The Diagnosing Organizational Culture Management Essay

Published Date: 23 Mar 2015

For a long time, managers are becoming more and more aware of the concept of organizational culture and are examining it. Several studies have been conducted in this regard explaining different types of cultures and the ways that an organizational culture can affect an organization itself and its impact on other employee-related variables such as satisfaction, commitment, cohesion and performance etc. One such study in that continuum "Organizational Culture and job satisfaction" was conducted by Daulatram B Lund Professor of marketing, University of Nevada, USA, in 2003. In that study he used Cameron and freeman's (1991) model of organizational culture which identifies four types of organizational cultures. Professor B. Lund spotted out the effect of each culture type on satisfaction of employees.

This empirical investigation examines the impact of organizational culture types on job satisfaction in a survey of marketing professionals in a cross-section of firms in the USA. Cameron and Freeman's (1991) model of organizational cultures comprising of clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, and market was utilized as the conceptual framework for analysis. The results indicate that job satisfaction levels varied across corporate cultural typology. Within the study conceptual framework, job satisfaction invoked an alignment of cultures on the vertical axis that represents a continuum of organic processes (with an emphasis on flexibility and spontaneity) to mechanistic processes (which emphasize control, stability, and order). Job satisfaction was positively related to clan and adhocracy cultures, and negatively related to market and hierarchy cultures.

We are using the same study as a benchmark and replicating the same research project in context of Pakistan (specifically Lahore). We used same Cameron and Freeman's model of organizational culture. The four types of cultures identified by that model are Clan culture, Hierarchy culture, Adhocracy culture and Market culture. Every culture has its own unique attributes and characteristics which are explained later in this project. And how the level of contentment of employees varies in each type of culture is also the part of this study.

Figure I.I Overview of the Relationship

Overview of the Relationship

Market Culture

Hierarchy Culture

Adhocracy Culture

Clan Culture

Job Satisfaction

1.2 Background

1.2.1 Organizational Culture

The Concept of the organizational culture gained recognition in the early 1980s when prominent business periodicals featured articles on Corporate Culture and Organization (Lewis, 1996: Sheridan, 1992. Peters and Waterman (1985) article, in the search of the Excellence was the one of driving force behind the proliferation of this concept. Organizational Culture is extremely broad and inclusive in scope. It comprises a complex, interrelated, comprehensive and ambiguous set of factors (Quinn & Cameron 1999).

According to Schein 1999, culture is the property of a group that is formed when the group develops enough common experience. He stated that culture is very important phenomenon because it is an unconscious set of forces, Determining both individual and collective behaviors, Values, thought patterns, and way of perceiving.

At the organizational level, Schein (1999) stated that organizational culture is very critical because cultural elements determine strategy, goals, and modes of operating. He postulated that for organizations to become more efficient and effective, the role that culture plays in organizational life must be fully understood because decisions made without awareness of the operative cultural forces may have anticipated and undesirable consequences.

Hatch and Schultz (1997) promulgated that organizational culture develops at all hierarchical levels, is founded on a broad-based history, and involves all organizational members. They perceived organizational culture as a symbolic context within which interpretation of organizational identity is formed and intentions to influence organizational image are formulated. The culture, they stated, should be considered in explanation of the development and maintenance of organizational identity.

Actually Organizational Culture one of the few areas, in fact, in which organizational scholars led practicing managers in identifying a crucial factor affecting organizational performance. In most instances, practice has led research, and scholars have focused mainly on documenting, explaining, and building models of organizational phenomena that were already being tried by management (e.g., TQM, downsizing, reengineering, and information technology). Organizational culture, however, has been an area in which conceptual work and scholarship have provided guidance for managers as they have searched for ways to improve their organizations' effectiveness.

The reason organizational culture was ignored as an important factor in accounting for organizational performance is that it refers to the taken-for-granted values, underlying assumptions, expectations, and definitions present in an organization. It represents "how things are around here." It reflects the prevailing ideology that people carry inside their heads. It conveys a sense of identity to employees, provides unwritten and, often, unspoken guidelines for how to get along in the organization, and enhances the stability of the social system that they experience. Unfortunately, people are unaware of their culture until it is challenged, until they experience a new culture, or until it is made overt and explicit through, for example, a framework or model. This is why culture was ignored for so long by managers and scholars. It is simply undetectable most of the time.

1.2.2 Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction has received significant attention in the studies of work place. This is due to general recognition that this variable can be major determinant of organizational performance and effectiveness. Some studies have reported strong correlations of the job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Behnkoff 1997). When the employees are dissatisfied at work, they less committed and will look for other opportunities to quit. If the opportunities are unavailable, they may emotionally or mentally withdraw from the organization. Thus the job satisfaction and organizational commitment are important attitudes in assessing employees' intentions to quit and overall contribution to the organization. Here Organizational commitment can be considered as a part or consequence of job satisfaction because it is ultimately the organizational commitment which will affect the performance of an organization.

The concept of job satisfaction, in relation with other organization variables, has been studied many times such as task demands (Dodd and Ganster 1996, Zaffare 1994, Ting 1997 and Blau 1999), job satisfaction and leader member exchange (Podsakaff et al, 1996 , Sparks and Schenk, 2001) , job satisfaction and social structure (Sargent and Terry 2000) ,task demand, social structure and job satisfaction (Seers and Graen 1984, De Jonge 2001) ,job satisfaction and commitment (Lincoln and Kalleberg (1990) , Vandenberg and Lance (1992) , Farkas and Tetric (1989) and Currivan (1999) job satisfaction and demographic characteristics such as age, gender, tenure, and education (Clark, 1993; Clark and Oswald, 1995; Hickson and Oshagbemi, 1999; Oshagbemi, 1998, 2000)

These studies show that a lot of work has been done on determining the relationship between job satisfaction and different variables but few efforts are made on determining the relationship of job satisfaction with organizational culture. Out of these few Odom et al. (1990) examined the relationships between organizational culture and three elements of employee behavior, namely, commitment, work-group cohesion and job satisfaction. They concluded that the bureaucratic culture was not the culture most conductive to the creation of employee commitment, job satisfaction and work cohesion. Nystrom (1993) found that employees in strong culture tend to express great organizational commitment as well as higher job satisfaction. He investigated health care organizations.

