Organizational Culture - Science topic

"At the University of Tokyo, some 90% of full professors and 77% of undergraduate students are men. That’s why, in 2022, executive vice-president Kaori Hayashi and her colleagues launched the #WeChangeUTokyo programme, which runs initiatives to raise gender awareness, offers mentoring for women in research and works with schools to recruit women outside the Tokyo Metropolitan area. “We will continue moving forward — not only for ourselves but for the next generation that will inherit our efforts and build upon them,” she says..."

It sounds like you are in a wonderful position in that you might have easy access to a significant amount of data. The issue of access is a very important one when choosing your research topic.

The most important issue, though, is your personal motivation. Doctoral studies are never easy (at least they should not be). So, if you are going to spend three to four years digging into all the nuance of any topic, doing so much reading and so much thinking, it really needs to be a topic you are interested in.

It seems you are interested in models related to corporate culture. So, that is a natural path for you to purse. That is the topic.

Next you need to identify a research problem. Perhaps, the same culture does not work equally effectively in each of the 14 subsidiaries.

After that, you will need some purpose, like to determine what factors are most important in each of the various business units.

Finally, you will need a research question. For example, why does the power of these factors in the model load differently in each of the subsidiaries? Or how does leadership style of the business unit impact the most effective choices of organizational culture?

The big thing is, you need to do the work. That really means reading and thinking. Those things time time. But, once you have done it, you will start to see what is most interesting to you.

Good luck!

Answer to the question concerning the study "The Effectiveness of Organizational Culture towards employee retention rates”

There are several good questionnaires for organisational culture.

I would, for instance, think of the one developed by Geert Hofstede, Cultures Consequences 2nd ed. Sage Publications: 2000. It is a bit old, perhaps, but the 5 dimensions (Power Distance Index, Uncertainty Avoidance Index, Individualism-Collectivism Index, Masculinity-Femininity Index, Long- versus Short-term orientation) are quite useful. There is lots of research with this questionnaire and you can find scores for many countries. Hofstede’s book gives lots of correlations with all sort of variables; I would not be surprised if ‘employee retention’ would be one of them. The book gives all necessary details of the questionnaire.

I, myself, think the first 3 indexes the most important.

As regards your purpose, I would think it advisable to look at the difference in culture-orientation between the individual employees and the dominant culture of the organisation they work for. If these are very different, I would think the retention-rate would be lower than in case the worker’s scores come close to the average score in the organisation or work-unit as a whole. That is, of course, all other relevant factors being more or less equal.

Wishing you good success with your project!

Laurens

Wesley Roux -

If you don't mind:) - Instead of outlining what can hinder performance I'd like to provide some thoughts as to what can drive performance.

In addition to what has been already mentioned, particularly in highly functional and project based organizations, it's critical that:

Again, just some initial thoughts.

interested

Please see my research-gate portfolio

I am not familiar with the The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument, but in general, measures that call for a fixed sum are hard to analyze because the separate sections are not independent. For example, imagine a simple version that requires a sum of 100 across only two dimensions, so that if a respondent scores dimension one at 51, then the score for dimension two is automatically forced to be 49. In this case, the two dimensions would be correlated 1.0 because the second one is a linear combination of the first ( Y = 100 - X ). Similar but more complex patterns apply when there are more than two dimensions.

You can read more about this issue under the heading of "ipsative measures."

Good Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) is a dynamic leadership theory that emphasizes the unique relationship between a leader and each member of their team. In the context of organizational cultural requirements, LMX plays a crucial role in fostering a positive work environment. LMX theory suggests that leaders form differentiated relationships with their team members based on trust, respect, and mutual understanding.

In an Agile environment, where adaptability, collaboration, and quick responses to change are paramount, Good LMX is especially relevant. Agile methodologies emphasize the value of individuals and interactions over processes and tools, and LMX aligns seamlessly with this principle. A leader practicing Good LMX in an Agile setting ensures that each team member feels valued, understood, and empowered.

In Agile teams, where self-organizing groups are encouraged, LMX becomes the foundation for building strong interpersonal connections. Leaders who embrace Good LMX are better equipped to recognize and leverage the unique strengths of each team member. This individualized approach enhances communication, collaboration, and overall team performance. Furthermore, it encourages a positive organizational culture by promoting a sense of belonging and shared purpose among team members.

The agility of an organization is deeply intertwined with the quality of relationships within the team. Good LMX contributes to an open and transparent culture where feedback is constructive, and everyone feels heard. This fosters an environment where team members are more likely to embrace change, take risks, and contribute innovative ideas.

