ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

AN INTRODUCTION.
1.0 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE - AN INTRODUCTION.

Organizational culture is a commonly held -in-the-mind framework of organizational

members. This framework contains basic assumptions and values. These basic

assumptions and values are taught to new members as the way to perceive, think, feel,

behave, and expect others to behave in the organization. Edgar Schein (1999) says

that organizational culture is developed over time as people in the organization learn

to deal successfully with problems of external adaptation and internal integration. It

becomes the common language and the common background. So culture arises out of

what has been successful for the organization.

1.1 More about Organizational Culture

Culture starts with leadership, is reinforced with the accumulated learning of the

organizational members, and is a powerful (albeit often implicit) set of forces that

determine human behavior. An organization’s culture goes deeper than the words

used in its mission statement. Culture is the web of tacit understandings, boundaries,

common language, and shared expectations maintained over time by the members.

Ways of looking at organizational culture originally come out of anthropology. Here

are some aspects of culture:

Historical: Culture is social heritage, or tradition, that is passed on to future

generations.

Behavioral: Culture is shared, learned human behavior, a way of life.

Normative: Culture is ideals, values, or rules for living.

Functional: Culture is the way people solve problems of adapting to the environment

and living together.

Mental: Culture is a complex of ideas, or learned habits, for social control.

1
Structural: Culture consists of patterned and interrelated ideas, symbols, or

behaviors.

Symbolic: Culture is based on arbitrarily assigned meanings that are shared by an

organization [Adapted from Bodley, (1996)]

To really be able to characterize and “speak” an organization’s culture a person would

need to be able to step back objectively and do some critical observations and

interviews. Various researchers have developed models to characterize cultures, both

qualitatively and quantitatively.

1.2 Hofstede probably started it all:

Geert Hofstede1 was an engineer turned social scientist. After 10 years working as an

engineer and manager in Dutch industry, he returned to the university to study social

psychology. His groundbreaking 1980 book, Culture’s Consequences (reprinted

afresh in 2001) grew out of his research within IBM from 1973 to 1978.

From what was at that time the world’s largest survey data base, Hofstede and his

colleagues teased out differences in the mental programs among over 115,000 IBMers

across 50 nations, and laid the groundwork for other scholars to adapt his work and

use it to study organizations. Hofstede’s work identified five major dimensions upon

which country cultures differed:

•Power distance - how hierarchies and unequal power distribution is viewed.

•Uncertainty avoidance - the extent to which people are comfortable or

uncomfortable with uncertainty and little structure.

2
'Individualism - this is the anchor at one end of two poles, where the other anchor

would be collectivism. This is the extent to which individuals are supposed to be self-

reliant and look after themselves, versus being more integrated into a group.

•Masculinity or Femininity - the dimension that has probably caused the most

uproar. This dimension reflects hardness vs. softness; toughness vs. tenderness in a

culture.

•Long term or short term orientation - this has to do with the culture’s members

having a stance on delayed, or immediate, gratification.

Hofstede noted in his writing that it is important to recognize that national culture and

organizational culture are different in nature. His research indicates that national

culture mostly stems from consistency in values; while organizational culture stems

mostly from consistency in practices.

Piggybacking from Hofstede

Management researchers were quick to adapt Hofstede’s work and begin to

investigate cultures inside organizations. O’Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991) in

some comparative work published that seven dimensions could be used to compare

across organizations.

1.2.1 O’Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell’s Dimensions of Organizational Culture2

• Innovation and risk taking - willing to experiment, take risks, encourage innovation

•Attention to detail - paying attention to being precise vs. saying its “good enough for

chopped salad”

•Outcome orientation - oriented to results vs. oriented to process

•People orientation - degree of value and respect for people. Are people considered

unique talents?

3
* Individual vs. Team orientation - is individuals most highly noted, or, is collective

efforts.

•Aggressiveness — taking action, dealing with conflict

•Stability - openness to change

1.2.2 A Composite Two-by-Two

Some researchers present a framework of culture characterized by two dimensions

•Internal focus (attending primarily to what is going on inside the organization) vs

External focus (attending primarily to what is going on outside the organization)

•Stability and control (interest in keeping things the same) vs Flexibility and

discretion (interest in making changes).