One of the actual investigations concerning the relationship of job satisfaction and organization culture has been done by Daulatram B. Lund who conducted a research on marketing professionals in cross section of firms in the USA. He used Cameron and Freeman's (1991) model of organizational culture, comprising of clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, and market, as the conceptual framework for analysis.

1.3 Definitions

1.3.1 Organizational Culture

Although over 150 definitions of culture have been identified (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952), the two main disciplinary foundations of organizational culture are sociological (e.g., organizations have cultures) and anthropological (e.g., organizations are cultures). Within each of these disciplines, two different approaches to culture were developed: a functional approach (e.g., culture emerges from collective behavior) and a semiotic approach (e.g., culture resides in individual interpretations and cognitions). The primary distinctions are differences between culture as an attribute possessed by organizations versus culture as a metaphor for describing what organizations are. The former approach assumes that researchers and managers can identify differences among organizational cultures, can change cultures, and can empirically measure cultures. The latter perspective assumes that nothing exists in organizations except culture, and one encounters culture anytime one rubs up against any organizational phenomena. Culture is a potential predictor of other organizational outcomes (e.g., effectiveness) in the former perspective, whereas in the latter perspective it is a concept to be explained independent of any other phenomenon.

Most discussions of organizational culture (Cameron & Ettington, 1988; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1996; Schein, 1996) agree with the idea that culture is a socially constructed attribute of organizations which serves as the "social glue" binding an organization together. A majority of writers have come to an agreement that it refers to the taken-for-granted values, underlying assumptions, expectations, and definitions present which characterize organizations and their members (that is, they have adopted the functional, sociological perspective). Culture represents "how things are around here" or prevailing ideology that people carry inside their heads. Culture affects the way organization members think, feel, and behave.

Importantly, the concept of organizational culture is distinct from the concept of organizational climate. Climate refers to more temporary attitudes, feelings, and perceptions of individuals (Schneider, 1990). Culture is an enduring, slow to change, core characteristic of organizations; climate, because it is based on attitudes, can change quickly and dramatically. Culture refers to implicit, often indiscernible aspects of organizations; climate refers to more overt, observable attributes of organizations. Culture includes core values and consensual interpretations about how things are; climate includes individualistic perspectives that are modified frequently as situations change and new information is encountered. The approach to change in this article focuses squarely on cultural attributes rather than climate attributes. It considers the "links among cognitions, human interactions, and tangible symbols or artifacts typifying an organization" (Detert, Schroeder, & Mauriel, 2000:853), or, in other words, "the way things are" in the organization rather than people's transitory attitudes about them.

Organizational culture is defined by Brent Ruben and Lea Stewart (1998) as the sum of an organization's symbols, events, traditions, standardized verbal and nonverbal behavior patterns, folk tales, rules, and rituals that give the organization its character or personality. Ruben and Stewart note that organizational cultures are central aspects of organizations and serve important communication functions for the people who create and participate in them.

1.3.2 Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction can be defined in many ways as there is no universal definition of the concept of job satisfaction (Mumford, 1991), it can be considered as a multi-dimensional concept that includes a set of favorable or unfavorable feelings by which employees perceive their job (Davis and Newstro, 1999). Churchill (1974) defines job satisfaction according to all the characteristics of the job itself and of the work environment in which employees may find rewards, fulfillment and satisfaction, or conversely, sentiments of frustration and/or dissatisfaction. Price and Muller (1986) identify job satisfaction by the degree to which individuals like their job. Job satisfaction has been defined as a positive emotional state resulting from the pleasure a worker derives from the job (Locke, 1976; Spector, 1997) and as the affective and cognitive attitudes held by an employee about various aspects of their work (Kalleberg, 1977; Mercer, 1997; Wright and Cropanzan, 1997; Wong, 1998. In general, overall job satisfaction has been defined as "a function of the perceived relationship between that one wants from one's job and what one perceive it as offering"(Locke, 1969).

1.4 Background of Problem

The concept of culture is half a century old. Culture has always been a cornerstone variable in the study of International Business Subjects. Organizational culture refers to a system of' shared meaning held by members that distinguishes the organization from other organizations. This system of shared meaning is, on closer examination, a set of key characteristics that the organization values. An organization's culture can be understood as the sum total of the assumptions, beliefs, and values that its members' share and is expressed through "what is done, how it is done, and who is doing it." Organizational culture is the specific collection of values and norms that are shared by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization.

All organizations have cultures just like all people have a personality. A culture is a persistent way, patterned way of thinking about the tasks of human relationships within an organization.

On the other hand job satisfaction is a multi-dimensional concept that includes a set of favorable or unfavorable feelings by which employees perceive their job. Job satisfaction can be identified by the degree to which individuals like their job. Job satisfaction has been defined as a positive emotional state resulting from the pleasure a worker derives from the job (Locke, 1976; Spector, 1997) and as the affective and cognitive attitudes held by an employee about various aspects of their work (Kalleberg, 1977; Mercer, 1997; Wright and Cropanzan, 1997; Wong, 1998. In general, overall job satisfaction has been defined as "a function of the perceived relationship between that one wants from one's job and what one perceive it as offering"(Locke, 1969).

There has been a long debate amongst researchers regarding the relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction. Many researchers have found supporting evidence about the relationship between these two.