Good Leader-Member Exchange is indeed a solution to various organizational cultural requirements, and its application in an Agile environment is particularly beneficial. By emphasizing individualized relationships, trust, and collaboration, LMX contributes to creating a work culture that is adaptable, innovative, and supportive—a culture that is essential for thriving in the dynamic landscape of Agile methodologies.

Competitive advantage is a crucial aspect of an organization's success, and it is influenced by a myriad of internal and external factors. Internally, the organizational culture plays a pivotal role. A positive and adaptive culture fosters innovation, employee satisfaction, and efficient operations, all of which contribute to gaining a competitive edge. Additionally, the skillset and expertise of the workforce contribute significantly. Organizations that invest in training and development often find themselves better equipped to adapt to changing markets.

Moreover, effective leadership is a key internal factor. Visionary leaders who can navigate uncertainty, make strategic decisions, and inspire their teams contribute to sustained competitive advantage. The efficiency of internal processes and operations also plays a critical role. Streamlined and well-organized processes enhance productivity, reduce costs, and improve the overall competitiveness of an organization.

Externally, market dynamics and competition are primary factors affecting competitive advantage. Understanding market trends, consumer behavior, and anticipating industry changes allow organizations to proactively position themselves ahead of competitors. Moreover, having a strong brand image and reputation in the market is crucial. A positive brand perception can attract customers, build loyalty, and differentiate a company from its rivals.

Technological advancements are another external factor. Organizations that leverage cutting-edge technologies to enhance products, services, or operational efficiency gain a significant competitive advantage. Economic conditions, regulatory environment, and geopolitical factors also impact an organization's competitive position. Adapting to these external factors requires strategic planning and flexibility.

achieving and sustaining competitive advantage is a multifaceted challenge that requires a holistic approach. Internally, it involves fostering a positive culture, developing human capital, and ensuring efficient operations. Externally, organizations must be vigilant in understanding market dynamics, embracing technology, and navigating the ever-changing external environment. Successful organizations adept at balancing these internal and external factors are well-positioned to thrive in competitive landscapes.

Combining people and organizational culture forms the bedrock of a productive and harmonious work environment. It is a strategic approach that involves integrating individual skills, values, and motivations with the broader goals and values of the organization. This symbiotic relationship between people and culture is essential for fostering a workplace where employees are not only engaged but also aligned with the company's vision and mission.

At the core of this integration is the need for a well-defined and communicated organizational culture. Clearly articulating values, mission, and vision provides a framework that guides employees in their daily activities and decision-making. This shared understanding creates a sense of purpose and unity, allowing individuals to connect with the organization on a deeper level.

Hiring practices play a pivotal role in consolidating this relationship. Organizations should incorporate cultural fit assessments into the hiring process, ensuring that prospective employees not only possess the necessary skills but also resonate with the company's culture. By selecting individuals whose values align with the organizational ethos, a cohesive and collaborative work environment is cultivated from the outset.

Onboarding and orientation programs serve as crucial touchpoints for instilling cultural awareness. New hires should be immersed in the organization's history, values, and expectations, providing them with the necessary context to integrate seamlessly into the company culture. Leadership, as the guiding force within an organization, must model the desired behaviors and values. When leaders embody the culture, they set a powerful example for employees to follow.

Continuous communication is paramount in reinforcing the cultural aspects of the organization. Open channels between employees and leadership foster a culture of transparency and trust. Regular updates on organizational goals and achievements help individuals understand their contribution to the bigger picture, enhancing their sense of purpose.

Supporting human resource development within this framework requires a multifaceted approach. Training and development programs should not only focus on skill enhancement but also align with the organization's cultural values. Recognition and rewards systems can be tied to cultural alignment, acknowledging and reinforcing behaviors that contribute positively to the organizational ethos.

Moreover, the organization should promote a flexible work environment that accommodates diverse working styles, emphasizing a healthy work-life balance. Performance management metrics must be aligned with both individual and organizational cultural goals, encouraging employees to strive for excellence within the context of shared values.

In essence, creating a cohesive blend of people and organizational culture involves a continuous process of adaptation and improvement. Regular assessments, employee involvement in decision-making processes, and a commitment to diversity and inclusion contribute to an evolving and dynamic organizational culture that serves as the foundation for sustained productivity and human resource development.

Sure

Organizational culture plays a pivotal role in shaping the innovation landscape within a company. It can either foster or hinder the development of innovative ideas and practices. Several factors interact to influence innovation within an organization.

