Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 36

CORPORATE CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS: IS THERE A SIMILAR PATTERN AROUND THE WORLD?

Daniel R. Denison International Institute for Management Development Chemin de Bellerive 23 Lausanne, Switzerland CH !""! #$!%2!%&!'%"3!!( denison)imd%*h S e!"anie Haalan# Denison Consulting !2! +% +ashington St, Suite 2"" ,nn ,r-or, MI $'!"$ #!%.3$%3"2%$""2( shaaland)denison*ulture%*om Pa$lo Goel%e& I/, Institute '.20 +est Higgins 1d% Chi*ago, IL &"&3! #!%..3%&20%2&3' pgoelzer)igain*%*om 3ovem-er 2""2 4he authors would li5e to than5 the International Institute for Management Development for their support of this resear*h% In addition, we are grateful for the involvement of all the managers and e6e*utives who parti*ipated in this stud7, as well as the helpful *omments of the 8ditors%

CORPORATE CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS: IS THERE A SIMILAR PATTERN AROUND THE WORLD? A'STRACT 4his *hapter presents two studies that e6amine the lin5 -etween *orporate *ulture and effe*tiveness in a variet7 of national settings% 4he first stud7 *ompares results from 23" organizations from 8urope, 3orth ,meri*a, and ,sia and reveals a surprising level of similarit7 of results a*ross these regions% 4he se*ond stud7 presents the results from targeted samples of 2!' supermar5ets from Canada, ,ustralia, Brazil, 9S,, :apan, :amai*a, and South ,fri*a% 4hese results show a *ommon pattern of results in five of the *ountries, and a divergent pattern of findings in :amai*a and :apan% 4he results suggest that it is ;uite possi-le to measure and *ompare the *ultural traits of organizations and their impa*t on -usiness performan*e a*ross nations and to find empiri*al support for a general framewor5% But how *an these findings -e re*on*iled with the vast literature on *ross *ultural differen*es< Dis*ussion of this point rea*hes an interesting *on*lusion= >erhaps there are a *ommon set of *ultural traits that *an -e used to understand the effe*tiveness of organizations, -ut that these *ommon traits are expressed ;uite differentl7 in different national settings%

?ne of the most diffi*ult *hallenges for the field of international management is the appli*ation of theories and models developed in one part of the world to understand phenomena that o**ur in another part of the world% Mu*h of the earl7 *on*ern a-out this issue *on*entrated on the relevan*e of ,meri*an theories a-road #Hofstede, !2'"a(% But more re*entl7, the same pro-lem has -een fa*ed -7 :apanese theories of ;ualit7 *ontrol #Imai, !2'&( or 5nowledge *reation #3ona5a @ 4a5eu*hi, !220(, or -7 8uropean theories of Aoint ventures or organizational design #Doz, !2'&B 4a7lor, !22!(% 4he goal of these efforts is to develop a useful general frame of referen*e, -ut also allow for the sensitivit7 to lo*al variation that is re;uired to have value when applied in *onte6t% Some of the -iggest *hallenges for developing theories with *ross *ultural relevan*e *ome in the area of organizational studies% Differen*es in -ehavior, wor5 values, and *ulture have -een studied -7 man7 resear*hers in man7 different *ountries% Several framewor5s have proven useful for understanding *ultural differen*es #4rompenaars, !22$B !22'B Hofstede, !2'"-( and have helped to esta-lish some relativel7 universal dimensions #eg% individualism( that *an -e useful in understanding differen*es a*ross national *ultures% But few resear*hers have attempted to understand the impa*ts that these -ehavioral differen*es have in different national *onte6ts% 4he logi* of *ross *ultural *omparison and validation has -een dis*ussed at length -7 several authors #,dlerB !22!B Bo7a*igiller @ ,dler, !22!(% But in most areas of the literature, the -iggest *hallenge is the almost total a-sen*e of *omparative data% ?ur literature review found ver7 few studies that offered a *omparison of the effe*tiveness of organizations a*ross several *ountries, that *ould -e lin5ed to differen*es in organizational *ulture, wor5 values, and -ehavior% 4he eviden*e that glo-al leaders need

in order to understand the impa*t of the organizational *ultures that the7 are *reating is usuall7 unavaila-le% 4his *hapter ta5es a -old, -ut ris57 approa*h to these *hallenges -7 e6amining the lin5 -etween organizational *ulture and effe*tiveness with two separate studies% 4he first stud7 e6amines this lin5 with data from 23" organizations from 8urope, 3orth ,meri*a, or ,sia, and reveals a surprising level of similarit7 in the results a*ross these regions% 4he se*ond stud7 e6amines the same topi* using data from 2!' organizations from seven *ountries= Canada, ,ustralia, Brazil, 9S,, :apan, :amai*a, @ South ,fri*a% 4his stud7 fo*uses on samples of supermar5ets that were part of an independent *ooperative operating in a similar fashion in ea*h *ountr7% 4he results show a high level of similarit7 in five of the *ountries, -ut a divergent pattern of findings from :apan and :amai*a% 4hese two studies *onstitute a preliminar7 and e6plorator7 step, rather than a *omprehensive stud7, -ut the7 do illustrate that a general theor7 a-out organizational *ulture *an -e applied in multiple *onte6ts, with results that highlight -oth similarities and differen*es a*ross regions% 4his *hapter -egins -7 des*ri-ing a model of organizational *ulture used in this stud7 and dis*usses some of the resear*h, *ondu*ted primaril7 in the 9S,, that has esta-lished a lin5 -etween *ulture and effe*tiveness% +e then pose several general resear*h ;uestions that guided our stud7% ,fter that, we des*ri-e our samples, the data *olle*tion and anal7sis strategies, and report our results for -oth of the studies% ?ur dis*ussion at the end of this *hapter summarizes our findings, refle*ts upon their impli*ations for *ross national resear*h, and then *onsiders some of the approa*hes that might fa*ilitate future resear*h in this area%

CORPORATE CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS , num-er of s*holars have developed integrative framewor5s of organizational *ulture #,llaire @ Cirsirotu, !2'$B Hat*h, !223B Martin, !222B ?tt, !2'2B S*hein, !2'0, !22"(, -ut little *onsensus e6ists with regard to a general theor7% Sin*e *ulture is a *omple6 phenomenon ranging from underl7ing -eliefs and assumptions to visi-le stru*tures and pra*ti*es, health7 s5epti*ism also e6ists as to whether organizational *ulture *an a*tuall7 -e DmeasuredE in a *omparative sense% 1esear*h on the lin5 -etween organizational *ulture and effe*tiveness is also limited -7 la*5 of agreement a-out the appropriate measures of effe*tiveness% Despite these *hallenges, -etter understanding of this topi* remains *riti*al to the development of organizational studies% 4he *urrent literature has its roots in the earl7 !2'"s% Deal and Fenned7 #!2'2( and >eters and +aterman #!2'2( fo*used attention on the strategi* importan*e of organizational *ulture and stimulated interest in the topi*% Fotter and Hes5ett #!222( e6panded on this -7 e6ploring the importan*e of adapta-ilit7 and the EfitE -etween an organization and its environment% 4his paper applies the *ulture framewor5 developed -7 Denison and his *olleagues #Denison, !2'$, !22", !22&B Denison @ Mishra !220, !22'B Denison @ 3eale, !22&B Denison, Cho, @ Goung, 2"""B Ce7 @ Denison, 2""2B Denison, Haaland, @ 3eale, 2""2(% 4his stream of resear*h has developed an e6pli*it model of organizational *ulture and effe*tiveness and a validated method of measurement% 9sing data from .&$ organizations, Denison and Mishra #!220( showed that the four different *ultural traits, mission, *onsisten*7, adapta-ilit7 and involvement, were related to different *riteria of effe*tiveness% 4his resear*h found that the traits of mission and *onsisten*7 were the -est predi*tors of profita-ilit7, the traits of involvement and

