Recent orders
CVF and Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument
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.
Native American people who created a rich civilization and powerful empire in central and southern Mexico
Native American people who created a rich civilization and powerful empire in central and southern Mexico
The Aztecs are Native American people who created a rich civilization and powerful empire in central and southern Mexico from the 14th to the 16th century. They were one of the largest and most advanced Indian nations to ever exist on earth. The Aztecs life style was better than many Europeans of that time but they lacked the military technology of the Europeans. The Aztec nation is more unique in its history, economy, geography and way of life than any other nation at that time.
About three thousand years ago small bands of hunting and gathering tribes made their way across the land bridge and migrated southward through Canada and the United States. Eventually they settled in the valley of Mexico. For the next two thousand years the tribes of the valley constantly fought each other for the control of the land. It wasn’t until the eleventh century that the Aztec tribe began their migration in to the valley. They came from their mythical mysterious homeland Aztlan. The conflict in the Central Valley continued and the Aztecs were constantly at war with their neighbors. It seems at first that the other tribes in the area would defeat the Aztecs, but they would prevail and create one of the most powerful Indian tribes in the area.
By the 14th century the Aztec civilization flourished they began to construct several great cities in the valley of Mexico. In the days of the Aztec, the area was covered with a series of small lakes. This included lake Texcoco, which had an island in the center. The Aztecs built their greatest city on the island. It would become known as Tenochtitlan and would become their capital. Tenochtitlan was a pre-Columbian city in central Mexico and capital of the Aztecs. It lies on the site of present-day Mexico City. It was founded in 1325 originally on an island in what was Lake Texcoco. It became a flourishing city, protected against floods by well-built dams and connected with the mainland by three causeways. According to modern estimates it housed up 200,000,000 people, making it one of the most populous cities in the ancient world. The Spanish conqueror Hernen Cortes occupied the city in 1521 and razed it. Upon its ruins he founded Mexico City.
Aztec society was highly advanced, it relied on agriculture and religion to guide it. The Aztec worshipped gods that represented natural forces and were important to their agricultural economy. All Aztec cities had giant stone pyramids with pyramids on top where human sacrifices took place. Aztec art was an expression of religion and warfare. This increased the empire’s wealth and power. In Aztec mythology, several worlds are created and destroyed by the gods before the creation of the human world. Quetzalcoatl was thought to be the Aztec god and legendary ruler of Mexico. The Aztecs made him a symbol of death and resurrection and a patron of priests. Tezcatlipoca who was the god of the night sky opposed him and it was believed that he had driven Quetzalcoatl into exile. According to prophecy Quetzalcoatl would one day return. So when the Spanish conqueror Hernen Cortes appeared in 1519 the Aztec king Montezuma II thought he was Quetzalcoatl returning to his people. In 1519 Spanish explorer Hernan Cortes and 500 Spaniards landed in eastern Mexico. They were there in search of land and gold.
Cortes formed an alliance with the Tlaxcalans, which were an enemy of the Aztecs. Then he set out for Tenochtitlan. The Aztec ruler Montezuma allowed Cortes to enter the city in order to learn more about him and his intentions. Cortes found large amounts of gold and other treasure in the city. He feared that the Aztecs would attack his vastly outnumbered force. So he seized Montezuma as a hostage. The Spaniards melted down the gold ornaments of the Aztec for shipment to Spain and forced Montezuma to swear allegiance to the king of Spain. The Spaniards remained in the city for the next six months. Then the Spanish massacred 200 Aztec nobles who had gathered for a religious ceremony. The Aztec then rebelled trying to drive the Spaniards out of their city. The Spanish tried to escape through the water but three-fourths of them drowned because they were weighted down with stolen gold. Cortes retreated to regroup. He then attacked Tlaxcalans with greater numbers and eventually conquered the city. The Spaniards conquered the remaining Aztec peoples and took over their lands, forcing them to work in gold mines and on Spanish estates. The fall of Tenochtitlan marked the end of the Native American civilizations that had existed since the first human settlement of the region.
At the time of the Spanish conquest, the religion of the Aztecs was polytheistic, based on the worship of a multitude of personal gods, most of them with well-defined attributes. Nevertheless, magic and the idea of certain impersonal and occult forces played an important role among the people. There was, in addition, among the uneducated classes tendency to exaggerate polytheism by conceiving of as gods, also, what to the priests, were only manifestations or attributes of one god ( Caso, 1987 ).
Even though there was a magical and impersonal background in the religion of the Aztec people, as well as an exaggerated polytheism, there is also evidence to support that Aztec priests tried to reduce the multiple divinities to different aspects of the same god. When they adopted the gods of conquered peoples or received gods from peoples of more advanced cultures, the priests would always try to incorporate them, like the Romans, into their own national pantheon, by considering them as diverse manifestations of the gods they had inherited from the great civilizations which preceded them and from which they had derived their culture ( Leon-Portilla, 1970 ).
Although the Aztec priests tried to unite in a single concept the different gods of the different tribes the people as a whole would not admit that their local god was subject to any other or that he was only an attribute of a superior being. An exception to this generalized thought was Huitzilopochtli, the Aztecs’ own tribal god, and other deities associated with him in the national myths kept alive by Aztec pride. In later legends this god is associated with the creation of the world, occupying a space similar to that held by the traditional Toltec and Teotihuacan gods and by those gods worshiped by the people of the Valley of Mexico before the volcano Xitle covered their homes with lava, several centuries before Christ ( Caso, 1987).
However, a very ancient school of philosophy held that the origin of all things was a single dual principle, masculine and feminine, that had created the gods, the world, and man. Nezahualcoyotl, the king of Texcoco, already preferred to worship an invisible god that could no longer be represented. He was called Tloque Nahuaque, or Ipalnemohuani, “the god of the immediate vicinity, that one through whom all live,” who was placed above the heavens and in the highest realm and on whom all things depended. Even though this appears to be a monotheistic attitude it still acknowledged the existence and the worship of the other gods, it does indicate however, that in exceptional mentalities the philosophical desire for unity had already appeared and that men were seeking a single cause to explain all other causes, and a single god superior to all other gods ( Caso, 1987 ).
Therefore, when Nezahualcoyotl built a temple upon a pyramid of nine terraces representing the nine heavens, he did not place in the sanctuary that crowned the pyramid any image representing the god, since he could not be portrayed and must be conceived as pure idea. This single god of Nezahualcoyotl did not have much following, nor did he affect the religious life of the people. The gods of philosophers have never been popular, for they arise from the need of a logical explanation of the universe, while the common people require less abstract gods who will satisfy their sentimental need for love and protection ( Leon-Portilla, 1970 ).
On the ruins of Tenochtitlan, the Spaniards built Mexico City. The city’s present-day cathedral rises over the ruins of an Aztec temple, and the palace of the Mexican president stands on the site of the palace of Montezuma. About 80 percent of Mexico’s population is made up of mestizos who are the mixed race of Spaniards and natives. Indigenous peoples make up approximately 8 percent of the population. These people are mostly of Mayan and Aztecs decent. While Spanish people make up about 9 percent of the population. As most powerful and advanced nations and cultures of history the Aztec nation was defeated and simply faded away into poverty and despair. The Aztecs became powerful in their own part of the world but once outsiders with better weapons and no regard for their way of life came in to the Aztec world, their society fell almost immediately. Their Mythology also contributed to their defeat by helping mislead the Aztec king. Even though their grand empire is long gone the Aztecs still live together in peace with their former Spanish invaders.
Bibliography:
Nationalism and Liberalism in the 19th Century
Nationalism and Liberalism in the 19th Century
STUDENT’S NAME:
INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION:
COURSE:
PROFESSOR’S NAME:
JUNE 28, 2020
Nationalism and Liberalism in the 19th Century
Nationalism is an ideology in political philosophy which advocates for the promotion of the interests of a particular group of people with a shared cultural identity. Generally, it describes advocacy for self-determination in national independence movements as well as pride of the citizens of a nation for their nationhood. The term is derived from the concept of a nation, which refers to a shared cultural origin and identity. It also encompasses the sovereignty of a nation in exercising control over its national and international affairs. On the other hand, liberalism is a political ideology which is anchored on the concept of individual liberty. Liberty can be defined as simply freedom from any form of control whether from a government or any other quarters. In respect to governance, liberalism advocates for a government by the consent of the governed as well as equity in application of the law. Both of these philosophies were very popular in 19th century Europe. Nationalism was widely accepted amongst city-states whose citizens had shared cultural origins and traditions who collectively grouped themselves to form one nation as in the cases of Germany and Italy. Others such as the Polish nationalism were about breaking away from the control of Austria-Hungarian rule to form a nation of Polish people, although it did not succeed. Liberalism was majorly embraced in Britain, France and Spain where liberal groups advocated for a progressive system of governance, that is, constitutional and representative democracy to replace the monarchical systems that was in vogue.
Although distinct by definition, nationalism and liberalism had an agreement on the matter of statehood and sovereignty. Both had an underlying believe in the freedom of each group of a people to form their own nation and self-govern. However, the two groups in certain instances disagreed on the preferable form of government for the people. While liberalists advocated for democracy and limited government in order to safeguard individual liberty, nationalist preferred monarchy since the royalty was a representation of the nation’s cultural identity. For instance, the Liberal Party of Britain advocated for liberty of individuals which led to abolishment of slave trade. Similarly, the French government under Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte abolished feudalism in France and expanded political rights for its citizens.