First and foremost, the culture of an organization sets the tone for innovation. A culture that values creativity, risk-taking, and continuous learning is more likely to stimulate innovation. In contrast, a rigid, hierarchical culture may stifle creativity and discourage employees from taking risks.

Leadership is another critical factor. Innovative organizations often have leaders who lead by example, encourage experimentation, and provide a supportive environment for their teams. Such leaders create a culture where employees feel empowered to contribute their innovative ideas.

Moreover, the degree of collaboration and communication within an organization can significantly impact innovation. Open lines of communication, cross-functional teams, and a culture of information sharing can facilitate the exchange of ideas and promote innovative thinking.

External factors, such as market competition and industry trends, also influence innovation. Companies in highly competitive industries may be more driven to innovate to gain a competitive edge.

organizational culture and leadership styles have a significant influence on job satisfaction. When leaders create a positive, inclusive, and supportive work environment that aligns with employees' values and needs, it tends to result in higher job satisfaction, which, in turn, can lead to improved employee morale, engagement, and productivity.

an organizational culture that prioritizes effective leadership, communication, teamwork, patient-centered care, safety, and continuous improvement can have a significant positive impact on both healthcare worker performance and patients' satisfaction in hospitals. It's important for healthcare institutions to recognize the role of culture in achieving their goals of providing high-quality care and ensuring positive patient experiences.

Ethical leadership, organizational culture, and ethical behavior in HRM practices are deeply interconnected. Ethical leaders within HRM set the tone and shape the organizational culture by exemplifying ethical conduct and establishing clear expectations. The culture, in turn, reinforces ethical behavior by promoting integrity, transparency, and accountability. Ethical leaders serve as role models, inspiring employees to emulate their behavior. The culture supports ethical decision-making by providing a supportive environment for discussions and guidance on ethical dilemmas. Ethical behavior within HRM practices strengthens the organizational reputation and enhances employee engagement. Ultimately, ethical leadership and a strong ethical culture create a virtuous cycle that fosters ethical behavior and shapes HRM practices in a positive and ethical manner.

It is expected that organizational culture may have a role in cost reduction in charitable organizations. I would suggest if you can conduct a survey on this subject since it has a theoretical and practical value.

Organizational culture provides a framework in which managers can implement motivational tools that influence how employees are comport. The companies with a strong organizational culture are much better able to improve their performance by involving members of the organization in a very intense way.

For finding complete and interesting also updated theses or papers related to organizational culture in the hospitality industry or any other industry, you may refer to Google Scholar.

alignment or misalignment between strategic thinking and organizational culture impacted an organization's ability to innovate, adapt, and achieve long-term success,

my opinion: this is relate to knowlegde management.

if an organization want to innovate, adapt an achieve long-term success, first the company need to be aligned the strategic thinking with organization culture.

Dear Sarto Muhirwa

I think it depends on the country or region you are studying.

In industrialized countries with a high level of education and culturally strong, globalization is part of them, see cases like Switzerland, the Netherlands and Norway, while in other countries, especially those that are developing, globalization is more a matter of companies that have a national culture, such as Nicaragua, Honduras, Uruguay.

Therefore, the impact will be more rapid or progressive depending on the group of countries you are studying.

I hope this helps.

I would recommend reading the following article:

- Somonnoy Ghosh and Bhupen K. Srivastava (2014) Construction of a Reliable and Valid Scale for Measuring Organizational Culture, Global Business Review,15: 583.DOI: 10.1177/0972150914535145

Maybe I am complicating things, but my first reaction to your question is:

what do you want to know, what are you interested in?

The choice of what to measure and which type of culture dimensions to use depends very much on what you want to know. Your choice of Clan, Market, Hierarchy, Adhocracy may be the right one. It may be the measure is well received by important journals, but that is not the primary reason for choosing your measurements. It may be prestigious to use such a prominent thing and it may perhaps enhance your status as a scientist, but would it help you to unravel the problem you want to tackle?

Of course, if you are primarily interested in furthering your scientific status, using a well-researched theory and method may be a good choice.

However, I would certainly want to study several different approaches first, before choosing. The four dimensions you refer to are not the only ones that are interesting, Organisational culture is not one thing; it has many aspects and it depends on what happens to be important. And that again depends on the type of organisation, the culture of the people employed, the general culture of the country they live in and so on.

There is a vast literature on organisational culture. I mention for instance:

Schein, E.H. (1985), Organizational leadership; a dynamic view. Jossey-Bass;

Hofstede, G.H. (2000), Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage Publications.