By reviewing many articles that a lot of work has been done on determining the relationship between job satisfaction and different variables but few efforts are made on determining the relationship of job satisfaction with organizational culture. Out of these few Odom et al. (1990) examined the relationships between organizational culture and three elements of employee behavior, namely, commitment, work-group cohesion and job satisfaction. They concluded that the bureaucratic culture was not the culture most conductive to the creation of employee commitment, job satisfaction and work cohesion. Nystrom (1993) found that employees in strong culture tend to express great organizational commitment as well as higher job satisfaction. He investigated health care organizations.

One of the actual investigations concerning the relationship of job satisfaction and organization culture has been done by Daulatram B. Lund, who conducted a research on marketing professionals in cross section of firms in the USA. He used Cameron and Freeman's (1991) model of organizational culture, comprising of clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, and market, as the conceptual framework for analysis.

On the basis of this study we are examining the impact of organizational culture on job satisfaction in Pakistan. For this purpose we have selected different organizations, service and manufacturing in Pakistan in order to examine the impact of different types of cultures in job satisfaction.

1.5 Problem Statement

Our research is about the influence of the organizational culture on job satisfaction. In this study we will identify the type of organizational culture in which employees have higher level of job satisfaction. Basically there are four types organizational culture- Clan Culture, Market Culture, Adhocracy Culture, Hierarchy Culture. We combined these cultures into two groups on the basis of some common dimensions. These groups are named as Organic Culture (clan and adhocracy) and Mechanistic Culture (hierarchy and market). For the purpose of research we have developed two hypotheses which are as follows,

1.5.1 Hypothesis

H0: Employees in organic culture (clan & adhocracy) have high level of job satisfaction than in mechanistic culture (hierarchy & market).

H1: Employees in the mechanistic culture (hierarchy & market) have high level of job satisfaction than in organic culture (clan & adhocracy).

CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

A number of articles from electronic journals and public journals have been studied regarding the concerned topics. Some related books have also been consulted. Literature has been reviewed in terms of both researchers and theorist's point of view and the valuable findings are as follow:

2.1 Organizational Culture

All organizations have cultures just like all people have a personality. A culture is a persistent way, patterned way of thinking about the tasks of human relationships within an organization. In anthropology, culture is the foundational term through which the orderliness and patterning of much of our life experience can be explained (Benedict, 1934) so; culture is the inquiry into the phenomenon of social order. Culture gives an organization distinctive way of seeing and responding to the world. It expresses the values or social ideals and the beliefs that organization members come to share (Louis, 1980; Siehl and Martin 1981). The values or patterns of beliefs are manifested by symbolic devices such as myths (Rowland, 1982), rituals (Deal and Kennedy, 1982), stories (Mitroff and Kilmann, 1976), legends (Wilkin and Martin 1980) and specialized language (Andrew and Hirsch, 1983).

Edger Schein defines organizational culture as the "residue of success" within an organization. According to Schein, culture is the most difficult organizational attribute to change. He describes three cognitive levels of organizational culture. The culture of a group can be defined as: A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (Schein: 1985). Gareth Morgan describes culture as "an active living phenomenon through which people jointly creates and recreates the worlds in which they live."

2.1.1 Levels of Culture

There are many kinds or levels of culture that affect individual and organizational behavior. At the broadest level, a global culture, such as a world religion's culture or the culture of the Eastern hemisphere would be the highest level. At a less general level are national cultures (e.g., Pakistani culture) or subgroup cultures such as gender-based cultures (i.e., distinctive ways in which men and women view the world), ethnic group cultures (e.g., differences between punjabi and pathan), occupational cultures (e.g., police culture), or socioeconomic group culture (e.g., rich versus poor). Each of these cultures is generally reflected by unique language, symbols, and ethnocentric feelings. Still less broad is the culture of a single organization, which is the level at which this study is aimed. An organization's culture is reflected by what is valued, the dominant managerial and leadership styles, the language and symbols, the procedures and routines, and the definitions of success that make an organization unique. This level of culture analysis in relation with the job satisfaction is of primary interest in this study. However these were different cultures which affect the organizational behavior and performance, further the organizational culture is divided into three levels by Schein (1999).

According to Schein (1999), culture exists at several levels in an organization, which go from very visible to very tacit and invisible. Three levels for culture are outlined here

1. Artifacts - The first level is the most manifest level and the easiest to observe. Artifacts are what you can see, hear and feel in organization environment. It consists of the physical and social organization, which includes the architecture, technology, office layout, manner of dress and how each person visibly interacts with each other and with organizational outsiders, and even company slogans, mission statements and other operational creeds.

2. Espoused Values - The second level explains the behavior pattern in the first level. Constituents of this level provide the underlying meanings and interrelations by which the patterns of behaviors and artifacts may be deciphered. At this level, local and personal values are widely expressed within the organization. Organizational behavior at this level usually can be studied by interviewing the organization's membership and using questionnaires to gather attitudes about organizational membership.

3. Shared Tacit Assumptions - The third level is an unconscious level of culture at which the underlying values have, over a period of time, been transformed and are taken for granted as an organizationally acceptable way of perceiving the world. The underlying basic assumptions, which first started as espoused values are also the most difficult to relearn and change. These are the elements of culture that are unseen and not cognitively identified in everyday interactions between organizational members.

Figure 2.1 4 Levels of Culture and their Interaction (Schein, 1999)

These were different level of culture at organizational level however inside an organization, subunits such as functional departments, product groups, or even teams may also reflect their own unique cultures. Difficulties in coordinating and integrating processes or organizational activities, for example, are often a result of culture clashes among different subunits. For example, it is common in many organizations to hear of conflicts between marketing and manufacturing, or to hear of disparaging comments about the fuzzy-headed HR department, or to hear put-downs of the white-coats in R&D. One reason is that each different unit often has developed its own perspective, its own set of values, and its own culture. As at macro level all units of the organization have to coordinate and work together such cultural differences influence the job satisfaction of individuals. It is easy to see how these cultural differences can fragment an organization and make high levels of effectiveness impossible to achieve. Emphasizing subunit cultural differences, in other words, can foster increase in job dissatisfaction, alienation and conflict.