1.2.2.1 Internally focused with Flexibility and Discretion:

This type of organization has a sense of cohesion, with goals that are strongly shared.

Inside, the organization may feel more ‘family like” than ‘business like.” Indeed,

Cameron and Quinn call this a Clan Culture. Denison tags this type of organization

as having Involvement of all employees3.

1.2.2.2 Externally Focused with Flexibility and Discretion:

The emphasis on being open to change and oriented to the outside world

characterizes organizations in which innovation can thrive; indeed sometimes the

innovativeness can run amuck. Cameron and Quinn call these Adhocracy Cultures.

Denison characterizes them as high adaptability cultures.

1.2.2.3 Internally focused with Stability and Control:

This type of organization often relies on formal structures, policies and procedures to

keep things running. An internal focus is on Consistency says Denison. Cameron and

Quinn named this type Hierarchy Culture.

4
1.2.2.4 Externally focused with Stability and Control:

These types of organizations are concerned about productivity, consistency, results,

and the bottom line. These organizations are very clear about their customers, and

hence can be termed Market Cultures. Denison says these organizations have a

sense of external Mission, combined with control that can be very successful.

1.3 Looking at Organizational Culture - Qualitative and Quantitative

approaches:

In academia the scholars interested in organizational culture have kept a small-fire

war going for years discussing the pros and cons of qualitative or quantitative ways of

looking at culture. The qualitative camp points out that the richness of perceptions and

experience inside an organization are vital to deep understanding, and they sniff that

culture cannot be constrained to a two by two matrix or a list of dimensions. On the

other camp, quantitative researchers argue that managers need to have some hard data,

and that the drawbacks of getting slow, expensive, possibly unreliable (unique to the

interpretation of the researcher) qualitative information makes the usefulness iffy at

best. The truth, of course, lies in the middle. Managers will be best served by both.

Case studies, based on observation and insider interviews, have a sense of reality and

immediacy that captures the attention and emotion. Observations of the components

of culture, with discussion and analyses, offer ways to do qualitative tracking over

time. Having a method for obtaining quantitative data has the advantage of allowing

managers to put together more “hard data” analyses to look at culture as a component

of management, and to track the standardized captured components of culture

longitudinally. Looking at an organization using data gathered in a variety of

5
methods, or triangulation, combines quantitative and qualitative data that allows

managers to capitalize on the advantages of quantitative methods as well as capturing

a rich not-easily-quantified picture of the organization.

Bringing in outside eyes, qualified academics or consultants, can be a helpful way for

managers to begin to look at the organizational culture. It is not the only way,

however. People can engage in developmental processes to help themselves recognize

aspects of their own organizational culture.

1.3.1 Let’s start with Qualitative

A qualitative understanding can be developed by looking at organizational practices

with a fresh set of eyes. To begin to understand culture, put on an anthropologist’s hat

and...

Observe...

•What do offices look like?

•How are people dressed?

•Where do they eat lunch?

•How would you characterize the people in the hall - formal or informal? Laughing,

or serious?

•What kinds of pictures, signs, and jokes are on walls? Listen for particular language

Notice the Features of Culture...

•Ceremonies, Rites, and Rituals •Stories and Myths ‘Heroes ‘Language

•Symbols

Attention: Ask questions, like:

•Tell me the organizational creation story.

6
•How do new people “learn the ropes” in the organization.

•What gets noticed (and rewarded)?

•Are some people on the “fast track,” and if so, how did they get there?

•What are some taboos — things people should never do?

•If a team accomplishes something great, what happens?

•Describe the organization in three words

•If the organization were an animal, what would it be?

•Ceremonies, Rites and Rituals - These are regular events that teach people about the

culture, and maintain a sense of seasonal order. Think about quarterly site meetings;

any rites and rituals associated with being promoted, annual sales meetings.

•Stories and Myths - Organizations develop narratives to explain and teach. Common

examples are stories told by managers about successes, failures, high visible actions.

Stories usually have a basis in reality; myths can be fictitious, but so indicative of the

culture that people tell and retell them anyway.

•Heroes - Organizations develop internal heroic figures.

•Language - Organizations develop acronyms, metaphors, proverbs, and jargon that

have specific meaning inside.