Both publications are a bit old perhaps, but they are really enlightening on the subject. I am sure there will be several works of a more recent date that might help you make up your mind. But in my opinion: start with what you want to know and proceed from there.

I wish you good luck with your research. Doing research is an interesting and stimulating adventure, although it can be boring at times.

Best wishes,

Laurens ten Horn

Les méthodes de collecte de données en sciences de gestion sont riches et diversifiées. Il vous revient uniquement de choisir la meilleure méthode en fonction de la nature de votre recherche. D'après votre question, votre sujet est purement qualitatif, du fait je vous propose de mener une enquête par entretiens semi-directif auprès d'un échantillon d'entrepreneur déjà confirmés.

Sans prétendre à être exhaustif je vous propose aussi:

Le questionnaire

L'observation

L'analyse documentaire

......

Kindly visit the article, if any benefits your research.

All the best,

If globaization is contributing to build up corporate culture along with that it is proportionately destroying the small businesses culture s trend lready threatened by the sinking economy will be irreparably damaged

If you read the book where the authors described the instrument, it is not meant to be translated into a likert scale. The researcher on culture is meant to use it as an initial diagnosis to find out what the culture of the organization is. The FGDs that follows involves getting the consensus of the group by eliciting evidence of the culture. Thus, although there is a quantitative aspect to it, I think the whole process is more qualitative and depends on the skill of the researcher in gathering the qualitative support evidence.

Thanks a lot Induni for the support and participation.

Oussama Lebguiret

You can create a google form using following questioner and circulate it among different research groups.

1. Are you comfortable with your workplace culture? If yes, Why?

2. Do you feel respected by your team and the organization?

3. Does your manager provide you with timely feedback about your work?

4. Which aspects of the organization can be improved to make it a better place to work?

5. How would you characterize this organization’s management style?

6. Is your organization dedicated to diversity and inclusiveness?

7. Do you understand how your work impacts the organization’s business goals?

8. Do you think the organization operates in a socially responsible manner?

9. Are you satisfied with the overall job security in the organization?

10. Is there a culture of teamwork and cooperation within the organization?

I hope above will be useful in your survey.

Best Wishes

Dr. Ashwani Kumar

1. Get management approval/endorsement for your paper to be disseminated in your selected organizations.

2. In return, assure management that you will give them a copy of the executive summary of your research results. This will work if the company finds value in your research.

3. Assure respondents about the confidentiality of information.

4. Check content validity of your questionnaire by running it through experts so that it is easy to understand and the constructs are contextually relevant.

Revenge, AT THE MARGIN OF THE SITE OR PLACE WHERE IT IS FROM, IS ALWAYS VENGEANCE, since it is aggressive conduct (of whatever type and implicit or explicit) that is neither classified nor classified by where it occurs; Well, revenge is retaliation against a person or group in response to an injury received (or perceived as such) is something innate in the human being and appears in all kinds of cultures, places and historical moments.

Another thing is that such revenge is translated into an assumption of MOBBING, but -in this case- it is already typified as said mobbing and not as revenge.

"Before starting a journey of revenge, dig two graves." Confucius.

Organization culture consists of values, norm and beliefs.

Some people get motivated by achievement, some motivated by affiliation and others by power. A leader should identify which employee belong to which category.

Other than commitment, performance, productivity, the factors that influence organizational culture, are managerial decision making pattern, transparency , mutual trust, adaptability to change and employee empowerment.

I think measuring impact generally should proceed from how the researcher wishes to define performance. Impact of anything, so to say, on a corporate entity's performance of can always be viewed from the points of: (financial indicators), profitability, return on investment, return on asset, sales or turn over growth. Other areas could be market share, resilience, industrial harmony, corporate image corporate social responsibility perception, and what not. The identification of the performance index or indices will determine the theoretical framework to adopt. The theoretical framework explains the transmission mechanism that links corporate cultural attributes to the chosen measure of performance and should therefore influence the types of data to be ferreted or sought. It must however be noted that corporate culture is rather nembulous with many possible and sometimes conflicting connotations. What this means is that the researcher may also need to identify his/her cultural contend.

Hi Theodora Issa ,

Dear, Your's question is certainly interesting and timely, especially in light of the fact that you intend to engage in scientific research that will lead to a multifaceted answer. I note from reading your article in AUSTRALIAN ETHICS that you will undertake a thoroughgoing study consisting of an analysis of “quantitative and qualitative data, interviews and focus group interviews … aimed at triangulation, amplification and modification of the results generated.” (Issa, p. 7, AUSTRALIAN ETHICS, June 2012, available at https://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/aapae/publications/Newsletters/Australian%20Ethics-6-2012.pdf). Indeed, since you have already identified six critical components of an ethical mindset in individuals, you are halfway to proving that the existence of ethical individuals in a corrupt organizational environment makes absolutely no difference at all in terms of enhancing the ethical climate of an organization.

