Aula 7.1 - JANICIJEVIC_2011_Methodological Apprroaches in the Research of Organizational Culture

7/27/2019 Aula 7.1 - JANICIJEVIC_2011_Methodological Apprroaches in the Research of Organizational Culture

1/32

ECONOMIC ANNALS, Volume LVI, No. 189 / April June 2011

UDC: 3.33 ISSN: 0013-3264

* Faculty of Economics, University of Belgrade,[email protected]

JEL CLASSIFICATION: M14, B49, Z13

ABSTRACT: In the thirty-years-longresearch o organizational culture,two mutually opposed methodologicalapproaches have emerged: objectivistic-quantitative and subjectivistic-qualitative.Tese two approaches are based onopposite ontological and epistemologicalassumptions: they include dierent typeso research, and use opposite, quantitativevs. qualitative, methods o research. Eacho the methodological approaches hasits advantages and disadvantages. Forthis reason a hybrid approach emergesas a legitimate choice in organizationalculture research methodology. It combineselements o both subjectivistic andobjectivistic methodological approaches,

according to the goals, content, andcontext o the research and preerenceso the researcher himsel/hersel. Since itis possible to combine the two principalmethodological approaches in variousways, there are several possible hybridmethodologies in organizational cultureresearch. Afer the review o objectivistic-quantitative and subjectivistic-qualitativemethodological approaches, one o possiblehybrid approaches in the research oorganizational culture is presented in this

paper.

KEY WORDS: organizational culture,research methodology, organization

DOI:10.2298/EKA1189069J

Neboja Janiijevi*

METhODOlOgICAl AppROAChES In ThE

RESEARCh Of ORgAnIzATIOnAl CulTuRE

Scientific PaPerS


2/32

Economic Annals, Volume LVI, No. 189 / April June 2011

1. InTRODuCTIOn

Almost thirty years o systematic research o organizational culture withinthe organizational behaviour eld has transormed it rom concept to theory.Borrowed as a concept rom anthropology, organizational culture has, overyears o research, been developed, structured, and associated with other conceptsin the eld o psychology, sociology, and management. It has managed to becomeone o the key tools in understanding the behaviour o people in organizations.oday, organizational culture is one o the most explored phenomena oorganizational behaviour and an inevitable variable in explaining the unctioningand perormance o all kinds o organizations.

Maturation o a scientic concept is always accompanied by development othe methodology o its research. Te methodology o organizational cultureresearch is currently in the mature phase o its development, and its basic eatureis discernable diversity (aras, Rowney, Steel, 2009); Alvesson, 2002). Tis isdue to a number o reasons. First, organizational culture is an interdisciplinaryphenomenon, and many researchers rom dierent scientic elds explore it bymeans o methodologies commonly used in their basic scientic disciplines. Forexample, anthropologists mainly use qualitative methods, while psychologists

use quantitative methods o research. Second, organizational culture is amultilayered, multidimensional phenomenon, so dierent methods need to beused or exploring its various layers and dimensions. For exploring cognitiveelements o culture, such as assumptions and values, quantitative methods aremost ofen used. Qualitative methods are used or exploring symbolic elements oculture. Tird, organizational culture can be understood through two scienticparadigms: the structural unctionalism paradigm and the interpretativeparadigm. Quantitative research methodologies are suitable or research oculture in the rst paradigm, while qualitative methods are appropriate orresearch o culture in the second paradigm. Fourth, dierent researchers startwith dierent ontological and epistemological assumptions, so consequently themethods o research they employ are dierent. Objectivistic assumptions leadtowards the use o the quantitative method, while subjectivistic assumptions leadtowards application o the qualitative method. Fifh, dierent researchers exploreorganizational culture with dierent goals and intentions in mind, which alsoimplies the use o various research methods.

Tis diversity o methods used to explore organizational culture has bothadvantages and disadvantages. Te main advantage is that such a complex and

multidimensional phenomenon can be better explored when several dierent


3/32

Methodological Approaches in the Research o Organizational Culture

methods are applied. Organizational culture, by its nature, has many acets. Someo them are better explored by qualitative and others by quantitative methods.

Hence, the application o both types o method ensures better understanding othe phenomenon. In addition the application o various methods enhances thediversity and attractiveness o the eld and attracts a greater number o potentialauthors. However the disadvantages o diverse research methodologies are alsoimportant. Te main disadvantage is a diminished possibility o comparingresearch results, which slows down the development o the scientic eld sincethe results cannot be compared and cannot be added to previous research results.

In the organizational culture research o the past 30 years, two basic methodological

approaches have been dierentiated: objectivistic-positivistic and subjectivistic-interpretive (Martin, 2002). Tese two approaches dier by both the ontologicaland epistemological assumptions on which they are based and the type o researchthey encompass, as well as by their data gathering and analyzing methods.However, besides these two main and clear approaches in organizational cultureresearch methodology, it is possible to apply various hybrid approaches (Eriksson,Kovalainen, 2008; Martin, 2002). A hybrid approach combines elements o thetwo main organizational culture research methodological approaches in order tobetter adjust a specic research design to its goals, content, scope, and context.

Tere are a number o ways to combine methodological approaches into onehybrid approach to organizational culture research. Te aim o this paper is topresent and clearly dierentiate the objectivistic-positivistic and subjectivistic-interpretive approaches, as well as to draw attention to one o the possible hybridapproaches to organizational culture research.

2. DEfInITIOn AnD COnTEnT Of ORgAnIzATIOnAl CulTuRE

Since organizational culture research methodology is the main topic o thispaper and not organizational culture per se, the introduction o this paper willbe restricted to presenting the phenomenons concept, content, and nature, sincethese are relevant to understanding the methodological dilemmas in its research.

Understanding the concept o organizational culture includes its denition.However, organizational culture still does not have a unique denition. Some oits denitions are more broadly accepted and more ofen quoted, but it cannot beclaimed that any o the denitions is generally accepted. However, by synthesizingthe experiences and elements o all the authors and their denitions, we can come

to both a comprehensive and an operational denition o the organizational


4/32


culture concept. In this paper the term organizational culture denotes: the systemo assumptions, values, norms, and attitudes, maniested through symbols,

which members o one organization have developed and adopted throughmutual experience, and which help them to determine the meaning o the worldsurrounding them and how to behave in it. Tis denition points to some relevantcharacteristics and elements o the content o organizational culture, which areimportant or the methodology o its exploration.

Organizational culture content is usually classied into two large groups oelements, which can be observed rom the denition: cognitive (assumptions,values, norms, and attitudes) and symbolic elements (materialistic, semantic, and

behavioural symbols).

Basic assumptions are the deepest layer o cognitive structures as elementso organizational culture. Tey have a descriptive unction, since they do notexplain to the members o an organization the reality that surrounds them.Basic assumptions emerge by long-lasting reapplication o successul solutionsto the problems o external adaptation and internal integration, so that thesesolutions get pushed into the subconscious and transormed rom rules o howthe problems should be solved into explanations o what the reality o those

problems is. Hence, the assumptions can also be divided into assumptions onexternal adaptation o an organization and assumptions on its internal integration(Schein, 2004). Values, norms, and attitudes represent the prescriptive elementso organizational cultures cognitive content. Tis means that they, unlike otherassumptions which explain the reality o an organization, prescribe, direct, guide,and infuence the behaviour o people in that specic reality. Values are certainlythe central element o organizational cultures cognitive content (Hostede, 1990.Probably the best known denition is the one by the author Rokeach (Rokeach,1973, pp 171), who dened values as a stable belie that a certain way o behaving

or existential state is personally or socially more desirable than the opposite wayo behaving or existential state. Norms are rules o conduct, most oen inormal,that arise rom values and represent the directions or everyday behaviour o themembers o an organization. Norms signicantly overlap with the values romwhich they emerge on the one hand, as well as with the behavioural practice thatthey determine on the other hand, (Alavi, Kayworth, Leidner, 2005; De Long,Fahey, 2000; OReilly, Chatman, Caldwell, 1991). Attitudes are based on valuesand arise rom them, and they induce a certain behaviour, just like norms do.Attitudes represent belies on the object o conduct, which then produce a certainbehaviour towards the object (Davis, Rasool, 1995). Attitudes are mostly dened

as cognitive and aective orientations towards some objects and situations


5/32


(Stackman, Pinder, Connor, 2000), or as bipolar evaluative judgment on someobject (Fishbein, Ajzen, 1975 according to Kundu, 2009), or as statements o

people who show their attitude towards some specic object and who predisposetheir behavior towards that object (Luthans, 1998)