On the other hand, it is important to keep in mind that each subunit in an organization also contains common elements typical of the entire organization. Similar to a hologram in which each unique element in the image contains the characteristics of the entire image in addition to its own identifying characteristics, subunit cultures also contain core elements of the entire organization's culture in addition to their own unique elements. There is always underlying glue that binds the organization together. In assessing an overall organization's culture, therefore, one can focus on the entire organization as the unit of analysis, or it is possible to assess different subunit cultures, identify the common dominant attributes of the subunit cultures, and aggregate them. This combination can provide an approximation of the overall organization's culture.

2.2 Diagnosing Organizational Culture

According to Cummings and Worley (1997), researchers and practitioners have developed a number of useful approaches for diagnosing organizational culture. They described three different perspectives: the behavioral approach, the Competing Values approach, and the deep assumption approach. Each diagnostic perspective, even though different, is yet complementary arid focuses on particular aspects of organizational culture.

2.2.1 Behavioral Approach

According to Cummings and Worley (1997), the behavioral approach provides specific descriptions about task performance and the management of relationships in an organization. It emphasizes the surface level of organizational culture, the pattern of behaviors that produce business results and assesses key work behaviors that can be observed. The behavioral approach can be used to diagnose and assess the cultural risk of trying to implement organizational changes needed to support a new strategy because significant cultural risks can result when changes that are highly important to implementing a new strategy are incompatible with the existing patterns of behavior. It is an important approach to use when managers want to determine whether implementation plans should be changed to manage around the existing culture, whether the culture should be changed, or whether the strategy itself should be modified or abandoned.

2.2.2 Deep Assumptions Approach

The deep assumption approach typically begins with the most tangible level of awareness and then works down to the deep assumptions. It emphasizes the deepest levels of organizational culture, which are the generally unexamined assumptions, values, and norms that guide members' behavior and that often have a powerful impact upon organization effectiveness.

2.2.3 The Competing Values Approach

The Competing Values approach assesses an organization's culture in terms of how it resolves a set of value dilemmas. It suggests that an organization's culture can be understood in terms of four important "value pairs"; each pair consists of contradictory values placed at opposite ends of a continuum. The four value pairs are internal focus versus external focus, organic processes versus mechanistic processes, innovation versus stability, and people orientation versus task orientation. Organizations are faced with these competing values of internal versus external focus and must choose between attending to internal operations or their external environment for continued survival. Too much emphasis on either can result in missing important changes in the competitive environment. As our study is identify organizational culture in which people have more job satisfaction and for the identification of organizational culture we will use competing values frame work. Therefore Competing Values Approach will be explained briefly here so that we can understand that how this approach will be used in our research method.

2.3 Measuring Organizational Culture through Competing Values

Through decades of empirical research, scholars have established abundant links between organizational culture and organizational performance. While previously businesses were either unaware of culture's importance or believed it too difficult to manage, today they recognize that it can be used for competitive advantage. This is something that Apple Computer gets. By leveraging their culture of innovation toward product as well as internal processes, they have been able to survive despite incredible competition as well as venture into new and profitable markets. But in order to use culture strategically, a company first needs to understand its culture. Culture is defined as complex issue that essentially includes all of a group's shared values, attitudes, beliefs, assumptions, artifacts, and behaviors. Culture is broad encompassing all aspects of its internal and external relationships and culture is deep in that it guides individual actions even to the extent that members are not even aware they are influenced by it. Scholars tend to agree that the root of any organization's culture is grounded in a rich set of assumptions about the nature of the world and human relationships. For example, the underlying belief that people are selfish and only out for themselves might unwittingly influence a company's attitudes and behaviors toward outside salespeople, vendors, and consultants. This is profound stuff that is largely invisible, unspoken, and unknown to an organization's members. So is it possible to really know a company's culture? While admittedly it would be very difficult (and some might claim impossible) task to fully account for all components of a company's culture, the dominant attributes can generally be identified. In focusing on "effective organizations", research has uncovered many critical dimensions. John Campbell (1974) and his fellow researchers identified thirty-nine important indicators. While such a list is helpful, it is still impractical for organizations to account for so many dimensions to identify their own culture. Realizing this, Robert Quinn and John Rohrbaugh (1983) reviewed the results of many studies on this topic and determined that two major dimensions could account for such a broad range. Their Competing Values Framework combines these two dimensions, creating a 2x2 matrix with four clusters.

The Competing Values Framework has proven to be a helpful framework for assessing and profiling the dominant cultures of organizations because it helps individuals identify the underlying cultural dynamics that exist in their organizations. This framework was developed in the early 1980s as a result of studies of organizational effectiveness (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1981), followed by studies of culture, leadership, structure, and information processing (Cameron, 1986; Cameron & Quinn, 1999).

The framework consists of two dimensions, one that differentiates a focus on flexibility, discretion, and dynamism from a focus on stability, order, and control. Some organizations are effective if they are changing, adaptable, and organic, whereas other organizations are effective if they are stable, predictable, and mechanistic. This dimension ranges from organizational versatility and pliability (flexibility) on one end to organizational steadiness and durability on the other end.

The second dimension differentiates a focus on an internal orientation, integration, and unity from a focus on an external orientation, differentiation, and rivalry. That is, some organizations are effective if they have harmonious internal characteristics, whereas others are effective if they focus on interacting or competing with others outside their boundaries. This dimension ranges from organizational cohesion and consonance on the one end to organizational separation and independence on the other. Together these two dimensions form four quadrants, each representing a distinct set of organizational effectiveness indicators. Figure 1 illustrates the relationships of these two dimensions to one another along with the resulting four quadrants. These dimensions have been found to represent what people value about an organization's performance, what they define as good, right, and appropriate, how they process information, and what fundamental human needs exist, and which core values are used for forming judgments and taking action (Beyer & Cameron, 1997; Cameron & Ettington, 1988; Lawrence, 2001; Mitroff, 1983; Wilber, 2000).

