Search results

This chapter focuses on the middle level of organizations. It is a critical synthesis level for culture. The authors explain how this level is influenced by the higher and lower levels of the organizational culture. The authors discuss how factors from the higher and lower levels may affect this level. It is at this level that culture has the greatest effect on an organization’s business capabilities, and therefore its operations and performance.

This chapter addresses the potential for knowledge, learning, and collaboration (KLC) cultures in public sector organizations. Public sector organizations are among the most complex for introducing or nourishing a KLC approach because there are multiple levels of cultures with varying levels of influence. We describe these complex cultures as tiers. First, we define public sector organizations’ business goals, purpose, and strategies. Then, the authors translate and interpret all five levels of culture for public sector organizations. The chapter also details the nature of cultural complexity, namely the four tiers of public sector cultures: (1) the company culture (Tier 1); (2) the public service culture (Tier 2); (3) the culture of the external environment (Tier 3); and (4) the internal KLC cultures (Tier 4). This chapter establishes a framework for describing an organization’s complex culture and determining the best KLC approach for the context.

This chapter defines culture and explains the different conceptual models developed by critical researchers in the field. First, the authors explain why it is essential for us to learn to see our cultures. Next, the chapter breaks the conceptual model of culture into its essential elements, including assumptions, beliefs, values, behaviors, and artifacts. The authors explain why and how each organization’s culture is unique – and walk through the factors that influence our organizational cultures. Finally, the chapter reminds us that it is hard to deliberately change an organization’s culture, because it is inherently dynamic. Instead, each organization should strive to understand how these factors affect our organizations.

This chapter describes the business goals, purpose, and strategy of public diplomatic services. It reinforces diplomatic organizations’ fundamental bureaucratic administrative culture (Tier 1). The bureaucratic culture of diplomacy is deconstructed, and each of the five layers is described in detail. The authors also explain why focusing on the artifacts and behavior layers are the dominant and essential starting points for analysis in diplomatic cultures. The public service culture (Tier 2) overlays and mediates the bureaucratic culture.

Additionally, the authors describe the influence that political appointees as leaders may play in shaping public service cultures. Next, the authors explain how diplomatic cultures reflect the core values of a state’s culture. Next, the chapter outlines the landscape of external influencing cultures (Tier 3) in diplomacy. Finally, the knowledge, learning, and collaboration (KLC) culture of diplomacy is considered, with opportunities for future growth.

This chapter focuses on corporate cultures as critical focus points for the knowledge economy. The authors explain how culture is a crucial intangible asset in the hyperdynamic knowledge economy. The de facto business cultures in every organization – visible or invisible – are also discussed. The authors describe the four common types of business cultures – bureaucracy, market, clan, and fief. Finally, the importance of aligning culture and strategy is explained. In the event of culture, this chapter explains why culture will always prevail in any strategy-culture conflict. The chapter is supported by practical use cases.

In this paper the authors argue that organizational climate and workplace bullying are connected, intertwined and affect each other. More precisely, the focus of the present study is how a hostile climate at work is related to workplace bullying. A hostile work climate is defined as an affective organizational climate permeated by distrust, suspicion and antagonism. The authors tested four hypotheses about the reciprocal effects and possible gender differences.

The study is based on a longitudinal probability sample of the Swedish workforce (n = 1,095). Controlling for age, the authors used structural equation modelling and cross-lagged structural regression models to assess the reciprocal effects of a hostile work climate on workplace bullying. Gender was added as a moderator to test two of the hypotheses.

The results showed a strong reciprocal effect, meaning there were significant associations between a hostile work climate and subsequent bullying, β = 0.12, p = 0.007, and between baseline bullying and a subsequent hostile work climate, β = 0.15, p = 0.002. The forward association between a hostile work climate and bullying depended on gender, β = −0.23, p < 0.001.

The findings point to a possible vicious circle where a hostile work climate increases the risk of bullying, which in turn risks creating an even more hostile work climate. Furthermore, the findings point to gender differences in bullying, showing that the effect of a hostile work climate on workplace bullying was stronger for men.