•Symbols - Signs, company logos, the way offices look, the type of clothing that is

allowed are all symbolic reflectors of a culture.

1.3.2 Let’s touch on Quantitative

The most common method for quantitatively capturing culture information is through

the use of survey assessments. An organization can use the Organizational Culture

Assessment Instrument (OCAI) developed by Cameron and Quinn (1999) that would

provide useful and valid information. Another often used assessment is the

7
Organizational Culture Index (OC1) developed by Robert Cooke and Clayton

Lafferty. This assessment uses questions about behavioral norms, falling into 12

factors. Cooke and his associates have developed a circumplex plotting process,

which then categorizes the organization as being one of three types: Constructive,

Passive/Defensive, and Aggressive/Defensive.

A more useful, but tougher task would be developing some connections between the

outputs of a survey and the need for innovation within the organization. We would

likely all agree that innovation is the life-force of an organization. Innovation means

an organization would hold internal assumptions, values, and management practices

that foster developing new ideas into products, processes, objects, and services.

1.4 Schein’s Model of Culture

Schein’s approach “divides” culture into three levels. He argued that basic underlying

assumptions lie at the root of culture, and are” unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs,

perceptions, thoughts, and feelings4.” Espoused values are derived from these basic

underlying assumptions and are the “espoused justifications of strategies, goals, and

philosophies.” Finally, at the top level are “artifacts” which are defined as the

“visible, yet hard to decipher organizational structures and processes.” Schein’s model

has influenced a generation of culture researchers to think in terms of distinct levels of

culture and to believe that basic underlying assumptions are the foundation for values

and artifacts. To be fair, this model does in some ways present a systems perspective

on culture that allows us to understand a set of interrelated concepts. But Schein’s

model has also tended to lead researchers to take the idea of “levels of culture” a bit

too seriously and often made it harder to see the linkage between levels. The

perspective has tended to glorify basic assumptions as the true domain of culture

8
without explaining their link to the more visible levels of culture. This approach has

also tended to emphasize the search for understanding at the cognitive level and to de-

emphasize the more visible levels of culture. Several important questions also go

unanswered by Schein’s model. To whom are these basic assumptions

“unconscious?” Insiders? Outsiders?

What happens to underlying assumptions once organizational members become aware

of them?

Presumably, researchers are aware of these assumptions, while organizational

members are not. But what about the assumptions that organizational members are

aware of but researchers are not?

Schein’s emphasis on “espoused values” also tends to limit our ability to see the links

across levels. The emphasis on espoused values begs the question of the role of

“values-in-use” in linking basic core assumptions with the actions of organizational

members and the more visible manifestations of culture.

Finally, Schein’s approach has also tended to trivialize those visible layers of culture,

labeled as “artifacts,” that are judged to be “hard to decipher.” In fact, artifacts are

quite easily deciphered by organizational members, who spend most of their time

dealing with “artifacts.” Changes in processes, strategies, structures, and technologies

are quickly interpreted by organizational members and consume lots of their time and

energy.

The insights about the culture come not from the analytic distinction between the

different levels, but in the realization that assumptions, values, and artifacts all fit

together. Thus, the more powerful approach to take when trying to create

organizational change is one that links underlying assumptions with values, behavior,

and visible manifestations. The insights that come from the distinctions between

9
levels are far less powerful than the recognition of patterns across levels. It is also

important to display a keen knowledge and regard for the visible manifestations of the

culture, in hopes that this will lead to a better understanding of the underlying values

and assumptions that they represent. Reasoning from the visible manifestations back

to the underlying assumptions creates far more leverage for organizational change

than starting with the assumptions themselves. For most practicing managers, the

assertion that all organizations are unique undermines the importance of culture.

Customers and shareholders compare organizations and their products every day.

Thus, in their endless quest for “delivering results,” relatively few managers can see

beyond a “best practice” perspective on organizational culture. Even if there are many

aspects of organizational cultures that cannot be compared, when the objective is to

use culture as a lever for change, it is important to begin by focusing on aspects of

culture that can be compared. As Schein’s model helps to illustrate, it can be quite

difficult to make generalizations about organizational culture when dealing at the

level of basic underlying assumptions. The basic assumptions that an organization’s

members hold are often unique to the history and circumstances under which the

organization developed. In addition, it also can be difficult to generalize about

organizations when dealing with the visible manifestations of culture such as artifacts.

