CHAPTER II

ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE AND EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT:

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

CHAPTER !!

ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE AHQ EMpLOYEE COMMITMENT:

THEORETICAL PERSPECTiYES .

This chapter takes a plunge into the fathomless academic

literature, and reviews the two topics that are pivotal· to the

research study undertaken : Organisational Culture (Oe) and

Employee Commitment (EC). The purpose of this endeavour 16 to

base the discussion on the key issues that have triggered off

divergent views on the two topics, and to arrive at some degree

of integration. It first burrows into the organisational culture

literature, and then, into the literature concerning employee

commitment.

organisational theorists and corporate leaders have produced

voluminous materials on organisational culture and its offsprings

symbol, language, ideology, belief, ritual. and myth

(Pettigrew, 1979). As Smircich (1983) observes, the concept of

culture has been liberally borrowed from anthropology, where

there is no consensus on its meaning. To tht extent, the concept

is fuzzy, if not enigmatic and elusive.

CULTURE CONc~eI

Culture has become a ~ ~a ~ of modern thought,

notwithstanding its ambiguities. In the English language, the

tenm tculture t is derived from the original Latin word lcultura~

- the 'cultivation of soil'. As human beings. we are continually

13

activating the process of culturing, that is, "producing and

reproducing social realities in ways that are liberating,

inhibiting, puzzling, boring or exciting (smircich, 1983: 72).

Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1963) identified 164 different meanings of

the term 'culture', that have been used in anthropology, and

sociology. We realise that the holistic Vlew of culture

synthesized by them is very diffuse. The challenge in recent

years has been to cut down the culture concept to size into a

narrowed, and theoretically more powerful concept (Geertz, 1973).

We shall look into two major schools of thought the

Adaptationist system, and the Ideational system in 'cultural

theory' .

ADAPTATIONIST SYSTEM:

The adaptationist school conceives culture as a system of

socially transmitted behaviour patterns that

human communities to their ecological settings.

as u a pattern of life within a community

serve to relate

Culture is seen

the regularly

recurring activities, and material, and social

(Goodenough, 1961: 521). Most scholars such as

arrangements"

Leslie White,

Sahlins. Rappaport, Vayda, Harris, carneiro, Binford,

Longacre, Sanders, Price, and Meggers, working

Flannery,

1n the

adaptationist tradition agree on some broad assumptions (Keesing,

1974) :

14

1. Culture 18 a system of socially transmitted behaviour

patterns that relate human communities to their ecological

~etting8, namely technologies, and modes of economic,

political organisation, social grouping, religious beliefs,

practices and so on. The culture concept has come down to

behaviour patterns associated with part1cular groups of

people - their customs or their way of life (Binford. 1968i

Harris, 1968).

2. Cultural change is primaily a process of adaptation that

human beings ought to maintain with their surroundings so as

to survive. When the equilibrium is upset by environmental,

demographic, technological or other systemic changes,

adjust;ve changes ramify through the cultural system

(MeSgers. 1975).

3. Technology. subsistence economy. and social

that are directly linked to production are

adapt;vely central realms of culture (Vayda &

1968).

organisation

the most

Rappaport,

4. The fideational' components of culture such as religious

practices and elements of social organisation may have

adaptive consequences in maintaining the ecosystem,

controlling human beings, and contributing to human

subsistence. For instance, Rappaport (1967, 1971) has

sU9gested that ritual systems, and the cultural frame of

sanctity playa focal part in mediating cultural adaptation.

15

IDEATIONAL SYSTEM:

In contrast to the adaptationist theorists of culture. ~tand

a number of theorists who see culture as an 'ideational' system.

This school views culture as a system of knowledge, of stanaards

for perceiving, believing, evaluating, and acting (Allaire &

Firstrotu, 1984). Three different ways of studying culture as a

system of ideas are proposed by Keesing (1974):

(1) CYltyre ~ cognjtive system: Culture is seen as a system of

knowledge that lies beyond the realm of observable events.

Goodenough (1957: 167) says:

A society's culure consists of whatever it is one has to know or believe in order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members. Culture is not a material phenomenon; it does not consist of things, people, behaviour, or emotions. It is rather an organisation of these things. It is the form of things that people have in mi~d, thei models for perceiving, relating, and otherwise interpreting them.

(2) Cultyre I§ structyral System: Culture is viewed as shared

symbolic systems that are cumulative creations of mind. It is

discovered in the struoturing of cultural domains - myth. art,

kinship and language - the principles of mihd that generate these

cultural elaborations. Material conditions of subsistence and

economy, constrain but do not explain lived-in worlds. Only the

mind imposes culturally patterned order of relations and

transformations on a continuously changing and often random

16

world. Then, culture is seen as transcending individual actors,

even as transcending ethnic boundaries (Levi-Strauss, 1954).

(3) Culture ~ SYmbol;, Syste~: Culture;s not in people's

heads, but is in between the minds of these people. Symbols and

meanings are shared by social actors. cultural patterns are not

re;fed or metaphysical, but are things of this world such as a

cockfight, a funeral, a sheep theft (Geertz, 1972). Humans are

always engaging themselves in symbolic actions. And studying

their culture means studY1ng their shared codes of mean;ng. This

would, then; suggest that culture is a matter of I interpretation'

and not just tdecipherment' (Geertz, 1967, 1972).

A related but a different tack has been taken by Schneider

(1958). To him, culture is a system of symbols and meanings. It

comprises categories or units or rules about relationship and

modes of behaviour. The epistemological status of cultural units

or things does not depend on their ~observability'. Nor are

rules and categories to be inferred directly from behaviour.

They exist, as it were, on their own right, independent of their

imperfect manifestations in the thought and actions of their

bearers. In short, cu1ture is system - centred; it takes

people's position vis-a-vis the world, rather than the people's

position on how to get along in this world as it is given.

we are left between the horns of a conceptual dilemma: on

the one hand, of adaptationist reductionism which views culture

as an autonomous and uniform world of symbols, entirely freed

from the constraints of human mind and brain, and on the other.

17

of ethereal/ideational idealism which miS$es the magic of shared

symbols among human beings. We should not ex.pect an eclectic

composite under which all theorists of variant ideas would

congregate. Any statement about culture on which they could

agree would probably be vacuous. Nonetheless, we can conceive of

culture as an ideational subsystem within a vastly complex system

- biological, social and symbolic, and ground our abstract mOdels

in the concrete particularities of human social life. Suoh a

dialectic is likely to yield a deepening understanding of hUmans

- 1n - environments.

Keesing (1974) proposes a 'cultural competence' theory,

which recognises knowledge about the world as differentially

distributed in people, and yet partially realised 1n the minds of

people. Although no one individual knows all of the culture, and

each has a variant version of the shared codes of meaning,

culture is ordered not merely as a collection of symbols fitted

together by the individual; rather it lS recognised as a tSYstem

of knowledge', shaped and constrained by the way the human brain

acquires, organises, and processes information, and creates

internal models of reality. such a conception of culture frees

us considerably from the dangers of both adaptationist

reductionism and ideational idealism.

18

OllGANISATIONAL CULTURE

Business/industrial organisations are basioally human

organisations. Just as in families, children absorb culture from

their parents and/or other elders, employees in organisational

settings absorb culture from their managerial leaders, and other

senior and/or peers. This implies that when individuals join an

organisation, they join the way of life or the culture of that

organisation. And this organisational culture provides many

opportunities for shared assumptions, priorities, meanings, and ~

values to the organisation members. Top management people, and

management theorists have come to appreciate the power of

organisational culture 1n guiding employee behaviour on the job

within the company.

A HISTORICAL SURMISE

Organisational culture as a concept may have emerged just in

the late 1970s. But, concern with workplace cultures - i~formal

organisations, and workgroup norms - ;s not a recent phenomenon.

The Hawthorne studies of the 19208 propagated the view that

workers were primarily social beings driven by a need for

belongingness and acceptance. social interaction and group

affiliation were deemed vital for human fulfilment, and harmony

in workplace. Elton Mayo, acknowledged as the founder of Human

19

Relations Movement, claimed that the locus of commitment 1n the

workplace was the 'workgroup', from where norms emerged through

ongoing interaction. Therefore. only by influencing social

dynamics and gaining the consent of the workforce could managers

ensure a healthy and productive organisation. For instance, coal

mine studies of Tr;st and Bamforth (1951) documented some

positive effects of culture both at individual, and

organisational levels. Work was accomplished on a team-managed

basis; safety of workers was taken care of; meaningfulness of

going to work everyday was enhanced through group norms; and

families of group members were financially supported.

Theorists associated with the human relations movement spoke

of organisational climates (Likert, 1967) in th~ late 1950's.

The Likert programme administered a written 'climate survey· to

understand important issues in the workplace. Organisational

climate lent itself to direct observation and measurement in

terms of leader behaviour, job satisfaction, socialisation, and

turnover intentions., A big assumption of climate researeh was

that organisation members perceived, and made sense of

organisational policies, procedures and practices in

Psychologically meaningful ways. However, it failed miserably to

explain the variations in climate and norms within organisation

(Rentsch, 1990). For example, organisation members may agree on

the frequency of an organisational event but will vastly disagree

about what that event means to them. The members may agree that

20

managers are ready to implement a good idea, proposed in a

Quality circle meeting. But, some may perceive this event as a

high risk, while others may see it as an aggressive, professional

exercise. Again, some may perceive this event as an expression

of management's respect for organisation members, while some

others may interpret it as a management policy to float false

sense of acceptance among the members so as to exploit them for

some tricky future plans.

It 1S precisely this dimension of 'interpretive meanings'

that enhances or deteriorates work performance of organisation

members. And a deeper concept such as ~or9anisational culture'

to fathom roles, norms, and values has become a felt need

(Sehein, 1990).

The idea that organisations can be profitably viewed as

Icultures' attracted sustained attention only after the late

1970S. This notion entered management literature V18 two paths.

The first was through the work of th~orists who vehemently argued

that organisations should be viewed as socially constructed

systems of meaning (Dandridge et a1., 1980; Pettigrew, 1979;

Pondy et al., 1983; Van Maanen, 1979; Wilkins, 1983). The second

path was through the work of consultants and applied researchers

who wrote primarily for management practitioners eo as to help

them pragmatically sustain competitive edge in business (Baker,

1980; Ouch; & Price, 1978; Peters, 1978; Schwartz & Davis, 1981).

The practitioner literature explicitly linked organisational

culture to Japanese competition~ Japan's industrial ascent was

21

attributed to the Japanese organisations' ability to inspire

commitment without adversely affecting flexibility and

performance. It was suggested that the organisations in other

parts of the world would do well to emulate the Japanese

management (Ouch;, 1981: pascale & Athos, 1981).

The organisational culture movement was slowly gaining

popularity in the late 19706, and suddenly, its impact became

very pronounced with the arrival of cover stories ln Business

week (1980), Administrative science Quarterly (1983) and FOrtune

(Uttsl, 1983), as well as with the commercial success of three

books - Ouch;'s tTheory z' (1981), peters and Waterman's 'In

search of Excellence' (1982) and Deal and Kennedy's 'Corporate

Cultures' (1982). By the mid-1980s the practitioner oriented

views had become dominant. Notions of culture and commitment had

become twinned with a a variety of'efforts such as 'Total Quality

Movement', IKaizen', 'Organisational Transformation', and

recently CTotal Quality People'. Not only have numerous managers

written about cultural change in their organisations (Boyle,

1983; Brown, 1982; Kanarick & Dotlich, 1984; Koerner, 1984;

Malinconico, 1984) but studies indicate that conscious attempts

to develop organisational culture have become part and parcel of

organisational life (schein, 1985; Van Maanen & Kunda, 1989).