adapta-ilit7 were the -est predi*tors of innovation, and the traits of adapta-ilit7 and mission were the -est predi*tors of sales growth% Denison, Haaland, and 3eale #2""2( have lin5ed the elements of the model to differen*es in *ustomer satisfa*tion in two industries, and Ce7 and Denison #2""2( have presented an appli*ation of this model to foreign owned firms operating in 1ussia% 4he Denison model is -ased on four *ultural traits of effe*tive organizations that are des*ri-ed -elow with referen*es to the organizational studies literature% , more *omplete review lin5ing of these traits is provided -7 Denison and Mishra #!220(% In(ol(e)en % 8ffe*tive organizations empower their people, -uild their organizations around teams, and develop human *apa-ilit7 at all levels #Be*5er, !2&$B Lawler, !22&B Li5ert, !2&!(% 86e*utives, managers, and emplo7ees are *ommitted to their wor5 and feel that the7 own a pie*e of the organization% >eople at all levels feel that the7 have at least some input into de*isions that will affe*t their wor5 and that their wor5 is dire*tl7 *onne*ted to the goals of the organization #Fatzen-erg, !223B Spreitzer, !220(% Consis en*+. ?rganizations also tend to -e effe*tive -e*ause the7 have DstrongE *ultures that are highl7 *onsistent, well *oordinated, and well integrated #Davenport, !223B Saffold, !2''(% Behavior is rooted in a set of *ore values, and leaders and followers are s5illed at rea*hing agreement even when there are diverse points of view #Blo*5, !22!(% 4his t7pe of *onsisten*7 is a powerful sour*e of sta-ilit7 and internal integration that results from a *ommon mindset and a high degree of *onformit7 #Senge, !22"(% A#a! a,ili +. Ironi*all7, organizations that are well integrated are often the most diffi*ult ones to *hange #Fanter, !2'3(% Internal integration and e6ternal adaptation *an often -e at odds% ,dapta-le organizations are driven -7 their *ustomers, ta5e ris5s and learn from their mista5es, and have *apa-ilit7 and e6perien*e at *reating *hange #3adler, !22'B Senge, !22"(% 4he7 are *ontinuousl7 *hanging the s7stem so that the7 are improving the organizationsH *olle*tive a-ilities to provide value for their *ustomers #Stal5, !2''(% Mission. Su**essful organizations have a *lear sense of purpose and dire*tion that defines organizational goals and strategi* o-Ae*tives and e6presses a vision of how the organization will loo5 in the future #Mintz-erg, !2'.B !22$B ?hmae, !2'2B Hamel @ >rahalad, !22$(% +hen an organizationHs underl7ing mission *hanges, *hanges also o**ur in other aspe*ts of the organizationHs *ulture%

Li5e man7 *ontemporar7 models of leadership and organizational effe*tiveness, this model fo*uses on the *ontradi*tions that o**ur as organizations tr7 to a*hieve internal integration and e6ternal adaptation #Hat*h, !223B S*hein, !22"(% Cor e6ample, organizations that are mar5et fo*used and opportunisti* often have pro-lems with internal integration% ?n the other hand, organizations that are well integrated and over *ontrolled usuall7 have a hard time adapting to their environment% ?rganizations with a top down vision often find it diffi*ult to fo*us on the empowerment and the D-ottom upE d7nami*s needed to implement that vision% ,t the same time, organizations with strong parti*ipation often have diffi*ult7 esta-lishing dire*tion% 8ffe*tive organizations are those that are a-le to resolve these *ontradi*tions without rel7ing on simple trade offs% ,t the *ore of this model are underl7ing -eliefs and assumptions% 4hese DdeeperE levels of organizational *ulture are t7pi*all7 ;uite uni;ue to ea*h firm and are thus diffi*ult to measure and harder to generalize a-out% 4he7 are often -est understood from a ;ualitative perspe*tive% 3onetheless, the7 provide the foundation from whi*h -ehavior and a*tion spring #S*hein, !2'0(% 4he four traits of organizational *ulture presented -7 Denison @ Mishra #!220( have -een e6panded -7 Denison @ 3eale #!22&( and Denison, Cho, @ Goung #2"""( to in*lude three su- dimensions for ea*h trait for a total of !2 dimensions% 4his version of the model is presented in Cigure !% Iinsert Cigure ! a-out hereJ 4his model is often used as part of a diagnosti* pro*ess to profile spe*ifi* organizations in order to highlight the strengths and wea5nesses of their *ultures and to suggest wa7s in whi*h the organizationHs *ulture ma7 influen*e its effe*tiveness% 4he following e6ample helps illustrate the appli*ation of the model%

E-a)!le o. a Man$.a* $&in/ Co)!an+ in De*line 4his one hundred 7ear old manufa*turing *ompan7 has dominated its industr7 for man7 7ears, -ut it now fa*es a new t7pe of *ompetition that seriousl7 under*uts its produ*ts on pri*e% ,fter 7ears of su**ess, the -usiness has -een de*lining for the past five 7ears, and this past 7ear was the first time that the senior e6e*utives did not re*eive -onuses% 4he profile for the top management team of this organization is presented in Cigure 2% 4he data for this profile *ame from a surve7 of the top 0" people in the organization #Denison @ 3eale, !22&(% 8a*h inde6 is measured -7 five surve7 items, using a five point Li5ert s*ale, whi*h are averaged to produ*e an inde6 s*ore% 4he results are presented in terms of per*entile s*ores, indi*ating the per*entage of organizations in the -en*hmar5 data-ase of over ."" organizations #Haaland, 2""2( that s*ored lower than the organization -eing profiled% Iinsert Cigure 2 a-out hereJ 86amination of the *ulture profile of the management team reveals some 5e7 organizational pro-lems= ,ll of the measures of adapta-ilit7 are poor= learning and *reating *hange fall in the first ;uartile and *ustomer fo*us falls in the se*ond ;uartile% 4he onl7 strength in the area of mission is the operational fo*us on goals and o-Ae*tives, indi*ating that there is little long term vision or strateg7% Involvement is also low, showing strengths onl7 in the area of team orientation% 4he onl7 real strength that appears in this profile is in the area of *onsisten*7, with a top ;uartile s*ore in *ore values% +hen the top management team loo5ed at this profile, there was a long silen*e% D+hat does this profile tell 7ou a-out 7our organization<E the *onsultant as5ed% ,fter a
&