Figure 2.2 Competing Values Framework

HIERARCHY

MARKET

ADHOCRACY

CLAN

As discussed earlier first dimension places the values of flexibility, discretion, and dynamism at one end of the scale with stability, order, and control on the other. This means that some organizations emphasize adaptation, change, and organic processes (like most start-up companies) while others are effective in emphasizing stable, predictable, and mechanistic processes (like NASA, Citigroup, and most universities). The second value dimension is marked by internal orientation, integration, and unity at one end of the scale with external orientation, differentiation, and rivalry on the other. Some organizations are effective through focusing on themselves and their internal processes "If we improve our efficiency and do things right, we will be successful in the marketplace." Others excel by focusing on the market or competition "Our rivals have weak customer service, so this is where we will differentiate ourselves."

What is notable about these dimensions is that they represent opposite or competing assumptions. Each continuum highlights a core value that is opposite from the value on the other end of the continuum i.e., flexibility versus stability, internal versus external. The dimensions, therefore, produce quadrants that are also contradictory or competing on the diagonal. The upper left quadrant identifies values that emphasize an internal, organic focus, whereas the lower right quadrant identifies values that emphasize external, control focus. Similarly, the upper right quadrant identifies values that emphasize external, organic focus whereas the lower left quadrant emphasizes internal, control values. These competing or opposite values in each quadrant give rise the name for the model, the Competing Values Framework.

Further work on defining how each of the four quadrants (formed by combining these two dimensions) is related to company characteristics was conducted by Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn (1999). Each quadrant represents those features a company feels is the best and most appropriate way to operate. In other words these quadrants represent their basic assumptions, beliefs, and values, the stuff of culture. None of the quadrants Collaborate (clan), Create (adhocracy), Control (hierarchy), and Compete (market) is inherently better than another just as no culture is necessarily better than another. But, some cultures might be more appropriate in certain contexts than others. As objective of our study is to identify the culture in which the workers are most satisfied. In this context we can say just take an assumption that, "clan culture creates more job satisfaction". The keys to using culture to improve performance lies in matching culture or attributes to organizational goals.

2.3.1 Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)

It is a questionnaire type of the instrument used to measure organizational culture. This tool consists of six dimensions and each dimension has four alternative answers, used to access six key dimensions of an organization. Six key dimensions of this instrument are as follows,

1. Dominant Characteristics of the Organization

2. Organizational Leadership

3. Management of Employees

4. Organizational Glue

5. Strategic Emphases

6. Criteria of Success

In our research we used four of them- Dominant Characteristics, Leadership, Glue (Bonding), Strategic Emphasis, because of limitations of our research. As if we take all these dimensions length of the questionnaire would have increased and administration time would increase. Normally respondents do not fill lengthy questionnaires and exhausts. Because of such factors we take most important dimensions required to identify culture of an organization.

2.4 Types of Culture

Now we will see four major types of organizational culture.

2.4.1 Control (Hierarchy)

This is a formalized and structured work environment. Procedures decide what people do. Leaders are proud of their efficiency-based coordination. Keeping the organization functioning effortlessly is most vital. Formal rules and policy keep the organization together. The long-term goals are stability and results, paired with efficient and smooth execution of tasks. Trustful delivery, smooth planning, and low costs define success. The personnel management has to guarantee work and values predictability.

Hierarchical organizations share similarities with the stereotypical large, bureaucratic corporation. As in the values matrix, they are defined by stability and control as well as internal focus and integration. They value standardization, control, and a well-defined structure for authority and decision making. Effective leaders in hierarchical cultures are those that can organize, coordinate, and monitor people and processes. Good examples of companies with hierarchical cultures are McDonald's (think standardization and efficiency) and government agencies like the Department of Motor Vehicles (think rules and bureaucracy). As well, having many layers of management like Ford Motor Company with their seventeen levels is typical of a hierarchical organizational structure. In Pakistan WAPDA and other Government organizations can be considered as hierarchical organizations as they have strict and well defined rules, many layers of management and high level of bureaucracy. As well, having many layers of management like Ford Motor Company with their seventeen levels is typical of a hierarchical organizational structure.

The earliest approach to organizing in the modern era was based on the work of a German sociologist, Max Weber, who studied government organizations in Europe during the early 1900s The major challenge faced by organizations at the turn of the twentieth century was to efficiently produce goods and services for an increasingly complex society. To accomplish this, Weber (1947) proposed seven characteristics that have become known as the classical attributes of bureaucracy: rules, specialization, meritocracy, hierarchy, separate ownership, impersonality, accountability. These characteristics were highly effective in accomplishing their purpose. They were adopted widely in organizations 'hose major challenge was to generate efficient, reliable, smith-flowing, predictable output. In fact, until the 1960s, almost every book on management and organizational studies made the assumption that Weber's hierarchy or bureaucracy was the ideal form of organization because it led to stable, efficient, highly consistent products and services. Because the environment was relatively stable, tasks and functions could be integrated and coordinated, uniformity in products and services was maintained, and workers and jobs were tinder control. Clear lines of decision-making authority, standardized rules and procedures, and control and accountability mechanisms were valued as the keys to success.

The organizational culture compatible with this form (and as assessed in the OCAI) is characterized by a formalized and structured place to work. Procedures govern what people do. Effective leaders are good coordinators and organizers. Maintaining a smooth running organization is important. The long term concerns of the organization are stability, predictability, and efficiency. Formal rules and policies hold the organization together.

2.4.2 Compete (Market)

This is a results-based organization that highlights completing work and getting things done. People are competitive and concentrated on goals. Leaders are hard drivers, producers, and competitors at the same time. They are demanding and have high expectations. The emphasis on winning keeps the organization together. Reputation and success are the most important. Lasting focus is on rival activities and reaching goals. Market penetration and stock are the definitions of success. Competitive prices and market leadership are important. The organizational style is based on competition.

