chapter ii organisational culture and...
TRANSCRIPT
CHAPTER II
ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE AND EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT:
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
CHAPTER !!
ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE AHQ EMpLOYEE COMMITMENT:
THEORETICAL PERSPECTiYES .
This chapter takes a plunge into the fathomless academic
literature, and reviews the two topics that are pivotal· to the
research study undertaken : Organisational Culture (Oe) and
Employee Commitment (EC). The purpose of this endeavour 16 to
base the discussion on the key issues that have triggered off
divergent views on the two topics, and to arrive at some degree
of integration. It first burrows into the organisational culture
literature, and then, into the literature concerning employee
commitment.
organisational theorists and corporate leaders have produced
voluminous materials on organisational culture and its offsprings
symbol, language, ideology, belief, ritual. and myth
(Pettigrew, 1979). As Smircich (1983) observes, the concept of
culture has been liberally borrowed from anthropology, where
there is no consensus on its meaning. To tht extent, the concept
is fuzzy, if not enigmatic and elusive.
CULTURE CONc~eI
Culture has become a ~ ~a ~ of modern thought,
notwithstanding its ambiguities. In the English language, the
tenm tculture t is derived from the original Latin word lcultura~
- the 'cultivation of soil'. As human beings. we are continually
13
activating the process of culturing, that is, "producing and
reproducing social realities in ways that are liberating,
inhibiting, puzzling, boring or exciting (smircich, 1983: 72).
Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1963) identified 164 different meanings of
the term 'culture', that have been used in anthropology, and
sociology. We realise that the holistic Vlew of culture
synthesized by them is very diffuse. The challenge in recent
years has been to cut down the culture concept to size into a
narrowed, and theoretically more powerful concept (Geertz, 1973).
We shall look into two major schools of thought the
Adaptationist system, and the Ideational system in 'cultural
theory' .
ADAPTATIONIST SYSTEM:
The adaptationist school conceives culture as a system of
socially transmitted behaviour patterns that
human communities to their ecological settings.
as u a pattern of life within a community
serve to relate
Culture is seen
the regularly
recurring activities, and material, and social
(Goodenough, 1961: 521). Most scholars such as
arrangements"
Leslie White,
Sahlins. Rappaport, Vayda, Harris, carneiro, Binford,
Longacre, Sanders, Price, and Meggers, working
Flannery,
1n the
adaptationist tradition agree on some broad assumptions (Keesing,
1974) :
14
1. Culture 18 a system of socially transmitted behaviour
patterns that relate human communities to their ecological
~etting8, namely technologies, and modes of economic,
political organisation, social grouping, religious beliefs,
practices and so on. The culture concept has come down to
behaviour patterns associated with part1cular groups of
people - their customs or their way of life (Binford. 1968i
Harris, 1968).
2. Cultural change is primaily a process of adaptation that
human beings ought to maintain with their surroundings so as
to survive. When the equilibrium is upset by environmental,
demographic, technological or other systemic changes,
adjust;ve changes ramify through the cultural system
(MeSgers. 1975).
3. Technology. subsistence economy. and social
that are directly linked to production are
adapt;vely central realms of culture (Vayda &
1968).
organisation
the most
Rappaport,
4. The fideational' components of culture such as religious
practices and elements of social organisation may have
adaptive consequences in maintaining the ecosystem,
controlling human beings, and contributing to human
subsistence. For instance, Rappaport (1967, 1971) has
sU9gested that ritual systems, and the cultural frame of
sanctity playa focal part in mediating cultural adaptation.
15
IDEATIONAL SYSTEM:
In contrast to the adaptationist theorists of culture. ~tand
a number of theorists who see culture as an 'ideational' system.
This school views culture as a system of knowledge, of stanaards
for perceiving, believing, evaluating, and acting (Allaire &
Firstrotu, 1984). Three different ways of studying culture as a
system of ideas are proposed by Keesing (1974):
(1) CYltyre ~ cognjtive system: Culture is seen as a system of
knowledge that lies beyond the realm of observable events.
Goodenough (1957: 167) says:
A society's culure consists of whatever it is one has to know or believe in order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members. Culture is not a material phenomenon; it does not consist of things, people, behaviour, or emotions. It is rather an organisation of these things. It is the form of things that people have in mi~d, thei models for perceiving, relating, and otherwise interpreting them.
(2) Cultyre I§ structyral System: Culture is viewed as shared
symbolic systems that are cumulative creations of mind. It is
discovered in the struoturing of cultural domains - myth. art,
kinship and language - the principles of mihd that generate these
cultural elaborations. Material conditions of subsistence and
economy, constrain but do not explain lived-in worlds. Only the
mind imposes culturally patterned order of relations and
transformations on a continuously changing and often random
16
world. Then, culture is seen as transcending individual actors,
even as transcending ethnic boundaries (Levi-Strauss, 1954).
(3) Culture ~ SYmbol;, Syste~: Culture;s not in people's
heads, but is in between the minds of these people. Symbols and
meanings are shared by social actors. cultural patterns are not
re;fed or metaphysical, but are things of this world such as a
cockfight, a funeral, a sheep theft (Geertz, 1972). Humans are
always engaging themselves in symbolic actions. And studying
their culture means studY1ng their shared codes of mean;ng. This
would, then; suggest that culture is a matter of I interpretation'
and not just tdecipherment' (Geertz, 1967, 1972).
A related but a different tack has been taken by Schneider
(1958). To him, culture is a system of symbols and meanings. It
comprises categories or units or rules about relationship and
modes of behaviour. The epistemological status of cultural units
or things does not depend on their ~observability'. Nor are
rules and categories to be inferred directly from behaviour.
They exist, as it were, on their own right, independent of their
imperfect manifestations in the thought and actions of their
bearers. In short, cu1ture is system - centred; it takes
people's position vis-a-vis the world, rather than the people's
position on how to get along in this world as it is given.
we are left between the horns of a conceptual dilemma: on
the one hand, of adaptationist reductionism which views culture
as an autonomous and uniform world of symbols, entirely freed
from the constraints of human mind and brain, and on the other.
17
of ethereal/ideational idealism which miS$es the magic of shared
symbols among human beings. We should not ex.pect an eclectic
composite under which all theorists of variant ideas would
congregate. Any statement about culture on which they could
agree would probably be vacuous. Nonetheless, we can conceive of
culture as an ideational subsystem within a vastly complex system
- biological, social and symbolic, and ground our abstract mOdels
in the concrete particularities of human social life. Suoh a
dialectic is likely to yield a deepening understanding of hUmans
- 1n - environments.
Keesing (1974) proposes a 'cultural competence' theory,
which recognises knowledge about the world as differentially
distributed in people, and yet partially realised 1n the minds of
people. Although no one individual knows all of the culture, and
each has a variant version of the shared codes of meaning,
culture is ordered not merely as a collection of symbols fitted
together by the individual; rather it lS recognised as a tSYstem
of knowledge', shaped and constrained by the way the human brain
acquires, organises, and processes information, and creates
internal models of reality. such a conception of culture frees
us considerably from the dangers of both adaptationist
reductionism and ideational idealism.
18
OllGANISATIONAL CULTURE
Business/industrial organisations are basioally human
organisations. Just as in families, children absorb culture from
their parents and/or other elders, employees in organisational
settings absorb culture from their managerial leaders, and other
senior and/or peers. This implies that when individuals join an
organisation, they join the way of life or the culture of that
organisation. And this organisational culture provides many
opportunities for shared assumptions, priorities, meanings, and ~
values to the organisation members. Top management people, and
management theorists have come to appreciate the power of
organisational culture 1n guiding employee behaviour on the job
within the company.
A HISTORICAL SURMISE
Organisational culture as a concept may have emerged just in
the late 1970s. But, concern with workplace cultures - i~formal
organisations, and workgroup norms - ;s not a recent phenomenon.
The Hawthorne studies of the 19208 propagated the view that
workers were primarily social beings driven by a need for
belongingness and acceptance. social interaction and group
affiliation were deemed vital for human fulfilment, and harmony
in workplace. Elton Mayo, acknowledged as the founder of Human
19
Relations Movement, claimed that the locus of commitment 1n the
workplace was the 'workgroup', from where norms emerged through
ongoing interaction. Therefore. only by influencing social
dynamics and gaining the consent of the workforce could managers
ensure a healthy and productive organisation. For instance, coal
mine studies of Tr;st and Bamforth (1951) documented some
positive effects of culture both at individual, and
organisational levels. Work was accomplished on a team-managed
basis; safety of workers was taken care of; meaningfulness of
going to work everyday was enhanced through group norms; and
families of group members were financially supported.
Theorists associated with the human relations movement spoke
of organisational climates (Likert, 1967) in th~ late 1950's.
The Likert programme administered a written 'climate survey· to
understand important issues in the workplace. Organisational
climate lent itself to direct observation and measurement in
terms of leader behaviour, job satisfaction, socialisation, and
turnover intentions., A big assumption of climate researeh was
that organisation members perceived, and made sense of
organisational policies, procedures and practices in
Psychologically meaningful ways. However, it failed miserably to
explain the variations in climate and norms within organisation
(Rentsch, 1990). For example, organisation members may agree on
the frequency of an organisational event but will vastly disagree
about what that event means to them. The members may agree that
20
managers are ready to implement a good idea, proposed in a
Quality circle meeting. But, some may perceive this event as a
high risk, while others may see it as an aggressive, professional
exercise. Again, some may perceive this event as an expression
of management's respect for organisation members, while some
others may interpret it as a management policy to float false
sense of acceptance among the members so as to exploit them for
some tricky future plans.
It 1S precisely this dimension of 'interpretive meanings'
that enhances or deteriorates work performance of organisation
members. And a deeper concept such as ~or9anisational culture'
to fathom roles, norms, and values has become a felt need
(Sehein, 1990).
The idea that organisations can be profitably viewed as
Icultures' attracted sustained attention only after the late
1970S. This notion entered management literature V18 two paths.
The first was through the work of th~orists who vehemently argued
that organisations should be viewed as socially constructed
systems of meaning (Dandridge et a1., 1980; Pettigrew, 1979;
Pondy et al., 1983; Van Maanen, 1979; Wilkins, 1983). The second
path was through the work of consultants and applied researchers
who wrote primarily for management practitioners eo as to help
them pragmatically sustain competitive edge in business (Baker,
1980; Ouch; & Price, 1978; Peters, 1978; Schwartz & Davis, 1981).
The practitioner literature explicitly linked organisational
culture to Japanese competition~ Japan's industrial ascent was
21
attributed to the Japanese organisations' ability to inspire
commitment without adversely affecting flexibility and
performance. It was suggested that the organisations in other
parts of the world would do well to emulate the Japanese
management (Ouch;, 1981: pascale & Athos, 1981).
