Organizational Culture: An Examination
of
Its Effect on the Internalization Process and Member Performance
Michael Ritchie
Organizational culture permeates organizational life in such a way as to influence every aspect of the organization (Saffold, 1988). There are many examples of recognizable organizational cultures in the United States. General Motors, IBM, and I. E. DuPont Nemours are just a few of the organizations that communicate a strong sense of culture not only to their members, but to outsiders as well (Peters & Waterman, 1982; Rodgers, 1969). These organizations, and others like them, maintain a strong identity that is constantly communicated to their members.
It has been suggested that organizational culture affects such outcomes as productivity, performance, commitment, self-confidence, and ethical behavior (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Denison, 1984; Ouchi, 1981; Posner, Kouzes, & Schmidt, 1985; Pritchard & Karasick, 1973; Sathe, 1985). However, little has been done to develop theory that attempts to explain the process through which individuals are affected by the organization's culture. Instead, a large portion of the research has concentrated on the “strong vs. weak” culture dichotomy (Deal & Kennedy, 1982), suggesting that culture manifests varying degrees of influence over the members of an organization. While there have been attempts to examine culture’s influence over the cognitive process through which individuals interpret their environment (Denison, 1990; Harris, 1989), further work in this area is needed. However, research into the transmission of cultural values and norms remains as a neglected area in the study of organizational culture (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). It is the object of this research to present a model of organizational culture that examines the effect on the cognitive process and helps explain the influence that organizations may have in creating and maintaining a distinct and recognizable culture.
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture has been defined as the “normative glue” that holds an organization together (Tichy, 1982, p. 63). Forehand and von Gilmer (1964) suggest that culture is the set of characteristics that describe an organization and distinguish it from others. Schein (1990), in a more comprehensive fashion, defines culture as values and behaviors that are believed to lead to success and are thus taught to new members.
Central to the culture definition is the idea that culture must be learned and shared (Titiev, 1959). This learned and shared component begins to address the cognitive process that leads to individual decision making and behavior. Organizational culture maintains influence over its members through the development of values acceptable to the organization. As individuals enter and become participating members of an organization, they are exposed to beliefs and values that begin the initial development of cultural internalization. Pettigrew (1979) was the first to suggest the similarities between organizational culture and societal culture. While both draw heavily on the use of artifacts, myths, and stories in developing theories of consistent behavior and overall efficiency (Boje, Fedor, & Rowland, 1982; Deal & Kennedy, 1982), other differences, such as the ease of organizational entrance and exit, highlight the tentative relation-ship between these two paradigms. It is important not to assume that the rules and behaviors we understand and take for granted in our everyday lives exist within the confines of an organization.
Internalization Process
Upon entering an organization, individuals attempt to understand what the organization is really like and try to become participating members (Feldman, 1976). Individuals are motivated to “make sense” of their environment and understand why things happen (Heider, 1958). By observing behaviors that are common to the members of the organization, new employees can determine what behaviors are expected and rewarded. As rewards begin to accompany prescribed values and behaviors, employees may see these values and behaviors positively and may begin the process of embracing them as their own. Internalization takes place as the values and acceptable behaviors espoused by the organization become part of the individual’s own value system. Organizations can play an active role in the internalization process. A commonly perceived culture will result in less conflict and more interaction (Jung & Avolio, 1999).
Once employees become aware of organizational expectations, norms, and values, they will often attempt to adhere to these new behavioral parameters. Most individuals should understand the relationship between expectation, compliance, and rewards such as pay and continued membership early on. As employees attempt to comply with behavioral standards, they will seek out behavioral examples of others and use these examples as behavioral comparatives. This search for reinforcement of appropriate behavior is the beginning of the individual’s internalization of the organization’s culture (Homa, Sterling, & Trepel, 1981). Transformational type leadership may also help members transcend their self-interests for the benefit of the mission and goals of the organization (Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Klein & House, 1995; Shamir, Houwse, & Arthur, 1993).
