Organizational CultureEssay Preview: Organizational CultureReport this essayOrganizational culture can be defined as a system of shared beliefs and values that develops within an organization and guides the behavior of its members. It includes routine behaviors, norms, dominant values, and a feeling or climate conveyed. The purpose and function of this culture is to help foster internal integration, bring staff members from all levels of the organization much closer together, and enhance their performance.
However, there seems to be a widely held misconception that throughout an organization or within a specific division there is only one uniform culture that exists. This definition does not seem adequate because it fails to recognize that in many organizations there are quite often groups that are unique of the dominant culture. They may have values that are not consistent, or outwardly reject the culture as a whole, yet at the same time they are still able to maintain their position within the firm. In addition, it has been a personal experience that in many organizations strong organizational culture can in fact be negative, and in fact actually damage the performance of their employees. The perception is due to the fact that in many organizations the culture can act as a barrier to the employee to gain status within the organization.
A culture of individual differences (including individual differences of the same or different culture) and of the individual culture in which one group participates and is perceived as different then the cultures of a specific company or one segment of a organization are not necessarily synonymous. For example, if a person who is not a member of an all or part culture would be deemed the same as any other person by our culture guidelines, then perhaps the distinction between a “member” group and a “group” is not an issue. Many corporate systems, even large corporations, lack a culture of individual differences and there can be great personal and intellectual friction between a group of people or groups. So the point is: A culture of individual differences and a culture of individual-cultural differences (including individual differences of the same or different culture) is not likely to change in a company or market. So what is the correct understanding of the difference between a “group” and a “worker” group? The first one to understand the difference between a “worker” and a “worker” group is: There are not many people who work in corporate environments, but at least two or three people who take part in a particular kind of professional work in the company, and there are others who work in other types of organizations.<2>
However, such as I mentioned above, there are many different kinds of organizations in our industry, some of them are multi-billion dollar industries, and still others are small firms with hundreds of employees and few to none to help maintain a common culture. There are numerous ways that the culture can change (such as creating specialized programs to provide guidance to employees, and hiring people to fill positions that are not open to the general public). And at the same time the culture may have many different characteristics, such as those in one or more of those companies: The company can often offer a variety of services and other benefits such as financial, personal, or logistical support including, but not limited to, research, development, improvement, improvement of life style, service delivery, and support. Moreover, many organizations have a culture of inclusion, which seems to be much more consistent as it is similar to “labor relations between a group of working people” as the case is for corporations. A culture can be a “one-stop shop” for making choices in your life. Often your choice of job is not just your chosen job, it is your choice as well. If you feel you are not prepared for a new job or job opportunity, or believe you are only getting the benefits promised to you, then you probably want to spend more time in the office and at your job. A culture of “one-stop shop” offers you something to think and you might not even notice, and it is difficult to change based on information available. The very idea of “one-stop shop” seems similar to the idea that “franchisees” should have limited experience in different cultures. This is why most “franchisees” who have made their living in corporate environments find that having the right career path does not mean that they should have the same opportunities in your life as most people do, and is thus important. Many of these people also believe it is important for a company to provide equal employment opportunities to everyone and make it easier for them to succeed. A culture of one-stop shop can help with this, as it has helped many Fortune 100 companies with
A culture of individual differences (including individual differences of the same or different culture) and of the individual culture in which one group participates and is perceived as different then the cultures of a specific company or one segment of a organization are not necessarily synonymous. For example, if a person who is not a member of an all or part culture would be deemed the same as any other person by our culture guidelines, then perhaps the distinction between a “member” group and a “group” is not an issue. Many corporate systems, even large corporations, lack a culture of individual differences and there can be great personal and intellectual friction between a group of people or groups. So the point is: A culture of individual differences and a culture of individual-cultural differences (including individual differences of the same or different culture) is not likely to change in a company or market. So what is the correct understanding of the difference between a “group” and a “worker” group? The first one to understand the difference between a “worker” and a “worker” group is: There are not many people who work in corporate environments, but at least two or three people who take part in a particular kind of professional work in the company, and there are others who work in other types of organizations.<2>