long silen*e, one of them replied, DGeah, weHre a team alright K -ut weHre going down together%E DGeah, thatHs us,E said another% 4he *ore values that held the group together were well suited to the organizationHs past, -ut not ne*essaril7 to their future% 4he management team also ;ui*5l7 lin5ed other aspe*ts of the profile to their situation K the emphasis on operational issues in the mission area refle*ted the >residentHs Dmail room to -oard roomE *areer path and the relative negle*t of longer term strategi* issues% 4he7 had *reated man7 DteamsE in the organization, -ut these teams had little impa*t on the wa7 that wor5 was a*tuall7 done% Loo5ing at this *ulture profile -rought together a num-er of different s7mptoms of the organizationHs de*line and lin5ed them to the -ehavior of the top management team% 4heir tenden*7 to ignore the *ustomer and the *ompetitive environment and reason from the Dinside outE K ta5ing the internal logi* of their organization as a given and wondering wh7 no one -rought their produ*ts an7more K also *ame through strongl7 in this anal7sis% Sin*e prior resear*h has shown that internall7 fo*used *ompanies have lower growth rates #Denison @ Mishra, !220B Denison, Haaland, @ 3eale, 2""2( the anal7sis also made them more aware that the7 were unli5el7 to solve some of their most -asi* pro-lems without a *hange in the -ehaviors and s5ills of their leaders% 4his surve7 has -een translated into !$ languages and has -een used in over 3" *ountries% , num-er of studies have e6amined the empiri*al lin5 -etween *ulture and effe*tiveness in 3orth ,meri*a, -ut ver7 few have attempted to e6amine this lin5 a*ross *ultures%

RESEARCH 0UESTIONS 4his stud7 e6plores one -asi* resear*h ;uestion= Are there cross-cultural differences in the relationship between organizational culture and effectiveness? 4his general resear*h ;uestion has man7 fa*ets, -ut in this paper, we fo*us on whether the pattern identified in the original resear*h in 3orth ,meri*a is similar to the pattern in other parts of the world, and whether there are distin*tive patterns that are uni;ue to spe*ifi* *ountries% 4his ;uestion also re;uires us to see if the *ulture data itself varies signifi*antl7 a*ross different regions of the world% , final ;uestion *on*erns the e6planation for the pattern of findings K whi*h fa*tors a**ount for the o-served differen*es or similarities< 4hese are the general resear*h ;uestions that guided the resear*h presented in this *hapter% METHODS 4he sample for the first stud7 reported in this *hapter was drawn from the ar*hive of organizations that have *ompleted the Denison Organizational Culture Survey over the past 0 7ears% 4he sample in*luded 3&,'2" individuals from 23" organizations drawn from different industries, and in*luding organizations of all sizes and stages of growth% In order to -e in*luded in this stud7, firms had to have at least 20 respondents from a representative population of emplo7ees in the firm% ?n average, the response rate for ea*h of these organizations was around &"L, from internal samples that varied from management teams to a *omplete *ensus of the organization% 4he maAorit7 of *ompanies in this sample were -ased in 3orth ,meri*a #n M !''(% 8ight of the *ompanies are -ased in ,sia and 3$ are from 8uropeNMiddle 8astN,fri*a #8M8,(% /lo-al *ompanies head;uartered in all regions t7pi*all7 have man7 respondents from outside of the region%

'

?f the *ompanies in this sample, $'L are listed in the Cor-es /lo-al !,""" List for 2""!% ,ppro6imatel7 2"L are from the *onsumer *7*li*al industr7 in*luding automotive sales and dealerships, home -uilding *ompanies, pu-lishing, and retail% ,nother !3L of the *ompanies in this sample *ome from the *onsumer staples industr7 in*luding restaurants, -everage manufa*turers, personal *are produ*ts, food, and to-a**o se*tors% Companies in the te*hnolog7 se*tor a**ount for !3L of the *ompanies in this sample, and the health *are se*tor, -asi* materials se*tor, and finan*ials se*tor ea*h a**ount for !!L of the sample, .L of the *ompanies *ome from the *apital goods se*tor, 3L ea*h from the utilities se*tor and the *ommuni*ations se*tor, and !L from the transportation se*tor% 4he remaining .L *ome from pu-li* or non profit organizations su*h as s*hools and government agen*ies% 4he sample for the se*ond stud7 reported in this *hapter in*luded 2,!&2 emplo7ees of independentl7 owned lo*al gro*er7 stores within seven *ountries% 4he num-er of parti*ipants and stores per *ountr7 are as follows= .$2 respondents from 22 stores in ,ustralia, 32& respondents were from !. stores in Brazil, !2. respondents from !3 stores in Canada, 3"& respondents from !' stores in :amai*a, 2& respondents from 2" stores in :apan, !'0 respondents from 2" stores in South ,fri*an, and 200 respondents from 3' stores in the 9nited States% ,ll respondents were full time emplo7ees with positions ranging from non management to management to store owner% In total, &,.3& surve7s were mailed out worldwide% 4otal response rate was $2L, -ut &0' of these surve7s *ould not -e used -e*ause the7 didnHt *omplete enough of the ;uestions or *ould not -e lin5ed -a*5 to the appropriate store% 4his resulted in a usa-le response rate of 32L%

4he stores parti*ipating in this stud7 are part of the International /ro*ers ,llian*e #I/,(% I/,, head;uartered in Chi*ago, IL, was founded in !22& and toda7 is a glo-al allian*e of more than $,""" li*ensed stores, with aggregate annual sales of O2! -illion% I/, *urrentl7 has operations in $" *ountries, *ommonwealths, and territories% 1etailers who *hoose to Aoin I/,, a voluntar7 non profit supermar5et networ5, a*;uire the size and strength to *ompete in the mar5etpla*e while maintaining their fle6i-ilit7 and autonom7 as small -usiness operators% I/, is owned -7 a set of wholesalers and retailers% 4he s7stem is made up of supermar5ets affiliated with I/, wholesalers @ distri-utors in ea*h *ountr7% 4here are two t7pes of affiliation that supermar5ets ma7 have with I/,= !( as a *orporate store, where the wholesaler is the owner of the store, or 2( through a DsponsorshipE, where the owner operator Aoins the I/, s7stem as a li*ensed store% Countries sele*ted to parti*ipate in this stud7 *ontained a minimum of !0 I/, affiliated stores% ,ll stores in Brazil and :amai*a were surve7ed -e*ause a smaller num-er of total stores e6ist in these two *ountries% In Canada, ,ustralia, and South ,fri*a supermar5ets were randoml7 sele*ted to parti*ipate in the stud7% In the 9nited States and :apan surve7s were sent dire*tl7 to a sample of high and low performing stores% 4he 9S sample was *hosen from a -alan*ed sample of stores with high and low ratings on an annual store assessment pro*essed -7 an independent third part7 inspe*tor% In :apan, an independent Dretail *ounselor,E identified high and low performing stores% Stores in :apan were surve7ed in :apanese, and stores in Brazil were surve7ed in >ortuguese% ,ll other stores were surve7ed in 8nglish% 4he surve7 items for this stud7 were ta5en from 4he Denison Organizational

!"

