Content uploaded by Patricia Amélia Tomei
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patricia Amélia Tomei on Jun 20, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Cultural Fit and Desired Organizational Values:
The Case of ARFCO
Patrícia Amélia Tomei, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Giuseppe Maria Russo, DEDIX Business Management, Brazil
Abstract: Based on the assumption that the search for clusters of similar perceptions is important for organizational
management and change, this article analyzes the degree of cultural agreement among an organization’s subcultures,
identifying the values (both extant and desired) perceived by the leadership and staff clusters. Was used Q-methodology
for the systematic analysis of subjectivity, that enabled the ideographic evaluation of organizational values to be
performed, and a qualitative methodology, involving a case study of ARFCO, Rio de Janeiro firm, based on documentary
evidence, interviews and questionnaires filled out during workshops. We found that the organizational culture of ARFCO
is predominantly fragmented. The existence of cultural fit among the leadership and staff subcultures, regarding desired
values, offers us sufficient insight to suggest that cultural alignment within ARFCO is possible, as long as the current
differences of perception can be attenuated. To begin fostering cultural alignment, we suggest focusing on programs that
seek to achieve the desired values for the two groups and make the governance of the organization, in a complex and
competitive environment, more easily manageable. The form of execution should be tailored to the organization in
alignment with the desired organizational culture.
Keywords: Organizational Value, Cultural Fit, Q-Methodology
Introduction
n studies of organizational culture, organizations are normally perceived as sharing a
dominant culture (associated with leadership)—one that is identifiable (Teerikangas and
Laamanen 2002). There is, however, a conceptual debate over whether organizations are
monoculture (i.e., the culture of the decision-making elite) or multicultural. (Boisnier and
Chatman 2003)
The mechanism most used to understand shared understanding is usually referred to
as cultural fit. Cultural fit is related to the way in which the members of an organization
make sense of the organizational context and the factors that influence this process of
understanding or comprehending its meaning. Cultural fit is an integrative invisible
force that holds the organization together.
Research studies on cultural fit have demonstrated its importance for organizations
in a range of constructs. Optimistically speaking, cultural alignment can benefit the
organization, increasing employee satisfaction, creativity, commitment (Amos and
Weathington 2008; Chatman 1991; Ostroff et al. 2005; Carless 2005; Iplik et al. 2011),
performance, and organizational efficiency (Castka et al. 2001; Diskiene and Gostautas
2013; Lauver and Kristof-Brown 2001; Lopez and Babin 2009), while reducing turnover
and stress (Michael 2009; Cable and Judge 1996), and in pursuit of an optimal hiring
goal and predicting employee retention (Mcculloch and Turban 2007;Westerman and
Cyr 2004).
When firms expound their corporate values and align them with their mission and
Organizational Cultures: An International Journal
Volume #, Issue #, 20##, www.organization-studies.com
© Common Ground Publishing, Patrícia Amélia Tomei, Giuseppe Maria Russo
All Rights Reserved. Permissions: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com
ISSN: 2327-8013 (Print), ISSN: 2327-932X (Online)
I
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
strategic vision, they encourage employees’ adherence to and identification with their
objectives (Kim 2012), favoring this cultural agreement.
The theoretical underpinnings of these effects are typically attributed to the fact that
the greater the alignment of values with the organization, the greater the degree of
attraction and the lower the possibility of conflict (Elfenbein and O’Reilly 2007).
Employees who share the organization’s values will be more likely to support the larger
causes of the organization (Yanif and Farkas 2005). This alignment helps individuals to
focus on both the individual and the organization culture. For instance, people-centered
organizations understand that money is important to people and can be a powerful driver
of behavior. However, organizations can combine monetary incentives with intrinsic
rewards. The overall alignment and consistency among these levers is the factor that
makes the values come alive in these organizations (O’Reilly III and Pfeffer 2000).
The topic of cultural fit as it relates to perceived and desired values is significant,
timely, and important, especially given that many recent studies related to organizational
behavior are primarily focusing on cultural diversity as essential for optimizing
organizational performance. The study of the subject is intrinsically interesting and fills
a gap in the literature by strengthening the relationship between values (perceived and
desired), cultural fit, and subcultures in an organization that has undergone restructuring.
This article’s aim is to analyze the cultural agreement among an organization’s
subcultures, identifying the values (extant and desired) perceived by its leadership and
staff clusters. It is based on the premise that congruence between individual and
organizational values is a key factor in corporate results and employee behavior and that
studying this alignment is important for the implementation of the organization’s
mission.
In order to analyze the issue, the article is composed of the following parts: the first
part describes the theoretical framework where we emphasize the importance of cultural
fit for organizations and the role of shared values. The second part contains an overview
of the referred-to methodologies, as well as the characteristics of the case study carried
out at ARFCO. The third section presents the cultural diagnostic of ARFCO along with
the identification of its organizational values. Lastly, an analysis if performed of cultural
fit with a focus on desired values, based on the premise that the search for clusters of
similar perceptions on the part of the organizational leadership/the staff is important for
organizational management and change.
Theoretical Framework
The Impact of Organizational Values on Culture
Definitions of organizational culture have included several common themes such as customs,
values, beliefs, and modes of action, among others, which appear in the majority of existing
definitions. For Katz and Kahn, culture is rooted as much in the rules and values of the formal
TOMEI & RUSSO: CULTURAL FIT AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
organization as it is in its reinterpretation by the informal organization and “all organizations
create their own culture or atmosphere, with their own taboos, ways and customs” (Katz and
Kahn 1976, 85)
One of the most highly respected scholars in the field of organizational culture,
Edgar Schein (1992), proposes the following definition:
Cultural organization is a pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a
group 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
1992, 52).
The pattern of basic assumptions involves the values, which guide behavior. These
values become internalized and unconscious to the point where they are considered
natural. For Schein (1992) “the essence of culture is these jointly learned values, beliefs,
and assumptions that become shared and taken for granted” (Schein 2001, 35).
The approach presented by Schein (1992) shows that the nucleus of organizational
culture (tacit assumptions) is composed of values that lie outside individuals’ awareness.
Deciphering cultural patterns may help to anticipate or explain behaviors.
O’Reilly et al. (1991) and Chatman and Jehn (1994) define organizational culture as
the set of values shared by the members of an organization. Denison (1984) holds that
organizational culture refers to the beliefs and values which tend to manifest themselves
in the behavior of the group’s members. Similarly, Eldridge and Crombie (1974) define
organizational culture as:
The unique configuration of norms, values, beliefs, ways of behaving and so on that
characterize the manner in which groups and individuals combine to get things done.
(Eldridge and Crombie 1974, 89)
Such values have also been proposed as being motivators of organizational
excellence (Peters and Waterman 1986). For Mintzberg and Quinn (1991) culture is
defined as being a system that is both well developed and deeply rooted in values. For
Chatman and Jehn (1994) culture is represented by the values shared among the
members of an organization, providing the group with an identity.
The definitions of organizational culture, while differing in several aspects, tend to
agree regarding the fact that values constitute an important component of organizational
culture (Michilova and Hutchings 2006). Thus, organizational values constitute the
principal elements of research on organizational culture (Chatman 1991; O’Reilly et al.
1991; Schein 2001; Vandenberghe 1999).
Organizational values are among the few socio-psychological concepts that have
been successfully adopted by almost all the disciplines in the social science and
management studies areas, and have been defined as generalizable and enduring
organizational beliefs regarding the personal and social desire for modes of behavior
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
(Klenke 2005).
