Abstract
Similar to other social-related categories, there are many definitions of culture. It is because different people try to describe its manifestations and meanings. Starting from the early definition of culture, there are different definitions like a complex while of morals, knowledge, beliefs, arts and other habits or capabilities acquired by people. However, culture has always been considered a sort of collective programming related to the mind that plays an important role in distinguishing people of a specific group from another. Such wide definitions play an important role in expressing the difficulty of describing this broach social category and, most importantly, emphasizing the differences in the research approach, its scope, the level at which it can be explored, and how it relates to other social phenomena.
Introduction
There are different assumptions related to organizational culture and approaches to culture research. Like Foster and McDonald, they play an important role in suggesting integration, differentiation, and fragmentation and play an important role in providing different perspectives in consideration to cultural studies. Logically, culture can be studied through knowledge related to its scopes, nature, and most important elements. The exact elements to be taken into consideration in this case and the field being explored would, however, result in different outcomes related to its nature and aspects of its nature that would be a good fit for great research in consideration of the wide range of influences of culture and most importantly social encounters (Winklhofer et al. 2006). As a result, it shows specific danger related to engaging the analysis with unique cultural and subcultural perspectives, which undoubtedly need to be avoided.
A Critical Review of Theories
The main determinants of culture include ethics, language, religion, attitudes, and values, along with other moral beliefs and social institutions. However, other important interrelated components can be considered as seemingly isolated. However, only through their unity can the culture of an organization can be fully described. Logically, one of the most important determinants of research related to culture is mainly the level of culture (Chebbi et al. 2020). When exploring a mosaic of prejudices and, most importantly, attitudes, associations and motivations, lines of power, and most important channels of influences, the focus of research, in this case, tend to become a major factor to be examined. Although their differences come when they suggest a specific model that can be used for determinations. According to Erez and Gati (2004), national (macro), organizational (micro), and most importantly, industrial (meso) is the min distinctive levels in consideration to different levels of behavioral patterns. Typically, this distinction is similar to the way Schein describes them, particularly at the psychological level, which includes basic assumptions that help in affecting norms and beliefs, statements around beliefs, norms, and values, and most importantly, visible organizational behaviors, features, and practices.
Despite such similarities, most theorists have not successfully come up with a single and generally accepted model that can be used effectively on the delimitation of culture. The main reason, in this case, is that there are several social roles that people tend to engage themselves within their daily lives. As a result, people tend to unavoidably carry different layers related to mental programming within people that play a major role in corresponding to different levels of culture (Hodfsede, 2010). As such, the focus, in this case, is on determining the scope of the research and, most importantly, bringing different factors and specifics into consideration. Generally, it has been important to explain and measure current and predicting behavior. Besides, it also plays an important role in representing a major weakness for the lower the level is, and other hands, the greater the risks of failing to successfully understand or identify involved determinants.
Over the years, there have been different theories defining culture in organizations. They are mainly used in describing specific patterns related to basic assumptions and, most importantly, learned with a primary objective of adaptation and integrations (Erez and Gati, 2004. As a result, in this case, the expectations would be that the outcomes would play a major role in carrying some commonalities according to the environments needed by a person to integrate into it and in a specific way. Logically, the predisposition, in this case, is mainly around the specific culture and, most importantly, people’s personalities in the involved culture. In such cases, the use of national characteristics is common and is considered as a straight path to stereotyping people (Weerts et al. 2018). However, it does not in any way means that specific methods cannot be applicable across different borders. This case is why the distinction between multi and action companies based on Schein’d be idea can indeed play a substantial role, particularly in revealing an important correlation between how designs are taken and, most importantly, the motivational levels.
Correlations are considered as core elements, particularly in distinguishing the personalities of individuals, such as those of the gig five. As a result, gathering concrete, quantifiable information, which is considered as one of the most important ways to reach a valuable conclusion, will be conducted specifically through questionnaires as it allows for traits of different personalities to be boiled down to five main and important dimensions related to the variations of personalities. As it is away from the paradigm of the national culture dimensions, the big five can be seen as a major effort focused on overcoming their shortcomings, which is related to the fact that dimensions are mostly difficult to be imagined. Logically, a typology used in describing a set of ideal and easy to recognize types is important as it helps in reducing the complicity related to cultural analysis (Hofstede, 2010). As a result, traits of people’s personalities like extroversion, neuroticism, and openness focused on improving general knowledge of different values while assisting to avoid situations of stereotyping people within an organization (Black, 2003).
