Organizational Culture Essay

It is exdecadesively acknowledge that compositional husbandry plays an increasingly essential role in a successful company. However, in the mean valuewhile whether organisational farming should be dislodged cites a controversial issue. some(prenominal) managers assert that organisational culture must be tackd while fewer others argue that organizational culture fatalitys not to be swopd. As far as I am concerned, I am in favor of the former view. In this essay, firstly, I forget talk to the highest mark what is organizational culture and what do organizational cultures do.In the second place, I will discuss why organizational culture should be stird. Thirdly, I will analyze the ventures of organizational culture assortment. Fin onlyy, I will unfold how to pr planet jeopardizes of organizational culture change. What is organizational culture? A numerate of years back, I watched an Ameri screwing reality television The Apprentice, and I memorialise a player was as ked what he thought organizational culture mean by Doanld Trump. He said I crumbt let out it, however,I get it when I see it. Most people burn downnot define organizational culture accurately by concise word.However in that location seems to be widely recognized that organizational culture indicates a system of shargon signification held by members that distinguishes the organization from other organizations. (Becker, 1982, pp. 513-27 and Schein 1985 p. 168) This shargond system meaning is, on further investigation, a series of important features that the organization values. The investigation advises that there be seven main features that, gather up the threads, constitute the essence of an organizational culture. (Reilly III, Chatman, Jehn, 1991, pp. 487-516 and Chatman, Jehn, 1994, pp. 522-553 Ashkanasy, Wilderom, Peterson, 2000) 1.Innovation and adventure the boundary to which employees ar further to be make innovations and adventure. 2. Detail oriented the point to which employees are expect to exhibit meticulous, analysis and detail oriented. 3. Attention to outcome the extent to which counselling attach importance to results or outcomes rather than on the skills and processes used to get those outcomes.Attention to people the extent to which management termination reappearance into hear the influence of results on people within the organization. 5. Attention to team the extent to which course snatchivities are organized around teams rather than individuals. . Aggressiveness the extent to which people are aggressive and competitive rather than easygoing 7. constancy the extent to which organizational activities stress keeping the status quo by compare to growth and study. on that point is no denying that organizational culture is just a descriptive concept, because of organizational culture is paid attention to how employees perceive the features of their organizations culture, not with whether or not they like it. Further more, i t is obvious that a company tail endnot watch only one organizational culture.As we know, there are many employees who subscribe to contrary background or at different levels in a company, so they must deplete different perspective with organizational culture. In the mean time, there are 2 different cultures in one company, dominant culture and subculture. Dominant culture describes the core values that are shared by a intimately of the employees, when we talk about an organizational culture, we are referring to its dominant culture In general, subculture bristle in a big company to reflex concerted problems, situations or experiences that staff meet. What do cultures do?Culture has a mixed bag of functions in an organization. First, it creates distinctions between one organization and others. Second, it expresses a sense of identicalness for employees. Third, it precipitates employees not only care ones individual self-interest, merely also care whole organizational int erest. Fourth, it improves the stability of the organization. Finally, culture serves as a sense- making and control mechanism that guides and shapes the attitudes and behavior of employees. (Reilly, Chatman, Staw, Cummings, 1996). Why organizational culture should be changed?Compelling arguments can be make that organizational culture should be changed, immediately. The first point with respect to this is that our society is progress at an amazing speed in this day and age, more and more organizations face a dynamic and changing environment. As a consequence, all organizations must conform to the changeable society. Change or die is the exchange cry among todays manager publicwide. In the second place, with the development of engineering science and science, the sense of distance between people getting closer, our domain became a multicultural environment.Therefore, many companies have to do adjustment to fit environment. More precisely, many companies must spend large amou nt of property and much energy on training to improve skills of employees. Last just now not least, in this world, competition is a part of our lives, never disappear. curiously in the moving in society, the weaks are the prey of the strongs, increasing competition makes it fateful for builded organizations to defend themselves against both traditional competitors who develop hot products and services, and small entrepreneurial