TASK: SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT 1

TOPIC:
DISCUSS, FROM CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES, THE EXTENT TO WHICH
ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE SHAPES EMPLOYEES’ ATTITUDE AND
BEHAVIOUR DURING ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE

1
INTRODUCTION
The different social theorist has given definitions to culture, according to Geert et al (2010),
culture can be defined as the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members
of one group or category of people from the others. Also, Deal and Kennedy (1982) define
culture in short as the way we do things around here.
Hence, Organizational culture defines the way employees complete tasks and interacts with each
other within the organization. Organization culture binds the employees together and impacts on
employee attitude and behavior levels. Oftentimes, employees work harder to achieve
organizational goals if they consider themselves to be part of the organizational culture. (Ananta
Narayana ,1997)
The purpose of organizational culture is to improve solidarity and cohesion, improve the
efficiency of an organization, and also to stimulate employee’s enthusiasm and creativity.
The objective of this study is to examine the effect of organizational culture on employee attitude
and behavior during organizational change and in line with this objective this research study is
aimed towards providing answers to the following questions,
I. Does organizational culture have any effect on employee attitude and behavior during
organizational change?
II. In what way do organizational culture affect employee attitude and behavior?
In other to answer the above questions, a critical review of various research papers related to the
study has been done.

2
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Employees’ attitudes in the process of organizational change
As highlighted in the background, organizational change, the benefits of the change, attitudes
towards change and the competence of managers implementing these changes – become very
important.
Social theorist, Jick (1993) has defined organizational change as a planned or unplanned
response to pressures and forces both from within an organization and the external environment.
Attitudes have been postulated to motivate behavior and to exert selective effects at various
stages of information processing (Eagly, Chaiken, 1993: 1).
Employee’s attitudes are considered to be indicative of the future success of an organization
(Hurst, 1995). Also, when seeking information they need for decision-making, employee’s focus
on information that is consistent with their attitudes (Frey, 1986).
When organizational changes take place, employees are required to learn new skills, behaviors,
and attitudes. Some levels of extra efforts are been made by the employees towards channeling
their energies towards the goal. Hence, people should be motivated and encouraged to maintain
their position and membership within the organization. There are two concepts named
commitment and satisfaction that are considered as indicators of whether individuals are
effectively connected to an organization or may decide to quit (Holton, Russell, 1999; Meyer,
Allen, 1997; Randall et al, 1990). The role of organizational culture in shaping the employees'
attitudes needs to be examined.
Mahler, (1997), Organizational culture influences employees’ attitudes within the process of
organizational change by providing a reservoir of organizational meanings against which the
results, experience and performance data are interpreted and inquiries about changes in
procedures and program technologies can proceed. Organizational culture can be viewed from a
functional perspective as an adaptation mechanism that helps an organization to adapt and
survive in a changing environment. Schein (1992), also stated that organizational culture is the
pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered, or developed in
learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and integral integration.
According to works of literature, managers can increase employee satisfaction by creating
cultures with characteristics expressed in terms of collegiality and collaboration (Xin Ma,
MacMillan, 1999). A lot of social scientists suggest that organizational culture can be either task-
oriented or relationship-oriented/person-oriented: Kilmann and Saxton (1983), and Cooke and
Lafferty (1986) focus on people versus task. Harrison (1995) distinguishes between task- and
person-oriented organizational cultures. Task culture emphasizes the superiority of the goals of
the organization over its member’s personal goals. A person-oriented culture is based on warm
and harmonious interpersonal relationships. These two – task orientation and relation orientation
– are the vital aspects of organizational culture that can influence employees’ attitudes.

