Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
Dysfunctional culture,
dysfunctional organization
Capturing the behavioral norms that form
organizational culture and drive performance
Dysfunctional
culture
709
Pierre A. Balthazard
School of Global Management and Leadership, Arizona State University,
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Robert A. Cooke
College of Business Administration, University of Illinois at Chicago,
Chicago, Illinois, USA, and
Richard E. Potter
Department of Information and Decision Sciences,
College of Business Administration, University of Illinois at Chicago,
Chicago, Illinois, USA
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to describe how organizational culture is manifested in behavioral norms
and expectations, focusing on 12 sets of behavioral norms associated with constructive, passive/
defensive, and aggressive/defensive cultural styles.
Design/methodology/approach The organizational culture inventory, a normed and validated
instrument designed to measure organizational culture in terms of behavioral norms and expectations,
was used to test hypotheses regarding the impact of culture. Data are summarized from 60,900
respondents affiliated with various organizations that have used the instrument to assess their cultures.
Also presented is a brief overview of a practitioner-led assessment of four state government
departments.
Findings The results of correlational analyses illustrate the positive impact of constructive cultural
styles, and the negative impact of dysfunctional defensive styles, on both the individual- and
organizational-level performance drivers. The results clearly link the dysfunctional cultural styles to
deficits in operating efficiency and effectiveness.
Originality/value The concept of organizational culture is derived from research in the field of
organizational behavior characterized by use of qualitative methods. Yet, one of the most powerful
strategies for organizational development is knowledge-based change, an approach that generally relies
on the use of quantitative measures. Although both methods share the potential for producing cumulative
bodies of information for assessment and theory testing, quantitative approaches may be more practical
for purposes of knowledge-based approaches for organizational development generally, and assessing
cultural prerequisites for organizational learning and knowledge management specifically.
Keywords Organizational culture, Organizational behaviour, Performance
Paper type Research paper
This paper is based on, and incorporates materials from, the Organizational Culture Inventoryw
with permission by the publisher, Human Synergistics International (USA). The authors extend
their appreciation to Dr Cheryl Boglarksy, Director of Research and Development at Human
Synergistics Michigan office, for compiling the data set analyzed in this paper. OCI style
descriptions and sample items are from Robert A. Cooke and J. Clayton Lafferty, Organizational
Culture Inventory, q Human Synergistics International, Plymouth MI USA. Copyright q 1987,
All Rights Reserved. Used by permission.
JMP
21,8
710
Introduction
The dysfunctional organization, much like a dysfunctional individual, is so
characterized because it exhibits markedly lower effectiveness, efficiency, and
performance than its peers or in comparison to societal standards. While
environmental considerations are important for individuals as well as organizations,
internal forces often play a more pivotal role. With the individual, this can be cognition.
With the organization, we contend, it is the culture. Consider the following two
examples that illustrate how an organizations culture can foment dysfunction.
In the aftermath of the Columbia space shuttle accident, we learned (again) that
there were people inside NASA who were discussing critical information with each
other, but not with senior decision makers. This life-saving knowledge might have
saved the spaceship and its crew. Following the earlier Challenger accident, a nine-year
study of NASAs standard operating procedures regarding risky decision-making in
which technical anomalies were repeatedly considered to be of acceptable risk
showed that the organizational culture created an environment in which conformity to
the rules led to the fatal errors (e.g. Vaughan, 1996, 2003). The causes of the Columbia
and Challenger disasters were not due to intentional managerial wrongdoing, safety
rule violations or any type of conspiracy. Rather, the nature of NASAs organization
was such that the decisions to launch Challenger and land Columbia were inevitable
and inevitable mistakes. NASAs organizational culture, routines and systems are
designed to allow for a process of normalizing signals of potential danger. Thus,
known technical problems become an operating norm and did not prevent NASA
managers from giving the go-ahead to proceed with problematic operations (Vaughan,
1996, 2003).
Examining the multi-organization system that oversees the air travel industry, a
Gannet company investigation of the American Airlines Flight 587 crash in Belle
Harbor, New York, found widespread cultural and structural impediments at Airbus
Industrie, the National Transportation Safety Board, and American Airlines. Although
these information technology-intensive organizations are components of the nations
aviation safety system designed to prevent crashes by learning from close calls, the
system is dependent on airlines and aircraft manufacturers sharing their knowledge
and experience with the same federal regulators charged with their oversight (USA
Today, 2003). As critical and fundamental that knowledge sharing might be in an
organization, it is not safe to assume that it will occur unless it is a recognized norm or
expected behavior as part of the organizations culture.