Kunda (1992) observes that employees not only talk about culture

but also evince great interest in attending culture seminars.

22

Thus, currently organisational culture ;s regarded as central to

individual and organisational effectiveness.

ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE DEfINITION

Efforts to arrive at a perfect definition of organisational

culture wou1d be akin to the attempts of the blind men in the

sufi story, who deciphered the elephant by touching the different

limbs of the animal. Definitions are numerous.

Kroeber and Parsons (1958) define organisational culture as

the transmitted and crea~ed content and patterns of values,

ideas, and other symbolic meaningful systems which shape human

behaviour. According to Forehand and Glimer (1964), the cultural

characteristics of an organisation are relatively enduring over

time, and they convey some important assumptions and norms,

governing the values, attitudes, and goals of organisation

members.

Beres and Porterwood (1979) define organisational culture as

a pattern of behaviour handed down to members of a group by the

previous generation. Louis (1980) defines it as a set of common

understandings for organiSing actions and language. Deal and

Kennedy (1982) define it in simplistic fashion, as the way people

do things around the organisation. Twinstal1 (1983) perceives it

as a constellation of beliefs, mores, value systems, behavioural

norms, and ways of carrying on business that are unique to every

organisation. sathe (1983) defines it as the set of important

23

understandings (often unstated) that members of a community share

1n common.

AS far as the concept of organisational culture is

concerned, Schein (1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1990) . 18

especially influential, as he more than the others including

anthropologists and folklorists - has articulated a conceptual

framework for analysing and intervening 1n the culture of

organisations. This study adopts his definition (Schein, 1990:

111 ) :

Organisational culture is (a) a pattern of basic assumptions, (b) invented, discovered, or developed by a given group, (c) as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, (d) that has worked well enough to be considered valid and therefore, (9) is to be taught to new members as the (f) correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.

CHARACTERISTICS

Some of the important characteristics of organisational

culture are given below:

1. Observed bebayjoyral regularjtjes: When organisation members

interact with one another, they use a common language,

terminology, jargon, and symbol related to deference and

demeanour (Goffman, 1967; Van Maanen, 1979).

2. Norms: Standards of behaviour are conspicuous in the way

organisation members abide by the interests and compulSions

24

of their groups. For instance, guidelines or directions may

flow from group norms that require members to strictly work

to rule, and exert nothing more (Homans, 1950).

3. Domjnant values: Every organisation advocates certain

values, and expects its members to absorb and adhere to them

faithfully (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). Typical examples are the

repeated proclamations of organisations about Total Quality

Management (TQM), consumer satisfaction, commitment and

credibility.

4. Phjlosophy: This is a mission statement that manifests an

organisation 7 s beliefs about how its employees and/or cus­

tomers are to be treated (Ouchi, 1981; Pascale & Athos,

1981). For example, an organisation may declare its philos­

ophy of fomenting a sense of fraternity, togetherness, and

belonging. by emphasizing the pre-eminence of team work.

5. Rules: These are str;ct guidelines that have to be followed

by the organisation members. For example, if a company has

standard operating procedures for taking orders, baking

bread, and sending the fin;shed product to the market, the

discretion of organisation members to set independent

standards of behaviour is severely limited (Luthans, 1989).

s. Organisational cJimate: This is an overall feeling that is

conveyed by the physical layout and the way organisation

members interact with one another, and also with customers

or outsiders (Tasiuri & Litwin, 1968).

25

Although none of the above mentioned characteristics by

themselves represent the culture of an organisation, yet

collectively they do reflect organisational culture.

THEORIES QE CULTURE FORMATION

Schein (1985) proposes a conceptual framework for

understanding cultural origins and dynamics in organisations. He

has developed the framework by synthesizing sociodynamic theory,

leadership theory, and learning theory.

SOCIODYNAMIC THEORY

All definitions of organisational culture converge on the

concept of shared solutions, shared understandings, shared

beliefs and values and hence we are interested in finding out how

human sharing comes about. The ~sociodynamic theory', built on

minute observations of training groups, therapy groups, and

working groups, provides important insights in this regard.

Basically all individuals must survive and remain personally

integrated while encountering other people in a group. For, the

individuals in a social context have three primary needs: need

for security, need for mastery of the environment; and need for

acceptance and intimacy. Of course, they do have other

influences from prior memberships such as family, neighbourhood,

friendship groups and so on; they bring such influences into a

26

new organisational group. However, new identities should be

built in the new group. Only then, the new group will develop a

culture of its own.

As the emotional needs faced by individuals in a new

organisational group are rooted around the basic human needs, we

can think of [personality theory' as relevant to group formation.

Wallen (1963) suggested that individuals differed from one

another in their capacity to express their aggressive feelings,

and their tender feelings, leading to three basic types of coping

styles:

(1) Styrdy battler: This type of individual is comfortable in

expressing aggressive, controlling feelings, but ;s very

uncomfortable with affection.

(2) Friendly helper: This type of individual is at home in

expressing affection and tender feelings, but is distinctly

uneasy about too much aggression from others.

(3) LORi cal thjnker: This type of individual is at ease with

procedures, rules and group processes that shut out the

expression of either aggressive or tender emotions.

Every individual has the capacity for each type of emotional

response, but usually the individual tends to gravitate towards

his/her characteristic style which he/she has learnt in earlier

cultural settings. The individual gradually learns through

interaction with the group members what their emotional biases

are and then, how to accommodate to them.

27

When individuals are in a new organisational group, they

attempt to construct their social environment in accordance with

their ~cognitive styles' (Keen, 1977; Mitroff, 1983; Shrivastva

et a1., 1983). Jung (1923) .deals with the preferences

individuals develop while obtaining information from the

environment (dimension of 'intuition' versus fsensat;ont), and

with the way individuals handle information once it has

internalised (dimension of 'thinking' versus ~feeling'

dimension of 'perceiving' versus 'judging').

been

and

The theoretical strands reviewed so far emphasize what

individuals bring into the group situation by way of emotional

and cognitive issues. But, the group as an evolving entity needs

to be analysed as a total unit. The group could at one time act

rationally and purposefully towards the accomplishment of a task,

and at another time, act in an overwhelmingly emotional manner.

Bion (1959) postulated that the group could be acting in

consonance with some underlying group assumptions. He identified

three types of inferred assumptions:

(1) Dependency a$symntjo~: If a group is unable to make a

suCcessful progress in its primary task, it becomes frustrated.

Then, it frantically looks for an lall-know;ng' leader, who will

tell everyone how to proceed. The essence of this emotional

state is the seeking of security and safety through discovering

one capable individual who will protect the group. Such a common

feeling of dependency is a very important 'shared feeling' in the

organisational group.

28

(2) Ejghl-fi9nt assymptjon: If 'dependency' does not work, if

the leader of the group keeps disappointing the group members,

then feelings of insecurity continue to torture the members. The

group may act angrily and impulsively by rejecting the

disappointing leader or by enacting some other symbolic act of

challenging authority. Such a ~shared action' leads the group to

powerful emotional learning, and shapes the group's future action

tendencies.

(3) pajring assymption: When the group has done something

together, proved itself capable of fighting out a problem, it

experiences an euphoric and omnipotent mood. It begins to

proclaim its invincibility. Implicit in this assumption of

(fusion' (Turquet, 1973) is the denial of any internal

differences among members, an illusion of mutual liking among

members, and an optimistic striving to merge totally within the

group_ If the group hangs on to this fusion or pairing

assumption, which is basically built around the euphoria due to

some shared action, it becomes a victim to unrealistic

assumptions. However, the reality situation would be pointed out

by some individual at some point of time, and then the group

becomes conscious of its limitation. Such a realisation brings

the group back to the painful task of Igroup building'.

A vital aspect that we need to take note of is, that baSic

assumptions of group members, group understandings, and group

norms happen around 'critical' events. Events become ~critical'

29

when they are linked with group members t high levels of

emotionality and/or cognitive bases. They may not be noticed at

the time of occurrence, but they can be reconstructed

historically, resulting in the resurrection of the associated

feelings. Such critical incidents become folklores or

organisational stories, which inevitably become legitimizing

pieces of organisational culture (Pfeffer, 1981). To understand

how tnorms' emerge, we should first reconstruct the history of a

group. Usually, we find that norms arose from marker/critical

incidents. In response to a dilemma confronting a group, someone

initiated a line of thought or stated a value, and the rest of

the group ratified that response either through overt agreement

or silence. The assumption was made that everyone agreed, and it

became stabilised as the group norm.

~Shared understanding' means that group members recognise a

particular feeling, experience, or activity as common. This

presumes a common communication system, which includes both

verbal and nonverbal processes (Van Maanen, 1979). The shared

understanding can be produced through group events such as common

anxieties, common emotional responses, common overt actions, and

common emotional regression. When people with different

interpersonal styles, emotional make-ups, and cognitive styles

interact in an organisational setting, they cannot build shared

meanings out of immediate interactions. They need adequate time,

and common experience to build a communication system by means of

30

which they are able to create the same sense of 'meaning' of

events.

LEADERSHIP THEORY

Studies that have attempted to understand the relationship

of the leader to the group members, and the effect of the

leader's personality and style on group formation are very

relevant to the understnding of culture formation and evolution.

Most of the leadership theories distinguish between external

task-oriented leadership functions, and internal group-oriented

ones.

Benne and Sheats (1948) classified leadership functions as

ttask' functions such as initiating, giving information, 91vlng

opinions, and testing for consensus, and 'group building and

maintenance' functions such as supporting, harmonising, setting

and testing standards, and controlling the communication flow

inside the group.

Bales (1950) and Bales and Cohen (1979) derived (task'

functions and tsoc;o-emot;onal' functions, in their extensive

experimental studies of small groups. The Ohio State leader&hip

studies (Bass, 1981: Dobbins & Zaccaro~ 1986; Fleishman, 1973;

Hemphill, 1950; Kerr et a1., 1974; Schriesheim, 1982) identified

two leader behaviour dimensions: t,n;tiat;ng structure' and

~consideration' . The Michigan group (Likert, 1961, 1967)

31

described leader behaviour in terms of two dimensions:

·production-oriented' and temployee-oriented'. Fiedler (1967)

distinguished between ttask orientation' and 'relationship

orientation' in leadership behaviour. Slake and Mouton (1964)

included in their tmanagerial grid' model two leader behaviour

dimensions: concern for tproduction' and concern for 'people'.

In longitudinal studies of the development of managers,

Schein (1978) found that young managers were seeking for three

kinds of competence: (1) 'analytical competence' so as to

recognise and formulate problems to be solved; (2)

t;nterpersonaal competence' to build and sustain different kinds

of relationships with individuals and groups; (3) Cemational

competence 1 in order to tackle the emotional demands of the

managerial role.