3
The two orientations of organizational culture, task orientation, and relationship orientation
influence employees’ attitudes in organizations in transition. Three hypotheses were earlier
studied by social researchers, first, is that orientations of organizational culture may have
different impacts on employees’ attitudes. It is hypothesized (hypothesis 1), that peoples’
attitudes towards change are more influenced by task orientation of organizational culture than
by relationship orientation.
Secondly, Vadi, Allik, and Realo (2002) conducted a study in Estonia and the result was that
Russians living in Estonia are more collectivist than Estonians within organizational contexts,
hypothesis 2 was that relationship orientation of organizational culture has a greater impact on
Russian attitudes towards change than on the same attitudes of Estonians.
Third, organizational culture is also subdivided into subcultures within organizations. Schein
(1996) distinguishes between three different types of cultures in one organization – executive
culture, engineer culture, and operator culture. The culture of operators changes locally within
the organization and is based on human interactions. However, Engineers and Executives are
task-focused and assume that people cause problems. They showed that these groups (e.g.
managers) possess dissimilar perspectives in the organizational context because they have
different collectivist attitudes. Due to their differences in perceptions of organizational culture,
members in non-managerial and managerial positions may understand change differently. Thus,
it was hypothesized that the attitudes of managers and people with certain professional interests
hold strongly with the task orientation aspect of organizational culture and are more influenced
by this in the change process than the Operators, being less influenced by the relationship
orientation aspect of organizational culture (hypothesis 3).

4
CRITICAL DISCUSSION
Organizational culture and organizational behavior
Culture acts as a behavioral mechanism that guides and shapes the attitudes and behavior of
employees. (Robbins, 2010).Culture plays a lot of roles within an organization. Firstly, it gives
organization identities, which means it creates boundaries between one organization and the
others, as well as individuals. Furthermore, culture also transforms individual self-interests into
something bigger which coincides with an organization’s goal. Finally, since culture regulates
the behavior of the employee by providing appropriate standards, it enhances the organizational
system level.
The phenomenon of culture associated with employee behavior appears to be increasingly
important in today’s workplace. Research on the relationship between organizational culture and
organizational behavior is becoming increasingly important. More and more studies have
examined the relationship between organizational culture and organizational behavior.
Researchers claim there is a positive relationship.
A good example of the relationship between organizational culture and organizational behavior
was given by Kotter and Heskett (1992), their conclusion can be categorized into two: a
contingency model and a universal model. Why a contingency model indicates that an
organization is performing and they have a strong culture that fits the organization's
environment, the universal model envisaged that if an organization wants to behave well on the
long term base, it must have a culture focused on three constituencies: customers, employees,
and stockholders.
To do an in-depth analysis of corporate culture, many scholars have proposed a structural model
or theory of corporate culture. For instance, Deal and Kennedy (1982) state that organizational
culture consists of four factors: values, heroes, rituals, and culture network;
Deal and Kennedy’s (1982) theory and Hofstede’s (2010) theory provides an onion model that
covers the total concept of culture. They divided organizational culture into three levels (see
Figure 1). The most superficial level is symbols. This level of culture is visible, and that is why
this part of the culture can be observed easily. The middle level is rituals. Rituals cannot be
observed directly, but the middle level reflects the standards and constraints of organizational
behavior. The core level is represented by values, and this part is the invisible side of culture,
which includes attitudes, beliefs, interaction, and other concealed features of culture.

5
 SYMBOL

RITUAL

VALUE

FIGURE 1: STRUCTURAL DIAGRAM OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE

A symbol within an organizational context is an object that stands for ideas, visual images,
beliefs, or actions. Usually, symbols are formed with words, gestures, sounds, or images and are
used to convey ideas and beliefs. At the management level, symbols are discerned in the
following form: organizational logo, charity, media, and office design.
The identity of symbols in any company is the logo and charity. The organizational logo states
the first impression of the organization. It is the first information provided by the organization
and shared with others.
Rituals demonstrate the effectiveness of an enterprise in the construction and development of
their own culture (De, 2007). They provide a code of conduct for the employees, for instance in
terms of language and dress code. Different rituals reflect the different characters and traditions
within an organization.
Values can be expressed in terms of binaries, for instance, dirty against clean, dangerous against
safe, evil against good, and forbidden against permitted.

