c

c 

The concept of organizational behavior is extensive in application ranging from human behavior
and change to culture and leadership and teams, etc. Here in this paper the two aspects of
organizational behavior are critically discussed in relation to organizational change and
organizational culture. The main body of the paper is presented into three sections accordingly:
organizational change, organizational culture, and organizational change and culture.


 c 


  

While the time-honored significances of organisational change are certified in the need of
organisations to be replied to the altered environmental conditions (Thornhill et al, 2000, p. 6), it
is now recognized that the deep environmental change is presented with the bigger frequency and
the organisations learns they live with the constant change. A line of the exterior and internal
factors is responsible in order to it causes this change (Senior, 2002). Ivancevich and Matteson
(2002) determine the technology, economic forces and the sociopolitical and legal factors as
important drivers of organisational change. They support that these forces for the change are
beyond the administrative control and force a important shock that causes the organisation in
order to they internally regulate the processes and the systems. Various internal factors are also
critical for the control of organisational change. Ivancevich and Matteson (2002) support the
questions of that human potential and the estimates of process are the most common forces for
the change in the organisation. They support that the internal factors are as generally speaking in
t o n control of management, but can sometimes be difficult to recognize and to locate from the
exterior factors. The following paragraphs provide a prospect in the internal and exterior forces
that lead the change. Be adapted in the change it is one of the main subjects that penetrate the
work. In the work, there is the reality that the change is a particularly debited, process that will
be reproached by certain and will be greeted by other. It recognizes the inevitable of change and
it determines it formulates the strategies in order to it ensures the successful application of
change and in order to it extends our comprehension of complex organisational change.
In accordance with Kanter (1991), the change can be faced from opinion of change in the
activities and the objectives of organisation. The organisational change, by Paton and McCalman
(2000), is reported in the process by which the organisations are moved by their present situation
to some desirable future state so that is increased their effectiveness. Taking as starting line the
criticisms with regard to the organisational literature of change, a big part of which is lawful the
focus of present study was in the potential of change in a concrete environment. It strengthens
the opinion with it supports that has existed a excessive accent in the instructive writing in the
literature, that leads in underconcern with the descriptive analysis and the arrest. It gives accent
in the based in the nature of change in organisation.

Since the change accelerates, the organisations in each industry should cultivate a line of tables
of competency not only in order to they survive but also in order to they remain front from the
competitors. This means the possibility are delivered the higher product and the service faster
and with lower cost than the competitors, are strengthened the commercial signals of enterprise,
of be determined and exploits the cooperation that results from the common work with the
organisation as well as the alliances and the collaborations that a enterprise forges with other
organisations, and renews continuously the offers of enterprise via the innovation and the fresh
thought (Johnson and Luecke, 2005). The based in the resource opinion of company it is a
theoretical frame for how the competitive advantage in the companies is achieved and how that
force of advantage is continuous with the byway of time (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000)
Moreover, certain students supports that the enterprises they should it is in position be adapted
successfully if these posses satisfactory dynamic competences. The dynamic competences are
what it allows in one organisational in order to it incorporates, it builds, and it changes the
internal and exterior specialities in order to it examines altered with fast changing environment
(Teece et. al, 1997). They propose that the possibility of be achieved the new forms of
competitive advantage are the substance of dynamic competency, and the dynamic competences
of organisation are determined by three categories of factors namely process-managerial and
organisational routines place-run financing of technology, bases of customers, and suppliers
course-available strategic alternative solutions.

Even if any particular dynamic competence it has the detail that in the particular organisation in
which it is developed, exists common characteristic traits in the companies that allow the
determination of better practical competence (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). Organisational
competence for the change is fixed as a wide and dynamic organisational competence that
allows in the enterprise in order to it adapts the old competences in the new threats and the
occasions as well as it create the new competences. The dynamic competences are more and
more important as rythm of change outside from the constant increases, which practises
pressures in the changes that they faster unfold and more completely in the organisation or the
organisational unit (Oxtoby et al, 2002). In consequence, organisational competence for the
change is an effort is characterized the overarching nature the based in the resource
significance of opinion of dynamic competences for a concrete organisation or a organisational
unit. The organisational competence of change is considered here as general in the all other
dynamic competences that are incorporated in a organisation, and as something that is
substantive if a dynamically constant organisation is to function successfully that from the other
dynamic competences round which she is structured.