This form of organizing became popular during the late 1960s as organizations laced new competitive challenges. This form relied on a fundamentally different set of assumptions than the hierarchy and was based largely on the work of Oliver Williamson (1975), Bill Ouchi (I 9S 1), and their colleagues. These organizational scholars identified an alternative set of activities that they argued served as the foundation of organizational effectiveness. The most important of these was transaction costs.

The new design was referred to as a market form of organization. The term marker is not synonymous with the marketing (unction or with consumers in the marketplace. Rather, it refers to a type of organization that functions as a market itself. It is oriented toward the external environment instead of internal affairs. It is focused on transactions with (mainly) external constituencies such as suppliers, customers, contractors, licensees, unions, and regulators. And unlike a hierarchy, where internal control is maintained by rules, specialized jobs, and centralized decisions, the market operates primarily through economic market mechanisms, mainly monetary exchange. That is, the major focus of markets is to conduct transactions (exchanges, sales, contracts) with other constituencies to create competitive advantage. Portability, bottom-line results, strength in marker niches, stretch targets, and secure customer bases are primary objectives of the organization. Not surprisingly, the core values that dominate market-type organizations are competitiveness and productivity.

Competitiveness and productivity in market organizations arc achieved through a strong emphasis on external positioning and control. At Philips Electronics, for example, the loss of market share in Europe and a first- ever year of red ink in 1991 led to a corporation wide initiative to improve the competitive position of the firm. Under the leadership of a new CEO, the worldwide organization instituted a process called Centurion in which a concerted effort was made to shift the company's culture froth a relatively complacent, arrogant, hierarchy culture to a culture driven by customer focus, premium returns on assets, and improved corporate competitiveness-a market culture. Three yearly meetings were held to assess performance and to establish new stretch targets. Assessments using the OCAI showed a substantial shift toward a market-driven culture from the early 1990s to the mid-1990s.

A similar example of a market culture is a Philips competitor, General Electric. General Electric's former CEO, Jack Welch, made it clear in the late 1980s that if GE businesses were not number one or number two in their markets, they would be sold. Welch taught and sold over three hundred businesses during his twenty-one year tenure as CEO. The GE culture under Wetch was known as a highly competitive, results-or-wise, take-no-prisoners type of culture. It reflected a stereotypical market culture.

The basic assumptions in a market culture are that the external environment is not benign but hostile, consumers arc choosy and interested in value, the organization is in the business of increasing its competitive position, and the major task of management is to drive the organization toward productivity, results, and profits. It is assumed that a clear purpose and an aggressive strategy lead to productivity and profitability. In the words of General George Patron (1944), market Organizations "arc not interested in holding on to their positions. Let the enemy do that. [They] arc advancing all the time, defeating the opposition, marching constantly toward the goal."

A market culture, as assessed in the OCAI, is a results-oriented workplace. Leaders are hard-driving producers and competitors. They arc rough and demanding. The glue that holds the organization together is an emphasis on winning. The long-term concern is on competitive actions and achieving stretch goals and targets. Success is defined in terms of market share and penetration. Outpacing the competition and market leadership are important.

Even as parent figures. The organization is held together by loyalty and tradition. Commitment is high. The organization emphasizes the long-term benefit of individual development, with high cohesion and morale being important. Success is defined in terms of internal climate and concern for people. The organization places a premium on teamwork, participation, and consensus.

2.4.3 Collaborate (Clan)

This working environment is a friendly one. People have a lot in common, and it's like one big family. The leaders are seen as mentors or maybe even as father figures. The organization is held together by loyalty and tradition. There is great participation. The organization emphasizes long-term Human Resource development and bonds fellow workers by morals. Success is described within the framework of addressing the needs of the clients and caring for the people. The organization endorses teamwork, participation, and consensus

In the values matrix Collaborate (clan) are similar to Control (hierarchy) in that there is an inward focus with concern for integration. However, Collaborate (clan) emphasize flexibility and discretion rather than the stability and control of Control (hierarchy) and Compete (market) organizations. With the success of many Japanese firms in the late 1970s and 1980s, American corporations began to take note of the different way they approached business. Unlike American national culture, which is founded upon individualism, Japanese firms had a more team-centered approach. This basic understanding affected the way that Japanese companies structured their companies and approached problems. Their Collaborate (clan) organizations operated more like families hence they valued cohesion, a humane working environment, group commitment, and loyalty. Companies were made up of semi-autonomous teams that had the ability to hire and fire their own members and employees were encouraged to participate in determining how things would get done. A good example of a Collaborate (clan) in American business is Tom's of Maine, which produces all natural toothpastes, soaps, and other hygiene products. The founder, Tom Chappell, grew the company to respect relationships with coworkers, customers, owners, agents, suppliers, the community, and the environment. According to their company statement of beliefs, they aim to provide their employees with "a safe and fulfilling environment and an opportunity to grow and learn." Typical of Collaborate (clan) cultures, Tom's of Maine, is like an extended family with high morale and Tom himself takes on the role of mentor or parental figure.

2.4.4 Create (Adhocracy)

This is a dynamic and creative working environment. Employees take risks. Leaders are innovators and risk takers. Conducting experiments and originality are the linking materials within the organization. Distinction is emphasized. The long-term goal is to develop and treat new resources. The availability of new products or services is seen as an achievement. The organization encourages individual ingenuity and freedom.

As the developed world shifted from the industrial age to the information age, an ideal type of organizing emerged. It is an organizational form that is most responsive to the hyper turbulent, ever-accelerating conditions that increasingly typify the organizational world of the twenty-first century. With rapidly decreasing half- life of product and service advantages, a set of assumptions were developed that differed from those of the other three forms of organization. These assumptions were that innovative and pioneering initiatives arc what leads to success, that organizations are mainly in the business of developing new products and services and preparing for the future, and that the major task of management is to foster entrepreneurship, creativity, and activity "on the cutting edge." It was assumed that adaptation and innovativeness lead to new resources and profitability, so emphasis was placed on creating a vision of the future, organized anarchy, and disciplined imagination.

