Individual Identity and Organizational Culture - Coursework Example

Individual Identity and Organizational Culture There are several reasons for organizational change or the transformation of the organizational culture. It could be because of changing organizational objectives or a reform initiative necessitating change interventions. These measures are constantly being implemented because of the constant flux in the business landscape today (Berquist, 1993). Organizations are seeking to take advantage of opportunities, address emergent problems and pursue strategies to gain competitive advantage. In all these developments, the key variable that underpins success aside from a firm’s management and leadership would be the employees or the followers. Organizational Culture and the Individual Identities There are several definitions in the academic literature for organizational culture. The most comprehensive include Keyton’s (2011, pp.28) description, which states that it is a complex interplay of artifact, value and assumption in the communication and relationships of the organization’s members, apparent to those in or outside of it, permeating at all levels and functions. A simple but equally appropriate definition include the position that it is “the glue that holds together an organization through a shared pattern of meaning” or some form of “cohesion of values, myths, heroes, and symbols that has come to mean a great deal to the people who work there” (Inceoglu, 2002, pp.16). A successful organization is expected to have it. The concept is rooted on the socio-anthropological meaning of culture with its focus on the idea of dynamism and structure that coerce people to behave and act in certain ways. According to Schein (2010, pp. 3): Culture is constantly reenacted and created by our interactions with others and shaped by our own behavior. When we are influential in shaping the behavior and values of others, we think of that as “leadership” and are creating the conditions for new culture formation. Culture is believed to be rigid and stable at the same in the sense that it dictates our feelings, actions and perception through the experience in the process of socialization. There are the so-called social order, norms and rules to ensure that we behave in a particular manner or we get along or to ensure that we have some sort of meaning in everything that we do. As Schein argued, it is the foundation of society, particularly the order and rules that we follow (Schein, pp.3). It persists because each individual member contributes. The above variables all highlight the role of individual identities. This position relies on the idea that organizational culture serves as the framework in which the organization navigates its lifespan and operations by creating and maintaining collective and individual action (Keyton, pp.28). What this means is that an employee affects and is affected within this framework. He or she forms part of the workplace, which serves as a social unit. Here, individual perceptions and actions help create and maintain culture. To explain the relationship between organizational culture and individuals further, one could turn to the pursuit of positive firm performance and the imperative for integration especially after mergers or acquisition for insight. Organizational culture and firm performance Culture is expected to create innovation and competitive advantage, leading to positive firm performance. This area will further illuminate the role and importance of individual employees. Culture’s link to positive outcome, including a link to positive firm performance, could be depicted in a study conducted by Hall (1993). It involved a survey of more than 800 Chief Executive Officers based in the UK. The survey found that organizational culture is among the top four intangible sources that contribute to business success, just behind product reputation, employee know-how and company reputation. The reason for this is simple, as an intangible resource, organizational culture is dependent on people and they create the values that sustain performance. To demonstrate this, one could use the case of the Swiss company H-AG. H-AG, a company that manufactures electronic tools is considered to have one of the strongest organizational cultures. An examination of its profile would reveal that most of its employees are based overseas; driving the company’s thrust of internationalization. In the 1980s, the company saw its firm performance slowing especially in the area of innovation, which – for its part – affected competitive advantage. In an organizational evaluation that preceded structural reforms, H-AG noted that their culture allows that mistakes can be made and employees were encouraged to show initiative “but conflicts are often not discussed openly enough” and that “this tendency to avoid conflicts is strongly rooted in the Swiss culture” (De Witte & Van Muijen, 2000, pp.529). This was the identified problem for the flagging firm performance. In response, a set of change interventions were introduced within a framework of a company-wide programme. The target was the employees. The new strategy sought to enhance their identification with the company, improve internal communication and infuse values such as cooperation, fairness and initiative (De Witte & Van Muijen, 2000, pp. 530). Through seminars, trainings and new adopted policies, a new organizational culture emerged where employees were satisfied and effective contributors to the organizational objectives. For example, there is the case of new accounting and reporting systems that sought to make processes transparent as well as the higher level of autonomy given to employees in order to pursue targets. Incentives and rewards system were also set in place to direct the employees towards team orientation. The result was positive, transforming the company ability to respond to customer