The organisational competence of change is similar with other organisational fabrications of

change, but is also unique. He is similar with the readiness for the fabrication of change, but tries
describes the collective of organisation, no the individual, readiness for the change (Cunningham
et al , 2002). He is also similar with organisational it becomes , but it tries it arrests not only the
courtyards human propensities to the change, but also the organisational infrastructure that can
support or prevent the initiatives of change. Finally, it is connected also with the possibility of
organizational learning , but these they are the results that are connected with the
organisational competence of change.

 

Traditionally, there has had been existed innumerable definitions of the organisational culture,
which is determined with a lot of different ways in the literature. Perhaps the more usually
known determination is the way that we make the things round here . The organisational culture
is revealed in the formal characteristics of organisation, in other words, organisational culture
should it is considered as right way with which the things become or the problems it should they
become comprehensible in the organisation. Widely it becomes acceptable that the organisational
culture is fixed as the deep values and the convictions that are shared by the personnel in an
organisation. Ogbonna (1992) declares that the organisational philosophies are the results they
mix a individual in a community and the collective planning of brain that distinguishes the
members« this they are the values, the rules, the convictions and the custom that a individual
keeps joint with other members of social unit or team. Generally speaking, the culture of
organisation is the determined theory of important values, convictions, and the terms that the
members are shared joint, culture provide better (or better) ways of thought, sentiment and
reaction that could help the directors in order to they take the decision and they arrange the
activities of organisation. A successful organisation should have the powerful cultures that can
attract, keep, and persons of remuneration for the implementation of roles and the achievement
of objectives, while the powerful cultures are usually characterized by the dedication and the
collaboration in the organisation.

Johnson and Scholes (2001) presented a cultural web that allows the persons to occupy
completely the culture of organisation. The cultural web is really a useful ideal tool in order to it
makes the connections with with political, symbolic, and structural aspects of organisation, and
can be guided the growth of strategy. Generally speaking, the cultural Web it is useful for
determining a culture in a organisation. In the cultural web, there exist seven basic elements that
are connected. In the centre, it is the example or the usually kept convictions and the values of
organisation, and the seven elements (routine, ritually, histories, symbols, systems of control,
structures of force, and organisational structure) they could be shaped in the different developing
period of organisation. Into practice, these affairs, convictions, and values are determined from
the leaders of organisation and they present a powerful total of forces, as the seven basic
elements, which are deep, wide, and stable. They lead to the behaviors that are useful as a driver
in the employees on what is considered suitable or inadequate behavior in the organisation.
Naturally, the determination of seven subjects of culture is not sufficient in order to it tries it
occupies and it measures the culture of organisation. Nevertheless, it is also imperative is
measured effect that the culture practises in the daily processes and the work of organisation, that
is to say how the organisation are organised, the relations with the customers (internal and
exterior) and how the organisation handles the personnel, and these are the basic aspects at the
construction of successful culture.
Êegularly, the operations of organisational culture are interpreted in two objectives: firstly,
creating the sentiment of identity between the personnel and the engagement for the organisation
second, creating a competitiveness in order to it allows in the members (special new members) in
the organisation in order to it occupies well the acceptable behavior and the social stability of
system. It is the make that the organisational culture can offer a common system of significances,
which constitutes the base of communication and reciprocal comprehension. If the organisational
doses of culture it does not achieve these operations with a satisfactory way, the culture they can
considerably decrease the efficiency of organisation. On the one hand, the organisations use the
different resources and the processes in order to they guide the behavior and the change. The
organisational culture plays a indirect role in the influence of behavior with the utilisation of
reasonable managerial tools, as the strategic direction, the objectives, the objectives, the
technology, the structure, the communication, the decision - production, the collaboration and the
interpersonal relations, and so on, which all is drawn in order to makes the things (Martins and
Terblanche, 2003). The important value of change of society becomes more and more complex
and she is exceeded, and consequently, those right things or the decisions, as the strategies, that
were acceptable and successful in the past, they cannot be used today. What is more, more
employees has begun to consider that the organisational philosophies that are established ago a
lot of years are from the step with the modern values, consequently, the need to be determined
that whoever attributes the culture of organisation it should it is maintained and whoever should
be modified is constant.