Tamayo et al. (2000) defined organizational values:
As principles or beliefs, organized hierarchically, relative to desirable states of existence
or models of behavior which guide the life of the organization. (Tamayo et al. 2000,
293)
Although values, according to Klenke (2005), may be construed in several ways, there are certain
qualities common to the existing definitions:
(1) Values are more general than specific in nature;
(2) Values may be applied at multiple levels;
(3) Values are enduring and transcend specific situations;
(4) Values provide a sense of purpose for individual behavior; and
(5) Values are the basis for the generation of behaviors adapted to the group’s needs.
Thus, values are considered to strongly influence the attitudinal and behavioral
responses of individuals (Meglino 1998).
According to Michilova and Hutchings (2006), values have traditionally been the
subject of interest and analysis in several disciplines. Anthropologists have stated that
values are the nucleus of culture. Sociologists have emphasized their normative nature
and specific feature of being shared by society and by the members of organizations.
Psychologists have studied values associated with their role as the determinant of
individual behavior. The organizational literature and, particularly, behavioral literature,
has emphasized the importance of values as a basis for enabling the members of an
organization to understand the world around them and how they should act.
The understanding of value as preference enables one to infer that values are
reaffirmed in effective behaviors, are gradually internalized, and eventually become
incorporated into the assumptions aligned with organizational culture (Nogueira and
Machado-da-Silva 2003). The definition of values denotes the importance they have for
the determination of behaviors. The relationship between values and behavior has been
one of the main research objectives in the area of values (Britto et al. 2003), indicating
the importance of values for organizations. The fact that values are so important to
organizations makes understanding them even more essential. Thus, organizational
values are understood to be exclusive to each organization. Daft (2004) reports on the
underlying values and suggests they reflect deeper thought processes—that they are the
true culture, based upon which the culture may be identified and interpreted.
In this study, values mean abstract, explicit, and often management-driven
statements that represent ideal modes of conduct and ideal terminal goals that are used
as a vehicle for managerial intervention in an organization. In general, values differ
from organizational beliefs temporally by level of analysis, and in their level of
abstraction and explicitness (Martinsuo 1998). However, they are considered a potential
TOMEI & RUSSO: CULTURAL FIT AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
tool for influencing organizational members’ beliefs due to their ambiguity and
conceptual connection to organizational culture. In order to lead to hoped-for behavioral
responses on the part of organizational members, values should represent ideals that are
both in-use and desired; they must be simple, inspiring, and consistent with each other
(O’Reill et al. 1991).
The notion of shared values, where, rather than uniformity there is a coexistence
with organizational values (when the latter differ from individual values), has been
studied by several authors (Hofstede 1984). Enz (1988) considers that shared values are
fundamental to the analysis of organizational culture. Jeminson and Sitkin (1986) also
use this concept to describe similarities between organizations, in terms of cultural
organization.
Das and Teng (2001) believe in the importance of shared values because they permit
the creation of a cluster spirit, where the sense of belonging to the same team can
enhance conflict resolution and mutual confidence. This argument is based on the belief
that similar cultures and values can enhance organizational fit between partners. Inkpen
and Currall (1998) who believe that similar organizational cultures can drive the
development of trust also defended this idea. This also constitutes Sako’s underlying
concept (1998), who notes that the values shared between partners create an alliance of
values that no rule can affect; the idea can also be seen in the proposal suggested by
Sitkin and Roth (1993) who state that shared values prevent the appearance of distrust.
Cultural Fit
Kristof (1996) defined cultural fit as:
The compatibility between people and organizations that occurs when: “(a) at least one
entity provides what the other needs, or (b) they share similar fundamental
characteristics, or (c) both.” (Kristof 1996, 4–5)
This definition addresses person-organization fit as a whole instead of as a specific
load (Kristof 1996). This takes into account two types of relationships, which can occur
between an individual and an organization: (a) the organization and the individual
contribute to meeting one another’s needs (i.e., supplementary fit), (b) the organization
and individual share similar characteristics (i.e., complementary fit).
In the literature, we can identify different approaches to cultural alignment,
depending on the perspective considered. The social identity or demography perspective
(Hilal 2002) proposes that social identity, cultural antecedents, and an organizational
member’s values are the primary factors that influence the way in which the member is
going to make sense of the organizational context. Organizational members with the
same background will have greater probabilities of cultural alignment than members of
the same organization with different demographic backgrounds. One can see that the
selection process affects the constitution of cultural alignment in an organization,
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
especially if we assume that occupation, professionalization and industry favor the
demarcation of subcultures (Louis 1980). From the structuralist point of view, the main
factors that influence the cultural points of view of organizational members are
structural differentiation and formal position. Consequently, the members of the
organization who occupy similar organizational positions are affected by the same
organizational pressures and are more likely to develop similar cultural points of view,
i.e., of being culturally aligned. (Tomei et al. 2008). The social-interactionist approach
(Koene 1997) assumes that organizational members’ cultural points of view develop as a
function of their interactions with each other. Information exchanged during
organizational members “interactions enables them to make sense of the organizational
context and identify appropriate ways of acting. By sharing information reciprocally,
organizational members who interact frequently tend to develop similar points of view.
Cultural alignment is, therefore, catalyzed by interpersonal relationships.
Countless studies have examined the alignment between the individual and the
organization and sustained that when people feel more integrated their attitudes and
behavior tend to be more positive (Tepeci and Bartlett 2002; Michael 2009; Ostroff et al.
2005; Van Vuuren et al. 2007; Werbel and Demarie 2005; Yu 2009). Recent studies in
this line of research have produced some interesting results: Iplik et al. (2011) showed
that the individual-organization alignment of employees at a five-star hotel in Turkey
has a positive impact on employee commitment, satisfaction, and motivation; and a
negative one on its managers’ organizational stress. Annelies et al. (2011) identified the
contribution of individual-organization alignment to commitment and the quality of
interpersonal relationships in Taiwanese firms.
Amos et al. (2008) and Spanjol et al. (2013) emphasized that the congruence
between organizational and individual values and employee attitudes favors the
dimensions of commitment, satisfaction with the job and with the organizational as a
whole, and makes employees less likely to leave the firm.
In addition to employee behavior-related dimensions, cultural alignment studies
have also explored the role of culture, ethics, and leadership in the alignment between
individuals and the organization (Lopez and Babin 2009; Yu-Chen 2012; Zoghbi-
Manrique de Lara 2008).
Among these studies, we highlight:
a) the studies by Ruiz-Palomino and Marti´nez-Can˜as (2013) who, using a
sample of 525 employees of Spanish financial firms, showed the importance of
alignment between individuals and the organization for an ethical culture and
corporate citizenship;
b) the study by Kleine (2014) in which the author assesses how senior executives
and employees perceive their organization’s culture, and concluded that
differences in perception regarding the degree of organizational have an impact
on corporate culture;
TOMEI & RUSSO: CULTURAL FIT AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
c) Larson et al.’s study (2013) which identified that employees who are more
aligned with their leaders are more committed to the organization; and
d) The studies by Goffee and Jones (2013) in which the authors point out that
employees believe that to obtain organizational alignment it is not enough to
merely fulfill the company’s mission.
There must also be a strong connection between personal and organizational values. (Gibbs and
Maguire 2016). Van Vianen et al. (2007) hold that people’s fit with the organization (P-O fit)
associates a person’s personality, goals, and values with those of the organization. Peoples’
values are important attributes for establishing this fit.
According to Kristof-Brown et al. (2005), although we still find many different
concepts, measures, and analytical approaches in the cultural alignment field, the
organizational literature focuses mainly on values and value congruence as a way of
measuring congruence between individuals and organizations.
