and national cultures are inseparable from organizational culture and without them proper study of this phenomenon is impossible.
The findings of this research suggest that the different subcultures and national cultures should be part of an overall integrated organizational culture to be effective for innovation and change. One of the more significant findings of this research showed that the quality of health care within a nursing home for elderly people could be dramatically improved if the different subcultures and national cultures shared the same set of basic assumptions and belief system though cultural integration.
There are a number of relevant caveats regarding the present study. A very important caveat is the fact that the study is focused on a very small group of nurses within one nursing home for elderly people. The outcomes of this study can be very different in other national cultures, regions, countries and nursing homes with different types of dependents. Furthermore, the literature review was short and only a narrow focus on the existing material concerning the topic was possible.
Therefore, this research created many new questions in need for further analysis within health care in general and nursing homes for elderly people specifically. Further research in this relative new field regarding the role of organizational culture related to innovation and change within nursing homes for elderly people to improve the healthcare given, would be of great help in better understanding this coherent relationship between these elements. A reasonable approach to tackle this problem could be to broaden the literature on this topic and do the research within more nursing homes for elderly people with a different set of typical dependents and nurses.
