Organizational Structure And Culture Assignment High School

Learning Objectives

  1. Explain the roles of formalization, centralization, levels in the hierarchy, and departmentalization in employee attitudes and behaviors.
  2. Describe how the elements of organizational structure can be combined to create mechanistic and organic structures.
  3. Understand the advantages and disadvantages of mechanistic and organic structures for organizations.

Organizational structure refers to how individual and team work within an organization are coordinated. To achieve organizational goals and objectives, individual work needs to be coordinated and managed. Structure is a valuable tool in achieving coordination, as it specifies reporting relationships (who reports to whom), delineates formal communication channels, and describes how separate actions of individuals are linked together. Organizations can function within a number of different structures, each possessing distinct advantages and disadvantages. Although any structure that is not properly managed will be plagued with issues, some organizational models are better equipped for particular environments and tasks.

Building Blocks of Structure

What exactly do we mean by organizational structure? Which elements of a company’s structure make a difference in how we behave and how work is coordinated? We will review four aspects of structure that have been frequently studied in the literature: centralization, formalization, hierarchical levels, and departmentalization. We view these four elements as the building blocks, or elements, making up a company’s structure. Then we will examine how these building blocks come together to form two different configurations of structures.

Centralization

Centralization is the degree to which decision-making authority is concentrated at higher levels in an organization. In centralized companies, many important decisions are made at higher levels of the hierarchy, whereas in decentralized companies, decisions are made and problems are solved at lower levels by employees who are closer to the problem in question.

As an employee, where would you feel more comfortable and productive? If your answer is “decentralized,” you are not alone. Decentralized companies give more authority to lower-level employees, resulting in a sense of empowerment. Decisions can be made more quickly, and employees often believe that decentralized companies provide greater levels of procedural fairness to employees. Job candidates are more likely to be attracted to decentralized organizations. Because centralized organizations assign decision-making responsibility to higher-level managers, they place greater demands on the judgment capabilities of CEOs and other high-level managers.

Many companies find that the centralization of operations leads to inefficiencies in decision making. For example, in the 1980s, the industrial equipment manufacturer Caterpillar suffered the consequences of centralized decision making. At the time, all pricing decisions were made in the corporate headquarters in Peoria, Illinois. This meant that when a sales representative working in Africa wanted to give a discount on a product, they needed to check with headquarters. Headquarters did not always have accurate or timely information about the subsidiary markets to make an effective decision. As a result, Caterpillar was at a disadvantage against competitors such as the Japanese firm Komatsu. Seeking to overcome this centralization paralysis, Caterpillar underwent several dramatic rounds of reorganization in the 1990s and 2000s (Nelson & Pasternack, 2005).

However, centralization also has its advantages. Some employees are more comfortable in an organization where their manager confidently gives instructions and makes decisions. Centralization may also lead to more efficient operations, particularly if the company is operating in a stable environment (Ambrose & Cropanzano, 2000; Miller, et. al., 1988; Oldham & Hackman, 1981; Pierce & Delbecq, 1977; Schminke, et. al., 2000; Turban & Keon, 1993; Wally & Baum, 1994).

In fact, organizations can suffer from extreme decentralization. For example, some analysts believe that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) experiences some problems because all its structure and systems are based on the assumption that crime needs to be investigated after it happens. Over time, this assumption led to a situation where, instead of following an overarching strategy, each FBI unit is completely decentralized and field agents determine how investigations should be pursued. It has been argued that due to the change in the nature of crimes, the FBI needs to gather accurate intelligence before a crime is committed; this requires more centralized decision making and strategy development (Brazil, 2007).

Hitting the right balance between decentralization and centralization is a challenge for many organizations. At the Home Depot, the retail giant with over 2,000 stores across the United States, Canada, Mexico, and China, one of the major changes instituted by former CEO Bob Nardelli was to centralize most of its operations. Before Nardelli’s arrival in 2000, Home Depot store managers made a number of decisions autonomously and each store had an entrepreneurial culture. Nardelli’s changes initially saved the company a lot of money. For example, for a company of that size, centralizing purchasing operations led to big cost savings because the company could negotiate important discounts from suppliers. At the same time, many analysts think that the centralization went too far, leading to the loss of the service-oriented culture at the stores. Nardelli was ousted after seven years (Charan, 2006; Marquez, 2007).

Figure 7.4

Changing their decision-making approach to a more decentralized style has helped Caterpillar compete at the global level.

Formalization

Formalization is the extent to which an organization’s policies, procedures, job descriptions, and rules are written and explicitly articulated. Formalized structures are those in which there are many written rules and regulations. These structures control employee behavior using written rules, so that employees have little autonomy to decide on a case-by-case basis. An advantage of formalization is that it makes employee behavior more predictable. Whenever a problem at work arises, employees know to turn to a handbook or a procedure guideline. Therefore, employees respond to problems in a similar way across the organization; this leads to consistency of behavior.

