What Do We Know About Developing and Sustaining a Culture of Innovation

jstengel — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:05:25 GMT

This article gives a brief overview of organizational culture including its definition, various models, and both qualitative and quantitative methods of studying an organization’s culture. The author begins by discussing culture in general and sites Hofstede’s early findings from research with IBM. She then talks about management research on specific dimensions of organizational culture (innovation and risk taking, attention to detail, outcome orientation, people orientation, individual and team orientation, and aggressiveness) and about a two dimensional framework of culture which looks at internal focus versus external focus as well as stability and control versus flexibility and discretion. Finally, the article explores both qualitative and quantitative methods of observing an organization’s culture and advocates for a combination of both. The author recommends specific assessment tools, consulting firms, and suggests overall, that outcomes of assessment be tied to an organization’s need for innovation.

Assessment tools:

Survey assessments
Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)
Organizational Culture Index (OCI)

Citation

Aiman-Smith, L. (2004) What Do We Know About Developing and Sustaining a Culture of Innovation. What Do We Know Journal Review, 1-5 DOI

"Cognitive-Behavior Modification and Organizational Culture."

jstengel — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:59:59 GMT

This article discusses the application of Cognitive-Behavior Modification (CBM) to organizational culture in order to influence organizational behavior. The author sites the work of Karl Weick and constructivist theory which states that individuals create the organizations they are apart of, while in turn they are impacted by those organizations.

The article explores the cognitive-behavioral framework for interventions including constructivist narratives that can be analyzed and reconstructed to assist with behavioral change. The integration of functional analysis into CBM is then introduced whereby a subject’s interaction with the setting is observed in order to produce a complete picture of the subject in the environment.

The author then ties together the commonalities between constructivist theory of organization with CBM: personal reality and organizational reality are constructed by the individual, that organizational culture and personal reality alike do not exist apart from perception and that efforts to modify both personal life and organizational life must build on these basic facts. Finally, the specific CBM methods of co-construction, re-framing, functional assessment, skill development, leveraging key relationships, and reducing complexity are applied to organizational interventions and specific examples are given from the author’s pilot team development program.

Citation

Boan, D. M. (2006). "Cognitive-Behavior Modification and Organizational Culture." Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 58(1): 51-61.

"Complementary Use of Qualitative and Quantitative Cultural..." by Yauch and Steudel

Donna Cooper — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:48:00 GMT

The authors' goal was to ascertain key cultural factors that enhanced or detracted from companies' ability to institute new manufacturing techniques, while evaluating the qualitatiave and quantitative methods used to analyze their organizational culture.

[Yauch, C. and Steudel, H. (2003). Complementary Use of Qualitative and Quantitative Cultural Assessment Methods. Organizational Research Methods, 6(4): 465-481.]

Hypothesis Tested

Using qualitative and quantitative research methods in a mixed-methods approach will result in a more comprehensive understanding of organizational culture by allowing for a triangulation of cultural factors and providing a deeper understanding of what drives organizational behaviors.

Yauch and Steudel point out that, many researchers describe qualitative and quantitative methods as "mutually exclusive," or inappropriate for combined use. However, some researchers contend that a mixed-methods approach can be useful for a) corroborating data and obtaining convergent validity, or what is termed as triangulation; b) complementarity, or more fully explaining the results of analyses; and c) guiding further data collection, sampling and analysis, or what is termed development (Greene, Caracelli, and Graham, 1989).

Research Design Method

Two Midwest firms, a Plastics Company (PC) and a Beverage Equipment Company (BEC), were selected to participate in both a research and consulting project conducted on site, without cost, by the authors. Both companies were implementing a new cellular manufacturing structure.

Qualitative assessments of the cultures at both companies were obtained through:

Document review,
Participant observation, and
group interviews.

Quantitative data were collected using The Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI) (Cooke & Lafferty, 1987), an assessment protocol from Human Synergistics/Center for Applied Research. Key features of this organizational culture assessment are:

It measures 12 sets of cultural styles or behavioral norms, with 10 items for each category.
The survey asks to what level employees or managers are expected to follow certain behaviors to fit in or meet certain organizational expectations.
The surveys are administered in a paper and pencil format using a five point scale, with 1 = "not at all" and 5 = "to a very great extent."

Sample Populations

Plastics Company (PC) group interview participants included:

16 men, 6 women;
ages ranged from 23-57, with an average of 38.7 years;
21 participants were white, and 1 participant was black;
length of time employed ranged from .2 to 26 years, with an average length of employment equaling 9.2 years;
7 were top management, 7 middle management, 8 shop-floor workers.

Beverage Equipment Company (BEC) group interview participants:

11 men, 13 women;
ages 23-60, average 42.3;
24 white;
years employed .9-28, average length of employment 8.3 years;
4 top management, 10 middle management, 10 shop-floor workers.