The cultural alignment process used as a theoretical framework in this study
assumes a perspective that predicts complementary congruence, and is thus more
encompassing, conditioned on certain factors such as organizational context, structural
differentiation, formal position, interaction between members, communications
processes, and interpersonal relationships (Tomei et al. 2008). It is based on studies,
which affirm that subgroup cultures are easier to change than organizational ones and
can, directly and indirectly, have a significant impact on an organization’s results
(Chatman and Flynn 2001; Jehn and Mannix 2001; Goodman and Svyantek 1999).
Methodological Models and Tools for Assessing Cultural Alignment
Organizational research and studies have developed new tools, methods, and knowledge that can
be used to characterize organizational culture, identify the scale of values and assess the degree
of internalization and cultural alignment in an organization (Igo and Skitmore 2006). The
following constitute some of the main tools available in the academic literature: Organizational
Profile Questionnaire (Askansasy, Broadfoot, and Falkus 2000), Organizational Culture Profile
(OPC) (O’Reilly et al. 1991), Personal, Customer Orientation, and Cultural Issues (Maull et al.
2001), Culture Assessment Instrument (Cameron and Quinn 1999).
In Brazil one should mention: the Inventory of Organizational Values—Tamayo et
al. (2000), Psychometric Characteristics Questionnaire to identify the values and
practices of organizational culture (Ferreira et al. 2002) and the Entrepreneurial Culture
Profile (Tomei et al. 2008) based in the revised Organizational Cultural Profile
(O’Reilly et al. 1991) from Sarros et al. (2005).
The OPC (Organizational Cultural Profile) proposed by O’Reilly et al. (1991) was
developed in order to study the fit between individual and organizational values. Cable
and Judge (1996) first reduced the number of items in the model; they subsequently
used the model in a study to confirm the importance of person/organization fit during
the personnel recruiting and selection process (Cable and Parsons 2001). This focus
suggests that OCP factors may reflect a pattern of relationships among the factors, based
on individual interests (e.g., supportiveness, emphasis on rewards, team-orientation, and
decisiveness) and organizational interests (e.g., innovation, attention to detail, outcome
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
orientation, aggressiveness).
The original OCP is composed of fifty-four organizational values that were
evidenced during a review by academics and writers focusing on values and
organizational culture. Thirty-eight business school department managers and all the
professors from four American business schools noted the existence of redundancy,
irrelevancy, and difficulty of comprehension in an initial set of 110 organizational
values. After several interactions, a final set of fifty-four organizational values was used
empirically (O’Reilly et al. 1991).
OCP is based on the Q-sort technique (Block 1978). In order to apply the technique,
as proposed by O’Reilly et al. (1991), respondents must classify the fifty-four OCP
values into nine categories that describe the extent to which each value is characteristic
of the organization where they work. Q-methodology (described below) was used for
the analysis.
The original version of OCP was developed using exploratory factor analysis in
order to establish eight dimensions of organizational culture: innovation, attention to
detail, outcome orientation, aggressiveness, and supportiveness, emphasis on rewards,
team-orientation, and decisiveness. O’Reilly et al. (1991) selected the factors which best
fit the descriptions in the literature on the then-prevailing culture and organizational
values and which were easily understandable. The OCP was subsequently revised and
reduced.
Several researchers have suggested that validation studies should be carried out
using the OCP. Vandenberghe (1999) recommended that the model be applied in order to
compare nations and industries. Windsor and Ashkanasy (1996) suggested that the
values that comprised the original OCP should be evaluated in terms of their
appropriateness for specific samples. Howard (1998), also suggested that the reliability
of all of the OCP values needs to be investigated. Other researchers, such as
Vandenberghe (1999), Cable and Judge (1996), and Sarros et al. (2005) sought to revise
and validate the OCP.
Sarros et al. (2005) carried out a study of 1,918 Australian executives. The sample
was stratified based on their place of origin in the country. In the analysis performed by
Sarros et al. (2005), using O’Reilly et al.’s fifty-four values (1991) it was possible to
verify that several values had negative loadings on their corresponding factor. These
values were removed and other values became redundant or presented low Cronbach’s
alfa (thereby producing inadequate models) and were excluded. Meanwhile, two new
factors were identified: social responsibility and stability. All calculations were
validated, with no significant difference between the randomly selected subsamples.
Based on the nature of the values loaded on each factor, the new version of abbreviated
OCP contains twenty-eight values and seven factors: Competitiveness, Social
TOMEI & RUSSO: CULTURAL FIT AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
Responsibility, Supportiveness, Innovation, Emphasis on Rewards, Performance
Orientation, and Stability.
Given that, organizational values are important (Kabanoff 2002), how can we
describe them and measure them in order to make comparisons? Following Altman
(1992), the studies of organizational values were carried out using one of the following
methodologies: quantitative, with one or several organizations (e.g., Schein 1992) and
qualitative (i.e. survey), involving, in some cases, a large number of organizations (e.g.,
Chatman and Jehn 1994).In addition, combined quantitative and qualitative
methodologies enable the triangulation of study results (Flick 2004). According to Flick
(2004, 274) enables “the complementary compensation of the weaknesses and blind
spots of each single method.” At an empirical level, researchers are keen to integrate the
methods (Denison and Mishra 1995), demonstrating the importance of functionalist and
phenomenological perspectives (Malufe and Gatti 1987). According to Eisenhardt
(1989), the combination of the methods can be quite synergistic. The quantitative
evidence can indicate relationships that might not be apparent and can distance the
researcher from impressions—often false—suggested by such evidence. On the other
hand, qualitative data is very important for understanding the rationale that is not
revealed by quantitative data.
Thus the results of Denison and Mishra’s (1995) empirical study of organizational
culture provided support for the concurrent application of quantitative and qualitative
methods, despite the criticism of the use of questionnaires and the analysis of
organizations using categorization models (Schein 2001). Nonetheless, many
researchers have argued in favor of the use of questionnaires and qualitative analysis
modeling of organizational culture (Handy 1978; Hofstede 1991; Schneider 1996;
Trompenaars 1993; O’Reilly et al. 1991; Sarros et al. 2005).
Q-methodology was developed by William Stephenson in 1953 (Brown 1986;
Santos and Amaral 2004) and has been reviewed extensively in many works which refer
to it (Brown 1986). Q-methodology provides the basis for the systematic study of
subjectivity. This characteristic makes it suitable for the study of qualitative aspects
related to human behavior. The sorting of the variables utilized in Q-methodology is
referred to as the Q-sort. The distinctive feature of Q-sorting is that participants are
required to sort the supplied variables according to a predefined, quasi-normal
distribution. It is unusual to use the Q-sort technique with panels of more than 100
participants, asking them to sort lists of twenty to fifty variables (Santos and Amaral
2004).
Using the Q-sort technique offers many advantages (Thomas and Watson 2002):
(1) Q-sort provide a means for the in-depth study of small sample populations;
(2) It can be useful in exploratory research;
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
(3) It allow researchers to establish comparative hierarchies of a large number of
variables (Howard 1998), an important benefit of ipsative measures in general,
(4) Forces the creation of a quasi-normal distribution, thus facilitating inferences
and statistical comparisons regarding groups (Howard 1998)
(5) It captures subjectivity with minimal researcher interference;
(6) Participants need not be randomly selected;
(7) It may be administered over the Internet,
(8) Since each variable is compared with each of the other variables, the Q-sort
output constitutes a realistic profile with variables listed in an order that
reflects the relative importance of each variable in relation to the others, in
terms of the business.
Q-sort mirrors reality since, for a business, some variables are expected to be more
important than others are. The greatest advantage of this method in relation to the
traditional method (i.e., Likert scale) of attributing a value to a question is that Q-sort
induces participants to consider the problem as a whole, in contrast to the traditional
method, which treats each question separately.