Culture Survey #Denison @ 3eale, !22&(% 4his surve7 measures twelve indi*es of organizational *ulture using five ;uestions ea*h for a total of &" ;uestions% ,ll items used a five point Li5ert s*ale with response *ategories ranging from strongl7 disagree to strongl7 agree% 4hese twelve indi*es are used to measure the four main *ultural traits defined -7 the model K involvement, *onsisten*7, adapta-ilit7, and mission% 4he surve7 also assesses emplo7eesH per*eptions of store performan*e on varia-les in*luding= sales growth, profita-ilit7, ;ualit7 of produ*ts and servi*es, emplo7ee satisfa*tion, and overall organizational performan*e% ,ll measures were aggregated to the organizational level for this anal7sis% , *omplete listing of all items used in this stud7 is in*luded in the ,ppendi6% RESULTS 4he results from -oth studies are reported in the same wa7% Cirst, we report the simple *orrelations -etween the !2 inde6es of organizational *ulture and the su-Ae*tive ratings of overall effe*tiveness% 3e6t, we report a series of one wa7 ,3?P,s to understand the signifi*ant differen*es in s*ores from ea*h of the *ountries and regions% S $#+ One 4he *orrelations -etween the !2 *ulture indi*es and overall su-Ae*tive performan*e for the three regions, 3orth ,meri*a, ,sia, and 8urope, Mid 8ast, ,fri*a #8M8,(, are presented in 4a-le !% ,ll *orrelations -etween overall performan*e and *ulture indi*es were signifi*ant for 3orth ,meri*a #mean r M %&"( and 8M8, #mean r M % &$(% 3one of the *orrelations were signifi*ant for the ,sian *ompanies, although the size of the *orrelations are almost identi*al #mean r M %&2(% Similar results were also found for four other su-Ae*tive indi*ators of performan*eB sales growth, profita-ilit7, ;ualit7, and

!!

emplo7ee satisfa*tion% 4hese results are not presented here, -ut are readil7 availa-le upon re;uest% Iinsert 4a-le ! a-out hereJ 4he one wa7 ,3?P,s assessing the signifi*an*e of mean differen*es on the *ulture s*ores -etween the three regions, 3orth ,meri*a, ,sia and 8urope Mid 8ast ,fri*a, are presented in 4a-le 2% Interestingl7 enough, the three regions did not differ signifi*antl7 from ea*h other on an7 of the four organizational *ulture traits measured in this stud7% Mean differen*es of less than %"' were noted for the involvement, *onsisten*7, adapta-ilit7, and mission traits a*ross all three geographi* regions% 4he largest differen*es were noted -etween 8M8, and ,sia on all four traits% ,sian *ompanies gave slightl7 lower ratings than did 8M8, *ompanies on the traits of involvement and *onsisten*7, -ut 8M8, organizations gave slightl7 lower ratings than ,sian organizations on adapta-ilit7 and mission% ?verall, however, these differen*es are ver7 small% Iinsert 4a-le 2 a-out hereJ S $#+ T1o 4he *orrelations -etween the !2 *ultural indi*es and the su-Ae*tive overall performan*e ratings for ea*h *ountr7 are presented in 4a-le 3% ,ll !2 *ulture indi*es were signifi*antl7 *orrelated with overall performan*e ratings in ,ustralia #mean r M %33(, the 9nited States #mean r M %&"(, and Brazil #mean r M %.2(% ,ll indi*es e6*ept organizational learning were signifi*antl7 *orrelated with overall performan*e ratings in South ,fri*a% In Canada, however, onl7 strategi* dire*tion and intent #r M %..( and goals

!2

and o-Ae*tives #r M %0'( were signifi*antl7 *orrelated with overall performan*e ratings% Cor :apanese stores, onl7 *ore values #r M %$.( and strategi* dire*tion and intent #r M %00( were signifi*antl7 *orrelated with overall performan*e% Cinall7, no signifi*ant *orrelations -etween *ulture indi*es and overall performan*e ratings emerged for :amai*a #mean r M %!2(% IInsert 4a-le 3 a-out hereJ 3e6t, one wa7 ,3?P,Hs were performed to assess mean differen*es in organizational *ulture ratings a*ross *ountries% 4a-le $ shows the results for the involvement trait% South ,fri*a signifi*antl7 differed onl7 from the 9nited States% ?n average, stores in the 9nited States rated involvement indi*es %223 points lower than did their South ,fri*an *ounterparts% Canadian stores signifi*antl7 differed from stores in the 9nited States and :apan% Canadians rated involvement indi*es %30 %$" s*ale points higher than :apan and the 9S,% :amai*an stores also signifi*antl7 differed from stores in the 9%S% and :apan% :amai*ans rated the involvement indi*es %$$ to %0" s*ale points higher than did stores in the 9%S% and :apan% ,ustralian stores signifi*antl7 differed from stores in the 9%S%, Brazil, and :apan, with mean differen*es resulting in ,ustralians rating involvement indi*es %0", %3", and %$& points higher than 9%S%, Brazilian, and :apanese stores, respe*tivel7% ,s previousl7, noted the 9%S% stores rated involvement indi*es signifi*antl7 lower than South ,fri*an, Canadian, :amai*an, and ,ustralian stores% :apanese stores rated involvement indi*es signifi*antl7 lower than Canadian, :amai*an, and ,ustralian stores% Brazilian stores onl7 differed signifi*antl7 from ,ustralian s*ores% IInsert 4a-le $ a-out hereJ :apanese stores rated the trait of *onsisten*7 signifi*antl7 lower than did all other
!3

stores% 4hese results are presented in 4a-le 0% South ,fri*an and Canadian stores were not signifi*antl7 different than an7 other *ountr7 -esides :apan% :amai*a gave signifi*antl7 higher mean ratings to *onsisten*7 than did the 9%S% and :apanese stores% ,ustralian stores rated *onsisten*7 signifi*antl7 higher than did 9%S%, Brazilian, and :apanese stores% ,s previousl7 noted, the 9%S% rated *onsisten*7 signifi*antl7 lower than did ,ustralian and :amai*an stores, -ut rated *onsisten*7 signifi*antl7 higher than did :apanese stores% IInsert 4a-le 0 a-out hereJ ,3?P,Hs for ,dapta-ilit7 are shown in 4a-le &% Cor the trait of ,dapta-ilit7, there were no signifi*ant differen*es in mean ratings noted -etween Canadian stores and an7 other *ountr7% :apanese stores gave signifi*antl7 lower adapta-ilit7 ratings than did an7 other *ountr7 with the e6*eption of the 9%S and Canada% South ,fri*an, :amai*an, ,ustralian and Brazil stores rated adapta-ilit7 signifi*antl7 higher than did the 9%S% and :apanese stores, -ut did not differ from ea*h other% IInsert 4a-le & a-out hereJ 4he final *ulture trait, mission, again showed :apanese stores giving signifi*antl7 lower ratings than all other *ountries e6*ept the 9%S% 4hese results are presented in 4a-le .% South ,fri*an and Canadian stores did not differ signifi*antl7 from an7 other *ountries -esides :apan% :amai*an, ,ustralian, and Brazilian stores again all gave signifi*antl7 higher ratings to mission than did the 9%S% and :apanese stores% Iinsert 4a-le . a-out hereJ ?verall, the *orrelations presented here show a strong and *onsistent pattern in