The root of the word adhocracy is ad hoc- implying something temporary, specialized, and dynamic. Most people have served on an ad hoc task force or committee, which disbands as soon as its task is completed. Adhocracies are similarly temporary. They have been characterized as "tents rather than palaces" in that they can reconfigure themselves rapidly when new circumstances arise. A major goal of an adhocracy is to foster adaptability flexibility, and creativity where uncertainty, ambiguity, and information overload arc typical.

The adhocracy organization may frequently be found in industries such as aerospace, software development, think-tank consulting, and filmmaking. An important challenge for these organizations is to produce and services and products and services and to adapt quickly to new opportunities. Unlike markets or hierarchies, adhocracies do not have centralized power or authority relationships. Instead, power flows from individual to individual or from task team to task team, depending on what problem is being addressed at the time. Emphasis on individuality, risk taking, and anticipating the future is high as almost everyone in an adhocracy becomes involved with production, clients, research and development, and other matters. For example, each different client demand in a consulting firm is treated as an independent project, and temporary organizational design is set up to accomplish the task. When the project ends, the structure disintegrates.

Similarly, the story of the successful failure of the Apollo 13 space mission illustrates clearly how leadership changes regularly and often unpredictably, team membership is temporary, and no clear map can be drawn to identify the communication or control system. During the flight, astronauts in the space capsule as well as support personnel on the ground were not organized in a stable way for very long. Different problems demanded different types of task teams to address them, leadership shifted often, and even the piloting of the spacecraft switched from one astronaut to another. This was typical of the entire Manned Space Flight Center at NASA. Its formal structure changed seventeen times in the first eight years of its existence. No organizational chart was ever drawn because it would have been outdated before it could be printed. Jurisdictional lines, precedents, and policies were treated as temporary. Titles, job responsibilities, and even departmental alignments changed, some - times weekly. The organization operated with an adhocratic design and reflected values typical of an adhocracy culture.

Sometimes adhocratic subunits exist in larger organizations that have a dominant culture of a different type.

In the values matrix Create (adhocracy) are similar to Collaborate (clan) in that they emphasize flexibility and discretion; however, they do not share the same inward focus. Instead they are like Compete (market) in their external focus and concern for differentiation.

2.5 Company Culture and Sub-Cultures

It is very important to note that all organizational culture types focused on companies as a whole. Other research being conducted around the same time as the Competing Values Framework Martin and Siehl (1983), Louis (1983), Gregory (1983) emphasizes that the company culture is not homogeneous. Schein (1999) notes that this is not necessarily dysfunctional, rather it allows the company to perform effectively in different environments based on function, product, market, location, etc. In order to get a more accurate picture of the company, it is important to understand not only the company organizational type, but the cultures of departments or other important groups as well. The same organizational culture types Control (hierarchy), Compete (market), Collaborate (clan), Create (adhocracy) apply at both levels(Organizational and Departments). So, a Control (hierarchy) company may contain a research group that is a Create (adhocracy), an engineering department that is a Compete (market), and a human resources department that is a Collaborate (clan).

2.6 Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction describes how content an individual is with his or her job. The happier people are within their job, the more satisfied they are said to be. Job satisfaction is not the same as motivation, although it is clearly linked. Job design aims to enhance job satisfaction and performance, methods include job rotation, job enlargement and job enrichment. Other influences on satisfaction include the management style and culture, employee involvement, empowerment and autonomous work groups. Job satisfaction is a very important attribute which is frequently measured by organizations. The most common way of measurement is the use of rating scales where employees report their reactions to their jobs. Questions relate to rate of pay, work responsibilities, variety of tasks, promotional opportunities the work itself and co-workers.

Attitudes are significant because they influence behavior at work either directly or indirectly. Few concepts in the field of organizational behavior and human resource management have attracted as much attention among both managers and researchers as the specific employee attitude called Job Satisfaction. Consequently, it is acknowledged as the most well-known, frequently measured, and extensively researched work attitude.

2.6.1 What Is Job Satisfaction?

If we were to invite views from people on how they feel about their jobs, we would most probably find that they have strong emotional reactions pertaining to their jobs. This is not unexpected considering that employees spend approximately one third of their lives at work.

Broadly speaking, we can define job satisfaction as an individual's overall attitude toward his/her job. Locke (1976) has given a comprehensive and universally popular definition of job satisfaction. He defines job satisfaction as "a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experience". It is an end state of feelings and consists of an employee's cognitive, affective, and evaluative reactions to his/her job.

Pareek (198) in his integrated model of work motivation states that the final psychological outcome of the person's working in an organization is the satisfaction he/she derives 1mm his/her work and role.

Job satisfaction has been regarded both as a general attitude as well as satisfaction with specific dimensions of the job such as pay. The work itself, promotion opportunities, supervision, co-workers and so forth. These may interact in different ways to create the feeling of satisfaction with the job. The degree of satisfaction may vary with how well outcomes fulfill or exceed expectations. Mumford (199) analyzed job satisfaction in two ways. First, in terms of the fit between what the organization requires and what the employee is seeking and second, in terms of the fit between what the employee is seeking and what he/she is actually receiving.

Since an avenge employee spends almost one third of his/her life in the organization. There are sonic concerns that have to be addressed particularly in the context of job satisfaction. These have to do with stability of satisfaction, work context, and supervisory behavior. In an intriguing research by Straw and Ross (1985), it was found that job satisfaction is a comparatively stable disposition and does not change overtime. In their survey of over 5000 men who changed jobs between 1969 and 1971, it was found that the expressions of job satisfaction were relatively stable. Although they had different type of jobs, employees who were satisfied or dissatisfied in I 969 felt equally satisfied or dissatisfied in 1971 too. Although some researchers have challenged the disposition of stability of job satisfaction, follow-up researches have, nevertheless, supported it.