The research decided to apply the Q-sort technique instead of the Likert scale (the
usual choice for research studies), because the objective of the study was to order a set
of variables according to their importance. The downside of the Likert scale is that the
respondent must look at each variable individually and not in relation to the others. By
considering each variable separately and in treating the most important and least
important variables, it becomes difficult to gauge their relative importance on the scale,
and there is a tendency to attribute extreme values. This fact produces many repetitions
among variables—an undesirable outcome, since the objective is to produce a list sorted
according to the variables’ relative importance. The Q-sort technique overcomes this
problem, since the participant must look at the variables as a whole, dividing them into
three groups—the most important, the least important, and the neutral ones—according
to a predefined quasi-normal distribution. Additionally, the participant has to
concentrate on each of the list separately and choose the most and least important
variables, depending on the list. By doing so, a list sorted according to importance is
obtained, with no ambiguities of classification and with no chance of having repeated
variables in the same position.
The Q-sort technique (Block 1978), which provides an ideographic evaluation of the
values of an organization thereby permitting their comparison (Cooper-Thomas et al.
2004), provided an ipsative measure when applied in-person with respondents. This
reduced the opportunity for respondents to provide a socially desirable response
(Cooper-Thomas et al. 2004).
Q-sort is useful for small samples (Rosenbaum et al. 2005) with twenty to thirty
respondents being sufficient for the investigation of public opinion (Hazari 2005). It is
even usable with as few as seven respondents (Lee and Yu 2004).
Methodology
TOMEI & RUSSO: CULTURAL FIT AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
Choice of Model for Diagnostic Analysis
Understanding organizational culture as a set of values shared among organizational members
and accepting that there are several ways of conceptualizing organizational culture, this paper
attempts to identify organizational culture through organizational practices and values. In order to
measure cultural alignment, a formal position was assumed consisting of two distinct clusters for
analysis: leadership and staff.
The present study is exploratory and explanatory, adopting quantitative and
qualitative methods simultaneously. A case study was performed of an organization we
shall call ARFCO, founded in 1967 and which grew out of the Brazilian government’s
need to technically and financially encourage national studies and research as well as
economic, social, scientific, and technical projects and programs, in order to fulfil the
Federal Government’s goals and priorities regarding specific sectors.
The study’s approach was based on the results of Denison and Mishra’s (1995)
study of organizational culture and adopted quantitative and qualitative research
methods simultaneously.
This study was undertaken at the behest of the company researched, which
requested a diagnostic of its organizational culture and from the very beginning showed
a deep interest in the study, providing all necessary support.
The organization was experiencing a tumultuous process of change, with a series of
conflicts, questionings, and doubts, and had just carried out one of the biggest
restructurings in its history. Thus, the aim of the study was to discover how its
employees were experiencing this turbulent organizational environment, with its abrupt
structural changes, and how this process was affecting the fulfillment of the
organization’s mission.
Collection and Treatment of Questionnaire Data
During the course of the research, data was collected through a multi-method study that included
documental analysis, workshops, observations, and individual interviews with open questions
and questionnaires.
In the document phase of the research the following documents were analyzed:
company history, company philosophy, Human Resources norms, company website,
Human Resources strategic plan, company vision and mission, social responsibility
actions, employee manual, socialization process, communication process, organizational
structure, organizational research climate.
The interviews lasted from thirty minutes to one hour. The primary purpose of the
interviews was to identify organizational and attitudinal variables linked to the
questionnaire.
In July 2011 the population of ARFCO was composed of 614 employees; the sample
interviewed was composed of eighty-two participants, (55 percent male, 29 percent aged
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
between forty-six and fifty-five, 85 percent college graduates); the level of significance
was 95 percent with a 10 percent margin of error.
The reliability of the study could be questioned due to the use of a convenience
sample of interviewees and the fact that ARFCO’s Human Resources department
selected group interviewees. However, reliability was improved by emphasizing the
confidentiality of the discussions and the anonymity of respondents. In addition, due to
the non-probabilistic nature of the convenience sample, the study’s conclusions cannot
be generalized.
The questionnaire was applied in a similar way to the entire sample. The study used
a Q sort data collection technique, which permits the analysis of subjective data. The
analysis was carried out using Q-methodology. A set of forty organizational values was
presented to respondents to enable them to fill out the questionnaire (Tomei et al. 2008).
Respondents were then requested to sort the values along a continuous scale ranging
from “not important” to “very important” according to their own opinion. The answers
to the questions regarding organizational values were tabulated and treated using
statistical procedures available in SPSS 13.0 and PCQ 1.41. The procedures included:
(1) Averages of frequencies to identify the relative importance of the values.
(2) Exploratory Factor Analysis, for the purpose of convergent validation of the
model with the profile of the enterprise culture. This statistical technique was
also used to test the quality of the collected data.
(3) Q-methodology to identify clusters of respondents. Variables showing high
correlation may be considered similar, i.e., belonging to the same cluster. The
study enabled the number of different clusters to be identified. Consequently,
the number of clusters is empirical and completely dependent on how
respondents sort the variables. The clusters group those people who share a
common concept together. Q-methodology thus provides a framework for the
systematic study of subjectivity. This characteristic makes it suitable for the
study of subjective aspects of human behavior.
Finally, the workshops observations and analysis of documents were not discussed
nor presented in the data analysis where we focus on interviews and questionnaire.
ARFCO: Identification of Organizational Value Groupings
In order to identify the most important and least important values at ARFCO for the sample, we
calculated the averages of the responses for the leadership and for staff. We then compared the
two averages (Graph 1).
TOMEI & RUSSO: CULTURAL FIT AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
Leadershi
p
Staff
Graph 1: Comparison of Degree of Presence – Leadership and Staff
“Individualism,” “Dedication,” “Resilience,” “Obedience,” “Versatility,” “Alacrity,”
“Commitment,” and “Achievement-Oriented” were found to be the values most highly
rated by the leadership (of the forty proposed values). In contrast, “Commitment,”
“Flexibility,” “Resilience,” “Obedience,” “Professionalism,” “Innovation,” “Simplicity,”
and “Perseverance” were the values most highly rated by the staff (of the forty proposed
values). “Commitment,” “Obedience,” and “Resilience” were found to be highly rated
by both groups interviewed (Table 1).
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
Table 1: Most Highly Rated Values
Values Rated Highest
Leadership
Values Rated Highest
Staff
Values Rated
Highest
Leadership and
Staff
Individualism, Dedication,
Resilience, Versatility,
Obedience, Commitment,
Achievement-Oriented
Commitment, Flexibility,
Resilience, Simplicity,
Obedience, Enthusiasm,
Perseverance, Professionalism,
Innovation
Commitment,
Obedience,
Resilience
“Strategic Vision,” “Transparency,” “Self-Starter,” and “Results-Oriented” were
considered the least-rated organizational values, of the forty values proposed for
leadership. “Autonomy,” “Strategic Vision,” “Communication,” and “Results-Oriented”
were considered the least-rated values of the forty values proposed for the staff.
“Strategic Vision” and “Results-Oriented” were not rated highly by either of the two
groups interviewed (Table 2).
Table 2: Values Rated Lowest
Values Rated Lowest
Leadership
Values Rated Lowest
Staff
Values Rated Lowest
Leadership and Staff
Strategic Vision, Self-Starter,
Transparency, Results-
Oriented
Strategic Vision, Results-
Oriented, Communication,
Autonomy
Strategic Vision,
Results-Oriented
Organizational practices entrenched over the years resulted in the group of
interviewees identifying four shortcomings in the organization:
a) Lack of organizational identity;
b) Unclear organizational vision, i.e., not all staff are even aware of the specific goals to be
met by the organization;
c) Lack of clarity regarding relationships between rewards, sanctions, effort and
performance; and
d) Lack of equality of opportunities. The excerpt from an interview, shown below,
illustrates this aspect:
TOMEI & RUSSO: CULTURAL FIT AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
a. ARFCO can be compared to a multitalented person. Discreet (because they
deal with cutting-edge knowledge), versatile, indecisive, confused, quasi-
schizophrenic. The company manages to work on several things at the same
time. It is like a split personality. Someone with no identity. Someone who is
not wholly integrated.
