UNIT- 6: Organization Culture and Change Management (Part -1)

 Part 1- Organization Culture

 

Concept of Organizational Culture

Organizational culture is the set of assumptions, beliefs, values and norms that are shared by the members of an organization. It may be consciously created by its key members, or it may have simply evolved over time. It represents a key element of the work environment in which employees perform their jobs. A culture may exist across an entire organization, or it may refer to the environment within a single division, branch, plant, or department. The idea of organizational culture is somewhat intangible, for we cannot see it or touch it, but it is present and pervasive. Like the air in a room, it surrounds and affects everything that happens in an organization. Because it is a dynamic systems concept, culture is also affected by almost everything that occurs within an organization. They give an organizational identity to employees – a defining vision of what the organization represents. They are also an important source of stability and continuity to the organization which provides a sense of security to its members.

Characteristics of organizational Cultures

Each organization has its own history, patterns of communication, systems and procedures, mission statements and visions, stories and myths which, in their totality, constitute its distinctive culture. Cultures are also relatively stable in nature. Most organizational cultures have historically been rather implicit rather than explicit. A defining characteristic of most culture is that they are seen as symbolic representations of underlying beliefs and values.

·         Distinctive

·         Stable

·         Implicit

·         Symbolic

·         Integrated

·         Accepted

·         A reflection of top management

Measuring Organizational Culture

Systematic measurement and comparison of cultures is difficult. Most of the early attempts by researchers relied on examination of stories, symbols, rituals, and ceremonies to obtain clues. Others have used interviews and open ended questionnaires in an attempt to assess employee values and beliefs. In some cases, examination of corporate philosophy statements has provided insights into the espoused cultures (the beliefs and values that the organizations state publicly). Another approach is to survey employees directly and seek their perceptions of the organization’s culture. Another interesting method is to become a member of the organization and engage in participant observation.

Communicating Culture: If organizations are to consciously create and manage their cultures, they must be able to communicate them to employees, especially the newly hired ones. Individuals are generally more willing to adapt when they want to please others, gain approval, and learn about their new work environment. These cultural communication acts may be lumped under the umbrella of organizational socialization, which is the continuous process of transmitting key elements of an organization’s culture to its employees. Individualization occurs when employees successfully exert influence on the social system around them at work by challenging the culture or deviating from it.

Techniques of Managing Conflict

Several techniques are widely used to manage organizational conflict. We will now review the two most popular ones—bargaining and third-party intervention.

Bargaining: When conflicts arise between individuals, groups, or even entire organizations, the most common way to resolve them is to negotiate a solution that is acceptable to all the parties involved. This process is known as bargaining. Formally, we define bargaining as the process in which two or more parties in dispute with each other exchange offers, counteroffers, and concessions in an attempt to find a mutually acceptable agreement.

Obviously, bargaining does not work when the parties rigidly adhere to their positions without budging, or "stick to their guns." For bargaining to be effective, the parties involved must be willing to adjust their stances on the issues at hand. And, for the people involved to be willing to make such adjustments, they must believe that they have found an acceptable outcome—one that allows them to claim victory in the negotiation process. For bargaining to be most effective in reducing conflict, this must be the case for all sides. That is, outcomes must be found for all sides that allow them to believe that they have "won" the negotiation process—results known as win- win solutions. Several effective ways of finding such win-win solutions may be identified.