!$

Brazil, South ,fri*a, and the 9S,% ,ustralia and Canada show a similar, -ut somewhat wea5er pattern% CanadaHs small sample ma7 have *ontri-uted to these results% In :apan and :amai*a, however, the pattern is ;uite different% In :amai*a, the *orrelations -etween *ulture and effe*tiveness measures are generall7 ver7 low% In :apan, a few *orrelations are ;uite strong, -ut the pattern is mi6ed% 4he differen*e of means tests also highlighted several interesting patterns% Cirst, the results show that :amai*a has a mu*h wea5er pattern of *orrelations -etween the *ulture and effe*tiveness measures, -ut that the overall level of *ulture s*ores is ver7 similar to Canada, South ,fri*a, ,ustralia, and Brazil% Se*ond, the differen*e of means tests *onsistentl7 show signifi*antl7 lower s*ores for -oth the 9S, and :apan% Before *onsidering a su-stantive e6planation for these differen*es, however, it is important to point out the differen*e in sampling pro*edures used within these two *ountries% ,s noted earlier, -oth :apan and the 9S, used sampling pro*edures designed to *ontrast high and low performing stores% 4his sampling pro*edure ma7 have resulted in lower performing stores, whi*h presuma-l7 also had lower *ulture s*ores, -eing over represented% DISCUSSION 4he two studies reported in this *hapter ma5e a modest empiri*al *ontri-ution to understanding one of the fundamental *hallenges of leadership in a glo-al environment% 4he first stud7 presents a summar7 of a large empiri*al data-ase on organizational *ulture and effe*tiveness% Despite ever7thing that we 5now a-out the importan*e of *ross *ultural differen*es, these results show a ver7 similar pattern a*ross these maAor regions of the world% 4he lin5 -etween *ompan7 *ulture and effe*tiveness, at least as it is

!0

measured in this stud7, appears to -e -oth strong and *onsistent% In addition, the mean s*ores for the *ulture measures are essentiall7 the same for the samples of organizations in ea*h of these three regions% How *an this -e< ,lmost ever7 arti*le or dis*ussion on the topi* fo*uses on the importan*e of *ultural differences% Get, in one of the few *omparative e6aminations of the issue, we see almost no differen*e% ,fter s*rat*hing our heads for a while, we offer several e6planations for this une6pe*ted out*ome% Cirst, the purpose of the model used for this stud7 was to help understand the impa*t that organizational *ulture has on organizational effe*tiveness% 4hus, the purpose of the *on*epts is to -uild an organizational level model that ela-orates the *ultural fa*tors that help distinguish effe*tive and ineffe*tive organizations% 4his *ontent is designed to -e general enough to appl7 to a wide range of organizations and to predi*t one narrow, -ut important out*ome% 4he intent of the model is ;uite different from those that are spe*ifi*all7 designed to des*ri-e the differen*es that e6ist -etween national *ultures% ,nother fa*tor that should -e *onsidered in e6planing these Dno differen*eE results ma7 -e the fa*t that respondents tend to Dself norm,E -7 *omparing their own situation to other organizations in their same *ountr7 or region that the7 are familiar with% 4his Dself normingE pro*ess reminds us that surve7 data are alwa7s the result of ma5ing Audgments relative to e6pe*tations% +hen e6pe*tations are rooted in a parti*ular national *onte6t that ma7 indeed limit the differen*es that appear a*ross *ultures% 8ven though these results provide good support for the usefulness of these organizational traits and measures for predi*ting the effe*tiveness of firms in different

!&

national *onte6ts, we would not argue that this means that these traits are e6pressed in the same wa7 in ea*h of these *onte6ts, or that the same meaning would -e atta*hed to the same -ehaviors in different national *onte6ts% ?n the *ontrar7, we would ta5e these results to mean that a *on*ept li5e empowerment is important around the world, -ut we would not argue that this means that the same -ehaviors would ne*essaril7 *onstitute empowerment in different national *onte6ts% 4hus, the model pro-a-l7 sa7s mu*h more a-out the presen*e of a desira-le set of traits than it does a-out how those traits are e6pressed% 86amples help to illustrate this dilemma for all of the *on*epts in the model% But some of the most vivid e6amples *on*ern the e6pression of involvement and empowerment in high power distan*e *ountries% ?ne *areer e6 patriot Citi-an5 e6e*utive told this stor7 a-out ta5ing a new Ao- in 1i7adh to help revitalize a Saudi >a5istani Aoint venture -an5= 8a*h da7, when I went in, ever7one that was wor5ing in the area outside m7 offi*e would stand up and salute% 4he first da7 I was honored, -ut it soon -e*ame anno7ing% ?ne da7, I left something in m7 *ar and had to go -a*5 out to get it, and then *ome -a*5 in% 8a*h time the7 stood up and salutedQ 9p, down, up, down how were we supposed to get an7thing done< +hen I told them not to stand up and salute when I *ame in, the7 o-e7ed, -ut I had hurt their feelings% 4he7 saw this as *onve7ing respe*t, not su-servien*e, and were a -it insulted that their attempt to honor me had -een re-uffed% It too5 me some time to re*over% M7 admonition that we were Dall wor5ing together as a teamE was *onfusing to them K I was moving too far too fast% ?nl7 then did I understand the true *hallenge that I fa*ed%

86pressing regard for *ultural diversit7 itself *an also var7 a*ross *ultures% , Dut*hman who ran H> 4e*h Support *all *enters in ,msterdam that operated in 3' languages *ontri-uted this stor7 a-out visiting *orporate head;uarters=

!.

+hen I first went to wor5 in California, I would des*ri-e the wa7 that we wor5ed in ,msterdam, -7 sa7ing things li5e, Dwell the Italians did it this wa7 and the /ermans did it that wa7 and the Cren*h did it their own wa7 what a mess,E and then we would laugh and sort things out% But -efore long, one of the ,meri*an managers pulled me aside and said, DStop sa7ing that K it is offensive to all of us%E I was reall7 *onfused until I realized that 8uropeans naturall7 e6plain ever7thing in terms of nationalit7, whereas ,meri*ans rarel7 spea5 dire*tl7 a-out national differen*es at wor5% 4here are several limitations in -oth of these studies that should also -e *onsidered% In the first stud7, there is a ver7 limited sample from ,sia% 4he small sample that is availa-le shows the same pattern of results as the larger sample, -ut statisti*al signifi*an*e is ver7 low and thus our *onfiden*e in these findings in *ompromised% ,s this data-ase *ontinues to grow, we will -e a-le to redo this anal7sis to *onfirm that this preliminar7 summar7 is not misleading% 4he first stud7 has also relied on large regional *ategories that *ould mas5 distin*t variations within ea*h of these regions% In a separate anal7sis, we did *ompare results from several 89 *ountries that had samples of !0 2" firms, and saw similar results to those reported in this stud7% ?n*e again, as this data-ase grows, it will -e possi-le to ma5e these *omparisons with greater detail% ?ne final limitation of this first stud7 *on*erns the wide range of organizations and the wide range of sampling s*hemes emplo7ed within the organizations% Clearl7, the results would -e more representative if the7 were *ontrolled for size, industr7, level of respondents, and size of the internal sample% ?ther resear*h on this data-ase has shown that these differen*es are relativel7 small *ompared to the large differen*es that e6ist -etween organizations, -ut these findings would still -e strengthened with a stud7 design that allowed for these fa*tors to -e *ontrolled% 4here are also a num-er of limitations to the se*ond stud7% ?ur original intent in

!'