Generally, the relationship between personality and natural culture has become an important platform in consideration to the five-dimensional analysis of Hostede (2010). Currently, the platform is mainly used to check the reliability of different models’ results, importantly in analyzing cross cultures. Ronen and Shenkar (2013) argue that culture is all about sharing specific meanings and, most importantly, common ways through which people can view and understand different events or objects. As a result, some common cultural differences, particularly those related to nationalities, have become sort of scientific standards used in considering different meanings and general interpretations of different realities.
According to Gutterman et al. (2010) and Trompenaars & Woolliams (2002), there is a seven dimension culture model. This model can be seen as another important dimension paradigm that plays an important role in making a step forward, particularly from recognizing cultural differences that are currently in existence. Logically, most of the proposed dimensions focused on specific ways in which community members form relationships with each other. Others, however, are focused on addressing the environment and, most importantly, the time orientations. Being rather conceptual than empirical, they play an important role, particularly in providing more insight in understanding basic attitudes and values of culture. As a result, they have a major impact in identifying specific areas that these differences originate while suggesting more engagement, particularly in reconciling different orientations related to culture (Tuan, 2010). As a result, this method can be seen as used particularly when it comes to the management of differences in consideration to multi-national organizations.
The idea related to mixing different dimensions of culture through questioning different participants and respondents was first related to the general impacts of national culture, particularly on organizational leadership. Besides, it helped in expanding Hofstede’s five dimensions to nine. As a result, it presented a new mix, thus helping in describing the general relationship between the specific context of culture and, most importantly, the efficiency of efforts in the general leadership process. It was thus a great interest related to the general analysis of culture as it helped in influencing and contributing to the emergency of consensus related to cultural dimensions that are substantial in consideration to their impacts on most businesses (Bailey et al. 2019). Although it has been criticized for not being successful in achieving meaningful results by both complex and abstract results, the GLOBE research project tends to be effective, particularly in reflecting issues of leadership as an important element in influencing the culture of most organizations.
Technically, organizations tend to represent different social-relates structures than nations. The national correlations based on the dimensional analysis play an important role in influencing people’s ability to understand different aspects of an organization’s culture. This case is mainly due to the general characteristics of leadership in relation to the need to deal with how people relate with each other. In general, organizational culture has its unique development, which tends to have a unique way of reinforcement, manifestation, and, most importantly, rooting.
Leadership can easily be changed. It is mainly a balancing factor among culture, strategy, control, and, most importantly, structure. Generally, the concept of depending on power with the aim of developing social processes needs a more practical understanding of the nature of people. Logically, such leadership views tend to go beyond listing competencies and traits. As a result, it tends to be far more applicable when one speaks about the development of a new culture, respectively, about step-by-step processes where some of the most important requirements include good judgment and, most importantly, experience. The leadership theory can be seen as a major contributing factor ceasing its tendency, particularly in focusing mainly on measurable attributes related to leadership and other important competencies like defending specific ideas handling problems of resistance, and most importantly, moving to a new type of behaviors important in leadership (Asatiani et al. 2021).
One of the most important characteristics of transformational leadership is mainly being open-minded and future-oriented. As a result, this type of leadership plays a major role in encouraging subordinates to focus on thinking beyond themselves and, most importantly, becoming high performances. As a result, it helps in improving innovation and positive performance within an organization. Culture, on the other hand, is dynamic. Besides, its dynamic nature allows it to be linked directly to a specific leadership style used within an organization. As such, culture helps in determining a specific and the best managerial output, which in this case involves the general performance around an organization. So if variables like the innovation orientation of a business, understanding of the best direction, taking specific risks, and the uncertainty avoidance correlates with the culture of a group within the organization, it means culture is essential as a substantial determinant to the general effectiveness of a specific type of eldership within an organization (Elsmore, 2017). Besides, it means management of different aspects of organizational culture in the best way possible remains to be a leading challenge in consideration to the leaders of innovation.
In 2002, Porter and Stern made an attempt focused on describing the influence of culture on innovation. In this case, the existing differences in innovation inputs like financial rewards, scientific personnel, and others are considered as major drives to the general process of innovation. Other variables can also be seen to vary in different and significant ways. As a result, there is no reliable, common interpretation that can be constructed in consideration to innovation for them to be built and, most importantly, explored (Aldhuwaihi et al. 2012). Technically, innovation tends to differ substantially in terms across different nations. However, cooperate strategy model can, however, be used as an important benchmark and, most importantly, a common measure in consideration to current equivalences related to cross-culture.
