Carla I. Koen. Comparative International Management
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE RESEARCH 141
especially alert to the problems that could result from organization culture
clashes as some of the members of the management team had experienced such
problems before, as a result of the establishment of the joint venture by BSO and
Philips PASS. This time, the management team wanted to prevent similar prob-
lems from occurring and decided to take measures alongside the integration
process between the two subdivisions.
First, though, it needed to have a clear view of the differences between both
groups of people. Only then could it implement appropriate measures. A change
in organizational culture, management knew from experience, was impossible in
the short run. However, employees could be made aware of the differences and
this awareness, in turn, could improve mutual understanding and communi-
cation.
The survey was sent out to approximately 10 per cent of the employees of the
two organizations. The response rate was high enough to ensure a representative
sample. Employees from all layers and subdivisions of the organizations were
included in the sample to have as complete as possible a picture of the organiz-
ational cultures of the two groups of employees. The survey used items and
dimensions from Hofstede et al. (1990), Verbeke (2000), O’Reilly et al. (1991), and
Christensen and Gordon (1999). A combination of the validated items enabled us
to obtain a clear picture of the organizational cultures of both subdivisions. The
survey results are shown in Table 3.4.
From the table it is clear that the main differences in organizational culture
dimensions between the two groups of employees are reflected in large differ-
ences in team orientation, employee orientation and stability. Less important
differences were found with respect to results orientation, communication
and ethical norms. Both groups have similar perceptions of organizational
innovativeness.
The question to answer now is as follows. What do these differences tell us
Note: scores run from 1 disagree to 5 agree; differences between the mean scores noted in the table are significant when a 0.05.
Table 3.4 Organizational culture dimensions: mean scores Atos Origin DTS (AO DTS) and KPN WD
Dimension AO DTS KPN WD Difference
Results
orientation
3.60 3.79 0.19 0.043
Employee
orientation
2.82 3.37
0.55 0.000
Communication 3.02 3.38 0.36
0.001
Ethical norms 3.21 3.52 0.31
0.002
Innovation 3.58 3.57 0.01
0.863
Stability
2.78 3.21
0.43
0.000
Team
orientation
2.72 3.30
0.58 0.000
MG9353 ch03.qxp 10/3/05 8:37 am Page 141
142 COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
and what consequences can they have? We will start by trying to explain the dif-
ferences, substantiating them using information obtained through observation
and semi-structured interviews.
The first dimension, process-orientated versus results-orientated, opposes a
concern with means (process-orientated) against a concern with goals (results-
orientated). The results show that both AO DTS employees and KPN WD
employees perceive their organization as results-orientated. Interviews, however,
indicate major differences in the perceptions of the concept of results-orientated-
ness. Both organizations are said to be results-orientated with respect to the high
quality they demand of the services they deliver. The major difference, however,
lies in the fact that AO DTS is also very much focused on financial results. After
the merger between Atos, which is quoted on the stock market, and Origin, Dutch
AO DTS was forced to focus more on financial results. Some interviewees refer to
the ‘good old BSO and Philips days’, during which there was less emphasis on
financial results and profit-orientatedness. Moreover, AO has deliberately
assigned responsibility for financial results to the lowest layers of the organiz-
ation, at the level of the individual division of a business unit. The dominant
emphasis on profit-making has resulted in a management style that is focused on
figures. Until recently, this style was absent at KPN and foreign to KPN WD
employees. KPN WD has always been an internally orientated subdivision of KPN,
with no profit concerns. Whereas AO DTS is focused on turnover and profits, KPN
WD continues to pay more attention to the management of organization pro-
cesses.
The second dimension, employee-orientated versus job-orientated, opposes a
concern for people against a concern for getting the job done. Employee-orienta-
tion reflects an organization’s commitment to personal development and
education, attention to personal events and accomplishments, as well as taking
care of work pressure (Verbeke, 2000). Perhaps as a corollary to AO’s focus on
financial results, AO DTS scores lower on this dimension than KPN WD.
Interviews confirm this result. At AO DTS, employees are dissatisfied with the
focus on financial results as opposed to a concern for the employees. Employees
complain about the lack of personal development opportunities, absence of
additional training possibilities and attention to the individual, absence of pro-
motion chances, the abolition of social events and many other cost-cutting
measures, which are said to have a demotivating impact. KPN WD employees are
more positive about the employee orientation of their division. There seems to be
a lot of attention paid to the concerns of employees, for instance in terms of per-
sonal problems and personal development possibilities; incoming employees are
helped structurally, promotion opportunities are good, and so on. KPN WD
employees do, however, mention that the reforms have left their mark upon the
organization in the sense that cost-cutting is also taking place, although this is
gradual and not as abrupt as at AO DTS.
