'Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, and working together is success.' —Henry Ford
In the blog last week, we explored the contrast between group and team working. This week we will evaluate the extent to which organisational culture influences the preference for more personal or cooperative working styles. The model of organisational cultures explored in this blog is drawn from research by the British academic, Charles Handy.
The definition and key elements of organisational culture
First, while in constant use internationally, the term organisational culture is surprisingly difficult to define. As a basic starting point, Schein in his book, Organisational Culture and Leadership, defines organisational culture as the pattern of shared basic assumptions, or the way we do things around here. Put simply, it is the unique collection of beliefs, values, practices, and expectations that define a work environment while directing acceptable behaviour.
Then, the factors used to identify and differentiate organisational cultures are listed in the iceberg image shown below. Here note that the surface characteristics of symbols are more open to adaptation and change, while the deeper level values can remain relatively intact over long periods of time.
The Handy’s model of organisational culture and the relationship with group or team preference
Now we need to take a closer look at Handy’s four distinct organisational cultures. Here, it is important to note that these examples can be found in all cross-cultural contexts, though some are more common than others in particular national business environments. We shall explore how cross-cultural issues influence the preference for either group or team working styles in a future blog.
The Power Culture
Functions as one group
The power culture is the most common form of organisation as it reflects the shape and operation of all new and small businesses. Then, this culture functions as one group and is illustrated in the form of a spider web. At the centre sits the founder or owner, while individuals surrounding the spider mainly work in separate roles. Communication and decision-making constantly flows between the individual employee and the person at the centre. However, members do often consult with other employees on an informal voluntary basis.
Moreover, this culture is often experienced by employees as an exciting place to work given that trusted individuals can be delegated significant personal responsibilities and authority. The reason for this is that competence in the current assigned task is significantly more valued than qualifications or future potential development.
However, this culture faces challenges as it increases in size since the owner-founder begins to lose daily contact with all employees. Consequently, the organisation can gradually transform from power into a role culture. This can result in the work environment becoming increasingly uncomfortable for the original employees who may now leave the organisation.
The Role Culture
Functions as a sequence of hierarchical groups
This culture reflects the typical organisation of government institutions and large-scale manufacturing companies. The structure consists of a hierarchy of groups under the tight control of a progressive sequence of line managers ranging from production supervisors to senior executives. The primary purpose of this culture, also known as a bureaucracy, is to maintain order and consistency in relation to the function, product, or service.
While these organisations exist across all nations, they are particularly valued in cultures with large power distance as defined by Hofstede. Then, these organisations are also a popular target for initial graduate employment given that they value higher educational qualifications at the management trainee entry point and offer a steady long-term career path.
Finally, they are Illustrated in the form of a Greek temple due to being highly effective in times of stability but prone to collapse at moments of change as they are inflexible and rigid.
The Task Culture
Functions as a sequence of developed teams
Following a period of initial stability, starting from the mid-twentieth century markets became more volatile and increasingly competitive. In these circumstances, role cultures were often perceived as being too rigid and slow to enact required change.
The response was to flatten the organisation aimed at reducing the level of bureaucratic layers to increase the speed of decision-making from top to bottom, while restructuring towards teamworking to promote creativity, customer sensitivity, and improved quality control.
However, while being more competitive and attractive to an educated workforce, the transition from a role to a matrix task culture also presents organisations with significant challenges. These include the substantial training costs involved in the development of teams, the redundancy payments for staff not able or willing to adapt to the new culture, and the subsequent recruitment of new employees with prior experience of working in a task context.
The Person Culture
Functions as individual specialists that occasionally cooperate
The person culture represents an unusual organisation of highly educated experts who follow their own professional goals with limited regard to managerial control systems. Members of this culture do occasionally cooperate but typically on an informal basis. For example, this form of organisational culture can be found in the context of scientific, medical, or legal specialists, together with some research and design departments in larger organisations.
The negative aspect of a person culture is that they are difficult to control in terms of financial management. Moreover, other members of the organisation may come to resent their perceived sense of superiority, together with their apparent independence from typical behavioural expectations, norms, and constraints.
Finally, it is very difficult for organisations to change this culture due to the strength of their professional status, the ease to which they can find alternative employment, and the difficulty to replace them in a highly competitive market.
Question 1
Should universities focus more on encouraging students to develop entrepreneurial skills to help them function effectively in power cultures and promote new small business ventures?
Question 2
How can universities best encourage the development of the wide range of soft skills essential for successful teamworking?
Question 3
To what extent are high performance task cultures dependent on an ability to identify and balance supportive roles in teams?
In the blog next week, we will explore the issue of how to identify complementary and supportive team roles by reviewing the model developed by Belbin.
References
Handy, C. (1976). Understanding organizations. Oxford University Press.
Hofstede, G. (1996). Cultures and organizations, software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. McGraw-Hill.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed). Jossey-Bass.
Comments