the se*ond stud7 was to e6amine a similar set of organizations a*ross different national *onte6ts, so that the t7pe of organization *ould -e held *onstant% 4his feature of having multiple units of the same #or similar( organizations availa-le for *omparison offers a num-er of advantages% ,lthough the -en*hmar5 resear*h -7 Hofstede #!2'"-( is often *riti*ized -e*ause of its relian*e on one organization, IBM, as the sole sour*e of data, we would argue that this is also a 5e7 strength of the stud7% 4o a degree, it allows for an Dapples to applesE *omparison a*ross nations% +hile this ma7 -e a poor *hoi*e of metaphor to use in a stud7 of supermar5ets #Q(, *omparing similar organizations is at some point essential to identif7ing differen*es and similarities a*ross nations% 1elian*e on one M3C, of one nationalit7 ma7 DattenuateE the influen*e of national *ulture, -ut it also offers a relativel7 *onstant point of referen*e% 4he -iggest limitation of this se*ond stud7 is that the *ountr7 spe*ifi* samples were influen*ed -7 *hoi*es made in ea*h *ountr7% 4his has resulted in DhighNlowE samples of organizations in two of the *ountries, :apan and the 9S,, with random samples or a *omplete *ensus in the other five *ountries% ,dding in a spe*ifi* sample of low performing organizations appears to have had a strong influen*e on the differen*e of means tests, and some what less of an influen*e on the *orrelational anal7sis% +hen the findings from the two studies are *ompared, the low results for the 9S, in Stud7 4wo *learl7 are not refle*ted in Stud7 ?ne% 4he *orrelations, however, are mu*h more *ompara-le -etween the two studies% Indeed, sin*e most of the firms in the ,sia sample in Stud7 ?ne are from :apan #five of eight(, it also seems li5e the differen*e of means tests in Stud7 4wo ma7 -e influen*ed -7 the sampling pro*edure% In this *ase, however, the *orrelations in Stud7 ?ne and Stud7 4wo for :apan and ,sia are still

!2

*ontradi*tor7% Considering the results from these two studies does help to identif7 future targets for resear*h% , fo*us on industries su*h as retail or hospitalit7 that have *ompara-le operating units in man7 lo*ations and have *ompara-le measures of their performan*e would offer several advantages% 4his would offer a point of referen*e for understanding differen*es -etween *ountries and would offer a wa7 to move -e7ond the su-Ae*tive measures of effe*tiveness used in the studies reported in this *hapter% Choosing several M3Cs with different national origins, -ut a *ommon presen*e in different national *onte6ts, would also provide an important point of *omparison% Cor glo-al leaders, these studies provide an interesting point of referen*e for the *hoi*es that the7 ma5e a-out -uilding their organizations and their *ultures% 4he findings suggest that a *ommon perspe*tive on organizational *ulture ma7 indeed -e possi-le in multinational *orporations% Curthermore, these *hara*teristi*s *an -e measured and tra*5ed and appear to have a somewhat predi*ta-le impa*t on effe*tiveness% 3onetheless, the dis*ussion of these results also emphasizes that the way in which these traits are e6pressed varies greatl7 a*ross national *ultures% 4his additional *omple6it7 paints a *lear, 7et *hallenging pi*ture of the *hallenges that fa*e a glo-al leader= ,ttempting to *reate a *ommon set of organizational traits that are e6pressed in different wa7s in different national *onte6ts%

2"

2!

22

Ta,le 2 Co&&ela ion 'e 1een C$l $&e an# O(e&all E..e* i(eness ,+ Re/ion 3orth ,meri*a 8mpowerment 4eam ?rientation Capa-ilit7 Development Core Palues ,greement Coordination @ Integration Creating Change Customer Co*us ?rganizational Learning Strategi* Dire*tion @ Intent /oals @ ?-Ae*tives Pision 3um-er of ?rganizations %&0R %&!R %."R %&!R %0'R %&2R %$'R %3&R %0"R %00R %&"R %03R !&2 ,sia %0. %.! %$' %&0 %&2 %&2 %'. %!2 %'2 %&& %0$ %.! . 8M8, %&"R %03R %0"R %&2R %.3R %.$R %&'R %&2R %02R %.2R %&2R %&.R 3$

23

Ta,le 3 ANOVA o. Di..e&en*es in C$l $&e S*o&es A*&oss Co$n &ies ANOVA o. Di..e&en*es in A#a! a,ili + 3orth ,meri*a RR %""3 %""! ,sia 8M8, ANOVA o. Di..e&en*es in Mission

3orth ,meri*a ,sia 8M8,

RR %""2 RR 3orth ,meri*a RR ,sia 8M8,

3orth ,meri*a 3orth ,meri*a RR %""! %""3 ,sia 8M8,

3orth ,meri*a ,sia 8M8,

3orth ,sia ,sia %""' ,meri*a RR 3orth RR 8M8, %""0 ,meri*a %""3 ,sia %"". %""2 RR %""0

8M8, RR

RR %""3 RR

8M8,

RR

ANOVA o. Di..e&en*es in In(ol(e)en

ANOVA o. Di..e&en*es in Consis en*+

2$

Ta,le 4 Co&&ela ion 'e 1een O(e&all Pe&.o&)an*e an# T"e 23 In#i*es '+ Co$n &+ 8mpowerment 4eam ?rientation Capa-ilit7 Development Core Palues ,greement Coordination @ Integration Creating Change Customer Co*us ?rganizational Learning Strategi* Dire*tion @ Intent /oals @ ?-Ae*tives Pision 3um-er of Stores South ,fri*a %&"R %&!R %."R %0$R %&3R %0$R %'2R %$0R %!2 %&2R %.&R %$0R 2" Canada %3' %$3 %"& %3$ %3. %$0 %3$ %"& %!3 %..R %0'R %$3 !3 :amai*a ,ustralia %"' %2.R %"& %2& %3$ %2" %!' %"" %20 %!! %$$ %22 %2& !' %32R %23R %32R %3$R %3.R %30R %2$R %33R %3'R %$2R %3&R 22 9nited States %&'R %&"R %0&R %&3R %0$R %0&R %&3R %$0R %&.R %0.R %&'R %&!R 3' Brazil %'$R %'&R %'!R %'3R %.'R %''R %.0R %&2R %.&R %.2R %'!R %.2R !. :apan %"' %!! %!$ %$.R %2' %23 %23 %2$ %!" %00R %20 %22 2"

20

Ta,le 5 ANOVA o. Di..e&en*es in In(ol(e)en S*o&es A*&oss Co$n &ies South ,fri*a RR %!"2 %!'. %2"& %223R %"!" %20" Canada :amai*a ,ustralia 9nited States Brazil :apan

South ,fri*a Canada :amai*a ,ustralia 9nited States Brazil :apan

RR %""' %!"$ %$""R %!2' %302R RR %""2 %$'"R %2'2 %$3.R RR %0""R %3"!R %$0&R RR %!2' %""$ RR %!00 RR

Ta,le 6 ANOVA o. Di..e&en*es in Consis en*+ S*o&es A*&oss Co$n &ies South ,fri*a RR %"". %!3" %!.& %""2 %""3 %3$.R Canada :amai*a ,ustralia 9nited States Brazil :apan