1.5 Schneider’s Model of Organizational Culture5

Instead of using a multi-dimensional approach, we will use William Schneider’s

holistic theory that describes four distinct organizational cultures. This particular

theory is especially effective for thinking about the impact of organizational culture

on systems and system-related projects due to its straight forward associations with

many activities and issues related to systems and their creation and maintenance.

10
Schneider’s theory is described in his 1994 book The Reengineering Alternative: A

Plan for Making Your Current Culture Work. He uses two of the four dimensions of

Myers-Briggs personality types

1. To identify four idealized organizational cultures,

2. each of which has its own advantages and disadvantages. Any culture’s advantages

are usually the mirror image of its disadvantages.

SF: Collaboration culture (emphasizing teams, affiliation, synergies, harmony)

ST: Control culture (emphasizing power, reality, and enforcement of procedures)

NF: Cultivation culture (emphasizing values, personal growth, achieving potential)

NT: Competence culture (emphasizing achievement, excellence, innovation)

1.5.1 SF: Collaboration

Archetype: Family or team.

Success based on: synergy.

Leadership focus: team builder, coach, participative, trust builder,

Management style: collegial, participative, personal, emotional, people driven.

Organizational form: Group cluster based on being a team player and contributing to

the overall effort.

1.5.2 ST: Control

Archetype: Military organization.

Success based on: dominance.

Leadership focus: Authoritative/directive, commanding, and tough-minded.

Management style: methodical, systematic, task driven, impersonal.

11
Organizational form: Hierarchy based on compliance and adherence to role

requirements in order to serve the pursuits of the organization.

Power focus: Based on relationships

Key norms: synergy, egalitarianism, involvement, harmony, pragmatism.

Power focus: Based on roles and positions.

Key norms: certainty, systematism, objectivity, order, standardization

1. Sensing (S) involves gathering information using the five senses.

2. Intuiting (N) involves imagining possibilities.

3. Thinking (T) involves using logic and facts to make decisions.

4. Feeling (F) involves using values and connection to others to make decisions.

Everyone uses all of these, but research on personality type (within a Myers-Briggs

tradition) has shown that many people have consistent preferences along the S versus

N and T versus F dimensions. In other words, some people are much more anchored

in sensory data while others put more of their consciousness into perceiving patterns

and possibilities. Similarly, some people tend to rely more on logic and facts, while

others tend to rely more on values and connectedness with others.

The full Myers-Briggs typology contains two other dimensions that are not important

for our purposes because Schneider used only S-N and F-T to characterize

organizational culture. For completeness it is worth noting that Schneider’s book

describes organizational culture in terms of Myers-Briggs categories mainly in an

Appendix called “Corroboration from the Work of Others,” and there, only as a

reference to prior work by Hirsh [1985], who wrote about SF, ST, NF, and NT as

12
organizational “preferences.” Schneider also mentions Jung, Myers and Briggs, and

subsequent researchers in a Chapter called “The Genesis of Organizational Culture.”

1.5.3 NF: Cultivation

Archetype: church, temple, or mosque.

Success based on: realization of potential.

Leadership focus: Empower people, catalyst, inspire, and foster self-expression.

Management style: committed, personal, emotional, people-driven, and humanistic.

Organizational form: Circular or lattice-like, based on self-expression, willingness to

grow, and cooperation.

Power focus: based on charisma.

Key norms: growth and development, humanism, involvement, values.

1.5.4 NT: Competence

Archetype: university or research lab.

Success based on: superiority.

Leadership focus: Standard setter, visionary, recruits the most competent.

Management style: task driven, objective, rational/analytical, challenging, impersonal.

Organizational form: Matrix adhocracy based on being experts, being creative,

functioning independently, and serving the pursuits of the organization.

Power focus: based on expertise.

Key norms: professionalism, meritocracy, pursue excellence, creativity.