In effect, there is no strategically defined approach at ARFCO. Despite attempts to
put a planning process in place, the implementation of any kind of policy suffers from
discontinuities caused by changes of leadership, as the following excerpt from a staff
member’s interview illustrates:
ARFCO’s biggest problem is the lack of continuity. With every new board, everything
changes: the structure, the staff, etc.—without the board even knowing what is there.
ARFCO is like a ship without a compass: every new face treats us like a doormat.
At ARFCO, the formal structures favor the centralization of power. Leaders tend to
adopt the stance of the all-knowing “father” who acts as the almighty giver to “his
flock.” Subordinates tend to wait for solutions from leaders. They wind up transferring
the responsibility for their successes and failures to their superiors. Moreover,
oftentimes, they wish their superiors would treat them differentially, more personally, in
relation to the group. The following interview excerpt illustrates this point:
At ARFCO we don’t have a clear stand, clear goals and rules. Management needs to
offer some sense of direction that might be useful to society; they need to provide
guidance, training, to try to stem the constant complaining about ARFCO.
Regarding the decision-making process, the ARFCO management style vacillates
between coercive authoritarianism and benevolent authoritarianism. Strategic decisions
are concentrated with upper management and the administrative system delegates only
routine affairs. This overloads managers, generating duplicated efforts, hampering
managerial initiatives and reinforcing the negative aspects of the bureaucratic structure.
Characterizing the decision-making style by the groups interviewed, congruence
could be identified regarding questions such as:
(1) the putting-out-fires culture;
(2) casuistic decision-making;
(3) lack of a planning culture;
(4) individualistic attitudes (oftentimes limited to one's own experiences);
(5) conformism; and
(6) clinging to tried and tested solutions.
In interviews with both staff and leadership, the influence of ARFCO’s feudalistic
and vertical structure as well, as is its fragmented culture, is evident. This variable
affects decision-making differently, depending on the organizational level and the
situation. It oscillates between an analytic/directed model and one with a more
behavioral emphasis—albeit usually focusing on the short-term.
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
The communication process was frequently questioned by staff and was the subject
that generated the most polemics and differentiated interpretations. The group’s
perception that communication was the weakness of the organization was unanimous.
The staff described the issue in various ways. The concept of “communication” was
constantly confused with the notion of information and integration. The groups were
unequivocal in their observation that ARFCO has access to all formal channels of
information and that there was, in fact, an overflow of information. However,
disagreement was evident regarding the evaluation of the timing of responses to
problems that were considered strategic and the silence, which met questions of pressing
importance. The communication system both reflects and is reflected by the decision-
making process. Therefore, it too, can be construed as being a system that lies
somewhere between coercive authoritarian and benevolent authoritarian—where top-
down communications prevails. This system stifles the communication process. In
addition, linked to a centralized, pyramidal, organizational structure, it hampers the
flexibility, interdependence and coordination of the system, leading to the proliferation
informal communications and thus rumors and distorted information.
Many of the staff associated communication with the division of physical space,
proposing “integrating solutions” using new facilities. The architectural design of the
offices reflects the hierarchical structure, where workspaces are parameters of power.
The interview excerpt below illustrates this aspect:
The information at ARFCO doesn’t flow; the feeling of pride doesn’t spread throughout
the organization. There’s a lack of standards and a lack of communication.
The lack of fairness of Human Resources, which does not recognize potential,
talent, or extra effort, was associated with several frequently identified factors as
negatively affecting staff satisfaction and motivation:
(a) quality of the physical environment,
(b) lack of feedback regarding performance and results expected, and
(c) distortions generated by the Performance Evaluation System.
Finally, we also noted that interpersonal relations provoke mistrust and segregate
people into fiefdoms (clusters) that reinforce corporatism, hamper the process of
delegating authority and fostering cooperation and team spirit, as illustrated by excerpts
from staff interviews below:
In the evaluation process, there is a homogenization…Ranking is just for the sake of
appearances….Everything revolves around a policy of personal favors fueled by
personal agendas.
Despite the existence of subgroups with differentiated cultures, Q-methodology can
discern whether there is consensus among the leadership and among the staff vis-à-vis
organizational values (Table 3).
TOMEI & RUSSO: CULTURAL FIT AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
Table 3: Consensus Values
Consensus Values
Leadership
Consensus Values
Staff
Initiative, Negotiation, Cooperativeness,
Emotional Stability, Justice, Socially
Responsible
Perspicacity
Using Q-methodology, we ascertained the presence of subgroups (clusters) at
ARFCO. There were five clusters in the leadership that shared the same subjectivity.
The most highly rated values for each cluster can be seen in the following table (Table
4).
Table 4: Values Rated Highest – Leadership Clusters
The staff formed nine groups. The most highly rated values for each cluster can be
seen in the following table. “Strategic Vision” appears in four of the nine subgroups and
“Flexibility” and “Resilience” appear in three out of nine subgroups. Despite the
differences between these subgroups, certain values are more highly perceived than
others (Table 5).
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
Table 5: Values Rated Highest; Staff Subgroups
Correspondingly, the leadership formed five subgroups that shared the same
subjectivity for the least rated values, as seen in Table 6.
Table 6: Values Rated Lowest; Leadership Subgroups
In the nine subgroups formed by the staff, the lowest-rated values for each subgroup
can be seen in the following table. “Obedience,” “Innovation,” and “Honesty” appear in
three of the nine subgroups. Despite the differences between these subgroups, certain
values are more highly perceived than others (Table 7).
Table 7: Values Rated Lowest; Staff Subgroups
In a subjective comparison of the results of the leadership subgroups with the staff
subgroups, we can observe the values which are more or less similar between the two
groups, i.e., the values most highly perceived, and the values least perceived, for each of
TOMEI & RUSSO: CULTURAL FIT AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
the groups.
Of the values most-perceived and least-perceived for each of the groups, there are
some values that are little-perceived by the leadership but highly-perceived by the staff
(see graph 2, left side); other values are highly-perceived by the leadership and little-
perceived by the staff (see graph 2, right side), as detailed below. Table 8 shows the
most perceived and the least perceived values of Graph 2.
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
Graph caption (left to right): Results-oriented; Resilience; Flexibility; Autonomy; Dedication; Alacrity; Self-
development; Group vision; Strategic Vision; Innovation; Initiatives; Visionary Leadership; Conciliation;
Negotiation; Cooperativeness; Professionalism; Competitiveness; Achievement-Oriented; Work ethic; Commitment;
Self-confidence; Emotional stability; Optimism; Perseverance; Pragmatism; Perspicacity; Boldness; Individualism;
Motivation; Communication; Security; Honesty; Obedience; Justice; Socially responsible; Simplicity; Enthusiasm;
Quality-of-life; Versatility; Transparency.
Leadership
Staff
Graph 2: Analysis of Subjectivity; Leadership/Staff Comparison
Table 8: Most- and Least-Perceived Values
Least-Perceived Leadership
Most-Perceived Staff
Most-Perceived leadership
Least-Perceived Staff
Results-oriented, Resilience, Flexibility, Self-
confidence, Self-development, Strategic
Vision, Optimism.
Boldness, Honesty, Simplicity,
Versatility, Transparency.