Internalization of organizational culture is defined as the similarity between the values and beliefs of the individual and the organization (Caldwell, Chatman, & O’Reilly, 1990). Individual values suggest the way individuals ought to behave (Ravlin & Meglino, 1987) just as organizational values suggest the way organizations expect their members to behave (Schein, 1985). As individuals adhere to and are rewarded by organizational expectations, they may find that they are unable to separate organizational expectations from their own. This internalization process also creates an intrinsic reward system, as members now see their behavior as the “right” thing to do. Organizational and individual value congruence can be represented as the distance between the two value systems. The closer the value systems are to one another, the more similar they become until the members see little or no distinction between the two.
As individuals begin to internalize the organization’s value system into their own, they will evaluate their behavior in a more positive light. Their behavior will be extrinsically rewarded through pay and other external rewards and intrinsically rewarded because the individual has done the “right” thing. An evaluation of the extrinsic and intrinsic reward system will subsequently lead to a higher degree of job satisfaction. The internalization process will also lead to a greater degree of organizational commitment. The collective environment, enhanced by organizational culture, tends to create a strong sense of attachment to the organization, as members begin to subordinate their own goals in favor of the organization’s (Triandis, 1995). Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulain (1974) suggest that a committed individual will strongly believe in the values of the organization. The internalization of organizational values should create a strong belief in these values and also create a perception of individual commitment to the organization. Not only do internalized individuals maintain longer-term relationships with the organization, they also view interpersonal skills and relationships as more important to success than specific task skills (Jung & Avolio, 1999).
As mentioned earlier, learned and shared values and behavioral parameters are essential to the development of internalization of organizational culture. An active educational or learning focus may help members gather pertinent information necessary for survival in the organization. Organizations may need to consider ways to transmit cultural information to help create a sense of shared values and common fate (Chatman, Polzer, Barsade, & Neale, 1998). Communicating cultural values and accepted behaviors is an important aspect of achieving organizational outcomes. Organizations can enhance this learning process by issuing attributional statements concerning important organizational issues and behavioral parameters (Silvester, Anderson, & Patterson, 1999).
A shared understanding of the behavior-reward relationship allows group members to respond similarly to routine work demands, and this sense of shared meaning increases the effectiveness of worker interaction (Louis, 1980; Schein, 1985; Sathe, 1985). Shared organizational values create a common reference point used by members as they continually collect and evaluate environmental information. Group members who possess this information will help transmit that information to others. The extent to which individuals possess a common piece of information predicts the likelihood that they will share the information in a group discussion (Stasser & Stewart, 1992).
As group members begin to share a similar view of the organization’s values, they also begin to maintain similar automatic processing of organizational information concerning important work-related events (Silvester et al., 1999). Individuals who have internalized the culture may now behave automatically, driven by the automatic processing that now exists. The consistent enactment of such behavior will serve as a learning tool for new members and also as a reinforcement to existing members. Chatman et al. (1998) suggests that as individuals perceive differences between themselves, they tend to have less personal interaction. Organizations depend on member interaction for the efficient and effective operation of the work group. Krackhardt (1992) suggests that in today’s work environment, real work gets done face to face. A shared understanding of organizational behavioral parameters suggests a greater degree of interaction and a higher probability of accomplishing goals and objectives.
Internalization also serves as a controlling mechanism for the organization. Internalized individuals will possess the means to evaluate their behavior with the prescribed behavior of the organization. As organizations make clear their behavioral expectations, employees will find it easier to regulate, discipline, and control their own behaviors. This control process helps maintain the content and dissemination of cultural information. Discipline and control are necessary for the successful infusion of relevant organizational information. The regulatory and disciplinary function of internalization also helps create feelings of bonding and belonging (Casey, 1999).
Internalization has been characterized as the process that teaches, shares, facilitates, disciplines, and controls individual behavior. This research suggests three key elements that will facilitate the internalization process: 1) accurate perception of expected behavioral parameters; 2) simple organizational schema; and 3) cultural rewards. These three dimensions help create and maintain the cultural effects within the individual and lead to a more culturally internalized member.
Accurate Perception of Organizational Expectations
The attributes of an organization consist of culturally influenced characteristics (Schein, 1985). The messages transmitted by these attributes are thus intended to convey the values, norms, and behaviors that are acceptable to the organization and essential to membership. A clear understanding of these organizational characteristics will allow individuals to evaluate their behavior and make necessary corrections, if needed. The process of accurate information collection has often been associated with performance and effectiveness (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Keller, 1994). Possession of accurate information has also been associated with quick and responsive behavior (Waller, 1999). An accurately informed individual can make a better decision about continuation or termination of group membership. Those that remain with the organization have begun the internalization process.
