Leaders have to be capable of recognizing the dysfunctional elements of their own

organizational culture which disrupt survival and growth in a changing environment.

They can employ a variety of methods and procedures in order to produce the
desired cultural changes.
Firstly, managers should highlight the threats to the organization, in case no
change occurs, and, at the same time, encourage the organization members by
practically showing that change is not only desirable but also possible. Modelling by
leader figures can allow members to identify with them and internalize their values
and assumptions. In an organizational setting, there are always dominant figures or
"founders" whose own beliefs, values, and assumptions provide a visible model for
how the group should be structured and how it should function (Schein, 1983).
Executives should, then, openly articulate the novel direction and the new set of
assumptions that they regard as more appropriate, as well as provide a consistent
role model that is based on the new cultural assumptions. It is also important to
cover key positions in the organization with individuals who either hold the new
principles because they are hybrids or mutants of the old culture, or are chosen
externally because their work values promote the cultural shift. The systematic
rewarding of the adoption of the new cultural direction and the creation of visible
''scandals'' that symbolically discredit the artifacts associated with undesirable
assumptions, can substantially support the establishment of a new cultural system.
Finally,it is equally vital to create new emotionally charged rituals and develop
novel symbols and artifacts which accompany and embrace the desired
principles(Schein,1988).

References
Schein, E. H. (1983). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture. Organizational
dynamics, 12(1), 13-28.

Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational Culture: What it is and How to Change it. In Human
resource management in international firms. London,UK: Palgrave Macmillan,
Elements of the organizational culture, as documented by Peters and
Waterman(1982) ,have met extensive criticism, in terms of their actual ethical
implications. Mitchell (1985) is perhaps the most prominent spokesman of this group of
critics. He compared the list of the excellent companies, found ''In the search of
excellence''(Peters &Waterman,1982), with the list of the ''100 best American companies to
work for''. This latter list was the result of a study using quality of working life as the main
criterion of selection. Eventually, appeared that only 21 of the most ''livable'' companies
showed up in the original sample of the 62 ''excellent'' companies.

Therefore, according to Mitchell (1985), this is rather strong evidence that what employees
say they like, differs from what factors managers suggest that lead to excellence. He
proposed that Peters and Waterman(1982) may propagate a lot of human interest, but this
attention tends to be manipulative. People are viewed as instrumental for productivity, and
are not actually valued. By using tangible features of their organizational culture, like:
symbolic management, legends, rituals and myths ,the leaders try to guide their employees
exactly in the direction they want, while making them think that they ,autonomously, chose
that particular direction(Soeters,1986). Relevant literature suggest the notion that leaders
do ,indeed, ''exploit'' their followers and purposely create and set goals for them to achieve
that primarily serve executives' self-interests(Marx and Wood, 1975).

Finally, there are powerful games and norms that induce ''organizational
silence''(Morrinson & Milliken,2000). Redding (1985) argued that many organizations
implicitly convey to employees that they should not "rock the boat" by challenging corporate
policies or managerial practices. Other scholars likewise have noted that strong-cultured
organizations are generally intolerant of dissent and that employees, thus, are reluctant to
speak up and be open about existing problems (Sprague & Ruud, 1988).

Marx, G. T., & Wood, J. L. (1975). Strands of theory and research in collective
behavior. Annual review of sociology, 1(1), 363-428.

Mitchell, T. R. (1985). In search of excellence versus the 100 best companies to work for in
America: A question of perspective and values. Academy of Management Review, 10(2), 350-
355.

Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management review, 25(4), 706-725.

Peter, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-
run companies. Warner Book, New York.

Redding, W. C. (1985). Rocking boats, blowing whistles, and teaching speech

communication. Communication Education, 3, 245-258.

Soeters, J. L. (1986). Excellent companies as social movements. Journal of Management

Studies, 23(3), 299-312.

Sprague, J., & Ruud, G. L. (1988). Boat-rocking in the high-technology culture. American

Behavioral Scientist, 32(2), 169-193.
Hello, Amra. I carefully read your comments in regards to the effect of
the Greek national culture on organizational climate and I would like to
add a few points.

The existence of a statistically significant relationship between

leadership and culture in the Greek business environment, has been
revealed. Based on Hofstede’s (1984) results, Greece has the lowest
degree of uncertainty avoidance between 50 countries worldwide, while
it has a quite high degree of power distance. Uncertainty avoidance, is
defined as:'' the extent to which people are threatened by uncertain
events or by lack of structure'', while the power distance index is
regarded as:'' the extent to which the less powerful members of
organizations accept that power is distributed unequally''(Kargas &
Varoutas,2015:14).