In sum, given the number of subgroups that were formed, especially in the sphere of
the Company leadership, we can say that the current organizational culture at ARFCO is
predominately fragmented. As a function of this organizational fragmentation, the staff
also exhibited multiple subcultures. Also as a function of this fragmentation, the result
suggested that certain organizational values were predominant in the collective psyche
(Graph 3): “Transparency,” “Versatility,” “Quality of Life,” “Justice,” “Communication”
and “Motivation.”
TOMEI & RUSSO: CULTURAL FIT AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
Graph caption (left to right): Results-oriented; Resilience; Flexibility; Autonomy; Dedication; Alacrity; Self-
development; Group vision; Strategic Vision; Innovation; Initiatives; Visionary Leadership; Conciliation; Negotiation;
Cooperativeness; Professionalism; Competitiveness; Achievement-Oriented; Work ethic; Commitment; Self-confidence;
Emotional stability; Optimism; Perseverance; Pragmatism; Perspicacity; Boldness; Individualism; Motivation;
Communication; Security; Honesty; Obedience; Justice; Socially responsible; Simplicity; Enthusiasm; Quality-of-life;
Versatility; Transparency.
Graph 3: Predominant Culture at ARFCO
Despite the differences in the perceptions of the groupings and the subcultures in the
identification of the most- and least-present values in present day ARFCO, the outlook
of the sampled leaders and staff shows a strong correlation (Graph 4).
Graph caption (left to right): Results-oriented; Resilience; Flexibility; Autonomy; Dedication; Alacrity; Self-
development; Group vision; Strategic Vision; Innovation; Initiatives; Visionary Leadership; Conciliation; Negotiation;
Cooperativeness; Professionalism; Competitiveness; Achievement-Oriented; Work ethic; Commitment; Self-confidence;
Emotional stability; Optimism; Perseverance; Pragmatism; Perspicacity; Boldness; Individualism; Motivation;
Communication; Security; Honesty; Obedience; Justice; Socially responsible; Simplicity; Enthusiasm; Quality-of-life;
Versatility; Transparency.
Leadership
Staff
Graph 4: Desired Values; Comparison of Leadersith with Staff
There is a strong cultural alignment between the leadership and the staff in as much
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
as they both place a high value on “Strategic Vision,” “Professionalism,”
“Communication” and “Results-oriented.”
In addition to four values that characterize the ARFCO desired by the group, we
have three other sought-after values: “Commitment” for the leadership group, “Justice,”
and “Autonomy” for the staff group.
In the comparison of the values being examined (highest ranking and lowest
ranking), of the two groups (leadership and staff), looking at the design values, it is
possible to perceive that the search for a “Strategic Vision” and “Results-oriented”
creates a void which must be managed in the organizational change process (Table 9).
The two values are considered desirable by both groups for a future ARFCO, although
they are hardly present in present-day ARFCO (Table 10).
Table 9: Values Rated Highest and Lowest
Values Rated Highest Values Rated Lowest
Leadership Individualism, Dedication, Resilience,
Versatility, Obedience, Commitment,
Achievement-oriented
Strategic Vision, Self-
starter, Transparency,
Results-oriented
Staff Commitment, Flexibility, Resilience,
Simplicity, Obedience, Enthusiasm,
Perseverance, Professionalism,
Innovation
Strategic Vision, Results-
oriented, Communication,
Autonomy
Leadership and Staff Commitment, Obedience, Resilience Strategic Vision, Results-
oriented
Table 10: Most Highly Desired Values
Desired Values
Leadership
Desired Values
Staff
Desired Values
Leadership and Staff
Commitment, Strategic
Vision, Professionalism,
Communication, Results-
oriented
Justice, Autonomy,
Strategic, Vision,
Professionalism,
Communication,
Results-oriented
Strategic Vision, Results-
oriented, Professionalism,
Communication
Conclusion
The analysis of data does not substantiate the premise that cultural agreement strengthens
organizational performance and effectiveness. In other words, the misalignment or the alignment
of values (perceived and desired) and their relationship to perceived cultural fit was not shown to
improve ARFCO’s performance and effectiveness.
We verified that ARFCO’s organizational culture is predominantly fragmented.
There is a strong cultural alignment between the leadership and the staff in as much as
they both place a high value on “Strategic Vision,” “Professionalism,”
TOMEI & RUSSO: CULTURAL FIT AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
“Communication” and “Results-oriented.”
The existence of cultural agreement among leadership and managerial subcultures
regarding desired values, offers insights that lead us to believe that this alignment is
possible at ARFCO if current differences in perceptions can be attenuated.
The results of this research are consistent with those of other studies of the theme
(Yu-Chen 2012; Zoghbi-Manrique de Lara 2008).
In this study, we recognize the limitations imposed on studies by the countless ways
of conceptualizing, measuring, calculating, and operationalizing cultural alignment and
its diverse elements. Although the quest for cultural alignment is desirable in most
organizations, it is important not to lose the diversity of ideas and perspectives that is so
necessary in the context of today’s competitive business environment. This concern
leads us to propose studies along the lines of those undertaken by Lopez and Babin
(2009), Iplik et al. (2011), Annelies et al. (2011), Amos et al. (2008), and Spanjol et al.
(2013), to ensure that individual-organization alignment at ARFCO capitalizes on
individual differences, while favoring the commitment, satisfaction and quality of
interpersonal relationships of ARFCO employees with better organizational governance,
transparency, professionalism, and communication.
REFERENCES
Adkins, C. L., E. C. Ravlin, B. M. Meglino. 1996. “Value Congruence between Co-workers and
its Relationship to Work Outcomes.” Group & Organization Management 21 (4): page
range.
Agle, B. R., C. B. Caldwell. 1999. “Understanding Research on Values in Business: A Level of
Analysis Framework.” Business & Society 38 (3): 326–987.
Altman, Y. 1992. “Towards a Cultural Typology of European Work Values and Work
Organization.” Innovation in Social Sciences Research 5 (1): page range.
Amos, E. A., B. L. Weathington. 2008. “An Analysis of the Relation between Employee-
Organization Value Congruence and Employee Attitudes.” Journal of Psychology 142
(6): 615–32.
Annelies E. M., C. S. Van Vianen, A. Chuang. 2011 “Person-Organization And Person-
Supervisor Fits: Employee Commitments in a Chinese Context.” Journal Title 32 (6):
906–26.
Askansasy, N. M., L. E. Broadfoot, S. Falkus. 2000. “Questionnaire Measures of Organizational
Culture.” In Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate, edited by Editor Names,
1–18. City: Sage.
Block, J. 1978 The Q-sort Method in Personality Assessment and Psychiatric Research. Palo
Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
Boisnier, A., J. A. Chatman. 2003. “The Role of Subcultures in Agile Organizations.” In Leading
and Managing People in Dynamic Organizations, edited R. Peterson and E. Mannix,
87–112. Mahwah: Earlbaum.
de Britto, M. J. P., J. B. Porto, J. E. B. Andrade. 2003, Valores, Suporte Psicossocial e Impacto do
Treinamento no Trabalho. In: ENANPAD, Atibaia (SP).
Brown, S. R. 1986. “Q-technique and Method.” In New Tools for Social Scientists, edited by
Editor Names, page range. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Cable D. M., and T. A. Judge. 1996. “Person-Organization Fit, Job Choice Decisions, and
Organizational Entry.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67 (3):
page range.
Cable D. M., T. A. Judge, and C. K. Parsons. 2001. “Socialization Tactics and Person-
Organization Fit.” Personnel Psychology 54 (issue#): 1–23.
Cameron, K. S., and R. E. Quinn. 1999 Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture:
Based on the Competing Values Framework. City: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Carless, S., 2005 “Person-Job Fit versus Person-Organization Fit as Predictors of Organizational
Attraction and Job Acceptance Intentions: A Longitudinal Study.” Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology 78 (issue#): 411–29.
