Organizational culture

About: Organizational culture is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 31507 publications have been published within this topic receiving 926787 citations. The topic is also known as: corporate culture & organisational culture.

A research synthesis and taxonomic classification of the organizational stressors encountered by sport performers.

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to synthesize the research that has identified the organizational stressors encountered by sport performers and develop a taxonomic classification of these environmental demands. This study used a meta-interpretation, which is an interpretive form of synthesis that is suited to topic areas employing primarily qualitative methods. Thirty-four studies (with a combined sample of 1809 participants) were analyzed using concurrent thematic and context analysis. The organizational stressors that emerged from the analysis numbered 1287, of which 640 were distinct stressors. The demands were abstracted into 31 subcategories, which were subsequently organized to form four categories: leadership and personnel, cultural and team, logistical and environmental, and performance and personal issues. This meta-interpretation with taxonomy provides the most accurate, comprehensive, and parsimonious classification of organizational stressors to date. The findings are valid, generalizable, and applicable to a large number of sport performers of various ages, genders, nationalities, sports, and standards.

On the Naming of the Rose:* Interests and Multiple Meanings as Elements of Organizational Culture

Abstract: Much of the recent literature relating to organizational culture reveals two themes. On the one hand, managerial accounts depict organizations as fostering solidary senti ments, with all participants accepting and upholding joint values. Alternatively, other studies describe organizations as comprising potentially divided interests, which utilize collective values for sectional advantage. An assumption common to both perspectives is that organizational events have single, fixed meanings to all parties. Organizational culture, it seems, is about either pervasive unity or pervasive division. Using empirical materials, it is argued that sentiments and events celebrating the unique identity of machinists in one firm were simultaneously the vehicle for the assertion of boundary and division between interests within this group. Organizational events and processes were capable of multiple interpretation. This theme prompts some concluding generaliza tions, which suggest that organizational culture is defined spe...

Examining the Strategic Alignment and Implementation Success of a KMS: A Subculture-Based Multilevel Analysis

Abstract: Two important gaps exist in the information systems (IS) alignment research. First, there is scant research on the potential of organizational culture, and specifically subcultures to influence the strategic alignment of IS and organizations. Second, there is a dearth of literature that considers the relationship between alignment and implementation success. In this paper, we address both of these gaps by considering the influence of organizational subcultures on the alignment of a specific IS---a knowledge management system (KMS)---with organizational strategy. Our analysis demonstrates the important roles played by three different subcultures---enhancing, countercultural, and chameleon---in the alignment of the KMS. The analysis also underscores the complementary nature of the alignment and implementation literatures and suggests that they should be used in concert to explain the success of an IS. Drawing on our analysis, we build a subculture model, which depicts the intersection of alignment and implementation. From a managerial perspective, the subculture model highlights three different approaches to managing alignment and implementation. From a theoretical perspective, our paper highlights the need for IS alignment models to be modified, so that subunit-level analyses are incorporated. It also illustrates that organizations confront challenges of alignment and implementation simultaneously rather than sequentially.

Disruptive change. When trying harder is part of the problem

Abstract: When a company faces a major disruption in its markets, managers' perceptions of the disruption influence how they respond to it. If, for instance, they view the disruption as a threat to their core business, managers tend to overreact, committing too many resources too quickly. But if they see it as an opportunity, they're likely to commit insufficient resources to its development. Clark Gilbert and Joseph Bower explain why thinking in such stark terms--threat or opportunity--is dangerous. It's possible, they argue, to arrive at an organizational framing that makes good use of the adrenaline a threat creates as well as of the creativity an opportunity affords. The authors claim that the most successful companies frame the challenge differently at different times: When resources are being allocated, managers see the disruptive innovation as a threat. But when the hard strategic work of discovering and responding to new markets begins, the disruptive innovation is treated as an opportunity. The ability to reframe the disruptive technology as circumstances evolve is not an easy skill to master, the authors admit. In fact, it might not be possible without adjusting the organizational structure and the processes governing new business funding. Successful companies, the authors have determined, tend to do certain things: They establish a new venture separate from the core business; they fund the venture in stages as markets emerge; they don't rely on employees from the core organization to staff the new business; and they appoint an active integrator to manage the tensions between the two organizations, to name a few. This article will help executives frame innovations in more balanced ways--allowing them to recognize threats but also to seize opportunities.