Both variables showcase a risk avoidance culture, which is mostly

relied on leadership and routines in order to avoid mistakes and
initiatives. These findings explain ,at large, why employees, mostly of
the public sector, are hesitant to take decisions and they, instead,
prefer neatly structured routines. Public telecommunication
organizations are an indicative example. In particular, Kargas and
Varoutas (2015) have proposed that this work environment is mainly
characterized by market and hierarchy orientation. The existence of
flexibility orientation was statistical insignificant in this business context.

On the other hand, it is worth highlighting that Bourantas and

Papalexandris(1992) described a totally different atmosphere within the
private organizations. They argued that private sector employees tended to
show enhanced levels of activity and independence, a greater sense of
competence, considerably more tolerance of ambiguity, a stronger work ethic
and higher need for professional growth. So,why do you think this is the case?
Since the national culture remains the same, why different organizational
cultural profiles occur between private and public-held companies? Are there
any other external/internal factors(except for national culture) that may affect
organizational culture?

Bourantas, D., & Papalexandris, N. (1992). Variables affecting organizational commitment:

Private-versus publicly-owned organizations in Greece. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 7(1), 3-10.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related

values.Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Kargas, A. D., & Varoutas, D. (2015). On the relation between organizational culture and
leadership: An empirical analysis. Cogent Business & Management, 2(1), 1055953.
The aforementioned statement is particularly interesting and thought provoking.In fact,
relevant research has revealed that 'strengthening' of corporate culture enhances
organizational performance, especially in regards to internal functions, by securing greater
commitment from employees. However,I wanted to comment further on the possible
causes that may lead strong-culture organizations to perform poorly in unstable economic
environments.

Based on the viewpoint of the critics of organizational culture,we can conclude that this
construct, essentially, aspires to extend the terrain of instrumentally rational action by
developing monocultures ,in which individuals' struggle to assess the meaning and worth of
a range of competing value-standpoints, is systematically prevented. It has been also
suggested that corporate culture can be regarded as a medium of domination and
penetration of management control .Management duties are no longer restricted to
authorizing and enforcing rules and procedures, they also include the task of determining
how employees should think and feel about what they produce(Mitchell, 1985).

Therefore, when corporate cultures are strengthened, employees are encouraged to devote
themselves to its values and products, and to assess their own worth in these terms. By
promoting this form of devotion, employees are simultaneously required to recognize and
take responsibility for the relationship between the security of their employment and their
contribution to the competitiveness of the goods and services that they
produce(Willmott,1993).

These findings suggest that strong-culture organizations' success in securing employee

commitment is at best partial and that employees can become trapped in a vicious circle of
cynicism and constant dependence. In conclusion, critics suggest that:'' the advocacy and
development of corporate culturism may be interpreted as a collective failure of moral nerve
in the face of modernity's discontents.''(Willmott,1993:518)They also proceeded to mention
that :'' By defining autonomy as obedience to the core values of corporate culture, the
meaning and imagined possibility of freedom is tightly circumscribed. By strengthening
corporate cultures, employees' lack of control over the means of production is compounded
by a further lack of control over the means of value choice and identity
formation''(Willmott,1993:527).

Consequently, these may be a few of the core reasons why strong-culture firms'
performance is significantly reduced in volatile financial conditions(Sorensen,2002).

Mitchell, T. R. (1985). In search of excellence versus the 100 best companies to work for in
America: A question of perspective and values. Academy of Management Review, 10(2), 350-
355.

Sørensen, J. B. (2002). The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of firm
performance. Administrative science quarterly, 47(1), 70-91.

Willmott, H. (1993). Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom: managing culture in modern

organizations. Journal of management studies, 30(4), 515-552.
Hello,...I carefully read your post and I would like to further comment on your point about
the relationship between organisational culture and associated industry.

Research has shown that, except for internal features, elements present in the industry an
organization operates in, such as the technology used and the rate of growth, can also affect
the uniqueness of an organization's culture. In fact, it has been proposed that less variation
may occur among firms working on the same tasks, using similar procedures, and
experiencing similar opportunities to grow than occurs across industries.

Specifically, technology and growth are thought to be related to organizational culture while
also account for cultural similarities among same industry-firms. Firstly, technology is
regarded as one of the most salient similarities among firms in the same industry. If
organizational culture is, essentially, a representation of how things are done within
particular organizations , technology potentially constrains the variation in how processes
are conducted .Thus, it has been proposed that greater similarities in the content and
processes of task completion across firms in the same industry will be associated with less
variation in their organizational cultures.

Moreover, empirical research has shown that diversification growth in industries is linked to
general technological development. New technologies and improved methods are typically
incorporated into a firms' agenda because they are related to an industry's type of work and
their adoption will often increase production capacity, leading to industry growth. Therefore,
industry growth may, similarly, relate to organizational culture.In fact, evidence reveal its
influences on firms attempt to strategically manage interdependencies and complexities,
behaviors which are reflected in organizational culture.Consequently,such growth can affect
organizational culture by, for instance, increasing risk taking and innovation.