The Social Glue Through Organisational Culture Commerce Essay

The Social Glue d one(a) Organisational Culture Commerce EssayOrganizational Culture is defined as the social glue holding the comp all in concert. Social scientists call it shade or the underlying set of informal norms and values that govern employee behaviour. entirely regardless of the name, more and more evidence suggest that it is important, often critically so (Baker, 1980) pg51. Culture consists of collar layers values, beliefs and taken for granted assumptions.Many authors fluid argue over the meaning of physical compositional finis, authors like (Sirmon Lane, Jul. 2004, p. 310) consider last to be set beforehand and it dictates the attitudes and behaviours for the administrations members to exhibit, while some authors like Edward schein beg off glossiness as a common insight held by the plaques members a system of sh ard meaning and naturally if authors have different opinions on the definition then they will in addition argue whether cultivation flock be se lld, manipulated or advisenot be consciously qualifyd. This essay is targeted to understand socialisation and grow shift better.Culture and ChangeCulture drop be both weak and strong It is usually decided by the summit exertment and sets the tone of the entire organization. A weak tillage rout out be of a young company or if the turnover of come upon personnel is high. (Baker, 1980, p. 51) . A strong close heap be seen in efficient organizations with positive employee behaviour, with minimal study transmitted in any transaction and the working pattern has a flow, a good acculturation can in any case be measured (Deal and Kennedy (1982 15) cited by (Banish Nawaz, 2003).I aroma culture can lurch the face of an organization, from world leaders to spotless survivors. As stated by (Schein, Feburary 1983, p. 14) Culture serves the function of stabilizing the outside(a) and internal environment for an organization, it essential be taught to mod members. If its not ca rried forward, the new ideas from new members will produce a culture potpourri.To consider a convert in culture, if possible, its not as simple as it sounds. Louis V. Gerstner (2002) the chief operating officer for IBM states in (Banish Nawaz, 2003, p. 22) you cant simply give a couple of speeches or write a credo for the company and decl ar that the new culture has taken hold you have to create the conditions for transformation, provide incentives and define market realities and goals. In the end oversight doesnt counter convince culture management invites the manpower itself to change the culture.The three subdivisions discussed in Managing Organizational Culture by (Ogbonna Harris, 1998) ar(i) Studies which argue that culture can be managed.(ii) Research which claims that culture whitethorn be manipulated.(iii) Theory which argues that culture cannot be consciously changed (although natural change is argued to occur frequently).All three seem to be validated and change from organization to organization. If an Organization has a stable environment then the manifest culture is perfect, hardly external conditions can bring the organization to its knees and cram it to change its culture.McKinseys well known 7-s framework places culture (mentioned as overlap values) into a happy atom mentioned by Peter and Waterman (1982) cited in (Banish Nawaz, 2003) pg 11, this model assumes that effectiveness of the culture of the organization depends on 2 factors. maiden How strong the culture is, and 2nd how well culture is aligned with the some other organs of the body (so called dodging-culture burst)Sub-division Present and CompareThe 1st subdivision explains how theorists cogitate that culture is an organisational variable and can be managed.This article by (Harris Ogbonna, Vol. 27 No. 2,1998, p. 119)researched with retail organizations to understand culture better, the findings were Cultural going was considered unwelcome whereas cultural change was fascinateed as transformational rather than incremental. Managers receiveed culture of the organization as a variable which could be managed, and these assumptions allowed the managers to relate organizational culture to organizational effectiveness.(Baker, 1980, p. 54) has provided some evidence that Culture can be managed, He starts the article by saying that manageable culture has a study contri besidesion to a companys success for instance, International Business Machines (IBM) has been triple-crown to actively cultivate and manage culture he/she also states that the culture is largely responsible for its success for the past 30 years IBM real reappearance is discussed later in the essay, many other organizations seek to manage culture, (change schema or business environment) and failed. Some culture clash problems range from diversification (ATT) to acquisition failures (Kennecott), but these are rarely fatal.The author belief in managing culture is supported by t he statement that chief operating officer and/or other top managers seem to recognize intuitively what culture they want and quest they create and maintain it by monitoring the active culture and actively intervening where possible to reduce the gap between the desired and existing cultures. All this has been confirmed by (Schein, Feburary 1983) below, He states managing culture is possible when an ground for dynamic evolutionary forces which govern how culture grows and changes is achieved.Author (Schein, Feburary 1983) cites (Van Maanen Schein, 1979) writing the passing biz on of the groups culture is strategically an important process to study If one wants to decipher what the culture is and how it might change He believes that Culture can be managed and as stated earlier, it should be taught to the new employees in golf-club to avoid any cultural change.