1. Avoid making unreasonable offers. Imagine that a friend of yours is selling a used car with an asking price of $10,000—the car's established "book value." If you were to attempt to "low ball" the seller by offering only $1,000, your bad-faith offer might end the negotiations right there. A serious buyer would offer a more reasonable price, say $9,000—one that would allow both the buyer and the seller to come out ahead in the deal. In short, extreme offers tend to anger one's opponents, sometimes ending the negotiation process on a sour note, allowing none of the parties to get what they want.
2.   Seek common ground. All too often, people in conflict with others assume that their interests and those of the other party are completely incompatible. When this occurs, they tend to overlook the fact that they actually might have several areas of interest in common.  When parties focus on possible areas of agreement between them, it helps bring them together on the areas of disagreement. So, for example, in negotiating the deal for purchasing the used car, you might establish the fact that you agree to the selling price of $9,000. This verifies that the interests of the buyer and the seller are not completely incompatible, thereby encouraging them to find a solution to the area in which they disagree, such as a payment schedule. In contrast, if either party believed that they were completely far apart on all aspects of the deal, they would be less likely to negotiate a win-win solution.
3. Broaden the scope of issues considered. Sometimes, parties bargaining with each other have several issues on the table. When this occurs, it often is useful to consider the various issues together as a total package. Labor unions often do this in negotiating contracts with company management whenever they give-in on one issue in exchange for consideration on another issue. So, for example, in return for not freezing wages, a company may agree to concede to the union's other interests, such as gaining representation on key corporate committees. In other words, compared to bargaining over single issues (e.g., the price of the used car), when the parties get to bargaining across a wide array of issues, it often is easier to find solutions that are acceptable to all sides.
4. Uncover "the real" issues. Frequently, people focus on the conflicts between them in only a single area although they may have multiple conflicts between them—some of which may be hidden. Suppose, for example, that your friend is being extremely stubborn when it comes to negotiating the price of the used car. He's sticking firmly to his asking price, refusing to budge despite your reasonable offer, possibly adding to the conflict between you. However, it may be the case that there are other issues involved. For example, he may be trying to "get even" with you for harming him several years ago. In other words, what may appear to be a simple conflict between two people actually may have multiple sources. Finding long-lasting solutions requires identifying all the important issues—even the hidden ones—and bringing them to the table.

      Note: Problem solving is a means of confronting the conflict and removing its causes. The emphasis is on facts and solutions, not personalities and assignment of blame. Optimizing or problem solving entails addressing the source of conflict and finding alternative strategies that benefit all parties. It promotes cooperative, positive attitudes that transfer to other organizational behaviors. Hence, optimizing may be worth the expenditure of more resources than  other strategies because it improves the future relationship of the parties. Smoothing is another conflict resolution technique in which differences are de-emphasized and common interests of the parties are emphasized. Smoothing (downplaying differences and emphasizing common interests) and compromise (requiring each party to make concessions) are diffusion approaches to conflict management. They have the disadvantage of not solving the underlying problems that created the conflict.

    Third-Party Intervention: As you probably know from experience, attempts at negotiating a solution between parties with conflicting interests sometimes deadlock. A widely used and effective means of breaking such deadlocks is to use third parties—individuals who are not involved in the dispute who are called upon to intervene in the interest of finding a resolution.

     One commonly used type of third-party intervention is known as mediation. In mediation, the third party attempts to create voluntary agreements between the disputants. Mediators have no formal power and cannot impose any agreement on the two sides. Instead, they seek to clarify the issues involved and enhance the communication between the parties. In short, the role of mediators is to serve as a facilitator—that is, to help the sides find mutually acceptable agreements.

     Another widely used technique is known as arbitration. In contrast to mediators, arbitrators do have the power to impose the terms of an agreement. However, depending on the specific type of arbitration employed, the parties may or may not accept the arbitrator's decisions. Specifically, in binding arbitration, the two sides agree in advance to accept the terms of the agreement imposed by the arbitrator. Contrastingly, in voluntary arbitration the two sides retain the option of rejecting the arbitrator's decision.

 

In addition to this important distinction, arbitration also varies in terms of the nature of the decisions that the arbitrators can consider. For example, in conventional arbitration, the arbitrator can offer any terms he or she desires. However, in final-offer arbitration, arbitrators are limited to selecting between the final offers made by one of the disputing parties.

     Although both mediation and arbitration are popular methods of resolving conflict (particularly in disputes between labor and management groups), they tend to be nowhere near as effective as settlements that are directly negotiated between the conflicting parties themselves. In other words, mediated and arbitrated settlements generally are less likely to hold than negotiated settlements. This occurs for several reasons. First, the disputing parties might not trust the third party, believing that he or she is biased, leading them to reject the decision. Second, because disputing parties generally invest more effort into finding solutions they have to negotiate them- selves than decisions that are made for them by third parties, they become more committed to accepting those decisions. Both of these explanations lead us to the same conclusion: Conflict can be managed more effectively by having the disputing parties negotiate with each other directly than by using third-party intervention.