The third dimension, the open versus closed system, describes the communi-
cation climate. More specifically, it refers to the way in which employees and
management deal with (self-)criticism (Verbeke, 2000). Also with respect to this
MG9353 ch03.qxp 10/3/05 8:37 am Page 142
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE RESEARCH 143
dimension, results show that AO DTS employees are less satisfied than KPN WD
employees. The interviews confirm this picture. AO DTS employees complain
about the communication from management to the lower layers of the organiz-
ation. Communication is top-down only and last-minute so that employee
reactions cannot be taken into account. Communication also often happens infor-
mally, through different channels, which often leads to misinterpretation.
Moreover, communication most often deals with positive issues, hiding the more
critical points. Finally, criticisms are discussed among colleagues not usually
with management. KPN WD has different formal channels to communicate infor-
mation from management to the floor and vice versa. Among other departments,
KPN WD has its own communication division. Criticisms are debated openly with
management and, when found to be legitimate, are taken into account. Decisions
are taken in teams and can be overruled by individuals. This is a feature of the
widely known ‘Poldermodel’, which predicates consensus decision-making to
obtain commitment.
Dimension four, normative versus pragmatic, is tied by Verbeke (2000) to the
mission of the organization: socially responsible ( normative) organizations
have an ethical mission and urge employees to behave according to that mission;
other organizations are driven by self-interest ( pragmatic). Both AO DTS and
KPN WD employees respond positively to this dimension, though KPN WD scores
somewhat higher. Qualitative research shows that while KPN WD tends to be a
normative organization, AO DTS is more pragmatic. AO DTS employees explain
that social responsibility at Atos is not stimulated by the organization itself but by
some of the employees. Some employees organize specific projects such as food
expeditions to countries in need. The organization itself is more concerned with
aspects of its reputation that influence the shareholders’ public in view of its stock
market results. In fact, employees argue that the company’s interests are given
absolute priority. Employees point in particular to the poor fulfilment of promises
and agreements. KPN WD employees, in contrast, point to the donation of com-
puters and other projects, organized by KPN to support its argument that KPN is
a normative, or socially responsible, organization. Moreover, it has not been dem-
onstrated that company interests dominate, and the company sticks to the
promises and agreements it makes.
Dimension five concerns innovation. An organization scoring high on this
dimension is seen by its members as being innovative, quick to take advantage
of opportunities, risk-taking, and displaying a willingness to experiment. It is
uncharacteristic for these organizations to be careful and rule-orientated. In the
survey, both AO DTS and KPN WD employees described the company as inno-
vative. Interviews, together with the market position of both companies, point to
the need to substantiate this result. With respect to AO DTS, interviewees
explain that, although knowledge is available, innovation is not stimulated,
except for when the customer asks explicitly for the latest technology. In
general, however, the company tends to concentrate on proven technology and
a customer basis that demands a solid solution to problems that occur, but not
the most innovative one – the so-called ‘comfort zone’. Employees refrain from
MG9353 ch03.qxp 10/3/05 8:37 am Page 143
144 COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
taking risks, do not have the opportunity to express innovative ideas and have to
ask permission to continue when risk is involved in projects. Hence, Atos is not
a truly innovative company, as is suggested by the survey responses. Similarly,
qualitative research at KPN WD shows that it is not really innovative despite the
survey result. Even KPN WD does not have this ambition, and instead empha-
sizes stability and solidity. Like AO DTS, KPN WD uses proven technology, and
employees have to ask permission when risk is involved. Unlike AO DTS,
however, KPN WD employees are encouraged to come up with new ideas and, in
particular, ideas that help to cut costs. KPN WD has established Telecom Idea
Management (TIM), which screens new ideas, provides feedback and rewards
good ideas. Moreover, KPN WD also has an engineering division, which used to
concentrate on innovative activities but, as a result of cost-cutting measures, is
now unable to continue to do so. It is clear, however, that rather like the results
of the survey at AO DTS, survey results at KPN WD paint a different picture from
the results that stem from qualitative research sources. Presumably this con-
tradiction is due to the fact that surveys can induce people to answer in an
‘appropriate’ way and/or that the items of each dimension, though validated, are
not always interpreted correctly.