Why do I make this pessimistic observation? To quote my mother, “If you lie down with dogs, you get fleas.” Indeed, I warn my Business School students that it does not matter how strong their ethical compass is when they leave home (or leave business school) because if they join an organization with a culture of profit-maximization at any cost, they will soon “learn” to conform to the established corporate norms or they will be shown the door. (By the time I tell them this, I have already shown them the Enron film, THE SMARTEST GUYS IN THE ROOM; and the scene with the intentional electric utility blackouts in California is permanently etched in their minds, as is the final scene of the film in which a young Enron employee bemoans that he didn’t “ASK WHY” because he was afraid of the truth; i.e., that what he was doing was unethical, if not illegal.)

In this vein, Theodora, why did you drop the “truth seeking” component (mindset item No. 5) after the focus group interviews in your original study of individual ethical mindsets? I think “truth seeking” is the most telling component of the 8 components comprising an ethical mindset. The fact that you decided to merge it into one of the six final components is puzzling-- especially given that “interconnectedness” included in your final 6 components seems to have sprung from nowhere. Keep in mind that “interconnectedness” in a corrupt environment might be indicative of a “herd mentality” that is incompatible with autonomous thinking, which is Kohlberg’s third (and final) stage of moral development.

I would also encourage you to question Hutton’s proposition that “fairness” is a cornerstone of capitalism; if as you state, he makes this claim; I wholeheartedly disagree with him. The “invisible hand” is the cornerstone of capitalism and it certainly does not lead to fairness. Fairness (and justice) might be viewed as a cornerstone of DEMOCRACY; but is hard for me to maintain this view given that today my pedigreed democratic homeland (U.S.) is in the 4th day of a government shut-down to prevent the offering of baseline healthcare to the have-not’s in our country.

After reading the detailed description of your research project in AUSTRALIAN ETHICS, I note with unabashed joy that your question on RG allows for improving the “ethical climate” of organizations notwithstanding their own (corrupt) internal culture or the existence of questionable cultural norms (such as child labor) in a host country. So, here (finally) is my answer to your question. Yes, indeed, it is possible to accomplish an organizational moral renaissance by way of strong laws that motivate organizations to (1) adopt internal “Ethics and Compliance Codes,” (2) hire Ethics Officers to run training programs for the employees, officers, and directors of an organization, and (3) install anonymous whistle-blowing systems with monetary incentives for blowing the whistle and monetary fines for organizations that take retaliatory action against truth-tellers. The U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SARBOX”) is just such a law and you can read about it ad nauseam on my RG homepage. Additionally, I just yesterday uploaded on RG the full text of an article “After Shame” in which I offer an alternative to my Mother’s succinct explanation of why even the most ethical and professional of beings tends to sink to the level of their surroundings. See Section 4.2, “Luhmann’s Systems Differentiation” (p. 14 of the pdf pagination of “After Shame”) for a sociological and far less colorful explanation of this fact of human nature.

Ca Dr Gaurav Bhambri

You can assess your current culture in several ways. This culture assessment can involve walking around, conducting interviews , or using a culture assessment instrument.

The following paper talks about this unnecessary change. You may want to check it out.

Interactions between organisational cultures and corporate brands

‏L de Chernatony, S Cottam - Journal of Product & Brand …, 2008‏ - emerald.com‏

Organizational culture, on the other hand, is comprised of broad guidelines which are rooted in organizational practices learned on the job. Experts, including Dr. Hofstede, agree that changing organizational culture is difficult and takes time. What is often overlooked or at least underestimated when two or more companies merge/integrate is how the underlying personal values of employees impact how they perceive the corporate culture change efforts. A person can learn to adapt to processes and priorities, and a person can be persuaded to follow the exemplar behaviors of leaders in an organization. But if these priorities and leadership traits go against the deeply held national cultural values of employees, corporate values (processes and practices) will be undermined. What is appropriate in one national setting is wholly offensive in another. What is rational in one national setting is wholly irrational in another. And, corporate culture never trumps national culture. https://www.google.com/amp/s/theintactone.com/2019/03/30/ccm-u4-topic-1-national-cultures-vs-organizational-cultures/amp/

Bellou, V. (2010). Organizational culture as a predictor of job satisfaction: the role of gender and age. Career development international.