These two examples, and others like the more recent failures at the Federal
Emergency Management Administration, portray how elements of an organizations
culture can lead to dysfunctional outcomes, even when those organizations are peopled
with earnest and capable members. In this paper we present a quantitative approach to
the assessment of organizational culture based on shared norms and behavioral
expectations at the individual and organizational-unit levels. Alternative patterns of
norms and expectations are associated with constructive, passive/aggressive, and
aggressive/defensive organizational culture styles, each associated with particularly
healthy or dysfunctional organizational drivers of performance. We discuss a
statistically normed and validated instrument and methodology that accurately
assesses the behavioral norms operating within an organization and is used to identify
the type of culture characterizing the organization. We present data from 60,900
respondents in the field along with a brief analysis, the results of which illustrate the
linkage between two dysfunctional organizational cultural styles and individual and
organizational-level performance drivers. We also present a brief overview of a
practitioner-led assessment of four state government departments and results that
clearly link dysfunctional cultures to deficits in operating efficiency and effectiveness.
Organizational culture
Organizational culture has been characterized as the glue that holds organizations
together (Goffee and Jones, 1996) and isnt just one aspect of the game it is the
game (Gerstner, 2002). Culture can support linkages between technology adoption and
organizational growth (Chatman and Jehn, 1994); it can be a critical success factor in
implementing manufacturing strategy (Bates et al., 1995) and can play a crucial role in
determining the success or failure of mergers and acquisitions (Weber et al., 1996;
Javidan, 2001). On a more micro level, researchers have found significant relationships
between the fit of employees and the prevailing organizational culture and a number
of important outcomes such as job commitment and turnover (OReilly et al., 1991;
Kotter and Heskett, 1992).
But many unanswered questions remain regarding the meaning and content of
organizational culture (Black, 2003; Martin and Siehl, 1983; Louis, 1983), the methods
by which it should be measured (Cooke and Rousseau, 1983; Schein, 1984; Sashkin and
Fullmer, 1985) and, more fundamentally, the feasibility of managing culture and
change (e.g. Uffal, 1983; Collins and Porras, 1994), especially when attempting to
operationalize and attain specific organizational goals. While debates around these
issues continue, culture has been accepted as a fact of organizational life by
managers and has become an integral aspect of many organizational development
programs. Much of the research on organizational cultures has focused on descriptors
of culture and frequently resulted in dimensions or typologies of culture (Hanges and
Dickson, 2002; House et al., 2002; Kreitner and Kinicki, 1998; Schein, 1996; Hofstede
et al., 1993; Reichers and Schneider, 1990; OReilly, 1989). Certain types of
organizational cultures, or certain styles of cultures, have been associated with
either positive or negative outcomes for either the effectiveness of the organization (as
the introductory discussion of NASA and the American Airlines crash illustrate) or for
individual employees within the organization (Schein, 1996; Deal and Kennedy, 1982).
Positive outcomes for individual members of organizations potentially include
motivation and satisfaction (Cooke and Szurnal, 1993, 2000; OReilly, 1989) while
negative outcomes might include job insecurity and stress (Kahn et al., 1964; Katz and
Kahn, 1966, van der Velde and Class, 1995). In this paper, we link organizational
culture to measures of both individual and organizational outcomes.
The concept of organizational culture is derived from research in the field of
organizational behavior characterized by use of qualitative methods. To an extent, the
use of these methods derives from the issues of interest to scholars who have studied
culture in organizations: symbolism, sense-making, and socialization (e.g. Louis, 1980;
Martin and Siehl, 1983; Smircich, 1983), issues involving unique individual
perspectives highly amenable to qualitative study. Yet, one of the most powerful
strategies for organizational development is knowledge-based change, an approach
Dysfunctional
culture
711
JMP
21,8
712
that generally relies on the use of quantitative measures (e.g. Huse and Cummings,
1985; Nadler, 1977). Qualitative and quantitative methods are complementary
approaches to the study and assessment of organizational processes and attributes.
The advantages of qualitative methods include the use of the focal units own terms to
describe itself, the intensive and in-depth information that can be obtained about a unit,
and the amenability of the method for exploratory research on issues and processes
about which little information exists.