Basically, leadership is defined as the ability to influence

a group and/or individuals toward aome goal achievement.

Manager;al leaders influence people and events through five major

bases of power - reward J coercive legitimate, referent, and

expert (French & Raven, 1959). Such an influence process 18

necessary in an organisational context owing to incomplete

organisational design, environmental changes because of

technological, legal and cultural changes, internal dynamics such

as conflicts between departments and diversification attempts,

and opportunities for motivating people (Katz & Kahn. 1978).

32

Whatever we have observed in leadership theory shows that we

cannot divorce the process of leadership from the process of

building organisational culture. It would indeed be appropriate

to state that the unique function of leadership is the creation

and management of culture. The assumptions of the

founders of a group/organisation, the authority

formed therein, and the manner leaders and members

leadets or

relationships

interact at

emotional levels will determine the culture of the

group/organisation.

LEARNING THEORY

organisational culture is learned, and hence it can be

understood only in the context of an evolutionary, dYnamic

learning model. The learning process is complex because it is

groups rather than individuals that are involved in

organisational learning. Group members may further bring in

different forms of anxiety and defensive behaviour during the

learning process in an organisational setting, with the reSUlt

that learning becomes more complex than we could imagine.

There are two types of learning mechanisms positive

problem solving, and anxiety avoidance.

PO§itjYe probJem solyjng: Learning outcomes are rewarding in a

positive problem solving situation, as the group members find out

for themselves that they can effectively tackle a problem. For

instance, when a group is able to arrive at a tangible strategy

33

to set right the sales sag of a product, tests it in the field.

and find6 that it works, the group tends to repeat the strategy

in future. Although the solution may be discovered in a single

trial through insight, the development of a 'shared' insight

requires repeated trials and successes. The culture, then,

includes the learned group repertory of capacities to handle

problems efficiently and effectively. Another significant

dimension to the learned group repertory is the shared cognitions

that the group develops about itself, its ideology, its

rationalisations. and its world views.

Anxjet~ avoidance: A group learns to perceive, think. feel, and

behave in ways which prevent situations from emerging repeatedly,

when they are associ ted with a painful past. For instance, when

a group had met with failure in a particular advertising

innovation, it experienced pain and loss of group image, and

hence would avoid the repetition of the same situation. Even one

trial learning of failure would create the failure phobia, and

the group would inariably avoid the situation, whether actual

danger persists or not.

SOCIAL LEARNING TH,QRY

In 9rouP learning, tSoc;al learning theory' assumes great

importance. Social learning theory ;s an extension of 'operant

conditioning', as it assumes that human behaviour is a function

34

of consequences; yet, it acknowledges the existence of

observational learning, and the importance of perception in

learning_ The theory points out that organisational behaviour

takes place through modeling and self-control processes.

Modeljng: People in groups/organisations often model

behaviour after that of another significant person.

comprehensive view of modeling suggested by Bandura

consists of four processes:

their

The

(1977)

(1) IAttentional process't ,n which organisation members learn

from a model by paying attention to the model's behaviour.

(2) 'Retention process' in which a model's influence will depend

on how well the organisation members remember the model's

act1on, eVen after the model is no longer readily available.

(3) 'Motor reproduction process' in which the organisation

members, after having seen a behaviour of the model,

translate the watching into doing.

(4) tReinforcement process' in which the organisation members

tend to repeat behaviours that are accompanied by favourable

consequences, and tend not to repeat behaviours that are

accompanied by unfavourable consequences.

A number of studies show that modeling procedures have had

favourable impact on group/organisational learning, and on

employee behaviour ;n industrial settings (Burnaska, 1976;

Decker, 1982; Kraut, 1976; Long & Ormsby, 1987)

Self-contro] Dtocess: The social learning theory considers the

focus on behavioural self~control or systematic self-management

35

processes very imperative, as organisation members learn to

manage their behaviour for organisational effectiveness. Bandura

and Walters (1963) observe that behaviours are learnt by

organisation members, very thoughtfully.

Luthans (1989) discusses two importance strategies for

learning to happen in behavioural self-management stimulus

management, and consequence management. In ~stimulus

management', organisation members work toward the gradual removal

or only selective exposure to stimuli that evoke behaviours whose

freQuency ;s sought to be decreased or eliminated altogether.

Alternatively, the members deliberately initiate new cuing

stimuli or rearrange the existing stimuli so as to evoke

behaviours that they would like to create.

In tconsequence management', there is a contingent

application of new reinforcers or a rearrangement of the existing

ones so as to increase the behaviours in subsequent frequency, or

the application of punishers to decrease them. For instance,

organisation members who want to find ut a tangible solution to a

production problem, on their success can reinforce themselves by

having a sumptuous dinner (overt), or by congratulating

themselves and feeling good about their success (covert).

When organisation members face a problematic situation, and

have to find out a solution together, we have the basic situation

for culture formation. The process involves a shared problem

definition, and a shared recognition that some invented solution

36

actually works, and continues to work. The initial ability to

share is contoured by prior cultural learning and understanding,

but the new shared experience within the new group/organisation

sets off the formation of a new culture, which consequently

becomes the characteristic of that particular group/organisation.

The theories and empirical findings about socia-dynamics,

leadership, and learning processes are essential to an

understanding of culture formation.

MULTIPLE CULTURES

When we speak of organisational culture, we are likely to

assume that a unitary or rnono1ithic cu1ture pervades the entire

organisation. such a premise is untenable, because we have

defined culture as a system of tshared meanings'. Then, it is

well nigh possible that different units within an organisation

may develop sub-cultures that can be neutral toward or· even

conflict with the dominant culture (Martin & Siehl, 1983).

Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) found distinct subcultures within

different functions such as engineering~ marketing, R&D and

manufacturing in most companies. Barley (1983) studied two

hospital radiology departments, and identified subcultures

associated with the computer trained technologists, and

sonographers. Schwartzman et al., (1988) in their study of a

community

that of

mental health centre. discovered dual cultures

the community Board members t responsible

one

for

31

administration, and another that of the para-professional staff,

responsible for treating clients. Smircich (1983) found two

different subcultures in an insurance company - an 'inside' group

of long-standing staff members, and an Coutside' group of expert

staff members.

However, the different subcultures e)(ist;ng in an

organisation do not necessarily impact negatively the

organisation - driven assumptions. If they do undermine the

basic assumptions on which the organisation depends, then

managerial leaders would have to seriously influence the

assumption-level of the organisation members.

SIBQ.N~ QULTUBE

Some organisational cultures are labeled, 'strong' and

others tweak'. To the degree that the same patterns of beliefs

are shared throughout the organisation, the culture is considered

a strong one (Saffold, 1988), A strong culture is characterised

by the organisation's core values being both widely shared and

intensely held. The more the members accept the core values, and

the greater the members' commitment to those values, the stronger

will be the culture. Those core. values are expressed as

deCisions and actions on appropriate occasions. The degree of

sharedness is affected by two main factors "orientation"

through training pro9rammes, and "rewards" (Pareek, 1991). And,

the degree of "intensityn is the result of the reward structure.

38

When organisation members realise that they will be rewarded for

performing or acting according to the espoused core values of the

organisation. their desire to do so increases (Luthans, 1989).

Also, a 'weak' culture may exist where important assumptions

or values are not widely shared in an organisation, but vary from

individual to individual or unit to unit (Glaser, 1983; Riley.

1983). However, for an organisation to be successful.

organisation - driven assumptions must be widely shared across

the strata of organisation members.

CQNCEPTUAL MODELS Qf ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE

There are arguments against conceptual models on the grounds

that they oversimp7ify complex phenomena. Yet, models are

important because they guide empirical research and generate new

theory. In recent times, two conceptual models have been

proposed for the study of organisational culture - Schein's

model, and Hatch's "cultural dynamics" model.

£CHEIN'S MODEL:

Schein (1985) embraced elements of the "cognitive" and

"adaptationist" school of cultural thought, and discovered three

levels of cultural phenomena in organisations. On the surface

are "artifacts". underneath artifacts lie "values", and at the

core are "basic assumptions".

39

SCHEIN'S MODEL

('985)

ARTIFACTS

1 VALUES

1 ASSUMPTIONS

"Artifacts" are the tangible aspects in an organisation,

which comprise the physical layout, the dress code, the way

members address one another, the smell and feel of the place, and

other archival manifestations such as the company records,

mission statements, annual reports, and the products that are

manufactured. Rites, rituals, organisational stories, humour and

other symbolic manifestations are artifacts, which are palpable

but difficult to fathom accurately (Martin et al., 1986; wilkins,

1983).

"Values~ are evaluational bases organisation members usa for

jUdging situations, acts, objects, and people. They reflect the

actual goals, ideals, standard, as well as the blunders of the

organisation - both acts of commission and omission.

"Assumptions" are the tacit beliefs of organisation members,

concerning themselves and others, inter-relationships, and the

nature of the organisation. They are the taken-for-granted,

40

underlying, and usually unconscious beliefs that determine

perceptions, thought processes, feelings, and behaviours of

organisation members. Basic assumptions tend to be non­

confrontable and non-debatable.

Schein (1985) claimed that basic assumptions hold the key to

understanding a culture. Recently, he argued that assumptions

are best examined using "clinical techniques", which recommend

that a motivated group of insiders raise its own assumptions to

consciousness with the help of a clinically trained consultant

(Schein, 1990). However, Schein's model has immense value for

non-clinical studies also.

~ATCH'S CULTURAL QYNAMICS MODEL

CULTURAL DYNAMICS MODEL

(1993 )

41

Hatch (1993) finds that Schein's (1985) model of

organisational culture as assumptions. values, and artifacts

leaves gaps by ignoring the special effect of culture as symbols

and symbolic processes. Therefore, ahe proposes a cultural

dynamics perspective by reformulating Schein's model. She places

fsymbols' alongside the three components of Schein's model. She

further articulates the arrows linking assumptions, values. and

artifacts, and defines these links as processes having both

forward and backward temporal modes of operation.

According to Hatch's model, culture is constituted by

manifestation, realisation, symbolisation, and interpretation

processes

"Manifestation" refers to the process by which an assumption

reveals itself, usually through the senses, but also through

cognition and emotion.

"Realisation~ 16 the process of making values real by

transforming expectations into social or material reality such as

greetings, forms of address, stories, humours, proverbs and so

on. It makes artifacts the most tangible aspects of culture, as

to realise something means to make it real, to bring it into

being (Arora, 1988; Jones, 1991; Jones at a1., 1988).

"symbolisation" is a prospective response that links an

artifact's objective form and literal meaning to experiences that . lie beyond the literal domain. For instance, if an artifact such

as a large table in an organisation is seen in its literal

meaning, it remains as a surface on which people work. But, when

42

people look at the table as a symbol, they are likely to

attribute a corporate status/power symbol to the artifact.

Hatch's model emphasizes that artifacts must be translated into

symbols, if they are to be experienced as culturally significant

objects, events, or discourses by organisation members.

"Interpretation" as a process goes beyond the link of

literal and surplus meanlng, and relates the current

understanding with an "already known" experience (Gioia, 1986).

Further, it establishes "meaning", thereby implying a reciprocal

influence of current symbols on basic assumptions. Hatch's model

suggests that (interpretation~ contextualises current

symbol;sation experiences by evoking a broader cultural frame as

a reference point for constructing an acceptable meaning 1n an

organisational setting.