firms with innovative offerings.This makes sense in that a good organization will be the ones that can change according to the competition. They followed the steps of the times, able to develop forward-looking products quickly and put them on the commercialise. They accelerate production operations, cut back product cycle and constantly produce new products that can align to radically-changing environment. The risks of organizational culture On the other hand, colorable arguments can be made that organizational culture should not to be changed.This argument has large sexual morality in that every little change can bring abundant risks, especially for a business organization. For example, a change is scheduled and employees as soon as possible respond by voicing complaints, demotivation, even threatening go on strike and so on. In general, risk can be divided 2 big parts, individual risks and organizational risks. Individual sources of risk belong to primary human characteristics such as intendedness, characteristics and requirements. There are five different risks in individual resources. custom-made (Habit) Do you go to school or relieve oneself always by means of same route every day? Most peoples answer Yes Our lives are so complicated, we have to make hundreds of decisions. Therefore, face to life-times complexities, we lean upon habits or programmed responses. However, when approach with change, this tendency to respond in our usual ways becomes a source of risk. For instance, when your department moves to anothe r new building, it means you have to change your habits get up earlier ten minutes pass a new street go to work look for a new parking adapt to new purposes overall arrangement and so on. . Security People with a high need for security are likely to resist change because it threatens their feelings of safety.For example, when Sony&ampEricsson announced to lay off 17000 employees or cover will introduce new robots, these employees feel their job unsafe. 3. Economic Changes in work tasks or job specification can lead to economic fears if people are cared that they would not be able to adapt to new tasks or standards, especially when reward is closely related to productivity. 4. Fear of the mystical Change replaces vagueness and indetermination for the unknown.When we graduated from high school ready usher in university was a wonderful example. In high school, we understood that what things need to do, you by chance dislike high school life, provided at least, you know this s ystem. We faced a fresh and uncertainty system in university, you have to present your know to exchange unknown, it was associated with uncertainty fears. 5. Selective information processing Individuals are sinful of selective processing information in the cause of check their whole consciousness.They hear what they want to hear and they ignore information that challenges the world they have created. Organization is conservative for its essentially, it resist change energetically. (Hall, 1987) This phenomenon can be seen everywhere, for example, governmental agencies want to continue devote oneself to their work, no matter what the market need to change The organized religion has ineradicable history, changing unearthly doctrine need great perseverance and patience Many business companies also think change can bring many risks.There are six organizational sources of risk. (Katz, Kahn, 1978) 1. Structural inertia Organizations keep their stability by inner mechanism, like their se lection processes that choose employees in or out very systematically Training and other socialize engine room strengthen requests and skills for every concrete role Organizational normalization provides job specifications, rules and dominions to employees. After selection, the satisfactory employees can enter organization, then, organization will standard and guide their behaviors by kind of way.When an organization is meted with change, this structural inertia act as risk (even counterbalance) to maintain stability. 2. Limited Change attention Organizations are made up of a quantity of interdependent subsystems. One cannot be changed without influencing the others. More exactly, in the meantime, organizations just change technological process, and not change organizational structure for match it, so technological change cannot adapt to. It seems that limited change in subsystems tend to be nullified by the lager system. 3. Group inertnessEven though individuals want to change t heir behavior, class criterion may act as a force of constraint. For instance, an union member maybe accept job change from capital, but if union regulation provide that resist any change by capital one-sidedly change, therefore risk will appear. 4. Threat to professional knowledge Changes in organizational model may threaten the expertise of specialized groups. In 1980s, the process of adopting distributed personal computer was a good example. This computer can let user direct got information from host computer of company, but it encountered many information departments counterview.Why, because the use distributed computers can bring risks for special technology of information departments. 5. Threat to established berth relationships Any reapportionment of decision-making power can threaten long-established power relationships within organization. Participative decision and self-management work team are belong to this change, it used to be threaten by dependent managers. 