Castka, P., C. J. Bamber, J. M. Sharp, and P. Belohoubek. 2001 “Factors Affecting Successful
Implementation of High Performance Teams, Team Performance” Management: An
International Journal 7 (7/8): 123–34.
Chatman, J. A. 1991. “Matching People and Organizations: Selection and Socialization in Public
Accounting Firms.” Administrative Science Quarterly 36 (issue#): page range.
Chatman, J. A., and E. J. Flynn. 2001. “The Influence of Demographic Heterogeneity in the
Emergence and Consequences of Cooperative Norms in Work Exams.” Academy of
Management Journal 44 (issue#): 956–74.
Chatman, J. A., E. J. Flynn, and K. Jehn. 1994. “Assessing the Relationship between Industry
Characteristics and Organizational Culture: How Different Can You Be?” Academy of
Management Journal 37 (issue#): 522–53.
Cooper-Thomas, H. D., A. V. Vianen, N. Anderson. 2004. “Changes in Person-Organization Fit:
The Impact of Socialization Tactics on Perceived and Actual P-O Fit.” European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 13 (1): 52–78.
Daft, R. L. 2004. Organization Theory & Design. 8th ed. Thomson: South Western.
Das, T. K., and B. S. Teng. 2001 “Trust, Control, and Risk in Strategic Alliances: An Integrated
Framework.” Organization Studies 22 (2): page range.
Denison, D. R. 1984. “Corporate Culture and Organizational Culture and Effectiveness.”
Organization Science 6 (2): 204–23.
Denison, D. R., and A. K. Mishra. 1995. “Toward a Theory of Organizational Culture and
Effectiveness.” Organization Science 6 (2): 204–23.
Diskienė, D., and V. Goštautas. 2013 “A Fit between Individual and Organizational Values and
Its Implications for Employees’ Job Satisfaction and Performance.” Ekonomika
[Economics] 92 (2): page range.
Eldridge, J., and A. Crombie. 1974. Sociology of Organizations. London: George Allen and
Unwin.
Elfenbein, H. A., and C. A. O’Reilly III. 2007. “Fitting In: The Effects of Relational Demography
and Person-Culture Fit on Group Process and Performance.” Group Organization
Management 32 (issue#): page range.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989 “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of
Management Review 14 (4): 532–50.
Enz, C. A. 1988 “The Role of Value Congruity in Intraorganizational Power.” Administrative
Science Quarterly 33 (2): page range.
Ferreira, M. C., E. M. L. Assmar, K. M. F. Estol, M. C. C. C. Helena. 2002. “Article Title .”
Estudos de Psicologia 7 (2): 271–80.
Flick, U. 2004. Uma Introdução à Pesquisa Qualitativa. 2nd Ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
TOMEI & RUSSO: CULTURAL FIT AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
Gibbs, P., and K. Maguire. 2016. “The Professional and Personal Values and Their Revelation
through Professional Doctorates.” Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning 6
(3): 35–42
Goffee, R., and G. Jones. 2013. “Creating the Best Workplace on Earth.” Harvard Business
Review volume # (issue#): 98–106
Goodman, S. A, and D. J. Svyantek. 1999. “Person–Organization Fit and Contextual
Performance: Do Shared Values Matter.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 55 (issue#):
254–79
Handy, C. B. 1978 Como Compreender as Organizações. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar
Hazari, S. 2005. “Perceptions of End-users on the Requirements in Personal Firewall Software:
An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Organizational and End User Computing 17 (3): 47–
65
Hilal, V. G. 2002. Dimensões e clusters de cultura organizacional de uma empresa brasileira com
atuação internacional. 1v. Tese (Doutorado) - Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro.
Hofstede, G. 1984. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values.
London: Sage Publications.
———. 1991. Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind. Cambridge: McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
Howard, L. W. 1998. “Validating the Competing Values Model as a Representation of
Organizational Cultures.” The International Journal of Organizational Analysis 6 (3):
231–50.
Igo, T., and M. Skitmore. 2006. “Diagnosing the Organizational Culture of an Australian
Engineering Consultancy Using the Competing Values Framework.” Construction
Innovation 6 (issue#): 121–39.
Inkpen, A. C., and S. C. Currall. 1998. “The Nature, Antecedents and Consequences of Joint
Venture Trust.” Journal of International Management 4 (1): page range.
Iplik, F. N., K. C. Kilic, A. Yalcin. 2011. “The Simultaneous Effects of Person-Organization and
Person-Job Fit on Turkish Hotel Managers.” International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 23 (5): 644–61.
Jehn, K. A., and E. A. Mannix. 2001. “The Dynamic Nature of Conflict: A Longitudinal Study of
Intragroup Conflict and Group Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 44
(issue#): 238–51
Jeminson, D. B., and S. B. Sitkin. 1986. “Corporate Acquisitions: A Process Perspective.” The
Academy of Journal Review 11 (1): page range.
Kabanoff, B., and J. Daly. 2002. “Espoused Values of Organizations.” Australian Journal of
Management 27 (issue#): page range.
Katz, D., and R. L. Kahn. 1976. Psicologia Social das Organizações. 2nd edition. São Paulo:
Atlas.
Kilmann, R. H., M. J. Saxton, and R. Serpa. 1985. “Five Key Issues in Understanding and
Changing Culture.” In Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture, edited by Editor
Name, page range. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kleine, S. A. B. 2014. “Organizational Fit and Job Satisfaction: Employee and Senior Executive
Views on Culture.” A Dissertation Proposal Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Capella University, January.
Klenke, K. 2005. “Corporate Values as Multi-Level, Multi-Domain Antecedents of Leader
Behaviors.” International Journal of Manpower 26 (1): page range
Kim, S., 2012. “Does Person-Organization Fit Matter in the Public Sector? Testing the Mediating
Effect of Person-Organization Fit in the Relationship between Public Service
Motivation and Work Attitudes.” Public Administration Review 72 (6): 830–40.
Koene, C. J. 1997. “Tests and Professional Ethics and Values in European Psychologists.”
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 13 (issue#): page range.
Kristof, A. L. 1996. “Person–Organization Fit: An Integrative Review of Its Conceptualizations,
Measurements, and Implications.” Personnel Psychology 49 (issue#): 1–49
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
Kristof-Brown, A. L., R. D. Zimmerman, and E. C. Johnson. 2005. “Consequences of
Individuals’ Fit At Work: A Meta-Analysis of Person-Job, Person-Organization, Person-
Group, and Person-Supervisor Fit.” Personnel Psychology 58 (issue#): 281–342
Larson, M. D, S. M. Norman, L. W. Hugs, and J. B. Avety. 2013. “Psyochological Capital: A
New Lens for Understanding Employee Fit and Attitudes.” International Journal of
Leadership Studies 8 (1): 32–48.
Lauver, K. J., and A. Kristof-Brown. 2001 “Distinguishing between Employees’ Perceptions of
Person-job Fit and Person-Organization Fit.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 59
(issue#): 454–70.
Lee, S. K. J., and K. Yu. 2004. “Corporate Culture and Organizational Performance.” Journal of
Managerial Psychology 19 (4): page range.
Lopez, T. B., and B. J. Babin. 2009. “Perceptions of Ethical Work Climate and Person-
Organization Fit among Retail Employees in Japan and the US: A Cross-cultural Scale
Validation.” Journal of Business Research 62 (issue#): 594–600.
Louis, M. R. 1980. “Surprise and Sense Making: What Newcomers Experience in Entering
Unfamiliar Organizational Settings.” Administrative Science Quarterly 25 (issue#): page
range.