CLIMATE VERSUS CULTURE

The widespread emergence of organisational culture in the

1980's has proliferated the debates over the theoretical

confusion surrounding climate and culture studies in

organisational context. Some researchers report that culture

appears to be a little more than a synonym for climate (Moran &

Volkwein, 1992; schneider, 1985). Whereas. so~e others argue

that both the concepts are similar substantively, and the

difference is only methodological (Denison, 1984; Hofstede

et al., 1990).

43

J

However. a careful consideration of the two constructs

reveals that climate and culture are distinctly identifiable but

are related constructs. They are related in two respects (Moran

& volkwein, 1992):

(1) Climate and culture overlap each other as components of the

expressive. communicative, and socially constructed

dimensions of organisations. climate manifests the

behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of organisation

members, which are more empirica11y accessible to observers.

Whereas, culture represen~s a more implicit feature of

organisations, as it contains collective values and meanings

of members, which are represented indirectly through

symbols.

(2) The core, historically - constituted values and meanings

embodying organisational culture determine the attitudes and

practices that comprise the organisational climate. Thus,

culture is the source of purposeful action and continuity,

from which the routine adaptive behaviours exhibited in the

organisation's climate derive their impetus.

The boundaries between climate and culture can be noted in the

following ways:

(1) Climate functions at the levels of basic values and

artifacts, while culture operates at these levels as well as

at the level of basic assumptions.

(2) Climate has been the domain of social psychologists and

focuses on the perceptions, perceptua1 processes, cues, and

44

cognitions by which organisation individuals apprehend and

discriminate attributes of the organisation's internal

environment. whereas, culture has become the domain of

anthropologists, and analyses the underlyin9 structure of

symbols which manifest the shared values, norms, and

meanings of organisation members (Allaire & Firsirotu, 1984;

smircich & Calais, 1987).

(3) climate is a relatively enduring characteristic of an

organisation, whereas culture is a highly enduring

characteristic of an organisation. For example, changes in

key staff or budgetary cuts can affect climate in an

organisation, rather quickly. but are unlikely to have an

immediate, discernible impact on the culture. To that

extent, climate is shallower than culture.

DIMENSIONS Qf ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE

An effective way of examining organisation members'

behaviour in a specific organisational culture is to look at the

important dimensions existing in the organisation. Three

questions become highly relevant here: (1) Which

operationalisable, and distinct dimensions can be employed to

measure organisational culture? (2) How do these dimenSions

affect human behav;our at work? (3) How do these dimenSions

relate to existing organisational theory and practice?

45

In a massive cross-cultural study involvin9 66 countries,

and 88,000 respondents on about 117,000 questionnaires, Hofstede

( 1980)

(1)

discovered four dimensions of organisational cultyre:

Individualism/collectivism; (2) Power distance;

(3) Uncertainty avoidance, and (4) Masculinity/Femininity. I

This

study has helped us evaluate a particular country in terms of the

four dimensions, and accordingly, explain and predict employee

behaviour in organisations.

Denison (1984) found five dimensions useful in his study of

organisational culture: (1) Organisational climate (organisation

of work, communication flow, emphasis on people, decision-making

practices, influence and control, absence of bureaucracy, and

coordination); (2) Job design (job challenge, job reward, and

role clarity); (3) Supervisory leadership (supervisory support,

team building, goal emphasis, and work facilitation); (4) Peer

leadership (peer support, team building, goal emphasis, and work

facilitation); and (5) Behavioural outcomes (group functioning,

satisfaction, goa1 integration).

Kilmann (1985) developed four dimensions of organisational

culture: (1) Short-term task support~ (2) Long-term task

innovation; (3) Social relationships with a short time frame; and

(4) Personal freedom over a longer time period.

Robbins (1990) proposed a ten dimension model to study

organisational culture: (1) Individual initiative; (2) Risk

tolerance; (3) Direction; (4) Integration; (5) Management

46

support: (6) Control; (7) Identity; (8) Reward system; (9)

Conflict tolerance; and (10) communication patterns.

Hofstede et al., (1990) in their study of 20 units from 10

different organisations in Denmark and Holland found six

dimensions of organisational cultures: (1) Process-oriented Ys.

Results-oriented; (2) Employee-oriented Ys. Job-oriented; (3)

Parochial VS. Professional; (4) Open system Vs. Closed system;

(5) Loose control vs. Tight control; and (6) Normative vs.

Pragmatic.

Parida et al., (1990) suggested nine dimensions but divided

them into two groups - observable culture and inferable culture.

Under "observable culture" the dimensions such as (1) Individual

autonomy; (2) support: (3) structure; (4) Performance reward;

(5) Conflict tolerance; and (6) Risk tolerance were included.

The ~inferable culture~ was sought to be measured by dimensions

such as (1) Beliefs; (2) Norms; and (3) Identity. The

researchers of this framework recommended these dimensions for

the study of Indian industrial organisations.

Adopting an "ethnographic" approach, Schein

identified·seven dimensions of organisational culture:

(1) The organisation's relationship to its environment.

(1985)

(Does

the organisation perceive itself to be dominant, submissive,

harmonising, or searching out a niche?).

47

(2) The nature of human activity. (Which is the correct way for

humans to behave: dominant/proactive,

passive/fatalistic?).

harmonising or

(3) The nature of time. (What ;s our basic orientation in terms

of past, present, and future? which time unit is

appropriate for the conduct of daily affairs?).

(4) The nature of reality and truth. (How do we define truth,

and non-truth? How should we determin it: by pragmatic

test, reliance on wisdom or social consensus?).

(5) The nature of human nature. (Are human beings basically

good, evil, or neutral? Is human nature perfectible or

fixed?) .

(6) The nature of human relationships. (What is the correct way •

for people to interact with one another? Is life

competitive or cooperative? Is individualism or group;sm

the excellent way to organise society? Is the best

(7)

authority system autocratic, paternalistic, or

participative?).

Homogeneity

are highly

individuals

conform?).

vs. Diversity. (Are groups better off if they

diverse or highly homogeneous? Should

in a group be encouraged to innovate or

APPRQACHEa IQ ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE ~IUQX

Sm;rc;ch (1983) delineated two major approaches of culture

research: the functionalist approach, and the

approach.

interpretive

48

(1) FUNCTIONALIST PARADIGM:

The functionalist paradigm is primarily regulative and

pragmatic in its basic orientation, concerned with understanding

an organisation 1n a way which generates useful empirical

knowledge. It views organisational culture as a variable that

influences organisational effectiveness. It is a popular

research strategy marked by survey methods measurement,

validity and sampling (lundberg, 1986).

Kilmann (1985) developed a quantitative instrument on four

dimensions of organisational culture. His ~

res~ndents assessed

both the existing culture, and the desired one, with· the

differences eXposing "cultural gaps". Corporate managers, after

taking note of the cultural gaps among employees, analysed the

existing norms, and initiated changes so as to influence

employees' work performance.

Anderson et a1., (1988) in a survey data from 268 employees,

participating in a work redesign intervention, found that

employee beliefs about the negative impact of the intervention

strategy on the work site was an important predictor of the level

of support for the change.

Putti et a1., (1989) investigated the association between

work values and organisational commitment, with a sample survey

of 175 workers at a subsidiary American multinational corporation

49

in Singapore. Their analysis suggested that work values related

more closely to organisational commitment.

Singh (1989) collected date from 448 industrial

entrepreneurs of punjab, and found that high scores on emotional

stability, self-assurance, competitiveness, hard work, tolerance

for work pressure, and education were associated with a fast rate

of industrial growth.

Abramis and Thomas (1990), in their study based on a survey

of 100 working adults, showed that employees' perception of

customer service practices of their companies were important for

job satisfaction.

Ambrose et al.,

between fairness of

(1991) found

organisational

significant relationships

practices and employee

performanpe. Calorie et al., (1991) developed a Questionnaire on

work-related values and management practices, and tested it on

260 employees in five companies. They found relationships

between corporate culture traits, and economic performance.

(2) INTERPRETIVE pARADIGM~

The interpretive paradigm 1S based upon the view that the

organisational wor1d has a precarious ontological status, and

that what passes as organisational reality does not exist in any

concrete sense, but is the product of the subjective and inter­

subjective experience of organisation members. organisational

reality from this point of view rests in the use of different

kinds of verbal and non-verbal language.

50

This approach follows two steps: (1) recording stories,

metaphors, symbols, statements of beliefs, and behavioural

practices; (2) synthesizing from them a logic or social reality

that makes sense of them~ and explicates their functions in

organisations (Deetz~ 1982).

Wilkins (1984) suggests that stories are powerful ;n

spreading culture among organisation members. as they are like

maps that help members know how things are done in the their

organisation. Martin at al., (1983) described seven stories, and

revealed that each of the stories manifested conflict between

organisations' needs, and members' values such as equality versus

inequality, security versus insecurity, control versus non­

control.

There is a tale of a lady, an alumnus of a company called

GM, which narrates how the lady bought a QM hat for $30,000 in an

auction for charity, and how she was swamped by GM members with

various gifts of their plants. The story is about a simple

event, but its meaning is about positive relationship between the

company, and the lady, although she is just an alumnus of the

company (Solberg, 1985).

Nordstrom employees are fond of this story: A customer came

into a retail shop, run by Nordstrom management, and wanted to

return a set of automobile tyres. The sales clerk was not

willing to get the tyres. At that time, Nordstrom walked by,

heard the conversation, and instructed the clerk to provide the

51

refund, and then, the customer left the place. "But, Mr.

Nordstrom, we don't sell tyres!", the perflexed clerk said. "I

know", replied the boss, "but we do whatever we need to do to

make the customer happy". This story has spread across the

different strata of employees, and has perpetuated a "service

culture" among them (Peters, 1987).

Turner (1990) heard many stories in an electronios company,

which revolved round the prolonged. illness of the founder's

illness. The employees of this company narrated stories

concerned with death, or with inadequate skills of hired people.

In fact, all the stories were related to the troubling period of

the company, the main event being the founder's absence owing to

his ; 11 ness.

Fortado (1992) narrated a poignant story to drive home the

point that employees perceived inequality existing between lower

level managers, and top level managers. There was a strict "No

Smoking" rule in an organisation, and everyone followed it except

the Vice-president of operations. Once he was seen smoking in

the elavator, where he was not supposed to smoke. An employee

asked him bluntly, "Whose decision is it to make smoke

available?". The Vice-President said l "It's mine!".

Tata Chemicals was involved in the manufacturing process of

soda ash, Which involved fifteen processes and power units.

Successful operation demanded that each one of these units

individually, and together worked right at the same time. But,

TISS LIBRARY 1\\ 11II11ll1l111I1I1111 II III

52

operation failures badly mauled the progress. Hired services of

Chinese and American experts could not bring about success. An

American consultant advised J.R.D., "you are in the wrong place,

and in the wrong business. The sooner you get out the better".

J.R.D. replied. "When we arouse the hopes of people, we expect to

fulfil the hopes". This organisational story spread among the

employees of Tata Chemicals, with the result that they began to

work harder than ever to make J.R.D.'s dream come true (Lala,

1993) .