Te other components o organizational culture content are symbols (Dandridge,Mitro, Joyce, 1980). Symbols are objects, words, or movements which refect,strengthen, and convey meanings created by the cognitive elements o aculture and which can initiate emotions or actions among the members o anorganization (Kundu, 2009; Raaeli, Worline, 2000). Symbols are everythingthat can be seen, heard, or touched in an organizational context. Symbols are all

the words, movements, or things which refect and carry a meaning greater andwider than the one that those words, movements, or things originally have per se.Semantic symbols are all those symbols that can be heard. Tey are symbols inthe orm o language and its creations: jargon, metaphors, stories, legends, jokes,anecdotes, and topics. Semantic symbols are language orms that carry meaningswider than the ones they originally had. Behavioural symbols are those that canbe seen: dierent orms o conduct o the members o an organization, whichhave certain meanings. Behavioural symbols, as well as other types o symbols,also serve to strengthen the organizational culture and convey it to new members

o the organization through the process o socialization, but they can also serveto change the existing culture. O all behavioural symbols two types are mostimportant: behavioural practices and rituals. Material symbols or artiacts arethe most noticeable part o organizational culture. Tey include all the materialobjects which have, through the process o social interaction in which they haveparticipated or rom which they originated as products, assumed some meaningwider and greater than the one they originally had.

Besides content, the character o organizational culture is equally important or

the methodology o its research. In the literature a consensus exists when it comesto certain basic characteristics o organizational culture (Alvesson, 2002, Martin,2002). An important characteristic o culture is that it is a social category, meaningthat it exists only within the boundaries o social communities, such as groups,organizations, social layers, proessions, and nations, but it does not exist at thelevel o the individual person. Most authors agree regarding the implications thatorganizational culture has or a social group and its members. Organizationalculture determines the way the members o an organization perceive andinterpret the world around them, and thereby the way in which they behave init. Hence, not only does the culture signicantly determine the awareness o

the people within an organization, it also determines their decisions, actions,


6/32


everyday behaviour, and the way in which they interact. One o the deningcharacteristics o organizational culture is that it is very specic and unique to

the given organization. Just as there are no two identical personalities, there areno two identical organizational cultures. Tis is because organizational culturearises rom the mutual experience o the members o the organization, whichis gained over a longer period o time and is, by denition, unique. In this wayorganizational culture satises the human need or identity and distinctivenessin relation to the environment. Organizational culture also gives people a eelingo order, meaning, and consistency as they interpret the surrounding world.Finally, most authors nd that organizational culture is a stable category and thatit is difcult to change it.

3. METhODOlOgICAl ASSuMpTIOnS In ThE

RESEARCh Of ORgAnIzATIOnAl CulTuRE

Methodological assumptions in the research o organizational culture dier interms o the basis o the various assumptions the researchers have on the ollowing:the nature o organizational culture, the nature o scientic knowledge, andthe way in which it can be obtained. Te various and most requently opposed

assumptions that researchers o organizational culture start rom when designingtheir research will be briey presented.

Organizational culture research diers primarily with respect to the ontologicalassumptions on which it is based (Creswell, 2009; Martin, 2002). Ontologystudies the nature o the phenomena that are being explored. Dierentontological assumptions in organizational culture also imply dierent methods oexamination. In organizational culture research two ontological approaches maybe observed, which start with completely opposite assumptions, objectivistic andsubjectivistic. Te objectivistic approach to organizational culture assumes thatit exists as a discrete entity: organizational culture is one o the components oan organization, so an organization has a culture, and the culture has its purposeand unction. Te subjectivistic approach takes as a starting point the attitudethat organizational culture is not a distinct entity, separable rom reality, but thatorganizational culture is the reality itsel. Tis is the reason why culture can becomprehended exclusively through a subjective interpretation o its content. Itcannot be said that an organization has a culture, but rather that an organizationis a culture with no specic purpose o existence.


7/32


Epistemology deals with the nature o human knowledge. In organizationalculture research at least two opposite blocks may be dierentiated, which

start with dierent epistemological assumptions (Eriksson, Kovalainen, 2008;Martin, 2002). Tese assumptions are closely related to ontological assumptionsregarding the very nature o organizational culture. One group o researchstarts with objectivistic ontological assumptions and includes both positivisticand quantitative research. Te assumption is that organizational culture, as adiscrete entity, can be positively identied, described, and measured by anobjective categorial apparatus independent rom it. Te research is neutral andthe researcher is an objective observer whose task is to describe the culture viarepresentational method. It goes without saying that the researcher keeps his/her

distance rom the culture, as well as that he/she can be completely objective andneutral, since he/she is the instrument o comprehension. According to the otherassumption, based on subjectivistic ontological assumptions, organizationalculture cannot be positively identied and measured, but only interpreted.People keep the content o the culture in their minds and the culture does notexist outside o them. Researchers cannot know what is in peoples minds, butcan only interpret the products o the culture symbols, behavioural patterns,etc. Culture is explored by understanding, and not by measurement. In order orthat to be possible it is necessary or researchers to be a part o the culture, to be

subjective and by no means objective observers.

Te type and nature o the knowledge about a culture are based on ontologicaland epistemological assumptions. According to this criterion there are two typeso research o culture: etic and emic (Martin, 2002). Etic research, based on theontological assumptions o objectivism and epistemological assumptions opositivism, is external. Te basis or etic research is that the researcher approachesa culture through predened categories, which he/she will study on the basiso results rom previous research. Te researcher then predenes the concepts,

dimensions, and variables to be studied within a culture, and aferwards develops aquestionnaire and quanties these dimensions and their relations. Emic research,based on the ontological and epistemological assumptions o subjectivism, doesnot have predened categories; rather they are established during the researchitsel and based on input rom the members o the organization or the memberso the culture explored. Finally, objectivism, positivism, and etic research alsoinclude the assumption o universalism, which implies that it is possible to creategeneral knowledge containing general principles and rules that can be applied toall other organizations and their cultures. Subjectivistic assumptions in ontologyand epistemology and emic research imply that it is only possible to explore

culture contextually, and that knowledge obtained rom one culture cannot be


8/32


used or the understanding o other cultures. Te best we can do is to learn howto interpret a culture in terms o its members perceptions.

o summarize, there are two basic types o organizational culture research basedon two opposing groups o assumptions regarding the nature o the researchobject, the nature o human knowledge, and the nature o obtaining thatknowledge. Objectivistic research starts rom objectivistic ontology, positivismin epistemology, and includes etic and universalistic research. In this type oresearch, sometimes called the normal science, the goal is to generalize theconclusions obtained rom a relatively small number o cases (Martin, 2002). Tescope o cultural elements is sacriced or the sake o nding precise and replicable

measurements o culture, and the research lacks depth. Questionnaires are themost oen used method in this type o research. Te research quality dependsmostly on the knowledge o the researchers in the eld o statistics and otherquantitative measurement methods. Culture is explored rom the outside andthe researcher must be objective and keep his/her distance as much as possible.Tereore the researcher must use the passive voice, write in third person, and alsoclear the text rom his/her own sel, so that no trace o his/her personal imprintexists in the research (this is oen done in order to strengthen the argumentslaid out in the text, because such depersonalization creates an impression that

the ruth itsel, and not some researcher, supports these arguments). Te greatmajority o research and papers in the eld o social science, and hence alsoorganizational culture, belong to this type o objectivistic research.

Te other type o research starts rom assumption o subjectivism in ontologyand epistemology, and includes emic and contextual research. Te idiosyncraticapproach is most oen used in this type o research, and the purpose o theresearch is acquiring knowledge about the culture rather then about changingit. Qualitative methods are mostly used observation, discourse analysis, etc.

