Organization culture is defined as a system of collective values and beliefs held by organizational members (Argüden 34). As such, organization culture determines how organizational members interact with each other. In an organization, culture comprises of an organization’s values, vision, norms, systems, beliefs, and habits.
Similarly, organization culture comprises of an institution’s collective behaviors and assumptions. When new members join an organization, they are taught how to perceive, think, and feel in every particular situation. Argüden defines organization culture as a habitual and conventional way of thinking and acting (Argüden 42). Every organization has distinct values, secret languages, habits, and myths that have been developed over time.
Characteristics of organizational culture
Several management books have identified numerous characteristics of organization culture (Ashkanasy & Celeste 12). Because there are several variables involved, organization culture varies from one organization to the other.
According to Cameron and Robert, organization culture can be characterized as values that are passed over to new employees through socialization, influence an individual behavior, and operate at different levels to (Cameron & Robert 6). In general, six characteristics of organization culture have been identified.
The first characteristic of an organization cultures is that they are collective. Organizational cultures are classified as social entities. This implies that an organization’s leader might exert a cultural influence in a particular organization, but it will necessitate a collective agreement and action for it to be adopted within the organization.
Equally, organization culture is attributed to all employees’ behaviors, beliefs, and cultures. Another characteristic of organization culture is that it is emotionally charged. In every organization, employees consider their organizational cultures as comforting refuge blanket that permits them to tackle their insecurities and fears.
Usually, employees develop a strong emotional attachment with their organizational cultures. Thorough this, employees have safeguarded their organizational cultures without questioning on their values (Bellingham 32).
The third characteristic of organization culture is that it is historically based. In every organization, mutual experiences over a period bind employees together. Employees tend to associate and identify themselves with other employees who have had similar life experiences.
This explains how employees build trust and loyalty, the two key aspects of organizational aspects, by constantly sharing similar experiences through predictable patterns of words and actions. Equally, organization culture can be described as inherently symbolic. Outstanding symbolic actions are the foundations of every great organizational culture.
In this regard, if executives want to change the image of its organization they must lead through actions by changing their attributes and actions. Another characteristic of organization culture is that it is dynamic. In an organization, organization culture enhances conformity, predictability, and stability.
However, it should be noted that as people try to relate, communicate, and conform to an organizational cultural changes occur. For instance, a new employee who calls an organization’s executive by his or her first name might be astonished later to note that no one calls the organization’s executives by his or her name.
It should be noted that organization culture varies from one organization to the other. In every organization, cultures and values can be portrayed through the way employees relate among themselves and with the outsiders. For instance, Etisalat Corporation is reputable for being proud of its employees, stakeholders, and its customers.
Their sense of pride is evident from the way employees relate among themselves. According to the company’s spokesperson, their organization culture can be described using one word “Proud.” Through this organizational culture, every employee at Etisalat aims to be the best in everything they do, to priorities their customers, and always dream big to achieve great rewards.
Similarly, Etisalat’s organization culture can be described as respectful. In the organization, employees take care of one other as they would like to be treated and respect each other’s opinions. In addition, the organization’s culture can be portrayed as unique, outstanding, and delivering.
Based on these attributes, the company has managed to exceed their expectations, come up with innovative opportunities, and ensure that they deliver on their promises. As noted above, Etisalat culture differs from the cultures of other organizations. Through this, the organization has been able to provide a sense of behavior among its employees and customers.
The impact of an organization culture and values on leadership
Cultural values have an impact on a range of features in an organization. Notably organizational and managerial behaviors are greatly affected by the organization culture portrayed in every organization. For Corporation within several departments, organization culture has intense effects on the organization’s decision approaches and results of these decisions.
In every organization, the impacts of organization culture are dependent on the cultural structures adopted. According to Handy, organizational cultures are associated with particular structural forms (Frost 123). Based on this argument, culture can be classified into power cultures, role cultures, and task cultures.
Power culture refers to a form of culture that depends on a sole source of influence. This form of culture is usually referred to as a spider’s web owing to its concentration of power at the center (Frost 123). The power culture is popular among small business organizations. Usually, the prevailing power and influence are accredited to a single person or a power clique comprising of a small number of individuals.
The organization’s leadership emanates from a central entity with rays of authority and influence dispersing from the central entity. Normally, the rays of power are joined by functions. Working in such organizations requires employees to accurately predict what is expected of them from the power holders and execute their duties as required.
Unlike other forms of cultures, few regulations and bureaucracy depict power culture. Similarly, power cultures are described as political organizations rather than social organizations. Power cultures are political organizations because their choices are influenced by balance of influence more willingly than on logical grounds. In addition, power cultures have been known to possess dramatic reactions.
Through this, they can react swiftly to opportunities or threats. Unlike other forms of cultures, power cultures are interested in the results and have little significance on the procedures used in obtaining the results. One major disadvantage, exhibited by these power cultures is that they cannot withstand too much organizational growth. For instance, when power cultures expand by seeking several activities they collapse.
On the other, hand role culture can be described as a form of culture that seeks to achieve logic and reason through the bureaucratic organizational structure. It is referred to as a role structure for the reason that roles or positions are allocated to the individuals who fill the vacant positions. Through this structure, an organization can sustain its growth from the contribution of several individuals rather than from an individual.
In the long term, the organization can recruit more people to fill several emerging roles in the organization. With this form of culture, every role or position has responsibilities and expectations expected from individuals who fill the positions. To make certain that every employee knows their responsibilities and expectations, organizations ensure that their tasks and set of laws are appropriately codified and negotiated.
In cases where roles are not clearly defined, individuals are expected to behave as though their roles are legitimately authorized. Generally, role power is restricted between certain domains. Beyond these domains, the effectiveness of role power ceases to be relevant.