The Ambanis routinely put in twelve to fourteen hours of

hard work in their business. Once when a correspondent from

BusinessWorld came to interview one of the Amban;s, the concerned

Ambani reQuested that his four year old daughter be allowed to

remain in the room. "She does not see very much of me, "he said

apologetically. It is possible that this story is intended to

send a message of "work hard" culture to the employees of the

Ambani business organisations (Khanna & Padmanabhan, 1994).

Smith and simmons (1983) described a bizarre dream of an

employee, that had significant message for other organisational

people. The dream unfolded an old fairy tale

"Rumpelstiltskin". A mysterious gnome, who had magical powers to

spin gold out of straw, offered to help a poor peasant's

daughter. But, he demanded a price for his help: the peasant's

daughter should hand over to him her first-born son. The airl

accepted the condition. The peasant bragged about his daughter's

53

magical power to spin gold out of straw. The King of the land

locked the girl in a room, stuffed with straw. The gnome helped

the girl by spinning gold. The King was pleased, and he married

the peasant's daughter. But, when the first child was born, the

peasant's daughter refused to honour her word. In this

situation, the trio - the king, the peasant's daughter, and the

peasant managed to discover the gnome's name

"Rumpelstiltskin H

- and at once the gnome disappeared in a puff

of smoke. Similarly, the employees at Dexter bragged about their

excellent programmes to the local community. But, when they

could not deliv~r the goods in time, they panicked, and

scapegoated the medical director by identifying him as the

"fWmpe 1st i 1 tski n II.

Symbols are important signals.

industries studied include no time

Common symbolic features of

clocks, a single common

entrance to

dining area

house-keeping

because both

the plant, no reserved parking places, one common

and so on# For instance, in a chocolate factory,

in the dining hall improved beyond recognition

prodUction and office workers ate in the same

cafeteria during the same time period (Poza, 1983).

AT & T Chairman Mr. Brown~ wanting to change the culture of

the organisation. spoke to the members in a prophetic tone:

"There is a new telephone company in town ... a high technology

business. applying advanced marketing strategies to the

satisfaction of highly sophisticated customer requirement". He

Questioned whether the label "Ma Bell" was appropriate to

54

describe such a business. He, then, asked his audience to Pass

the word that "Mother does not live here anymore". For Bell

employees, the symbolic language carried powerful message about

their culture, including the need to set aside symbols of the

past (Tunstall, 1983).

When the Indian Airlines employee morale was abysmally low,

a vigorous motivation campaign was launched to bring, about an

attitudinal change. Poster-slogans were displayed for

consideration of employees: "Plunging necklines are a beautiful

sight. But not traffic trends"; "ItJs your airlines"; "Perfect

teamwork results in perfect take-offs" (Banslal, 1994). Whether

the slogans had the desired effect on the Airlines employees is

debatable. However, the point is that slogans had been thought

of as effective means to pass on a message to concerned people.

Solberg (1985) narrated the "Black Lake experience" of the

employees of an electronics company. It was a sort of a

~ceremony' for the employees. Management, and union people

shared rooms together J and spent a week eating! working, talking J

and walking together. They went through an emotional experience,

which seemed to have resulted in culture change in the company.

Jones (1983) explored the use of folklores in enhancing

communication and cooperation among organisation members. He

found that the folklores - stories, metaphors, sayings,

ceremonies, and customs - solved worklife problems effectively.

55

At this phase, an important Question comes UP to prod our

reflection: Which research paradigm ;s more useful for studying

organisational culture - functionalist or interpretive. paradigm?

Scholars such as Hofstede, Kilman, and Likert advocate the

functionalist/survey method 1 as it provides objective Quantified

data which will be useful for predicting and managing

organisational outcomes. Whereas scholars such as lundberg,

schein, Smircich and Van Maanen recommend the

interpretive/ethnographic method, as it brings forth a deeper

understanding of the complex organisation life.

However, a happy blend of the two major approaches may be

expected to yield maximum effect in discovering organisational

life. For example, Denison (1984) made a comparative study of

culture, and effectiveness that used a standard set of measures

to a sample of 34 companies. He enriched the quantitative

results, with the inclusion of a set of five case studies from

the sample firms.

M;rv;s (198'5) employed the survey method to gather data on

the quality of worklife in an organisation, and interpreted his

study with reference to a descriptive case study of changes in

corporate culture following the company's acquisition.

Hofstede et a1., (1990) measured organisational cultures in

a Quantitative and qualitative study across twenty units from ten

different organisations in Denmark and Holland.

56

CUbIURE DYNAMICS

Irrespective of the research paradigms/methods being used

culture researches hold a consensus view, namely, tha

or9anisations are interested in the processs of "cultur

dynamics" - culture creation, culture preservation, and cultur,

change.

"Culture creation" is usually attributed to the propheti

endeavours of "founders" (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987; Peters, 1986

Peters & Waterman, 1982: Pettigrew, 1979; Schein, 1985, 1990

Solberg, 1985; Turnstall, 1983). Such an attribution is mos'

likely to happen, for "founders" enjoy frequent opportunities 0

being "salient" to the employees, as far as organisationa

activities or events are concerned. However, it is realistic tl

understand that the strong sub-cultures of employees across thl

strata are potent enough to influence organisations' culture

Then, organisational culture is seen as emerging out of the co"

creation of founders, managers, and other employees.

The dynamics of "culture preservation" draws its strengtl

from three vital factors - selection practices, top managemen"

actions, and socialisation methods of the organisation. Thl

selection practices of the organisation ought to pay attention tc

the "culture-fit" dimension of new members· (caldwell & O'Reilly.

1990; Chatman, 1989; Meir & Hasson, 1982; Moreland, 1985

O'Reilly, 1977; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986; O'Reilly at al.. 1991

schneider, 1987; Weiss & Adler, 1984). Also, the day-to-day tOI

57

management's decisions and actions should be congruent to the

espoused values and policies of the organisation (Crabb t 1991;

;Heap, 1991). And, of course, the pre-eminent factor that

affects preservation of culture is the "socialisation" process

existing in the organisation (Schein, 1985, 1990). The most

critical phase of socialisation is at the time of entry of new

members into the organisation. Those members who fail to learn

the pivotal role behaviours within the organisation, run the risk

of becoming cultural misfits. They may either Quit the

organisation, which means wasteful investment costs, or stay on

as non-conformists, which may be detrimental to the progress of

the organisation.

"Culture change" becomes a necessity for an organisation~ as

every organisation encounters times of transition and/or crises

throughout its existence. The organisation must either adapt tp

changed environment or face extinction. Although no cookbook

recipes exist, once an organisation's culture is defined, and its

cu1tural attributes are analysed to determine which should be

preserved, and which should be changed, actions can be taken.

Corporate leaders must identify key people within the

organisation, who will serve as agents of culture change. They

must, in addition, create meaningful, and relevant symbols of

culture change - rituals, stories, metaphors, slogans, and other

symbolic events. For example, they may redefine the corporate

history by publicising old time exemDlar stories involving

stand-out heroes of the organisation. Rewarding of employees who

58

adhered to the new ways, may be done 1n a public celebration of

the organisation.

However, when we talk of culture change, one caveat is ;n

order. organisations attempting to change their cultu.re must be

careful not to abandon their "cultural roots", and blindly copy

the so-called successful or excellent organisations. Before

changing the well-entrenched culture, the organisations should

ask themselves two soul-searching questions: (1) what do we have

to produce by way of results? (2) Where within our own system do

we do this already? The warning message in these questions is,

that organisations must use cultures, and not lose them

indiscriminately (Schein, 1990).

I.I:lE ItW1AM SCENE

The concept of organisational culture fascinated the

academic, and corporate sectors in India during the late 1980s,

and still it does fascinate. Also, the examples of Japanese

successes have sustained the interest in culture studies, and

implementation of programmes to develop appropriate

organisational cultures. Organisations such as Maruti Udyog,

Sundaram Clayton, Modi Xerox, Petrofils, Proctor & Gamble, Steel

Authority of India Limited (SAIL), and Steel Tubes India (STI)

have paid increased attention to the development of a culture in

consonance with the Indian cultural ethos.

59

The superior-subordinate relationships 1n the Indian

cultural Milieu have reached the proportions of the "karta" image

(Singh & Bhandarkar, 1988), and "Sneh-Shrada" reciprocity (Sinha,

1990) . The "karta" image is characterised by the nurturing,

caring, dependable, sacrificing, yet demanding. authoritative and

strict dimensions of the "father-figure" which the

individuals have learnt to value and look for in

Indian

1 ; fe.

Chattopadhyay (1978) and Sinha (1980, 1990) observe that managers

in Indian business organisat;ons are likely to function

effectively in terms of subordinate control, if they emulate the

traits of the "karta". It is reported that Russ; Mody

successfully adopted the "karta" style of leadership in people

management at TISCO. Employees were used to go;ng to him for

financial or emotional support, and in return, they seemed to

have shown him loyalty (Sanghvi, 1991).

There are common laments among corporate leaders that Indian

employees have deeply absorbed the "chalta ha;" or "soft" work

culture, in which the value of time, target consciousness, and

sincerity in work are accorded low priority. Such a decadent

cultural element is seen as bringing about stultified efficiency

and low productivity in Indian organisations. Different

corporate leaders have adopted various strategies to dea1 with

this problem 1n their organisations. A few examples would

suffice to highlight the dlfferen~ strategies:

60

1. BHEL was severely criticised for its failure to honour

commitments. When Shri Kr;shnamurthy was appointed Chairman

of BHEL, he adopted the strategy of centralised policy

formulation, and decentralised execution and administration.

such a resilence and ;nnovat;veness brought about a cultural

turnaround in BHEl (Khandwalla, 1992).

2. Crompton Greaves wanted to implement value-added work

culture, and total employee commitment, in the foot-steps of

the Japanese management practices. But, the employees at

the Worli plant resisted the move. The management, then,

turned its focus on the improvement of working conditions at

the plant. Each month, it concentrated on one activity:

Quality of worklife, safety and welfare, quality circles,

value engineering, materials management and so on. And the

employees seemed to have gradually absorbed a new culture

"Institutionalisation of Improvement Management"

(Thyagarajan, 1992).

3. It had been reported that at Godrej Soaps L;mited the

"kaizen" culture had taken roots. This culture seemed to

have energised employees to come up with novel methods to

solve power problems. For instance, a worker at Godrej had

suggested that having a suitable stream line for flushing

soap in the line inside the atmozier chamber, just after the

gear pump would lead to energy conservation (Thyagarajan,

1992).

61

4. The Birla philosophy ;s said to be allowing each company

whether it be in cement, edible oils, industrial and

automotive batteries, textiles, chemicals or engineering

total independence with respect to its operations. Even

within each company, divisions operate on a reasonably

autonomous basis. This sort of autonomy-driven culture

seems to have added to the efficiency of each company

(Gupta, 1992).

Indian business organisations are also seeking to build up a

strong organisational culture through rituals and celebrations.