needs quickly with the amount and efficacy of cross-functional knowledge achieved afterwards. Case Study: M&A Mergers and acquisitions are also excellent contexts where the importance of organizational culture and the impact of individual identities can be highlighted. These phenomena involved the integration of two firms. Such integration entails great disruption because it involved merging two structures with different organizational culture. The period where the merged firm transitions from two independent entities into one is marked with a great slowdown in firm performance not just because of the process of restructuring but also because of power plays, turf wars, cultural differences, upheavals to worker’s activities and the resulting uncertainties to personnel (Cook, 1990; Whiteley , 1995). All these problems involve the individual workers. As change occurs, they have to acquire and understand new concepts for themselves in relation to the new organization, those that are appropriate and would fit in the new structure. Failure to do so would means a protracted integration process that keeps away the organizational focus from growing the organization. In instances where employees are dissatisfied, cynical and distrustful, achieving organizational change towards a desired culture is impeded. According to an empirical study by Kavanagh and Ashkanasy (2006, pp.23) integration is doomed to fail if employees are not treated with dignity and respect and that rewards and punishments are brought to the forefront not as only as tools for shaping individual behaviors but also as symbolic measures to guarantee the firms value of its people. A failed integration in the case M&A will cost an organization time, money and effort; and affecting its capability to operate effectively and to take advantage of the valuation momentum it usually receives in the market during and after merger. Communication is often seen as the solution to the integration dilemma (Kavanagh and Ashkanasy, pp.21). Again this highlights the role and importance of individual members of an organization. It allows the feeling of empowerment on the part of the employees because it facilitates decision-making at their level, as opposed to a system where the management is dictatorial. Communication prevents misunderstanding, uncertainties and conflicts. Kavanagh and Ashkanasy’s study concluded that communication affects the individuals’ perception and behavior, which are crucial in any change initiative. Earlier studies such as those done by O’Reilly (1989) and Thomas et al., (1990) support this with their findings that communication and dialogue are determinants of organizational culture as they engages individual members and make them receptive and proactive to changes. The management uses communication to articulate policies, mission, vision and rules, among others. Employees use it to interact with each other as well to understand and articulate functions and meanings. Many organizational failures and successes are attributed to communication or lack of it. The reason is that it is the primary tool by which both organizational leaders and the employees could effect change or achieve organizational, personal and professional goals. This is supported by the fact that organizational culture evolves over time. Herzog and Leker (2011, pp.61) maintained while it is a non-structural coordination instrument and not part of the formal organizational structure, it is affected and guides members’ perceptions of what is valued as positive or negative. Conclusion Individual identity is crucial in organizational culture because it is what drives its creation and persistence especially that culture is constantly evolving. Without it or the individual’s willingness to participate, managers would be powerless to effect change or achieve a desired organizational culture. The implication is critical for managers. In instances of change interventions, there is a requirement for a consultative strategy as opposed to a dictatorial approach to decision-making. Involving employees – through effective communication, recognition and respect – will ensure that any change intervention to the organizational culture will be successful. References Berquist, W. (1993).The post-modern organization: Mastering the art of irreversible change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cook, B., 1990.Merge and mutate: Multicampus academic libraries. Proceedings of a national seminar. Adelaide: South Australian College of Advanced Education Library. De Witte, K. and Van Muijen, J., 2000. Organizational Culture. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Hall, R., 1993. A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14(8), p. 607-618. Herzog, P. and Leker, J., 2011. Open and Closed Innovation: Different Cultures for Different Strategies. Berlin: Springer. Inceoglu, I., 2002. Organizational Culture, Team Climate, Workplace Bullying and Team Effectiveness: An Empirical Study on Their Relationship. Munchen: Herbert Utz Verlag. Kavanagh, M. and Ashkanasy, N., 2006. The Impact of Leadership and Change Management Strategy on Organizational Culture and Individual Acceptance of Change during a Merger. British Journal of Management, 17(S1), S81-S103. Keyton, J., 2011. Communication and Organizational Culture: A Key to Understanding Work Experiences. London: SAGE. O’Reilly, C., 1989. Corporations, culture, and commitment: Motivation and social control in organizations. California Management Review, 31, 9–25. Schein, E., 2010. Organizational Culture and Leadership. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & sons. Thomas, C., Ward, M., Chroba, C. and Kumiega, A., 1990. Measuring and interpreting organizational culture. Journal of Nursing Administration, 20(6), p.17-24. Whiteley, A. M., 1995. Managing change: A core values approach. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia. Read More