Individuals also gain valuable information that has been affixed to the work role. The work role is the initial medium through which the organization imparts culturally-oriented information. Information gathered through formal and informal media will help validate behavior and performance. An accurate perception of acceptable behavior is a key dimension of member development and allows the employee to begin the journey toward internalization. Behavior necessary for task accomplishment may become so engrained within the individual that actions become automatic when decision making is required (Gersick & Hackman, 1995).
Accurate information also helps individuals categorize people as in-group or out-group members. Individuals need this information to begin the internalization process (Chatman et al., 1998). Internalization may even suggest that organizational membership is the only requirement for social acceptance (Wagner, 1995).
Simple Organizational Schema
The second dimension facilitating organizational culture is organizational schema complexity, which stores information concerning the acceptable values and behaviors of organizational members. An individual’s schema is comprised of knowledge, facts, and perceptions concerning the organization. A more simple organizational schema will allow individuals to more easily understand and follow suggested organizational values and behaviors.
Schema complexity is represented by the number of distinct categories individuals use to store information (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). As individuals receive organizational information, they try to place this data into proper categories. General categories are created by organizational culture, which influences the storage process.
A more complex organizational schema will create many categories for information storage and retrieval, causing information analysis to become more difficult. A simple organizational schema, with fewer and more general categories, helps individuals evaluate their behavior and also aids information retrieval and storage. Within an organizational context, these categories can become as simple as “good/bad” or “positive/negative.” Information may then be evaluated in terms of its appropriateness within the organizational environment. By creating simple categories that differentiate information as “good” or “bad,” organizational culture gives individuals a shortcut with which to make quick and simple evaluations. This quick evaluation process may only allow information that is acceptable, placing information that is deemed ambiguous or inappropriate into the unacceptable category. Association with rewards usually reinforces acceptable information. If this information leads to behaviors that are eventually rewarded, individuals will pay more attention to acceptable information, while ignoring or disregarding information considered unacceptable.
Cultural Rewards
The perception of an effort/performance/reward relationship (Vroom, 1964) is also an important element in the internalization process. Wyer and Srull (1986) have suggested that expectations provide the cognitive activity needed to reach goals. In this sense, behavior is influenced by cognition. The reward systems communicated by the organization’s culture become part of the individual’s understanding of the organization and affect decisions concerning behavior.
Individuals will look to the organization in an attempt to satisfy their intrinsic and extrinsic needs (Deci, 1972) and, in the process, become aware of the behavioral parameters that are organizationally rewarded. As their needs are satisfied, individuals will seek out additional information that confirms their behavioral decisions. If organizational culture is to have a lasting effect on the individual, it must be consistent in rewarding and sanctioning behavior that is deemed desirable. Internalization may be enhanced by basing part of employee compensation on organizational outcomes that require a collective performance from group members. This sense of collective performance and reward enhances and maintains the internalization process.
Organizational Culture Model
This research presents a framework that attempts to explain the process by which individuals internalize organizational culture (Figure 1). As individuals become active and participating members of the organization, they receive information that helps them evaluate the appropriateness of their own behavior.
If the behavior is rewarded, the individual receives motivation, extrinsic or intrinsic, to repeat the behavior. As this process is repeated, individuals may begin to view the rewarded behavior as the “correct” thing to do and may begin to internalize that behavior into their value system.
The internalization process is facilitated by three key components. The first, an accurate perception of expected behaviors, gives individuals a clear understanding of what is expected. If professionalism is considered an essential element of the organization’s culture, then the concept and importance of professionalism must be communicated to the organization’s members. While accurate information concerning behavior is important, it is equally important to keep the information simple. The fewer the rules that must be learned, the easier the rules can be learned and memorized. Expected behaviors must be rewarded when delivered. To help individuals include expected behaviors into their personal routines, those behaviors must be reinforced.