Alternatively, the advantages of quantitative methods include the ease of
cross-sectional assessments and comparisons (across individuals, organizations, or
sub-units), the replicability of the assessment in different units and by other
researchers or organizational development professionals, and a common, articulated
frame of reference for interpreting the collated information. Although both methods
share the potential for producing cumulative bodies of information for assessment and
theory testing, quantitative approaches may be more practical for purposes of
knowledge-based approaches for organizational development generally, and assessing
cultural prerequisites for organizational learning and knowledge management
specifically. For instance, different subgroups within an organization, such as
departments or units, may have the organizational culture in common, but also
experience a subculture unique to the individuals within the unit (Trice, 1993; Cooke
and Rousseau, 1988). Shared values and expectations within such units exert pressures
leading to a localized variation of the organizational culture for members, and
ultimately affect the culture of the organization as a whole.
The organizational culture inventoryq
At the core of our study is the Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI), a statistically
normed and validated survey used for organizational consulting and change purposes,
developed by Human Synergistics International (Cooke and Lafferty, 1987). The OCI is
a quantitative instrument that measures twelve sets of behavioral norms associated
with three general styles of organizational culture constructive, passive/defensive,
and aggressive/defensive. Since its introduction in prototype form in 1983, the
inventory has been used by thousands of organizations and completed by over two
million respondents throughout the world. The instrument has been translated into
numerous languages including French (Canadian and Parisian), Spanish (Castillian
and Latin American), German, Japanese, Chinese, Dutch, Swedish, Romanian, and
Korean and is, arguably, the most globally used organizational culture assessment
instrument in the world. It has been administered for a variety of purposes, including
to direct, evaluate, and monitor organizational change (e.g. Gaucher and Kratochwill,
1993); identify and transfer the cultures of high performing units (Human Synergistics,
1986); study and enhance system reliability and safety (Haber et al., 1991; Shurberg and
Haber, 1992; Keenan et al., 1998); facilitate strategic alliances and mergers (Slowinski,
1992); promote collaborative relations within and across units (Leeds, 1999); and test
hypotheses on the relationship between culture and antecedent variables (Klein et al.,
1995a). This wide range of applications has produced an extensive information base
regarding the ways in which culture operates in different types of organizations.
The OCI measures 12 distinct but interrelated sets of behavioral norms and
expectations that describe the thinking and behavioral styles that might be implicitly
Dysfunctional
culture
713
JMP
21,8
714
Figure 1.
The Human Synergistics
OCI circumplex
influenced by the philosophy of the organization, the values of top management, and
the assumptions of founding principals and succeeding generations of organizational
leaders (Schein, 1983; Sathe, 1985). Beyond the assumptions held by leaders, their skills
and qualities (including their personal styles and leadership strategies) have a
profound impact on organizational culture. This impact can be positive and
transformational (e.g. Kouzes and Posner, 2002) sending signals for
achievement-oriented and cooperative behaviors and thereby creating and
reinforcing a constructive culture. However, this impact can alternatively be
negative and dysfunctional (e.g. Kets de Vries and Miller, 1986; Litzky et al., 2006)
implicitly requiring passive and aggressive behaviors and creating a defensive culture.
Our model of the role of organizational culture (see Figure 2) proposes a causal
chain from antecedents, to culture, through to outcomes that is consistent with
earlier models developed for the OCI (Cooke, 1989; Cooke and Szurnal, 2000) and the
parallel work of Kilmann et al. (1985). Our model is also consistent with more recent
work on organizational culture and related constructs, exemplified by the writings of
Collins and Porras (1994), Lawler (1996), Ulrich (1997), and Pfeffer and Sutton (2000).
The conceptual and theoretical frameworks that most closely correspond to those
developed for the OCI (Cooke, 1989) perhaps are those proposed by Kotter and Heskett
(1992). Their descriptive and retrospective study of the effects of adaptive versus
non-adaptive cultures on problem solving, innovation, and organizational
performance lend some independent support for the OCI model and the proposition
that constructive (as opposed to defensive) norms lead to organizational effectiveness.
Though organizational effectiveness is influenced by a myriad of factors, we posit
that the norms quantified by the OCI have an impact that is discernable and
significant. Specifically, strong norms for constructive behaviors should lead to
desirable outcomes and should minimize undesirable outcomes. Constructive norms
promote achievement-oriented and cooperative behaviors which should promote
individual-level outcomes such as satisfaction, organizational outcomes including
Dysfunctional
culture
715
Figure 2.