(Schein, Feburary 1983) states that managing culture till the end is not just about controlling its members perceptions , thoughts and feelings but as the process of learning to manage the external and internal environment progresses the culture will get cured which would influence our perceptions, thoughts, and feelings, but this all seemed valid until (Sc gentlen Prestwood, 1994) below gave their argument.This article by (Schumann Prestwood, 1994, p. 1) is a brilliant piece of work supporting the argument that culture may be manipulated and explaining how its done . It states that an organizations culture is the ultimate governor of the measure and type of innovation that will take place. The organization therefore mustiness have a flair to link its culture to its market. Innovation and change go hand in hand.To equate managing culture and manipulating culture, author (Schumann Prestwood, 1994, p. 3) citing (T. J. Watson, junior observed in A Business and Its Beliefs) gives an idea for what happened to organizations that tried to manage culture stating, Out of the top 25 industrial corpo rations in the get together States in 1900, only 2 remain in the selected company today, champion retains its original identity the other is a merger of s even up corporations on that final list. Two of those 25 failed. Three others merged and dropped behind. The remaining 12 have continued in business, but each has fallen advantageously in its standing. The challenge for organizations today is the transformation of its culture so that organization can endure and grow though current revolution.The author gives an appurtenance of the IBM example above stating IBM survived the past due to a very successful business model but as the environment shifted, it failed now IBM is growing a new business model to survive with the top leaders, its bunch is discusses later in this subdivision.The only way to change quickly an organization must meet the customer demands, stay technologically competent, effectively finagle with competition and respond to the hales of change both from withi n and without.This Figure 8 below from (Schumann Prestwood, 1994, p. 10) explains how the existence of a strong organizational culture ensures the tube of the organization to change.The authors argument is completed with a point that culture must have built into a on the table methodology for change, comprising of components like A clear and compelling vision, strategic planning for the operation, technology and people, integrative management approaches etc. For those cases where change was not anticipated, a strong but flexible culture will enable a fast response.(Cameron Quinn, 1999, p. 6) Have also written an exceptional piece of work, their book gives a wide view of how the current literature claims an organization works and how it actually works. Author supports the view point culture can be manipulated. Since its long term, a strategy must be developed for changing it.The article claims that between managing and manipulating culture culture can be managed point of view al ways leads to the gloam of a company. Out of the largest 100 Companies in the 1900s only 16 are still in existence. Of the firms on Fortune Magazines first list of cholecalciferol biggest companies, only 29 firms would still be included. During the last decade, 46 part of Fortune 500 dropped off the list.Author writes that A musical greeting card that plays Happy Birthday has more computer power than existed in the entire world before 1950. The average watch contains more reason power than existed in the entire world before 1960. Such rapid and dramatic change implies that no organization can remain the comparable for long and survive. Top companies on the Fortune Magazine failed due to slow, lagger or wrongheaded change efforts.The companies in 1991 spent more silver on computing and communications gear than the combined monies spent on industrial, farm, construction equipment etcAnd in the 1960s, approximately half of the workers in industrialized countries were involve in making things, by the year 2000, it is estimated that no developed region will have more than one eighth of its workforce in the traditional roles of making and moving goods. (Cameron Quinn, 1999, p. 6)Culture looks like its thought of as how things are done around here sometimes it remains unaffected(p) as employees dont realise this practise. The current challenge for an organization is not to stipulate whether or not to change, but how to change in order to growth organizational effectiveness.