Each organisation places the unique culture or her value, and the different organisation can have
her comprehension of significance of culture. The culture of organisation is created
characteristically based on the values of leading management or the founders of organisation.
So is achieved a successful organizational culture, the directors should not ignore the
organisational culture and subjects, because the culture can be used as competitive advantage at
the duration of organisational growth, and a powerful culture (in which the convictions and the
values are shared widely and kept intense) can also offer a lot of advantages, as the collaboration,
the control, the communication or the obligation. Meanwhile, the importance of organisational
culture is increased as resulting from various recent developmets, and the cultural subjects can be
used continuously in order to determine the culture of organisation.
   

The most important predicament for organizations today is as how to exploit the efforts of
change the more efficient way. The studies in the clinical approach appear they are enough sure
that somebody it should precisely it adapts the culture of objectives in order to it installs the
effort of change, and the efforts of change they can be used from the management in the
configuration of new organisational drawings. The culture can be checked and guided for the
better adaptation in organizational change. Moreover, also it studies in the comparative approach
it presents confidence in the reasonable planning and the management relative with the
organisational change. It is supposed that the efforts of change can be applied successfully in as
far as these are compatible with the culture in question. Or it is supposed that the efforts of
change should be adapted in order to they install the culture or the culture in question it should
he is suitable for the effort of change in the first instance (Cabrera et al , 2001). Each one way,
the apolitical and positive nature of efforts of change and straightforwardness their application
they are supposed. Nevertheless, this place is supported in the significances of naïve culture (a
variable, perhaps even designable, directed variable) and change (a simple, designable,
immediately controllable process). This place can be reproached the support in the very
mechanistic affairs for the organisations and the persons. Specifically naïve they are the affairs
for the culture and persons that are controllable and direct directed from the management. In a
level somebody it can warn that the strategies of application and the models of organisational
change that are supported in this type of affairs cannot take into consideration the complexity
that is included in any organisational change in any cultural frame. Consequently, exists an
explicit danger in their application in the real environments, in which somebody cannot escape
the complexity.

Schein (2004) proposes that while it is easy is to be observed what's going on here in the
organisations, a comprehension of helps of culture in order to it explains why the things happen.
Further, understanding how the leaders create the culture and how the culture determines and
creates the a leadership-critical variable in the determination of success or failure. Ogbonna and
Harris (2002) participate in this discussion from a administrative opinion. Describe those that
consider that the culture can be regulated by no means as optimistic, that emanates
characteristically from a human prospect of relations, believes in the unionist cultures in the
organisations, and the culture of connections in the organisational output. Those that deny the
possibility of change of culture is pessimists or detractors, which are more frequent academicians
or theoretical more interested in the explanation of culture from his practical usefulness for the
directors. The pessimists focus in the conflicts and the contradictions and in the way with which
the cultures result and change, and the question the control can really be achieved. Ogbonna
and Harris finally certify that those that find some value and in the two possibilities as
pragmatists , for Schein (2004), that are ready to search the dynamics of change of culture, and
are ready to recognize some influence beyond the culture. The more constant elements emanate
from Parry and proctor-Thomson (2003) report a discrimination between (change directed)
and transactions (arrangement) organisational types of culture. They report the inquiring
elements that propose the positive correlations between the culture and the desirable
organisational and individual results, and the negative correlations between transactions of
culture and the organisational and results of leadership. For example, Callan (2004) teases
outside the connections between the culture, the faculty and the output in his revision of research
aiming to determine the basic practices or the habits of innovative organisations. It uses the
innovation as indicator for the output and it shows the creation of learning of cultures that
promotes the innovation as organisational core competence. The new opinions of culture
continue resulting from the literature in the management of change. For example, Seel (2000)
sees the culture of as resulting from daily discussions and negotiations between the members of
organisation, and writes the organisational culture as a resulting result and a subject of
negotiation checks despite.

The culture of organisation is the resulting effect of negotiations on the values, the significances
and the decencies between the members of that organisation and with his environment. If persons
want to change a culture they should change all these discussion-or at least their majority. And
the change of discussions is not the focus of most programs of change, which tends are focused
in the organisational systems of structures or remuneration or other of big scale interventions.
The focus of organisational interventions of change is removed by the planning of change and on
the facilitation of appearance. The organisational change is characterized sometimes as or from
above to under or from under to above. Our approach is really not nor these. This could be
characterized as each one is included and do not exist a preferred initial place (Seel 2000, pp.2).
Exist positive correlations between the culture and the desirable organisational and individual
results, and negative correlations between her transactions of culture and the organisational and
results of leadership. More specifically, the culture is the result of daily discussions and
negotiations between the members of organisation, and writes the organisational culture as a
resulting result and a subject of negotiation checks despite. The culture of organisation is the
resulting result of negotiations on the values, the significances and the decencies between the
members of that organisation and with the environment.

 c 

Considering the fact that the change accelerates, the organisations in each industry should
cultivate a line of tables of competency not only in order to they survive but also in order to they
remain front from the competitors. Even if any particular dynamic competence it has the detail
that in the particular organisation in which it is developed, exists common characteristic traits in
the companies that allow the determination of better practical competence. Organisational
competence for the change is fixed as a wide and dynamic organisational competence that allows
in the enterprise in order to it adapts the old competences in the new threats and the occasions as
well as it create the new competences. On the other hand, organisational culture can offer a
common system of significances, which constitutes the base of communication and reciprocal
comprehension. If the organisational doses of culture it does not achieve these operations with a
satisfactory way, the culture they can considerably decrease the efficiency of organisation. On
the one hand, the organisations use the different resources and the processes in order to they
guide the behavior and the change. The culture of organisation is created characteristically
based on the prices of leading management or the founders of organisation. So is achieved a
successful organizational culture, the directors should not ignore the organisational culture and
subjects, because the culture can be used as competitive advantage at the duration of
organisational growth, and a powerful culture. The culture can be checked and guided for the
better adaptation in organizational change. Moreover, also it studies in the comparative approach
it presents confidence in the reasonable planning and the management relative with the
organisational change so far as culture as facilitator is concerned. There is the positive
correlations between the culture and the desirable organisational and individual results, and
the negative correlations between transactions of culture and the organisational and results of
leadership. Notably, in the end that the culture of organisation is the resulting affects of
negotiations on the values the significances and the decencies between the members of that
organisation and with the environment.?

?
?
 

c
c 

Thornhill, A., Lewis, P., Millmore, M. and Saunders, M. (2000), Managing Change, Pearson,
London

Ivancevich, J.M. and Matteson, M.T. (2002), Organizational Behavior and Management,
McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA

Senior, B. (2002), Organisational Change, Prentice-Hall/Financial Times, London

Kanter ÊM( 1991), Transcending Business Boundaries: 12,000 World Managers View Change.
Harvard Business Êeview, Vol 69 No3, pp 151-164

Paton ÊA and J McCalman(2000), Change Management: A Guide to Effective Implementation,

2th edition., London, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications

Johnson L. K. and Luecke Ê. (2005), The Essentials of Managing Change and Transition.
Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation and the Society for Human Êesource
Management

Locke, K. (2001), Grounded theory in management research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Eisenhardt, K. and Martin, J. (2000), Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic
Management Journal 21, pp1105±1121

Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal 18(7), pp509±533

Oxtoby, B., McGuinness, T. and Morgan, Ê.E.( 2002), Developing Organizational Change
Capability European Management Journal Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 310±320

Ogbonna, E. (1992). Managing Organisational Culture: Fantasy or Êeality?. ß
 



  . Volume 3, Number 2, pp. 42-54

Johnson, G and Scholes, K. (2001).    . Prentice Hall
Martins, E.C. and Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organizational culture that stimulates
creativity and innovation. 
 ß
    , Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 64-74

Schein, E (2004), Organizational culture and leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Ogbonna, E and Harris, L(2002), µManaging organizational culture: Insights from the hospitality
industry¶, Human Êesource Management Journal, vol.12, iss.1, p.33±54

Cabrera, A., Cabrera, E. F. and Barajas, S. (2001), The key role of organizational culture in a
multisystem view of technology-driven change. International Journal of Information Management 21(3).
Pp. 245-261.?
?

Parry, K and Proctor-Thomson, S( 2003), µLeadership, culture and performance: The case of the
New Zealand public sector¶, Journal of Change Management, vol.3, iss.4, p. 376±393

Callan, V (2004), Building innovative vocational education and training organizations, NCVEÊ,
Adelaide

Seel, Ê (2000), µCulture and complexity: New insights on organizational change¶, Organizations
and People, vol.7, no.2, pp.2±9.
?