While formalization reduces ambiguity and provides direction to employees, it is not without disadvantages. A high degree of formalization may actually lead to reduced innovativeness because employees are used to behaving in a certain manner. In fact, strategic decision making in such organizations often occurs only when there is a crisis. A formalized structure is associated with reduced motivation and job satisfaction as well as a slower pace of decision making (Frederickson, 1986; Oldham & Hackman, 1981; Pierce & Delbecq, 1977; Wally & Baum, 1994). The service industry is particularly susceptible to problems associated with high levels of formalization. Sometimes employees who are listening to a customer’s problems may need to take action, but the answer may not be specified in any procedural guidelines or rulebook. For example, while a handful of airlines such as Southwest do a good job of empowering their employees to handle complaints, in many airlines, lower-level employees have limited power to resolve a customer problem and are constrained by stringent rules that outline a limited number of acceptable responses.

Hierarchical Levels

Another important element of a company’s structure is the number of levels it has in its hierarchy. Keeping the size of the organization constant, tall structures have several layers of management between frontline employees and the top level, while flat structures consist of only a few layers. In tall structures, the number of employees reporting to each manager tends to be smaller, resulting in greater opportunities for managers to supervise and monitor employee activities. In contrast, flat structures involve a larger number of employees reporting to each manager. In such a structure, managers will be relatively unable to provide close supervision, leading to greater levels of freedom of action for each employee.

Research indicates that flat organizations provide greater need satisfaction for employees and greater levels of self-actualization (Ghiselli & Johnson, 1970; Porter & Siegel, 2006). At the same time, there may be some challenges associated with flat structures. Research shows that when managers supervise a large number of employees, which is more likely to happen in flat structures, employees experience greater levels of role ambiguity—the confusion that results from being unsure of what is expected of a worker on the job (Chonko, 1982). This is especially a disadvantage for employees who need closer guidance from their managers. Moreover, in a flat structure, advancement opportunities will be more limited because there are fewer management layers. Finally, while employees report that flat structures are better at satisfying their higher-order needs such as self-actualization, they also report that tall structures are better at satisfying security needs of employees (Porter & Lawler, 1964). Because tall structures are typical of large and well-established companies, it is possible that when working in such organizations employees feel a greater sense of job security.

Figure 7.5

Companies such as IKEA, the Swedish furniture manufacturer and retailer, are successfully using flat structures within stores to build an employee attitude of job involvement and ownership.

Departmentalization

Organizational structures differ in terms of departmentalization, which is broadly categorized as either functional or divisional.

Organizations using functional structures group jobs based on similarity in functions. Such structures may have departments such as marketing, manufacturing, finance, accounting, human resources, and information technology. In these structures, each person serves a specialized role and handles large volumes of transactions. For example, in a functional structure, an employee in the marketing department may serve as an event planner, planning promotional events for all the products of the company.

In organizations using divisional structures, departments represent the unique products, services, customers, or geographic locations the company is serving. Thus each unique product or service the company is producing will have its own department. Within each department, functions such as marketing, manufacturing, and other roles are replicated. In these structures, employees act like generalists as opposed to specialists. Instead of performing specialized tasks, employees will be in charge of performing many different tasks in the service of the product. For example, a marketing employee in a company with a divisional structure may be in charge of planning promotions, coordinating relations with advertising agencies, and planning and conducting marketing research, all for the particular product line handled by his or her division.

In reality, many organizations are structured according to a mixture of functional and divisional forms. For example, if the company has multiple product lines, departmentalizing by product may increase innovativeness and reduce response times. Each of these departments may have dedicated marketing, manufacturing, and customer service employees serving the specific product; yet, the company may also find that centralizing some operations and retaining the functional structure makes sense and is more cost effective for roles such as human resources management and information technology. The same organization may also create geographic departments if it is serving different countries.

Each type of departmentalization has its advantages. Functional structures tend to be effective when an organization does not have a large number of products and services requiring special attention. When a company has a diverse product line, each product will have unique demands, deeming divisional (or product-specific) structures more useful for promptly addressing customer demands and anticipating market changes. Functional structures are more effective in stable environments that are slower to change. In contrast, organizations using product divisions are more agile and can perform better in turbulent environments. The type of employee who will succeed under each structure is also different. Research shows that when employees work in product divisions in turbulent environments, because activities are diverse and complex, their performance depends on their general mental abilities (Hollenbeck, et. al., 2002).

Figure 7.6 An Example of a Pharmaceutical Company with a Functional Departmentalization Structure

Figure 7.7 An Example of a Pharmaceutical Company with a Divisional Departmentalization Structure

Two Configurations: Mechanistic and Organic Structures

The different elements making up organizational structures in the form of formalization, centralization, number of levels in the hierarchy, and departmentalization often coexist. As a result, we can talk about two configurations of organizational structures, depending on how these elements are arranged.

Mechanistic structures are those that resemble a bureaucracy. These structures are highly formalized and centralized. Communication tends to follow formal channels and employees are given specific job descriptions delineating their roles and responsibilities. Mechanistic organizations are often rigid and resist change, making them unsuitable for innovativeness and taking quick action. These forms have the downside of inhibiting entrepreneurial action and discouraging the use of individual initiative on the part of employees. Not only do mechanistic structures have disadvantages for innovativeness, but they also limit individual autonomy and self-determination, which will likely lead to lower levels of intrinsic motivation on the job (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Covin & Slevin, 1988; Schollhammer, 1982; Sherman & Smith, 1984; Slevin & Covin, 1990).

Despite these downsides, however, mechanistic structures have advantages when the environment is more stable. The main advantage of a mechanistic structure is its efficiency. Therefore, in organizations that are trying to maximize efficiency and minimize costs, mechanistic structures provide advantages. For example, McDonald’s has a famously bureaucratic structure where employee jobs are highly formalized, with clear lines of communication and specific job descriptions. This structure is an advantage for them because it allows McDonald’s to produce a uniform product around the world at minimum cost. Mechanistic structures can also be advantageous when a company is new. New businesses often suffer from a lack of structure, role ambiguity, and uncertainty. The presence of a mechanistic structure has been shown to be related to firm performance in new ventures (Sine & Kirsch, 2006).

In contrast to mechanistic structures, organic structures are flexible and decentralized, with low levels of formalization. In Organizations with an organic structure, communication lines are more fluid and flexible. Employee job descriptions are broader and employees are asked to perform duties based on the specific needs of the organization at the time as well as their own expertise levels. Organic structures tend to be related to higher levels of job satisfaction on the part of employees. These structures are conducive to entrepreneurial behavior and innovativeness (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Covin & Slevin, 1988). An example of a company that has an organic structure is the diversified technology company 3M. The company is strongly committed to decentralization. At 3M, there are close to 100 profit centers, with each division feeling like a small company. Each division manager acts autonomously and is accountable for his or her actions. As operations within each division get too big and a product created by a division becomes profitable, the operation is spun off to create a separate business unit. This is done to protect the agility of the company and the small-company atmosphere.

Key Takeaway

The degree to which a company is centralized and formalized, the number of levels in the company hierarchy, and the type of departmentalization the company uses are key elements of a company’s structure. These elements of structure affect the degree to which the company is effective and innovative as well as employee attitudes and behaviors at work. These elements come together to create mechanistic and organic structures. Mechanistic structures are rigid and bureaucratic and help companies achieve efficiency, while organic structures are decentralized, flexible, and aid companies in achieving innovativeness.

Exercises

  1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of decentralization?
  2. All else being equal, would you prefer to work in a tall or flat organization? Why?
  3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of departmentalization by product?

References

Ambrose, M. L., & Cropanzano, R. S. (2000). The effect of organizational structure on perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 294–304.

Brazil, J. J. (2007, April). Mission: Impossible? Fast Company, 114, 92–109.

Burns, T., & Stalker, M. G. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.

Charan, R. (2006, April). Home Depot’s blueprint for culture change. Harvard Business Review, 84(4), 60–70.

Chonko, L. B. (1982). The relationship of span of control to sales representatives’ experienced role conflict and role ambiguity. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 452–456.

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1988) The influence of organizational structure. Journal of Management Studies, 25, 217–234.

Fredrickson, J. W. (1986). The strategic decision process and organizational structure. Academy of Management Review, 11, 280–297.

Ghiselli, E. E., & Johnson, D. A. (1970). Need satisfaction, managerial success, and organizational structure. Personnel Psychology, 23, 569–576.

Hollenbeck, J. R., Moon, H., Ellis, A. P. J., West, B. J., Ilgen, D. R., et al. (2002). Structural contingency theory and individual differences: Examination of external and internal person-team fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 599–606.

Marquez, J. (2007, January 15). Big bucks at door for Depot HR leader. Workforce Management, 86(1).

Miller, D., Droge, C., & Toulouse, J. (1988). Strategic process and content as mediators between organizational context and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 544–569.

Nelson, G. L., & Pasternack, B. A. (2005). Results: Keep what’s good, fix what’s wrong, and unlock great performance. New York: Crown Business.

Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, R. J. (1981). Relationships between organizational structure and employee reactions: Comparing alternative frameworks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 66–83.

Pierce, J. L., & Delbecq, A. L. (1977). Organization structure, individual attitudes, and innovation. Academy of Management Review, 2, 27–37.

Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1964). The effects of tall versus flat organization structures on managerial job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 17, 135–148.

Porter, L. W., & Siegel, J. (2006). Relationships of tall and flat organization structures to the satisfactions of foreign managers. Personnel Psychology, 18, 379–392.

Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Cropanzano, R. S. (2000). The effect of organizational structure on perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 294–304.

Schollhammer, H. (1982). Internal corporate entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Sherman, J. D., & Smith, H. L. (1984). The influence of organizational structure on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 877–885.

Sine, W. D., Mitsuhashi, H., & Kirsch, D. A. (2006). Revisiting Burns and Stalker: Formal structure and new venture performance in emerging economic sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 121–132.

Slevin, D. P. (1988). The influence of organizational structure. Journal of Management Studies. 25, 217–234.

Slevin, D. P., & Covin, J. G. (1990). Juggling entrepreneurial style and organizational structure—how to get your act together. Sloan Management Review, 31(2), 43–53.

Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 184–193.

Wally, S., & Baum, J. R. (1994). Personal and structural determinants of the pace of strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 932–956.

Wally, S., & Baum, R. J. (1994). Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1107–1129.

This is a derivative of Principles of Management by a publisher who has requested that they and the original authors not receive attribution, originally released and is used under CC BY-NC-SA. This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Background

Organizational culture refers to the beliefs and values that have existed in an organization for a long time, and to the beliefs of the staff and the foreseen value of their work that will influence their attitudes and behavior. Administrators usually adjust their leadership behavior to accomplish the mission of the organization, and this could influence the employees' job satisfaction. It is therefore essential to understand the relationship between organizational culture, leadership behavior and job satisfaction of employees.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was undertaken that focused on hospital nurses in Taiwan. Data was collected using a structured questionnaire; 300 questionnaires were distributed and 200 valid questionnaires were returned. To test the reliability of the data, they were analyzed by Cronbach's α and confirmatory factors. Correlation analysis was used on the relationships between organizational cultures, leadership behavior and job satisfaction.

Results

Organizational cultures were significantly (positively) correlated with leadership behavior and job satisfaction, and leadership behavior was significantly (positively) correlated with job satisfaction.

Conclusions

The culture within an organization is very important, playing a large role in whether it is a happy and healthy environment in which to work. In communicating and promoting the organizational ethos to employees, their acknowledgement and acceptance of it can influence their work behavior and attitudes. When the interaction between the leadership and employees is good, the latter will make a greater contribution to team communication and collaboration, and will also be encouraged to accomplish the mission and objectives assigned by the organization, thereby enhancing job satisfaction.

Background

Organizational culture is described by Robbins & Coulter [1] as the shared values, beliefs, or perceptions held by employees within an organization or organizational unit. Because organizational culture reflects the values, beliefs and behavioral norms that are used by employees in an organization to give meaning to the situations that they encounter, it can influence the attitudes and behavior of the staff [2]. Understanding the organization's core values can prevent possible internal conflict [3], which is the main reason for our research into these cultural issues.

In other management fields, empirical research of organizational culture has involved the functionalist perspective, providing impressive evidence of the role of organizational culture in improving performance [4]. The pervasiveness of an organizational culture requires that management recognize its underpinning dimensions and its impact on employee-related variables, such as job satisfaction [5], organizational commitment [6], and performance [7]. Lund [5] believed that less research was done on the relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction within the research topic of organizational culture and outcome. The organization consists of the staff, with the behavior of its individual members affecting outcomes. Since cultural research within the nursing field is not common [8], it is necessary to explore the way the culture influences the behavior of the nursing staff, and in turn how the behavior of the staff influences the organizational outcome.

A two-dimensional model of leadership that focuses on the concern for people and production has been used for many years in organizational research [9]. In the late 1970s, leadership research started focusing on behavior within organizational change and development [10]. Leadership implies authority in the broadest sense of the word and not simply the power to wield the stick [11]. It is based on objective factors, such as managerial ability, and more subjective characteristics that include personal qualities of the leaders. The factors are of even greater importance given the current emerging culture of the nurse who has a clear and assertive vision about the nature of clinical practice [12].

Currently, there is a shortage of nurses in clinical care, and good leaders can help any attrition. Furthermore, the leadership skills of nurse administrators can contribute to the success of their organization [13]. Leadership is of increasing importance in clinical nursing [14]. Although leadership and organizational culture constructs have been well studied, the relationship between them has not been established in the field of nursing [6]. This study explores the relationship between organizational culture and leadership behavior.

Berson & Linton [15] discovered that within the research & development (R&D) and administrative environments, leadership behavior of a manager is closely related to work satisfaction of the employees. Nielsen et al. [16] have stated that leadership behavior and job satisfaction will depend on the organizational context; therefore another objective of this research was to understand how the leadership behavior of the administrator in different organizational cultures affects job satisfaction. Casida & Pinto-Zipp [17] explored how nurses felt about the relationship between leadership and organizational culture, and found them to be correlated. Although the data indicated that the development of an organizational culture is related to the behavior of its leaders, the results failed conclude whether this affected their attitudes or behavior as employees. From the nursing administration perspective, the normal course of action taken to influence employee behavior and achieve the objectives set by the administrators comes through administrative management. Therefore, as well as discussing the relationship between leadership behavior and organizational culture, this research will investigate the effect of leader behavior and organizational culture towards employee job satisfaction. The findings clearly show that hospital administrators should be concerned about the effects of leadership behavior and organizational culture on the attitude towards work of their employees. This should help administrators alter their behavior in order to maintain a good mutual relationship with their subordinates, improving their working attitude and, more importantly, reducing potential conflicts.

Relationship between organizational culture and leadership behavior

Culture is socially learned and transmitted by members; it provides the rules for behavior within organizations [18]. The definition of organizational culture is of the belief that can guide staff in knowing what to do and what not to do, including practices, values, and assumptions about their work [19]. The core values of an organization begin with its leadership, which will then evolve to a leadership style. Subordinates will be led by these values and the behavior of leaders, such that the behavior of both parties should become increasingly in line. When strong unified behavior, values and beliefs have been developed, a strong organizational culture emerges. Leaders have to appreciate their function in maintaining an organization's culture. This would in return ensure consistent behavior between members of the organization, reducing conflicts and creating a healthy working environment for employees [20].

Hypothesis 1- Organizational culture is positively correlated with leadership behavior.

Relationship between leadership behavior and job satisfaction

Job satisfaction has been associated with nurses who perceive their managers as supportive and caring. A supportive manager shares values, believes in a balance of power, and provides opportunities for open dialogue with nurses [21], which in turn reduces the chances of internal conflicts. This type of leader is successful in his or her role and is supportive and responsive to clinical nurses, thereby preserving power and status within the hospital system. Such leaders are valued throughout the organization and have executive power to do what they see as necessary to create a positive environment for nursing [22]. Accordingly, they have a measurable effect on the morale and job satisfaction of nurses [23].

Hypothesis 2 - Leadership behavior is positively correlated with job satisfaction.

Relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction

Organizational culture expresses shared assumptions, values and beliefs, and is the social glue holding an organization together [24]. A strong culture is a system of rules that spells out how people should behave [25]. An organization with a strong culture has common values and codes of conduct for its employees, which should help them accomplish their missions and goals. Work recognition and job satisfaction can be achieved when employees can complete the tasks assigned to them by the organization.

Hypothesis 3 -.Organizational culture is positively correlated with job satisfaction.

The measurement of organizational culture, leadership behavior and job satisfaction

A structured questionnaire was compiled based on similar studies published in international journals [26,27]. Twenty-three factors regarding organizational culture were taken from Tsui et al. [26], a study based on two groups of MBA students from two universities in Beijing, China. Our research was focused on clinical nurses in hospitals; therefore, refinements were made to the questionnaire designed by Tsui et al. [26] to cater for our particular research objective. The study invited three directors or supervisors from the medical center to validate the questionnaire. Lastly, there were 22 questions in the organizational culture section.

Thirty items regarding leadership behavior were taken from Strange & Mumford [27], and the questions structured using this literature. However, the proposed test was not empirically studied. Nurses from hospital A were used as a pilot study sample. Four question items were deleted to improve the validity of the questionnaire: "People will have an extreme reaction to the leader"; "Followers will sacrifice themselves for the leader and/or the leader's vision"; "The leader is motivated by the accomplishment of his vision"; and "The leader will take into account the needs of the organization in his decision making."

Vroom [28] classified job satisfaction into 7 dimensions: organizational, promotion, job content, superior, reward, working environment and working partners. We took into consideration that nurses' salary increases are based on promotion. Furthermore, a large number of variables in organization culture and leadership behavior were covered by this research. To prevent too few number nurses from responding to the questionnaires, we asked only 4 job satisfaction dimensions out of a total of 12 items: job recognition, reward and welfare, superior and working partners.

Methods

Study Design

A cross-sectional study was conducted in two hospitals in Central Taiwan.

Data Source and Analysis

We employed self-administered questionnaires to collect research data. Data was collected between October 1 and November 30, 2008. We selected 2 hospitals as our sample target and appointed a designated person at each to issue questionnaires to employees. The number of questionnaires issued depended on the designated person. The questionnaires were completed voluntarily by all respondents. During the research period, there were 325 nurses in hospital A; 100 questionnaires were distributed, and 57 valid questionnaires were returned. In hospital B there were a total of 572 nurses; 200 questionnaires were distributed, and 143 valid questionnaires were returned (total return rate 66.7%).

Of the subjects, 99.5% were female, 83.5% single or never married, 35.5% had a tenure at the hospital of 1-2 years, and 45.0% had had a college-level education. The majority of employees at the hospitals were general nurses (89.5%), and the average age was between 21 and 30 years (82.5%)(see Table ​1).

All data were analyzed using the SPSS 17.0 software package. Cronbach's α coefficient was used to assessed the internal consistency reliability of scales. To explore the factor construct of scale, a series of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were employed. Correlation analysis was used to test for the relationships among subscales of organizational culture, leadership behavior and job satisfaction scale. Finally, a series of regression analysis were used to identify the proposed hypotheses. For H1 and H3, two sets of simple linear regression were used to assess the association between independent variable and dependent variable. For H2, hierarchical regression analysis was used to assess the independent association between leadership behavior and job satisfaction after controlling for the effect of organizational culture. Partial R2 R2), F test and standardized regression coefficient (β) and their test statistics (t value) were reported in all regression analysis.