Studies show that about eighty percent of different factors believed to be determinants of differences in methods of innovations have no major differences across nations (By, 2005). Logically, it is true that organizational culture, particularly as a result of world economy globalization, has different patterns that are common in one way or another throughout different cultures. The main reason is that it contributes significantly to making most organizations depend mainly on different practices for innovations. Toedtling et al. (2011) focused on finding more evidence that would have helped in reducing differences among most companies around the world, particularly as a result of networking and interactive innovation. However, these interactions can be considered as acquiring external paths for improving how people within an organization become innovative. In such cases, it is important to rely on the innovative culture of an organization.
However, most theorists have not come to a common understanding of the best types of organizational culture that will be the best fit to create a reliable and effective innovation context. There are about ten important components that, when taken by an organization cumulatively, can ensure effectiveness in supporting innovation practices within an organization and other important changes. Among these components include power relations, structure, and most importantly, finding a formalized method of getting things done within a business. However, some of these components tend to be soft and adaptable (Trompenaars and Woolliams, 2002). These components will therefore include rewarding, communication, training, and most importunately, measuring people’s performance within an organization. Based on this, it is evident that components of culture can also be different in terms of how tangible they are, their impacts and role in the general process of change, and most importantly, their implementation possibilities. Logically, it tends to be quite difficult to consider and take a specific aspect into consideration to the culture of an organization which is more likely to result in greater impacts on how different changes are implemented and sustained.
Over the years, they have been several ideas provided on how specific cultures for organizations could be created, risk-taking culture, innovation culture, and others. However, the primary focus of attention, in this case, should be given mainly to the understanding of how an existing culture impacts different processes. Generally, the existing relation between culture and change and innovation can be seen and analyzed depending on how companies view new and different practices. Bakhmet’Ev et al. (2009) also present another important viewpoint. This viewpoint is related to how organizational culture can be considered as an important social innovation. For example, culture based on this idea can be considered as an important factor affecting organizations, particularly in their earliest stages (Muro and Jeffrey, 2008). As a result, the paths to the future of these organizations’ behaviors can be traced easily (Suppiah and Sandhu, 2011). As a result, it plays an important role in showing different factors that can be used in determining how culture affects innovation and, most importantly, the change process, which can also be considered a tricky business (Parker and Bradley, 2000). The main reason is that it involves different visible and invisible forces. Logically, it involves a specific configuration that will be of best fit to only one type of innovation or change (Muls et al. 2015). As a result, this can be considered as the main reason why some authors recommended a complicated context of design before an attempt of innovation has been made, while others are less likely to depend on specific planning.
Besides, it also shows that it is a possible method that can be used to explore cultural aspects related to change and innovation, which can be achieved through a larger social category related to general leadership within an organization. Logically, these processes can be managed easily. Besides, they also need a strategy and directed efforts (Carvalho et al. 2019). This case means that the ability to analyze how one of them influences another can be an important and reliable way that can be used in exploring differences in consideration to the leading processes like change and innovation, based on the context of culture involved (Tödtling et al. 2011). Comparing the correlations between formal structures and processes of relationships and management would help in understanding the general ability to influence positive and desired movements in consideration to a specific team within an organization. In this case, the process involved in influencing the ability of other people to understand and, most importantly, agree with some of the operations that have been done successfully can be viewed through the formal routines important in influencing and improving efforts, both at individual and collective levels, based on desired efforts focused on accomplishing desired goals and objectives. As a result, this can be seen as one of the most important examples of the relationship between the structure and culture of an organization. In such situations, the context of involved culture plays an important role in outlining the possibilities of the leadership to ensure performance is of high level and effectiveness.
Basically, Culture can be considered as an important factor influencing the innovation and Culture of an organization in different ways. This case can be the main reason why it is easy to develop a common understanding and agreement in consideration of the universal validity of a specific theory or a model of implementation (Chebbi et al. 2020). Technically, Culture is believed to be a major factor that stimulates or affects change and innovation within most organizations. In this case, Culture can be viewed as a way to make innovation and change acceptable and attractive to involved employees and define the best types and implementation outcomes.
More analysis of the impacts of Culture on change and innovation needs to be focused on by assessing specific cultures within different organizations. In this case, it is not all about common characteristics that help unite people and relate to a specific group (McGrath, 2003). The main reason is that Culture tends to represent a living system with identities that are different, which have a specific level of conformity and play a major role in showing variations and confronting specific attitudes. Logically, the ability to interpret such different representations and practices of substantial essence, particularly in making plans for strategies, mapping specific trends, and most importantly, estimating desired influences.
Structural and interpretive approaches can be used to study and understand Culture. These approaches differ depending on the organizational elements they hold intrinsic in consideration to their cultures. Based on the interpretive approach, it is focused on determining Culture based on rituals and symbols. On the other hand, the structural approach depends mainly on the role of distribution and, most importantly, the further design of an organization (Passmore and Fillery-Travis, 2011).