Malufe, J. R., and B. A. Gatti. 1987. Métodos de Pesquisa nas Relações Sociais. 2ªed. Volume 2:
Medidas na Pesquisa Social. São Paulo: Editora Pedagógica e Universitária.
Martinsuo, M. 1998 “Belief Systems and Management by Values in Organizations.” In
Managing for Knowledge, Perspectives and Prospects. Helsinki University of
Technology, Industrial Management and Work and Organizational Psychology Working
papers n. XX, edited by P. Lillrank and M. Forssén, page range. Espoo: Helsinki.
Maull, R., P. Brown, and R. Cliffe. 2001. “Organisational Culture and Quality Improvement.”
International Journal of Operations and Production Management 21 (issue#): 302–26
Mcculloch, M. C., and D. B. Turban. 2007. “Using Person–Organization Fit to Select Employees
for High Turnover Jobs.” International Journal of Selection and Assessment 15 (1): 63–
71.
Meglino, B. M., and E. C. Ravlin. 1998. “Individual Values in Organizations: Concepts,
Controversies and Research.” Journal of Management 24 (3): page range.
Michael, A. E. 2009. “Investigating Relationships between Person-Environment Fit, Job
Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions in Cyprus.” Proceedings of the Northeast Business
& Economics Association, 125–9.
Mintzberg, H., and J. Quinn. 1991. “The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases.” In Book
Title. 2nd ed., edited by Editor Names, page range. City: Prentice-Hall
Nogueira, E. E. S., and C. L. Machado-da-silva. 2003. “Identidade Organizacional – a
Importância dos Valores e Crenças: Estudo de Caso em uma Organização Extinta por
Incorporação.” Atibaia (SP): Congresso da EnANPAD.
O’Reilly, C., J. Chatman J., and D. Caldwell. 1991. “People and Organizational Culture: A
Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit.” Academy of
Management Journal 34 (issue#): 487–516.
O”Reilly III, C. A., and J. Pfeffer. 2000. “Hidden Value: How Great Companies Achieve
Extraordinary Results with Ordinary People.” Harvard Business School Press
Ostroff, C., Y. Shin, and A. J. Kinicki. 2005. “Multiple Perspectives of Congruence:
Relationships between Value Congruence and Employee Attitudes.” Journal of
Organizational Behavior 26 (6): 591–623.
Peters, T. J., and R. H. Waterman Jr. 1986. “Vencendo a Crise.” São Paulo: Harbra
Rosenbaum, M. S., A. L. Ostrom, and R. Kuntze. 2005. “Loyalty Programs and a Sense of
Community.” The Journal of Services Marketing 9 (4): 222–34.
Ruiz-Palomino, P., and R. Martínez-Cañas. 2013. “Ethical Culture, Ethical Intent, and
Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Moderating and Mediating Role Of Person-
Organization Fit.” Journal of Business Ethics volume# (issue#): 1–14.
TOMEI & RUSSO: CULTURAL FIT AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
Sako, M. 1998. “Does Trust Improve Business Performance?” In Trust within and between
Organizations, edited by C. Lane and R. Backmann, page range. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
dos Santos, L. D., and L. Amaral. 2004. “Estudos Delphi com Q-Sort sobre a web: a sua
utilização em sistemas de informação.” In Conferência da associação portuguesa de
sistemas de informação, 5, Lisboa.
Sarros, J. C., J. Gray, I. L. Densten, and B. Cooper. 2005. “The Organizational Culture Profile
Revisited and Revised: An Australian Perspective.” Australian Journal of Management
30 (1): 159–82.
Schein, E. H. 1992. Organizational Culture and Leadership. 2nd edition. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
__________. 2001. Guia de Sobrevivência da Cultura Corporativa. Rio de Janeiro: José
Olympio.
Schneider, W. E. 1996. Uma Alternativa à Reengenharia: um plano para fazer a cultura atual da
sua empresa funcionar. Rio de Janeiro: Record
Sitkin, S. B., and N. L. Roth. 1993. “Explaining the Limited Effectiveness of Legalistic
‘Remedies’ for Trust/Distrust.” Organization Science 4 (3): page range.
Spanjol, J., L. Tam, and V. Tam. 2013. “Employee-Employer Congruence in Environmental
Values: Effects on Employee Creativity and Job Satisfaction.” American Marketing
Association, Winter, 51–2.
Tamayo, A., A. M. Mendes, and M. G. T. Paz. 2000. “Inventário de Valores Organizacionais.”
Estudos de Psicologia 5 (2): 289–315.
Teerikangas, S., and T. Laamanen. 2002. “Dealing with Cultural and Structural Diversity in
Cross-border R&D Centre Acquisitions.” European International Business Academy,
28th Annual Conference, Athens, Greece, p. 8-10, December.
Tepeci, M., and A. L. B. Bartlett. 2002. “The Hospitality Industry Culture Profile: A Measure of
Individual Values, Organizational Culture, and Person–Organization Fit as Predictors of
Job Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions.” Hospitality Management 21 (issue#): 151–
70.
Thomas, D. M., and R. T. Watson. 2002. “Q-Sorting and MIS Research: A Primer.”
Communications of the Association for Information Systems 8 (issue#): 141–56.
Tomei, P. A., and G. M. Russo. 2013. “Práticas metodológicas em administração: o caso da
utilização da Metodologia-Q como ferramenta para pesquisa e diagnóstico da cultura
organizacional.” Revista de Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa, Rio de Janeiro 14 (1):
9–37.
Tomei, P. A., G. M. Russo, and C. F. A. Bottino. 2008. Cultura Empreendedora. Rio de Janeiro:
Office-Book.
Trompenaars, F. 1993. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in
Business. London: The Economist Press.
Vandenberghe, C. 1999. “Organizational Culture, Person-Culture Fit, and Turnover: A
Replication in the Health Care Industry.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 20 (2):
175–84.
Van Vuuren, M., B. P. Veldkamp, M. D. De Jong, and E. R. Seydel. 2007. “The Congruence of
Actual and Perceived Person-Organization Fit.” The International Journal of Human
Resource Management 18 (10): 1736–47.
Van Vianen, A. E. M., I. E. De Pater, and F. Van Dijk. 2007. “Work Value Fit and Turnover
Intention: Same-Source or Different-Source Fit.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 22
(2): 188–202.
Werbel, J. D., and S. M. Demarie. 2005. “Aligning Strategic Human Resource Management and
Person-Environment Fit.” Human Resource Management Review 15 (2): 247–62.
Westerman, J. W. and L. A. Cyr. 2004. “An Integrative Analysis of Person–Organization Fit
Theories.” International Journal of Selection and Assessment 12 (3): 252–61.
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
Windsor, C.A., and N. M. Ashkanasy. 1996. “Auditor Independence Decision Making: The Role
of Organization Culture Perceptions.” Behavioral Research in Accounting 8 (issue#):
80–97.
Yu-Chen, W. 2012. “Person-Organization Fit and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Time
Perspective.” Journal of Management & Organization 18 (6): 833–44
Yu, K. Y. T. 2009. “A Motivational Model of P-E Fit: Exploring the Psychological Experience
Underlying Antecedents of P-E Fit.” http://www.fitconference.com
Zoghbi-Manrique de Lara, P., 2008. “Should Faith and Hope be Included in the Employees’
Agenda? Linking P-O Fit and Citizenship Behavior.” Journal of Managerial
Psychology 23 (1): 73–88.
TOMEI & RUSSO: CULTURAL FIT AND DESIRED ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Patrícia A. Tomei, PhD: Associate Professor, IAG Business School, Pontifical Catholic
University Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Giuseppe M. Russo, PhD: Director, DEDIX Business Management, Visiting Professor, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil
