Search results

As part of an integrative model of leadership, transformational (versus transactional) styles are proposed to be related to subordinates' motivation and commitment to quality, the strength of empowering norms at the subunit level, and organizational productivity. Transformational and transactional styles also are proposed to be related to the self‐image of leaders. Hypotheses are tested in a military setting, the United States Army Recruiting Command, through the use of survey data provided by mid‐level leaders, station commanders, and recruiters. Data are supplemented by direct measures of subunit productivity. Results support some, but not all, of the proposed hypotheses. Implications for research and practice are presented, along with limitations of the research.

Virtual teams are typically made up of geographically dispersed experts, supported by computer‐based communication technologies. Though increasingly popular this is still a relatively unstudied organizational form. Virtual team membership is typically based solely on needed expertise; the teams rarely have any history of interaction and their performance potential is unknown. Research shows that teams exhibit constructive, passive, and aggressive interaction styles, which have significant effects on the decisions the teams produce as well as the teams’ satisfaction with those decisions. We present managerial tools for the assessment of conventional and virtual team interaction styles. We detail how the tools are used, and we also discuss how the styles manifest in each medium, and their effects. We give suggestions to team managers on how to use the insights the tools provide to manage their virtual teams for optimal performance.

Writings on organizational culture suggest that cultural values and norms are influenced by factors at the organizational, industry, and societal levels. While the effects of societal and organizational factors have been researched extensively, those of industry factors have not received commensurate attention. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relative importance of industry vs organizational variables in explaining the cultural norms reported by individuals within organizations.

The effects of two industry characteristics, (growth rate and research and development intensity) and two sets of organizational factors (leadership behaviors and human resource practices) on the strength of constructive, passive/defensive, and aggressive/defensive organizational cultural norms were investigated.

Results of hierarchical linear modeling analysis of survey data from 3,245 respondents in 424 organizations in 12 different industries revealed significant between-organization variation but no significant between-industry variation in the three types of cultural norms measured. Furthermore, while industry-level factors were unrelated to culture, significant variance in the culture measures was explained by leadership behaviors and human resource practices (use of rewards and fairness of performance appraisal).

The strength of cultural norms and expectations within an organization evolve in response to attributes specific to the organization and do not necessarily reflect industry characteristics. The results indicate that organizations using surveys to assess their cultures may learn as much (if not more) by comparing their feedback to data on organizations across a spectrum of industries as opposed to organizations exclusively in their own industry.

Most of the frameworks developed to examine and describe the cultures of organizations delineate specific dimensions or types that are assumed to be relevant to all organizations regardless of the industries within which they operate. The purpose of this paper was to explore the validity of this assumption by investigating the relative impact of industry and organizational factors on organizational culture.

This paper aims to describe how organizational culture is manifested in behavioral norms and expectations, focusing on 12 sets of behavioral norms associated with constructive, passive/defensive, and aggressive/defensive cultural styles.

The organizational culture inventory, a normed and validated instrument designed to measure organizational culture in terms of behavioral norms and expectations, was used to test hypotheses regarding the impact of culture. Data are summarized from 60,900 respondents affiliated with various organizations that have used the instrument to assess their cultures. Also presented is a brief overview of a practitioner‐led assessment of four state government departments.

The results of correlational analyses illustrate the positive impact of constructive cultural styles, and the negative impact of dysfunctional defensive styles, on both the individual‐ and organizational‐level performance drivers. The results clearly link the dysfunctional cultural styles to deficits in operating efficiency and effectiveness.

The concept of organizational culture is derived from research in the field of organizational behavior characterized by use of qualitative methods. Yet, one of the most powerful strategies for organizational development is knowledge‐based change, an approach that generally relies on the use of quantitative measures. Although both methods share the potential for producing cumulative bodies of information for assessment and theory testing, quantitative approaches may be more practical for purposes of knowledge‐based approaches for organizational development generally, and assessing cultural prerequisites for organizational learning and knowledge management specifically.

The aim of this paper is to clarify distinct aspects of firm culture, delineate its effects on performance outcomes, and to examine culture intensity on theoretic grounds with attention to its effects and limits.

The study analyzes a data set of 2,657 individual cases that are empirically aggregated into 302 organizational units. Its operationalization of culture intensity derives from distinct culture theory. Hypothesized relations are examined via structural equation modeling and hierarchical regression analysis.

