A Critical examination of leaders create organizational culture

A Critical examination of leaders create organizational culture Introduction In area of Management and leadership, one of the most crucial and effective factors that determine the performance and position of an organization in public sector is the organizational culture. Organizational culture has been studied extensively for the past 30 or more years (Schein E. H., 1985). Lots of books have been written and much research has been done about it, and also wide range of words applied to describe this notion. Although much different definitions have been presented on this keyword, most of them place their emphasis on common key aspects. Three comprehensive definitions have been gathered in table below: Definitions of organizational culture The pattern of shared beliefs and values that give members of an institution meaning and provide them with the rules for behaviour in their organizations. (Davis, 1984, p. 1). The set of important understandings (often unstated) that members of a community share in common. (Sathe, 1985, p. 6) A set of understandings or meanings shared by a group of people. The meanings are largely tacit among the members, are clearly relevant to a particular group and are distinctive to the group (Louis, 1985, p. 74) According to these definitions, two features of organizational culture seem bolder; first shared meanings and values among organization members and second introducing clear rules and behaviours in organization. Although, some argues that culture cannot be managed (Rabin, T Wachhaus. A, 2008, p. 1) , a correlation between culture and leadership has been identified (Frontiera, 2010). Schein announced this fact in his famous book-Organizational culture and leadership (2004): Culture is a dynamic phenomenon that surrounds us at all times, being constantly enacted and created by our reactions with others and shaped by leadership behaviour. So, attentions have been paid to culture aiming to manage and improve it in order to achieve defined goals. Leaders as persons who have crucial role in improving performance found it vital in organizational discourse. Schein introduced the mutual relation and effect between leadership and culture by the term intertwined (1992) .While culture can be affected by various factors, Senge pointed out that leaders have the most influence on organizational culture (2002, p. 24) : Building an organizations culture and shaping its evolution is the unique and essential function of leadership In this paper the focus is on the influence of leadership on organizational culture to examine to what extent the view that leaders create organizational culture is true. The approach that has been applied in this paper is studying the ways and channels through which leader creates and affects the culture of organization. Four major states have been studied in this area; model leader, strategist leader, ruling leader, and performance changing. Also, the other factors that create culture have been studied and the effect of culture on leadership has been analyzed. The conclusion shows the indirect role of leader in creating culture except through becoming model. In addition, other factors have decisive role in shaping culture. Before the start of this study, clearing the concept of leadership is required. What is leadership? Who is a leader? The concept of leadership has been defined in various ways. Some stated it as a process, for instance Northouse believe that it is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal (2007, p. 3). Also, Stogdill analyzed it as influencing the activities of an organized group in its efforts toward goal setting and goal achievement (1974). By these two types of definitions, leader can be known as a person who makes decisions, sets directions, makes things happen and often He is recognisable at the top of organization. Leader carries out this process by applying their leadership knowledge and skills. (Jago, 1982) Hence leader is placed at top of organization and clarifies strategies and directions, has most effects on the culture of organizations. In following next parts some ways by which leader affects culture have been examined. Leader; as a model In an organization the leadership and the behaviours of leader become an ideal pattern for followers, and a stream of organizational deportment would flow from top (leader) to down (followers). This case often happens in transformational type of leadership in which leader has charismatic features (Harms, p Crede, M, 2010). Bass and Avolio described transformational leader as able to motivate others to do more than they originally intended and often more than they thought possible (1993). As the organizational culture is made of behaviours and manners, charismatic leader cultivates a particular method of comportment in climate. Culture of an organization consists of different areas; competitiveness, social responsibility, innovation, stability, performance orientation, and supportiveness. So, the manner of leader affects every area of organizational culture and this top-down influence can lead to affirmative or mortal outcomes in performance (Sarros, J. Gray, J and Densten, I, 2002). By way of illustration, this can be studied in realm of Innovation and change; Fishman and Kavanaugh claimed that the culture of an organization and how people respond to change and innovation is shaped substantially by the behaviours of the leader (1989). Smith