Culture is explored rom within, so the researcher must become a part o theculture in order to understand it. Te researcher becomes a very importantinstrument o the research, and reection becomes a signicant part o theprocess. Te quality o the research largely depends on how much the researcherknows himsel/hersel and on his/her observation skills. Te researcher mustwrite the ndings in the rst person, and introduce the reader to his/her ownlimitations and explain in which way the results carry his/her personal imprint.Te researcher must demonstrate that he/she understands the dynamics betweenhimsel/hersel and the culture he/she is exploring (Martin, 2002). It is verydifcult to publish articles in academic journals (especially in the USA) in which

results o this type o research are presented. Tese journals editors and reviewers


9/32


are educated within the ramework o objectivistic scientic assumptions and donot consider anything that cannot be measured and quantied to be scientic.

Afer all, the ormat and structure o a standard scientic article (literature review,hypotheses, research method, results and discussion, conclusion, limitations,and implications or theory and practice) are more suited to objectivistic than tosubjectivistic research.

4. TYpES Of RESEARCh Of ORgAnIzATIOnAl CulTuRE

Besides ontological and epistemological assumptions, methodological approaches

in organizational culture research also dier according to: the content o theorganizational culture in ocus, the attitude o the researcher toward the objecto research, the purpose o the research, the type o research, the possibilityor generalization o knowledge, and the attitude o the researcher toward theorganization he/she is exploring.

In organizational culture research, two methodological approaches to the parto its content on which they are ocused have clearly emerged. According to onemethodological approach, the key elements o organizational cultures content are

the cognitive categories and they are the ocus o research (Alvesson, 2002). On thebasis o this approach the organizational cultures cognitive content is essential tothe understanding o peoples behaviour in organizations. Assumptions, values,norms, and attitudes in organizational culture show how the members o anorganization understand the world around them and, more importantly, denetheir behaviour. According to this approach symbols are just maniestations ocognitive elements and are less important or the understanding o organizationalculture. Research that ocuses on the cognitive elements o organizational cultureis mostly carried out on the basis o objectivistic ontological and epistemological

assumptions, by means o quantitative methods and techniques, as well as byapplication o the universalistic approach. According to the other methodologicalapproach to organizational culture content, organizational culture is meaningulonly i it is understood rom the perspective o the members o an organization,and that is only possible by means o interpretation o symbols. Researchthat ocuses on symbols is most ofen based on subjectivistic ontological andepistemological assumptions, and it applies qualitative methods and techniquesand both idiosyncratic and ethnographic approaches.

Organizational culture research also diers according to its purpose, i.e.

according to the reason why the research is being conducted. According to the


10/32


criterion o purpose, there are two types o research. Te frst type o researchis the one conducted with the purpose o acquiring scientifc knowledge, also

called ormative research (Jung et al., 2009). Te purpose is an understandingo organizational culture as an intersubjectivistic phenomenon. Tere is nointention o achieving any practical goals, changing the culture, or managing itor the purpose o accomplishing some interest. Te only goal is to fnd scientifctruths about organizational culture, as well as to present these truths in theorm o scientifc articles in academic journals or in books. Te second type oorganizational culture research is ocused on organizational culture changesand their management, and is called diagnostic research (Jung et al., 2009). Tisresearch includes a smaller number o a cultures components, mainly those

which belong to superfcial cognitive elements (values, norms, and attitudes),as well as less complex symbols (behavioural practices). Tis is only natural,since changing behavioural practices and norms is more realistic than changingbasic assumptions in culture. Also, this research is restricted to only some othe dimensions o behavioural practices and norms. Simplifcation is a naturalconsequence o research into a culture with the intention o managing it.

According to the knowledge generalization criterion, organizational cultureresearch may be universalistic or idiosyncratic (Creswell, 2009; Martin, 2002).

Universalistic research is conducted on the assumption o possibility, and alsorealizes the useulness o the generalization o knowledge about organizationalculture. Te basic assumption is that the main dimensions o culture are the samein all organizations, that knowledge o them is universal in character, and that itcan be generalized and transerred not only rom one organization to another, butalso rom one national context or sector to another. Universalistic research aspiresto build a general model o organizational culture: its dimensions, structure, andrelation to other variables in organization (leadership, knowledge management),and especially to perormance. Tis model is then applied to other organizations,

under the assumption that the characteristics and nature o organizationalculture are the same in all organizations. A typical example o universalisticresearch is the one by which the dimensions o the content are identifed and amodel o organizational culture content is created. As a rule the research methodis quantitative, and the research technique is a questionnaire. By examining agreater number o organizations a model o organizational culture dimensions iscreated, and based on that model a questionnaire is designed, i.e. an instrumentor organizational culture diagnosis. Tis instrument is then used in all otherorganizations or exploration (analysis and evaluation) o the cultures withinthem. In this way, once created, universal knowledge about the dimensions o

organizational culture is used to simply determine cultural diagnosis in all other


11/32


organizations. Te uniqueness and specicity o the organizational culture andits context are disregarded.

Tere are two basic types o or approaches to universalistic research presentin literature: dimensional and typological (Jung et al., 2009; aras, Rowney,Steel, 2009; Ashkanasy, Broadoot, Falkus, 2000). Te dimensional approach touniversalistic research ocuses on identiying the dimensions o the organizationalculture content and their use in identiying the organizational culture prole. Tisis accomplished based on research conducted on a great number o organizations,by rst identiying the typical dimensions o organizational culture content, inorder to then develop and validate a standard questionnaire (instrument). Usually

behavioural values, norms, or practices are identied as dimensions o a cultureand they represent the content o a standard questionnaire. Tis questionnaireis then used to evaluate other organizational cultures and identiy their proles.A typical example o such research and questionnaire is the OrganizationalCulture Prole OCP, developed by OReilly and associates (OReilly, Chatman,Caldwell, 1991). Te other type o universalistic research goes one step urtherwhen compared to the dimensional approach. In the typological approach, notonly standard organizational culture dimensions but also their types are beingdetermined. Again, this approach is based on establishing, via exploration o

a large number o organizations, typical sets o dimensions that make general,universal types o organizational culture. Based on the identied organizationalculture dimensions and types, a standard questionnaire (instrument) is alsodesigned. Te organizational culture is then explored by categorizing, by meanso polling the members o organizations using a standard questionnaire, the typeor kind o organizational culture to which the culture o a specic organizationbelongs. Examples o typological instruments in organizational culture researchare Hendys questionnaire diagnosing organizational culture (Hendy, 1996),the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument, developed as part o the

Competing Values Framework (Cameron, Quinn, 2006), and the OrganizationalCulture Inventory (OCI), developed and statistically standardized and validatedby the consulting company Human Synergetics (Balthazard, Cooke, Potter, 2006;Cooke, Laferty, 1987). Each o these questionnaires is based on one typology oorganizational culture and classies a specic organizational culture in one o itstypes.

Te main advantages o universalistic organizational culture researchusing standard questionnaires are: 1.) research time, i.e. research speed; 2.)comparability o results or organizational culture prole or type with the prole

or type o other organizational cultures; 3.) quantication and visualization o


12/32


organizational culture characteristics; 4.) implications o organizational cultureprole or type on other variables or perormances o an organization. Te main

disadvantages o universalistic research using standard questionnaires are: 1.)the neglect o one o the essential characteristics o organizational culture itsuniqueness and specicity and o its context and history; 2.) the simplicationo organizational culture by categorizing it into predetermined proles or types,with the possible result o overemphasizing some dimension o the culture thatis irrelevant to the specic organization in question and overlooking other veryimportant dimensions. In other words, the universalistic approach oers speed,convenience, and simplicity in organizational culture research at the cost o anaccurate, complete, and real picture o the culture in question.