Measurement

Given the latent character of the variables considered in the study, we used multi-item, 5-point Likert-type scales (1='strongly disagree' and 5='strongly agree'). After reliability analysis, the Cronbach's α of the organizational culture scale was 0.958 (22 items). The Cronbach's α of the leadership behavior scale was 0.966 (26 items), and for job satisfaction 0.855 (12 items).

The questionnaires used exploratory factor analysis. We extracted 4 factors from the organizational culture via principal component analysis, used the Varimax of the rotation method, and named them: employee orientation, customer focus, emphasizing responsibility, and emphasizing cooperation. We extracted 4 factors from leadership behavior and named them: leader's encouragement and supportiveness to subordinates, leader giving subordinates a clear vision and trust, leader's behavior is consistent with organization's vision, and leader is persuasive in convincing subordinates to acknowledge the vision. We extracted factors for job satisfaction and called them: working partners, rewards and welfare, superior and job recognition.

Results

Descriptive statistics

The average score for organizational culture was between 3.73 and 3.19, but the highest score was 3.73: "satisfying the need of customers at the largest scale." The second highest score was 3.68: "the profit of the customer is emphasized extremely." The lowest score was 3.19: "concern for the individual development of employees" (see Table ​2).

Table 2

Mean and Standard Division and the Factor Analysis of Organizational Culture, Leadership Behavior and Job Satisfaction

The average score for leadership behavior was between 3.77 and 3.42, where 2 items scored the highest score at 3.77: "the leader will act accordingly with a certain 'vision' that specifies a better future state", and "the leader will behaviorally role model the values implied by the vision by personal example". The second highest score was 3.69: "the leader will use positive rewards and reinforcement with his followers." The lowest score was 3.42: "the leader will try to persuade those who disagree with his vision to agree with it" (see Table ​2).

The average score for job satisfaction was between 3.84 and 2.56, where the highest score was 3.84: "to certain people my work is extremely important." The second highest score was "I am satisfied with how colleagues communicate with each other in the office." The lowest score was 2.56: "I am satisfied with my salary as I have less workload compared to other employees in other divisions" (see Table ​2).

Inferential statistical analysis

In relation to the 4 dimensions of organizational culture (employee orientation, customer focus, emphasizing responsibility, and emphasizing cooperation), the 4 dimensions of leadership behavior (leader's encouragement and support to subordinates, leader giving subordinates her/his clear vision, leader's behavior is consistent with the her/his vision and leader is persuasive in convincing subordinates to acknowledge the her/his vision), and the 4 dimensions of job satisfaction (working partners, rewards and welfare, superior and job recognition), variable analysis was carried out. The results of the analysis showed that only 2 dimensions from "leader giving subordinates her/his clear vision" and "behavior consistent with her/his vision" and "reward and welfare" under the job satisfaction were not significantly correlated, whereas the other dimensions showed significant correlation. The results also showed that organizational culture, leadership behavior and job satisfaction were positively associated with hypotheses one to three, which were supported (see Table ​3).

Table 3

Correlation Analysis among Organizational Culture, Leadership Behavior and Job Satisfaction

Table ​4 presents the results of several regression analyses. H1 was supported, as organizational culture was positively associated with leadership behavior (β = .55, p < .001). H3 was also supported as organizational culture was positively related to job satisfaction (β = .66, p < .001). Finally, H2 was supported as the partial regression coefficient of leadership behavior reached statistically significant (β = .33, p < .001) after controlling the effect of organizational culture. The unique variance explained attributable to leadership behavior was 8% (ΔF = 30.58, p<.001) independent of organizational culture (see Table ​4). The association among there three main variables was illustrated as Figure ​1.

Table 4

The Linear Regression of Organizational Culture, Leadership Behavior and Job Satisfaction

Figure 1

The association between organizational culture, leadership behavior and job satisfaction. (The values shown were standardized regression coefficient and value in parenthesis was partially standardized regression coefficient)

Discussion

Casida & Pinto-Zipp [17] studied nurses in determining the relationship between different leadership styles and organizational cultures, and showed a correlation between leadership and organizational culture, consistent with the findings of our research. However, by adopting regression analysis, we also found that leadership behavior impacts on organizational culture.

Laschinger et al. [29] proposed that the variables strongly correlated with job satisfaction included role conflict, head nurse leadership, supervisory relationships, autonomy, and stress. Mayo [30] argued that the key determinant of job satisfaction was group interaction, and highlighted the importance of good leadership and satisfying personal relations in the workplace. Management and leadership behavior at the hospital affected nurses' job satisfaction [31]. The research also discovered that leadership behavior will also influence employee job satisfaction. As well as the above-described individual factors, the research also showed that factors at the organization level, such as the organizational culture, also have an effect on job satisfaction. This result is consistent with the results of Gifford et al. [32]. It is recommended that it is also important for hospital administrators to establish a good organizational infrastructure in addition to improving the working environment in order to increase employee job satisfaction.