The organisational culture movement was slowly gaining
popularity in the late 19706, and suddenly, its impact became
very pronounced with the arrival of cover stories ln Business
week (1980), Administrative science Quarterly (1983) and FOrtune
(Uttsl, 1983), as well as with the commercial success of three
books - Ouch;'s tTheory z' (1981), peters and Waterman's 'In
search of Excellence' (1982) and Deal and Kennedy's 'Corporate
Cultures' (1982). By the mid-1980s the practitioner oriented
views had become dominant. Notions of culture and commitment had
become twinned with a a variety of'efforts such as 'Total Quality
Movement', IKaizen', 'Organisational Transformation', and
recently CTotal Quality People'. Not only have numerous managers
written about cultural change in their organisations (Boyle,
1983; Brown, 1982; Kanarick & Dotlich, 1984; Koerner, 1984;
Malinconico, 1984) but studies indicate that conscious attempts
to develop organisational culture have become part and parcel of
organisational life (schein, 1985; Van Maanen & Kunda, 1989).
Kunda (1992) observes that employees not only talk about culture
but also evince great interest in attending culture seminars.
22
Thus, currently organisational culture ;s regarded as central to
individual and organisational effectiveness.
ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE DEfINITION
Efforts to arrive at a perfect definition of organisational
culture wou1d be akin to the attempts of the blind men in the
sufi story, who deciphered the elephant by touching the different
limbs of the animal. Definitions are numerous.
Kroeber and Parsons (1958) define organisational culture as
the transmitted and crea~ed content and patterns of values,
ideas, and other symbolic meaningful systems which shape human
behaviour. According to Forehand and Glimer (1964), the cultural
characteristics of an organisation are relatively enduring over
time, and they convey some important assumptions and norms,
governing the values, attitudes, and goals of organisation
members.
Beres and Porterwood (1979) define organisational culture as
a pattern of behaviour handed down to members of a group by the
previous generation. Louis (1980) defines it as a set of common
understandings for organiSing actions and language. Deal and
Kennedy (1982) define it in simplistic fashion, as the way people
do things around the organisation. Twinstal1 (1983) perceives it
as a constellation of beliefs, mores, value systems, behavioural
norms, and ways of carrying on business that are unique to every
organisation. sathe (1983) defines it as the set of important
23
understandings (often unstated) that members of a community share
1n common.
AS far as the concept of organisational culture is
concerned, Schein (1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1990) . 18
especially influential, as he more than the others including
anthropologists and folklorists - has articulated a conceptual
framework for analysing and intervening 1n the culture of
organisations. This study adopts his definition (Schein, 1990:
111 ) :
Organisational culture is (a) a pattern of basic assumptions, (b) invented, discovered, or developed by a given group, (c) as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, (d) that has worked well enough to be considered valid and therefore, (9) is to be taught to new members as the (f) correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.
CHARACTERISTICS
Some of the important characteristics of organisational
culture are given below:
1. Observed bebayjoyral regularjtjes: When organisation members
interact with one another, they use a common language,
terminology, jargon, and symbol related to deference and
demeanour (Goffman, 1967; Van Maanen, 1979).
2. Norms: Standards of behaviour are conspicuous in the way
organisation members abide by the interests and compulSions
24
of their groups. For instance, guidelines or directions may
flow from group norms that require members to strictly work
to rule, and exert nothing more (Homans, 1950).
3. Domjnant values: Every organisation advocates certain
values, and expects its members to absorb and adhere to them
faithfully (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). Typical examples are the
repeated proclamations of organisations about Total Quality
Management (TQM), consumer satisfaction, commitment and
credibility.
4. Phjlosophy: This is a mission statement that manifests an
organisation 7 s beliefs about how its employees and/or cus
tomers are to be treated (Ouchi, 1981; Pascale & Athos,
1981). For example, an organisation may declare its philos
ophy of fomenting a sense of fraternity, togetherness, and
belonging. by emphasizing the pre-eminence of team work.
5. Rules: These are str;ct guidelines that have to be followed
by the organisation members. For example, if a company has
standard operating procedures for taking orders, baking
bread, and sending the fin;shed product to the market, the
discretion of organisation members to set independent
standards of behaviour is severely limited (Luthans, 1989).
s. Organisational cJimate: This is an overall feeling that is
conveyed by the physical layout and the way organisation
members interact with one another, and also with customers
or outsiders (Tasiuri & Litwin, 1968).
25
Although none of the above mentioned characteristics by
themselves represent the culture of an organisation, yet
collectively they do reflect organisational culture.
THEORIES QE CULTURE FORMATION
Schein (1985) proposes a conceptual framework for
understanding cultural origins and dynamics in organisations. He
has developed the framework by synthesizing sociodynamic theory,
leadership theory, and learning theory.
SOCIODYNAMIC THEORY
All definitions of organisational culture converge on the
concept of shared solutions, shared understandings, shared
beliefs and values and hence we are interested in finding out how
human sharing comes about. The ~sociodynamic theory', built on
minute observations of training groups, therapy groups, and
working groups, provides important insights in this regard.
Basically all individuals must survive and remain personally
integrated while encountering other people in a group. For, the
individuals in a social context have three primary needs: need
for security, need for mastery of the environment; and need for
acceptance and intimacy. Of course, they do have other
influences from prior memberships such as family, neighbourhood,
friendship groups and so on; they bring such influences into a
26
new organisational group. However, new identities should be
built in the new group. Only then, the new group will develop a
culture of its own.
As the emotional needs faced by individuals in a new
organisational group are rooted around the basic human needs, we
can think of [personality theory' as relevant to group formation.
Wallen (1963) suggested that individuals differed from one
another in their capacity to express their aggressive feelings,
and their tender feelings, leading to three basic types of coping
styles:
(1) Styrdy battler: This type of individual is comfortable in
expressing aggressive, controlling feelings, but ;s very
uncomfortable with affection.
(2) Friendly helper: This type of individual is at home in
expressing affection and tender feelings, but is distinctly
uneasy about too much aggression from others.
(3) LORi cal thjnker: This type of individual is at ease with
procedures, rules and group processes that shut out the
expression of either aggressive or tender emotions.
Every individual has the capacity for each type of emotional
response, but usually the individual tends to gravitate towards
his/her characteristic style which he/she has learnt in earlier
cultural settings. The individual gradually learns through
interaction with the group members what their emotional biases
are and then, how to accommodate to them.
27
When individuals are in a new organisational group, they
attempt to construct their social environment in accordance with
their ~cognitive styles' (Keen, 1977; Mitroff, 1983; Shrivastva
et a1., 1983). Jung (1923) .deals with the preferences
individuals develop while obtaining information from the
environment (dimension of 'intuition' versus fsensat;ont), and
with the way individuals handle information once it has
internalised (dimension of 'thinking' versus ~feeling'
dimension of 'perceiving' versus 'judging').
been
and
The theoretical strands reviewed so far emphasize what
individuals bring into the group situation by way of emotional
and cognitive issues. But, the group as an evolving entity needs
to be analysed as a total unit. The group could at one time act
rationally and purposefully towards the accomplishment of a task,
and at another time, act in an overwhelmingly emotional manner.
Bion (1959) postulated that the group could be acting in
consonance with some underlying group assumptions. He identified
three types of inferred assumptions:
(1) Dependency a$symntjo~: If a group is unable to make a
suCcessful progress in its primary task, it becomes frustrated.
Then, it frantically looks for an lall-know;ng' leader, who will
tell everyone how to proceed. The essence of this emotional
state is the seeking of security and safety through discovering
one capable individual who will protect the group. Such a common
feeling of dependency is a very important 'shared feeling' in the
organisational group.
28
(2) Ejghl-fi9nt assymptjon: If 'dependency' does not work, if
the leader of the group keeps disappointing the group members,
then feelings of insecurity continue to torture the members. The
group may act angrily and impulsively by rejecting the
disappointing leader or by enacting some other symbolic act of
challenging authority. Such a ~shared action' leads the group to
powerful emotional learning, and shapes the group's future action
tendencies.
(3) pajring assymption: When the group has done something
together, proved itself capable of fighting out a problem, it
experiences an euphoric and omnipotent mood. It begins to
proclaim its invincibility. Implicit in this assumption of
(fusion' (Turquet, 1973) is the denial of any internal
differences among members, an illusion of mutual liking among
members, and an optimistic striving to merge totally within the
group_ If the group hangs on to this fusion or pairing
assumption, which is basically built around the euphoria due to
some shared action, it becomes a victim to unrealistic
assumptions. However, the reality situation would be pointed out
by some individual at some point of time, and then the group
becomes conscious of its limitation. Such a realisation brings
the group back to the painful task of Igroup building'.
A vital aspect that we need to take note of is, that baSic
assumptions of group members, group understandings, and group
norms happen around 'critical' events. Events become ~critical'
29
when they are linked with group members t high levels of
emotionality and/or cognitive bases. They may not be noticed at
the time of occurrence, but they can be reconstructed
historically, resulting in the resurrection of the associated
feelings. Such critical incidents become folklores or
organisational stories, which inevitably become legitimizing
pieces of organisational culture (Pfeffer, 1981). To understand
how tnorms' emerge, we should first reconstruct the history of a
group. Usually, we find that norms arose from marker/critical
incidents. In response to a dilemma confronting a group, someone
initiated a line of thought or stated a value, and the rest of
the group ratified that response either through overt agreement
or silence. The assumption was made that everyone agreed, and it
became stabilised as the group norm.
~Shared understanding' means that group members recognise a
particular feeling, experience, or activity as common. This
presumes a common communication system, which includes both
verbal and nonverbal processes (Van Maanen, 1979). The shared
understanding can be produced through group events such as common
anxieties, common emotional responses, common overt actions, and
common emotional regression. When people with different
interpersonal styles, emotional make-ups, and cognitive styles
interact in an organisational setting, they cannot build shared
meanings out of immediate interactions. They need adequate time,
and common experience to build a communication system by means of
30
which they are able to create the same sense of 'meaning' of
events.
LEADERSHIP THEORY
Studies that have attempted to understand the relationship
of the leader to the group members, and the effect of the
leader's personality and style on group formation are very
relevant to the understnding of culture formation and evolution.
Most of the leadership theories distinguish between external
task-oriented leadership functions, and internal group-oriented
ones.
Benne and Sheats (1948) classified leadership functions as
ttask' functions such as initiating, giving information, 91vlng
opinions, and testing for consensus, and 'group building and
maintenance' functions such as supporting, harmonising, setting
and testing standards, and controlling the communication flow
inside the group.
Bales (1950) and Bales and Cohen (1979) derived (task'
functions and tsoc;o-emot;onal' functions, in their extensive
experimental studies of small groups. The Ohio State leader&hip
studies (Bass, 1981: Dobbins & Zaccaro~ 1986; Fleishman, 1973;
Hemphill, 1950; Kerr et a1., 1974; Schriesheim, 1982) identified
two leader behaviour dimensions: t,n;tiat;ng structure' and
~consideration' . The Michigan group (Likert, 1961, 1967)
31
described leader behaviour in terms of two dimensions:
·production-oriented' and temployee-oriented'. Fiedler (1967)
distinguished between ttask orientation' and 'relationship
orientation' in leadership behaviour. Slake and Mouton (1964)
included in their tmanagerial grid' model two leader behaviour
dimensions: concern for tproduction' and concern for 'people'.
In longitudinal studies of the development of managers,
Schein (1978) found that young managers were seeking for three
kinds of competence: (1) 'analytical competence' so as to
recognise and formulate problems to be solved; (2)
t;nterpersonaal competence' to build and sustain different kinds
of relationships with individuals and groups; (3) Cemational
competence 1 in order to tackle the emotional demands of the
managerial role.