Petrofils, by way of symbolising employees' contribution,

celebrates record-breaking performances. For example, the

company set a new record ;n sales in 1986, with a profit of 36

crores on an investment of 67 crores. Every employee was given a

mixer-grinder

1988) • The

as gift, during the company celebration

Malaya1a Manorama Group had initiated a

(Silvera,

ritual of

honouring its senior employees, by sending them with their sp~ses

on a Bharat darshan, and the company paid the tour bill (Pareek,

1991). In Tamil Nadu, many industrial organisations celebrate

Ayudha Pooja on a grand scale, and during the celebration, they

give sweet packets along with coconut, betel leaves and holy ash

- symbols of good fortune - to all employees.

We have cited a few examples to illustrate various attempts

of industrial organisations in India, to bring about an

organisational culture that would lead to industrial prosperity.

However, we may have to look at these attemp~s with a fair

62

measure of scepticism. All such attempts may turn out to be

superficial manifestations 1n the eyes of the employees. unless

the employees perceive the prevalent organisational practices as

fair and genuine, the repeated attempts of top management people

to bring about a cultural turnaround may not materialise.

In sum, the concept of organisational culture draws our

attention to shared assumptions, values, meanings. and culture

creations (artifacts) among organisation members. It emphasizes

the importance of "symbolism" for the members of rituals,

myths, stories, legends, and semiotics - and the significance of

interpretation of events, ideas, and experiences, as perceived by

the members. And the same culture concept lends itself to be

depicted as a "variable" impacting many organisational outcomes

such as employee work performance, job satisfaction, and

commitment. This facet of organisational culture is very

important, as it allows management researchers and consultants to

identify relevant cultural dimensions through psychometric

procedures. Consequently, it becomes possible for managers and

management consultants to diagnose organisational culture through

standardized survey procedures, and effect

changes that bring about the survival,

appropriate culture

and growth of

organisations. No surprise, then, that organisational culture

has been increasingly thought of as a viable solution for many

complex problems that beset organisations.

53

fMpLOYEE COMMITMENT

One approach that organisation theorists have frequently

employed to understand employees' behaviour in their

organisations is to study "employee commitment h (organisational

commitment). Definitions of commitment have varied in the extent

to which theorists emphasize the observations relevant to

"participation" or "production" (March & simon, 1958: 83). The

considerations toward decisions to participate in an organisation

are based on the notion of "exchange" between employees and their

organisation. And the considerations toward decisions to produce

are described by the employees' identification with the goals and

values of their organisation.

DEFINITIO~ Qf COMMITMENT

Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972: 556) adopting

notion, defined commitment as "a result of

organisational transactions, and alterations in

investments over time I' • Whereas, focusi 09 on

values", Hall, Schneider and Nygren (1970:

the exchange

individual

side

the

176)

bets or

.... shared

defined

commitment as "the process by which the goals of the organisation

and those of the individual become increasingly integrated or

cong ruent" .

The most widely accepted and used definition of employee

commitment in current research is that of Porter, Steers, Mowday,

and Boulian (1974: 604) who stated that commitment is "the

64

relative strength of an individual's identification and

involvement in a particular organisation~. They described

commitment by three psychological factors: (1) a strong belief in

and acceptance of the organisation's goals and values; (2) a

willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the

organisation; and (3) a strong desire to maintain membership in

the organisation.

While defining in this fashion, Porter et al., (1914)

explained employee commitment as a factor beyond mere loyalty to

an organisation. Commitment involves an active relationship with

the organisation to such an extent that employees are willing to

give something of themselves by way of contribution to the well-

being

only

of their organisation. This implies that commitment not

includes employees' beliefs 'and opinions but, in addition,

their willing actions toward promoting organisational health.

Again, as an attitude, commitment distinctly differs from

the concept of job satisfaction. commitment reflects a general

affective response to the organisation as a whole. On the other

hand. job satisfaction reflects "a pleasurable or positive

emotional state resulting from the appraisal of' one's job or job

experience" (Locke, 1976: 1300). Further, comitment is seen as

being more stable over time than job satisfaction. Day-to-day

events in the workplace may affect an employee's level of job

satisfaction,

employee to

but such events are not expected to cause an

seriously re-evaluate his/her attachment to the

65

overall organisation. Commitment attitudes develop slowly but

consistently over time, whereas job satisfaction attitudes are

viewed as immediate reactions to specific and tangible aspects of

the work environment such as "work, pay, promotion opportunities,

superV1Slon and co-workers" (Smith et al., 1969; Porter et al.,

1974).

COMMITMENT TYPOLOGIES

Etzioni (1961) identified three types of

organisational/employee commitment: calculative, moral and

alienative. The last type of commitment does not need treatment

in this dissertation, as "alienat;ve" commitment arises owing to

coercive control and/or entrapment, resulting in continued

membership

based on

represents

in the organ; sat ion. nCa 1 cul at ive commi tment" 1 S

the notion of exchange; while "moral commitment"

a positive and heightened orientation towards an

organisation, based on the internalisation of the organisation's

values and norms. It is expected to be relatively independent of

inducement levels (Kelman, 1961).

Stevens, Beyer and Trice (1978) subsumed different

conceptions of employee commitment in two categories exchange

approaches, and psychological approaches. "Exchange approaches"

to commitment are the outcomes of inducement or contribution

transaction between the organisation and the employee. In

contrast, "psychological approaches" to commitment attach the

identity of the employee to the organisation.

66

combined

models.

Weiner (1982) proposed a "mot.ivational" model that

essential features of the exchange, and psychological

Rusbult and Farrell (1983) articulated their "investment" moael

of employee commitment. The stressed that commitment would be a

function of job rewards, job costs, investment Slze, and job

altenatives.

Although several conceptualisations of employee commitment

have appeared in organisation literature, they can be categorised

under anyone of the following three typologies affective

attachment, perceived costs, and obligation (Meyer & Allen,

1987 ).

AFFECTIVE ATTACHMEHI

The psychological approach describes commitment as a more

active and positive orientation towards the organisation. This

Vlew was held by Kanter (1968: 507) who spoke of "cohesion

commitment" as "the attachment of an

affectivity and emotion to the group".

individual's fund of

She 1 don ( 1971 : 143)

conceptualised commitment as "an attitude or an orientation

toward the organisation which links or attaches the identity of

the person to the organisation". Buchanan (1974) viewed

commitment as a three-component orientation compriSing

identification with the goals and values of the organisation,

high involvement in work activities, and a loyal attachment to

the organisation. The affective attachment approach was best

67

represented by porter and his colleagues (Porter et a1., 1974;

Porter et al., 1976; Mowday et a1., 1979) who defined commitment

in terms of internalisation of the organisation's values,

wi 11.; ngness to put in strong effort towards helping the

organisation achieve its goals, and a strong desire to keep

membership in the organisation. A Question emerges at this

juncture: Are employees affectively committed to their

organisation or to some superior in the organisation? In the

Indian culture, wherein employees seem to look up to their

superiors as -kartas', affective commitment is likely to start

with personal loyalty to some superior. Gradually, the superior

may have to he1p the employees grow out of personal loyalty, and

transform personal loyalty into organisational commitment.

Most empirical studies that have shown employee commitment

to be related to ongoing behavioural outcomes have used Porter's

(1974) measure of commitment, which consists of 15 - item .scale.

This index has a substantial body of reliability and validity

documentation (Cook & wall, 1980; Mowday et al., 1979).

PERCEIVED CQSTS

The perceived costs or exchange-based approach propounded by

March & Simon (1958), and exemplified by Becker's (1960) side-bet

theory has guided many research studies. The side-bets refer to

the accumulation of investments valued by individuals. such as

money, time, and effort that contribute to the cost of Quitting

the organisation. Kanter (196B: 504) defined "cognitive-

continuance commitment"

"profit associated with

associated with leaving".

68

as that which occurs when there is a

continued participation and a cost

Stebbins (1970: 527) viewed exchange

commitment as "the awareness of the impossibility of choosing a

different social identity" because of the immense "penalties in

making the switch".

Gould (1979) has incorporated "eQuity theory" (Adams, 1965)

into the concept of commitment, built upon the exchange theory

foundation of side-bets, inducement contribution, and calculative

commitment. Hrebriniak and A lutto (1972) I and Rusbult and

Farrell (1983) have averred that commitment is an exchange and

accrual phenomenon, dependent on the empoyees' perception of the

ratio of inducements to investments, and the accumulation of

side-bets or investments 1n the employing organisation.

In particular, Rusbult and Farrell (1983) have found that

employee commitment enhances with increases in job rewards,

decreases in job costs, 1ncreases In investment size, and

decreases ln alternatives. This finding can be couched 1n a

mathematical equation:

commitment = (Rewards - costs) + (Investment Alternatives).

"Rewards" consist of high pay. autonomy, job variety, due

recognition, and praise. "costs" are associated with a given

job: unexpected variations in work load, frequent deadlines,

inadequate resources and unfair promotion practices.

"Investments" comprise resources intrinsic to the job such as

69

yeara of service, training opportunities, and resources extrinsic

but inextricably connected to the job such as transport faciities

and friends at workplace. "Alternatives" refer to the

availability of other job opportunities.

Perceived cost-induced commitment has been assessed using a

measure developed by Ritzer and Trice (1969), and modified by

Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972). The latter measurement scale

reQuires respondents to indicate the likelihood that they will

leave their organisation, if they are given various inducements

elsewhere, such as lncreases in pay, status, freedom, and

promotion opportunity.

Whatever be t~e usefulness of measurlng commitment through

the exchange paradigm, we do not;ee two limitations in this

approach from the standpoint of predicting ongoing behaviour in

organisations. To the extent that side-bets are seen as the

principal determinants of levels of employee commitment, we are

able to measure commitment that may reflect the degree to which

employees are hesitant to leave their organisation for employment

elsewhere. But, little do we measure the ongoing behavioural

predispositions within the given employment relationship. A

second limitation of exchange-based measure of commitment springs

from the lack of empirical evidence that they are, in fact,

associated with particular ongoing behavioural outcomes within

the organisation (Morris & Sherman, 1981).

70

OBLIGATION

A less frequently used but a relevant approach all the same,

is to view employee commitment as a belief about one's

responsibility to the organisation. Wiener (1982: 421) defines

commitment as the "totality of internalised normative pressures

to act in a way that meets organisational goals and interests".

The stronger the commitment, the stronger;s the individual's

predisposition to be guided by his/her actions by such

internalised standards, rather than by a consideration of the

consequences of those actions. Thus, committed employees are

likely to exhibit certain behaviours not because they have

meticulously calculated th~ personal benefits attached to their

actions, but because they genuinely believe that it is the right

and moral obligation to do so.

Wiener conceptualised his framework, by leaning on

Fishbein's (1967) "behavioural intentions" model. According to

Fishbein model, an individual's behaviour is a function of the

intention to perform that behaviour. The individual's

behavioural intention is determined by two factors: (1) the

individual's attitude toward performing the act, and (2) the ,

individual's subjective norm. The first component is a function

of the individual's beliefs concerning the consequences of the

act, and their value to him/her. The second component, is a

function of the individual's beli.fs about what important

71

referents think he/she should do, weighted by his/her motivation

to comply with the referents.