Decisions about patient care are often made by a team, rather than by a single individual [33]. To maintain open communication and better coordination, as well as avoiding possible conflicts, one must rely on the role of leaders to motivate the team to achieve the organization goal. It was found that encouragement and support by leaders, their trust and clear vision, their consistent behavior in this regard and their ability to convince subordinates to acknowledge their vision, can all influence employee job satisfaction. On the other hand, we found that the factors in achieving job satisfaction were not limited to the employee's working environment, but also included interactions between working partners. Good health care requires good team behavior, so it is also recommended that hospital administrators not only establish relationships within the health care teams, but also work to improve these relationships to increase employee job satisfaction.

Academics who study organizational culture as their research topic feel that organizational culture is complex. It will influence different employee attitudes and behavior [34]; for example Jacobs & Roodt [35] discovered a correlation between employee turnover intentions, knowledge sharing organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, job satisfaction and organizational culture. Other academics have found that organizational culture is also related to organization or employee efficiency. Good examples are an organization's innovative ability [36], employee effectiveness (e.g. higher levels of goal orientation, self control) [37]. Kane-Urrabazo [20] believed that a satisfactory work environment can be created by the employees when an organisation possesses a healthy culture and thus has a positive attitude towards employee work. Therefore the relationship between organisational culture and employee behaviour/attitude has been emphasised by different academics from various fields [26]. Jacobs & Roodt [35] showed a positive correlation between organisational culture and employee job satisfaction that is consistent with the findings of our research.

Research limitations and future research

Since a wide range of variables were included in our study, only a limited number of clinical nurses were interested in participating. Furthermore, only 2 hospitals were involved in this research; therefore, it is proposed that in view of the response rate, future research should consider adjusting the research variables.

Organizations face challenges in the external environment and changing internal context, and leaders will alter their behavior to adapt to these environment changes. Therefore it is proposed that longitudinal research methods can be adopted in future investigations into how changes in organizational context impact on leadership behavior. Will these changes create a brand new organization culture? And how will these changes in leadership behavior influence employee behavior and their contribution to the organization?

Administrators usually adjust their leadership behavior in order to reach the organizational goal. It is proposed that future research can explore the type of leadership behavior that will shape a particular culture within an organization. Thus, administrators can achieve the objective of shaping a new organization culture by adopting different leadership behavior training programs.

Conclusion

Culture within an organization is very important, playing a large role in whether or not the organization is a happy and healthy place to work [20]. Through communicating and promoting the organizational vision to subordinates, and in getting their acknowledgement of the vision, it is possible to influence their work behavior and attitudes. When there is good interaction between the leader and subordinates, there will be contributions to team communication and collaboration, and encouragement of subordinates to accomplish the mission and objectives assigned by the organization, which in turn enhances job satisfaction.

