T his paper uses case studies and survey data to explore the relationship between organizational culture and effectiveness. The results provide evidence for the existence of four cultural traits-involvement, consistency, adaptability, and mission-and indicate that these characteristics are positively related to perceptions of performance as well as to objective measures such as return on assets and sales growth. Organizational culture is found to be measurable and to be related to important organizational outcomes. AbstractThis paper develops a model of organizational culture and effectiveness based on four traits of organizational cultures; involvement, consistency, adaptability, and mission. These traits are examined through two linked studies: In the first, qualitative case studies of five firms are used to identify the traits and the nature of their linkage to effectiveness; In the second, a quantitative study provides an exploratory analysis of CEO perceptions of these four traits and their relation to subjective and objective measures of effectiveness in a sample of 764 organizations. The results show support for the predictive value of the traits, and help to illustrate the complementarity of qualitative and quantitative methods for studying organizational cultures.Two of the traits, involvement and adaptability, are indicators of flexibility, openness, and responsiveness, and were strong predictors of growth. The other two traits, consistency and mission, are indieators of integration, direction, and vision, and were better predictors of profitability. Each of the four traits were also significant predictors of other effectiveness criteria such as quality, employee satisfaction, and overall performance. The results also showed that the four traits were strong predictors of subjectively-rated effectiveness criteria for the total sample of firms, but were strong predictors of objective criteria such as return-on-assets and sales growth only for larger firms.This paper suggests that culture can be studied as an integral part of the adaptation process of organizations and that specific eulture traits may be useful predictors of performance and effectiveness. The paper also illustrates how qualitative case studies and inductive theory building can be combined with quantitative comparisons and theory-testing to make progress on specific aspects of organizational culture research. {Theory Building; Culture Effectiveness)

No abstract

The concept of paradox has received increasing attention in the study of leadership, but these new ideas have not yet had much influence on empirical leadership research. This paper examines the development of these ideas in the literature and attempts to clarify what influence they might have on empirical research. One general implication of the paradox perspective, that more effective leaders generally display a more complex and varied set of behaviors, is then examined empirically with respect to Quinn’s (Quinn, R. E. 1984. Applying the competing values approach to leadership: Toward an integrative model. J. G. Hunt, R. Stewart, C. Schriesheim, D. Hosking, eds. Managers and Leaders: An International Perspective. Pergamon, New York; Quinn, R. E. 1988. Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the Paradoxes and Competing Demands of High Performance. Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco, CA.) model of leadership roles. This model is one of few that allows for an empirical test of some of the central ideas developed by the paradox perspective. The paper also contrasts the recent emphasis on cognitive complexity in the organizational literature (Weick [Weick, K. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Random House, New York.], Kiesler and Sproull [Kiesler, S., L. Sproull. 1982. Managerial response to changing environments: Perspectives on problem sensing from social cognition. Admin. Sci. Quart. 27548–570.], Streufert and Swezey [Streufert, S., R. W. Swezey. 1986. Complexity, Managers and Organizations. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.]), with the relative lack of attention given to behavioral complexity. Cognitive complexity, the paper argues, may well be a necessary condition for the effective practice of leadership. Behavioral complexity, however, must certainly be the sufficient condition. Leadership must inevitably be performed through action, not cognition, and it would thus appear to be time for leadership researchers to begin to develop theories of behavioral as well as cognitive complexity. The paper also examines several existing leadership theories that are consistent with this point of view (Mintzberg [Mintzberg, H. 1973. The Nature of Managerial Work. Harper and Row, New York; Mintzberg, H. 1975. The manager’s job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Bus. Rev. 5349–61.], Yukl [Yukl, G. 1981. Leadership in Organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.]; Bass [Bass, B. M. 1981. Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory in Research. Free Press, New York.]), and have (in effect) already offered useful definitions of behavioral complexity. The empirical results of this study come from a study of 176 executives whose leadership role behavior is rated by their subordinates, and whose effectiveness is rated by their superiors. The analysis relies upon a nontraditional analysis technique based on multidimensional scaling that is well suited to this unorthodox analytic problem. The results show that the more effective executives exhibit a greater variety of leadership roles than their less effective counterparts, and that these roles are much clearer to their subordinates. The results also show that more effective executives show much more of the underlying structure of leadership roles proposed by the Quinn model than do less effective executives. Finally, this paper suggests that the concepts of paradox and behavioral complexity are instrumental to a fuller understanding of managerial leadership, and concludes with a discussion of the future research agenda in this area.

No abstract

No abstract