The Competent Culture Paradigm : An Alternative to the Strong Culture Hypothesis

• Autorzy: Joanna Małgorzata Michalak , Robert J. Ristino
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The strong culture hypothesis has long dominated the discussion concerning the effect of organizational culture on organizational performance. The efficacy of the hypothesis, however, has been criticized for a wide range of methodological weaknesses, including a poor research model and its ethnocentric bias. Following a critical review of the hypothesis, the author's present an alternative paradigm based on a multi-variate, subculture/institutional culture framework for analyzing the effect of culture on organizational performance. Their proposed competent culture paradigm is designed to be both more sensitive to culture bias and to the complexity inherent in the dynamic forces of organizational culture. To enhance clarity of the paradigm, the authors also present a standardized taxonomy of the hierarchal levels of culture. The paper concludes with a proposal for future research to test and further refine the competent culture paradigm. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Culture; Organisational culture

PL

Kultura; Kultura organizacyjna

• Czasopismo: Journal of Intercultural Management
• Rocznik: 2012
• Tom: 4
• Numer: nr 4
• Strony: 70--84

Twórcy

autor

Joanna Małgorzata Michalak

• University of Lodz, Poland

autor

Robert J. Ristino

• Clark University

Bibliografia

• Argyris C., Putnam R., Smith D.M., Action Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.
• Benner M.J., Tushman M.L., Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the paint and photography industries. Working paper, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania 2002.
• Boisner A., Chatman J.A., The Role of Subcultures in Dynamic Organizations. [in:] Petersen R., Mannix E., Leading and Managing People in Dynamic Organization, May 2002.
• Deal T., Kennedy A., Corporate Cultures. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1982.
• Dennison D., Bringing corporate culture to the bottom line. Organizational Dynamics, 1984, 13(2), pp. 5-22.
• Denison D.R., Mishra A.K., Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organizational Science, 19905, 6, pp. 204-223.
• Faux V., Unobtrusive controls in organizations: An action research approach to change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, 1982.
• Fey C.F., Denison D.R., Organizational Culture and Effectiveness: the Case of Foreign Firms in Russia. Working Paper Number 179, December 1998.
• Gagliardi P., The creation and change of organizational cultures: A conceptual framework. Organization Studies, 1986, 72, pp. 117-134.
• Havold J.I., Safety-culture in a Norwegian shipping company. Journal of Safety Research, 2005, 36, pp. 441-458.
• Hofstede G., Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE, 1980.
• Huang J.C., Newell S., Galliers R.D., The Impact of Organizational Sub-cultures on the Implementation of Component-Based Development: A Case Study of an International Investment Bank. ECIS. Gdansk, Poland, 2002.
• Jermier J.M., Slocum Jr. J.W., Fry L.W. and Gaines K.J., Organizational Subcultures in a Soft Bureaucracy: Resistance behind the Myth and Facade of an Official Culture. Organization Science, May 1991, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 170-194.
• Lorsch J., Managing culture: The invisible barrier to strategic change. California Management Review, 1986, 28, pp. 95-109.
• Martin J., Siehl C., Organizational culture and counterculture: An uneasy symbiosis. Organizational Dynamics, 1983, 12(2), pp. 52-64.
• Maynard-Moody S., Stull D.D. and Mitchell J., Reorganization as Status Drama: Building.
• Nichols J., An alloplastic approach to corporate culture. International Studies of Management and Organization, 1984/85, 14, pp. 32-63.
• Ouchi W., Price R., Hierarchies, clans, and theory Z: A new perspective on organizational development. Organizational Dynamics, 1978, 7(2), pp. 25-44.
• Pettigrew A., On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1979, 24, pp. 570-581.
• Posner B., Kouzes J., Schmidt W., Shared values make a difference: An empirical test of corporate culture. Human Resource Management, 1985, 24, pp. 293-309.
• Richard P., Devinney T.M., Yip G.S., Johnson G., Measuring Organizational Performance: Towards Methodological Best Practice, Journal of Management, June 2009, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 718-804.
• Sackmann S.A., Culture and Subcultures: An Analysis of Organizational Knowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly, March 1992, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 140-161.
• Saffold G., Culture Traits, Strength, and Organizational Performance: Moving beyond "Strong" Culture. The Academy of Management Review, October 1988, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 546-558.
• Sathe V., Implications of corporate culture: A manager's guide to action. Organizational Dynamics, 1983, 12(2), pp. 5-23.
• Schein E.H., Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1985.
• Siehl C., Cultural sleight-of-hand: The illusion of consistency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University 1984.
• Sikorski C., O zaletach słabej kultury organizacyjnej, "Zarządzanie Zasobami Ludzkimi", Instytut Pracy i Spraw Socjalnych, 2008.
• Smart J.C. and St. John E.P., Organizational Culture and Effectiveness in Higher Education: A Test of the "Culture Type" and "Strong Culture" Hypotheses. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Autumn 1996, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 219-241.
• Sorensen J.B., In Press. The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly.
• Van Maanen J., Barley S., Occupational communities: Culture and control in organizations. [in:] B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 1984, Vol. 6, pp. 287-365. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Weick K., Cognitive processes in organizations. In: B.M. Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 1976, Vol. 1, pp. 41-74. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoplastic adaptation