Schneider’s characterization of four idealized cultures is based on the relative

dominance of different preferences in an organization’s culture. For example, a strict

13
military culture (as might exist on a warship or in an operating room) is very much

steeped in S and T, sensing what is going on and applying logic and facts to draw

conclusions. These are control cultures in which power, reality, and enforcement of

procedures are very important, but even in these situations the primary modes of the

other idealized cultures do occur occasionally. As with S, N, F, and T in Myers-

Briggs, the four cultures might be viewed as different preferences that any

organization might use in information gathering and decision-making. The preferred

or predominant combination defines the culture in Schneider’s terms. Any of the four

cultures might apply in entire companies or in departments in most industries For

example, a sales organization or a business school or a software firm might have a

collaboration culture or a control culture or a competence culture or even a cultivation

culture. Consider a public library, for example. A library whose culture emphasizes

the process of checking out books accurately and making sure they are returned

promptly sounds like a control culture. A library that tries to be cooperative and

accommodating to its patrons and tries to help them figure out what they want sounds

more like a collaboration culture. A library that provides the best search methods and

access to specialized information might have more a competence culture. A library

organized to inculcate its patrons with values of literacy and enjoyment of literature

might have more of a cultivation culture. Any library might perform all of these

functions to some extent, but its culture would be described in terms of the approach

that best describes “how we do things around here.”

A specific firm might contain different departments whose individual cultures might

be quite different. A university or consulting firm with a competence culture might

have an accounting or finance department with a control culture because revenues

14
need to be collected and recorded accurately regardless of what the firm produces.

Similarly, a high precision manufacturing firm with a strong control culture in its

production department might have a personnel department with a cultivation culture

that revolves around finding the best way to develop the firm’s managers and

technical experts. In addition to describing four idealized cultures, Schneider’s book

argues that companies or departments should identify their own culture and should try

to make sure that activities calling for aspects of other cultures should be directed at

maximizing goals of the core culture. For example a church (typically a cultivation

culture) that needs to set up controls to keep its finances from degenerating into chaos

should try to make sure that financial systems and controls genuinely serve the values

and personal growth objectives of the church rather than just being controls for their

own sake. The book also points out that mergers of companies with different cultures

often cause major problems, as does bringing in a new CEO or other high level

manager whose agenda represents a different culture.

The same issues related to alignment and misalignment should also apply to systems

in organizations. The original impetus for exploring the possible application of

Schneider’s cultures to systems was the frequent claims that mismatch with

organizational culture is one of many reasons why systems fail, generate

disappointing results, or turn out to have unexpected consequences. If this assumption

is generally correct, it makes sense to develop a set of ideas for recognizing alignment

between an organization’s culture and a new or existing system. The ideas could be

the basis of a diagnostic that could help address these issues of strategic alliances or

network embedded ness.

15
1.6 The Denison Organizational Culture Model6

The Denison model measures four critical traits of culture and leadership (mission,

adaptability, involvement, and consistency). Each of these traits is further broken

down into three indices (for a total of 12).

Figure 1.1: Denison’s Model

External Focus

Internal Focus

Let us look at this model as shown above. At the very centre of it lie an organization’s

basic beliefs and assumptions. These beliefs and assumptions are the wellspring of

effort to get work done.

16
Capability development: Do you continually invest in the development of your

employee’s skills to stay competitive, meet ongoing business needs, and meet

employee’s desire to learn and develop?

Consistency: is to examine whether you have a strong and cohesive internal culture.

Core Values: Does your company have a shared set of values that creates a strong

sense of identity and a clear set of expectations among organization members?

Agreement: Are leaders skilled enough to achieve high agreement and reconcile

different opinions on critical issues?

Coordination & Integration: Do different functions and units of the organization

work together well? Do departmental or group boundaries affect behavior and action,

but are well hidden under the surface of daily corporate life. However, we can still

approach culture in a more measurable and useful manner. The four-trait model in

Figure 1.1 provides such a possibility. Each of the four colored quarters above is

further divided into three sub-dimensions as defined below.

Involvement is about building employees capability, ownership, and responsibility.

Your organization’s score on this trait reflects how much the organization focuses on

developing, informing, involving your people and getting them engaged.

Empowerment: Are your people empowered with real responsibility? Have they

created a sense of ownership and initiative?

Team orientation: Value is placed on working cooperatively towards common goals.

Do you rely on teams? Do the Links interfere with cooperation?