Basically, leadership is defined as the ability to influence
a group and/or individuals toward aome goal achievement.
Manager;al leaders influence people and events through five major
bases of power - reward J coercive legitimate, referent, and
expert (French & Raven, 1959). Such an influence process 18
necessary in an organisational context owing to incomplete
organisational design, environmental changes because of
technological, legal and cultural changes, internal dynamics such
as conflicts between departments and diversification attempts,
and opportunities for motivating people (Katz & Kahn. 1978).
32
Whatever we have observed in leadership theory shows that we
cannot divorce the process of leadership from the process of
building organisational culture. It would indeed be appropriate
to state that the unique function of leadership is the creation
and management of culture. The assumptions of the
founders of a group/organisation, the authority
formed therein, and the manner leaders and members
leadets or
relationships
interact at
emotional levels will determine the culture of the
group/organisation.
LEARNING THEORY
organisational culture is learned, and hence it can be
understood only in the context of an evolutionary, dYnamic
learning model. The learning process is complex because it is
groups rather than individuals that are involved in
organisational learning. Group members may further bring in
different forms of anxiety and defensive behaviour during the
learning process in an organisational setting, with the reSUlt
that learning becomes more complex than we could imagine.
There are two types of learning mechanisms positive
problem solving, and anxiety avoidance.
PO§itjYe probJem solyjng: Learning outcomes are rewarding in a
positive problem solving situation, as the group members find out
for themselves that they can effectively tackle a problem. For
instance, when a group is able to arrive at a tangible strategy
33
to set right the sales sag of a product, tests it in the field.
and find6 that it works, the group tends to repeat the strategy
in future. Although the solution may be discovered in a single
trial through insight, the development of a 'shared' insight
requires repeated trials and successes. The culture, then,
includes the learned group repertory of capacities to handle
problems efficiently and effectively. Another significant
dimension to the learned group repertory is the shared cognitions
that the group develops about itself, its ideology, its
rationalisations. and its world views.
Anxjet~ avoidance: A group learns to perceive, think. feel, and
behave in ways which prevent situations from emerging repeatedly,
when they are associ ted with a painful past. For instance, when
a group had met with failure in a particular advertising
innovation, it experienced pain and loss of group image, and
hence would avoid the repetition of the same situation. Even one
trial learning of failure would create the failure phobia, and
the group would inariably avoid the situation, whether actual
danger persists or not.
SOCIAL LEARNING TH,QRY
In 9rouP learning, tSoc;al learning theory' assumes great
importance. Social learning theory ;s an extension of 'operant
conditioning', as it assumes that human behaviour is a function
34
of consequences; yet, it acknowledges the existence of
observational learning, and the importance of perception in
learning_ The theory points out that organisational behaviour
takes place through modeling and self-control processes.
Modeljng: People in groups/organisations often model
behaviour after that of another significant person.
comprehensive view of modeling suggested by Bandura
consists of four processes:
their
The
(1977)
(1) IAttentional process't ,n which organisation members learn
from a model by paying attention to the model's behaviour.
(2) 'Retention process' in which a model's influence will depend
on how well the organisation members remember the model's
act1on, eVen after the model is no longer readily available.
(3) 'Motor reproduction process' in which the organisation
members, after having seen a behaviour of the model,
translate the watching into doing.
(4) tReinforcement process' in which the organisation members
tend to repeat behaviours that are accompanied by favourable
consequences, and tend not to repeat behaviours that are
accompanied by unfavourable consequences.
A number of studies show that modeling procedures have had
favourable impact on group/organisational learning, and on
employee behaviour ;n industrial settings (Burnaska, 1976;
Decker, 1982; Kraut, 1976; Long & Ormsby, 1987)
Self-contro] Dtocess: The social learning theory considers the
focus on behavioural self~control or systematic self-management
35
processes very imperative, as organisation members learn to
manage their behaviour for organisational effectiveness. Bandura
and Walters (1963) observe that behaviours are learnt by
organisation members, very thoughtfully.
Luthans (1989) discusses two importance strategies for
learning to happen in behavioural self-management stimulus
management, and consequence management. In ~stimulus
management', organisation members work toward the gradual removal
or only selective exposure to stimuli that evoke behaviours whose
freQuency ;s sought to be decreased or eliminated altogether.
Alternatively, the members deliberately initiate new cuing
stimuli or rearrange the existing stimuli so as to evoke
behaviours that they would like to create.
In tconsequence management', there is a contingent
application of new reinforcers or a rearrangement of the existing
ones so as to increase the behaviours in subsequent frequency, or
the application of punishers to decrease them. For instance,
organisation members who want to find ut a tangible solution to a
production problem, on their success can reinforce themselves by
having a sumptuous dinner (overt), or by congratulating
themselves and feeling good about their success (covert).
When organisation members face a problematic situation, and
have to find out a solution together, we have the basic situation
for culture formation. The process involves a shared problem
definition, and a shared recognition that some invented solution
36
actually works, and continues to work. The initial ability to
share is contoured by prior cultural learning and understanding,
but the new shared experience within the new group/organisation
sets off the formation of a new culture, which consequently
becomes the characteristic of that particular group/organisation.
The theories and empirical findings about socia-dynamics,
leadership, and learning processes are essential to an
understanding of culture formation.
MULTIPLE CULTURES
When we speak of organisational culture, we are likely to
assume that a unitary or rnono1ithic cu1ture pervades the entire
organisation. such a premise is untenable, because we have
defined culture as a system of tshared meanings'. Then, it is
well nigh possible that different units within an organisation
may develop sub-cultures that can be neutral toward or· even
conflict with the dominant culture (Martin & Siehl, 1983).
Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) found distinct subcultures within
different functions such as engineering~ marketing, R&D and
manufacturing in most companies. Barley (1983) studied two
hospital radiology departments, and identified subcultures
associated with the computer trained technologists, and
sonographers. Schwartzman et al., (1988) in their study of a
community
that of
mental health centre. discovered dual cultures
the community Board members t responsible
one
for
31
administration, and another that of the para-professional staff,
responsible for treating clients. Smircich (1983) found two
different subcultures in an insurance company - an 'inside' group
of long-standing staff members, and an Coutside' group of expert
staff members.
However, the different subcultures e)(ist;ng in an
organisation do not necessarily impact negatively the
organisation - driven assumptions. If they do undermine the
basic assumptions on which the organisation depends, then
managerial leaders would have to seriously influence the
assumption-level of the organisation members.
SIBQ.N~ QULTUBE
Some organisational cultures are labeled, 'strong' and
others tweak'. To the degree that the same patterns of beliefs
are shared throughout the organisation, the culture is considered
a strong one (Saffold, 1988), A strong culture is characterised
by the organisation's core values being both widely shared and
intensely held. The more the members accept the core values, and
the greater the members' commitment to those values, the stronger
will be the culture. Those core. values are expressed as
deCisions and actions on appropriate occasions. The degree of
sharedness is affected by two main factors "orientation"
through training pro9rammes, and "rewards" (Pareek, 1991). And,
the degree of "intensityn is the result of the reward structure.
38
When organisation members realise that they will be rewarded for
performing or acting according to the espoused core values of the
organisation. their desire to do so increases (Luthans, 1989).
Also, a 'weak' culture may exist where important assumptions
or values are not widely shared in an organisation, but vary from
individual to individual or unit to unit (Glaser, 1983; Riley.
1983). However, for an organisation to be successful.
organisation - driven assumptions must be widely shared across
the strata of organisation members.
CQNCEPTUAL MODELS Qf ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
There are arguments against conceptual models on the grounds
that they oversimp7ify complex phenomena. Yet, models are
important because they guide empirical research and generate new
theory. In recent times, two conceptual models have been
proposed for the study of organisational culture - Schein's
model, and Hatch's "cultural dynamics" model.
£CHEIN'S MODEL:
Schein (1985) embraced elements of the "cognitive" and
"adaptationist" school of cultural thought, and discovered three
levels of cultural phenomena in organisations. On the surface
are "artifacts". underneath artifacts lie "values", and at the
core are "basic assumptions".
39
SCHEIN'S MODEL
('985)
ARTIFACTS
1 VALUES
1 ASSUMPTIONS
"Artifacts" are the tangible aspects in an organisation,
which comprise the physical layout, the dress code, the way
members address one another, the smell and feel of the place, and
other archival manifestations such as the company records,
mission statements, annual reports, and the products that are
manufactured. Rites, rituals, organisational stories, humour and
other symbolic manifestations are artifacts, which are palpable
but difficult to fathom accurately (Martin et al., 1986; wilkins,
1983).
"Values~ are evaluational bases organisation members usa for
jUdging situations, acts, objects, and people. They reflect the
actual goals, ideals, standard, as well as the blunders of the
organisation - both acts of commission and omission.
"Assumptions" are the tacit beliefs of organisation members,
concerning themselves and others, inter-relationships, and the
nature of the organisation. They are the taken-for-granted,
40
underlying, and usually unconscious beliefs that determine
perceptions, thought processes, feelings, and behaviours of
organisation members. Basic assumptions tend to be non
confrontable and non-debatable.
Schein (1985) claimed that basic assumptions hold the key to
understanding a culture. Recently, he argued that assumptions
are best examined using "clinical techniques", which recommend
that a motivated group of insiders raise its own assumptions to
consciousness with the help of a clinically trained consultant
(Schein, 1990). However, Schein's model has immense value for
non-clinical studies also.
~ATCH'S CULTURAL QYNAMICS MODEL
CULTURAL DYNAMICS MODEL
(1993 )
41
Hatch (1993) finds that Schein's (1985) model of
organisational culture as assumptions. values, and artifacts
leaves gaps by ignoring the special effect of culture as symbols
and symbolic processes. Therefore, ahe proposes a cultural
dynamics perspective by reformulating Schein's model. She places
fsymbols' alongside the three components of Schein's model. She
further articulates the arrows linking assumptions, values. and
artifacts, and defines these links as processes having both
forward and backward temporal modes of operation.
According to Hatch's model, culture is constituted by
manifestation, realisation, symbolisation, and interpretation
processes
"Manifestation" refers to the process by which an assumption
reveals itself, usually through the senses, but also through
cognition and emotion.
"Realisation~ 16 the process of making values real by
transforming expectations into social or material reality such as
greetings, forms of address, stories, humours, proverbs and so
on. It makes artifacts the most tangible aspects of culture, as
to realise something means to make it real, to bring it into
being (Arora, 1988; Jones, 1991; Jones at a1., 1988).
"symbolisation" is a prospective response that links an
artifact's objective form and literal meaning to experiences that . lie beyond the literal domain. For instance, if an artifact such
as a large table in an organisation is seen in its literal
meaning, it remains as a surface on which people work. But, when
42
people look at the table as a symbol, they are likely to
attribute a corporate status/power symbol to the artifact.
Hatch's model emphasizes that artifacts must be translated into
symbols, if they are to be experienced as culturally significant
objects, events, or discourses by organisation members.
"Interpretation" as a process goes beyond the link of
literal and surplus meanlng, and relates the current
understanding with an "already known" experience (Gioia, 1986).
Further, it establishes "meaning", thereby implying a reciprocal
influence of current symbols on basic assumptions. Hatch's model
suggests that (interpretation~ contextualises current
symbol;sation experiences by evoking a broader cultural frame as
a reference point for constructing an acceptable meaning 1n an
organisational setting.