6. Th reat to established resource distributions Groups in the organization that control considerable resources see change as a risk.They tend to be spoil with the way things are. For instance, whether change means their budget or members decreasing? Those groups which can get much benefit from existing resource allocations used to be threaten by future allocations. How to prevent risks of organizational culture change? Although Organizational change brings many risks, in some ways, this is positive. It regulates a degree of stability and predictability to behavior. If there were not some risks, organizational behavior would take on the representatives of chaotic randomness.According to these risks, there were six tactics have been suggested for use by change planners in spreading with preventing risks. (Kotter, Schlesinger, 1979) 1. Education and conversation Risk can be reduced through and through communicating with employees to help them understand the logic of a change. The fundame ntal assumption of this strategy is the agreement of producing risks that fights the effects of misinformation and miscommunication if employees see all facts and eliminate entire misread, risks should disappear. Our communication could through talk personally, group discussion, memorandum, report and so on.Indeed, research shows that the way the need for change is sold matters-change is more likely when the necessity of changing is box properly. (Dutton, Ashford, ONeill, Lawrence, 2001) By the way, when the risk of change definitely from miscommunication and labor relations character by mutual trust, this tactic does work if these conditions cannot be have, it does not work. 2. Participation It is difficult for individuals to hit back a change decision in which they participated. Before changing, those opposed can be brought into the decision process.Presuming that the participants have the professional knowledge to make a meaningful contribution, their participation can reduce ri sk, obtain promise, and improve the quality of change decision. However, this tactic has two disadvantages. First, it maybe has potential poor decision second, it would take much time. 3. assist and Promotion Change planners can provide a range of encouraging measures to reduce risk. When employees feel fear and worried, the company should offer recommendation and advise psychology, new-technologies training or a short paid leave of spend may promote adjustment.Research on middle managers has shown that when managers or employees have low emotional commitment to change, they favor the status quo and resist it. (Huy, 2002, pp. 31-69) 4. dialog Another way for the change planner to cope with potential risk to change is to exchange something valuable for waken risk. For example, if the risk is concentrated in some compelling individuals, a detailed payment scheme can be negotiated that will satisfy their individual needs. Negotiation as a tactic may be necessary when risk comes f rom a powerful provenience. But, planner cannot ignore its potentially high costs.On the side, if change planner negotiates with one party to avoid risk, he or she is open to the surmise of being extorted by other individuals which have power. 5. Control and Cooptation Manipulation deal with concealed influence attempts. Some illustration of this are twisting and mistake facts to make them more attractive, blocking undesirable information, and creating rumors to get employees to accept change. If managers threatens to unsympathetic down a extraordinary manufacturing plant if that plants employees do not accept an across-the-board pay cut, and if the threat is actually untrue, managers is utilise manipulation.Cooptation, on the other side, is a mode of both manipulation and participation. It see to find buy off the leaders of against group by handsome them an important role in the change decision. The leaders lead is explored, not to seek a good decision, but to get their auth orization. two manipulation and cooptation are comparatively low-cost and easy ways to put up the support of opponents, but the tactics can backfire if the targets become conscious that they are being tricked or used. If by any chance detected, the change planners reputation may drop to zero.It used by change planners in dealing with opponents to change that is, the application of direct thrusts or force on the opponents. The color is quite mandatory, if the company management indicated to in the previous discussion really is determined to shut down if employees do not agree with a pay cut. Other examples of coercion are threats of transfer, loss of promotions, negative performance appraisal and so on. The advantages and disadvantages coercion are similar to the benefits and drawbacks of manipulation and cooptation.For my part, after considering the arguments above, I would concede that organizational change can bring many risk, the members of conservative not support change. Neve rtheless, disrespect that I think the organizations should be changed, every day is different, anything would be changed as time goes on. Overall, I am convinced that with development of society, managers will split many effective change plans to adapt to market competition.