The organizational
culture performance
driver relationship
JMP
21,8
716
Dysfunctional
culture
717
JMP
21,8
718
respondents represent a small but significant subset of OCI respondents in the field
specifically, those affiliated with client organizations that requested from this
particular office a comprehensive computer-generated report on their culture. (Most of
the surveys are self-scored or processed by the other offices of Human Synergistics.)
The broad sample represents the demographics of organizations in America in terms of
gender, age, ethnicity, education, organizational type, profession/occupations of
respondents, and organizational or managerial level.
The number of men and women in the sample was roughly equal: 54 percent male, 46
percent female. Respondents ethnicity was predominantly White/Caucasian (83 percent)
with 7 percent identifying themselves as Black/African American, 4 percent as Asian,
and 4 percent as Hispanic. Approximately 2 percent of the respondents identified
themselves as other or opted not to respond to the question regarding ethnicity. The
respondents ranged in age from 20 to over 60. The modal age range was 40 to 49,
comprising 33 percent of the sample, with those between 30 and 39 comprising the next
largest segment at 29 percent of the sample. A majority (82 percent) indicated at least
some college education, with 48 percent holding a Bachelors or higher-level degree. The
participants identified themselves as members of various types of organizations
[including manufacturing (22 percent), transportation/distribution (13 percent), financial
and insurance (11 percent), health care (8 percent), public sector (7 percent), retail (6
percent), educational (6 percent), and non-profits (3 percent), among others] and
occupations [including general management (18 percent), engineering (11 percent),
administrative and clerical (9 percent), production (7 percent), sales (6 percent), direct
labor (4 percent), among others]. The sample consists of respondents at all organizational
levels, including non-management (55 percent), line management (13 percent), middle
management (16 percent), senior management (5 percent), executive/senior
vice-president (1.4 percent), CEO/president (0.4 percent), and owner (0.3 percent).
Independent variables
The OCI contains 96 items designed to produce 12 scales of eight items each. Each item
describes a behavior or personal style that might be expected of members of an
organization. On a scale of 1 to 5, respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which
each behavior is expected or implicitly required (of them and people like themselves) in
their organization. Responses to the items associated with the scales are summed to
derive estimates of the strength of each of the 12 behavioral norms within the
organization. Descriptions of the 12 cultural norms measured by the OCI, along with
illustrative items, are provided below:
(1) 1 oclock position: A Hurnanistic-encouraging culture characterizes
organizations that are managed in a participative and people-centered way.
Members are expected to be supportive,constructive, and open to influence in
their dealings with one another. (Helping others to grow and develop; taking
time with people.)
(2) 2 oclock position: An Affiliative culture characterizes organizations that place a
high priority on constructive interpersonal relationships. Members are expected
to be friendly, open, and sensitive to the satisfaction of their work group.
(Dealing with others in a friendly way, sharing feelings and thoughts.)
Dysfunctional
culture
719
JMP
21,8
720
Constructs
Table I.
Constructs, example
items, scale reliability,
means and standard
deviations
Cronbach
Standard
alpha
Mean deviation
59,878
0.91
3.28
1.30
60,690
0.91
3.53
1.26
60,323
0.85
3.41
1.21
60,005
0.80
3.00
1.32
59,985
0.80
2.71
2.01
60,246
0.84
3.10
1.36
60,391
0.83
3.23
1.36
59,869
0.86
2.36
1.40
59,589
0.73
2.40
1.17
59,829
0.85
2.61
1.51
59,946
0.85
2.51
1.51
60,199
0.77
3.01
1.34
Dependent variables
The OCI includes a set of supplementary items that assess some of the outcomes of
culture, many of which can drive the performance and long-term effectiveness of an
organization. Results along these items provide clients with initial insights as to
whether culture change should be considered and in what direction such change should
take place. These items, which assess five outcomes pertaining to individual members
and five pertaining to the organization, are used here to test our hypotheses.
At the individual level, the most immediate drivers are the thinking and behavioral
styles exhibited by organizational members. Although it is imperative for all members
to be socialized into the culture, when organizational norms and expectations are weak
or inconsistent, their impact on members personal styles will be minimal and members
will report ambiguous roles and norms (Katz and Kahn, 1966). In contrast,
organizations with strong, positive cultures and/or effective cultural change programs
reinforce the targeted behaviors. People who fit in will become a node on the network
and gain influence; and those who do not will be disconnected and might eventually
leave. Those who do not fit in but stay will experience person/norm conflict, a source
of stress resulting from inconsistencies between personal predispositions and the
demands of the situation. Based on the work of Katz and Kahn (1966) on role conflict,
the following individual-level measures were included in the OCI (response options
ranged along a five-point Likert scale from (1) not at all to (5) to a very great extent):
.