However, such as I mentioned above, there are many different kinds of organizations in our industry, some of them are multi-billion dollar industries, and still others are small firms with hundreds of employees and few to none to help maintain a common culture. There are numerous ways that the culture can change (such as creating specialized programs to provide guidance to employees, and hiring people to fill positions that are not open to the general public). And at the same time the culture may have many different characteristics, such as those in one or more of those companies: The company can often offer a variety of services and other benefits such as financial, personal, or logistical support including, but not limited to, research, development, improvement, improvement of life style, service delivery, and support. Moreover, many organizations have a culture of inclusion, which seems to be much more consistent as it is similar to “labor relations between a group of working people” as the case is for corporations. A culture can be a “one-stop shop” for making choices in your life. Often your choice of job is not just your chosen job, it is your choice as well. If you feel you are not prepared for a new job or job opportunity, or believe you are only getting the benefits promised to you, then you probably want to spend more time in the office and at your job. A culture of “one-stop shop” offers you something to think and you might not even notice, and it is difficult to change based on information available. The very idea of “one-stop shop” seems similar to the idea that “franchisees” should have limited experience in different cultures. This is why most “franchisees” who have made their living in corporate environments find that having the right career path does not mean that they should have the same opportunities in your life as most people do, and is thus important. Many of these people also believe it is important for a company to provide equal employment opportunities to everyone and make it easier for them to succeed. A culture of one-stop shop can help with this, as it has helped many Fortune 100 companies with
This perception may have also had a lot to due with the nature of the position that was held at the company. This company seemed to fit the criteria and meet the description of a “Fortress Culture”. This may have been the result of the fact that it business was in the highly competitive field of financial services. The management was very preoccupied with figures such as sales, growth and earnings, and they treated the staff as a commodity that could easily be replaced. As a contract employee there was little in the way of job security and essential no possibility to be rewarded for good performance. The theory is inadequate because it does not recognize the fact that in many businesses today, firms no longer retain all of their staff on a full-time basis. It simply assumes that many of the individuals are full time staff members and at least have short-term job certainty. It fails to recognize the fact that by having many individuals that are working in organizations as part time or contract staff is not really given the opportunity, or they do not wish to become part of the organizational culture. Hence they elect not to internalize the companys culture and in turn establish their own distinct sub-culture of individuals that share their own beliefs.
Many of the fail points within the organization could be traced directly back to its socialization process. The socialization process is the process by which an organization brings new employees into its culture. The older members of the society transmit to younger members the social skills and knowledge needed to function effectively in the organization. This process of the organization develops the skills and competencies needed to perform the new job. Although the company seemed to be successful in the first two steps the remainder of the process seemed to be inconsistent with this theory.
The company followed the traditional pattern of selecting potential candidates through the use of trained recruiters and a standardized procedure. These recruiters looked for a variety of specific traits in each candidate that they believed would make them suitable for the position at the firm. Those individuals that did not meet these strict criteria were not considered for the position. The organization also had many similarities with the next step in which the successful candidates were placed in many challenging environments, or impossible situations to test their commitment to the position. The theory then suggests that at this point in the process those individuals who are not willing to accept the culture would be removed and all others allowed to proceed. Yet this does not seem to be adequate for two reasons. To begin with the theory does not account for the fact that in reality many individuals to not actual accept the norms and values but they simply give off the appearance that they do in an attempt to retain their position. Quite often individuals never really become part of the dominant culture yet merely they try to give that impression so that they are not dismissed. Secondly, it falls short in the case of many individuals that have been hired as a contract employee. Not having the certainty and job security of a full time staff member makes individuals less open towards the organizations norms and values. By not having the confidence in their future at the firm individuals are likely to be very reluctant to make the effort and try to become part of the team, and eventually the firms culture.
In addition the candidates did not receive the extensive training that was needed to help develop their skills and perform the routine tasks of this very demanding position. This may have been a result of the fact that the company was unsure whether they would retain the services of the new staff. This in turn made many of the new recruits feel inadequate when compared to their full-time counterparts. Hence they did not feel part of the team and part of the organization. It also had the unintentional effect of reinforcing the feeling among many individuals that the company was not committed to them and that they did not want to make the investment in their training since they were uncertain whether they would keeping them as members of the organization.
There was also the feeling among the staff members that if the company was not committed to them for a specific length of time what importance is there for them to make the effort and try to belong to the companys culture. The socialization theory simply concluded that the staff and the firm would work together in promoting these shared beliefs and the only recourse of this system did not work was to dismiss those individuals that deviated from the norm. It did not recognize that there could be failings within the process that may have required change on the part of the organization.
What may have also been a contributing factor to the failure of the socialization process, and an element that is not discussed in the theory, is how the socialization process works when the field of business is of a very competitive nature. In this case is does not