Structural equation modeling results show culture relates positively to cooperation, coordination, and performance. Hierarchical regression analysis results show intensity influences cooperation and coordination directly and does not moderate culture's relations with those outcomes.

The large scale empirical study of a broad diversity of firms has advantages over smaller and more targeted studies of lesser generalizability.

Firms with cultures of higher intensity can enhance performance indirectly by driving cooperation and coordination directly.

Culture entails shared values and touches the human side of a firm. Managers can promote a firm's culture to enhance cooperation and coordination outcomes within that firm which, in turn, influence firm performance.

This study distinguishes culture from climate on conceptual grounds. Climate strength, an analog of culture intensity, is known to moderate climate's relations with outcomes. By contrast, this study shows that culture intensity has a main effect on outcomes, in line with culture's distinct theoretic bases.

The purpose of this paper is to fill the gap in the literature by exploring the perceived societal discrimination as an antecedent of perceived organizational discrimination, and investigating the impact of organizational culture (i.e. constructive, passive-defensive and aggressive-defensive culture norms) on perceptions of discrimination in the workplace.

A total of 176 American employees completed three surveys assessing perceived societal discrimination, perceived organizational discrimination and organizational culture online through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Data were analyzed using hierarchical multiple regression method.

Results suggest individuals’ perceptions of discrimination in the workplace are influenced by both perceived discrimination in society and perceptions of behavioral norms related to organizational culture. Findings in the current study indicated individuals’ attitudes and beliefs manifested in the societal context were carried into, and reflected in, the workplace. Additionally, beliefs related to organizational discrimination were found to be amplified or minimized depending on organizational culture; specifically, organizations dominated by culture norms reflecting behaviors related to individual security needs predicted higher levels, and culture norms reflecting behaviors related to meeting employee satisfaction needs predicted lower levels of perceived organizational discrimination.

This paper tested theoretical frameworks debated in the literature by exploring beyond institutional boundaries in the study of perceived discrimination by exploring perceived societal discrimination as an antecedent to perceived organizational discrimination. This project also is the first study (to authors’ knowledge) to investigate the impact of organizational culture on perceived organizational discrimination.

Through a survey of 200 employees working in five of the thirty establishments analysed in previous research about the microeconomic effects of reducing the working time (Cahier 25), the consequences on employees of such a reduction can be assessed; and relevant attitudes and aspirations better known.

Despite considerable conceptual interest in the relationship between organizational culture and various types of organizational change, empirical evidence regarding this relationship at different levels and types of change is surprisingly absent. This study examines whether organizational culture perceptions differ in frequently versus infrequently changing organizations, and whether this relationship is moderated by members' hierarchical level in the organization (i.e. staff, manager, executive).

Study includes culture survey data for 904 staff, managers and executives from one frequently changing and two infrequently changing organizations in the education sector.

Results show multiple non-monotonic organization-by-organizational level interaction effects on cultural style scores. In the frequently changing organization, executives report lower constructive cultural style scores and higher defensive cultural style scores than do managers and staff. In the infrequently changing organizations, executives, managers and staff report similar constructive and defensive style scores.

In frequently changing organizations, leaders are more likely to be discontent with the status quo and continuously encourage change efforts, while lower level members' have considerable experience with change and are empowered to continuously create change. The result is systematic differences in culture perceptions across levels, but also an agile organization capable of pursuing opportunities to improve organizational performance.

The authors’ findings show that systematic differences in perceptions of cultural styles across organizational levels relate to organizational change frequency. This contrasts with existing literature emphasizing the importance of culture perceptions being pervasive throughout the organization.

This paper aims to re-evaluate social enterprise (SE) history to pinpoint a pluralist turn in communitarian philosophy during the 1970s, which has the potential to transform labour and consumer rights in enterprise development.

Through a close examination of model rules created by founders of the FairShares Association (FSA), the authors find that the communitarian origins of SE are disturbingly obscured and hidden.

In studying FSA documents and building a timeline of the development of the FairShares Model (FSM), the authors found links between SE developments in the UK, continental Europe, Asia, North/South America and the development of solidarity cooperatives.

The authors argue that the discovery of a communitarian pluralist turn advances “new cooperativism” by enfranchising both labour and users in industrial relations (IR). Using this insight, they challenge accounts of SE history and argue for more research on SE’s potential contribution to radical IR.

The paper highlights the potential of the FSM as a vehicle for catalysing new SE and IR practices that share wealth and power more equitably between social entrepreneurs, workforce members, service/product users and community/social investors.