Role clarity: The extent to which organizational members know what is expected
of them.
.
Communication quality: The extent to which organizational members exchange
clear and consistent messages regarding what is expected.
.
Fit with organization: The extent organizational members comfortably fit in
the organization.
.
Behavioral conformity: The extent to which organizational members are required
to think and behave differently than otherwise would be the case (person/norm
conflict).
.
Job satisfaction: The extent to which organizational members report positive
appraisals of their work situation.
Performance drivers at the organizational or sub-unit level, while less direct and more
difficult to establish, are nevertheless important to consider. Some of these drivers are
due to the aggregated effects of norms and expectations on individual members. For
example, quality of workplace should be higher in organizations with Constructive
cultures than in those with defensive cultures. Similarly, turnover (based on members
intentions to leave) should be lower in the former organizations than in the latter. The
positive drivers translate into members exercising more control at various levels of the
organization, making better decisions, and more effectively implementing decisions
and solutions. Low levels of these drivers, and intentions to leave, represent a focus on
self-protection rather than organizational goals, insularity rather than cooperation and
coordination, and rigidity as opposed to adaptability. The following
organizational-level measures were collected (response options again ranged along a
five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) not at all to (5) to a very great extent):
Dysfunctional
culture
721
JMP
21,8
722
.
Results
Correlations were run between the twelve cultural norms and the dependent variables
to test the hypotheses. The results, shown in Table II, support our hypotheses.
Constructive cultural norms are positively and significantly associated with members
reports regarding role clarity, quality of communication, fit, and job satisfaction.
Constructive norms are negatively related to members reports of behavioral
conformity. Conversely, expectations for defensive behaviors (passive and aggressive)
are negatively associated with role clarity, communication quality, fit, and job
satisfaction and are positively associated with behavioral conformity.
Examining the drivers of organizational performance (Table III), constructive
norms are positively associated with quality of products and services, commitment to
customer service, adaptability, and the quality of the workplace. Constructive norms
are also negatively related to turnover intentions. Conversely, expectations for
defensive behaviors are negatively related to quality of products and services,
Role Communication
Fit with
clarity
quality
organization
Table II.
Correlations between
organizational culture
and individual
performance drivers
Constructive: Humanisticencouraging
Affiliative
Achievement
Selfactualization
Passive:
Approval
Conventional
Dependent
Avoidance
Aggressive: Oppositional
Power
Competitive
Perfectionistic
Number of
respondents
Note: * Significant p , 0.01
Behavioral
conformity
Job
satisfaction
0.43*
0.43*
0.42*
0.33*
0.29*
0.28*
0.48*
0.45*
0.43*
20.25*
20.23*
20.20*
0.53*
0.50*
0.48*
0.42*
20.16*
20.17*
20.16*
20.36*
20.13*
20.24*
20.15*
20.03*
0.28*
20.31*
20.37*
20.35*
20.45*
20.27*
20.38*
20.29*
20.26*
0.46*
20.20*
20.27*
20.25*
20.39*
20.17*
20.31*
20.20*
20.11*
20.20*
0.31*
0.33*
0.30*
0.40*
0.29*
0.37*
0.31*
0.26*
0.52*
20.20*
20.29*
20.27*
20.42*
20.17*
20.33*
20.19*
20.14*
60,742
60,693
60,615
60,531
60,670
Quality of
products/
services
Constructive:
Passive:
Aggressive:
Humanisticencouraging
Affiliative
Achievement
Selfactualization
Approval
Conventional
Dependent
Avoidance
Oppositional
Power
Competitive
Perfectionistic
Number of
respondents:
Quality of
customer
service
Adaptability
Turnover
Quality of
workplace
0.46*
0.46*
0.46*
0.40*
0.41*
0.39*
0.42*
0.40*
0.40*
20.31*
20.30*
20.29*
0.54*
0.50*
0.48*
0.44*
20.14*
20.19*
20.17*
20.37*
20.17*
20.26*
20.13*
20.04*
0.41*
20.08*
20.12*
20.12*
20.28*
20.09*
20.20*
20.08*
0.00
0.42*
20.12*
20.18*
20.16*
20.33*
20.10*
20.23*
20.11*
20.04*
20.30*
0.13*
0.14*
0.13*
0.25*
0.12*
0.20*
0.14*
0.08*
0.52*
20.20*
20.30*
20.29*
20.42*
20.17*
20.34*
20.19*
20.14*
60,334
60,391
60,578
60,532
60,651
Dysfunctional
culture
723
Table III.