The sixth dimension is stability. Characteristic of organizations scoring
high on this dimension is being rule-orientated, emphasizing stability, pre-
dictability, and security of employment; employees are constrained by many
rules. From the survey results it is clear that AO DTS employees do not see
stability as a feature of the organization. In contrast, KPN WD employees
responded positively and hence see KPN WD as an organization that empha-
sizes stability and predictability. In this case, interviews support the survey
results.
The last dimension, team orientation, refers to the extent to which people are
encouraged to cooperate and coordinate within and across units. The survey
results show that AO DTS employees do not see team-orientatedness as a feature
of the organization. Two out of three employees responded negatively. In fact,
qualitative research shows that employees experience the lack of cooperation
within AO DTS as a major weakness. KPN WD employees, on the other hand,
responded positively and emphasized that team orientation is definitely a feature
of the organization.
Main organizational culture differences
Quantitative research, combined with qualitative results, shows the following
organizational culture differences between Atos DTS and KPN WD.
1. Both, AO DTS and KPN WD are results-orientated with respect to the quality
achieved but only AO DTS is results-orientated in financial terms.
2. AO DTS is less employee-orientated than KPN WD.
3. AO DTS is less open (to criticism) than KPN WD.
MG9353 ch03.qxp 10/3/05 8:37 am Page 144
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE RESEARCH 145
4. AO DTS is less ethical than KPN WD.
5. Neither organization is truly innovative, but KPN WD is characterized by
structures that could help to improve ‘innovativeness’ if wanted.
6. AO DTS is less rule-orientated, and emphazises less stability and pre-
dictability than KPN WD.
7. AO DTS is less team-orientated than KPN WD.
Questions
1. Explain the concept of organizational culture.
2. Discuss how organizational culture can be measured, and how this has been
approached in the case study. What would be the best way to measure
culture, given that there are shortcomings to the etic and emic approaches?
3. Explain whether the examination of culture in the case study should also
include national culture analysis to provide the companies with valid results?
4. Discuss the factors that can aid understanding of the differences in organiz-
ational culture between AO DTS and KPN WD.
5. Explain whether the organizational culture differences between AO DTS and
KPN WD are such that they should be taken into account during the inte-
gration process of the two subdivisions?
6. Explain the types of measure you think the management of the merged sub-
divisions should take in order to ensure the successful integration of the two
organizations?
7. Explain to what extent institutions (e.g. the stock market) have an influence
on organizational culture. Can you give any other examples of this type?
References
Abrahamson, E. and Fombrun, C.J. (1994) Macrocultures: determinants and conse-
quences. Academy of Management Review 19(4), 728–55.
Adler, N. (1996) International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. Cincinnati, OH:
South-Western College Publishing.
Adler, N. and Jelinek, M. (1986) Is ‘organization culture’ culture bound? Human
Resource Management 25, 73–90.
Allen, R.F. (1985) Four phases for bringing about cultural change, in Kilmann, R.H.,
Saxton, M.J., Serpa, R. et al. (eds) Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 137–47.
MG9353 ch03.qxp 10/3/05 8:37 am Page 145
Alvesson,M.(2002)Understanding OrganizationalCulture.London:SagePublicationsLtd.
Berg, P.O. (1986) Symbolic management of human resources. Human Resource
Management 25, 557–79.
Berry, J.W. (1980) Social and cultural change, in Triandis, H.C. and Brislin, R.W. (eds)
Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 211–79.
Berry, J.W. (1983) Acculturation: a comparative analysis of alternative forms, in
Samuda, R.J. and Woods, S.L. (eds) Perspectives in Immigrant and Minority
Education. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 66–77.
Bhagat, R.S. and McQuaid, S.J. (1982) Role of subjective culture in organizations: a
review and directions for future research. Journal of Applied Psychology 67(5), 653–85.
Blasko, M., Netter, J. and Sinkey, J. (2000) The DaimlerChrysler merger: short-term
gains, long-run wealth destruction? Issues in International Corporate Control and
Governance.
Brown, A. (1995) Organizational Culture. London: Pitman.
Bryman, A. (1992) Charisma and Leadership in Organizations. London: Sage.
Buono, A.F., Bowditch, J.L. and Lewis, J.W. (1985) When cultures collide: the
anatomy of the merger. Human Relations 38(5), 477–500.
Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961) The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
Caroll, C. and Thomas, H. (1994) Linking economic, organizational, and psychological
perspectives: an examination of collectivities of firms within industries. Working
paper, College of Commerce and Business Administration, University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign.