revealed that leaders behaviours can be followed by employees (2010); Leaders are the role models and when they walk the talk long enough, fairly soon these values become standard procedure. Leaders are lent very crucial and decisive position by which they influence the culture of organization through leading motivation, attendance and attitude of followers in organizational operation. This can be found in Amabile suggestion (1998): By influencing the nature of the work environment and organizational culture, leaders can affect organizational members attitude to work related change and motivation. Schein assumed culture begins from leaders who impose their own values and assumptions on a group (2004, p. 2). Leader as a ruler Leaders externalize their own assumptions and embed them into structures, mission, goals and working procedures gradually and consistently (Schein E. H., 2004, p. 406). In one hand, a leader make decisions and determine rules, and in the other hand organizational culture is described as a set of structures, routines, rules and norms that guide the constrain behaviour (Schein E. H., Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2004). So, leadership manipulates organizational culture through ruling in organization. Dull reflected this fact in the other way (2010): Public sector leaders attempt to cultivate organizational culture as a means of controlling administrative behaviour and building organizational competence, defined as the skill and capacity to accomplish necessary tasks Here the culture described as a tool for improving procedures to facilitate achieving goal. This case can be examined when leader feels sure about a needful innovation in organization. For promoting change, beside other necessities, leader has to provide a firm ground for implementing innovation; this ground is formal procedures and actions. As Armenakis et al. claimed leaders can modify formal structures, procedures, and human resource management practices (1999). So, leader initiates change and clarifies orientation of organization; he arrives to alter proceeds for reaching ends. In reality, changing procedures interpreted as changing culture. Leader as strategist Stewart declared that the strategy of an organization gives it identity based on its functions, Also it clarifies what an organization is and what it is doing (2004). Strategy forms culture of through highlighting tasks, directions, positions and behaviours . The change management strategy or approach selected by leaders will result in shifts in organizational culture. (Kavanagh, H Ashkanasy, N, 2006) By understanding the importance of strategy and its relation with culture, leader enters this relation and influence culture in two ways; first standing between strategy and culture, second use the strategy as a tool for modifying culture. Fernandez and Rainey interpreted strategy as a course of action for implementing changes (2006). Despite strategy plays a crucial role in organization, this is the role of leader to translate it into a course of actions. Goldsmith explains to CEO (chief executive officer) how leaders are needed to communicate and execute an organization s strategy. (2009) When leaders and their executive teams take an active role in implementing strategies, this is a commitment to ensure the ideas or strategies become part of the organisation. Insightful leaders realise that for strategies to be successfully integrated into their organisations, they must align, measure, market and package the strategy to their business, customers and investment community as they would with any marketing campaign. While strategy introduces direction of an organization, it is just on the paper. The best-planned strategy is no more than wishful thinking if it cannot be translated from concept to reality (Hsieh, T and Yik, S, 2005) .Here it is leader who translates it from language of paper to a course of actions. Speculand has studied the decisive role of leadership and placed his special emphasis on leaders in success and failure of implementing strategies (2009). So, leader as a median interprets strategy into organization procedure, role, and belief. This action forms the culture; in this area culture is set of behaviours and procedures that are defined by strategy. In this process leader injects strategy into the body of organization. In reality, leader makes strategy feasible, and at the same time forms culture. But it is not whole the story about relation of strategy and culture. Leader alters climate of organization by applying strategy as a tool too. In other words, leader stands at the top and place strategy between him and culture; actually, leader applies strategy as a means to influence organizational culture. This is deducted from the role of leader in designing strategies, Where Abramson and Lawrence claimed (2001): Managerial leaders must develop a course of action or strategy for implementing change. Convincing the members of an organization of the need for change is obviously not enough to bring about actual change. The new idea or vision must be transformed into a course of action or strategy with goals and a plan for achieving it Changing performance The performance of an organization is effective factor through which leader influence the culture. Wikipedia defined Performance defined as the activity of a unit (be it individual, team, department, or division) of an organization intended to accomplish some desired result (2011). This item