Correlations between
organizational culture
and organizational
performance drivers
Organizational outcomes:
Totals:
Role clarity
Communication quality
Fit with organization
Behavioral conformity
Job satisfaction
Quality of prod./serv.
Commitment to customer service
Adaptability
Turnover
Quality of workplace
Dept. 1
Dept. 2
Dept. 3
Dept. 4
C
C
B
C
C
C
C
B
B
C
0 A
3 B
7 C
C
B
A
B
C
C
C
A
C
B
2 A
3 B
5 C
C
C
B
C
C
C
C
C
B
C
0 A
2 B
8 C
C
B
C
C
C
C
C
B
A
C
1 A
2 B
7 C
Notes: A at or better than the constructive benchmark; B at or better than the historic
average; C not as good as the historical average and constructive benchmark
Table IV.
Departments
performance driver
scorecard
JMP
21,8
724
and skills/qualities with organizational values, philosophy, and mission is critical. This
alignment cannot be assumed or taken for granted, as the following results illustrate:
.
Of the respondents, 11 percent in the current sample report little or no role
clarity;
.
Only 55 percent of respondents feel they fit in as members of their
organization;
.
A total of 27 percent of respondents do not believe that their organization adapts
to the changing needs of their customers;
.
Only 11 percent would not recommend their organization to potential customers;
.
A total of 17 percent of respondents are dissatisfied being a member of their
current organization;
.
Of the respondents, 21 percent would not recommend their organization as a
good place to work.
The case of four state departments
A state government involved in an organizational change initiative administered the
OCI to members of four different departments to generate baseline data on their
cultures. Their results are presented here to demonstrate how the OCI can be used to
evaluate operating efficiency and effectiveness. The results also illustrated, for the
client organization, that the more effective departments established systems,
structures and skills and qualities (particularly at the leadership level) that
promoted more Constructive and less defensive cultures.
The departments OCI results are plotted on the circumplex discussed above. Styles
at the top of the diagram (11 oclock to 2 oclock positions) are constructive; styles
toward the lower right (3 oclock to 6 oclock positions) are passive/defensive; and
styles toward the lower right (7 oclock to 10 oclock positions) are
aggressive/defensive. As noted earlier, the bold ring (3rd ring from the center)
identifies the 50th percentile. Scores above this ring are higher than those for the
median organizations; scores below are lower than the median. The styles that are the
most extended from the center of the circumplex are those that best describe the
departments current operating cultures.
Figure 3 shows that Department 3 has the most defensive and least constructive
culture of the four departments. On Department 3s profile, seven of the eight defensive
styles extend beyond the 50th percentile and all four of the constructive styles hover
around the 25th percentile. More specifically, the culture of Department 3 is
passive/defensive, with avoidance and conventional behaviors as the dominant norms.
Department 2 has the least defensive culture of the four. While all the other
departments exhibit at least three defensive styles at or above the 50th percentile,
Department 2 has only two such styles at or above the 50th percentile. In addition, only
Department 2 has a constructive style (achievement) as one of its two most extended
behavioral norms. While Department 4s profile shows extensions in the constructive
cluster that are even greater than some of those shown in Department 2s profile, its
strongest cultural norms overall are passive/defensive. Based on these OCI profiles and
our research model, we would expect Department 2 to perform the most favorably and
Department 3 to perform the least favorably in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.
Dysfunctional
culture
725
Figure 3.
OCI profiles of four state
departments
JMP
21,8
726
Consistent with the research model, Department 3 (which has the most defensive
and least constructive culture) is the least efficient and effective of the four
departments. Of the ten outcomes measured, Department 3 scored at or better than
average along only two outcomes turnover and fit with the organization. Also
consistent with expectations, Department 2 (which has the least defensive culture) is
the most effective and efficient of the departments surveyed. Of the ten measures,
Department 2 scored at or better than the constructive benchmark along two outcomes
(fit and adaptability) and at or better than the Historical Average along three other
outcomes (behavioral conformity, communication quality, and quality of the
workplace).