Work is inextricably bound with human existence .The content and context of work should therefore promote, rather than damage, human dignity. Kanungo (1992) pointed out that managers have the moral obligation to empower subordinates and thereby promote their growth and development. He strongly emphasizes the need to analyze work norms and conditions to see whether such practices promote productive behaviour, high job satisfaction, and overall improvement of work life and that they are consistent with the dignity of the employees as human beings. In an interesting study Page and Wiserman (1993) asked workers from USA, Mexico, and Spain to indicate how satisfied they were with their work and the behavior of their superiors. Not only were their average responses to both questions quite high but uniformly so in all three countries. These studies show that job satisfaction is a major concern of the employees. This is not surprising as people do not select jobs randomly. They tend to be attracted toward jobs that are compatible with their interests, values, and abilities. Hence different people join different jobs for different reasons, which make job satisfaction a complex and multifaceted concept which can mean various things to different people.

2.7 Measuring Job Satisfaction

Measuring job satisfaction has been a challenging process to social scientists as it cannot be directly observed nor accurately inferred. However several useful techniques have been developed to measure job satisfaction. However in our study we used five dimensions of job to measure job satisfaction. These dimensions are pay, nature of work, supervision, promotional prospects and relationship with co-workers.

2.7.1 Two-factor Theory

Frederick Herzberg's two factor theory (also known as Motivator Hygiene Theory) attempts to explain satisfaction and motivation in the workplace. Herzberg suggested that the opposite of 'satisfaction' is no satisfaction' and the opposite of 'dissatisfaction is 'no dissatisfaction'. According to Herzberg's theory, therefore, motivators when present at high levels contribute to job satisfaction, however, when absent do not lead to job dissatisfaction just less satisfaction. Similarly, hygiene factors only contribute to dissatisfaction when present but not to satisfaction when absent.

Figure 2.3 Herzberg's Two Factor Theory

Research testing Herzberg's theory has produced mixed results: some studies have supported Herzberg's findings while others documented that hygiene and motivators had strong effects on both job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Herzberg's theory has attracted voluminous research in India also with the attempt being mostly to validate the theory in India using different samples and measurement methods. The findings are again conflicting. In some studies the Two-Factor theory holds good (Sutaria.1980), while in others it does not (Sarveswara and Rao, 1973)

This theory has been heavily criticized for its methodology (Schwab and Cummings. 1970). Besides, while Herzberg assumed a correlation between satisfaction and productivity in his methodology, he measured only satisfaction and not productivity. Nevertheless, Herzberg's work is useful in illustrating the conditions of a job that employees find satisfying and dissatisfying. His theory has also stimulated considerable research and theory on job enlargement and job enrichment, (Machungaws and Schmitt, 1983).

2.7.3 The Value Theory

A second significant theory of job satisfaction is the Value Theory proposed by Locke (1984). He proposed that job satisfaction occurs when the job outcomes or the reward that the employee receives matches with outcomes that are desired by him. The theory focuses on any outcome that people value regardless of their quality or quantity. Thus the value attached to outcome is more important. The better the outcome that they get the more satisfied they will be; and the less valuable outcome they receive, the less satisfied they will be. Essential to Locke's theory is, therefore, the discrepancy between the present aspects of the job and those that an employee desires such as pay, learning opportunities, promotion, and so on. Locke's Value Theory has been substantiated by a study of McFarlin and Rice, (1992). One of the valuable implications of the theory is that it focuses attention on those aspects of the jobs that need to be changed for employees to experience satisfaction. People perceive serious discrepancies between the job and job satisfaction. But it also suggests that these factors may not be the same for all.

In addition to these two theories of job satisfaction, there are quite a few others. Some of the significant one's are briefly presented below:

2.7.4 The Met Expectations Theory

This approach is based on the expectations that new employees have about the job and how far these expectations are met. It suggests that the employees will work to achieve the outcomes they expect to follow after successful performance (Porter and Steen, 1973), Workers become dissatisfied if their expectations about their job are not met. Review of the theory suggests that the correlation between job satisfaction and met expectations is around 0.39 (Wanous et al 1992). One of the implications of the Met Expectations theory is that one way of reducing potential dissatisfaction among employees is to bring their expectations in line with the reality. The idea of Met Expectations suggests that the processes undergoing within the person influence job dissatisfaction. A critical viewpoint of this notion is that it ignores the social context of the individual, and this is the basis of the Equity Theory.

2.7.4 The Equity Theory

Adam's (1963) Equity Theory argues that people compare the ratio of their outcome over input with the ratio of others' outcome over input. If their ratio is greater than or lesser than that of the others, they feel dissatisfied because inequity has occurred. However to feel satisfied with the job, the ratio should be equal to that significant others (what is called equity). Though the basis of their comparison is one's perception, the fact remains that organizations must attempt to bring about equity to avoid the feeling of dissatisfaction. One of the criticisms of the theory is that it is imprecise because there are alternate ways of dealing with feelings of inequity. However, an important implication of this theory is that employees need to feel that they are fairly dealt with in order to feel satisfied.

2.7.5 The Opponent Process Model of Job Satisfaction

Initiating some change in the job may increase worker satisfaction but it is not necessary that the increase in satisfaction will remain the same over time. This is because constant input does not result in constant output. The process of adaptation implies that a constant input will have a decreasing output. This notion was applied to the concept of job satisfaction in the Opponent Process Theory by Landy (1978). He applied this idea to the goal-setting theory and asserted that in the beginning of his/her career, an employee will resist goal-setting. But as experience with goal-setting as well as goal-attainment increases, resistance shall decrease. Consequently, pleasure from goal-attainment must also increase. The broad implication of this is that interventions intended to increase job satisfaction may not necessary became popular on t