I fully agree and to rephrase the question to encompass Russia is perfectly fine. So you think the issue of which structure we are born into matters more than the individual him or her self? Do you believe our reality is socially constructed? Interesting. You touched on the issue of strata and stratification, Perhaps being born into the right family can compensate for the lack of cognitive ability and conscientiousness .

Dear Kavitha,

compute composite variables which are average of items of your constructs.

Now the entire world is suffering from the COVID-19, and it has been badly affected business results. You need to touch this point. The HR Analytics will help in the decision making process to control the cost while enhancing the productivity. Hence, I would suggest to look these 3 areas of HR Analytics > Decision Making Process > Business Results + Productivity

Interesting.

Dear Angela (and colleagues),

I am enjoying this discussion and was also glad to have the chance to look a bit at your work (titles and abstracts) to get a feel for the kinds of paradoxes and frameworks that you are addressing. Allow me to add some comments here that might attract some interdisciplinary discussion and also help to focus some joint research questions. After that, probably we can continue this as a separate discussion between us.

My thought in looking at your work (paradoxes in management decisions in the area of sustainable development) is that your research question on paradoxes is set within the framework of managerial decision-making and planning, with paradoxes in values where you assume actors are starting with a free choice. Probably you are working with the types of concerns identified by Kenneth Arrow, the Nobel Prize winner in Economics who noted the paradox in planning given interactions between long and short-term economic valuations and decisions. That also seems a bit like the problem of measurement in physics, of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (and Schroedinger's cat).

The paradoxes in social science for prediction that I mentioned (outcomes that short-circuit the assumptions in the models of behavior, like "rational choice" from "economics" and "political science") works from the other direction, observing the behaviors and trying to find the right model that has predictive value of the outcomes. This is important when the existing models that have a supposed "logic" do not fit because there is actually another logic at work (that would also offend religious and ideological assumptions in our society and in institutions, like those of "rational actors" and "progress" so that we are blinded to recognizing them).

Ultimately, both approaches can come together in larger models that combine prediction (assuming determinism) with policy (assuming free choice) in trying to find how much of each are at work. While I see the focus of some of your work, the focus of your outreach is still unclear as to which of these levels you are inviting colleagues to discuss, as well as on other concerns.

Your outreach could better define the specific questions and disciplines and problem areas you are focusing on now since it looks like you are attracting everything and appears that these basic frameworks are being lost in a goal of attracting people rather than focusing on real problems and solutions. For instance, anyone looking at the list of sources in your bibliography, above, will note that it is based on just "subject" areas and categorical words ("studying paradox", "towards a theory", "ethnography") without stating any actual problem you are trying to solve, why it is important to solve it at all, whether you have any solutions and if so how they work and for whom. These are the basic obligations of scientific and applied disciplines. Otherwise you are just in the realm of philosophy and theology.

I know from you work on line that you, personally, are focusing on "sustainability" (a real public problem) and helping decisionmakers to overcome paradoxes in their values. We share that concern as you can see from some of my work (for example on the problem of the "prisoners' dilemma" of national decision-makers trying to do sustainable development planning but being forced to "grow" and buy weapons instead, in order to protect their resources, which creates a paradox of unsustainability and global collapse). I also look at it from the other angle of the deterministic framework logics that undermine free choice (like the logic of cultural suicide).

As to "ethnography", the word today has simply been redefined. We live at a time of Orwellian "Newspeak" where academic disciplines and public discourse uses words meaning their opposites in order to promote (and hide) underlying agendas. In the current era of neo-liberalism and neo-colonialism, in which "identities" are promoted but the actual cultures and environments that traditionally defined identity (the globe's 6,000 languages and the eco-systems where they developed) are being destroyed as part of an effort to urbanize, industrialize, homogenize and "integrate" everyone uniformly into global corporate culture, the only remaining "identities" are those visible or chosen in a single mass society. In avoiding having to deal with the reality of destruction of cultures/languages/environments and ethnicity, co-opted academics have worked to redefine "ethnography" to mean its opposite, by redefining "ethnic" in terms of everything from corporate and organizational identity to hobbies and choices (e.g., "vegetarianism" or "fast food" or "sexuality" or "cults" that are not ethnicities or cultures). Anthropologists have also been part of the elimination of their subject of study (through cultural genocide) so to find work, they need to claim that they still have a "methodology" that they can sell to others. You have been misled in your use of the word "ethnography" and have been drawn into an ideological redefinition that has ethical implications that probably you would want to avoid. The neutral word you want to use, to avoid the implication of "ethnicities" is "participatory observation" or "organizational study".

We all need to go back to basics in social sciences today to overcome the ideologies and blurring that is undermining disciplines, scholarships and applications. Rather than "citing" "authorities" (which is what religions do), we need to just start with what is observable, measurable, and commonly verifiable, starting with the simple building blocks like I suggest above with "participatory observation" and "organizational study", in place of words that have distorted meanings and categories that do not have explicitly clear content.

If you do want to introduce anthropological/ethnographic concepts, then you can define your research into paradoxes by looking at the differences between the cultures in which the differences are made to see what "cultural strategies" the actors use that fit into the larger strategies for achieving sustainability in their environments. While cultural differences are disappearing globally, you can still find many if you are trained to look for them (and to see the holistic, deeper structures).

Best,

David

Okay. Thanks All!!

I liked what you wrote. Personally, I´m doing research on organizational structure and how it´s design impacts on culture. We could explore how to colaborate. Greetings form México.

Ever since Burns and Stalker's (1961) "The Management of Innovation" and Dore's (1973) "British Factory, Japanese Factory" literature proved and explained why high-trust cultures shaped by high-moral leaders are innovation-prone. Only trustful relations among hierarchic ranks and between different specializations enable innovation-required free flow of intangible resources. Where everyone keeps close to chest intangible resources to defend her/himself against managerial domineering used where distrust prevails - innovation is doomed. See my attached works.

I have the same question? Did any body find a solution?

Since organizational culture is partly shaped by the national culture (see House et al., 2004), innovative organizational cultures are likely to be high in societies characterized by certain values such low UA and high intellectual autonomy.

All the best in your study Val Vj

Ari Happonen thanks

Dear Doreen Fay C Demasuay ,

Warm Greetings!!!

What is your sample Age group & sample area... in relational aggression please.

You can find an interesting questionare here...

I think there is a direct effect of organizational culture on its performance because the culture can support employees' productivity which can reflect on overall performance.

If you look at Google Scholar, the Hofstede et al. (1990) article has been cited nearly 5,000 times. A quick browse of the citing articles suggests that several hundred studies have used at least 1 of the 3 dimensions, and often all 3. Please check them out!

I've attached a couple of interesting tools you might want to take a look at - the Corporate Innovation Index and the Innovation Quotient (IQ). Both are really used to assess an organization's current state.

There are many tools that speak to the processes and conditions needed to activate innovation. In our experience, we wanted to spend more time focused on outcomes - the number of product/service innovations launched, the time required to translate ideas into new business opportunities, etc. It was important for us to distinguish between learning and innovation; they are not the same thing.

Hi Monica

A cursory view of issues highlightedabove, I see all your problems are related to processes. All restaurants work on processes.

Your problems are related to;

- poorly designed processes or

- poorly trained employees working on those processes or

- both

Literature, survey and analysis will not help in either in productivity or efficiency or customer satisfaction.

Going further on the fact highlighted by you that your restaurant rank top in the casual dining category, your production processes are matured.

The problem could be in other support processes. Analyse redesign or retrain employees.

Suggestion: In operation area, always select employees who ‘need’ job than those who ‘want’ a career.

Clearly need and want are differentiators in service commitment from employees. Am not against career.?!

Best wishes

Dr. M H Sharieff, OD consultant, India

No doubt that it depends on your research question(s). However, if you test each aspect in separation actually you are omitting the explanatory power of other aspects which is statistically wrong.

For more detail see....

Halcoussis, D. (2005)

The question of the extent to which org culture influences strategic thinking invites us to explore how it does this, as the preceding answers show. I would start with Ahmed Quinn's point that org culture and strategic thinking affect each other, and add that they are both constantly adapting to their environment, especially the forces of globalization.

Culture is defined by the manners and ways people act and react. When looking at culture observe the people working in the company, their mindset, behaviours etc. will define the culture. culture definition by statements made by the management defines the optimum, the ideal picture. Reality is defined by the mindset of the employees. Please check https://humantelligence.com/ they do exactly that. interesting approach. I would appreciate to have a scientific evaluation of their method.

my latest paper on impact of OTT on telecom companies. Yes whatsapp impacted alot, i would say improved the knowledge sharing and effective communication.

DONE

BEST OF LUCK

I think as you have mentioned there’s a lack of skilled employees and general lack of knowledge on the subject because in my opinion it’s still relatlively in its infancy. Also it’s trying to understand how to utilise it for the benefit of the company and how it affects things GDPR.

Dear Yanelis Pavón-González

Ver cómo el contexto organizacional externo e interno afecta la racionalidad de la toma de decisiones en el diseño de procesos organizacionales.

Primero necesitamos saber cómo medir el contexto organizacional dentro de áreas específicas (los ejemplos no son suficientes), luego medir la racionalidad en la toma de decisiones en el diseño de procesos organizacionales.

Aquí discuto en la racionalidad utilizada para tomar una decisión. Deben pasar por tres etapas distintas y complementarias:

- ¿Prefiere mencionar la medida del contexto organizacional (o dimensiones y ejes)?

yes

Dear Dan,

I managed for 12 years a research laboratory and besides the operational goals (to deliver research output of appropriate quality) my strategic goal was to make EVERY member of the team more professional than me in some (or several) professional areas. When all team members have reached that level, I closed the laboratory not because of jealousy, but for purely financial reasons (I had no sufficient funds to pay for that level of professionalism). I also put some efforts to help to find for that people jobs which corresponded their level.

bests,

Igor Gurkov

I would look at the networks within and between the teams -- organizational network analyisis. Networks that include exchange of work items, ideas, knowledge/learning, support, advice/expertise, etc. You can then see how well people and groups are connected in the network of teams.

Attached is a network map of the distributed group and here is a link to a white paper on the analysis we performed --> http://orgnet.com/IBMCOPSNA.pdf

Dear Davis,

Please visit http://www.orgdesigncomm.com/ -- the Web site of the Organizational Design Community -- to get an impression of OD practitioners' activities.

Journal of Organizational Design - https://jorgdesign.springeropen.com/ outlines some current problems OD practitioners are working on.

Very bests,

Igor Gurkov

In the social sciences, research can be exploratory (or formulative), descriptive, and explanatory (or causal). Exploratory research is used when a topic or an issue is new, or when problems are at a preliminary stage, and so data is difficult to collect. To address research questions such as "what", "why", "when", and "how" in such cases, exploratory research must be flexible so one might better define problems, unearth meaning from scant data, and suggest hypotheses that provide insight into situations and pave the ground for more definite, future investigation. (Comparing, quantitative research aims to prove or disprove hypotheses so one might generalize the population at large with answers to research questions such as "how often" or "how many).

Because the goal of exploratory research is, sundrily, to investigate social phenomena without explicit expectations, learn what is going on, find out how people get along in the settings under question, or, say, discover what meanings people give to actions and what issues concern them, the methodology used to identify, select, process, and analyze information typically has to do with:

sure

A quick Google search suggests that Schein's work has become popular in studies of organizational culture, which is surprising to me because it is seldom used elsewhere. If I remember correctly, his original emphasis was on phenomenology, so if you want to follow that approach to qualitative research, it could be appropriate. Otherwise, it is relatively uncommon to use iterative interviewing. Instead, one interview per person is typically considered to be enough.

I suggest you take a look at a good, basic introduction to qualitative research, such as Marshall and Rossman. Or, if you already committed to individual interviews, then a good introduction to that topic is Rubin & Rubin, Qualitative Interviewing: The art of hearing data. (Interestingly, even though Rubin & Rubin is a comprehensive text book on interviewing, I see that they don't even mention Schein.)

For me most basic feature of organizational culture is level of trust versus distrust. See my attached article of high-trust culture in which organizational information and knowledge are provided freely by everyone to everyone.

Not exactly related to organizational culture but to leader-follower relationships, Bluedorn and Jaussi offer an in-depth theoretical framework on 5 temporal dimensions. After discussing event time and clock time, they connect 5 dimensions of time to complex adaptive systems and the idea of entrainment, how leaders and followers sync up based on temporal factors. Really interesting stuff.

Bluedorn, A. C., & Jaussi, K. S. (2008). Leaders, followers, and time. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 654–668.

Check the following link:

Dr Balakrishnan Muniapan thank you for your valuable information .

There may be another way to look into this. Admitting organizational culture is rarely entirely homogeneous, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assessments that discern preferences for either Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I), Sensing (S) or Intuition (N), Thinking (T) or Feeling (F), and Judging (J) or Perceiving (P) can give helpful pointers on person–organization fit.

PS: For example, psychometric tests of personnel in the public sector suggest the best part are Sensing–Judging, notably ISTJs—Introversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging. (The Keirsey Temperament Sorter dubs them “inspectors”.) But, ENTPs—Extroversion, Intuition, Thinking, Perception—in the public sector are rarities. (The Keirsey Temperament Sorter refers to ENTPs as “inventors”.)

Thanks All

I Agree with Dr. Serrat, the meaning is essentially the same.