These three elements, 1) accurate perception of expected behavioral parameters, 2) simple organizational schema, and 3) cultural rewards, lead to internalization of the organizational culture. Internalization of organizational culture should be associated with positive organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction, job commitment, and performance.
Hypothesis 1: The degree of accuracy of organizational expectations reported by the individual will be positively associated with the reported degree of internalization.
Hypothesis 2: The degree of organizational-schema complexity reported by the individual will be negatively associated with the reported degree of internalization.
Hypothesis 3: The degree to which individuals perceive a relationship between effort/ performance/rewards will be positively associated with the degree of internalization.
The model also suggests that internalization of the organization’s culture will lead to such outcome behaviors as job satisfaction, job commitment, and performance. Adherence to norms and values suggested by organizational culture should provide the extrinsic and intrinsic rewards that create a satisfaction level higher than for those who do not internalize the cultural behaviors and attitudes. Locke (1976) has suggested that job satisfaction is predicated by an internal evaluation of values and beliefs. Internalized behavioral parameters that are influenced by organizational values may be perceived as the fulfillment of these values, which will lead to the perception of increased satisfaction.
Organizational commitment begins with a strong belief in the acceptance of the organization’s goals and values (Porter et al., 1974). The internalization of organizational values should create a strong belief in these values, subsequently creating a perception of individual commitment to the organization. Internalization also influences behaviors that support the values of the organization and the individual. Salancik (1977) suggests that the intensity of commitment is determined by the binding behaviors enacted by the individual. Commitment is an important outcome of internalization, as it helps ensure a stable population that is likely to maintain and continue the culture.
Early research in the area of organizational culture focused on the strong culture/high performance relationship (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Peters & Waterman, 1982). As individuals internalize, or perceive the suggested behaviors of the organization as the proper thing to do, successful completion of these behaviors may become a reward unto itself. Successful performance can create a feeling of self-confidence, self-esteem, and self-efficacy (Jones & Gerard, 1967). These personality traits may increase an individual’s expectations about higher performance (McCarty, 1986), in addition to increased performance (Brockner & Guare, 1983; Eden & Shani, 1982).
Hypothesis 4: The degree of internalization will be positively associated with the degree of job satisfaction reported by the individual.
Hypothesis 5: The degree of internalization will be positively associated with the degree of organizational commitment reported by the individual.
Hypothesis 6: The degree of internalization reported by the individual will be positively associated with the reported degree of job performance.
Method
This research consisted of a field study that examined the development of organizational-culture internalization and the effect of internalization on the individual. The setting of the study was a southeastern division of one of the largest commercial banks in the United States. The bank has been in continuous operation since its inception in 1911.
This research consisted of two distinct phases for gathering information. Phase 1 focused on the interview process that gathered data relating to organizational characteristics and values. Phase 1 also included the pre-testing of several measures that were modified for this research.
Phase 2 of the study consisted of the administration of the survey that contained two distinct parts. The first consisted of a card-sorting task that measured organizational schema complexity. The second part required the completion of the questionnaire that asked employees to respond to questions measuring specific process and outcome variables specific to the organizational culture model.
Participants
The sample consisted of 80 bank employees, nearly all of the division’s personnel. Several individuals were used during pre-test administration and were not used in the study. The organization maintains a diverse work force, employing individuals of varying educational and socio-economic backgrounds. Education levels ranged from completion of the eleventh grade to graduate degrees in administration, finance, accounting, and economics.
The bank’s work force population maintained the following composition: 94% female (75), 70% Caucasian (56), and 30% African- American (24). The average age of respondents was 36 years. The average length of employment with the bank was 11 years, while the average length of employment in current position was four years. Twenty-six percent of the work force held a managerial position.
Measures
The survey instruments were intended to capture the individual’s level of internalization, perceived accuracy of acceptable behavior, organizational schema complexity, cultural reward system, job satisfaction, job commitment, and job performance. All of the survey measures were tested for reliability and found to be within acceptable ranges.
Internalization – Internalization was measured using a modified version of the internalization measure developed by O'Reilly and Chatman (1986) and focused on intrinsic motivation for organizational attachment (e.g., “If the values of this organization were different, I would not be attached to this organization”). Modifications were made to capture specific intrinsic characteristics that were believed to be shared by the organization’s employees.
