CVF and Organizational Culture Assessment InstrumentName:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Abstract
Cultural assessment is pivotal in identifying the discrepancy between the current and the preferred climate. Cultural assessment instruments are used to gather feedback on the cultural elements of performance and change and identify and assess the existing culture. the competing values model is considered robust and reliable and has found ready application in implementing change-relate interventions. Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument is a revised version of the CVF model, and too can be used for a wide variety of purposes including during mergers, change management and re-organizations. Although the two frameworks have high Cronbach’s alpha co-efficient they could pose ethical challenges to the action researchers besides encouraging confrontation between the management and the employees.
Table of Contents
TOC o “1-3” h z u HYPERLINK l “_Toc373521241” _Toc373521241
HYPERLINK l “_Toc373521242” 1.Introduction PAGEREF _Toc373521242 h 4
HYPERLINK l “_Toc373521243” 2.Background PAGEREF _Toc373521243 h 4
HYPERLINK l “_Toc373521244” 3.The competing values framework PAGEREF _Toc373521244 h 5
HYPERLINK l “_Toc373521245” 3.1 Validity and reliability PAGEREF _Toc373521245 h 6
HYPERLINK l “_Toc373521246” 3.2 Advantages and disadvantages PAGEREF _Toc373521246 h 6
HYPERLINK l “_Toc373521247” 4.Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument PAGEREF _Toc373521247 h 7
HYPERLINK l “_Toc373521248” 4.1 Validity and reliability PAGEREF _Toc373521248 h 8
HYPERLINK l “_Toc373521249” 4.2 Advantages and disadvantages PAGEREF _Toc373521249 h 8
HYPERLINK l “_Toc373521250” 5.Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc373521250 h 10
IntroductionMeasuring organizational culture is considered as one step through which change implementers’ can gain greater awareness of the current and the preferred climate. Measuring the organizational culture also helps the implementers to anticipate resistance to change, and generate momentum for change. As Zhang (2009) suggests cultural assessment become particularly important in determining any discrepancy between the current and preferred cultures, and then taking the necessary action. In essence, cultural assessment plays an important role in the identification of socially constructed realities, and patterns which are recognizable to the cultural members. This paper discusses two of the commonly used cultural assessment tools: Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument and the Competing Values Framework.
BackgroundA study conducted by Ravasi, and Schultz (2007) established that there are more than 70 tools that can be used to measure organizational culture, and majority of these instruments emerged in 1990s while others such as the Critical Incident Technique and Wallach’s Organizational Culture Index, other such As the Organizational and Team Culture Indicator and the Cultural Assessment Survey, were developed in recent times. Most of the instruments were developed in North America, while others were as a result of international collaboration between different companies. The instruments are used for diagnostic and formative purposes. Diagnosis helps the researchers to identify and assess the existing culture and then modify it to achieve better performance. For formative purposes, cultural assessment tools explore feedback on the cultural elements of performance and change.
The competing values frameworkThe framework was proposed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1981) and it has been used within an organization to study leadership roles and effectiveness, organizational culture, change and human resource development. The instrument is applicable in private and public sectors, and is considered one of the most important tools in management science. For diagnostic purposes, the tool can be used to ermine the differences and similarities of different managerial roles in the organizational hierarchy.
The framework as suggested by Cummings and Worley (2004) examines the organization’s existing values and then compares them with the preferred values. The framework proposes four cultural types: clan, hierarchy, market and adhocracy. The clan cultural type is characterized by cohesion, morality and HRM values and is encourage by mentoring, parenting and facilitation of the employees. An organization with this cultural type can be likened to a family setting, where participation of all the employees is appreciated and work is designed around flexibility and self-sufficiency. In addition, clan-oriented organization appreciates trust and openness, in order to improve cohesion between the members.
As captured in the framework, adhocracy cultural type is dynamic and is characterized by innovation and creativity. In order to encourage the employees to come up with new ideas, the organizations emphasizes on adequate resource allocation while the leaders are visionary. This cultural archetype is also characterized by growth and cutting-edge output, and is encouraged by entrepreneurial leadership. The market cultural archetype emphasizes on task achievement and competitiveness of employees. According to Igo and Skitmore (2006) this cultural archetype also emphasizes on increasing market share and is encouraged by the hard-driver type of leadership. Igo ands Skitmore (2006) further observe that organization with this type of orientation, pursue well-define objectives to attain financial success. Lastly, there is the hierarchy cultural archetype, which emphasizes on control, coordination, efficiency and smooth functioning. This type of leadership is encouraged by coordination and prudent management of the available resources. As suggested by Denison, Haaland, and Goelzer (2004) the goal of this cultural archetype is to maintain internal organization and stability through execution of regulations and following the down-laid procedures. Through the CVF, organizations can identify the existing cultural profile and then identify an appropriate one, for any imbalances. In total, the framework is based on four dimensions flexibility and discretion, internal focus and integrity, stability and control, and external focus and differentiation.
3.1 Validity and reliabilityIn an article titled, validating the competing values model as a representation of organizational cultures, Paula and Allan used a sample of 462 managers to measure the reliability of CVF in the Australian context. Denison, Haaland, and Goelzer (2004) also investigated the effectiveness of the CVF model by comparing it with the Theoretical Model of Cultural Traits and found out that it is reliable measure of organizational culture.
3.2 Advantages and disadvantagesThe advantages of the Competing Values Framework are captured in two articles; Jones et al (1997) and Gifford et al. (2002). In these two articles, writers observe that the Competing Values Framework adopts a typological and a four-cell mode and its robustness has been established through quantitative and qualitative studies. Due to the good face validity, the instrument can be relied upon by the action researchers to identify problematic areas and then go ahead and implement the desired change.