South ,fri*a Canada :amai*a ,ustralia 9nited States Brazil :apan

RR %""& %!"3 %!&" %!"! %$!2R RR %""0 %2!'R %!0' %$..R RR %2&3R %2"$R %023R RR %""& %202R RR %3!2R RR

2&

Ta,le 7 ANOVA o. Di..e&en*es in A#a! a,ili + S*o&es A*&oss Co$n &ies South ,fri*a RR %""' %""' %""3 %2"!R %""2 %3!$R Canada :amai*a ,ustralia 9nited States Brazil :apan

South ,fri*a Canada :amai*a ,ustralia 9nited States Brazil :apan

RR %!0. %!". %!2$ %"!" %23& RR %""0 %2'!R %""& %323R RR %23!R %""! %3$3R RR %2!2R %!!3 RR %332R RR

Ta,le 8 ANOVA o. Di..e&en*es in Mission S*o&es A*&oss Co$n &ies South ,fri*a RR %""! %22& %""& %!'. %"". %3&!R Canada :amai*a ,ustralia 9nited States Brazil :apan

South ,fri*a Canada :amai*a ,ustralia 9nited States Brazil :apan

RR %2!$ %""0 %!22 %""& %3.3R RR %!&& %$!3R %!0$ %0'.R RR %2$.R %""! %$2!R RR %202R %!.$ RR %$33R RR

2.

REFERENCES ,dler, 3% :% #!22!(, International Di ensions of Organizational !ehavior #2nd ed%(, Boston= Fent >u-lishing% ,llaire, G% and M% Cirsirotu #!2'$(, D4heories of ?rganizational Culture,E Organization Studies, 0, !23 22&% Be*5er, /% #!2&$(, "u an Capital# A $heoretical and % pirical Analysis with Special &eference to %ducation' 3ew Gor5= Colum-ia 9niversit7 >ress% Blo*5, >% #!22!(, $he % powered (anager# )ositive )olitical S*ills at +or*' San Cran*is*o= :osse7 Bass% Bo7a*igiller, 3% and 3% ,dler, #!22!(, D4he >aro*hial Dinosaur= ?rganizational S*ien*e in a /lo-al Conte6t,E Acade y of (anage ent &eview, !&#2(, 2&2 22!% Davenport, 4% #!223(, >ro*ess Innovation# &eengineering +or* $hrough Infor ation $echnology' Boston, M,= Harvard Business S*hool >ress% Deal, 4% 8% and ,% ,% Fenned7 #!2'2(, Corporate Cultures# $he &ites and &ituals of Corporate ,ife' 1eading, Mass%= ,ddison +esle7 >u-lishing Co% Denison, D% 1% #!2'$(, DBringing Corporate Culture to the Bottom LineE, Organizational Dyna ics' !3, 2, $ 22% Denison, D% 1% #!22"(, Corporate Culture and Organizational %ffectiveness' 3ew Gor5= +ile7% Denison, D% 1% #!22&(, D+hat IS the Differen*e Between ?rganizational Culture and ?rganizational Climate< , 3ativeHs >oint of Piew on a De*ade of >aradigm +ars,E Acade y of (anage ent &eview, 2!, 3, &!2 &0$% Denison, D% 1%, H% :% Cho, and :% Goung, #2"""(, Diagnosing ?rganizational Culture= Palidating a Model and Method, +or5ing >aper, International Institute for Management Development, Lausanne, Switzerland% Denison, D% 1% and ,% F% Mishra #!220(, D4oward a 4heor7 of ?rganizational Culture and 8ffe*tiveness,E Organization Science, &, 2, 2"$ 223% Denison, D% 1% and ,%F% Mishra #!22'(, DDoes ?rganizational Culture Have an Impa*t on Sualit7< , Stud7 of Culture and Sualit7 in 3inet7 4wo Manufa*turing ?rganizations,E >resentational to the ,*adem7 of Management Convention, San Diego, C,%, ,ugust !22'% Denison, D% 1% and +%S% 3eale #!22&(, Denison Organizational Culture Survey' ,nn ,r-or, MI= ,viat%

2'

Denison, D%1%B Haaland, S%B 3eale, +%S% #2""2(% Lin5ing Corporate Culture and Customer Satisfa*tion= 4wo 8mpiri*al Studies% >resented at the !.th ,nnual So*iet7 of IndustrialN?rganizational >s7*hologists Conferen*e= 4oronto, ?3% Doz, G% #!2'&(, Strategic (anage ent in (ultinational Co panies% 3ew Gor5= Butterworth Heinemann% Ce7, C% @ Denison, D% #2""2(, ?rganizational Culture and 8ffe*tiveness= Can an ,meri*an 4heor7 -e ,pplied in 1ussia< +or5ing >aper, International Institute for Management Development, Lausanne, Switzerland% Haaland, S% #2""2(, Denison ?rganizational Culture Surve7= Des*ription of 3orms, ,nn ,r-or, MI= Denison Consulting% Hamel, /% and C%F% >rahalad #!22$(,Co peting for the -uture' Boston, M,= Harvard Business S*hool >ress% Hat*h, M% :% #!223(, D4he D7nami*s of ?rganizational Culture,E Acade y of (anage ent &eview, !', $, &0. &23% Hofstede, /% #!2'"a(, DMotivation, Leadership, and ?rganization= Do ,meri*an 4heories ,ppl7 ,-road<E Organizational Dyna ics, 2#!(, $2 0'% Hofstede, /% #!2'"-(, Culture.s Conse/uences' 3ew-ur7 >ar5, C,%= Sage% Imai, M% #!2'&(, 0aizen# $he 0ey to 1apan.s Co petitive Success, 3ew Gor5= M*/raw Hill% Fanter, 1% #!2'3(, $he Change (asters# Innovation for )roductivity in the A erican Corporation, 3ew Gor5= Simon and S*huster% Fotter, :%>% and :%L% Has5ett #!222(, Corporate Culture and )erfor ance% 3ew Gor5= Cree >ress% Lawler, 8% 8% III% #!22&(, -ro the 2round 3p# Six )rinciples for !uilding the 4ew ,ogic Corporation' San Cran*is*o, C,= :osse7 Bass% Li5ert, 1% #!2&!(, 4ew )atterns of (anage ent' 3ew Gor5= M*/raw Hill% Martin, :% #!222(, Cultures in Organizations# $hree )erspectives, 3ew Gor5= ?6ford 9niversit7 >ress% Mintz-erg, H% #!2'.(, Crafting Strateg7, "arvard !usiness &eview' &0, && .0% Mintz-erg, H% #!22$(, $he &ise and -all of Strategic )lanning# &econciling for )lanning' )lans' )lanners' 3ew Gor5= Cree >ress% 3adler, D% #!22'(, Cha pions of Change # "ow C%Os and $heir Co panies are
22