Accuracy – Accuracy was assessed through a measure developed specifically for this study. Organizational characteristics discovered through the Phase 1 interview process were converted to descriptive phrases that the subjects then rated in terms of acceptable behavioral parameters. Agreement with these statements (e.g., “Employees represent the company to the local community even when they are not at work”) indicated the level of accuracy in the individual’s perception of acceptable organizational characteristics.
Organizational Culture Schema Complexity – Schema complexity was assessed using a technique developed by Scott (1969) that examines the independent attributes of a single domain (Linville, Salovey, & Fischer, 1989). This measure is designed to capture the complexity of an individual's cognitive representation concerning a specific area. The measure consisted of a card-sorting task performed by the subject. Each card contained traits that could be used to describe the organizational culture of the organization being studied.
Cultural rewards – An overall measure of rewards was calculated through the aggregation of three measures. The effort/performance dimension of this relationship was tested by a work-related expectancy measure (e.g., “Getting the job done on time increases my chances for promotion”) developed by Sim, Szilagyi, and McKemey (1976). The other measures were developed for this study and measured the availability of rewards (e.g., “If I do my job correctly, it is possible to receive an increase in pay”) in addition to the performance/reward dimension of the effort/performance/reward relationship.
Job Satisfaction – Job satisfaction was measured using a short form of the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). The instrument includes 14 items (e.g., “The degree to which I am fairly paid for what I contribute to this organization”) that follow the general question, “How satisfied are you with this aspect of your job?” The measure taps four specific satisfaction areas— pay, job security, social, and growth opportunities.
Job Commitment – Job commitment was assessed using a subset of the Organizational Commitment Measure developed by Porter and Smith (1970). This measure contains eight items (e.g., “I talk up the organization to my friends as a great place to work”) that capture the strength of an individual’s involvement in the organization.
Performance – Performance was measured using actual performance evaluations that were gathered from the individual’s personnel record. The performance measure was a numeric average and could range from 1 to 5. The most current evaluation was used for each individual.
Results
An analysis of the results indicates that all of the variables presented in the Organizational Culture Model have an effect on the degree to which individuals internalize the organizational culture. The study also examined the relationship between the internalization process and work-related outcomes including job satisfaction, job commitment, and performance. The results of this study indicate that there is indeed a relationship between 1) an individual’s accurate perception of expected work behaviors; 2) a simple concept of the values that are important to the organization; and 3) an understanding and belief in the organization’s reward system and how well an individual truly believes in the values of the organization. The study also suggests that a relationship exists between the degree to which an individual believes in the values of the company and the individual’s amount of job satisfaction and job commitment (Table 1).
Hypothesis 1 predicted a positive relationship between the degree of accuracy of the individual’s perception of company expectations and the degree of internalization reported by the individual. The study suggests that an accurate perception of organizational expectations significantly correlates with the amount of internalization reported (Table 2). This indicates that, as employees understand the work behaviors that lead to success in the organization, they are likely to exhibit the same positive behaviors. It is important for employees to understand the direct relationship between acceptable behavior, production, and rewards. Individuals will try to understand and comply with the “rules of the game” if they understand these rules and believe that positive outcomes will result.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that the more complex or “cluttered” an individual’s understanding of the values of an organization are, the less he/she will begin to internalize these values as his/her own. In other words, if an employee maintains a simple understanding of the values of the organization, these values will be easier to remember and follow. For example, if an individual perceives that “professionalism” is a component part of the culture, it may be relatively easy for him/her to accept that and incorporate “professionalism” into his/her own behavior. Once that happens, everything that the employee does, whether writing a report or providing customer service, will be done in a “professional” manner. To do it any other way would now seem wrong to the individual. However, if the individual perceives many different organizational values, he/she may become confused as to which one is the most important or which one should be followed. This “cluttered” view of the organization can only lead to confusion and, oftentimes, paralysis on the part of the individual as to what action to take. The results of this study indicate that while this relationship does exist, it is not very strong (Table 2).
Hypothesis 3 looked at the relationship between the individual’s belief in the organization’s reward system and the degree to which he/she truly believed in the values of the organization. Employees that believe that the reward system works also tend to have a similar value system as the organization (Table 2).
