The organizational culture for results Research Paper

The organizational culture for results - Research Paper Example The research revealed the existence of several cultures and subcultures in Widney Cabs Ltd that matched the theoretical models developed by both Schein in the three level of classification i.e. Assumptions, Values and Artefacts and Denison's classification that outlines four attributes namely: Involvement, Consistency, Adaptability and Mission. This study will evaluate and assess the different aspects of organizational culture that exist in Widney Cabs Ltd. The study examines these culture(s) and sub cultures in light of the relationship with models or classification from academic literature, existing knowledge and theories on organizational culture. Jacques (1951) defines organizational culture as the customary or traditional ways of thinking and doing things common to most members of an organization. There exists a significant level of formal knowledge on the subject of culture(s) and sub-cultures that exist in organizations and their effects on the organizational behaviour. Founders and leaders of organizations create these cultures, which are then developed and sustained by people. Organization's executives generate and impart the organization's ideals. They also promote the core values that convey inclination to certain behaviors or effects. Norms on the other hand express acceptable ways of achieving set goals. Studies have shown that the development of organizational culture requires interaction within the membership. (Louis, Posner, and Powell 1983). According to Schein (1985), there are three levels of culture,the basic being Assumptions that form the foundation of culture. Assumptions Espoused values Artefacts (Beliefs, thoughts) (Goals, strategies e.t.c) (Visible manifestations) Fig 1. These assumptions are unconscious beliefs, thoughts, perceptions, and feelings. Next to these are the espoused values that consist of goals, philosophies. Lastly are the artefacts, which are physical manifestations, which may not be obvious to a lay observer of organizational behaviour and process. Schein's model has had a wide acceptance and has in many ways allowed insight on culture. However the model raises some questions: Who is unconscious about these assumptions It is presumed that the researcher will be aware but not the organizational members. What happen to the presumption when the organizational members learn about the Assumptions It is important that leaders learn about the underlying links that hold artefacts; values and assumptions together so that they can better understand the usefulness of this model in creating positive organizational change. Research by John VanMaanan and Steven Barley (1984) shed some light on the nature of interactions. They found out that intera ction was "cognitive and behavioural". New personnel learn from the established workplace community the conventional occupational behaviours and practices that are acceptable across the board. In organizations

Corporate Social Responsibility Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Corporate Social Responsibility - Essay Example This essay stresses that CSR has been known to have a great positive impact on the reputation of a business but very little, if any, impact on the profit margins of a company. This paper declares that the level to which these principles are applied is institutional and is on the basis of a firms basic business obligations as a business unit. Principles of social responsiveness are of value simply because they define the institutional relationship between businesses and the society and gives a specification of what is expected of the business. This being the first level of measuring CSR, it is all about the relationship between the relationship between businesses and the society at large. This level has three major elements. The first major element is legitimacy. This concerns the business as a social institution and it frames the analytical view of the relationship between a business and society. The second element is public responsibility. This concerns the individual firm and its processes and outcomes within the framework of its own principles in terms of what it actually does. The third element is managerial discretion. This element refers to the membe rs of the organization, managers especially, as moral actors of the company. Managers are under obligation to exercise discretion as is availed to them towards socially responsible outcomes within every domain of corporate social responsibility.... Just like any other business variable, CSR is measureable. Much interest has grown on the measurement of CSR and as a result, people have developed numerous literary documents that try to explain how CSR can be measured. The most common approach for measuring CSR is a systems model that is referred to as the 3p Model (Hopkins 2012). This model evaluates the CSR performance of a business on three levels namely: Principles of social responsibility; Processes of social responsiveness; and Products or the outcomes as they relate to the firms societal relationships. Principles of Social Responsiveness The level to which these principles are applied is institutional and is on the basis of a firms basic business obligations as a business unit. Principles of social responsiveness are of value simply because they define the institutional relationship between businesses and the society and gives a specification of what is expected of the business. This being the first level of measuring CSR, i t is all about the relationship between the relationship between businesses and the society at large. This level has three major elements. The first major element is legitimacy. This concerns the business as a social institution and it frames the analytical view of the relationship between a business and society. The second element is public responsibility. This concerns the individual firm and its processes and outcomes within the framework of its own principles in terms of what it actually does. The third element is managerial discretion. This element refers to the members of the organization, managers especially, as moral actors of the company. Managers are under obligation