Idiosyncratic organizational culture research starts with the basic assumptionthat every organizational culture is unique and that it must be explored as such(Creswell, 2009; Martin, 2002). Tis is the reason why in this research approachthere are no generalizations and no drawing o universal conclusions regardingthe nature and dimensions o organizational culture. Tere are no standardquestionnaires and no typical proles or types o organizational culture. Eachorganizational culture is explored individually, as a separate entity with itsown characteristics, history, and context. Te research is more proound and

complex than the universalistic approach, and encompasses more elements oorganizational culture, especially the deeper elements o a culture (presumptions,belies). Idiosyncratic research ofen includes the examination o the history o anorganization and its national, sectorial, and institutional context. Tis researchusually includes symbols, which is not the case in universalistic research.However, this research is conducted in a small number o cases (case study)and their results have almost no capacity or generalization. Te advantages othis research are precisely the same characteristics which are a disadvantage inuniversalistic research, and vice versa. Te idiosyncratic approach to research

oers a comprehensive, real, and accurate picture o organizational culture withall its complexities. It does not, however, oer generalization and comparabilityo conclusions, and it rarely oers quantication o a culture and implicationsor other elements o management and perormance (although it is not out o thequestion).

According to the criterion o researchers attitude toward the organization beingexplored, we may distinguish two types o research: classical and clinical (Schein,2004). Classical research is when the researcher keeps his/her distance and isexcluded as much as possible rom the organization which he/she is exploring.

Te researcher seeks to ensure his/her neutrality and objectivity with regard to


13/32


the object o research, by making sure that he/she has no interest whatsoever inthe organization he/she is exploring. Te researchers only interest is scientic

understanding. Tis is why classical research is always ormative. Classicalresearch is almost always based on objectivistic ontological and epistemologicalassumptions, and they explore cognitive elements o culture more oen thansymbolic elements.

Clinical research was introduced to the science by Schein, who established twobasic assumptions o the clinical approach based on his consulting experience: 1.)a social system cannot be explored without interventions being made in it; 2.) socialsystems are best understood while trying to change them (Schein, 2004). Tese

two assumptions are acknowledged in research conducted by a consultant whentrying to help an organization to resolve a problem: clinical research is actuallydiagnostic research by a consultant attempting to change the organization/client.Schein also asserts that there are two reasons that the most efcient way to obtainknowledge regarding an organization is to try and change it. First, it is onlyduring the implementation o changes that previously hidden presumptions andvalues o people, as well as their relationships and emotions, surace and revealthemselves. Second, or the success o the research it is ar better i the researcheris interested in the success and well being o the organization he/she is exploring,

than i he/she is an uninterested objective observer keeping his/her distance.Clinical research is thereore always a diagnostic analysis o the case, and may beobjectivistic and subjectivistic, ocused on cognitive and symbolic elements o aculture. In this research a combination o quantitative and qualitative methodsis most oen used.

According to the type, research is divided into two groups: comparative analysisand the case study (Creswell, 2009). Comparative analysis involves a largernumber o organizations and their members. Te sample o organizations being

explored and/or the sample o members o the organization being includedin the research is determined by ollowing strict rules in order to ensure itsrepresentative quality, and thereby both the validity and reliability o theresearch. Comparative analysis is always based on objectivistic ontological andepistemological assumptions, and it is always quantitative. It almost alwaysocuses on the exploration o the cognitive rather than the symbolic elements o aculture. Obtaining scientic knowledge is always the goal o comparative analysisand it is always universalistic and ethnographic. Te outcome o comparativeanalysis is the testing o previously set hypotheses on the object o research. Tehypotheses most oen serve to examine assumptions about the existence and

nature o relations in the organizational culture. Te advantage o comparative


14/32


analysis is the possibility o generalizing its conclusions: since the hypothesesare conrmed based on a valid sample o organizations, it can be argued that

the relations to which the hypotheses apply also exist in all other organizationsin the population. Tis analysis can also be replicated, i.e. repeated, and therebythe reliability o its conclusions can be tested. Te disadvantage o comparativeanalysis is its relatively small scope and depth o exploration. Because it includesa large number o organizations and o people in them, this research cannotinclude all elements and layers o the culture, and so it only ocuses on someelements and, as a rule, those elements are supercial. In addition, comparativeanalysis cannot encompass both the context and the history o the organization.

Te case study involves researching the organizational culture o just one or aew organizations. In this case both qualitative and quantitative methods areapplied to the organizations, and objectivistic and subjectivistic approaches maybe combined in the research. Te research may have a ormative and diagnosticobjective or it may be classical and clinical, but it is always idiosyncratic. Tegoal o research using the case study is not the testing o hypotheses, since thisis impossible to do on a small number o organizations. Instead the goal is toexplore a specic problem and to generate hypotheses which may later be tested byapplying the comparative method o analysis. As a rule this research is proound

and comprehensive, since more elements and more layers o the organizationalculture in one organization may be explored, and it includes both the history andthe context o the organizational culture. Te main advantage o the case studyover comparative analysis is thereore the depth and scope o the research and theextent o the knowledge obtained. However the disadvantages o the case studyare very signicant, the main one being the inability to generalize conclusions.

5. METhODS AnD TEChnIquES In ThE RESEARCh

Of ORgAnIzATIOnAl CulTuRE

Aside rom methodological assumptions, research into organizational culturealso difers according to the methods and techniques that the researchers use.Tere are two basic types o research method that researchers use while exploringorganizational culture: quantitative and qualitative. Tese methods are basedon diferent techniques o data gathering and data analysis, although someoverlapping may occur (Creswell, 2009; aras, Rowney, Steel, 2009; Eriksson,Kovalainen, 2008).


15/32


Quantitative research uses measurement to obtain knowledge, while qualitativeresearch uses description. Tereore data which may be quantied (expressed

by numbers) are gathered by quantitative research methods, and these data canbe operated on by quantitative methods o analysis (computation). Quantitativemethods are based on a questionnaire or data gathering and on statisticalmethods o processing. Data which may not be quantied is gathered by qualitativemethods and is processed by qualitative methods o analysis. Te analysis alwaysocuses on revealing relationship patterns in the research eld. In quantitativeanalysis these patterns are revealed by relations between numbers and inqualitative analysis by relations between the meanings o concepts. Qualitativemethods are based on data gathering by means o interviews and observations

and on qualitative methods o data analysis: content analysis, discourse analysis,etc.

Te advantages o qualitative research methods are: 1.) High degree o fexibility,since eedback inormation regarding the adequacy o certain questions is easilyand quickly obtained, and thereore the questions can be easily adjusted andchanged; 2.) Extensiveness and diversity o the data gathered; 3.) Scope and deptho exploration it encompasses very dierent elements o a culture in all its layers;4.) Te possibility o perorming historical analysis, which is very important or

exploration o a culture (Hostede et al., 1990); 5.) Te picture o a culture is basedon interpretations by members o the organization.

Te disadvantages o qualitative research methods are: 1.) Tey are time-consuming; 2.) Researchers are always subjective and can seriously aect theresults; 3.) Subjectivity o the participants qualitative methods are sensitive toalse statements by the participants, whether given consciously or unconsciously;4.) Te choice o the participants is oen limited to those available or to thosepreerred by the researchers (because they are somehow alike); 5.) Research

is an intervention that changes precisely what it examines; 6.) Possibilities orgeneralization o conclusions and comparison and use o the results in otherorganizations are limited; 7.) Tere is no quantication o the conclusions; 8.)Research conclusions are oen too complicated and abstract and they have nopractical value or the organization. It is particularly unclear how the culturerelates to perormance; 9.) A capacity or sel-refection and a high level o socialskills (listening, communicative skills) are required in the researcher.

Te advantages o quantitative research methods are: 1.) Tey provide quickresults; 2.) Te methodology exists as pre-prepared (o-the-shel product) and is

easy to use (ready to use, user riendly); 3.) Research methodology is suitable or


16/32


commercialization (it can be easily sold); 4.) It is possible to compare, generalize,and transer conclusions to other organizations; 5.) Results may be quantied,

which reinorces their credibility with users (managers and journal editors);6. Tey provide practical recommendations or changing the culture, and theresults can be more easily related to organizational perormance; 7.) Tey allowmanagers to eel that they are the ones who control the culture; 8.) Researchersrequire less methodological knowledge; 9.) It is possible to replicate and appraisethe validity and reliability o the analysis.