If employees believe that they will be rewarded for doing the things that they are asked to do, they will certainly see the organization in a more positive light. They may also begin to accept the values of the organization as their own. Employees certainly understand the relationship between performing as expected and receiving rewards.
Hypothesis 4 examined the relationship between internalization and job satisfaction. It appears that employees are more satisfied with their jobs as their values and the organization’s values become more similar (Table 2). Employees who feel that the organization has the same value system as their own will view the workplace as a comfortable and familiar place and will, therefore, be more satisfied as members.
Hypothesis 5 predicted a relationship between internalization and job commitment, which was supported (Table 2). The process of merging and combining the values and beliefs of the employee and the organization appears to have a binding effect, pulling the individual closer to the norms and values suggested by the organization.
Hypothesis 6 suggested a positive relationship between the degree of internalization reported and the individual’s performance. This relationship was not supported (Table 2). It is possible that the performance measure was not indicative of true individual performance. Preliminary interviews with managers indicated their distrust of the performance measures and implied that a new organizational instrument was needed.
Discussion
This study suggests that the relationship between accurate perception of organizational characteristics and internalization influences the way individuals feel about the organization. It is important for individuals to have an accurate picture of the normative characteristics of the organization if they are to internalize the values that drive these characteristics. Employees must understand what is expected of them. They must have confidence that their efforts will lead to positive and meaningful outcomes for themselves as well as the organization. It is presumptuous for companies to believe that employees should “just know how to act.” If an organization wants and expects a particular type of behavior and personal activity, that activity should be communicated time and time again.
Accurate understanding of organizational expectations and rewards allows the individual to make the decision to comply. Certainly, instances will occur in which employees refuse to follow the rules and accepted parameters of behavior. However, in these situations, the organization can be confident in the fact that the employees’ actions were not caused by a lack of information or understanding but rather the employees’ decision not to follow the rules.
Accuracy also allows individuals to evaluate their behavior, along with accompanying values, in terms of their personal value system. Employees should be given enough information to determine if they can live with the behavioral demands of the organization. If, for instance, a company expects its employees to be heavily involved in the community, it should make certain that it communicates this to its employees. The accuracy of information would allow an individual to either accept or reject the requirements early on. If employees choose to adhere to these stated requirements and are subsequently rewarded for their behaviors, they may begin to consider these behaviors in a positive light as the right thing to do. They may even begin to perceive these expectations as ones that they, too, would have required of other employees. At this step of the internalization process, employees begin to believe that the behaviors required by the organization are the same behaviors they would require if they were in charge. Internalized individuals see little difference in the way they would do things and the way the company wants things done. An accurate understanding of required behavior helps define employee behavior, results in rewards, and predicts adherence to these behaviors in the future.
This study also suggests that the simpler the rules, the easier it is for individuals to perceive the company’s values and rules as their own. Although support for this idea was marginal, it can be argued that accurate, as well as simple, information can be more easily learned and utilized by individuals. Companies should realize that individuals want to keep rules simple. By keeping values and rules simple, organizations actually help employees remember these suggestions. If this information is cumbersome and in large quantities, it is unlikely that employees will commit them to memory. If they are not in memory, they will not influence behavior. Organizations often pride themselves on large volumes of published practices, policies, and principles. However, if these volumes are not memorized and understood, they have little influence on actual day-to-day performance. For instance, if the organization believes that punctuality is an important value, it is easy to communicate and demonstrate. It does not need to be a “policy,” buried in a company manual. If the value of punctuality is strong, everything in the organization should be punctual—meetings, reports, job performance appraisals, etc. By simplifying a complicated education process, individuals are now able to make quick decisions concerning new behaviors and values. Those that are similar to the organization are accepted as “good” or “proper,” while those that are dissimilar or ambiguous are seen as “wrong.” By keeping rules simple, organizations can help ensure that they can be memorized and subsequently followed.
Finally, this study suggests that rewarding behavior is essential in the process of having employees view their value systems as similar to the organization’s. Reward systems must adequately meet and satisfy the basic needs for individual survival. In addition, rewards confirm that the individual has done the “right” thing and that there is a positive outcome for doing the “right” thing in this company. As individual needs are satisfied, the individual may begin to merge the behaviors and values associated with the rewards into his/her own value system. Over time, individuals may not be able to separate organizational values from their own. If the reward structure is reinforced, the degree of individual internalization only becomes stronger. Individuals must believe that their efforts will eventually lead to rewards if they are to begin the internalization process. Individuals who are more internalized have more job satisfaction and job commitment. Employees who feel a similarity between their values and those of the organization are more satisfied with their jobs. These same employees also have higher levels of commitment and loyalty to the organization. Higher levels of satisfaction, commitment, and loyalty lend themselves to a workforce that is more attuned and ready to meet the expectations of the organization. It appears that individuals who internalize the values of the organization are also those who feel a great sense of satisfaction from their association with the organization.
No relationship was found between internalization and performance. On several occasions, management of this organization indicated a lack of confidence in the organization’s performance appraisal system. Management believed that the system did not capture actual performance and that employees put little confidence in performance appraisals. However, as mentioned earlier, internalization of organizational culture did have an influence on job satisfaction and commitment. It is possible that satisfaction and commitment do have an influence on quality, positive attitude, duty, and other essential characteristics needed in today’s business environment.
Limitations
As with any research, limitations of this study do exist. The survey item used for this study was administered to a relatively small sample size. The limited number of respondents (80) did represent nearly 100% of the bank’s district workforce, though. However, a small sample such as this does make it difficult to suggest that its responses are similar to the overall workforce population.
Another limitation of the sample is the similarity within the demographics of the population. The sample consisted of 94% females. While this is typical of most banking operations, it does not represent the workforce at large. These factors, small sample size and a homogeneous gender makeup, must be considered when making broad generalizations concerning the effect of organizational culture on employee behavior. It is suggested that this study be replicated using a larger, more diverse population. In addition, other outcome variables, such as orientation, socialization, work systems, and work design might be considered to make the findings more generalizable. Last, the sole use of five-point Likert-type questions on the measure could have resulted in shared method variance.
Conclusion
The results of this study suggest that organizational culture does have a positive effect on employee attitudes. A strong culture creates a feeling of belonging and increases job satisfaction and commitment. The central focus of this research maintains that organizations can have a positive effect on the creation and internalization of the organizational culture. One of the most effective ways for companies to accomplish this is through their employee training. Training is obviously used to impart the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to successfully meet the company’s objectives. However, training should also be used to communicate expected values and behaviors. Training is an excellent opportunity to share success stories, talk about the values that are important, and help employees understand the benefits of accepting these values and behaviors. Companies have used old photographs, movie footage, and other artifacts to instill the sense of values and behaviors that these items represent. Every training program provides an excellent opportunity to tell the company’s success stories and point out the relationship between values and performance. It is suggested that training sessions be developed that focus solely on the values and culture of the organization. In fact, managers should be the first to undergo this training. This type of training program could help create a shared and consistent perception of what is expected and what will be rewarded.
Management must also accept the responsibility of not only sharing the values and behaviors suggested by the culture but also embodying these same values and behaviors. It is folly to expect employees’ adherence to values and behaviors that are ignored by management. If professionalism is a key value of the culture, then all management, not just senior management, should lead in a professional manner. Every aspect of management behavior should be a demonstration of these values. Management cannot ignore the daily influence it possesses over employee behavior. Management is under constant scrutiny by the workforce and must lead by example. Management must believe in, and adhere to, the values and behaviors associated with the organization’s culture if it expects employees to do the same. Organizational culture can be a powerful and positive force within an organization. Management should understand the relationship between a strong culture and positive organizational outcomes. Management should also understand that it possesses the opportunity to create, influence, and utilize these positive effects that can result from a strong organizational culture.
References
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634-665.
Boje, D., Fedor, D., & Rowland, K. (1982). Mythmaking: A qualitative step in OD interventions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 17-28.
Brockner, J., & Guare, J. (1983). Improving the performance of low self-esteem individuals: An attributional approach. Academy of Management Journal, 26 (4), 642-656.
Caldwell, D. F., Chatman, J. A., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1990). Building organizational commitment: A multifirm study. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 245-261.
Casey, C. (1999). “Come, join our family”: Discipline and integration in corporate organizational culture. Human Relations, 52, 152-175.
Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. (1998). Being different yet feeling similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 749-783.
Deal, T. & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Deci, E. L. (1972). The effects of contingent and non-contingent reward and controls on intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 217-229.
Denison, D. R. (1984). Bringing corporate culture to the bottom line. Organizational Dynamics, 13 (2), 5-12.
Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Eden, D., & Shani, A. B. (1982). “Pygmalion goes to bootcamp”: Expectancy, leadership, and trainee performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 (2), 194-199.
Feldman, D. C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 433-452.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. New York: Random House.
Forehand, G. A. & von Gilmer, B. (1964). Environmental variations in studies of organizational behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 62, 361-382.
Gardner, W. L., & Avolia, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32-58.
Gersick, C. J. G., & Hackman, J. R. (1995). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 65-97.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (2), 159-170.
Harris, S. G. (1989). A schema-based perception on organizational culture. In F. Hoy (Ed.), Proceedings of the 49th Academy of Management meeting (pp. 199-203). Washington, DC: Academy of Management.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Homa, D., Sterling, S., & Trepel, L. (1981). Limitations of exemplar-based generalization and the abstraction of categorical information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7 (6), 418-439.
Jones, E. E., & Gerard, H. B. (1967). Foundations of social psychology. New York: Wiley.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 208-225.
Keller, R. T. (1994). Technology-information processing fit and the performance of R&D project groups: A test of contingency theory. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 395-407.
Klein, K., & House, R. (1995). On fire: Charismatic leadership and levels of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 183-198.
Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of Philos in organizations. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations, (pp. 16-239). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Linville, P. W., Salovey, P., & Fischer, G. W. (1989). Perceived distribution of the characteristics of in-group and out-group members: Empirical evidence and computer simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (2), 165-188.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense-making: What newcomers experience upon entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226-250.
McCarty, P. A. (1986). Effects of feedback on the self-confidence of men and women. Academy of Management Journal, 29 (4), 840-847.
O’Reilly, C. & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (3), 492-499.
Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. (1992). Organization socialization as a learning process: The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849-873.
Ouchi, W. (1981). Theory Z. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Harper & Row.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 570-581.
Porter, L. W., & Smith, F. J. (1970). The etiology of organizational commitment. Unpublished paper. University of California at Irvine.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulain, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.
Posner, B., Kouzes, J., & Schmidt, W. (1985). Shared values make a difference: An empirical test of corporate culture. Human Resource Management, 24, 293-309.
Pritchard, R. D., & Karasick, B. W. (1973). The effects of organizational climate on managerial job performance and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 126-146.
Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1987). Issues in work values measurement. In W. C. Frederick (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy (9th ed.), (153-183). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.
Rodgers, W. (1969). Time. New York: Stein and Day.
Saffold, G. S. (1988). Culture traits, strength, and organizational performance: Moving beyond “strong” culture. Academy of Management Review, 13 (4), 546-558.
Salancik, G. R. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Sathe, V. (1985). Culture and related corporate realities. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 43 (2), 109-119.
Scott, W. (1969). Structure of natural cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12 (4), 261-278.
Shamir, B., Houwse, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership. Organizational Science, 4, 577-594.
Sim, H. P., Szilagyi, A. D., & McKemey, D. R. (1976). Antecedents of work-related expectancies. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 547-559.
Silvester, J., Anderson, N. R., & Patterson, F. (1999). Organizational culture change: An inter-group attributional analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92, 1-22.
Stasser, G., & Stewart, D. (1992). Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 426-434.
Tichy, N. M. (1982). Managing change strategically: The technical, political, and cultural keys. Organizational Dynamics, (Autumn), 59-80.
Titiev, M. (1959). Introduction to cultural anthropology. New York: Henry Holt & Company.
Triandis, C. H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152-172.
Waller, M. J. (1999). The timing of adaptive group responses to nonroutine events. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (2), 127-142.
Weick, K. E. (1979). Cognitive processes in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wyer, R. S. & Srull, T. K. (1986). Human cognition in its social context. Psychological Review, 93 (3), 322-359.
|
Choose an Issue of the Southern Business Review
Office of Publications and Faculty Research Services