CLIMATE VERSUS CULTURE
The widespread emergence of organisational culture in the
1980's has proliferated the debates over the theoretical
confusion surrounding climate and culture studies in
organisational context. Some researchers report that culture
appears to be a little more than a synonym for climate (Moran &
Volkwein, 1992; schneider, 1985). Whereas. so~e others argue
that both the concepts are similar substantively, and the
difference is only methodological (Denison, 1984; Hofstede
et al., 1990).
43
J
However. a careful consideration of the two constructs
reveals that climate and culture are distinctly identifiable but
are related constructs. They are related in two respects (Moran
& volkwein, 1992):
(1) Climate and culture overlap each other as components of the
expressive. communicative, and socially constructed
dimensions of organisations. climate manifests the
behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of organisation
members, which are more empirica11y accessible to observers.
Whereas, culture represen~s a more implicit feature of
organisations, as it contains collective values and meanings
of members, which are represented indirectly through
symbols.
(2) The core, historically - constituted values and meanings
embodying organisational culture determine the attitudes and
practices that comprise the organisational climate. Thus,
culture is the source of purposeful action and continuity,
from which the routine adaptive behaviours exhibited in the
organisation's climate derive their impetus.
The boundaries between climate and culture can be noted in the
following ways:
(1) Climate functions at the levels of basic values and
artifacts, while culture operates at these levels as well as
at the level of basic assumptions.
(2) Climate has been the domain of social psychologists and
focuses on the perceptions, perceptua1 processes, cues, and
44
cognitions by which organisation individuals apprehend and
discriminate attributes of the organisation's internal
environment. whereas, culture has become the domain of
anthropologists, and analyses the underlyin9 structure of
symbols which manifest the shared values, norms, and
meanings of organisation members (Allaire & Firsirotu, 1984;
smircich & Calais, 1987).
(3) climate is a relatively enduring characteristic of an
organisation, whereas culture is a highly enduring
characteristic of an organisation. For example, changes in
key staff or budgetary cuts can affect climate in an
organisation, rather quickly. but are unlikely to have an
immediate, discernible impact on the culture. To that
extent, climate is shallower than culture.
DIMENSIONS Qf ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
An effective way of examining organisation members'
behaviour in a specific organisational culture is to look at the
important dimensions existing in the organisation. Three
questions become highly relevant here: (1) Which
operationalisable, and distinct dimensions can be employed to
measure organisational culture? (2) How do these dimenSions
affect human behav;our at work? (3) How do these dimenSions
relate to existing organisational theory and practice?
45
In a massive cross-cultural study involvin9 66 countries,
and 88,000 respondents on about 117,000 questionnaires, Hofstede
( 1980)
(1)
discovered four dimensions of organisational cultyre:
Individualism/collectivism; (2) Power distance;
(3) Uncertainty avoidance, and (4) Masculinity/Femininity. I
This
study has helped us evaluate a particular country in terms of the
four dimensions, and accordingly, explain and predict employee
behaviour in organisations.
Denison (1984) found five dimensions useful in his study of
organisational culture: (1) Organisational climate (organisation
of work, communication flow, emphasis on people, decision-making
practices, influence and control, absence of bureaucracy, and
coordination); (2) Job design (job challenge, job reward, and
role clarity); (3) Supervisory leadership (supervisory support,
team building, goal emphasis, and work facilitation); (4) Peer
leadership (peer support, team building, goal emphasis, and work
facilitation); and (5) Behavioural outcomes (group functioning,
satisfaction, goa1 integration).
Kilmann (1985) developed four dimensions of organisational
culture: (1) Short-term task support~ (2) Long-term task
innovation; (3) Social relationships with a short time frame; and
(4) Personal freedom over a longer time period.
Robbins (1990) proposed a ten dimension model to study
organisational culture: (1) Individual initiative; (2) Risk
tolerance; (3) Direction; (4) Integration; (5) Management
46
support: (6) Control; (7) Identity; (8) Reward system; (9)
Conflict tolerance; and (10) communication patterns.
Hofstede et al., (1990) in their study of 20 units from 10
different organisations in Denmark and Holland found six
dimensions of organisational cultures: (1) Process-oriented Ys.
Results-oriented; (2) Employee-oriented Ys. Job-oriented; (3)
Parochial VS. Professional; (4) Open system Vs. Closed system;
(5) Loose control vs. Tight control; and (6) Normative vs.
Pragmatic.
Parida et al., (1990) suggested nine dimensions but divided
them into two groups - observable culture and inferable culture.
Under "observable culture" the dimensions such as (1) Individual
autonomy; (2) support: (3) structure; (4) Performance reward;
(5) Conflict tolerance; and (6) Risk tolerance were included.
The ~inferable culture~ was sought to be measured by dimensions
such as (1) Beliefs; (2) Norms; and (3) Identity. The
researchers of this framework recommended these dimensions for
the study of Indian industrial organisations.
Adopting an "ethnographic" approach, Schein
identified·seven dimensions of organisational culture:
(1) The organisation's relationship to its environment.
(1985)
(Does
the organisation perceive itself to be dominant, submissive,
harmonising, or searching out a niche?).
47
(2) The nature of human activity. (Which is the correct way for
humans to behave: dominant/proactive,
passive/fatalistic?).
harmonising or
(3) The nature of time. (What ;s our basic orientation in terms
of past, present, and future? which time unit is
appropriate for the conduct of daily affairs?).
(4) The nature of reality and truth. (How do we define truth,
and non-truth? How should we determin it: by pragmatic
test, reliance on wisdom or social consensus?).
(5) The nature of human nature. (Are human beings basically
good, evil, or neutral? Is human nature perfectible or
fixed?) .
(6) The nature of human relationships. (What is the correct way •
for people to interact with one another? Is life
competitive or cooperative? Is individualism or group;sm
the excellent way to organise society? Is the best
(7)
authority system autocratic, paternalistic, or
participative?).
Homogeneity
are highly
individuals
conform?).
vs. Diversity. (Are groups better off if they
diverse or highly homogeneous? Should
in a group be encouraged to innovate or
APPRQACHEa IQ ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE ~IUQX
Sm;rc;ch (1983) delineated two major approaches of culture
research: the functionalist approach, and the
approach.
interpretive
48
(1) FUNCTIONALIST PARADIGM:
The functionalist paradigm is primarily regulative and
pragmatic in its basic orientation, concerned with understanding
an organisation 1n a way which generates useful empirical
knowledge. It views organisational culture as a variable that
influences organisational effectiveness. It is a popular
research strategy marked by survey methods measurement,
validity and sampling (lundberg, 1986).
Kilmann (1985) developed a quantitative instrument on four
dimensions of organisational culture. His ~
res~ndents assessed
both the existing culture, and the desired one, with· the
differences eXposing "cultural gaps". Corporate managers, after
taking note of the cultural gaps among employees, analysed the
existing norms, and initiated changes so as to influence
employees' work performance.
Anderson et a1., (1988) in a survey data from 268 employees,
participating in a work redesign intervention, found that
employee beliefs about the negative impact of the intervention
strategy on the work site was an important predictor of the level
of support for the change.
Putti et a1., (1989) investigated the association between
work values and organisational commitment, with a sample survey
of 175 workers at a subsidiary American multinational corporation
49
in Singapore. Their analysis suggested that work values related
more closely to organisational commitment.
Singh (1989) collected date from 448 industrial
entrepreneurs of punjab, and found that high scores on emotional
stability, self-assurance, competitiveness, hard work, tolerance
for work pressure, and education were associated with a fast rate
of industrial growth.
Abramis and Thomas (1990), in their study based on a survey
of 100 working adults, showed that employees' perception of
customer service practices of their companies were important for
job satisfaction.
Ambrose et al.,
between fairness of
(1991) found
organisational
significant relationships
practices and employee
performanpe. Calorie et al., (1991) developed a Questionnaire on
work-related values and management practices, and tested it on
260 employees in five companies. They found relationships
between corporate culture traits, and economic performance.
(2) INTERPRETIVE pARADIGM~
The interpretive paradigm 1S based upon the view that the
organisational wor1d has a precarious ontological status, and
that what passes as organisational reality does not exist in any
concrete sense, but is the product of the subjective and inter
subjective experience of organisation members. organisational
reality from this point of view rests in the use of different
kinds of verbal and non-verbal language.
50
This approach follows two steps: (1) recording stories,
metaphors, symbols, statements of beliefs, and behavioural
practices; (2) synthesizing from them a logic or social reality
that makes sense of them~ and explicates their functions in
organisations (Deetz~ 1982).
Wilkins (1984) suggests that stories are powerful ;n
spreading culture among organisation members. as they are like
maps that help members know how things are done in the their
organisation. Martin at al., (1983) described seven stories, and
revealed that each of the stories manifested conflict between
organisations' needs, and members' values such as equality versus
inequality, security versus insecurity, control versus non
control.
There is a tale of a lady, an alumnus of a company called
GM, which narrates how the lady bought a QM hat for $30,000 in an
auction for charity, and how she was swamped by GM members with
various gifts of their plants. The story is about a simple
event, but its meaning is about positive relationship between the
company, and the lady, although she is just an alumnus of the
company (Solberg, 1985).
Nordstrom employees are fond of this story: A customer came
into a retail shop, run by Nordstrom management, and wanted to
return a set of automobile tyres. The sales clerk was not
willing to get the tyres. At that time, Nordstrom walked by,
heard the conversation, and instructed the clerk to provide the
51
refund, and then, the customer left the place. "But, Mr.
Nordstrom, we don't sell tyres!", the perflexed clerk said. "I
know", replied the boss, "but we do whatever we need to do to
make the customer happy". This story has spread across the
different strata of employees, and has perpetuated a "service
culture" among them (Peters, 1987).
Turner (1990) heard many stories in an electronios company,
which revolved round the prolonged. illness of the founder's
illness. The employees of this company narrated stories
concerned with death, or with inadequate skills of hired people.
In fact, all the stories were related to the troubling period of
the company, the main event being the founder's absence owing to
his ; 11 ness.
Fortado (1992) narrated a poignant story to drive home the
point that employees perceived inequality existing between lower
level managers, and top level managers. There was a strict "No
Smoking" rule in an organisation, and everyone followed it except
the Vice-president of operations. Once he was seen smoking in
the elavator, where he was not supposed to smoke. An employee
asked him bluntly, "Whose decision is it to make smoke
available?". The Vice-President said l "It's mine!".
Tata Chemicals was involved in the manufacturing process of
soda ash, Which involved fifteen processes and power units.
Successful operation demanded that each one of these units
individually, and together worked right at the same time. But,
TISS LIBRARY 1\\ 11II11ll1l111I1I1111 II III
52
operation failures badly mauled the progress. Hired services of
Chinese and American experts could not bring about success. An
American consultant advised J.R.D., "you are in the wrong place,
and in the wrong business. The sooner you get out the better".
J.R.D. replied. "When we arouse the hopes of people, we expect to
fulfil the hopes". This organisational story spread among the
employees of Tata Chemicals, with the result that they began to
work harder than ever to make J.R.D.'s dream come true (Lala,
1993) .