Te disadvantages o quantitative research methods are: 1.) Rigidity culture isbeing classied in previously determined categories, whether these are individual

dimensions or types, whereby diversity o detail is lost and the real picture o theculture deormed. Tere is no possibility o question modication. Te researchreveals only what is assumed and looked or in advance and the really importantquestions in culture are lost, while standard, maybe less important, questions areemphasized; 2.) It is not possible to explore dierent interpretations o the samequestion because the research is supercial and it is not possible to explore thebackground o an attitude; 3.) Participants could misunderstand the questions oranswer them in accordance with social expectations (socially desirable answers);4.) Te narrow scope and superciality o research which only ocuses on a small

number o simple elements in a culture; 5.) Tere are no possibilities or historicalanalysis it is a snapshot o a culture at one moment in time. Tis tends to givethe erroneous impression that culture is static; 6.) Tere is a problem o validitywhen used in dierent contexts - national, sectorial, or time.

Hence, the advantage o qualitative research is the depth and breadth oanalysis, and the advantage o quantitative research is the size o the sample andgeneralization and quantication o results (Martin, 2002). In order to utilize theadvantages o both methods, it is possible to combine them and create a hybrid

method. A hybrid method would rst include completing qualitative research viainterviews, observations, and qualitative data analysis. Tis research would resultin a broad, proound, and detailed picture o a small number o organizationalcultures, which would also contain their historical evolution and context. Ten,based on these results a suitable questionnaire would be chosen or a new, specialone designed. Tis would enable gathering o the data needed or quantitativeresearch and analysis. Te nal analysis would use both qualitative descriptionso organizational culture and their quantitative measurements. O course thehybrid method also has its faws because it combines not only the advantages butalso the disadvantages o the qualitative and quantitative methods.


17/32


Research techniques include specic research procedures aimed at gatheringand processing data about organizational culture. Data gathering techniques

are: interviews, observations, questionnaires, and secondary data gathering.Questionnaires are mostly used in quantitative research, and, somewhat lessoen, in secondary data gathering as well. In qualitative research, observations,interviews, and also secondary data gathering are mainly used (Jung, et al., 2009).

Observations are used or gathering data on the symbols which are analyzedby the qualitative analysis methods. Observations include mostly behaviouralmaterial, but also semantic symbols. Observations o behavioural symbolsinclude monitoring and recording the organizational rituals, such as, or

example, the celebration o company day as a ritual o integration. When itcomes to observations o behavioural symbols it is important that the researcheraccurately and completely records the course, roles, and details o a ritual orpractice, while not infuencing them. When it comes to observation o materialsymbols, the most prominent problem is their identication, since they are notas apparent as rituals. An especially prominent problem that Martin (2002)points out is the act that some things are symbols precisely because they have ameaning or a member o organization, but not or an outsider. Data on semanticsymbols cannot be gathered through observation, since it also includes listening

to stories, myths, anecdotes, and jargon in the organization. Observations aremainly used in combination with other data gathering techniques, and almostnever independently. Observations may be made throughout the entire research:beore, during, and aer interviews and questionnaires.

Te interview is a qualitative technique or gathering data on organizationalculture. It consists o a conversation between the researcher and the members o anorganization. It is, together with the questionnaire, the most oen used techniquein qualitative research. Te interview is a very complex and sensitive technique,

which requires high capabilities and skills in the researcher, especially in elds inwhich researchers traditionally are lacking: social skills, communication skills,sel-refection skills, etc. Interviews are used in organizational culture researchor gathering o qualitative data on cognitive elements o a culture, such aspresumptions, values, norms, and attitudes. However, interviews may also serveor identication o semantic symbols, because expressions, stories, anecdotesand the like may be recorded through conversation. o successully utilizeinterviews in organizational culture research it is important to appropriatelydetermine who will be interviewed, when, where, and how the interview willtake place, what will be talked about, and how the conversation will be recorded.


18/32


Interviews may be unstructured, structured, and semi-structured, and they maybe group or individual.

Secondary data are all those data and documents intended or other purposes,but which may also be used in drawing conclusions regarding the organizationalculture. Tis may be quantitative data which researchers will use in order to drawconclusions regarding organizational culture content and, even more, relationsbetween organizational culture and other variables in an organization. Secondarydata, i.e. documents in which they are located, may also be treated as culturalartiacts per se, and may undergo content and other types o analysis. Hence itis oen the case that the Chie Executive Ofcers (CEO) address to a companys

shareholders is treated as a symbol and is used or content analysis, based onwhich conclusions on presumptions and values in organizational culture will bedrawn.

Questionnaires are, along with interviews, the most oen used technique andalso the main quantitative technique or data gathering in organizational cultureresearch. Questionnaires are used within the ramework o objectivistic researchor the analysis o the cognitive elements o a culture. Questionnaires as a basictechnique o quantitative research have all the above-stated advantages and

disadvantages o that particular research method. Its key advantages are: coverageo a large number o people and organizations, speed and ease o data gathering,quantication o elements o a culture, simpler establishing o the relationsbetween the culture and other components and perormances o an organization,enabling o greater reliability and validity o the research instruments, enablingcomparability o results, etc. Te main disadvantages are: rigidity and inability oadjusting the questions to the topic and poll participants, sensitivity to questionquality (socially desirable answers and other possible deormations), supercialityo the obtained results, inability o perorming historical and context analysis.

Questionnaires are, like interviews, a demanding orm o data gathering. Teyrequire the researchers to have signicant skills in ormulating questions anddesigning questionnaires, but also a substantial knowledge o quantitativemethods o questionnaire processing. Finally, the technical and organizationalproblems o distribution, lling out, and collecting the questionnaires are by nomeans insignicant.


19/32


Table 1. Instruments or organizational culture researchwhose psychometric value is known

Assessing Learning Culture ScaleCompeting Values Framework (ipsative) /

(Likert scale)

Corporate Culture Questionnaire (CAOC Approach)

Culture Survey Te Cultural Audit

Cultural Assessment Survey Cultural Consensus Analysis

Denison Organizational Culture Survey FOCUS Questionnaire

General Practice Learning Organization

Diagnostic oolGLOBE Culture Scales

Group Practice Culture Questionnaire

Hostedes Culture Measure o

Organizational Culture

Values Survey Module Hospital Culture Questionnaire

Hospital Culture Scales Hospitality Industry Culture Profle

Inventory o Polychronic Values Japanese Organizational Culture Scale

Norms Diagnostic Index Nurse Medication Questionnaire

Nurse Sel-Description Form Nursing Unit Cultural Assessment ool

Nursing Work Index/Nursing Work

IndexRevised

Organizational Assessment Survey

(Metriech)

Organizational Assessment Survey (OPM)Organizational Culture Assessment

Instrument

Organizational Culture InventoryOrganizational Culture Profle

(Ashkanasy)

Organizational Culture Profle (OReilly) Organizational and eam Indicator

Organizational Culture SurveyOrganizational Development

Questionnaire

Perceived Cultural Compatibility Index Perceived Organizational Culture

Personal, Customer Orientation,

Organizational and Cultural Issues ModelQuestionnaire o Organizational Culture

School Quality Management CultureSurvey

School Values Inventory

School Work Culture ProfleTomas Questionnaire on Organizational

Culture

ime Dimension Scales wenty Statements est

Van der Post Questionnaire Wallachs Organizational Culture Index

Ward Organizational Feature Scales

(Nurses Opinion Questionnaire)

Women Workplace Culture

Questionnaire

Source: Jung, . et al. (2009), Instruments or Exploring Organizational Culture: A Review o the

Literature, Public Administration Review, November / December.


20/32


Tere are several types o questionnaire, which can be classied into standard andspecial or custom-made. Standard questionnaires are used in universalistic and

comparative research, while custom-made questionnaires are used in idiosyncraticand case study research. Standard questionnaires are mainly developed based onprevious research conducted on a greater number o organizations, and then theyare checked by means o psychometric methods, aer which their validity andreliability is inspected in order or them to be used in all urther organizationalculture research in other organizations.