References

  • Robbins Stephen P, Coulter M. Management. 8. Pearson Prentice Hall; 2005.
  • Scott-Findlay Shannon, Estabrooks Carole A. Mapping the organizational culture research in nursing. In: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2006;56(5):498–513. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04044.x.[PubMed][Cross Ref]
  • Watson Bill, Clarke Charlotte, Swallow Vera, Forster Stewart. Exploratory factor analysis of the research and development culture index among qualified nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2005;14:1042–1047. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01214.x.[PubMed][Cross Ref]
  • Denison DR, Mishra AK. Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science. 1995;6:204–223. doi: 10.1287/orsc.6.2.204.[Cross Ref]
  • Lund Daulatram B. Organizational culture and job satisfaction. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. 2003;18(3):219–236. doi: 10.1108/0885862031047313.[Cross Ref]
  • Casida Jesus, Pinto-Zipp Genevieve. Leadership-organizational culture relationship in nursing units of acute care hospitals. Nursing Economic. 2008;26(1):7–15.[PubMed]
  • Denison DR, Haaland S, Goelzer P. Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness: Is Asia different form the rest of the world? Organizational Dynamics. 2004;33(1):98–109. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2003.11.008.[Cross Ref]
  • Cooke A, Green B. Developing the research capacity of departments of nursing and midwifery based in higher education: A review of the literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2000;32:57–65. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01447.x.[PubMed][Cross Ref]
  • Blake RR, Mouton JS. Theory and research for developing a science of leadership. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science. 1982;18(3):275–291. doi: 10.1177/002188638201800304.[Cross Ref]
  • Anders Skogstad, Einarsen Stasle. The importance of a change-centred leadershipstyle in four organizational cultures. Scandinavian Journal of Management. 1999;15:289–306. doi: 10.1016/S0956-5221(98)00028-1.[Cross Ref]
  • Lorentzon M. Authority, leadership and management in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1992;17:525–527. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1992.tb02826.x.[PubMed][Cross Ref]
  • Brendan McCormack, Hopkins Eileen. The development of clinical leadership through supported reflective practice. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 1995;4:161–168.[PubMed]
  • Perra, Barbara Murdoch. Leadership: The key to quality outcomes. Journal of Nursing Care Quality. 2001;15(2):68–73. doi: 10.1097/00001786-200115020-00008.[Cross Ref]
  • Sandra Swearingen. A journey to leadership: Designing a nursing leadership development program. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 2009;40(3):107–112. doi: 10.3928/00220124-20090301-02.[PubMed][Cross Ref]
  • Berson Y, Linton J. An examination of the relationships between leadership behavior, and employee satisfaction in R & D versus administrative environments. R & D Management. 2005;35:51–60.
  • Karina Nielsen, Yarker Joanna, Brenner Sten-Olof, Randall Raymond, Borg Vilhelm. The importance of transformational leadership style for the well-being of employees working with older people. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2008;63(5):465–475.[PubMed]
  • Jesus Casida, Pinto-Zipp Genevieve. Leadership-organizational culture relationship in Nursing units of acute care hospitals. Nursing Economic. 2008;26(1):7–15.[PubMed]
  • Jen-Te Yang. Knowledge sharing: Investigating appropriate leadership roles and collaborative culture. Tourism Management. 2007;28:530–543. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2006.08.006.[Cross Ref]
  • Staniland M. What Is Political Economy? A Study of Social Theory and Underdevelopment. Yale University Press; 1985.
  • Christine Kane-Urrabazo. Management's role in shaping organizational culture. Journal of Nursing Management. 2006;14:188–194. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2934.2006.00590.x.[PubMed][Cross Ref]
  • Wade GH, Osgood B, Avino K, Bucher G, Bucher L, Foraker T, French D, Sirkowski C. Influence of organizational characteristics and caring attributes of managers on nurses' job enjoyment. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2008;64(4):344–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04775.x.[PubMed][Cross Ref]
  • Sullivan-Havens D, Aiken LH. Shaping systems to promote desired outcomes: The magnet hospital. Journal of Nursing Administration. 1999;29:14–19.[PubMed]
  • Upenieks Valda. Nurse leaders' perceptions of what compromises successful leadership in today's acute inpatient environment. Nursing Administration Quarterly. 2003;27(2):140–152.[PubMed]
  • Trevino LK, Nelson KA. Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right. 2. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY; 1999.
  • Deal TE, Kennedy AA. Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA, USA; 2000.
  • Tsui Anne S, Zhang Zhi-Xue, Wang Hui, Xin Katherine R, Wu Joshua B. Unpacking the relationship between CEO leadership behavior and organizational culture. Leadership Quarterly. 2006;17:113–137. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.12.001.[Cross Ref]
  • Strange Jill M, Mumford Michael D. The origins of vision charismatic versus ideological leadership. Leadership Quarterly. 2002;13:343–377. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00125-X.[Cross Ref]
  • Vroom VH. Ego involvement, job satisfaction, and job performance. Personnel Psychology. 1962;15:159–177. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1962.tb01858.x.[Cross Ref]
  • Laschinger Heather K Spence, Shamian Judith, Thomson Donna. Impact of magnet hospital characteristics on nurses' perceptions of trust, burnout, quality of care, and work satisfaction. Nursing Economic. 2001;19(5):209–219.
  • Mayo E. The social problems of an industrial civilization. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University; 1945.
  • Elizabeth J, Ann E. The changing nature of nurses' job satisfaction: an exploration of sources of satisfaction in the 1990s. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1999;30(1):150–158. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.01059.x.[PubMed][Cross Ref]
  • Gifford Blair D, Zammuto Raymond F, Goodman Eric A. The relationship between hospital unit culture and nurses' quality of work life. Journal of Healthcare Management. 2002;47(1):13–25.[PubMed]
  • Nancarrow Susan. The impact of intermediate care services on job satisfaction, skills and career development opportunities. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2007;16:1222–1229. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.01355.x.[PubMed][Cross Ref]
  • Van Der Post WZ, De Coning TJ, Smit EV. An instrument to measure organizational culture. South African Journal of Business Management. 1997;28(4):147–168.
  • Jacobs E, Roodt G. Organizational culture of hospitals to predict turnover intentions of professional nurses. Health SA Gesondheid. 2008;13(1):63–78.
  • Funk SG, Champagne MT, Wises RA, Tornquist EM. BARRIERS-the barriers to research utilization scale. Applied Nursing Research. 1991;4:39–45. doi: 10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80052-7.[PubMed][Cross Ref]
  • Schneider WE. Productivity improvement through cultural focus. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. 1995;47(1):3–27.

0 thoughts on “Organizational Structure And Culture Assignment High School

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *