Dominant Technocratic Culture And Sub Soft Culture

Dominant Technocratic Culture And Sub Soft Culture

Dear Students now we shall be studying about the research on organizational culture:
A frequently asked question which has acquired great significance with shrinking global distances is do people organize and work differently from culture to culture?‘ A number of studies have been conducted to answer these and other questions relating to cultural differences across countries.
Researches undertaken in various countries have revealed culturally based differences in people‘s values, attitudes, and behaviors. McGregor (1960) has given example of this in his Theory X‘ and Theory Y‘ which are based on a manager‘s assumptions about employee‘s behavior. Theory X managers do not trust their subordinates and introduce tight control systems, which lead to employees‘ irresponsible behavior. On the other hand, theory Y managers trust the employees, give more autonomy to their subordinates for overall goals and tasks without exercising close supervision or tight control. In such a situation employees find that management trusts them and they give their best to their work. On seeing the employees‘ performance such managers develop a more favorable attitude toward employees. Similar results have been obtained in Canada and India (Adler, 1986). Ouchi (1981) in his book on Theory Z‘ highlighted the cultural differences between American and Japanese cultures. American organisational culture has specialized in career paths, fast growth, individualized decision – making, individualized responsibility, explicit control, and concern for work relationship with employees. On the contrary, Japanese organisational culture is characterized by slow promotion, generalized career paths and job rotation across areas, group decision – making high degree of trust, collective responsibility, and concern for work as well as social aspects of employees. [ Dominant Technocratic Culture And Sub Soft Culture ]
Hall (1976) has highlighted differences between high – context and low – context cultures. People belonging to high – context cultures depend heavily on the external situation and environment, and use non – verbal clues for exchanging and interpreting communications. He has cited examples of languages such as Arabic, Japanese, and Chinese where an indirect style of communication is valued. However, in low – context cultures, external environment has low importance, explicit, direct and blunt‖ communication is valued and non – verbal clues are ignored. [ Dominant Technocratic Culture And Sub Soft Culture ]
Hofstede (1980) in his study of culture in forty countries, which was later extended to sixty found significant cultural differences in work – related attitudes. One lakh sixty thousand employees from an American multinational corporation (IBM) served as the sample. The study revealed significant differences in the attitudes and behaviors of the workforce and managerial staff belonging to different countries, and these differences persisted over a period of time. Culture is linked to a collective programming of the minds of one group as distinct from other groups. He identified the following four primary dimensions on which employees and managers differed across cultures. [ Dominant Technocratic Culture And Sub Soft Culture ]

Dominant Technocratic Culture

  1. Individualism/Collective :

Individualism is marked by people focusing on themselves and to some extent, on their families. Collectivism distinguishes between in – group (comprising relatives, caste, and organisation) and other groups. There are nations like the United States with an individualistic culture and Japan where the will of the group determines members‘ beliefs.
[ Dominant Technocratic Culture And Sub Soft Culture ]
  1. Power Distance Orientataion :

    This dimension refers to superior – subordinate relationship. The superior is inclined to increase the inequality of power between himsself and his subordinates, and the subordinates will endeavour to decrease that power distance. High power distance countries found by him are Philippines, Venezuela, and India.
  1. Uncertainty Avoidance :

    Hofstede points at that different cultures react differently and have varying levels of tolerance to uncertainty. Based on his study he has classified countries having high uncertainty avoidance such as Japan and Greece, and low uncertainty avoidance countries such, as the United States, Canada, and New Zealand.
  1. Masculinity/Femininty :

    Masculinity has been defined as the extent to which the dominant values in society emphasise relationships among people, concern for others, and overall quality of life. Japan and Australia were found to be highly masculine, the Scandinavian countries as most feminine, and the United States as slightly masculine.
Sondergaard (1994) has reviewed 61 researches replicating Hofstede‘s method and has reported that the four above – mentioned dimensions have been ―largely confirmed‖.
Trompennar (1996), based on his research on 8841 informants from business organisations in 43 countries, has confirmed two dimensions – individualism/collectivism and power distance – which had been identified by Hofstede.
A number of studies have been done to study the relationship between firm size organisational effectiveness and culture. Large firms promote inertia and complacency (Hannandand and Freeman, 1984), resistance to adaptation (Aldrich and Auster, 1986), and aversion to risk (Hittet al, 1990). Connell (2001) studied the influence of firm size on organisational culture and employee morale in six Australian workplaces and found that the organisation size affected a number of variables. Small firms were found to have a positive culutre, high employee morale, consultative management style, and organisational effectiveness. [ Dominant Technocratic Culture And Sub Soft Culture ]
A study of Organisation Culture and Climate at ONGC undertaken by Sharma (2000) reveals that the organisation has a dominant technocratic culture and soft sub culture in a number of business groups (now called asset based structures).
In addition to culture, a study on organisational climate was also undertaken by Sharma (2000) on a representative sample of 85 middle – level managers representing various functions from the entire country. The study sought their responses on 16 parameters of climate – Orientation, Quality of work life, Leadership, Management of change, empowerment, Problem – solving and decision – making, Conflict management, Creativity and innovation, Communication, Image, Customer service, Role efficacy, Goal setting, appraisal and counselling, Career planning, Training and reward. The study yielded an average to fair climate on all 16 variables of the organisations‘ climate. Comparatively low scores were obtained on such parameters as management of change, communication, corporate image, empowerment, creativity and innovation, career planning, reward and customer service
As organisational climate affects organisational culture, the authorities of ONGC initiated steps for the creation of an appropriate work culture for competitive advantage through training and human resource development. It had undergone a major restructuring exercise about 2 years ago with the help of an international consultant and had introduced organisational transformation project (OTP) in the Neelam offshore field and the Western onshore region. As expected, the response was slow and there was covert resistance and fear among employees in the organisation. Officers from some other regions exhibited jealousy against those who, due to the project, came into the limelight. The chairman, Mr. Subir Raha, has taken drastic steps for bringing about structural and cultural changes ever, since 2001. The board has been overhauled, the portfolios of directors have been changed, and business managers have been redesignated as Asset Managers. The project has been renamed as Corporate Rejuvination campaign to infuse life and dyna-mism. The restructuring has been done with rationality which has resulted in reducing the levels of decision – making.