The OCI survey was administered to randomly selected employees and managers who had been employed at least six months at both companies. At PC, 26 out of 74 eligible employees were assessed, and 17 out of 41 eligible employees were assessed at BEC. Demographics are not given. At PC, the OCI was administered in four sessions during one day, while at BEC, the survey was administered in two sessions held 10 days apart.

Measurements

The qualitative and quantitative research was conducted over a 17 month (PC) and 16 month (BEC) time frame and included:

participant observation,
document analysis,
group interviews,
follow-up meetings,
the OCI survey,
analysis of cellular manufacturing and the implementation of cellular manufacturing.
Interviews were "semi-structured" around guiding questions and selected artifacts (Schein, 1992). At the PC, questions about why meetings usually started late allowed the researchers to examine the nature of time within the organization. BEC's guiding questions related to group boundaries, as evidenced in the separate parking areas utilized by the various employee groups.

The OCI instrument has been validated as reliable in measuring and assessing the "normative aspects of culture"(Cooke & Szumal, 1993; Xenihou & Furnham, 1996).

An independent auditor, an industrial engineer with a background in qualitative research methods, validated the authors' cultural evaluations, both in the realm of qualitative and quantitative.

Limitations

Random sampling of BEC organization included only one member of the fabrication unit, which did not allow the authors to compare departmental responses. The length of time needed to conduct qualitative analysis (11-14months) can be prohibitive. There was an additional concern on the part of the researchers as to the amount of time between the administration of the quantitative OCI surveys and the more lengthy qualitative interviews, group meetings, and participant-observations. However, the authors cite Cooke and Szumal (1993) as suggesting that an organization's cultural norms remain steady over time, even when in a state of transition.

Additionally, there were unexpected language difficulties for several participants in the OCI surveys. Several participants in the survey were unable to read and understand the questions as English was not their first language. The researchers also noted a problem among participants with the interpretation of some of the OCI questions. With regard to an integration perspective (Martin, 1992), the random administration of the OCI surveys assumed a universal and homogeneous culture for the entire organization. Such an assumption is invalid if there is evidence of subcultures within the organization.

Finally, the authors were most concerned that using only a quantitative analysis of culture would not result in any understanding of why people responded the way that they did or if the questions were even understood as intended.

Findings

Two dominant cultural factors were shown to negatively impact the implementation of innovation in the form of cellular manufacturing at both firms. At PC, avoidance, or the "tendency" of individuals within the group to "shift responsibility to others to avoid blame" emerged as a prevalent obstacle in both the qualitative and quantitative assessments. At BEC, rigid group boundaries were recognized as a negative factor through the participant-observation and group interviews (qualitative assessments). The OCI did not address boundary issues. The inability of members of the group to interact with employees in other areas was observed in both the parking patterns and in the lunchroom, both of which were segregated by work domain.

The authors contend that a mixed-methods approach to analyzing culture provides a deeper, more compelling understanding of organizational culture. This contention implies a complementary purpose, rather than a triangulation (Sale, et. al., 2002). A combined approach, the collection of numbers and words, produce a "more robust" result, both in the data and in understanding the underlying paradigm. By using both a quantitative and qualitative methodology, one is able to understand both what and why.

Implications

The work of Yauch and Steudel supports the idea that qualitative and quantitative data is necessary to fully understand organizational culture. The OCI (quantitative survey) provided an unbiased assessment of cultural artifacts, norms, assumptions, and behaviors. The participant-observations, interviews, group meetings, and open-ended questions (qualitative assessments) led to an understanding of why certain artifacts, norms, assumptions, and behaviors were evidenced.

Tools/Knowledge Objects/Resources/Contacts:

Cooke, R. A., & Lafferty, J. C. (1987). Organizational culture inventory. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics.
Cooke, R. A., & Szumal, J. L. (1993). Measuring normative beliefs and shared behavioral expectations in organizations: The reliability and validity of the organizational culture inventory. Psychological Reports, 72, 1299-1330.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sale, J.E.M., Lohfield, L.H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality & Quantity, 36, 43-53.
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Szumal, J.L. (1998). Organizational culture inventory interpretation & development guide. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics.
Xenihou, A., & Furnham, A. (1996). A correlational and factor analytic study of four questionnaire measures of organizational culture. Human Relations, 49, 349-371.
Websites for OCI: http://www.humansynergistics.com; http://www.leadershipassessments.net

Search results matching tags 'Organizational culture' and 'Organizational behavior'

What Do We Know About Developing and Sustaining a Culture of Innovation

Citation

"Cognitive-Behavior Modification and Organizational Culture."

Citation

"Complementary Use of Qualitative and Quantitative Cultural..." by Yauch and Steudel