Consistent with the Fishbein model, normative commitment,

and instrumental (expectancy/valency models) motivation may bring

about almost the same types of organisation - related behaviours

such as effort, attachment and attendance. They differ, however,

in the characteristics or pattern of such behaviours. The

internalised normative pressures to meet the wishes and interests

of the organisation imply that the behavioural pattern of an

employee should reflect the following characteristics: (1) It

should reflect "personal sacrifice" undertaken for the sake of

the organisation; (2) It should show "persistence", irrespective

of reinforcements and punishments that are likely to reach an

employee and (3) It should indicate a personal "pre-occupation~

with the organisation (Wiener & Gechman, 1977). That "personal

norms" are important contributors to behaviour, has been

validated by many researchers (Prestholdt et al., 1987; Schwartz

& Tessler, '912).

The only measure of the .internalised commitment in the

organisation literature is the three-item sca1e used by Wiener

and Vardi (1980: 86). Respondents were asked the extent to which

they felt "a person should be loyal to his organisation, should

make sacrifices on its behalf, and should not criticise it".

72

CQMMITMENT MODELS

Earlier, we have seen that Ettion; (1961) proposed three

approaches to the study of employee commitment calculative,

moral and alienative. of these, "alienative U approach cannot be

viewed as be; ng cha r acter i sed by an .1 authent i c U commi trnent .

"Authentic" commitment would mean emotional attachment of an

employee towards his/her organisation, and the employee's desire

to stay and work for the organisation. However, it would be 1n

the fitness of things to remind ourselves that Etzioni presented

the three approaches of employee commitment as "types" of

attitudinal commitment, and not as clear-cut components of a

mode 1.

Whereas, Meyer and Allen (1987) conceptualised employee

commitment as a three - component model, namely, "affective",

"continuance" and "normative" commitment. They viewed these

three components as "distinguishable" components, rather than

types of attitudinal commitment. This means that employees can

experience each of these psychological states to varying degrees.

For example. some employees may feel both a strong need, and a

strong obligation to stay within the organisation. but may have

no desire to stay on. Some others may feel neither a strong need

nor a strong .obligation to stay within the organisation. but may

have a strong desire to remain in the organisation. Thus. the

net sum of an employee's commitment to the organisation would

reflect each of the three separable psychological states.

73

The "affective" component of employee commitment, proposed

by the Meyer and Allen model, refers to employees~ emotional

attachment to. identification with, and involvement in the

org~nisation. The "continuance" component refers to commitment

based on the costs that employees associate with Quitting the

organisation. Finally, the "normative" component refers to

employees~ feelings of obligation to remain with the

organisation.

Allen and Meyer (1990) collected data from full-time, non­

un;onised employees in three organisations - two manufacturing

firms, and a university. Out of 500 questionnaires, only 256

(52 per cent) were completed and returned. A pool of 51 items

were generated, and to them were added the 15 item organisational

Commitment Questionnaire {OCQ} of Mowday, Steers and Porter

(1979). Items selected finally for each component were eight

apiece. The reliability (Cronbach alpha) for each scale was

as follows: Affective commitment = .87; Contiunance

= .75; and Normative commitment = .79. When the

comprising the three scales were subjected to a factor

(principal factor method), three factors accounting

commitment

24 items

analysis

for 58.8,

25.8 and 15.4 per cent of the total variance, respectively, were

extracted. The results of the study sU9gested that each of the

psychological states of commitment can be reliably measured. The

generalisability of the findings was also validated in another

study conducted by the same authors.

74

Meyer and Allen's (1987) model of employee commitment has

been given importance in commitment literature, as it 16 the

foremost model to attempt a comprehensive understanding of

commitment. Dunham, Grube and Castaneda (1994) report a series

of 9 studies (N = 2784) in which they have evaluated the

construct definition, measurement, and validation of employee

commitment. Results support the existence of three major

commitment dimensions - affective, continuance and normative.

ANTECEDENTS Qf COMMITMENI

steers (1977) subsumed the antecedents of employee

commitment into three major categories (1) personal

characteristics; (2) job characteristics; and (3) work

experiences. A subse~uent study of Morris and Steers (1980)

added a fourth category - structural characteristics.

1. PERSONAL CHARACTERIS!lQ§:

personal characteristics related to employee commitment

include age, sex, education, and organisational tenure. As "age"

and .. tenure" of emp 1 oyees ; ncrease in the organ; sat ion,

employees' opportunities for alternative employment elsewhere

diminish, with the result that the employees may become more

attached to their organisation. There is a high probability for

negative commitment at this phase (Alutto et al., 1973; Ali &

Ahmed, 1981; Farrell & Rusbult, 1981; Sheldon, 1971).

"Education" is found to be inversely related to commitment (Angle

75

& Perry, 1981; Morris & Sherman, 1981; Morris & Steers, 1980;

;steers, 1977). The inverse relationship ;s attributed to the

difficulty faced by organisations in providing sufficient rewards

(as perceived by employees) to equalise the exchange, when

employees have higher levels of education. And highly educated

employees can be more clear about their long-range interests.

with the result that they are ready to Quit the organisation for

better prospects elsewhere. Further, these employees are likely

to be less committed to their organisation, but more committed to

their profession. Mottaz (1988) has come up with a curious

finding as regards the effect of education on commitment. When

demographic variables such as sex, marital status, job tenure,

and family income are in the analysis. the effect of education on

commitment is pOsitive (8 = .125). But, when "work values" such

as task autonomy, task significance, task involvement,

supervisory assistance, co-worker assistance, working conditions,

salary, promotional opportunity and fringe benefits are entered,

the effect becomes negative (B = -.136). One probable explanaton

of this finding can be, that education may have a positive effect

on commitment by increasing the availability of both intrinsic

and extrinsic rewards, but a negative effect when rewards are

held constant (Mottaz, 1986).

women as a group are found to be more committed than men

(Gould, 1975; Grusky, 1966: Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972). Grusky

(1966) explains that women have to overcome more barriers to

76

attain tneir position or status in organisations, and hence they

cherish organisational membership.

Non-demographic individual difference variables that

influence commitment include "need for achievement" (Steers,

1977), "sense of competence (Mo r r is & She rman J 1981), /I protestant

work ethic" (Blau, '987; Buchanan, 1974; Kidron, 1978), and

.. profess ; anal ism" (Bartol J 1979).

2. JQ§ CHARACTERISTICS:

Job characteristics that have influenced employee commitment

are ranged from broad measures of "job scope" or Pmotivating

potential" (Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Buchanan, 1914; Fukami &

Larson, 1984: Hall et al., 1910) to specifie measures such as

"task identity", "role clarity", "task, challenge". "feedback",

"responsibility~ and "autonomy" (Sartol, 1979; Bhagat & Chassie,

1981; Fried & Ferris, 1981; Koch & Steers, 1978; Laher at a1.,

1985; Spector, 1985; Steers, 1977). Further, "role conflict h and

"ro 1 e over load" are found inverse 1 y re 1 ated to comm; tment.

whereas "role ambiguity" has mixed results (Morris & Koch, 1919;

Morris & Sherman, 1978; Stevens et al., 1978).

3. ~ EXPERIENCE:

Employee commitment 1S greatly impacted by the nature and

Quality of employees' work experiences during their tenure in

their organisation. Commitment;s largely a function of work

71

experiences characterised by: (a) group attitudes toward the

organisation; (b) the extent to which employees' expectations are

met by the realities of the job; (e) feelings of personal

importance to the organisation based upon the

organisation over time; and (d) the Gxtent

actions of

to which

the

the

organisation 1$ seen as being dependable in carrying out its

commitments to employees (Buchanan, 1974; Steers, 1977).

"Social involvement" (Buchanan, 1974; Rotondi, 1975),

"perceived pay equity" (Rhodes & Steers, 1981), "fair

organisational practices" (Gaertner & Nollen, 1989), and

"leadership/supervisory skills" (Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Fukami

& Larson, 1984; Howell & Dorfman, 1981: Jermies & Berker, 1979;

Morris & steers, 1980; Nathan et al., 1991; Padak; & Gandhi,

1981; Parasuraman & Alutto, 1984; Stone & Porter, 1975; Steers &

Spencer, 1977; Welsch & Lavan~ 1981) have great effect on

commitment.

4. STRUCTURAL CHABACATERISTICS:

Morris and Steers (1980) have found three structural

character1stics having effect on employee commitment

"formalisation", "functional dependence" (on the work of other

emp 1 oyees) , and "decentra 1 ; sat; on" . "Organi sat; ona 1 s i zen

(Stevens et al., 1978), and "centralisation~ (Bateman & Strasser,

1984) also are related to commitment.

Pierce and Dunham (1987) examined the influences of

variables from each of the four broad categories of antecedents

78

and hospital employees' propensity toward employee commitment.

They found that the four categories of antecedents significantly

predicted commitment.

BEHAYIOURAl CONSEQUENCES QE COMMITMENT

1. JURNOVEB:

A high degree of employe commitment may override employees'

job dissatisfaction, and make them decide to remain in the

organisation (Mowday at al., '982). Further, commitment to foci

other than an employing organisation, specifically to top

management, supervisors, and workgroups is found to be negatively

rel~ted to intent to quit; Identification and internalisation,

which are, in fact, affective commltment and normative commitMent

respectively, are found to be negatively related to intent to

quit (Secker, 1992).

However, relationship between commitment and turnover may

vary across career stages: early, mid and late career life. In

the early career 8tage~ levels of employee commitment will vary,

in accordance with the employees' opportunities, and the

availability of alternatives that are attractive (Meyer et al.,

1984; Rusbult & Farrell, 1983). The earliest period of

membership is, therefore~ a cri~;cal period for turnover. The

levels of commitment developed during the early employment pe~iod

appears to remain stable. Over time, employees engage in various

79

acts that bind them to the organisation, and lead them to

commitment. In the late career stage, not only do psychological

and behavioural linkages operate to sustain commitment, but

structural variables such as investments, lack of opportunity or

alternative elsewhere may combine to cement the employees'

attachment to the organisation (Mowday et al., 1982; Reichers,

1986; Werbe1 & Gould, 1984). Another study shows that

(1) eventual leavers had lower level of commitment than stayers,

even on the first day of employment; (2) the commitment of

eventual leavers declined over time; and (3) the closer to the

point of Quitting, the greater was the difference in commitment

of leavers versus stayers (Porter et a1., 1974).

2. AijfaENCES:

It ;s expected that employees who are highly committed will

behave in ways that are consistent with their attitudes, and

facilitative of the attainment of the organisational goal.

Farrel and stamm (1988) have found that strong determinants of

absenteeism are "task environment" variables such as "task

significance", "task variety", and "feedback". Negative

relationships between commitment and absenteeism have been found

to be higher in the mid and late career stages. Unless employees

are able to perceive the task s;gnificance, task variety and

appropriate feedback, absences from work will be on the increase.

80

3. ~RFORMANCE:

Employee commitment has been hypothesized to be relataed to

performance under the assumption that committed employees will

expend greater effort on the job. However, no consistent results

have emerged to ascertain the relationship between commitment and

work performance. Wherever it has been ascertained, the

relationship is found to be weak (Mowday et al., 1982; Steers,

1977). So, it is possible that organisations may end up with a

more stable but less productive or creative work force.