For instance, a unit manager for a service company has role power within his or her unit. Outside the unit, the manager has no role power. Alternatively, task culture has no solitary source of power (Cameron & Robert 56). In this form culture, executives allocate their subordinates to projects. These projects are supposed to be completed autonomously by specific employees who are brought together for the project only.
Unlike other forms of cultures, this culture is inherently cross-functional. It allows several experts to mingle together in project teams. The effectiveness of this culture depends on the managers’ abilities to identify and bring together right individuals at the right time to work on a specific project.
How organizational specific, legal, regulatory and ethical requirements impact on leadership demands
Organizational specific, legal, regulatory, and ethical requirements influence an organization in a number of ways. Legal requirements outline what is expected from organization leaders. In some instances, organizational leaders aiming to exploit on cheap labor may find out that their ambitions are restricted by legal requirements.
Through regulatory policies, organizational leaders are required to comply with the existing rules. Equally, ethical requirements restrict leaders from exercising leadership styles that are deemed unethical.
The relationship between management and leadership
There are several relationships between leadership and management. The two comprises of similar roles, as several leadership and management role involve the combination of the two roles (Schein 12). Equally, personality style is an eminent aspect of both.
Notably, individuals who possess leadership skills tend to pursue dreams aim at managerial tasks. In general, leadership entails setting up new directions for an organization. On the other hand, management entails a process meant to direct and control conventional principles.
Evaluate leadership styles
The need for effective leadership in our governments and institutions is evident from the current leadership wrangles. In our business organizations, increases in staff turnover cases imply that our institutions are in need of effective leadership styles. According to business experts, leadership styles are not to be experimented on but to be developed to fit the particular work environment.
Several business management experts have come up with various leadership styles that can be adopted to end specific challenges facing organizations (Kippenberger 7). Among these leadership styles are dictatorial style, authoritative style, constructive style, and participative style.
In dictatorial leadership style, an executive behaves like a dictator. This implies that all the employees are required to act as their executive orders. Similarly, this type of leadership style allows the executive to make all the organization’s decisions without consulting with the subordinates.
When the employees fail to act in accordance with the executive’s orders they are punished accordingly. This kind of leadership style is appropriate during emergencies, when employees’ safety is at risk, and when stern discipline needs to be undertaken to punish rogue employees.
Another common leadership style is authoritative leadership. With authoritative leadership style executives considers themselves the most qualified decision makers in an organization. In this regard, subordinates and other junior employees are rarely given chances to participate in matters that pertain to their organization. Through this leadership style, executives can use their subordinates to achieve their own personal interests.
This leadership style is most preferred when a company hires new employees who are unfamiliar with their tasks, when there is habitual misuse of authority, and when company rules are violated. One major disadvantage associated with this leadership style is that it allows executives to undermine the potential capabilities of their subordinate. Through this, an organization can fail to tap its employees’ full potential.
Unlike the above leadership styles, consultative leadership style enables the executives to engage their employees in the management of their organizations. Through this leadership style, all employees are assured that they will contribute in organizations’ problem solving and team building activities.
Similarly, unlike the other two leadership styles this style of leadership allows employees to foster their self-confidence as their effort is appreciated at all levels. Equally, through this approach employees full potential can be exploited fully enhancing the organization’s innovation. In general, this leadership style focuses on maximizing on individuals’ experiences, skills, and knowledge.
It should be noted that executives have the final decision making power. This implies that executives are first consulted before the subordinates initiate any major decisions. In the same way, executives cannot implement any major changes before taking the input from those who will be affected by the changes.
This mode of leadership style is appropriate when an organization needs an innovative solution, is conducting planning meetings for its departments, training employees for leadership roles, and when performing day-to-day organizational activities.
Another major leadership style is participative leadership. In this form of leadership, individuals’ efforts in an organization are considered regardless of their job levels. Just like the consultative leadership style, participative leadership styles enable an organization to maximize on their employees’ experiences, skills, and knowledge. Through this leadership, an organization can enhance its employees’ creativity creating a culture of innovation.
Why leadership style needs to be adapted in different situations
In the contemporary society, competition exists in every sector. As such, business organizations are not exceptional. Organizations are continuously struggling to come up with better goods and services than their competitors. To achieve this, an organization needs a leader with unique leadership styles (Hiebert & Bruce 43).
An efficient leader should possess leadership traits that adapt to every situation challenging the operation of an organization. Unlike in the past, current business environments are ever changing. This implies that leadership styles should be adapted to suit the dynamic work environment. Another reason why leadership styles should be adapted to every situation is that there exist different business structures in the contemporary society.
For instance, a young company will change its leadership styles more often in the future as the company expands (Hiebert & Bruce 46). Similarly, as the layers of decision making in the company become complex as the company expands the company’s executives might be required to amend on their leadership styles to match with the organizational changes.
Works Cited
Argüden, R. Yılmaz. Keys to governance strategic leadership for quality of life. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Print.
Ashkanasy, Neal M., and Celeste Wilderom. Handbook of organizational culture & climate . Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2000. Print.
Bellingham, Richard. The manager’s pocket guide to corporate culture change. Amherst, Mass.: HRD Press, 2001. Print.
Cameron, Kim S., and Robert E. Quinn. Diagnosing and changing organizational culture : based on the competing values framework. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 2009. Print.
Frost, Peter J.. Reframing organizational culture. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2001. Print.
Hiebert, Murray, and Bruce Klatt. The encyclopedia of leadership: a practical guide to popular leadership theories and techniques . New York: McGraw Hill, 2001. Print.
Kippenberger, Tony. Leadership styles. Oxford, U.K.: Capstone Pub., 2002. Print.
Schein, Edgar H.. Organization culture and leadership. 5nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002. Print.