Discussion
Results of this study, including the secondary analysis of over 60,000 respondents and
the comparison of four state government departments involved in an organizational
change initiative, illustrate how the OCI can be used to understand the relationship of
an organizations culture to its efficiency and effectiveness. The correlations observed
between organizational culture and a set of performance drivers were consistent with
our predictions. Also consistent with our model, the governmental department with the
least defensive and most constructive culture was more effective in more areas than the
other departments. Similarly, the department with the most defensive culture exhibited
the weakest performance drivers.
More generally, results of the study indicate that normative beliefs and shared
behavioral expectations are quantifiable and can be used as indicators of an
organizations or departments culture. In contrast to the traditional use of qualitative
assessments in the study of culture (e.g. Martin and Siehl, 1983), quantitative methods
facilitate large-scale studies of organizations and their sub-units, replication, and
triangulation of other forms of assessment. Results of this study further suggest that
quantitatively assessed behavioral norms and expectations can supplement the
qualitative study of more semiotic facets of organizational culture.
Beyond facilitating the research process, quantitative devices such as the OCI have
important advantages for organization development interventions and other programs
directed toward system-wide change. Culture interventions based solely on qualitative
data collection techniques tend to be broad, and from the focal organizations
perspective, often somewhat vague. By bringing significantly more structure to the
assessment, survey instruments like the OCI can reduce uncertainty on the part of the
focal organization and possibly improve upon its dysfunctional nature by decreasing
resistance among members to organization development and change. This resistance
can be strong given that members of organizations with aggressive/defensive cultures
are likely to challenge any type of feedback (oppositional and perfectionistic norms)
and members of organizations with passive/defensive cultures may question their
ability to effect any type of change (dependent and avoidance norms).
From the perspective of a practitioner seeking to oversee or manage the change
processes, quantitative assessments of culture such as those made possible by the OCI
can be extremely valuable. A culture analysis can identify distinct differences across
sub-units and levels, and offer specific information on features of corporate culture,
especially subgroup norms and behavior patterns, not readily available from more
Dysfunctional
culture
727
JMP
21,8
728
Black, R.J. (2003), Organisational Culture: Creating the Influence Needed for Strategic Success,
London.
Chatman, J.A. and Jehn, K.A. (1994), Assessing the relationship between industry characteristics
and organizational culture: how different can you be?, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 522-54.
Collins, J.C. and Porras, J.I. (1994), Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies,
HarperBusiness, New York, NY.
Cooke, R.A. (1989), Organizational Culture Inventory Leaders Guide, Human Synergistics,
Plymouth, MI.
Cooke, R.A. and Lafferty, J.C. (1987), Organizational Culture Inventory (Form III), Human
Synergistics, Plymouth, MI.
Cooke, R.A. and Rousseau, D.M. (1988), Behavioral norms and expectations: a quantitative
approach to the assessment of organizational culture, Group and Organization Studies,
Vol. 13, pp. 245-73.
Cooke, R.A. and Szurnal, J.L. (1993), Measuring normative beliefs and shared behavioral
expectations in organizations: the reliability and validity of the organizational culture
inventory, Psychological Reports, Vol. 72, pp. 1299-330.
Cooke, R.A. and Szurnal, J.L. (2000), Using the organizational culture inventory to understand
the operating cultures of organizations, in Ashkanasy, N.M., Widerom, C.P.M. and
Peterson, M.F. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA, pp. 147-62.
Dale, M. (1997), Connecting performance with culture: a case example of change within
procurement at British Aerospace Airbus, Focus on Change Management, July/August.
Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (1982), Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life,
Irwin, Reading, MA.
Gaucher, E. and Kratochwill, E. (1993), The leaders role in implementing total quality
management, Quality Management in Health Care, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 10-18.
Gerstner, L.V. Jr (2002), Who Says Elephants Cant Dance?, HarperCollins Publishers, New York,
NY.
Gillett, E. and Stenfer-Kroese, B. (2003), Investigating organizational culture: a comparison of a
high- and a low-performing residential unit for people with intellectual disabilities,
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 279-83.
Goffee, R. and Jones, G. (1996), What holds the modern company together?, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 133-49.