The Ambanis routinely put in twelve to fourteen hours of
hard work in their business. Once when a correspondent from
BusinessWorld came to interview one of the Amban;s, the concerned
Ambani reQuested that his four year old daughter be allowed to
remain in the room. "She does not see very much of me, "he said
apologetically. It is possible that this story is intended to
send a message of "work hard" culture to the employees of the
Ambani business organisations (Khanna & Padmanabhan, 1994).
Smith and simmons (1983) described a bizarre dream of an
employee, that had significant message for other organisational
people. The dream unfolded an old fairy tale
"Rumpelstiltskin". A mysterious gnome, who had magical powers to
spin gold out of straw, offered to help a poor peasant's
daughter. But, he demanded a price for his help: the peasant's
daughter should hand over to him her first-born son. The airl
accepted the condition. The peasant bragged about his daughter's
53
magical power to spin gold out of straw. The King of the land
locked the girl in a room, stuffed with straw. The gnome helped
the girl by spinning gold. The King was pleased, and he married
the peasant's daughter. But, when the first child was born, the
peasant's daughter refused to honour her word. In this
situation, the trio - the king, the peasant's daughter, and the
peasant managed to discover the gnome's name
"Rumpelstiltskin H
- and at once the gnome disappeared in a puff
of smoke. Similarly, the employees at Dexter bragged about their
excellent programmes to the local community. But, when they
could not deliv~r the goods in time, they panicked, and
scapegoated the medical director by identifying him as the
"fWmpe 1st i 1 tski n II.
Symbols are important signals.
industries studied include no time
Common symbolic features of
clocks, a single common
entrance to
dining area
house-keeping
because both
the plant, no reserved parking places, one common
and so on# For instance, in a chocolate factory,
in the dining hall improved beyond recognition
prodUction and office workers ate in the same
cafeteria during the same time period (Poza, 1983).
AT & T Chairman Mr. Brown~ wanting to change the culture of
the organisation. spoke to the members in a prophetic tone:
"There is a new telephone company in town ... a high technology
business. applying advanced marketing strategies to the
satisfaction of highly sophisticated customer requirement". He
Questioned whether the label "Ma Bell" was appropriate to
54
describe such a business. He, then, asked his audience to Pass
the word that "Mother does not live here anymore". For Bell
employees, the symbolic language carried powerful message about
their culture, including the need to set aside symbols of the
past (Tunstall, 1983).
When the Indian Airlines employee morale was abysmally low,
a vigorous motivation campaign was launched to bring, about an
attitudinal change. Poster-slogans were displayed for
consideration of employees: "Plunging necklines are a beautiful
sight. But not traffic trends"; "ItJs your airlines"; "Perfect
teamwork results in perfect take-offs" (Banslal, 1994). Whether
the slogans had the desired effect on the Airlines employees is
debatable. However, the point is that slogans had been thought
of as effective means to pass on a message to concerned people.
Solberg (1985) narrated the "Black Lake experience" of the
employees of an electronics company. It was a sort of a
~ceremony' for the employees. Management, and union people
shared rooms together J and spent a week eating! working, talking J
and walking together. They went through an emotional experience,
which seemed to have resulted in culture change in the company.
Jones (1983) explored the use of folklores in enhancing
communication and cooperation among organisation members. He
found that the folklores - stories, metaphors, sayings,
ceremonies, and customs - solved worklife problems effectively.
55
At this phase, an important Question comes UP to prod our
reflection: Which research paradigm ;s more useful for studying
organisational culture - functionalist or interpretive. paradigm?
Scholars such as Hofstede, Kilman, and Likert advocate the
functionalist/survey method 1 as it provides objective Quantified
data which will be useful for predicting and managing
organisational outcomes. Whereas scholars such as lundberg,
schein, Smircich and Van Maanen recommend the
interpretive/ethnographic method, as it brings forth a deeper
understanding of the complex organisation life.
However, a happy blend of the two major approaches may be
expected to yield maximum effect in discovering organisational
life. For example, Denison (1984) made a comparative study of
culture, and effectiveness that used a standard set of measures
to a sample of 34 companies. He enriched the quantitative
results, with the inclusion of a set of five case studies from
the sample firms.
M;rv;s (198'5) employed the survey method to gather data on
the quality of worklife in an organisation, and interpreted his
study with reference to a descriptive case study of changes in
corporate culture following the company's acquisition.
Hofstede et a1., (1990) measured organisational cultures in
a Quantitative and qualitative study across twenty units from ten
different organisations in Denmark and Holland.
56
CUbIURE DYNAMICS
Irrespective of the research paradigms/methods being used
culture researches hold a consensus view, namely, tha
or9anisations are interested in the processs of "cultur
dynamics" - culture creation, culture preservation, and cultur,
change.
"Culture creation" is usually attributed to the propheti
endeavours of "founders" (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987; Peters, 1986
Peters & Waterman, 1982: Pettigrew, 1979; Schein, 1985, 1990
Solberg, 1985; Turnstall, 1983). Such an attribution is mos'
likely to happen, for "founders" enjoy frequent opportunities 0
being "salient" to the employees, as far as organisationa
activities or events are concerned. However, it is realistic tl
understand that the strong sub-cultures of employees across thl
strata are potent enough to influence organisations' culture
Then, organisational culture is seen as emerging out of the co"
creation of founders, managers, and other employees.
The dynamics of "culture preservation" draws its strengtl
from three vital factors - selection practices, top managemen"
actions, and socialisation methods of the organisation. Thl
selection practices of the organisation ought to pay attention tc
the "culture-fit" dimension of new members· (caldwell & O'Reilly.
1990; Chatman, 1989; Meir & Hasson, 1982; Moreland, 1985
O'Reilly, 1977; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986; O'Reilly at al.. 1991
schneider, 1987; Weiss & Adler, 1984). Also, the day-to-day tOI
57
management's decisions and actions should be congruent to the
espoused values and policies of the organisation (Crabb t 1991;
;Heap, 1991). And, of course, the pre-eminent factor that
affects preservation of culture is the "socialisation" process
existing in the organisation (Schein, 1985, 1990). The most
critical phase of socialisation is at the time of entry of new
members into the organisation. Those members who fail to learn
the pivotal role behaviours within the organisation, run the risk
of becoming cultural misfits. They may either Quit the
organisation, which means wasteful investment costs, or stay on
as non-conformists, which may be detrimental to the progress of
the organisation.
"Culture change" becomes a necessity for an organisation~ as
every organisation encounters times of transition and/or crises
throughout its existence. The organisation must either adapt tp
changed environment or face extinction. Although no cookbook
recipes exist, once an organisation's culture is defined, and its
cu1tural attributes are analysed to determine which should be
preserved, and which should be changed, actions can be taken.
Corporate leaders must identify key people within the
organisation, who will serve as agents of culture change. They
must, in addition, create meaningful, and relevant symbols of
culture change - rituals, stories, metaphors, slogans, and other
symbolic events. For example, they may redefine the corporate
history by publicising old time exemDlar stories involving
stand-out heroes of the organisation. Rewarding of employees who
58
adhered to the new ways, may be done 1n a public celebration of
the organisation.
However, when we talk of culture change, one caveat is ;n
order. organisations attempting to change their cultu.re must be
careful not to abandon their "cultural roots", and blindly copy
the so-called successful or excellent organisations. Before
changing the well-entrenched culture, the organisations should
ask themselves two soul-searching questions: (1) what do we have
to produce by way of results? (2) Where within our own system do
we do this already? The warning message in these questions is,
that organisations must use cultures, and not lose them
indiscriminately (Schein, 1990).
I.I:lE ItW1AM SCENE
The concept of organisational culture fascinated the
academic, and corporate sectors in India during the late 1980s,
and still it does fascinate. Also, the examples of Japanese
successes have sustained the interest in culture studies, and
implementation of programmes to develop appropriate
organisational cultures. Organisations such as Maruti Udyog,
Sundaram Clayton, Modi Xerox, Petrofils, Proctor & Gamble, Steel
Authority of India Limited (SAIL), and Steel Tubes India (STI)
have paid increased attention to the development of a culture in
consonance with the Indian cultural ethos.
59
The superior-subordinate relationships 1n the Indian
cultural Milieu have reached the proportions of the "karta" image
(Singh & Bhandarkar, 1988), and "Sneh-Shrada" reciprocity (Sinha,
1990) . The "karta" image is characterised by the nurturing,
caring, dependable, sacrificing, yet demanding. authoritative and
strict dimensions of the "father-figure" which the
individuals have learnt to value and look for in
Indian
1 ; fe.
Chattopadhyay (1978) and Sinha (1980, 1990) observe that managers
in Indian business organisat;ons are likely to function
effectively in terms of subordinate control, if they emulate the
traits of the "karta". It is reported that Russ; Mody
successfully adopted the "karta" style of leadership in people
management at TISCO. Employees were used to go;ng to him for
financial or emotional support, and in return, they seemed to
have shown him loyalty (Sanghvi, 1991).
There are common laments among corporate leaders that Indian
employees have deeply absorbed the "chalta ha;" or "soft" work
culture, in which the value of time, target consciousness, and
sincerity in work are accorded low priority. Such a decadent
cultural element is seen as bringing about stultified efficiency
and low productivity in Indian organisations. Different
corporate leaders have adopted various strategies to dea1 with
this problem 1n their organisations. A few examples would
suffice to highlight the dlfferen~ strategies:
60
1. BHEL was severely criticised for its failure to honour
commitments. When Shri Kr;shnamurthy was appointed Chairman
of BHEL, he adopted the strategy of centralised policy
formulation, and decentralised execution and administration.
such a resilence and ;nnovat;veness brought about a cultural
turnaround in BHEl (Khandwalla, 1992).
2. Crompton Greaves wanted to implement value-added work
culture, and total employee commitment, in the foot-steps of
the Japanese management practices. But, the employees at
the Worli plant resisted the move. The management, then,
turned its focus on the improvement of working conditions at
the plant. Each month, it concentrated on one activity:
Quality of worklife, safety and welfare, quality circles,
value engineering, materials management and so on. And the
employees seemed to have gradually absorbed a new culture
"Institutionalisation of Improvement Management"
(Thyagarajan, 1992).
3. It had been reported that at Godrej Soaps L;mited the
"kaizen" culture had taken roots. This culture seemed to
have energised employees to come up with novel methods to
solve power problems. For instance, a worker at Godrej had
suggested that having a suitable stream line for flushing
soap in the line inside the atmozier chamber, just after the
gear pump would lead to energy conservation (Thyagarajan,
1992).
61
4. The Birla philosophy ;s said to be allowing each company
whether it be in cement, edible oils, industrial and
automotive batteries, textiles, chemicals or engineering
total independence with respect to its operations. Even
within each company, divisions operate on a reasonably
autonomous basis. This sort of autonomy-driven culture
seems to have added to the efficiency of each company
(Gupta, 1992).
Indian business organisations are also seeking to build up a
strong organisational culture through rituals and celebrations.