(Banish Nawaz, 2003, p. 19) have given further explanation on the IBM issue, during the majuscule Depression of the 1930s IBM survived the impact and grew as it received a buckram income from the business machinery that was leased or rented, at the same time CEO Thomas J. Watson, Jr. (1990) started benefits and vacations for his employees that paid off in 1936 when they started supplying to the US government. IBM remained successful as employees didnt stay at the organization for em ployment but for security and way of life. IBM was successful in managing its culture until 1980s but a cultural change was desperately needed.In the 1980s IBM got a culture change. Louis V. Gerstner (2002) was appointed the new CEO in 1993 to manipulate change and he states (Banish Nawaz, 2003) Culture isnt just one aspect of the game it is the gameGerstners states Management doesnt change culture, management invites the workforce itself to change the culture.(Cummings Worley, 2009, p. 522) gives some example. bon ton with a difficult but successful culture change can be Alberto Culver (Manufacturing Skin and Hair Products) where process took 6 to 15 years, in some cases managing culture isnt the answer changing it is, for example the Disney case when they tried to export the same culture to euro Disney, the European people preferred to fuddle wine with their meal and Disneys not serving alcohol policy resulted in low attendance for both labour and customers. Four seasons hote l and resort were on the same track but were successful as they just changed their norms, procedures and artefacts to fit with the French culture and keeping their core values same. Managing culture and manipulating culture (despite its drawbacks) are often the only 2 options considered in an organization even by many theorists. The third subdivision below isnt even mentioned as an option to consider.Finally the third sub-division that claims that culture cannot be consciously changed seems a little untrue but well supported, very little information is available for this subdivision According (Ogbonna Harris, 1998, p. 274) this subdivision argues that whilst the culture of organization can and does change, the direction, impact and sustainability of the change cannot be subject to the conscious action of management. (Senior Swailes, 2010) claims that this presents problems for change agents who will perhaps need some external and perhaps atypical forces to make it happen.Author ( Meek, 1988) writes, what culture cannot be consciously changed actually means, he/she states that Social theorists use the term culture to embrace all that is human within the organization. They emphasize culture, either consciously or unconsciously, in such(prenominal) a way as to blur or hide problems and contradictions integral in the social structure. Both culture and social structure are abstractions, not tangible entities.The author firmly sticks to the argument that culture cannot be consciously changed and writes that culture can be managed or changed views seem valid because many discipline copy concepts from another discipline which results in concepts get a stereotype. Author (Turner 1986) cited by (Meek, 1988) gives the idea that culture is the collectible sentience of the organization, owned by the management and available to management for manipulation this is also thought by many authors. Author (Meek, 1988) contradicts this stating that concepts have been copied ( as stated above) and theories of organizational culture have their roots in structural-functionalism, but they have been mutated in the process of application.Culture as a whole cannot be manipulated, dour on and off, although it needs to be recognized that some are in a better position than others to attempt to intentionally influence aspects of it (Meek, 1988). To compare this with the other 2 subdivisions, it seems a little true, but culture may be manipulated subdivision has provided some evidence of such effect.ConclusionTo dissolve organizations fate depends on the culture, weak or strong and all three subdivisions have been justified beautifully by various author. Managing culture seems authentic with many theorists providing theory on how to avoid any cultural change but 2nd subdivision as the name suggests Research which claims that culture may be manipulated has provided evidence of organizations on how manipulating culture is the only way to survive, the 3rd subdivisio n seems to be a third side to a two sided coin, where authors explain how various authors have copied and altered studies. All together this essay gives a great idea about culture and its change subdivisions. I personally feel that manipulating culture is the way to go, can managers change an organizations culture? Yes for instance the Euro Disney and Four seasons hotel case and also with the technological advancements and pressure of external factors, no organization can stay the same and survive. general this essay comprising of small parts has shown a big picture about cultural change.