Te majority o standard questionnaires were developed during the 1990s, sinceit was then that the organizational culture concept progressed rom its rst to

its second phase o development and matured enough or the instruments or itsquantication to be designed. In one piece o research over 120 questionnaireswere identied (aras, Rowney, Steel, 2009), while in another 70 instrumentswere identied and 48 o them contained psychometric data (validity, reliability)(Jung et al, 2009). Out o these 48 questionnaires internal consistency was provedor 22 o them, 15 o them were unclear, and there was no data or the rest othem. Eight out o those 48 questionnaires had passed the testretest control,and only 5 showed adequate results. Nine questionnaires provided data basedon which it was possible to conorm their validity, while or 22 questionnaires it

remained unclear whether or not they were valid.

Standard questionnaires most oen measure the presence and strength obehavioural values, norms, attitudes, and especially practices in an organization.Te reasons or this are numerous, both theoretical and practical. Te theoreticalreasons come down to Hostedes nding that organizational cultures dier in theirpractices, and that national cultures dier in their values (Hostede, et al., 1990).Te practical reasons are numerous: attitudes, norms, and practices are supercialelements o culture and they are appropriate or exploration via questionnaire

(especially standard questionnaires), they are appropriate or quantication, theyhave a direct causal relationship with other organizational elements (style oleadership, motivation), they directly infuence the organizations perormance,they are easy to change and thereore o great interest to the management. Values,practices, and norms that are the subject o standard questionnaires are usuallyidentied on the basis o extensive earlier research (or example, Hostedesor OReillys Questionnaire), or on the basis o the experience o the authorso questionnaires (or example, Hendys Questionnaire), or on the basis o thebasic theoretical model that the questionnaire is ounded on (or example, theOrganizational Culture Assessment Instrument by Quinn and Cameron). Some

values, practices, norms, and attitudes are repeated in many questionnaires, so


21/32


they can be characterized as generally accepted (Jung et al, 2009; aras, Rowney,Steel, 2009).

Special or custom-made questionnaires are used only in idiosyncratic researchand almost always in case studies. Unlike standard questionnaires, thesequestionnaires are or one-time use only. Tey are constructed and designed toexamine the culture o only one organization and cannot be used or explorationand evaluation o cultures in other organizations. Custom-made questionnairesocus on measuring the presence and strength o those behavioural values,norms, attitudes, and practices that appear only in the organizational culturebeing explored. Tese questionnaires are designed based on the assumption that

each organizational culture is special, unique, and idiosyncratic, and that it is notpossible to understand it by measuring the presence o standard values, norms,or practices identifed by research o other organizations. Since we know thatorganizational culture content consists o its values, norms, and attitudes, the keyquestion in organizational culture research is: which values, norms and attitudes?Standard questionnaires give a simple and quick answer to this question: thestandard values and norms identifed in earlier research.

Custom-made questionnaires are based on the idea that each organization

aces its own, specifc issues o external adaptation and internal integration, towhich it must fnd its own answers. In order to develop a special, idiosyncraticquestionnaire, the questions or topics must frst be identifed, and then theanswers that the organization gives through its culture to those questions mustbe revealed. Identiying the topics or questions in an organization which areanswered by the content o its culture is mostly perormed by qualitative researchmethods: interviews and observation. Tis is why a special questionnaireis always preceded by qualitative research, which is not usually the case withstandard questionnaires.

Te procedure o designing a special questionnaire is repeated rom oneorganization to another, and it is thereore used only once: its content iscompletely adapted to the specifcities, context, and history o one culture,and it cannot be used or analysis and evaluation o another culture. Te mainadvantage o special questionnaires is in the depth and accuracy o the pictureo the organizational culture explored. Te main disadvantage and limitation othis kind o questionnaire is the impossibility o comparing results, o repetition(replicability), and o evaluating the psychometric eatures o the questionnaire(validity, reliability). For these reasons custom-made questionnaires are more


22/32


oen used in clinical research and consulting, as well as in research conductedthrough case studies.

echniques o data analysis in organizational culture research may be dividedinto quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative techniques o analysis consisto processing quantitative data obtained via questionnaire or, somewhat morerarely, obtained via processing o secondary data. Quantitative data processingis most oen completed via various methods o statistical analysis, rom thesimplest to the most complex. In organizational culture research the ollowingstatistical methods are most oen used: descriptive statistics, variance analysis,regression and correlation, and multivariance analysis method (actor analysis

and cluster analysis).

Descriptive statistics methods are the simplest. Tey consist o determining thearithmetic mean, median, or mode, response requency and standard deviationin answers to a questionnaire. Variance analysis methods (ANOVA, MANOVA)may be used or testing the hypotheses on the existence o subcultures inorganizational culture. Regression and correlation analyses are methods oenused or determining the existence and measurement o organizational culturesinfuence on organizational variables or perormance (OReilly, Chatman,

Caldwel, 1991). Factor analysis consists o determining a hidden patternunderpinning the regularities in data variations. It includes identiying thevariables that oscillate together, based on which it may be assumed that the causeo their variations (variances) is one and the same actor. While actor analysisgroups the variables into actors, cluster analysis groups participants into groups,or clusters. By revealing mutual characteristics o the participants in one cluster,the reason or criterion or their grouping may be determined. Tis kind oanalysis is an excellent method or determining the existence o and identiyingsubcultures. All these statistical methods, as well as many others, are relatively

simply to perorm today with the help o statistical soware packages, such asSPSS (Statistical Package or Social Sciences).

Qualitative analysis techniques are also numerous and various, but they requiredierent types o skill and knowledge than quantitative methods (Creswell, 2009;Eriksson, Kovalainen, 2008, Mitchell, 2007). Ethnographic analysis reers toanalysis o data obtained by means o observation and interviews. Ethnographicanalysis is a systematization o researchers experiences obtained on the basis ointerviews and the observation o the people in an organization, in which dataare also being reduced, grouped, and interpreted. Te researcher can and should

add his/her own refections and observances and extract something rom the


23/32


behaviour, words, expressions, decisions, gestures, and motions that not eventhe members o the organization are aware o. Tis analysis is the basic way to

identiy the topics and issues around which the culture o the entire organizationis built.

Narratives are all kinds o stories told in an organization and which conveysome message: stories, legends, myths, jokes, managers biographies, ormaldescriptions and documents o the organization, the organizations history, etc.(Lynch, 2007). Analysis o narratives in the organization may reveal meaningsthat members o the organization assign to certain people, events, or occurrencesin and around the organization. Tereore, analysis o narratives may, just

like ethnographic analysis, serve to identiy important topics in the lie o theorganization, as well as the meanings assigned to those topics by its members.Tese topics may then be used to create a picture o the organizational culturecontent, and also to design questionnaires or the hybrid research method.

Discourse analysis is the analysis o meaning which stories and other semanticsymbols convey, as well as the analysis o social action which emerges rom thosestories (Lynch, 2007). All denitions o discourse are ocused on the connection,order, and pattern o meaning contained in narratives and other semantic

symbols. Hence, discourse analysis is ocused on revealing the pattern in manydierent semantic symbols in dierent time and space. Tis time and space scopeis what dierentiates discourse analysis rom narrative analysis, which is limitedto only one time and one space. Discourse analysis reveals meanings that makethe content o organizational culture by connecting a number o individualmeanings with more semantic symbols, which then appear in dierent places,dierent orms, and dierent time.

Te goal o historical analysis is to reveal the historical context o the development

o the organization and its culture. Many authors indicate the importance orevealing the historical sequence o events or understanding the culture (Schein,2004; Alvesson, 2002). Afer all, the emergence and development o organizationalculture always includes gaining experiences and learning in specic time.Historical analysis by itsel cannot identiy meanings in organizational culture,but it can help a great deal in putting the meanings identied by other methodsinto a historical context and so help them to be understood in the right way.


24/32


6. TWO pRInCIpAl METhODOlOgICAl AppROAChES In

ThE RESEARCh Of ORgAnIzATIOnAl CulTuRE

By summarizing the overview o the basic research assumptions, types, andmethods, it can be concluded that two general approaches in the research oorganizational culture have so ar been dierentiated: objectivistic-quantitativeand subjectivistic-interpretative. Te main characteristics and dierencesbetween the two approaches may be observed in the able 2.