Petrofils, by way of symbolising employees' contribution,
celebrates record-breaking performances. For example, the
company set a new record ;n sales in 1986, with a profit of 36
crores on an investment of 67 crores. Every employee was given a
mixer-grinder
1988) • The
as gift, during the company celebration
Malaya1a Manorama Group had initiated a
(Silvera,
ritual of
honouring its senior employees, by sending them with their sp~ses
on a Bharat darshan, and the company paid the tour bill (Pareek,
1991). In Tamil Nadu, many industrial organisations celebrate
Ayudha Pooja on a grand scale, and during the celebration, they
give sweet packets along with coconut, betel leaves and holy ash
- symbols of good fortune - to all employees.
We have cited a few examples to illustrate various attempts
of industrial organisations in India, to bring about an
organisational culture that would lead to industrial prosperity.
However, we may have to look at these attemp~s with a fair
62
measure of scepticism. All such attempts may turn out to be
superficial manifestations 1n the eyes of the employees. unless
the employees perceive the prevalent organisational practices as
fair and genuine, the repeated attempts of top management people
to bring about a cultural turnaround may not materialise.
In sum, the concept of organisational culture draws our
attention to shared assumptions, values, meanings. and culture
creations (artifacts) among organisation members. It emphasizes
the importance of "symbolism" for the members of rituals,
myths, stories, legends, and semiotics - and the significance of
interpretation of events, ideas, and experiences, as perceived by
the members. And the same culture concept lends itself to be
depicted as a "variable" impacting many organisational outcomes
such as employee work performance, job satisfaction, and
commitment. This facet of organisational culture is very
important, as it allows management researchers and consultants to
identify relevant cultural dimensions through psychometric
procedures. Consequently, it becomes possible for managers and
management consultants to diagnose organisational culture through
standardized survey procedures, and effect
changes that bring about the survival,
appropriate culture
and growth of
organisations. No surprise, then, that organisational culture
has been increasingly thought of as a viable solution for many
complex problems that beset organisations.
53
fMpLOYEE COMMITMENT
One approach that organisation theorists have frequently
employed to understand employees' behaviour in their
organisations is to study "employee commitment h (organisational
commitment). Definitions of commitment have varied in the extent
to which theorists emphasize the observations relevant to
"participation" or "production" (March & simon, 1958: 83). The
considerations toward decisions to participate in an organisation
are based on the notion of "exchange" between employees and their
organisation. And the considerations toward decisions to produce
are described by the employees' identification with the goals and
values of their organisation.
DEFINITIO~ Qf COMMITMENT
Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972: 556) adopting
notion, defined commitment as "a result of
organisational transactions, and alterations in
investments over time I' • Whereas, focusi 09 on
values", Hall, Schneider and Nygren (1970:
the exchange
individual
side
the
176)
bets or
.... shared
defined
commitment as "the process by which the goals of the organisation
and those of the individual become increasingly integrated or
cong ruent" .
The most widely accepted and used definition of employee
commitment in current research is that of Porter, Steers, Mowday,
and Boulian (1974: 604) who stated that commitment is "the
64
relative strength of an individual's identification and
involvement in a particular organisation~. They described
commitment by three psychological factors: (1) a strong belief in
and acceptance of the organisation's goals and values; (2) a
willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the
organisation; and (3) a strong desire to maintain membership in
the organisation.
While defining in this fashion, Porter et al., (1914)
explained employee commitment as a factor beyond mere loyalty to
an organisation. Commitment involves an active relationship with
the organisation to such an extent that employees are willing to
give something of themselves by way of contribution to the well-
being
only
of their organisation. This implies that commitment not
includes employees' beliefs 'and opinions but, in addition,
their willing actions toward promoting organisational health.
Again, as an attitude, commitment distinctly differs from
the concept of job satisfaction. commitment reflects a general
affective response to the organisation as a whole. On the other
hand. job satisfaction reflects "a pleasurable or positive
emotional state resulting from the appraisal of' one's job or job
experience" (Locke, 1976: 1300). Further, comitment is seen as
being more stable over time than job satisfaction. Day-to-day
events in the workplace may affect an employee's level of job
satisfaction,
employee to
but such events are not expected to cause an
seriously re-evaluate his/her attachment to the
65
overall organisation. Commitment attitudes develop slowly but
consistently over time, whereas job satisfaction attitudes are
viewed as immediate reactions to specific and tangible aspects of
the work environment such as "work, pay, promotion opportunities,
superV1Slon and co-workers" (Smith et al., 1969; Porter et al.,
1974).
COMMITMENT TYPOLOGIES
Etzioni (1961) identified three types of
organisational/employee commitment: calculative, moral and
alienative. The last type of commitment does not need treatment
in this dissertation, as "alienat;ve" commitment arises owing to
coercive control and/or entrapment, resulting in continued
membership
based on
represents
in the organ; sat ion. nCa 1 cul at ive commi tment" 1 S
the notion of exchange; while "moral commitment"
a positive and heightened orientation towards an
organisation, based on the internalisation of the organisation's
values and norms. It is expected to be relatively independent of
inducement levels (Kelman, 1961).
Stevens, Beyer and Trice (1978) subsumed different
conceptions of employee commitment in two categories exchange
approaches, and psychological approaches. "Exchange approaches"
to commitment are the outcomes of inducement or contribution
transaction between the organisation and the employee. In
contrast, "psychological approaches" to commitment attach the
identity of the employee to the organisation.
66
combined
models.
Weiner (1982) proposed a "mot.ivational" model that
essential features of the exchange, and psychological
Rusbult and Farrell (1983) articulated their "investment" moael
of employee commitment. The stressed that commitment would be a
function of job rewards, job costs, investment Slze, and job
altenatives.
Although several conceptualisations of employee commitment
have appeared in organisation literature, they can be categorised
under anyone of the following three typologies affective
attachment, perceived costs, and obligation (Meyer & Allen,
1987 ).
AFFECTIVE ATTACHMEHI
The psychological approach describes commitment as a more
active and positive orientation towards the organisation. This
Vlew was held by Kanter (1968: 507) who spoke of "cohesion
commitment" as "the attachment of an
affectivity and emotion to the group".
individual's fund of
She 1 don ( 1971 : 143)
conceptualised commitment as "an attitude or an orientation
toward the organisation which links or attaches the identity of
the person to the organisation". Buchanan (1974) viewed
commitment as a three-component orientation compriSing
identification with the goals and values of the organisation,
high involvement in work activities, and a loyal attachment to
the organisation. The affective attachment approach was best
67
represented by porter and his colleagues (Porter et a1., 1974;
Porter et al., 1976; Mowday et a1., 1979) who defined commitment
in terms of internalisation of the organisation's values,
wi 11.; ngness to put in strong effort towards helping the
organisation achieve its goals, and a strong desire to keep
membership in the organisation. A Question emerges at this
juncture: Are employees affectively committed to their
organisation or to some superior in the organisation? In the
Indian culture, wherein employees seem to look up to their
superiors as -kartas', affective commitment is likely to start
with personal loyalty to some superior. Gradually, the superior
may have to he1p the employees grow out of personal loyalty, and
transform personal loyalty into organisational commitment.
Most empirical studies that have shown employee commitment
to be related to ongoing behavioural outcomes have used Porter's
(1974) measure of commitment, which consists of 15 - item .scale.
This index has a substantial body of reliability and validity
documentation (Cook & wall, 1980; Mowday et al., 1979).
PERCEIVED CQSTS
The perceived costs or exchange-based approach propounded by
March & Simon (1958), and exemplified by Becker's (1960) side-bet
theory has guided many research studies. The side-bets refer to
the accumulation of investments valued by individuals. such as
money, time, and effort that contribute to the cost of Quitting
the organisation. Kanter (196B: 504) defined "cognitive-
continuance commitment"
"profit associated with
associated with leaving".
68
as that which occurs when there is a
continued participation and a cost
Stebbins (1970: 527) viewed exchange
commitment as "the awareness of the impossibility of choosing a
different social identity" because of the immense "penalties in
making the switch".
Gould (1979) has incorporated "eQuity theory" (Adams, 1965)
into the concept of commitment, built upon the exchange theory
foundation of side-bets, inducement contribution, and calculative
commitment. Hrebriniak and A lutto (1972) I and Rusbult and
Farrell (1983) have averred that commitment is an exchange and
accrual phenomenon, dependent on the empoyees' perception of the
ratio of inducements to investments, and the accumulation of
side-bets or investments 1n the employing organisation.
In particular, Rusbult and Farrell (1983) have found that
employee commitment enhances with increases in job rewards,
decreases in job costs, 1ncreases In investment size, and
decreases ln alternatives. This finding can be couched 1n a
mathematical equation:
commitment = (Rewards - costs) + (Investment Alternatives).
"Rewards" consist of high pay. autonomy, job variety, due
recognition, and praise. "costs" are associated with a given
job: unexpected variations in work load, frequent deadlines,
inadequate resources and unfair promotion practices.
"Investments" comprise resources intrinsic to the job such as
69
yeara of service, training opportunities, and resources extrinsic
but inextricably connected to the job such as transport faciities
and friends at workplace. "Alternatives" refer to the
availability of other job opportunities.
Perceived cost-induced commitment has been assessed using a
measure developed by Ritzer and Trice (1969), and modified by
Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972). The latter measurement scale
reQuires respondents to indicate the likelihood that they will
leave their organisation, if they are given various inducements
elsewhere, such as lncreases in pay, status, freedom, and
promotion opportunity.
Whatever be t~e usefulness of measurlng commitment through
the exchange paradigm, we do not;ee two limitations in this
approach from the standpoint of predicting ongoing behaviour in
organisations. To the extent that side-bets are seen as the
principal determinants of levels of employee commitment, we are
able to measure commitment that may reflect the degree to which
employees are hesitant to leave their organisation for employment
elsewhere. But, little do we measure the ongoing behavioural
predispositions within the given employment relationship. A
second limitation of exchange-based measure of commitment springs
from the lack of empirical evidence that they are, in fact,
associated with particular ongoing behavioural outcomes within
the organisation (Morris & Sherman, 1981).
70
OBLIGATION
A less frequently used but a relevant approach all the same,
is to view employee commitment as a belief about one's
responsibility to the organisation. Wiener (1982: 421) defines
commitment as the "totality of internalised normative pressures
to act in a way that meets organisational goals and interests".
The stronger the commitment, the stronger;s the individual's
predisposition to be guided by his/her actions by such
internalised standards, rather than by a consideration of the
consequences of those actions. Thus, committed employees are
likely to exhibit certain behaviours not because they have
meticulously calculated th~ personal benefits attached to their
actions, but because they genuinely believe that it is the right
and moral obligation to do so.
Wiener conceptualised his framework, by leaning on
Fishbein's (1967) "behavioural intentions" model. According to
Fishbein model, an individual's behaviour is a function of the
intention to perform that behaviour. The individual's
behavioural intention is determined by two factors: (1) the
individual's attitude toward performing the act, and (2) the ,
individual's subjective norm. The first component is a function
of the individual's beliefs concerning the consequences of the
act, and their value to him/her. The second component, is a
function of the individual's beli.fs about what important
71
referents think he/she should do, weighted by his/her motivation
to comply with the referents.