Adaptability is focusing on an organization’s ability of adapting quickly to the

signals from the external environment, including customers and the marketplace.

Creating Change: Are we afraid of taking risks to create change? Are we learning to

17
read the business environment, envision changes in process and procedures, and make

timely change?

Customer Focus: Adaptable organizations are driven by their customers; are you able

to understand your customers, satisfy them and anticipate their future needs?

Organizational Learning: Can you interpret the signals from the environment into

opportunities for encouraging innovation and gaining knowledge?

Mission: Successful organizations have a clear sense of purpose that defines long­

term directions. The Mission trait is useful in identifying whether you are in danger of

shortsightedness or you are equipped with systematically defined strategy and action

plans.

Vision: Do you have a shared view of a desired future state? Is that vision understood

and shared by all in the organization?

Strategic Direction & Intent: Are you planning to ‘make your mark’ in your

industry? Clear strategic intentions convey the organization’s purpose and make it

clear how everyone can contribute.

Goals & Objectives: Is a clear set of goals and objectives linked to the mission,

vision, and strategy adequately provided so that everyone could draw as reference in

their own work?

Now look at the whole picture. The two traits on the left side of the pie (involvement

+ adaptability) focus on change and flexibility while the other two on the right

(mission + consistency) shows the capability to remain predictable and stable over

time. Divided by the horizontal middle line, the upper part (adaptability + mission) is

something related to an organizations adapting ability in response to the external

environment and the bottom part (involvement + consistency) emphasizes the issues

on internal integration of systems, structures and processes. One of the uniqueness of

18
this model is that it focuses on two paradoxes that each company is constantly seeking

to balance. One is consistency versus adaptability: companies that are market-focused

may encounter problems with internal integration but those too well integrated may be

over-controlled and lacks adequate flexibility to adjust to the environment.

The other is top-down vision (mission) versus bottom-up (involvement):

organizations with too much emphasis on general corporate mission may frequently

ignore the issue of employee empowerment and buy-in, but organizations with strong

participation may have a hard time in establishing direction. Besides the self-evident

indications from the four colorful quarters, it is also meaningful to see this graph as a

whole, no matter vertically, horizontally or diagonally. What’s more, different traits

relate to different aspects of your company’s performance. According to the research

results, external perspective greatly influences Market Share and Sales Growth, while

internal focus is more about Return on Investment and Employee Satisfaction; the

effect of flexibility is strongly related to innovation of new products and services, and

stability is directly contributing to financial performance such as Return on Assets,

Return on Investment, and Return on Sales.

1.7 Attributes of Healthy and Unhealthy Organizational Cultures:

One way of looking at healthy and unhealthy organizational cultures is to consider

1.7.1 Gerald Calden's bureaupathology:

Any or all of the following characteristics of bureaupathology can be found in an

unhealthy organizational culture: Process is more important than purpose; Authority

is more important than service; Form is more important than reality; and Precedence

19
is more important than adaptability7. By contrast, purpose, service, reality, and

adaptability are hallmarks of healthy organizational cultures.

1.7.2 Herbert Shepard's Primary and Secondary Mentality Assumptions:

Shepard’s Primary Mentality Assumptions:

Coercion, Cut-throat competition, Compromise of principles.

Shepard's Secondary Mentality Assumptions:

Cooperation, Collaboration, Consensus-seeking behavior.

1.7.3 Ruth Benedict’s concepts of high and low synergy groups and societies:

Benedict's Concept of Low Synergy: A low synergy group or society is one in which

the interests of individuals and the interests of the group as a whole are at odds.

Benedict's Concept of High Synergy: A high synergy group or society is one in which

the interests of individuals and the interests of the group as a whole are in harmony.

1.7.4 Mary Parker Follett’s view on a Leader’s Role:

In Mary Parker Follett's view, the role of the leader or manager is to unleash creative

energies in ways that nurture the healthy development and contribute to the highest

purposes of individuals, organizations, and society in general. Mary Parker Follett's

Concept of "Power Over": A "power over" approach to management and

leadership is characterized by an authoritarian approach to the wielding of power8.