The cultural web model has different elements that focus on the views for identifying constricts of a culture within a business. It is focused mainly on investigating specific routines and power relationships within an organization (Smith et al. 2013). The basics of this model presented unquestioned assumptions, most of which are difficult to be articulated in consideration to the people involved within an organization. In most cases, internal consistency is more likely to be improved by a broader organizational context of Culture. Besides, it tends to appear as a major psychological barrier when it comes to organizational changes. This method has, however, faced a lot of criticism. But in general, it has a lot of advantages. The main reason, in this case, is that it plays an important role in making the psychological aspects of the context of Culture become more explicit and, most importantly, focused on facilitating the general development of different views, particularly those that are consensus in nature, about Culture. (Smith et al. 2013).
Logically, the competing value framework is of substantial essence in events focused on dealing with values, particularly when these values are conflicting with each other. The ability to understand how best and successful one can be in appreciating conflicting values and integrating them can be viewed as an effective and productive way to ensure any form of resistance has been solved while achieving openness, creativity, and most importantly, the general growth of an organization (De Mooij and Hofstede, 2010). The relationships between the Culture of a business and other important variables related to jobs within an organization provided a clear understanding of the performance of people within an organization, their commitment, involvement, and, most importantly, job satisfaction. Logically, this case is about a specific form of reconciliation in which involved parties are required to understand and recognize each other and the differences they have while at the same time ensuring they maintain their unique value (Reiman and Oedewald, 2002). As a result, the ability to successfully diagnose aspects of Culture in management play a critical role in providing more reliable insights while outlining the effects of Culture on planning, enacting, and most importantly, reacting to changes and innovations within an organization. The standardized view of Culture as an example provided another important level to explore Culture. This level can be used in revealing inconsistencies around different methods. The main reason is that different nations are likely to respond to imposed management styles in different ways.
Responding to different dimensions can be seen as a way to represent unique cultures (Hofstede, 2001). It plays an important role in describing different issues that can be considered as problems with specific outcomes in consideration to the general functioning of people, societies, and specific groups. As a result, it provides more help in exploring the surrounding that would help present new ideas and improve the general implementation process. The main reason, in this case, is because Culture is an important factor capable of influencing and affecting changes within any organization. Besides, Culture also has a significant impact on the way most organizations develop and grow, how they select and use specific options, and most importantly, how effective they are, particularly in responding to different changes.
How Culture affects Behaviors Related to Change and Innovation in a Business
The business’s organizational culture involves specific and underlying beliefs, assumptions, values, and most importantly, specific ways of interaction, which play a critical role in creating a unique psychological and social environment of the business. As a result, it will include specific expectations, experiences, and values important in guiding the behaviors of employees within the organization. Technically, culture will therefore be expressed on member self-image, inner-working, and in some cases, interactions with the outside world and desired expectations, particularly in the future (Paais & Pattiruhu, 2020). Typically, culture is based on employees’ shared attitudes, customs, and beliefs and, in some cases, unwritten and written rules developed within the business over time and, most importantly, those considered valid. Besides, culture for the business will include norms, vision, values, assumptions, habits, beliefs, symbols, and language. As a result, organizational culture will include specific things that get done around the business.
Although culture is important within the business, specific challenges affect its role and impact on both employees and the organization. The common culture the organization is currently facing includes poor communication, inconsistency, and in some cases, ambiguity. Typically, these challenges play a major role in contributing to a hostile and unpleasant workplace (Li et al. 2018). Such impacts contribute to employees becoming less loyal and other problems like high turnover, harassment, and bullying. As a result, there is a need to make specific changes or innovations focused on solving these challenges. Some innovations needed in this case include training and development programs focused on educating employees on the importance of culture and, most importantly, specific ways to embrace a positive organizational culture. Employees’ engagement in decision-making will also help to create a working environment that is appreciated and accepted by all team members, thus improving productivity and ensuring team members contribute positively to the creation of a reliable culture.
Any concerns regarding the business’ structure and organization are solved through the use of outside consultants with the primary aim of getting a fresh look at the current culture. Such a tool effectively ensures the business is effective in identifying possible issues it might be facing and, most importantly, understanding the best and possible ways to improve its culture. However, improving culture should be the responsibility of all members within the organization. Technically, culture concerns employees and has a significant impact on customers and the community (Lunde et al. 2019, September). To ensure effectiveness in serving existing and potential clients, it will be important to keep the organization’s standards high and, most importantly, work hard with the primary aim of creating better and reliable solutions because that is what innovation is all about.
Business leaders are important, particularly in the creation and communication of culture. However, the current relationship between culture and leadership is not one-siders. While leaders and managers within the business can be considered the principal architect of culture, a good and reliable culture plays a critical role, particularly in influencing the best types of leadership for the business. As a result, leaders need to appreciate and understand their specific roles in maintaining or evolving culture within the business. Typically, a culture that has been deeply embedded and established plays an important role in illustrating specific or desired ways that employees should behave. This behavioral framework plays an important role in ensuring higher job satisfaction. This case means culture, job satisfaction, and leadership are inextricably connected. Leaders can create different cultures within the organization. Typically, these differences can, in most cases, manifest themselves in different ways, thus influencing the general performance and productivity of an organization.
Typically, organizational culture is not stagnant. However, changing organizational culture is not always easy. In some cases, employees can resist these changes and rally against the new culture. As a result, leaders must understand their specific role in convincing their employees of the benefits of these changes and, most importantly, showing them through collective experiences with new and desired behaviors (Lunde et al. 2019, September).
Being a leader calls for one to be responsible for bringing specific changes that would help in making differences and, most importantly, leaving a legacy in the history of an organization. This can be considered a self-ambitious project with the focus of carrying different marks of unplanned strategic goals, particularly when there are no clear goals or objectives.
Logically, the feeling of engaging in something new, particularly through new ideas, creating and shifting technology used within an organization, is related to innovation. Innovation is all about making efforts to a specific innovation process, focusing on bringing new ways that can be used to manufacture, and having a specific desired product related to the innovation involved (Ronen and Shenkar, 2013).
As a result, the best chance to start with is certainly needed, although it is not really sought for in general. This can be related to the long history related to a dominant market position of an organization in consideration to the general public sector. In such situations, the management of a company is less likely to have more worries, particularly in consideration to cost reduction, improving revenues, improving the satisfaction of customers, and other organizational goals (Mauelshagen et al. 2011). As a result, the goals in such situations will be focused on making changes within an organization which in most cases, the spirit of employees is also less likely to be different from that of government officials. The spirit, in this case, tends to be low, unmotivated, and possibly ineffective in consideration to different members of the organization’s staff (Maull et al. 2001). The spirit, in this case, is mainly characterized by the inertia of the organizations and the low ability to effectively and successfully generate effective and reliable ideas.
As such, it is important to focus on elaborating the sophisticated mission of the organization and, most importantly, its vision which must be in line with challenges related to the current century (Mathew and Ogbonna, 2009). To ensure effectiveness and positive outcomes, particularly in attracting attention, it is important to not be very readable, particularly for most ordinary employees. However, one must become and remain wall decorative. In such cases, new values and styles of people’s behaviors can be introduced in different ways (Jain, 2015). At this time, the decision to change the structure of the organization and, most importantly, re-organize workflow within an organization, introducing new roles and responsibilities while changing the relationships of the authority throughout the organization is of substantial essence. However, it is still important to avoid making an initial assessment of the existing structure of power, distribution of roles, and, most importantly, channels of communication (Mårtensson, 2000). The primary focus, in this case, is to ensure effectiveness and positive outcomes, particularly in occupying best practices without considering the need of the organization. The changes, particularly in consideration to how it will be best in dealing with creating change in the organization structure and involved people, are important in this stage.
The goal, in this case, should be focused on changing how people think, particularly by changing their behaviors and actions. Logically, Culture is important and results from different skills and knowledge that employees within the organization gain from the organizational Culture, which play an important role in further determining how these individuals will behave. Technically, this has nothing to do with the general productivity and, most importantly, direct responsibilities of employees. As a result, it would be important to focus on the re-organization of work within the organization. As a result, the primary focus is mainly on change of the organizational culture, which can be achieved easily by changing entrepreneurship processes which is one of the most important expectations.
Logically, imposing new routines need to focus on an aggressive change in consideration to the way the organization and its Culture perceive its employees and, most importantly, their general responsibilities and roles towards the organization. The new way of distributing personal responsibilities around the organization must be an expectation with the primary goal of resulting in a greater feeling of self-importance and self-assuredness in consideration to the future of team members within the organization (Guyatt et al. 2010). The idea, in this case, is to include employees in different aspects of the process within the organization. This case helps in promoting innovations as a result of a new distribution of roles. Besides, it also helps in bringing fewer insecurities, preventing cases of indifferences and negligent working attitudes of people, having easy and effective control of complaints in large numbers, improving the diversion of work and other types of counter-productive behaviors among employees. However, bringing people together does not help in creating an innovative network or, in some cases encouraging people to take ideas they might have to other people.
There is no importance in information team members about such changes or trying to make them prepared. The primary focus should be on avoiding any factor that may lead to failure in communicating the visions and mission of the organization to employees. As a result, it would be important to ensure effective and clear communication at different levels of the organization. This case means that asking an employee about such changes will be of substantial impact (Kubicek et al. 2019). The primary objective must be directed towards changing the institutionalized relations between the management and employee with a more democratic and empowering one that will have positive and desired impacts on the organization.
Despite goodwill in consideration to re-organizing the Culture of an organization, it is important to understand that it may end up in a structural disaster. As a result, understanding possible risks and effective responses to these risks is important with the focus of ensuring employees feel important and accepted within the organization. As a result, it is important to involve employees in such decisions and in the general process of change. This goal can be achieved through feeding-up employees with administrative decisions, which will ensure effectiveness in winning all people for the attempted changes or innovations (Kummerow and Kirby, 2013). The goal is to bring stimuli for creativeness from different perspectives, which must be effective in accounting for different and opposing arguments. This strategy, therefore, helps to create an organizational culture and environment that support and values the general inclusion and participation of team members with the aim of creating a desired organizational culture that supports the goals and objectives of the organization and its employees.
Recommendations to Enhancing or Creating an Appropriate Organizational Culture
To ensure effectiveness in improving the business’s organizational culture, leaders need to understand their role in exploring different ideas that will help improve workplace culture. One of the main reasons, in this case, is that there are different types of workplace culture. There are different and reliable ways to achieve a positive and reliable organizational culture for the business.
One of the recommendations, in this case, involves building strong employee relationships. Typically, leadership is considered the foundation for meaningful experiences of employees; this case means leaders play a critical role in shaping corporate culture (Paais & Pattiruhu, 2020). Building strong relationships with employees ensures effectiveness in elevating employee experiences and, most importantly, helping in forming a foundation for a good organizational culture. This case ensures effectiveness in helping employees understand their value within the organization. Besides, it allows leaders to connect with different people for specific purposes.
Effectiveness in transparency and communication is also of significant essence in this case. Typically, communication and transparency are important in ensuring employees understand what is expected from them to ensure positive and productive organizational culture has been achieved. It also contributed to an environment managed and influenced positively through high levels of trust. As a result, it ensures effectiveness and positive outcomes in influencing how employees relate and their efforts or behaviors with the primary focus of achieving a positive and desired organizational culture.
Another important way to improve organizational culture is mainly improving onboarding and orientation. Studies show that about thirty percent of employees are more likely to quick their jobs in the first three months (Schmiedel et al. 2019). As a result, it is important to ensure new hires receive effective and engaging orientations in the first few days after being hired and a well-through-out onboarding process. The primary focus, in this case, is to ensure new hires have been set up for success after being employed, which helps them feel connected to their jobs, the organizations, and, most importantly, other employees.
Besides, recognizing and rewarding valuable contributions from team members is also important in improving the organizational culture. The primary goal, in this case, is to ensure employees know they are valued for their contributions and impacts on the organization. As a result, this will help improve morale, engagement, and the ability of employees to accept what the organization expects from them and specific behaviors that will improve their organizational culture (Elsbach & Stigliani, 2018). The impacts will mainly be positive and improved productivity and performance, both at organizational and individual levels. These strategies are focused on improving how employees engage in their roles and responsibilities within the organization and, most importantly, how they strive to achieve or engage in specific behaviors expected from them by the organization.
Analysis of the Current Culture of the organization
It is important to use different methods with the aim of gathering reliable information with the primary aim of surfacing the attitudes among employees working within the organization. The information gathered, in this case, can be either positive or negative. Technically, the primary goal, in this case, is to have a better understanding of how different employees perceive themselves, their understanding of specific strengths and weaknesses of the business they are working for, the future of the organization, and most importantly, their future as well. Logically, a shared idea judgment in consideration to the current situations is as important as a shared vision in consideration to the future of the organization.
As a result, this is one of the most important factors of consideration that must be taken into account. The primary goal, in this case, is to understand different cultural elements that are most likely to stay invisible. These elements are important in affecting different types of behaviors within the organization. Logically, the results from such discussions, for example, between leaders and their subordinates, play a critical role in showing how the employee feels about failing to ask them about specific changes within the organization. Lack of performance indicators is also a major issue. Logically, people need a unified standard that will be effective in measuring not only performance but also, and most importantly, abstract factors like team engagement and team working. As a result, it means employees are more likely to feel the necessity and are mainly prepared to change their specific behaviors. A system of self-rating can be used in this case and is important, particularly in measuring the behaviors of involved people.
The qualitative data can be gathered particularly by the middle-level management. This case means that the top management should not be engaged in this process to avoid situations where the whole data become useless. The main reason is that there is a possibility of making attempts on the part of employees with a primary aim of giving answers that are political rights. Questionnaires and interviews play a critical role in the identification of specific team members and, most importantly, their general positions within the organization that helped in attracting major confidence, which can also be used effectively as informal leaders. Generally, the management of the internal process in most organizations plays a critical role at the beginning of formalizations. This case is therefore important, particularly in generalizing attitudes of different people within the organization.
Developing and Defining Desired Culture
Logically, the establishment of new goals assumes that all people will be required to focus on adopting new behaviors, which will ensure effectiveness and positive outcomes in achieving desired goals and objectives. In most cases, visions play an important role in providing people with an impulse that will influence new behaviors, particularly in situations related to cultural diffusions, which tend to come with the global organizational Culture. Based on the personal level, the scope of visions related to an individual depends mainly on their positions with a business.
As a result, an approach that considers and values different ideas at all levels of an organization in consideration to specific requirements is more likely to bring the ability of the people and organization to understand and, most importantly, recognize a broader spectrum of issues and effective solutions to these problems. Besides, it also contributes to a better understanding of specific and existing disappointments together with the expectations of people, which will lead to truly shared ideas regarding organizational innovations and, most importantly, changes.
Based on this discussion, it is evident that lack of motivation and, most importantly, interests affect performance in the best possible ways. Logically, the main reason can be related to a policy that hinders the provision of feedback. Asking for feedback plays a critical role in providing early warning in consideration to specific changes within an organization and, most importantly, specific shifts in consideration to the perceptions of employees within the organizations, particularly those related to job performance and satisfaction. This case means that team members play an important role in influencing changes within an organization and, most importantly, the organizational culture. It is important to understand that providing people with a chance to make decisions regarding levels of their involvement within an organization can be considered as an important social innovation by itself and, most importantly, for an organization. Besides, it also provides a more powerful statement regarding the type of changes that are initiated within an organization.
Bibliographies
Aldhuwaihi, A., Shee, H.K. and Stanton, P., 2012. Organisational culture and the job satisfaction-turnover intention link: A case study of the Saudi Arabian banking sector. World, 2(3), pp.127-41.
Asatiani, A., Hämäläinen, J., Penttinen, E. and Rossi, M., 2021. Constructing continuity across the organisational culture boundary in a highly virtual work environment. Information Systems Journal, 31(1), pp.62-93.
Bailey, B., Benson, A.J. and Bruner, M.W., 2019. Investigating the organisational culture of CrossFit. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17(3), pp.197-211.
Bakhmet’Ev, A.M., Bol’Shukhin, M.A., Vakhrushev, V.V., Khizbullin, A.M., Makarov, O.V., Bezlepkin, V.V., Semashko, S.E. and Ivkov, I.M., 2009. Experimental validation of the cooling loop for a passive system for removing heat from the AES-2006 protective envelope design for the Leningradskaya nuclear power plant site. Atomic energy, 106(3), pp.185-190.
Black, R.J., 2003. Organisational culture: creating the influence needed for strategic success. Universal-Publishers.
By, R.T., 2005. Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of change management, 5(4), pp.369-380.
Carvalho, A.M., Sampaio, P., Rebentisch, E., Carvalho, J.Á. and Saraiva, P., 2019. Operational excellence, organisational culture and agility: the missing link?. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 30(13-14), pp.1495-1514.
Chebbi, H., Yahiaoui, D., Sellami, M., Papasolomou, I. and Melanthiou, Y., 2020. Focusing on internal stakeholders to enable the implementation of organizational change towards corporate entrepreneurship: a case study from France. Journal of Business Research, 119, pp.209-217.
De Mooij, M. and Hofstede, G., 2010. The Hofstede model: Applications to global branding and advertising strategy and research. International Journal of advertising, 29(1), pp.85-110.
Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I., 2018. Design thinking and organizational culture: A review and framework for future research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2274-2306.
Elsmore, P., 2017. Organisational Culture: Organisational Change?: Organisational Change?. Routledge.
Erez, M. and Gati, E., 2004. A dynamic, multi‐level model of culture: from the micro level of the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology, 53(4), pp.583-598.
Fink, G., Dauber, D. and Yolles, M., 2012. Understanding organisational culture as a trait theory. European Journal of International Management, 6(2), pp.199-220.