Consistent with the Fishbein model, normative commitment,
and instrumental (expectancy/valency models) motivation may bring
about almost the same types of organisation - related behaviours
such as effort, attachment and attendance. They differ, however,
in the characteristics or pattern of such behaviours. The
internalised normative pressures to meet the wishes and interests
of the organisation imply that the behavioural pattern of an
employee should reflect the following characteristics: (1) It
should reflect "personal sacrifice" undertaken for the sake of
the organisation; (2) It should show "persistence", irrespective
of reinforcements and punishments that are likely to reach an
employee and (3) It should indicate a personal "pre-occupation~
with the organisation (Wiener & Gechman, 1977). That "personal
norms" are important contributors to behaviour, has been
validated by many researchers (Prestholdt et al., 1987; Schwartz
& Tessler, '912).
The only measure of the .internalised commitment in the
organisation literature is the three-item sca1e used by Wiener
and Vardi (1980: 86). Respondents were asked the extent to which
they felt "a person should be loyal to his organisation, should
make sacrifices on its behalf, and should not criticise it".
72
CQMMITMENT MODELS
Earlier, we have seen that Ettion; (1961) proposed three
approaches to the study of employee commitment calculative,
moral and alienative. of these, "alienative U approach cannot be
viewed as be; ng cha r acter i sed by an .1 authent i c U commi trnent .
"Authentic" commitment would mean emotional attachment of an
employee towards his/her organisation, and the employee's desire
to stay and work for the organisation. However, it would be 1n
the fitness of things to remind ourselves that Etzioni presented
the three approaches of employee commitment as "types" of
attitudinal commitment, and not as clear-cut components of a
mode 1.
Whereas, Meyer and Allen (1987) conceptualised employee
commitment as a three - component model, namely, "affective",
"continuance" and "normative" commitment. They viewed these
three components as "distinguishable" components, rather than
types of attitudinal commitment. This means that employees can
experience each of these psychological states to varying degrees.
For example. some employees may feel both a strong need, and a
strong obligation to stay within the organisation. but may have
no desire to stay on. Some others may feel neither a strong need
nor a strong .obligation to stay within the organisation. but may
have a strong desire to remain in the organisation. Thus. the
net sum of an employee's commitment to the organisation would
reflect each of the three separable psychological states.
73
The "affective" component of employee commitment, proposed
by the Meyer and Allen model, refers to employees~ emotional
attachment to. identification with, and involvement in the
org~nisation. The "continuance" component refers to commitment
based on the costs that employees associate with Quitting the
organisation. Finally, the "normative" component refers to
employees~ feelings of obligation to remain with the
organisation.
Allen and Meyer (1990) collected data from full-time, non
un;onised employees in three organisations - two manufacturing
firms, and a university. Out of 500 questionnaires, only 256
(52 per cent) were completed and returned. A pool of 51 items
were generated, and to them were added the 15 item organisational
Commitment Questionnaire {OCQ} of Mowday, Steers and Porter
(1979). Items selected finally for each component were eight
apiece. The reliability (Cronbach alpha) for each scale was
as follows: Affective commitment = .87; Contiunance
= .75; and Normative commitment = .79. When the
comprising the three scales were subjected to a factor
(principal factor method), three factors accounting
commitment
24 items
analysis
for 58.8,
25.8 and 15.4 per cent of the total variance, respectively, were
extracted. The results of the study sU9gested that each of the
psychological states of commitment can be reliably measured. The
generalisability of the findings was also validated in another
study conducted by the same authors.
74
Meyer and Allen's (1987) model of employee commitment has
been given importance in commitment literature, as it 16 the
foremost model to attempt a comprehensive understanding of
commitment. Dunham, Grube and Castaneda (1994) report a series
of 9 studies (N = 2784) in which they have evaluated the
construct definition, measurement, and validation of employee
commitment. Results support the existence of three major
commitment dimensions - affective, continuance and normative.
ANTECEDENTS Qf COMMITMENI
steers (1977) subsumed the antecedents of employee
commitment into three major categories (1) personal
characteristics; (2) job characteristics; and (3) work
experiences. A subse~uent study of Morris and Steers (1980)
added a fourth category - structural characteristics.
1. PERSONAL CHARACTERIS!lQ§:
personal characteristics related to employee commitment
include age, sex, education, and organisational tenure. As "age"
and .. tenure" of emp 1 oyees ; ncrease in the organ; sat ion,
employees' opportunities for alternative employment elsewhere
diminish, with the result that the employees may become more
attached to their organisation. There is a high probability for
negative commitment at this phase (Alutto et al., 1973; Ali &
Ahmed, 1981; Farrell & Rusbult, 1981; Sheldon, 1971).
"Education" is found to be inversely related to commitment (Angle
75
& Perry, 1981; Morris & Sherman, 1981; Morris & Steers, 1980;
;steers, 1977). The inverse relationship ;s attributed to the
difficulty faced by organisations in providing sufficient rewards
(as perceived by employees) to equalise the exchange, when
employees have higher levels of education. And highly educated
employees can be more clear about their long-range interests.
with the result that they are ready to Quit the organisation for
better prospects elsewhere. Further, these employees are likely
to be less committed to their organisation, but more committed to
their profession. Mottaz (1988) has come up with a curious
finding as regards the effect of education on commitment. When
demographic variables such as sex, marital status, job tenure,
and family income are in the analysis. the effect of education on
commitment is pOsitive (8 = .125). But, when "work values" such
as task autonomy, task significance, task involvement,
supervisory assistance, co-worker assistance, working conditions,
salary, promotional opportunity and fringe benefits are entered,
the effect becomes negative (B = -.136). One probable explanaton
of this finding can be, that education may have a positive effect
on commitment by increasing the availability of both intrinsic
and extrinsic rewards, but a negative effect when rewards are
held constant (Mottaz, 1986).
women as a group are found to be more committed than men
(Gould, 1975; Grusky, 1966: Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972). Grusky
(1966) explains that women have to overcome more barriers to
76
attain tneir position or status in organisations, and hence they
cherish organisational membership.
Non-demographic individual difference variables that
influence commitment include "need for achievement" (Steers,
1977), "sense of competence (Mo r r is & She rman J 1981), /I protestant
work ethic" (Blau, '987; Buchanan, 1974; Kidron, 1978), and
.. profess ; anal ism" (Bartol J 1979).
2. JQ§ CHARACTERISTICS:
Job characteristics that have influenced employee commitment
are ranged from broad measures of "job scope" or Pmotivating
potential" (Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Buchanan, 1914; Fukami &
Larson, 1984: Hall et al., 1910) to specifie measures such as
"task identity", "role clarity", "task, challenge". "feedback",
"responsibility~ and "autonomy" (Sartol, 1979; Bhagat & Chassie,
1981; Fried & Ferris, 1981; Koch & Steers, 1978; Laher at a1.,
1985; Spector, 1985; Steers, 1977). Further, "role conflict h and
"ro 1 e over load" are found inverse 1 y re 1 ated to comm; tment.
whereas "role ambiguity" has mixed results (Morris & Koch, 1919;
Morris & Sherman, 1978; Stevens et al., 1978).
3. ~ EXPERIENCE:
Employee commitment 1S greatly impacted by the nature and
Quality of employees' work experiences during their tenure in
their organisation. Commitment;s largely a function of work
71
experiences characterised by: (a) group attitudes toward the
organisation; (b) the extent to which employees' expectations are
met by the realities of the job; (e) feelings of personal
importance to the organisation based upon the
organisation over time; and (d) the Gxtent
actions of
to which
the
the
organisation 1$ seen as being dependable in carrying out its
commitments to employees (Buchanan, 1974; Steers, 1977).
"Social involvement" (Buchanan, 1974; Rotondi, 1975),
"perceived pay equity" (Rhodes & Steers, 1981), "fair
organisational practices" (Gaertner & Nollen, 1989), and
"leadership/supervisory skills" (Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Fukami
& Larson, 1984; Howell & Dorfman, 1981: Jermies & Berker, 1979;
Morris & steers, 1980; Nathan et al., 1991; Padak; & Gandhi,
1981; Parasuraman & Alutto, 1984; Stone & Porter, 1975; Steers &
Spencer, 1977; Welsch & Lavan~ 1981) have great effect on
commitment.
4. STRUCTURAL CHABACATERISTICS:
Morris and Steers (1980) have found three structural
character1stics having effect on employee commitment
"formalisation", "functional dependence" (on the work of other
emp 1 oyees) , and "decentra 1 ; sat; on" . "Organi sat; ona 1 s i zen
(Stevens et al., 1978), and "centralisation~ (Bateman & Strasser,
1984) also are related to commitment.
Pierce and Dunham (1987) examined the influences of
variables from each of the four broad categories of antecedents
78
and hospital employees' propensity toward employee commitment.
They found that the four categories of antecedents significantly
predicted commitment.
BEHAYIOURAl CONSEQUENCES QE COMMITMENT
1. JURNOVEB:
A high degree of employe commitment may override employees'
job dissatisfaction, and make them decide to remain in the
organisation (Mowday at al., '982). Further, commitment to foci
other than an employing organisation, specifically to top
management, supervisors, and workgroups is found to be negatively
rel~ted to intent to quit; Identification and internalisation,
which are, in fact, affective commltment and normative commitMent
respectively, are found to be negatively related to intent to
quit (Secker, 1992).
However, relationship between commitment and turnover may
vary across career stages: early, mid and late career life. In
the early career 8tage~ levels of employee commitment will vary,
in accordance with the employees' opportunities, and the
availability of alternatives that are attractive (Meyer et al.,
1984; Rusbult & Farrell, 1983). The earliest period of
membership is, therefore~ a cri~;cal period for turnover. The
levels of commitment developed during the early employment pe~iod
appears to remain stable. Over time, employees engage in various
79
acts that bind them to the organisation, and lead them to
commitment. In the late career stage, not only do psychological
and behavioural linkages operate to sustain commitment, but
structural variables such as investments, lack of opportunity or
alternative elsewhere may combine to cement the employees'
attachment to the organisation (Mowday et al., 1982; Reichers,
1986; Werbe1 & Gould, 1984). Another study shows that
(1) eventual leavers had lower level of commitment than stayers,
even on the first day of employment; (2) the commitment of
eventual leavers declined over time; and (3) the closer to the
point of Quitting, the greater was the difference in commitment
of leavers versus stayers (Porter et a1., 1974).
2. AijfaENCES:
It ;s expected that employees who are highly committed will
behave in ways that are consistent with their attitudes, and
facilitative of the attainment of the organisational goal.
Farrel and stamm (1988) have found that strong determinants of
absenteeism are "task environment" variables such as "task
significance", "task variety", and "feedback". Negative
relationships between commitment and absenteeism have been found
to be higher in the mid and late career stages. Unless employees
are able to perceive the task s;gnificance, task variety and
appropriate feedback, absences from work will be on the increase.
80
3. ~RFORMANCE:
Employee commitment has been hypothesized to be relataed to
performance under the assumption that committed employees will
expend greater effort on the job. However, no consistent results
have emerged to ascertain the relationship between commitment and
work performance. Wherever it has been ascertained, the
relationship is found to be weak (Mowday et al., 1982; Steers,
1977). So, it is possible that organisations may end up with a
more stable but less productive or creative work force.