Mary Parker Follett's Concept of "Power With": A "power with" approach to

leadership and management empowers others, nurturing the development of their

capabilities and increasing their capacity to take on and carry out increasing

responsibilities. Organizations with healthy organizational cultures have leaders and

20
facilitators who use power in nurturing and empowering ways. The use of "power

with" approaches can be key to transforming unhealthy organizational cultures into

healthy organizational cultures; unleashing creative energies, and sustaining the health

of healthy organizational cultures.

1.7.5 Abraham Maslow’s Metamotivation:

The nature of the motivation of leaders and managers can be key to the healthiness of

an organization's culture. The kind of motivation that psychological healthy leaders

and managers and self-actualizing individuals have can be characterized as

"metamotivation, 9" a term coined by Abraham Maslow. Maslow defined

"metamotivation" as “being as concerned for the welfare of others as one is for one's

own welfare.” Self-actualized individuals are metamotivated. Organizations that

have healthy organizational cultures have leaders and managers who act in

"metamotivated" ways in crisis as well as non-crisis situations.

A Metamotivational Leadership Model (Gordon as based on Maslow). The

"metamotivated leader or manager" is one who helps foster and sustain a

collaborative culture characterized by honesty, trust, and openness; a culture that is

conducive to creativity and "thinking outside of the box"; a culture that empowers

individuals and nurtures their development and their capacity to assume increasing

responsibility in carrying out the mission of an organization; a climate conducive to

decisions and actions that are in the best interests of individuals in the group, the

organization, and society as a whole; and a common sense of mission or what Follett

refers to as the "invisible leader". Such a sense of mission can help energize and

drive the efforts of an organization.

21
1.8 Some Ways Unhealthy Organizational Cultures Can Be Inadvertently

Fostered:

If not sensitively handled, efforts to integrate "friendly" competitiveness or

"entrepreneurial internal markets" can devolve into cutthroat competition. If such

efforts are not guided by the highest of purposes and values, they can lead to a

skewing of an organization’s values and mission and turn a healthy organizational

culture into an unhealthy one. The mission, values, and health of the organizational

culture of government agencies can be affected in a negative ways when agencies are

required to compete with the private sector in order to keep services from being

outsourced. Attempts to merge two or more organizations that have dissimilar

organizational cultures can present major obstacles. Such difficulties can occur when

an "industrial" organization decides to adopt attributes of "smart" or "quantum"

organizations. The effect can be to foster diametrically opposed value systems and

cultures within the same organization. Threatened or intermittent lay-offs as well the

periodic firing of the "lowest 10%" of an organization can drastically affect the efforts

of an organization and the healthiness of its culture. Any of these can be sources of

untold stress and conflict within individuals and within organizations. Different

approaches taken by leaders and managers can reflect and generate conflicting

motives.

22
 REFERENCES

1. Hofstede, G. 2001 Culture’sconsequences; comparing values, behaviors, institutions

and organizations across nations. (2nd Ed.) Beverly Hills: Sage publications

2. O’Reilly, Ch.A. Chatman, J. &Caldwell, D.F. 1991. People and organizational

culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy

ofManagement Journal, 34: 487-516.

3. Denison, D.R. 1996. What is the difference between organizational culture and

organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars.

Academy ofManagement Review, 21: 619-654.

4. Schein, E.H. 2000. Sense and nonsense about culture and climate. In N.M.

Ashkanasy, C.P.M. Wilderom & M.F. Peterson (eds.) Handbook of Organizational

Culture & Climate: xxiii-xxx. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

5. Schneider, W. (1994) The Reengineering Alternative: A Plan for Making Your

Current Culture Work. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin Professional Publishing.

6. Denison, D.R. 1996. What is the difference between organizational culture and

organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars.

Academy ofManagement Review, 21: 619-654.

23
7. Gerald E. Caiden, The Dynamics of Public Administration, New York, Holt,

Reinhart, and Winston, Inc. 1971, p. 8)

8. Mary Parker Follett, "Power" in Henry C. Metcalf and L. Urwick, eds., Dynamic

Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett, New York, Harper &

Brothers, 1941, pp. 95 - 116.)

9. Abraham H. Maslow, "A Theory of Metamotivation: The Biological Rooting of the

Value-Life," Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 7 (Fall 1967): 93 - 127.)

24