Guttman, L. (1954), A new approach to factor analysis: the radex, in Lazerfeld, P. (Ed.),
Mathematical Thinking in the Social Sciences, Free Press, Glencoe, IL, pp. 258-348.
Haber, S.B., OBrien, J.N., Metlay, D.S. and Crouch, D.A. (1991), Influence of organizational
factors on performance reliability, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton NY, (Report
to the Division of Systems Research, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission).
Haley, B.R. (1998), The relationship of unit culture and RN and client outcomes, unpublished
PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Hanges, P.J. and Dickson, M.W. (2004), The development and validation of the GLOBE culture
and leadership scales, in House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and
Gupta, V. (Eds), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62
Societies, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 122-51.
Hofstede, G., Bond, M.H. and Luk, C. (1993), Individual perceptions of organizational cultures:
a methodological treatise on levels of analysis, Organization Studies, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 483-503.
Dysfunctional
culture
729
JMP
21,8
730
Dysfunctional
culture
Sathe, V. (1985), Culture and Related Organizational Realities, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Schaef, A.W. and Fassel, D. (1988), The Addictive Organization: Why We Overwork, Cover up,
Pick up the Pieces, Please the Boss, & Perpetuate Sick Organizations, HarperCollins, New
York, NY.
Schein, E.H. (1983), The role of the founder in creating organizational culture, Organizational
Dynamics, Summer.
Schein, E.H. (1984), Suppose we took culture seriously, Academy of Management Newsletter,
Summer, Nos 2-3, p. 7.
Schein, E.H. (1996), Culture: the missing concept in organization studies, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 41, pp. 229-40.
Shortell, S.M., Rousseau, D.M., Morrison, E.M., Gillies, R.R., Devers, K.J. and Simmons, T.L.
(1991), Organizational assessment in intensive care units (ICUs): construct development,
reliability, and validity of the ICU nurse-physician questionnaire, Medical Care, Vol. 29,
pp. 709-26.
Shurberg, D.A. and Haber, S.B. (1992), Organizational culture during the accident response
process, Proceedings of the Topical Meeting on Risk Management, American Nuclear
Society, La Grange Park IL, pp. 152-55.
Slowinski, G. (1992), The human touch in successful strategic alliances, Mergers
& Acquisitions, Vol. 27, pp. 44-7.
Smircich, L. (1983), Concepts of culture and organizational analysis, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 339-58.
Stodgill, R.M. (1963), Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire Form X11,
Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Szumal, J.L. (1998), The Organizational Culture Inventory Interpretation and Development Guide,
Human Synergistics International, Plymouth, MI.
Thornbury, J.E. (1994), The Relationship between Behavioral Norms, Organizational Culture and
the Ability to Assimilate Change, KPMG Management Consulting, London.
Trice, H.M. (1993), Occupational Subcultures in the Workplace, ILR, Ithaca, NY.
Uffal, B. (1983), The corporate culture vultures, Fortune, October 17.
Ulrich, D. (1997), Human Resource Champions: The Next Agenda for Adding Value and
Delivering Results, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.
United Auto Workers (1990), United Auto Workers: The Leadership Alliance at Hydra-Matic
Toledo (Video), United Auto Workers, Detroit, MI.
USA Today (2003), Investigation of the crash of Flight 587, USA Today, 27 May.
van der Velde, M. and Class, M.D. (1995), The relationship of role conflict and ambiguity to
organizational culture, in Sauter, S.L. and Murphy, L.R. (Eds), Organizational Risk
Factors for Job Stress, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 53-9.
Vaughn, D. (1996), The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at
NASA, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
731
JMP
21,8
732
Vaughn, D. (2003), NASA culture, shuttle losses may be linked, Broadcast Press Briefing,
24 April.
Weber, Y., Shenkar, O. and Raveh, A. (1996), National and corporate cultural fit in
mergers/acquisitions: an exploratory study, Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 8,
pp. 1215-28.
Weidner, C.K. (1997), Trust and distrust at work: normative and dyad-exchange influences on
individual and subunit performance, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Illinois
at Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Workforce (1998), IBM division reborn to motivated productivity, Workforce, p. 74.
Xenihou, A. and Furnham, A. (1996), A correlational and factor analytic study of four
questionnaire measures of organizational culture, Human Relations, Vol. 49, pp. 349-71.
Further reading
Tannenbaum, A.S. (1968), Control in Organizations, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Corresponding author
Pierre A. Balthazard can be contacted at: pb@asu.edu