6
CONCLUSION
The research indicates that orientations of organizational culture predict attitudes of
organizational members in different groups in different ways. Their attitudes towards company
and job, the benefits of change, leadership, and information depend on task orientation of
organizational culture in all groups, but attitudes towards the benefits of change are independent
of relationship orientation in some groups.
The first hypothesis supported the fact that attitudes towards change are more influenced by the
task orientation of organizational culture than by relationship orientation. Task orientation of
organizational culture predicted attitudes towards the benefits of change among the diverse
groups of employees, whereas relationship orientation did so only in the case of some groups.
The influence of task orientation was stronger compared to the influence of relationships in
respect of all the groups.
In the second hypothesis, Estonians in contrast to Russians did not depend on the relationship
orientation of organizational culture in their judgments of the benefits of change. This is in line with
previous research conducted in Estonia, which indicated that Estonians are less collectivist compared
to Russians (Realo, Allik, 1999).

From the third hypothesis, managers’ attitudes towards the usefulness of change and leadership
were only related to task orientation of organizational culture and did not depend on relationship
orientation. At the same time, the managers’ commitment to the organization, their satisfaction
with their jobs, and the information provided was predictable from both orientations of
organizational culture, although the impact of task orientation was greater.
Employees with a university degree or vocational education, and also people with certain
professional interests, who may count as specialists, also depended more on task orientation than
relationship orientation in their opinions about the usefulness of change.
In conclusion, the attitudes held by people towards change are more influenced by the task
orientation of organizational culture than by relationship orientation.

7
REFERENCE
1. Ananta Narayana. A Critical Review of Organizational Culture on Employee
Performance. American Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. Vol. 2,
No. 5, 2017, pp. 72-76. doi: 10.11648/j.ajetm.20170205.13
2. Boninger, D. S., Krosnick, J. W., & Berent, M. K. (1995). Origins of Attitude
Importance: Self-interest, Social Identification, and Value Relevance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 68, pp.61−80.
3. Geert Hofstede & Gert Jan Hofstede & Michael Minkov (2010). Cultures and
Organizations.
4. De Zhang & Wenjun Pan (2007). Corporate culture.
5. Deal, T.E. & Kennedy, A. (1982), Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of
Organizational Life, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
6. Eagly, A. H., Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt College
Publishers.
7. Frey, D. (1986). Recent Research on Selective Exposure to Information. In: Berkowitz,
L. (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, pp. 41−80. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
8. Hurst, D. K. (1995). Crisis and Renewal: Meeting the Challenge of Organisational
Change, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
9. Holton, E. F. III, Russell, C. J. (1999). Organizational Entry and Exit: An Exploratory
Longitudinal Examination of Early Careers. Human Performance, 12(3/4), pp. 311−342.
10. Harrison, R. (1995). The Collected Papers of Roger Harrison, Jossey- Bass Publishers,
San Francisco.
11. Kilmann, R. H., Saxton, M. J. (1983). The Kilmann-Saxton Culture-Gap Survey.
Pittsburgh: PA Organisational Design Consultants.
12. Jick, T. D. (1993). Managing Change. Cases and Concepts, Irwin.
13. Mahler, J. (1997). Influences of Organisational Culture on Learning in Public Agencies.
Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 7(4), pp. 519−541.
14. Realo, A., Allik, J. (1999). A Cross-cultural Study of Collectivism: A Comparison of
American, Estonian, and Russian students. Journal of Social Psychology, 139, pp.
133−142.
15. Robbins, Stephen P. & Judge, Timothy A. & Campbell, Timothy T. (2010).
Organizastional behavior.
16. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey Bass Publishers.
17. Schein, E. H. (1996). Three Cultures of Management: The Key to Organisational
Learning. Sloan Management Review, 38 (1), pp. 9−30.
18. https://explore.easyprojects.net/blog/how-company-culture-can-influence-on-employees-
working-behavior
19. Vadi, M., Buono, A. F. (1997). Collectivism and Individualism in Estonia: An
Exploratory Study of Societal Change and Organisational Orientation. In: Hood, N.,
Kilis, R., Vahlene, J.-E. (Eds) Transition in the Baltic States. Micro-level Studies.
Macmillan Press Ltd, pp. 62−79.

8
20. Xin Ma, MacMillan, R. B. (1999). Influences of Workplace Conditions on Teachers’
Job Satisfaction. Journal of Education Research,93(1), pp. 39−48.