Te objectivistic and quantitative research approach is based on the ontologicaland epistemological assumptions o objectivism and positivism, and results in

classical, comparative, universalistic, and quantitative research o the cognitiveelements o organizational culture. It is assumed that organizational culture is,as a social category, an object existing independently o people, which has someunction in an organization and may undergo changes and management. Cultureis treated as a discrete entity and in most cases as a collective cognitive structureo the members o an organization. Trough research and comparison o a largernumber o organizations, an eort is made to reveal the universal regularitiesand principles according to which the culture unctions, in order to direct it topositively infuence the achievement o the organizations goals. Te researcher

must keep his/her distance, and be neutral and objective towards the object oresearch. Culture is researched mostly in order to gain general knowledge whichis applicable in a number o cases, and not in order to help a specic organization.Te principal research method is quantitative, and it relies on polling by meanso questionnaires and processing the questionnaire results by statistical methods.

Table 2: Principal methodological approachesin the research o organizational culture

Approaches

CriteriaObjectivistic-quantitative Subjectivistic-qualitative

Ontological andepistemological assumptions

Objectivistic, positivistic, etic Subjectivistic, emic

Object o research Cognitive structures SymbolsGeneralization o research Universalistic IdiosyncraticPurpose o research Formative DiagnosticInvolvement o researchers Classical Clinicalime o research Comparative analysis Case study Method o research Quantitative QualitativeData gathering techniques Questionnaires, secondary data Observations, interviews

Analysis technique Statistical methods

Ethnographic analysis,

narrative analysis, discourse

analysis, historical analysis


25/32


Te subjectivistic and qualitative approach is based on subjectivistic, ontological,and epistemological assumptions, and it results in subjectivistic and idiosyncratic

research, case studies, and clinical and qualitative research. Culture is treated asan inseparable eature o the social entity, which researchers cannot observe andstudy rom a distance. Consequently the research o the culture is only possibleby revealing its meaning or its members, and this is done through symbols. Tepurpose o research is not to provide a positive infuence o culture on perormance,since culture cannot be changed and managed at the will o the organizationsmanagers. Te researcher must be deeply involved in the culture in order to beable to explore it, and research is always done only on individual cases. Since theknowledge o the culture is deeply contextual it cannot be transerred rom one

organization to another, and thereore there is no comparison or generalizationo research results. Research is based on qualitative methods, mostly observationand interviews, as well as on qualitative methods o analysis.

7. ThE hYBRID AppROACh In ThE RESEARCh Of ORgAnIzATIOnAl CulTuRE

Both general methodological approaches in the research o organizational cultureidentied in the previous discussion have their advantages and disadvantages, and

they are rarely, in their pure orm, suitable or the goals and object o research in aspecic research design. Tis is why in organizational culture research it is oenthe case that hybrid research methods are applied. Te hybrid approach combinescharacteristics and eatures o the previously described basic methodologicalapproaches to organizational culture research. Te aim o hybridization inmethodology is not only to use the advantages and avoid the disadvantages othe pure methods, but also to adjust specic research design to the object o theresearch and the style o the researcher (Creswell, 2009; Martin, 2002).

Objectivistic and subjectivistic research approaches may be combined in dierentways, which means that a number o dierent hybrid methods in organizationalculture research can be identied. When specic research is being designed theresearcher is relatively ree to combine in dierent ways the assumptions, types,and methods o the objectivistic and subjectivistic approaches. Te researchermay combine qualitative and quantitative research methods and techniques,comparative research and case studies, ormative and diagnostic research, aswell as research o the cognitive and symbolic elements o a culture. Howeversome dimensions o the two principal methodological approaches are mutuallyexclusive. Te researcher cannot start with both objectivistic and subjectivistic

epistemological assumptions. Also, it is not possible or the research to have


26/32


universalistic and idiosyncratic characteristics and distinctive eatures o bothclinical and classical research at the same time. In the ollowing text one o

the possible hybrid designs o organizational culture research will be briefypresented. Its basic characteristics are summarized in able 3.

Te hybrid approach to organizational culture research would includeobjectivistic, positivistic, and etic research, which would start rom theassumption o a culture as a discrete social entity having a specic unction in anorganization and which cannot be comprehended objectively. Culture is exploredas an entity made o cognitive and symbolic elements that are equally importantor its understanding. Te hybrid approach includes idiosyncratic research, which

starts with the assumption that culture is unique and that knowledge about theculture is contextual. Hence every organizational culture must be explored asunique and the knowledge about one culture cannot be used or generalizationand typication o other cultures. Tis hybrid approach to organizational cultureresearch always includes clinical research which is ocused on helping a specicorganization and not on general acquisition o knowledge. Te researcher is inclose relationship with the organization and he/she is trying to solve some o itsproblems, whereby organizational culture is a part o the problem and/or a part othe solution. Tis kind o hybrid research is always conducted as a case study and

not as comparative analysis o a larger number o organizations. Te key eatureo the hybrid approach to organizational culture research is the combination oqualitative and quantitative research methods. Tus all the available resourcesare used as methods o data gathering: questionnaires, observation, interviews,and secondary data. It is very important to note that in this research designonly custom-made, and not standard, questionnaires will be used. Also, in dataanalysis both quantitative (statistic) and qualitative methods are used.

Table 3. A hybrid methodological approach to organizational culture research.

Criteria Hybrid approachOntological and epistemological assumptions Objectivistic, positivistic, etic

Object o research Cognitive structures and symbols

Generalization o research Idiosyncratic

Purpose o research Formative and diagnostic

Involvement o researcher Clinical

ime o research Case study

Method o research Quantitative and qualitative

Data gathering techniquesQuestionnaires, secondary data, observations,

interviews

Analysis technique

Statistical methods,

Ethnographic analysis, narratives analysis,discourse analysis, historical analysis


27/32


Te application o this kind o hybrid research design includes the ollowing steps:

1. Entry into the organization. In the rst step the researcher gets acquainted withthe organization, obtains the permit to enter it and diagnose the organizationalculture, and makes the research plan. Organizational culture research may bethe only content o a research or consulting project, but it may also be a part oa bigger project in which culture is just one o the components being exploredand/or improved.

2. Interviewing, observation. Te rst step in data gathering is interviewingthe managers and employees in an organization. Interviews should includemanagers and employees at all hierarchical levels, o diferent ages, sex,

educational degree, and elds o education. Te choice o people to beinterviewed is conducted in cooperation with the client (CEO, HumanResources Manager and the like). During interviews the researcher takes notes,which he/she then systemizes, processes, and enters into a computer. Duringthe interview the researcher makes observations which he/she also notes in his/her notebook, and then systemizes and processes. At the end o this step in theresearch the researcher systemizes the knowledge obtained rom interviews,and thus prepares it or analysis.

3. Qualitative analysis and questionnaire design. Te suggested hybrid research

design includes designing and using special, custom-made questionnaires,created or the purpose o research o only one organizational culture. Tecustom made questionnaire is designed based on the results obtained rom theinterviews and observations made in the organization which is being explored.By qualitative methods o analysis, such as content analysis and narrative orhistorical analysis, the researcher identies issues which signicantly denethe organizational culture o the company. Te questionnaire is designed bytransorming the issues identied in the interviews and observations intoquestions, which serve to investigate the attitudes o the members o the

organization on given topics. In this step, the sample and the organization odistribution, lling out, and collecting o the questionnaires are planned.4. Distribution and collecting o the questionnaires, data entering, and data

processing. Te best way o lling out a questionnaire is to have all the employeesll it out at the same time and in the same place, under the supervision othe researcher himsel/hersel, and then returned directly to the researcher.Another option is to distribute the questionnaires to the employees and instructthem to ll them out within a specic deadline, and then return them directlyto the researcher. In an organizational sense this is the simplest method, butthe degree o lling out the questionnaires and returning them, as well as

the quality o the lling out itsel, is signicantly lower. Managers need to be


28/32


excluded rom the process o handing out and collecting the questionnaires, inorder to provide a perception o discretion and condentiality o data among

the employees. Te responses in the questionnaires are then coded and enteredinto the computer.