(astering the S*ills of &adical Change, San Cran*is*o, C,= :osse7 Bass% 3ona5a, I% and 4a5eu*hi, H% #!220(, $he 0nowledge Creating Co pany% London= ?6ford >ress% ?hmae, F% #!2'2(, $he (ind of the Strategist# $he Art of 1apanese !usiness' 3ew Gor5= M*/raw Hill% ?tt, :%S% #!2'2(, $he Organizational Culture )erspective, Chi*ago, IL= Dorse7 >ress% >eters, 4%:% @ 1%H% +aterman% !2'2% In Search of %xcellence ,essons fro A erica.s !est-&un Co panies5 3ew Gor5= Harper @ 1ow% Saffold, /% #!2''(, DCulture 4raits, Strength, and ?rganizational >erforman*e= Moving Be7ond TStrongH Culture,E Acade y of (anage ent &eview' !3, $, 0$& 00'5 S*hein, 8% #!2'0(, Organizational Culture and ,eadership, San Cran*is*o, C,= :osse7 Bass% S*hein, 8% #!22"(, D?rganizational Culture,E A erican )sychologist, $0, !"2 !!2% Senge, >% #!22"(, $he -ifth Discipline# $he Art and )ractice of the ,earning Organization' 3ew Gor5= Dou-leda7NCurren*7% Spreitzer, /% #!220(, D>s7*hologi*al 8mpowerment in the +or5pla*e= Dimensions, Measurement, and Palidation,E Acade y of (anage ent 1ournal' 3', !$$2 &0% Stal5, /% #!2''(, Co peting Against $i e# "ow $i e-!ased Co petition is &eshaping 2lobal (ar*ets, 3ew Gor5= Cree >ress% 4a7lor, +% #!22!(, D4he logi* of glo-al -usiness= ,n interview with ,BBHs >er*7 Barnevi5,E "arvard !usiness &eview, &2#2(, 2" !"&5 4rompenaars, C% #!22$(, &iding the +aves of Culture# 3nderstanding Diversity in 2lobal !usiness' 3ew Gor5= Irwin% 4rompenaars, C% #!22'(, #2ed56 &iding the +aves of Culture# 3nderstanding Cultural Diversity in 2lobal !usiness' 3ew Gor5= Irwin%

3"

A!!en#i-: I e)s an# In#e-es .o& Ea*" T&ai


In#eInvolvement S*ale 8mpowerment I e) !% Most emplo7ees are highl7 involved in their wor5% 2% De*isions are usuall7 made at the level where the -est information is availa-le% 3% Information is widel7 shared so that ever7one *an get the information he or she needs when itUs needed% $% 8ver7one -elieves that he or she *an have a positive impa*t% 0% Business planning is ongoing and involves ever7one in the pro*ess to some degree% &% Cooperation a*ross different parts of the organization is a*tivel7 en*ouraged% .% >eople wor5 li5e the7 are part of a team% '% 4eamwor5 is used to get wor5 done, rather than hierar*h7% 2% 4eams are our primar7 -uilding -lo*5s% !"% +or5 is organized so that ea*h person *an see the relationship -etween his or her Ao- and the goals of the organization% !!% ,uthorit7 is delegated so that people *an a*t on their own% !2% 4he V-en*h strengthV #*apa-ilit7 of people( is *onstantl7 improving% !3% 4here is *ontinuous investment in the s5ills of emplo7ees% !$% 4he *apa-ilities of people are viewed as an important sour*e of *ompetitive advantage% !05 )roble s often arise because we do not have the s*ills necessary to do the 7ob58 !&% 4he leaders and managers Vpra*ti*e what the7 prea*h%V !.% 4here is a *hara*teristi* management st7le and a distin*t set of management pra*ti*es% !'% 4here is a *lear and *onsistent set of values that governs the wa7 we do -usiness% !2% Ignoring *ore values will get 7ou in trou-le% 2"% 4here is an ethi*al *ode that guides our -ehavior and tells us right from wrong% 2!% +hen disagreements o**ur, we wor5 hard to a*hieve Vwin winV solutions% 22% 4here is a VstrongV *ulture% 23% It is eas7 to rea*h *onsensus, even on diffi*ult issues% 2$5 +e often have trouble reaching agree ent on *ey issues58 20% 4here is a *lear agreement a-out the right wa7 and the wrong wa7 to do things% 2&% ?ur approa*h to doing -usiness is ver7 *onsistent and predi*ta-le% 2.% >eople from different parts of the organization share a *ommon perspe*tive% 2'% It is eas7 to *oordinate proAe*ts a*ross different parts of the organization% 225 +or*ing with so eone fro another part of this organization is li*e wor*ing with so eone fro a different organization8 3"% 4here is good alignment of goals a*ross levels%

4eam ?rientation

Capa-ilit7 Development

Consisten*7

Core Palues

,greement

Coordination and Integration

3!

In#e,dapta-ilit7

I e) 3!% 4he wa7 things are done is ver7 fle6i-le and eas7 to *hange% 32% +e respond well to *ompetitors and other *hanges in the -usiness environment% 33% 3ew and improved wa7s to do wor5 are *ontinuall7 adopted% 3$% Atte pts to create change usually eet with resistance%R 30% Different parts of the organization often *ooperate to *reate *hange% Customer Co*us 3&% Customer *omments and re*ommendations often lead to *hanges% 3.% Customer input dire*tl7 influen*es our de*isions% 3'% ,ll mem-ers have a deep understanding of *ustomer wants and needs% 32% $he interests of the custo er often get ignored in our decisions%R $"% +e en*ourage dire*t *onta*t with *ustomers -7 our people% ?rganizational $!% +e view failure as an opportunit7 for learning and improvement% Learning $2% Innovation and ris5 ta5ing are en*ouraged and rewarded% $3% ,ots of things 9fall between the crac*s958 $$% Learning is an important o-Ae*tive in our da7 to da7 wor5% $0% +e ma5e *ertain that the Vright hand 5nows what the left hand is doing%V Mission Strategi* $&% 4here is a long term purpose and dire*tion% Dire*tion @ $.% ?ur strateg7 leads other organizations to *hange the wa7 the7 *ompete Intent in the industr7% $'% 4here is a *lear mission that gives meaning and dire*tion to our wor5% $2% 4here is a *lear strateg7 for the future% 0"% Our strategic direction is unclear to eR /oals @ 0!% 4here is widespread agreement a-out goals% ?-Ae*tives 02% Leaders set goals that are am-itious, -ut realisti*% 03% 4he leadership has Vgone on re*ordV a-out the o-Ae*tives we are tr7ing to meet% 0$% +e *ontinuousl7 tra*5 our progress against our stated goals% 00% >eople understand what needs to -e done for us to su**eed in the long run% Pision 0&% +e have a shared vision of what the organization will -e li5e in the future 0.% Leaders have a long term viewpoint% :;5 Short-ter thin*ing often co pro ises our long-ter vision58 02% ?ur vision *reates e6*itement and motivation for our emplo7ees% &"% +e are a-le to meet short term demands without *ompromising our long term vision% RItems in itali*s are worded negativel7 in the surve7% 1esponses are reversed for anal7ti* purposes%

S*ale Creating Change

32

A!!en#i-: E..e* i(eness 0$es ions: Comparing the performan*e of 7our organization with others in the industr7, how would 7ou assess 7our *ompan7 performan*e in the following areas< >lease mar5 one response per item%
Don9 :no1 ; " " " " " Lo1 Pe&.o&)e& 2 ! ! ! ! ! A(e&a/e 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 5 $ $ $ $ $ Hi/" Pe&.o&)e& 6 0 0 0 0 0

Sales /rowth >rofita-ilit7N1?I Sualit7 of >rodu*ts and Servi*es 8mplo7ee Satisfa*tion ?verall ?rganizational >erforman*e

33

Вам также может понравиться