As suggested by Denison, Haaland, and Goelzer (2004) one of the major advantages of the CVF model is that it has few dimensions and providers the users with insights into their operations and opportunities for dialogue. At the same time, the model provides the users with an opportunity to compare the current and the desired levels of performance, while suggesting the appropriate values that the organization needs to adopt. Secondly, the CVF is empirically validated and can be used by an action researcher to support opinions using qualitative and quantitative data. Once the dominant culture has been identified using the OCAI tool, the implementation process requires a manager with behavioural complexity is required. Such leaders need to have great adaptability and at the same time they should be able to balance competing roles. On the downside, the model requires active participation of the respondents, which could lead to ethical problems.
Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument
In the article titled; instruments for exploring organizational culture: a review of literature, Tobias et al. (2009) examines some of the other common cultural assessment tools beside, the Competing Values Framework. In the article Tobias et al. (2009) suggests that one of the other common tools is the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) which is based on the CVF framework. The questionnaire has 24 items which are all based on the four archetypes: clan, adhocracy, market and hierarchy. OCAI is defined by six cultural archetypes: dominant organizational characteristics, organizational leadership, and management of employees, organizational glue, strategic emphases, and criteria of success. The ‘dominant organizational characteristics’ dimension defines what the organization looks like and in this regard, an organization can be classified to be family-like, dynamic, result-oriented or controlled. The second dimension- organizational leadership- describes what the leadership looks like, and in this regard it could be mentoring, innovative an risk-taking, aggressive or coordinating. The third dimension-management of employees- describes the management strategies that are used and they include: participation, individual-risk taking, hard-driving competitiveness or conformity. The fourth dimension-organizational glue-refers the elements that hold the organization together and they could be: loyalty, commitment, achievement, and formal rules. The fifth dimensions; strategic emphasis; defines the outstanding characteristic in the organization and this could be stability and control, competition and achievement, resource management, human development and transparency. Lastly, is the ‘criteria for success’ dimension which describe the determinants to success such as human resource development and teamwork, innovation and market leadership, having competitive advantage and outperforming the competitors, using low-cost strategy and encouraging efficiency and smooth scheduling.
4.1 Validity and reliabilityThe effectiveness of this cultural assessment tools has been examined by many researchers. In this regard, Quinn and Spreitzer (1991) reported a Cronbach’s alpha co-efficient of more than 0.70 while Yeung, Brockbank and Ulrich (1989) reported a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of about 0.80. Other studies, including the one by Colyer (2000) have reported consistently high figures, an indication that the instrument is valid and reliable in measuring organizational culture.
4.2 Advantages and disadvantagesThe Organizational Cultural Assessment Index has similar advantages as the CVF model; it is empirically valid and has few dimensions. In addition, the tool takes a short time to use and is a popular among the organizations all over the world. Secondly, OCAI can be used to identify each need and then prescribe the most appropriate culture. As many as possible employees can use the tool and no experts are required during the administration of the tool. Finally, the tool gives the users a clear vision of the preferred culture, and is very practical.
The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument can be used for a wide variety of purposes including improving internal communication, and during mergers and re-organizations. The instrument has also proved useful in prevention of high staff-turnover and has been used as a zero measurement preceding any company changes. Once the action researchers identify areas that need change, they still need to use the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument to perform a second assessment, to determine whether the implementation process was successful or not. The instrument is focused, timely, manageable and quantitative. On the downside, action researchers need active participation of the subjects which could easily lead to the ethical problems. At the same time, because the instrument is quantitative in nature it erodes some of the aspects of the action research such as observation.
Conclusion
When implementing change initiatives, it is imperative to assess the organizational culture, and to help with this task, researchers have come up with a wide range of instruments. These instruments according to Black (2003) can be used to measure the observable phenomena and other dimensions associated with the organizational culture. From the available literature it is apparent that the CVF model and the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument have high Cronbach’s alpha co-efficient and they can reliably be used to measure various dimensions of cultural climate.
ReferencesBlack, R. J. (2003). Organizational Culture: Creating the Influence Needed for Strategic Success. London: UKCraig, D. V. (2008). Action research essentials. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cummings, T. & Worley, C. G. (2004). Organization Development and Change, 8th Ed. South-Western College Pub.
Denison, D. R., Haaland, S. & Goelzer, P. (2004). Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness: Is Asia Different from the Rest of the World? Organizational Dynamics, 98–101
Hedge, J. W., & Pulakos, E. D. (2002). Implementing organizational interventions: Steps, processes and best practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Igo, T. & Skitmore, M. (2006) Diagnosing the organisational culture of an Australian engineering consultancy using the competing values framework. Construction Innovation 6(2):pp. 121-139.
Paula, K, & Allan, W. (2004). Validating the competing values model as a representation of organizational culture through inter-institutional comparisons. International journal of organizational analysis, 12, 1, pp.21 – 37
Quinn, R.E., & Spreitzer, G.M. 1991. The psychometrics of the competing values culture instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life.
Development, 5: 59-82.
Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), pp. 433–458.
HYPERLINK “http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122648590/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0” t “_blank” Tobias,J., Tim, S., Huw T. D., Peter, B., Diane, W., Rosalind, M., & Russell, M. (2009). Instruments for Exploring Organizational Culture: A Review of the Literature. Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1087-1096
Yeung, K.O., Brockbank, J.W., & Ulrich, D.O. 1991. Organizational cultures and human resource practices: An empirical assessment. Research in Organizational Change and Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5: 115-142.
Zhang, X. (2009). Values, Expectations, Ad Hoc Rules, and Culture Emergence in International Cross Cultural Management Contexts. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