5. Quantitative analysis o the results o questionnaires. In the next step,quantitative processing o the answers rom the questionnaires is done bymeans o using the ollowing statistical methods: descriptive statistics, varianceanalysis, actor analysis, and cluster analysis. It is possible to use dierentsoware packages to process the results; or example, SPSS.

6. Final analysis and drawing conclusions. At the end the ndings o thequalitative and quantitative analyses o the organizational culture are

summarized. I necessary analyses are repeated,, and conclusions are madeon the content, structure, and characteristics o the organizational culture. Inthese conclusions the values, norms, and attitudes which comprise the contento the organizational culture are identied and dened. I subcultures existin the organization they are also identied, together with their content anddierences. Te relations and implications that the organizational culture mayhave on the other variables o organization (leadership, conficts, motivation,communication) as well as on organizational perormance, are also identied.Te analysis very oen reveals the causes o existing cultural values and norms.

7. Designing the plan or changing the organizational culture. I the research waspart o a consulting project, the nal analysis and conclusions regarding theorganizational culture content and characteristics are not themselves the goal,but are a means o developing suggestions or necessary management actionto improve the organizational culture. Recommendations include necessarychanges to values, norms, and attitudes o employees, how the changes shouldbe conducted, who should be the carriers o the changes, and the means andtime rames o the changes. Tereore the recommendations or changes in theorganizational culture have all the eatures o an action plan. Te organizational

culture analysis and the plans or change are presented in the orm o a reportcontaining qualitative marks and quantitative data and all gures and graphics.Tis report is then presented to the organizations management and, with theirapproval, to other members o the organization.

8. COnCluSIOnS

Organizational culture research is characterized by the remarkable complexityand diversity o the methodology applied in the course o the research. Te reason

or this is the multidimensionality and complexity o organizational culture


29/32


itsel. In previous research o organizational culture, two general but mutuallyopposed methodological approaches have emerged: objectivistic-quantitative

and subjectivistic-qualitative. Tese two approaches are based on oppositeontological and epistemological assumptions; they include dierent types oresearch and use opposite, quantitative vs. qualitative, methods o research. Eacho the methodological approaches has its advantages and disadvantages. Temain advantages o the objectivistic methodological approach are generalization,comparability, and the practical application o the conclusions that result. Inaddition these methods can be tested or reliability and validity. On the otherhand the objectivistic methodology o organizational culture research reducesand simplies the picture o organizational culture, looks at it out o the context

and time in which it has emerged and changed, and does not recognize it asunique. Te subjectivistic methodological approach ensures that organizationalculture is treated in all its uniqueness, complexity, and depth, that it is observedin time and context and rom the angle o those to whom it is the most important:the members o the organization. However these research methods generateknowledge o organizational culture which cannot be generalized and comparedand which is difcult to apply in practice. Also, these methods cannot be easilytested and evaluated by the criteria o reliability and validity. Te choice betweenthe objectivistic and subjectivistic methodological approaches to organizational

culture research is not an easy one, because it involves signicant sacrices onthe part o the researchers. By choosing just one methodological approach all theadvantages o the other approach are lost. Tereore a hybrid approach emerges asa legitimate choice in organizational culture research methodology. It combineselements o both subjectivistic and objectivistic methodological approachesaccording to the goals, content, and context o the research and preerences othe researcher himsel/hersel. Since it is possible to combine the two principalmethodological approaches in various ways there are several possible hybridmethodologies in organizational culture research. Each o them is legitimate

as long as the researcher is not making unallowed combinations o methods, isaware o all the characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages o his/her researchdesign, and makes this public to interested readers.


30/32


REfEREnCES

Alavi, M., Kayworth, . & Leidner, D. E. (2005-6). An Empirical Examination o the Infuence

o Organizational Culture on Knowledge Management Practices. Journal of ManagementInformation Systems, volume 22, issue 3, pp. 191-224.

Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding Organizational Culture. London: Sage

Ashkanasy, N., Broadoot, L. & Falkus, S. (2000). Questionnaire Measures o OrganizationalCulture. In N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom & M. Peterson (eds). Handbook of Organizational Culture& Climate. Tousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 131-147.

Balthazard, P., Cooke, R. & Potter, R. (2006). Dysunctional Culture, Dysunctional Organization:

Capturing Te Behavioral Norms Tat Form Organizational Culture And Drive Perormance,

Journal of Managerial Psychology, Volume 21, issue 8, pp. 709-732

Cameron, K. & Quinn, R. (2006). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture; Based on theCompeting Values Framework, John Wiley, San Francisco.

Cooke, R.A. & Laerty, J.C. (1987). Organizational Culture Inventory (Form III), HumanSynergistics, Plymouth, MI.

Cooke, R. A. & Szumal, J. (2000). Using Organizational Culture Inventory to Understandthe Operating Culture o Organizations. In N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom & M. Peterson (eds).

Handbook of Organizational Culture & Climate. Tousand Oaks: Sage, pp 147-161.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches.London: Sage.

Dandridge, ., Mitro, I. & Joyce, W. (1980). Organizational Symbolism: A opic to Expand

Organizational Analysis,Academy of Management Review, volume 5, issue 1, pp 77-82.

Davis, H. & Rasool, A. (1995). Value Research And Managerial Behavior: Implications or Devising

Culturally Consistent Managerial Styles. In erence J. (ed). Cross Cultural Management. Oxord:Butterworth-Heinemann-

De Long, D. & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing Cultural Barriers o Knowledge Management.

Academy of Management Executive, 2000. Vlume 14, issue 4, pp 113- 127.

Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen, A. (2008). Qualitative Methods in Business Research, London: Sage.

Handy, C. (1996). Gods of Management, Oxord: Oxord University Press.

Hostede, G. et al. (1990). Measuring Organizational Culture: A Qualitative and Quantitative

Study across wenty Cases.Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 35, pp 296-316.


31/32


Jung, . et al. (2009). Instruments or Exploring Organizational Culture: A Review o the

Literature. Public Administration Review, November / December.

Kundu, K. (2009). Infuence o Organizational Culture on the Institution Building Process o an

Organization. Curie Journal, volume 2, issue 4, pp 48 57.

Lynch, M. (2007). Discourse Analysis. In Outhwaite W. & S. urner (eds). Sage Handbook of SocialScience Methodology, Sage, London

Luthans F. (1989). Organizational Behavior. New York: McGraw Hill.

Martin, J. (2002). Organizational Culture: Mapping the errain. London: Sage.

Mitchell, J. (2007). Etnography. In W. Outhwaite & S. urner (eds). Sage Handbook of SocialScience Methodology. London: Sage.

OReilly, C.A., Chatman, J. & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and Organizational Culture: A Prole

Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit.Academy of Management Journal,volume 34, issue 3, pp 487-516.

Raaeli, A. & Worline, M. (2000). Symbols in Organizational Culture. In N. Ashkanasy, C.

Wilderom & M. Peterson (eds). Handbook of Organizational Culture & Climate. Tousand Oaks:Sage, pp 71-85.

Rokeach, M. (1973). Te Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.

Schein, E. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Tousand Oaks: Sage.

Stackman, R., Pinder, C. & Connor, P. (2000). Values Lost. In N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom & M.Peterson (eds). Handbook of Organizational Culture & Climate. Tousand Oaks: Sage, pp37-54.aras, V., Rowney, J. & Steel, P. (2009). Hal a Century o Measuring Culture: Review o Approaches,

Challenges, and Limitations Based on the Analysis o 121 Instruments or Quantiying Culture.

Journal of International Management, volume 15, pp 357373.

Van Muijen, J. et al. (1999). Organizational Culture: Te Focus Questionnaire. European Journalof Work and Organizational Psychology, volume 8, issue 4, pp 551568.

Received: February 19, 2011

Accepted: March 12, 2011


32/32

Copyright of Ekonomski Anali / Economic Annals is the property of National Library of Serbia and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Aula 7.1 - JANICIJEVIC_2011_Methodological Apprroaches in the Research of Organizational Culture