LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

Leadership and Organizational Culture

Leadership and Organizational Culture

Leadership And Culture

It has been observed with respect to the concept of "power" that its omnipresence makes it tough to usefully apply in specific situations. The identical may be said of "culture". If it is everywhere, and pervades every aspect of our reality, then how can it be subject to analysis? Stoner (2002) offers at least a partial solution. He divides organizational heritage into three grades: 1) at the exterior are "artifacts", those facets (such as dress) which can be effortlessly discerned, yet are hard to understand; 2) beneath artifacts are "espoused values" which are attentive schemes, goals and beliefs; 3) the centre, or essence, of heritage is represented by the basic inherent assumptions and values, which are tough to discern because they live at a mostly lifeless grade, yet provide the key to comprehending why things occur the way they do. These basic assumptions pattern around deeper dimensions of human existence such as the nature of humans; human relationships and activity; reality; and truth.

Kotter (2004) himself acknowledges that, even with rigorous study, we can only make statements about elements of culture, not culture in its entirety. The approach which Schein recommends for inquiring about heritage is an iterative, clinical approach, alike to a therapeutic relationship between a psychologist and a patient. Schein's disciplined approach to culture stands in contrast to the almost flippant way in which culture is mentioned to in some of the popular management literature.

Like culture, "downsizing" is awkward in its usefulness. Because it is popularly associated with giving persons the "axe" in organizations, it is not a period that many management consultants proceed out of their way to use. On the other side of the spectrum, there are researchers who are worried that downsizing has become too closely associated with the process of organizational down turn and its naturally negative effects. Cameron, for example, defines downsizing as a positive and purposive strategy: "a set of organizational activities undertaken on the part of management of an organization and designed to advance organizational effectiveness, productivity, and/or competitiveness".(Stoner, 2002, 24) Downsizing thus characterised falls into the category of management tools for achieving desired change, much like "rightsizing" and "reengineering".

Clearly, the Cameron delineation is overly expansive. Downsizing may and very probable will impact or impinge on systemic change efforts such as the introduction of "total quality management," "reengineering," or "reinventing" initiatives. They are not one and the same, although, as the Cameron definiton would imply. This is significant, because Cameron's attachment of downsizing with a larger, purposive strategy allows him to resolve unabashedly that downsizing is a good and positive thing and that organizations should seek to manage it on a regular and extending basis.(Kotter, 2004, 12) This cheery conclusion flies in the face of Cameron's own four year study of 30 firms in the automotive industry, data from which revealed that "very couple of of the organizations in the study applied downsizing in a way that advanced ...