is evaluated by measuring outputs and outcomes. There is a multilateral and at the same time mutual relation among leadership, culture and performance. In other words, they are interdependent (i.e. leadership and climate are subject to affect by the status of performance of organization). To understand this linkage a circle of relation between leader, climate and performance should be studied. It can be understood from this circle that leader can affect culture through changing performance. In this network of linkage leader affects culture and alter its elements through changing performance and informing employees about it. This influence occurs through the Feedback. Feedback typically consists of information provided to an individual for the purpose of an increase in performance (Kluger, A. N. Denisi, A., 1996). There is variety of feedback forms, which are described by different aspects. One kind of feedback is outcome feedback in which information concerning performance outcomes. (Balcazar, F., Hopkins, B. L., Suarez, Y, 1986) It seems positive and constructive, to inform employees about high performance and improvement of outcomes. Geister et al. concluded in their case study that information and feedback about the team situation is crucial to improving the motivation, satisfaction, and performance of members in virtual teams. (2006) Leader affects the culture of organization indirectly through improving performance and diffusing information about it, an action which leads to a healthy, motivate and more evolutionary climate. If decisions and policies leader applied led to quality performance, it encourages atmosphere of hardworking, competition, integration and responsibility but in fragile situation and poor performance culture would collapse. Culture creates leader, a challenge While the impact of leader on culture is a considerable fact and has been studied and proved in many cases, some opinions challenged it. In an attempt to address this theoretical disagreement, Sarros et al. surveyed over 1,900 managers in Australia and found that leadership was a far more prominent predictor of culture than culture was of leadership. (2002) As it has been mentioned there are an interdependent relations among leadership, culture and performance, so it is a noticeable reality that leader is affected by culture too. Hatch claimed that it is difficult for leaders to have any impact on culture, as culture has a larger influence on leaders. (1993) Schein asserted that while leaders create culture in the early stages of an organization, culture creates leaders as an organization matures. He claimed that culture is deep, broad, and stable. It can be an unconscious determinant of who gets hired, who gets promoted and rewarded, and indeed, how the vision, mission, and strategy are lived. (2004) Culture of organization is a very decisive factor, so leader has to apply appropriate way of leading which does work in that climate. Smith et al. have sought for a proper model of leadership in China by regarding effects of cultural backgrounds (1997), which reflect the crucial role of culture in determining leadership style. It seems imperfect and naÃÆ'Â ¯f to study the relation of leader and climate unilaterally. The relation is mutual and should be studied in this way to achieve a perfect view. Other factors as actors While leadership plays a core role in creating organizational culture, other factors affect climate and even can take it out of control of leader. Culture can be affected by different internal and external factors. As the culture has defined as meanings and behaviours of members, the organizational members are effective actors. Krizek views culture as patterns of meaning and interpretation-whether these patterns emerge among management or employees. So, before leader creates culture, it has been constituted by members beliefs and thoughts as internal actors (2005). As another internal factor, type of function and business of organization conducts the elements of culture. (Schein E. H., Organizational Culture and Leadership, 1992) In other words the mission of organization is a set of beliefs about its core competences (Schein E. H., Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2004, p. 89). External forces may or may not influence the communicative and cultural makeup of an organization. (Cheney, 2001) Examples of external forces include, but are not limited to, economics, education, family, law, media, politics, religion, and technology. External environment and constraints have a considerable role in determining climate of organizations. As, leader has to make situation and organization ready to cope with external environment, any change in environment leads to change policies, behaviours and routines and finally innovates the culture. Schein pointed out that if the environmental context is changing such conflict can be a potential source of adaption and new learning. (2004, p. 108) Organizational culture is influenced by social and national culture of the area in which it is situated. National beliefs, stories, type of thinking and values affect the climate of organization. So, leader is situated in a set of actors that shape culture and is not exclusive actor. Conclusion In this paper the view that leaders create organizational culture has been examined critically. At the first the culture defined as a set of routines, behaviour, meanings and understandings that is shared among members of an organization. Leader defined as who make decision, determine directions and make things happen or not to happen. It has been proved that leaders have a noticeable role in creating organizational climate. The first way through which culture forms by leader is by the stream of meaning, behaviour and beliefs as an ideal method or pattern from top (leader) to down (employees). In this statement employees are assumed as followers who are affected by the nature of leader. As a short explanation, Leadership consists of attributes and skills that determine not only the nature of enterprise, in all its manifestations, but the overall nature of society and the world (Sarros, J. Gray, J. Densten, I, 2002). In this way leaders are charismatic persons by whom followers behaviours consciously or unconsciously are affected. The second conduit for influencing culture is ruling. Leader is top ruler in organization who directs routines, structures and procedures. It has been assumed that by doing these affairs, leader is manipulating culture or changing its elements. In this statement changing culture described as changing procedures and formal administrative process. In third way the focus has been put on strategy. Strategy is the manifestation of mission, directions, tasks and rules and has a strong correlation with culture. It has been expressed that leader affects culture through strategy in two ways. First way is attempt to codify and provide strategy. In this state leader as a strategist inject beliefs and preference into strategy and determine culture through it. The second channel is to standing between strategy and culture in order to interpret and implement it in preferred way. The other area which has been studied is performance. It assumed that leader plays remarkable role in changing performance and the status of outcomes of organization affect the culture directly. The impact of high performance in healthy culture and poor one in weak climate mentioned in this paper. These four ways illustrate the crucial role of leadership in creating culture. But in last two sections of paper this role has been challenged in two statements. First is that while leader creates culture, culture creates leader too. As mentioned, culture is stable and has elements that determine which style of leadership is required and who can be the organizational leader. As, Schein assumes leadership and culture as two sides of one coin, cultural norms define how a given nation or organization will define leadership. (2004) In addition, some factors like external environment, employees beliefs, business of organization, and national culture introduced as factors which affect organizational culture. In conclusion, it should be claimed that the effects of leadership in shaping culture is noticeable and can be realized by studying it through different ways. But the more crucial point is that the effect is not directly except in first way in which leader becomes a pattern for followers. In all conditions leader can apply some policies by which affects culture. Employees play decisive role in changing climate, and leaders dont change culture, they merely invite their people to change the culture (Hillis). So, leader is not the exclusive actor in influencing culture. Other factors should be studied so that an effective innovation and successful change in culture can be achieved.

A Global Language: English Language Essay

English is an international language spoken all over the world that was originally borrowed from the world. If English is used as a global language, there might be some advantages related to communication and business. However, there are also several disadvantages in terms of losing mother tongue and taking time and money. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages, so English should be made the global language. The first essential affirmative point is communication. There are more than 200 countries in the world. If everyone could speak English, they may have the ability to communicate with others whenever they are in strange countries. Furthermore, using English, people can have more friends, widen peer relationships with foreigners and can not get lost. Overall, English becomes a global language; people may have more chances in communication.Another crucial advantage is improving business. If English was spoken widespread and everyone could use it, they would likely have more opportunities in business. Foreign investments from rich countries might be supported to the poorer countries. For instance, a company and its proponents would be able to discuss, understand each other and develop the projects together. The first disadvantage of issue is losing mother language. If English used as a global language, people may use it both at work and daily life. Children and teenagers might prefer to watch English cartoons or movies. Gradually, they make mistake when they use their mother languages. It can not be imagine if English is only one language in the world. Another serious negative point is taking much time and money. Old generation might need to study English to communicate with the youth ages. In addition, educational curriculum system could be changed to be suitable for the reform. These processes need quite long time and a large amount of money. In conclusion, using English as a global language has both advantages and disadvantages. It is useful for communicating and business while could lead to be lost mother tongue and take much time and money.