Theories of motivation suggest that job performance is a

function of three variables: motivation level, ability, and role

clarity. And the existing theories of employee commitment appear

to be largely concerned with the motivation levels only. Hence,

committed employees will tend to perform well to the extent that:

( , ) organisations stress high achievement orientations

consistently with good employee relations; (2) passive ,

commitment, often recognised as "loyalty", is translated into

acative commitment: and (3) employees acquire the requisite

skills and abilities t and fully understand and accept

organisational role.

ornstein and Isabella (1990) have found that commitment has

only a minimal effect on employees' work performance in the early

career stage, as the employees take time to familiarise

themselves with the assigned jobs. When the employees progress

to the mid and late career stages t their general attitude toward

81

the organisation will affect work performance more strongly than

in the early stage.

The conceptualisation of employee commitment has gained

popularity ;n organisation literature, and in business or

industrial circles) owing to the link between commitment~ and

prosocial organisational behaviour, and withdrawal phenomena.

The logic is very clear. What employees do on the job is more

important than whether they remain in the organisation or not.

Dalton, Krackhardt and Porter (1981) have acknowledged this by

making a distinction between functional and dysfunctional

turnover. Research has not supported a significant correlation

of commitment to performance, and other prosocial behaviours in

organisations (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Randall, 1990; Becker,

1992).

However, it;s important to consider that the link between

commitment and on-the-job behaviour may vary as a function of the

strength of the three components of Meyer & Allen model (1987)

affective, continuance, and normative commitment. There;s

evidence for this. Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, and

Jackson (1989) have found that supervisors' ratings of the

overall job performance and the promotability of their

subordinates correlated positively with those subordinates'

affective commitment scores, and negatively with their

continuance commitment scores. Allen and Smith (1987) have found

82

a positive relationship between affective commitment and employee

innovativeness.

Allen & Meyer (1990) ovbserve that in future research,

may be possible to identify "commitment

differentiate employees who are likely to

profiles"

stay with

it

that

the

organisation, and contribute positively to its effectiveness,

from those who are likely to remain but contribute precious

little. If so, it should help organisational leaders to use the

results of research examining antecedents so as to better manage

the experiences of their employees to foster organisational

growth.

BATIONALE EQB ~ STUpY

An overview of the literature concerning organisational

culture and employee commitment, shows up four inadequacies in

research investigations:

1 . Most of the researches that have explored antecedents or

determinants of employee commitment have predominantly

focused on affective/psychological commitment (Buchanan,

1974; Cook & Wall, 1980; Dunham et al., 1994; Gaertner &

Nollen, 1989; Ogilvie, 1987; Porter et al., 1976; Sharma &

Chauhan, 1991). But, the overall fUnction of commitment

cannot be fully understood, if we do not use a

multidimensional perspective. The research examining the

combined role of the three dimensions of commitment

83

affective, continuance. and normative - as proposed by Allen

and Meyer (1990), will be of significant value.

2. The majority of researches on the antecedents of employee

commitment have selected only some of the characteristics of

the workplace (Bartol, 1979; Bateman & Strasser, 1984;

Fukami & Larson, 1984; Fried & Ferris, 1987: Pierce &

Dunham, 1987; Steers. 1979). A few studies have taken

"organisational climate" as antecedent (Ali & Ahmed, 1987;

Bhagat & Chassie, 1981; Padaki & Gandhi, 1981; Singh, 1988).

But no study, especially in Indian conditions, seems to have

considered "organisational culture" as antecedent of

commitment.

3. The few exceptions which have explored the relations of

organisational culture, its management practices, and its

norms to job performance of employees, and organisational

4.

effectiveness

1985; Wilkins

dimension of

(Denison, 1984; Gordon, 1985; Martin et

& Ouchi, 1983), have mostly ignored

commitment. Denision ('984) did take

a1.,

the

into

consideration the role of commitment; however. his research

focused on the impact of organisational culture on

organisational effectiveness and hence commitment was

treated as only one of the four variables. This is a big

gap or inadequacy in commitment research.

Again, a bulk of the research has attempted

organisational culture and/or commitment only

to study

from the

Viewpoint of executives. This is likely to result 1n

84

parochial or myopic outcomes. Rather, if we study the

relation of organisational culture to employee commitment by

inquiring employees at various hierarchical levels, we will

be able to understand the phenomena in a better way.

This research seriously considers the forementioned gaps or

inadeQuacies in empirical research regarding organisational

culture and employee commitment, and attempts to bridge the gaps

so as to bring out a better perspective of the relationship

between the two prominent organisational constructs.

IH& RESEARCH MODEL

There are no contrary opinions about the fact that an

organisation is being shaped continuously by a body of strong

forces that emanates from within. This internal dynamic has its

roots in the history of the organisation, and derives its force

from the shared assumptions and values of organisation members.

we call this internal dynamic "organisational culture".

Linking organisational practices with underlying shared

assumptions and values of organisation members is an important

step in the study of organisational culture and employee

commitment. The logic behind this linking is that an

organisation's culture is reflected in what is done, how it ;s

done, and who is involved in doing it. In other words, the

culture concerns decisions, actions, and communications both on

the functional and symbolic/interpretive levels.

85

Such an understanding of organisational culture leads us to

a general agreement that an organisation expresses itself clearly

through its cultural dimensions such as values, norms, teamwork,

reward structure and so on. These dimens10ns, e~pl;cated through

organisational practices are likely to convey a sense of purpose

and meaning to organisation members. Gradually, the members

absorb the cultural dynamics of the organisation, and this

absorption engenders and enhances the members' commitment to the

organisation and to its goals.

Three empirical studies merit our attention. Hofstede,

Neuijen, Ohayr, and Sanders (1990: 311), whi1e attempting to

quantitatively measure organisational culture, showed that

"shared perceptions of dai1y practices to be the core of an

organisation's culture». Further, they concluded that lIthe way

these cultures affect ordinary members 15 through shared

practices". The study of Hofstede and his associates is of vital

importance to empirical research: (,) It has pointed out that

concrete organisational policies and practlces are inextricably

tied with the core values and assumptions (beliefs) and the

system of shared meaning that surrounds them. (2) Psychometric

analysis can be relevantly employed to specify cultural

dimensions of an organisation. These two observations have both

theoretical and practical importance.

Denison (1984) made a comparative study of 34 organisations

to assess the impact of organisational cu1ture on organisational

effectiveness. He took a quantitative approach, and relied on a

86

standardized instrumentation based on climate dimensions. He

also took a qualitative approach, by examining 5 of the 34

organisations. in considerable detail through a series of case

studies that focused on the culture, management practices and

effectiveness of the organisations. His study showed that

organisational

effectiveness

relationship

effectiveness.

culture had a strong relationship with the

of the companles. The study also showed a strong

between employee involvement and organisational

Maehr (1987), in his study on personal investment

(commitment), found that commitment was strongly associated with

organisational culture. He found evidence that employees were

likely to be more personally invested in the organisation when

the company's values and beliefs were self-evident and obvious to

them. His study also concluded that organisational culture was a

"controllable force~ and hence, corporate leaders would be better

advised to create and manage culture 50 as to enhance employee

commitment.

These three studies have affirmed that one can legitimately

launch into a Quantitative study of organi~ational culture, and

that one can attempt to examine the relationship between

organisational culture, and employee commitment.

When we seek to study the antecedents or determinants of

employee commitment~ the three component model affective.

continuance and normative commitment - proposed by Meyer and

87

Allen (1987) serves as a comprehensive model. This model

provides valuable insights into employee-organisation link.

Other models that study employee commitment 1n terms of

psychological attachment or exchange notion or normative beliefs

are exclusivistic and parochial. The overall role of employee

commitment ;s best captured by the mu1ti-dimensional perspective

of Meyer and Allen (1987).

Different researchers have considered different sets of

dimensions in their quantitative study of organisational culture

(Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede et a1., 1990; Kilman, 1985; Maehr,

1986; Parida et al., 1990; Robbins, 1990).

The present research identifies 8 dimensions of

organisational culture: (1) Organisational philosophy, (2) Group

norms, (3) Teamwork, (4) Management support, (5) Organisation of

work, (6) Reward system, (7) Decision making, and (8) Conflict

management. By appraising an organisation on these 8 dimensions J

a composite picture of the organisation's culture is SOU9ht to be

formed.

The rationale for selecting these 8 dimensions for this

research deserves mention. The researcher has found that all

culture studies overwhelmingly acknowledge the significance of

understanding the core values of an organisation. These core

values stem from the shared assumptions of organisation members,

and are manifested through shared practices. They are labeled

"organisational philosophy" in this study. Culture is viewed as

a complex of norms extant within a given social organisation or

88

group. These norms are seen as shared responses to the basic

Questions that confront the organisation or group. Basically,

norms reflect a choice that must be made in organlalng individual

and group behaviour. In other words, norms represent an

unquestioned assumption about how thlngs are to happen in groups

or organisations. Hence, "group norms~ have been considered a

dimension of organisational culture in this study.

Hofstede (1980) has found upower distance" an important

dimension of culture in Indian organisations. Chattopadhyay

(1918), and singh and Bhandarkar (1988) have studied the overtly

"dependency" dimension of subordinates 1n Indian industrial

organisations. The present study takes up the "dependency"

dimension, but prefers to give an alternate label "teamwork" so

as to positively look into the extent of mutual cooperation, and

interdependency between superiors and subordinates, and among

peer group members in the industrial setting.

The remaining 5 dimensions are associated with "climate~

dimensions (Denision, 1984; Robbins, 1990), but they are in fact

surface maniestations of the underlying values and assumptions of

employees about their organisation's culture. The "practices"

that exist as climate manifestations can also be termed

"conventions", "customs", "habits", "mores", and "traditions"

(Hofstede et al., 1990: 311).

89

This study attempts to examine "employee commitment" by

using Meyer and Allen's (1987) three component commitment model -

(1) affective comitment, (2) continuance commitment, and

(3) normative commitment. This model offers a comprehensive

understanding of the link between the organisation and the

employees,

ORGANISATIONAL PHILOSOPHY RESEARCH MODEL

GROUP NORMS

TEAM WORK

ORGNISATJON OF WORK

REWARD SYSTEM

DECISION MAKING

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE

ORGANISA'TIONAL CULTURE

-- ~ "'- ............... , ~ -- -..... ~ '-~ ~'-.......~~ DEPENDENT -- --. ':::::-__ ~~p_~_~_~ '_"-..a.-___ V,_"_R_' AIU E BACKGROUND _ ~ :a.\~~ ..-

~V._A_R~IA_B_L_E_S ____ ~l ____ ----~-----=::~~ EMPLOYEE MARITAL STATUS COMMITMENT EDUCATION

,",OB TENURE

MONTHLY INCOME

PRESENT POSITION

WORK EXPERIENCE

. NUMBER OF PROMOTIONS

AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT

CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT

NORMATIVE COMMITNENT

\.0 o

91

OBJECTIVES

The maln objective of the present research is to ascertain

the relationship between organisational culture and employee

commitment, among three strata of employees - ~orkers, clerica1

staff and executives - in an industrial organisation.

The specific objectives of the research are as follows:

1. To examine the variations in the perception of the employees

across the strata, regarding their organisational culture.

2. To examine the variations among the employees across the

strata, in their levels of commitment to the organisation.

3. To ascertain the relationship between organisational culture

and employee commitment, for the employees across the

strata.

4. To ascertain the relationship between background variables

and employee commitment for the employees across the strata.