Cartwright, S. and Cooper, C.L. (1993) The role of culture compatibility in successful
organizational marriage. Academy of Management Executive 2, 57–70.
Chatman, J.A. and Jehn, K.A. (1994) Assessing the relationship between industry
characteristics and organizational culture: how different can you be? Academy of
Management Journal 37, 522–53.
Chatterjee, S., Lubatkin, M., Schweiger, D. and Weber, Y. (1992) Cultural differences
and shareholder value in related mergers: linking equity and human capital.
Strategic Management Journal 13, 319–34.
Christensen, E.W. and Gordon, G.G. (1999) An exploration of industry, culture and
revenue growth, Organization Studies 20, 397–422.
Cooke, R.A. and Rousseau, D.M. (1988) Behavioral norms and expectations: a quan-
titative approach to the assessment of organizational culture. Group &
Organization Studies 13, 245–73.
Datta, D.K. (1991) Organizational fit and acquisition performance: effects of post-
acquisition integration. Strategic Management Journal 12, 281–97.
Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1998) Working Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business Press.
Davis, R.L. (1968) Compatibility in organizational marriages. Harvard Business
Review 46(4), 86–93.
Davis, S.M. (1984) Managing Corporate Culture. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (1982) Corporate Culture. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Denison, D.R. (1996) What is the difference between organizational culture and
organizational climate?: a native’s point-of-view on a decade of paradigm wars.
Academy of Management Review 21, 619–54.
146 COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
MG9353 ch03.qxp 10/3/05 8:37 am Page 146
Denison, D.R. (1984) Bringing corporate culture to the bottom line. Organizational
Dynamics 13(2), 5–22.
DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism
and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48,
147–60.
DiTomaso, N. (1978) Symbolic media and social solidarity: the foundations of cor-
porate culture. Research in the Sociology of Organizations 5, 105–34.
Dyer, W.G. Jr (1985) The cycle of cultural evolution in organizations, in Kilmann, R.H.,
Saxton, M.J., Serpa, R. et al. (eds) Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 44–65.
Earley, P.C. (1994) Self or group? Cultural effects of training on self-efficacy and per-
formance. Administrative Science Quarterly 39, 89–117.
Ely, R. (1995) The power in demography: women’s social construction of gender
identity at work. Academy of Management Journal 38(3), 589–634.
Fitzgerald, T. (1988) Can change in organizational culture be really managed?
Organizational Dynamics 17(2), 4–15.
Gaertner, S.L., Mann, J., Murrell, A. and Dovidio, J.F. (1989) Reducing intergroup
bias: the benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
57, 239–49.
Gagliardi, P. (1986) The creation and change of organizational cultures: a conceptual
framework. Organization Studies 7, 117–34.
Ghobadian, A. and O’Regan, N. (2002) The link between culture, strategy and per-
formance in manufacturing SMEs. Journal of General Management 28(1), 16–35.
Gordon, G.G. (1991) Industry determinants of organizational culture. Academy of
Management Review 16(2), 396–415.
Gordon, G.G. (1992) Predicting corporate performance from organizational culture.
Journal of Management Studies 29, 783–98.
Greiner, L.E. (1983) Senior executives as strategic actors. New Management 12,
11–15, in Weick, K., The significance of corporate culture, in Frost, P., Moore, L.,
Louis, M., Lundberg, C. and Martin, J. (eds) Organizational Culture. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage (1985), 381–9.
Grey, C. (1999) Change in Organizations? Judge Institute of Management, Cambridge
University, working paper.
Halberstam, D. (1986) The Reckoning. New York: William Morrow.
Hambrick, D. and Cannella, B. (1993) Relative standing: a framework for under-
standing departures of acquired executives. Academy of Management Journal
36(4), 733–62.
Hellriegel, D., Slocum, L. and Woodman, R. (1992) Organizational Behavior. St Paul,
MN: West Publishing.
Hinings, C.R. and Badran, M. (1981) Strategies of administrative control and contex-
tual constraints in a less developed country. Organization Studies 2, 3–22.
Hodgetts, R. and Luthans, F. (1997) International Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1998) Identifying organizational subcultures: an empirical approach.
Journal of Management Studies 35(1), 1–12.
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE RESEARCH 147
MG9353 ch03.qxp 10/3/05 8:37 am Page 147
Hofstede, G. (2001 and 1980) Culture’s Consequences. London: Sage.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D.D. and Sanders, G. (1990) Measuring organiz-
ational cultures: a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases.
Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 286–316.
Howell, R.A. (1970) Plan to integrate your acquisitions. Harvard Business Review
48(6), 66–76.
Huff, A. (1982) Industry influences on strategy reformulation. Strategic Management
Journal 3, 119–31.
Jemison, D.B. and Sitkin, S.B. (1986) Corporate acquisitions: a process perspective.
Academy of Management Review 11(1), 145–63.
Kanter, R.M. (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Keller, M. (1989) Rude Awakening. New York: Morrow.
Kilmann, R.H. and Saxton, M. (1983) The Kilmann–Saxton Culture-Gap Survey.
Pittsburgh, PA: Organizational Design Consultants.
Kilmann, R.H., Saxton, M. and Serpa, R. (1985) Gaining Control of Corporate Culture.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lachman, R., Nedd, A. and Hinings, B. (1994) Analyzing cross-national management
and organizations: a theoretical framework. Management Science 40(1), 40–55.
Larsson, R. and Lubatkin, M. (2001) Achieving acculturation in mergers and acquisi-
tions: an international case survey. Human Relations 54(12), 1573–1607.
Lorsch, J.W. (1985) Strategic myopia: culture as invisible barrier to change, in
Kilmann, R.H., Saxton, M.J., Serpa, R. et al. (eds) Gaining Control of the Corporate
Culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 44–65.
Louis, M.R. (1985) An investigator’s guide to workplace culture, in Frost, P., Moore,
L., Louis, M., Lundberg, C. and Martin, J. (eds) Organizational Culture. Beverly
Hills: Sage, 381–9.
Lubatkin, M. (1983) Merger and the performance of the acquiring firm. Academy of
Management Review 8(2), 218–25.
Lubatkin, M., Schweiger, D. and Weber, Y. (1999) Top management turnover in
related M&As: an additional test of the theory of relative standing. Journal of
Management 25(1), 55–73.
Lundberg, C.C. (1985) On the feasibility of cultural intervention in organizations, in
Frost, P.J. et al. (eds) Organizational Culture. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Martin, J. (1992) Cultures in Organizations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. (2002) Organizational Culture: Mapping the Terrain. London: Sage.
Martin, J. and Meyerson, D. (1988) Organizational culture and the denial, channeling
and acknowledgment of ambiguity, in Pondy, L., Boland Jr, R. and Thomas, H.
(eds) Managing Ambiguity and Change. New York: John Wiley, 93–125.
Martin, J. and Siehl, C. (1982) Organizational culture and counterculture: an uneasy
symbiosis. Organizational Dynamics 12(2), 52–64.
Martin, J., Feldman, M., Hatch, M. and Sitkin, S. (1983) The uniqueness paradox in
organizational stories. Administrative Science Quarterly 28, 438–53.
Mintzberg, H. (1973) Strategy making in three modes. California Management Review
16(3), 44–58.
Mintzberg, H. (1979) The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
148 COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
MG9353 ch03.qxp 10/3/05 8:37 am Page 148
Morgan, M.J. (1993) How corporate culture drives strategy. Long Range Planning
26(2), 110–18.
Mumby, D. (1988) Communication and Power in Organizations: Discourse, Ideology and
Domination. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Nahavandi, A. and Malekzadeh, A.R. (1988) Acculturation in mergers and acquisi-
tions. Academy of Management Review 13(1), 79–90.
Newman, K.L. and Nollen, S.D. (1996), Culture congruence: the fit between manage-
ment practices and national culture. Journal of International Business Studies
27(4), 753–79.
Noorderhaven, N.G. (1995) Strategic Decision Making. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Noorderhaven, N.G., Koen, C.I. and Beugelsdijk, S. (2002) Organisational culture and
network embeddedness. CentER Discussion paper 91, Tilburg University.
O’Dell, C. and J. Grayson (1998) If only we knew what we know: identification and
transfer of best practices. California Management Review 40(3), 154–73.
Olie, R. (1994) Shades of culture and institutions in international mergers.
Organization Studies 15(3), 381–405.
O’Reilly, Ch.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F. (1991) People and organizational
culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person–organization fit.
Academy of Management Journal 34, 487–516.
Ouchi, W. and Price, R. (1978) Hierarchies, clans, and theory Z: a new perspective on
organizational development. Organizational Dynamics 7, 25–44.
Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982) In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper &
Row.
Pfeffer, J. (1981) Management as symbolic action: the creation and maintenance of
organizational paradigms, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (eds) Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Phillips, M.E. (1994) Industry mindsets: exploring the cultures of two macro-organ-
izational settings. Organization Science 5(3), 384–402.
Phillips, M.E., Goodman, R.A. and Sackmann, S.A. (1992) Exploring the complex cul-
tural milieu of project teams. PmNETwork-Professional Magazine of the Project
Management Institute VI(8), 20–6.
Porac, J.F., Thomas, H. and Baden-Fuller, C. (1989) Competitive groups as cognitive
communities: the case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of
Management Studies 26(4), 397–416.
Porter, M.E. (1987) From competitive advantage to competitive strategy. Harvard
Business Review 65(3), 43–59.
Powell, T.C. (1992) Organizational alignment as competitive advantage. Strategic
Management Journal 13, 119–34.
Rappaport, A. (1987) Converting merger benefits to shareholder value. Mergers and
Acquisitions 21(3), 49–55.
Räsänen, K. and Whipp, R. (1992) National business recipes: a sector perspective, in
Whitley, R. (ed.) European Business Systems: Firms, Markets and their National
Context. Newbury Park: Sage, 46–60.
Ravenscraft, D.J. and Scherer, F.M. (1989) The profitability of mergers. International
Journal of Industrial Organization 7, 101–16.
Rousseau, D.M. (1990) Assessing organizational culture: the case for multiple methods,
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE RESEARCH 149
MG9353 ch03.qxp 10/3/05 8:37 am Page 149
in Schneider, B. (ed.) OrganizationalClimate and Culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sackmann, S.A. (1991) Cultural Knowledge in Organizations: Exploring the Collective
Mind. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sackmann, S.A. (1992) Cultures and subcultures: an analysis of organizational
knowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly 37(1), 140–61.
Saffold, G.S. (1988) Culture traits, strength, and organizational performance: moving
beyond ‘strong’ culture. Academy of Management Review 13(4), 546–58.
Sales, A.L. and Mirvis, P.A. (1984) When cultures collide: issues of acquisition, in
Kimberly, J.R. and Quinn, R. (eds) Managing Organizational Transitions. Home-
wood, IL: Irwin, 107–33.
Salter, M.S. and Weinhold, W.A. (1979) Diversification through Acquisitions: Strategies
for Creating Economic Value. New York: Free Press.
Sathe, V. (1983) Implications of corporate culture: a manager’s guide to action.
Organizational Dynamics 12, 5–23.
Sathe, V. (1985) Culture and Related Corporate Realities. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Schall, M. (1983) A communications-rules approach to organizational culture.
Administrative Science Quarterly 28, 557–81.
Schein, E.H. (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E.H. (1990) Organizational culture. American Psychologist 45(2), 109–19.
Schein, E. (1992) Organizational Culture and Leadership. London: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E.H. (1999) The Corporate Culture Survival Guide: Sense and Nonsense about
Cultural Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, S.C. (1988) National versus corporate culture: implications for human
resource management. Human Resource Management 27, 231–46.
Scholz, C. (1987a) Strategisches Management: ein integrativer Ansatz. Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter.
Scholz, C. (1987b) Corporate culture and strategy: the problem of strategic fit. Long
Range Planning 20(4), 78–87.
Schreyögg, G. (1989) Zu den problematischen Konsequenzen starker Unternehmens-
kulturen. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung 41, 94–113.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994) Beyond individualism and collectivism: new cultural dimen-
sions of values, in Kim, U., Triandis, H.C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.C and Yoon, G.
(eds) Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage, 85–199.
Scott, R. (1995) Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Smircich, L. (1983) Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative
Science Quarterly 28, 339–58.
Smircich, L. and Morgan, G. (1982) Leadership: the management of meaning. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science 18, 257–73.
Spender, J.-C. (1989) Industry Recipes. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Trompenaars, F. (1994) Riding the Waves of Culture. New York: Irwin.
Vaaraa, E. (1999) Cultural differences and post-merger problems: misconceptions
and cognitive simplifications. Nordiska Organisasjonsstudien 1(2), 59–88.
Van Maanen, J. and Barley, S.R. (1984) Occupational communities: culture and
control in organizations, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (eds) Research in
Organizational Behavior. Vol. 7. Greenwich: JAI Press.
150 COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
MG9353 ch03.qxp 10/3/05 8:37 am Page 150