Chadwick Inc Essay

The business strategies that are included in the balanced scorecard for Norwalk Division are: maximising return on all development spending, satisfying customer needs, and the development of employee skills. The strategy that is not embraced in the balanced scorecard is the one in regard to driving management responsibility to the lowest level. This strategy was not included because there needs to be a balance in responsibility through the organisation. Employee targets and incentives are closely linked to the  performance of the division; more responsibility given to staff at lower levels could increase the possibility of managers setting strategies for their own benefit and division. This could lead to discrepancies between organisational goals and the goals set by management for a specific division. New measures that need to be developed and included in the balanced scorecard are return on research capital, product profitability, product development time, number of products under development, and number of employees participating in training programs. The measures developed need to be directly related to the objective and have the ability to provide feedback for that particular area. (b) A Balanced Scorecard developed for the organisation will differ to one that is specifically developed for a certain division in an organisation. The objectives of an organisation as a whole are marginally different to the objectives that are set for a division or department. Organisational objectives which are statements that articulate what the organisation hopes to accomplish will include all of the objectives across the different divisions of the company; where as divisional objectives are aimed explicitly at that division. This may result in different measures used in the scorecards to evaluate performance relating to the specific objective. For example, Chadwick Inc. operates in many businesses including personal consumer products and pharmaceuticals. The organisations overall objective is to produce high quality products and get them to the market faster at lower costs. For its part, the Norwalk Pharmaceutical Divisions objective is to increase the yield of new products and to reduce the time and costs of the product development cycle. This divisional objective becomes a part of the company’s current objectives and is the objective that is focused on when developing the divisional scorecard. The divisional balanced scorecard was decided by the president of Chadwick Inc. to be developed in a way ‘that was right for the division’. This decentralised decision-making and authority approach may create conflict  between divisional scorecards and those of the corporation. This approach to developing a divisional scorecard may give rise to negative consequences. Managers may focus too narrowly on their own units performance and strategies rather than attaining the overall organisations goals. It could also lead to inconsistencies at the organisational level. The advantages of decentralisation outweigh its limitations and should be adopted in the organisation. However, to overcome the conflict of discrepancy between organisational and divisional scorecards, top management needs to allow for decentralisation only to a certain extent and ensure that each division is being mindful and taking into consideration the overall organisational objective. (c) The business strategy of a company or division is used to illustrate how all the individual activities are coordinated to achieve a desired result. Developing a strategy is vital as it is used to set the overall direction of the business. The business strategy for Norwalk was developed by one individual and within a few minutes. For optimal results and clear direction, a strategy should be developed over a longer time period and the balanced scorecard should not be created until all the participants involved have a clear understanding and vision of the business. From the beginning of the project it could be said Greenfield was not committed to the development of the balanced scorecard for the Norwalk division. He did not believe how dedicated Chadwick Inc. was to the concept. Any Balanced Scorecard project will fail if it is seen as just another â€Å"management fad†. It needs sponsorship through active communication – communication that explains why the organisation needs the Balanced Scorecard and how it will benefit both the division and individuals. During the process there was also a lack of commitment from all the members, it took them several weeks before meeting and focusing on the project. The time spent developing a balanced scorecard is important, if it is rushed it could lead to negative consequences when it is implemented. The divisions of Chadwick were advised that only hard data (financial data) is to be used in the balanced scorecard. Financial data alone only provides short-term strategies; non-financial data offers a closer link to long-term  organisational strategies. Therefore by encompassing only financial data the balanced scorecard will provide only a short-term measure to evaluate the division’s performance.

Comparing Sinuhe And Odysseus And The Odyssey Essay

Sinuhe and Odysseus both experience different pathways to peace within themselves while they share in knowledge of what it means to be away from their familiar lands; these differences and similarities are seen in the Egypt told in the Tale of Sinuhe and Greece in The Odyssey. Sinuhe tells of a royal courtier who was travelling with Prince Senwosret on a campaign to Libya. While on the expedition, news was spread that the dual king Sehotepibre had passed. Unbeknownst to Senwosret, Sinuhe overheard and fled Egypt in a panic. He travelled from land to land and finally stopped in Syria, where he lived, had a family and become a hero to the tribe he stayed with. Later in his life he felt the longing to return back home to be buried properly. After writing to the new king, Senwosret, for his request, he accepts and sends for him. His life before fleeing from Egypt was once again brought back to him until he died. For Odysseus in The Odyssey, his exile and longing was not easily resolved l ike Sinuhe’s story was. Odysseus was the sole survivor of an expedition gone wrong. After living away from home in exile after the doings of his naà ¯ve crew for several years, Athena, the Greek goddess of wisdom and war, helped him in secret to return back to his homeland in Ithaca. Odysseus, a man full of emotion, stress, and heart, made it back home after many attempts and stops but not without sorrow and torment. In the end peace is restored and Odysseus is known as a â€Å"king†. From the two