Theories of motivation suggest that job performance is a
function of three variables: motivation level, ability, and role
clarity. And the existing theories of employee commitment appear
to be largely concerned with the motivation levels only. Hence,
committed employees will tend to perform well to the extent that:
( , ) organisations stress high achievement orientations
consistently with good employee relations; (2) passive ,
commitment, often recognised as "loyalty", is translated into
acative commitment: and (3) employees acquire the requisite
skills and abilities t and fully understand and accept
organisational role.
ornstein and Isabella (1990) have found that commitment has
only a minimal effect on employees' work performance in the early
career stage, as the employees take time to familiarise
themselves with the assigned jobs. When the employees progress
to the mid and late career stages t their general attitude toward
81
the organisation will affect work performance more strongly than
in the early stage.
The conceptualisation of employee commitment has gained
popularity ;n organisation literature, and in business or
industrial circles) owing to the link between commitment~ and
prosocial organisational behaviour, and withdrawal phenomena.
The logic is very clear. What employees do on the job is more
important than whether they remain in the organisation or not.
Dalton, Krackhardt and Porter (1981) have acknowledged this by
making a distinction between functional and dysfunctional
turnover. Research has not supported a significant correlation
of commitment to performance, and other prosocial behaviours in
organisations (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Randall, 1990; Becker,
1992).
However, it;s important to consider that the link between
commitment and on-the-job behaviour may vary as a function of the
strength of the three components of Meyer & Allen model (1987)
affective, continuance, and normative commitment. There;s
evidence for this. Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, and
Jackson (1989) have found that supervisors' ratings of the
overall job performance and the promotability of their
subordinates correlated positively with those subordinates'
affective commitment scores, and negatively with their
continuance commitment scores. Allen and Smith (1987) have found
82
a positive relationship between affective commitment and employee
innovativeness.
Allen & Meyer (1990) ovbserve that in future research,
may be possible to identify "commitment
differentiate employees who are likely to
profiles"
stay with
it
that
the
organisation, and contribute positively to its effectiveness,
from those who are likely to remain but contribute precious
little. If so, it should help organisational leaders to use the
results of research examining antecedents so as to better manage
the experiences of their employees to foster organisational
growth.
BATIONALE EQB ~ STUpY
An overview of the literature concerning organisational
culture and employee commitment, shows up four inadequacies in
research investigations:
1 . Most of the researches that have explored antecedents or
determinants of employee commitment have predominantly
focused on affective/psychological commitment (Buchanan,
1974; Cook & Wall, 1980; Dunham et al., 1994; Gaertner &
Nollen, 1989; Ogilvie, 1987; Porter et al., 1976; Sharma &
Chauhan, 1991). But, the overall fUnction of commitment
cannot be fully understood, if we do not use a
multidimensional perspective. The research examining the
combined role of the three dimensions of commitment
83
affective, continuance. and normative - as proposed by Allen
and Meyer (1990), will be of significant value.
2. The majority of researches on the antecedents of employee
commitment have selected only some of the characteristics of
the workplace (Bartol, 1979; Bateman & Strasser, 1984;
Fukami & Larson, 1984; Fried & Ferris, 1987: Pierce &
Dunham, 1987; Steers. 1979). A few studies have taken
"organisational climate" as antecedent (Ali & Ahmed, 1987;
Bhagat & Chassie, 1981; Padaki & Gandhi, 1981; Singh, 1988).
But no study, especially in Indian conditions, seems to have
considered "organisational culture" as antecedent of
commitment.
3. The few exceptions which have explored the relations of
organisational culture, its management practices, and its
norms to job performance of employees, and organisational
4.
effectiveness
1985; Wilkins
dimension of
(Denison, 1984; Gordon, 1985; Martin et
& Ouchi, 1983), have mostly ignored
commitment. Denision ('984) did take
a1.,
the
into
consideration the role of commitment; however. his research
focused on the impact of organisational culture on
organisational effectiveness and hence commitment was
treated as only one of the four variables. This is a big
gap or inadequacy in commitment research.
Again, a bulk of the research has attempted
organisational culture and/or commitment only
to study
from the
Viewpoint of executives. This is likely to result 1n
84
parochial or myopic outcomes. Rather, if we study the
relation of organisational culture to employee commitment by
inquiring employees at various hierarchical levels, we will
be able to understand the phenomena in a better way.
This research seriously considers the forementioned gaps or
inadeQuacies in empirical research regarding organisational
culture and employee commitment, and attempts to bridge the gaps
so as to bring out a better perspective of the relationship
between the two prominent organisational constructs.
IH& RESEARCH MODEL
There are no contrary opinions about the fact that an
organisation is being shaped continuously by a body of strong
forces that emanates from within. This internal dynamic has its
roots in the history of the organisation, and derives its force
from the shared assumptions and values of organisation members.
we call this internal dynamic "organisational culture".
Linking organisational practices with underlying shared
assumptions and values of organisation members is an important
step in the study of organisational culture and employee
commitment. The logic behind this linking is that an
organisation's culture is reflected in what is done, how it ;s
done, and who is involved in doing it. In other words, the
culture concerns decisions, actions, and communications both on
the functional and symbolic/interpretive levels.
85
Such an understanding of organisational culture leads us to
a general agreement that an organisation expresses itself clearly
through its cultural dimensions such as values, norms, teamwork,
reward structure and so on. These dimens10ns, e~pl;cated through
organisational practices are likely to convey a sense of purpose
and meaning to organisation members. Gradually, the members
absorb the cultural dynamics of the organisation, and this
absorption engenders and enhances the members' commitment to the
organisation and to its goals.
Three empirical studies merit our attention. Hofstede,
Neuijen, Ohayr, and Sanders (1990: 311), whi1e attempting to
quantitatively measure organisational culture, showed that
"shared perceptions of dai1y practices to be the core of an
organisation's culture». Further, they concluded that lIthe way
these cultures affect ordinary members 15 through shared
practices". The study of Hofstede and his associates is of vital
importance to empirical research: (,) It has pointed out that
concrete organisational policies and practlces are inextricably
tied with the core values and assumptions (beliefs) and the
system of shared meaning that surrounds them. (2) Psychometric
analysis can be relevantly employed to specify cultural
dimensions of an organisation. These two observations have both
theoretical and practical importance.
Denison (1984) made a comparative study of 34 organisations
to assess the impact of organisational cu1ture on organisational
effectiveness. He took a quantitative approach, and relied on a
86
standardized instrumentation based on climate dimensions. He
also took a qualitative approach, by examining 5 of the 34
organisations. in considerable detail through a series of case
studies that focused on the culture, management practices and
effectiveness of the organisations. His study showed that
organisational
effectiveness
relationship
effectiveness.
culture had a strong relationship with the
of the companles. The study also showed a strong
between employee involvement and organisational
Maehr (1987), in his study on personal investment
(commitment), found that commitment was strongly associated with
organisational culture. He found evidence that employees were
likely to be more personally invested in the organisation when
the company's values and beliefs were self-evident and obvious to
them. His study also concluded that organisational culture was a
"controllable force~ and hence, corporate leaders would be better
advised to create and manage culture 50 as to enhance employee
commitment.
These three studies have affirmed that one can legitimately
launch into a Quantitative study of organi~ational culture, and
that one can attempt to examine the relationship between
organisational culture, and employee commitment.
When we seek to study the antecedents or determinants of
employee commitment~ the three component model affective.
continuance and normative commitment - proposed by Meyer and
87
Allen (1987) serves as a comprehensive model. This model
provides valuable insights into employee-organisation link.
Other models that study employee commitment 1n terms of
psychological attachment or exchange notion or normative beliefs
are exclusivistic and parochial. The overall role of employee
commitment ;s best captured by the mu1ti-dimensional perspective
of Meyer and Allen (1987).
Different researchers have considered different sets of
dimensions in their quantitative study of organisational culture
(Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede et a1., 1990; Kilman, 1985; Maehr,
1986; Parida et al., 1990; Robbins, 1990).
The present research identifies 8 dimensions of
organisational culture: (1) Organisational philosophy, (2) Group
norms, (3) Teamwork, (4) Management support, (5) Organisation of
work, (6) Reward system, (7) Decision making, and (8) Conflict
management. By appraising an organisation on these 8 dimensions J
a composite picture of the organisation's culture is SOU9ht to be
formed.
The rationale for selecting these 8 dimensions for this
research deserves mention. The researcher has found that all
culture studies overwhelmingly acknowledge the significance of
understanding the core values of an organisation. These core
values stem from the shared assumptions of organisation members,
and are manifested through shared practices. They are labeled
"organisational philosophy" in this study. Culture is viewed as
a complex of norms extant within a given social organisation or
88
group. These norms are seen as shared responses to the basic
Questions that confront the organisation or group. Basically,
norms reflect a choice that must be made in organlalng individual
and group behaviour. In other words, norms represent an
unquestioned assumption about how thlngs are to happen in groups
or organisations. Hence, "group norms~ have been considered a
dimension of organisational culture in this study.
Hofstede (1980) has found upower distance" an important
dimension of culture in Indian organisations. Chattopadhyay
(1918), and singh and Bhandarkar (1988) have studied the overtly
"dependency" dimension of subordinates 1n Indian industrial
organisations. The present study takes up the "dependency"
dimension, but prefers to give an alternate label "teamwork" so
as to positively look into the extent of mutual cooperation, and
interdependency between superiors and subordinates, and among
peer group members in the industrial setting.
The remaining 5 dimensions are associated with "climate~
dimensions (Denision, 1984; Robbins, 1990), but they are in fact
surface maniestations of the underlying values and assumptions of
employees about their organisation's culture. The "practices"
that exist as climate manifestations can also be termed
"conventions", "customs", "habits", "mores", and "traditions"
(Hofstede et al., 1990: 311).
89
This study attempts to examine "employee commitment" by
using Meyer and Allen's (1987) three component commitment model -
(1) affective comitment, (2) continuance commitment, and
(3) normative commitment. This model offers a comprehensive
understanding of the link between the organisation and the
employees,
ORGANISATIONAL PHILOSOPHY RESEARCH MODEL
GROUP NORMS
TEAM WORK
ORGNISATJON OF WORK
REWARD SYSTEM
DECISION MAKING
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
ORGANISA'TIONAL CULTURE
-- ~ "'- ............... , ~ -- -..... ~ '-~ ~'-.......~~ DEPENDENT -- --. ':::::-__ ~~p_~_~_~ '_"-..a.-___ V,_"_R_' AIU E BACKGROUND _ ~ :a.\~~ ..-
~V._A_R~IA_B_L_E_S ____ ~l ____ ----~-----=::~~ EMPLOYEE MARITAL STATUS COMMITMENT EDUCATION
,",OB TENURE
MONTHLY INCOME
PRESENT POSITION
WORK EXPERIENCE
. NUMBER OF PROMOTIONS
AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT
CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT
NORMATIVE COMMITNENT
\.0 o
91
OBJECTIVES
The maln objective of the present research is to ascertain
the relationship between organisational culture and employee
commitment, among three strata of employees - ~orkers, clerica1
staff and executives - in an industrial organisation.
The specific objectives of the research are as follows:
1. To examine the variations in the perception of the employees
across the strata, regarding their organisational culture.
2. To examine the variations among the employees across the
strata, in their levels of commitment to the organisation.
3. To ascertain the relationship between organisational culture
and employee commitment, for the employees across the
strata.
4. To ascertain the relationship between background variables
and employee commitment for the employees across the strata.