Guyatt, G., Akl, E.A., Hirsh, J., Kearon, C., Crowther, M., Gutterman, D., Lewis, S.Z., Nathanson, I., Jaeschke, R. and Schünemann, H., 2010. The vexing problem of guidelines and conflict of interest: a potential solution. Annals of internal medicine, 152(11), pp.738-741.
Jain, A.K., 2015. Volunteerism and organisational culture: Relationship to organizational commitment and citizenship behaviors in India. Cross Cultural Management.
Kubicek, A., Bhanugopan, R. and O’Neill, G., 2019. How does cultural intelligence affect organisational culture: the mediating role of cross-cultural role conflict, ambiguity, and overload. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(7), pp.1059-1083.
Kummerow, E. and Kirby, N., 2013. Organisational culture: Concept, context, and measurement (in two volumes). World Scientific.
Li, W., Bhutto, T. A., Nasiri, A. R., Shaikh, H. A., & Samo, F. A. (2018). Organizational innovation: the role of leadership and organizational culture. International Journal of Public Leadership.
Lunde, T. Å., Sjusdal, A. P., & Pappas, I. O., 2019, September. Organizational culture challenges of adopting big data: a systematic literature review. In Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society (pp. 164-176). Springer, Cham.
Mårtensson, M., 2000. A critical review of knowledge management as a management tool. Journal of knowledge management.
Mathew, J. and Ogbonna, E., 2009. Organisational culture and commitment: a study of an Indian software organisation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(3), pp.654-675.
Mauelshagen, C., Rocks, S., Pollard, S. and Denyer, D., 2011. Risk management pervasiveness and organisational maturity: a critical review. International Journal of Business Continuity and Risk Management, 2(4), pp.305-323.
Maull, R., Brown, P. and Cliffe, R., 2001. Organisational culture and quality improvement. International Journal of Operations & Production Management.
McGrath, K., 2003. Organisational culture and information systems implementation: A critical perspective (Doctoral dissertation, The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)).
Muls, A., Dougherty, L., Doyle, N., Shaw, C., Soanes, L. and Stevens, A.M., 2015. Influencing organisational culture: a leadership challenge. British Journal of Nursing, 24(12), pp.633-638.
Muro, M. and Jeffrey, P., 2008. A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of environmental planning and management, 51(3), pp.325-344.
Paais, M., & Pattiruhu, J. R. 2020. Effect of motivation, leadership, and organizational culture on satisfaction and employee performance. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 7(8), 577-588.
Parker, R. and Bradley, L., 2000. Organisational culture in the public sector: evidence from six organisations. International Journal of Public Sector Management.
Passmore, J. and Fillery-Travis, A., 2011. A critical review of executive coaching research: a decade of progress and what’s to come. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 4(2), pp.70-88.
Reiman, T. and Oedewald, P., 2002. The assessment of organisational culture. A methodological study. VTT Research Notes, VTT Industrial Systems, Espoo.
Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O., 2013. Mapping world cultures: Cluster formation, sources and implications. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(9), pp.867-897.
Schmiedel, T., Müller, O., & vom Brocke, J., 2019. Topic modeling as a strategy of inquiry in organizational research: A tutorial with an application example on organizational culture. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 941-968.
Smith, O.M., McDonald, E., Zytaruk, N., Foster, D., Matte, A., Clarke, F., Fleury, S., Krause, K., McArdle, T., Skrobik, Y. and Cook, D.J., 2013. Enhancing the informed consent process for critical care research: strategies from a thromboprophylaxis trial. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 29(6), pp.300-309.
Suppiah, V. and Sandhu, M.S., 2011. Organisational culture’s influence on tacit knowledge‐sharing behaviour. Journal of knowledge management.
Tödtling, F., Prud’homme Van Reine, P. and Dörhöfer, S., 2011. Open innovation and regional culture—findings from different industrial and regional settings. European Planning Studies, 19(11), pp.1885-1907.
Trompenaars, F. and Woolliams, P., 2002. A new framework for managing change across cultures. Journal of change management, 3(4), pp.361-375.
Tuan, L.T., 2010. Organisational culture, leadership and performance measurement integratedness. International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 9(3), pp.251-275.
Weerts, K., Vermeulen, W. and Witjes, S., 2018. On corporate sustainability integration research: Analysing corporate leaders’ experiences and academic learnings from an organisational culture perspective. Journal of cleaner production, 203, pp.1201-1215.
Winklhofer, H., Pressey, A. and Tzokas, N., 2006. A cultural perspective of relationship orientation: using organisational culture to support a supply relationship orientation. Journal of Marketing Management, 22(1-2), pp.169-194.
Leave a Reply