The paper "The Impact of Managerial Behaviours on Corporate Culture" is a good example of a literature review on management. Organizational culture is an idea describing the psychology, experiences, attitudes, values (cultural and personal values), and organization beliefs. The culture of an organization has definitions derived on "normative glue" terms seen to organizations together. Culture hence entails the set of characteristics describing an organization hence differentiating from others (Schein, 2004). Other comprehensive versions, take culture to be behaviors and values taught to new members and believed to lead to success. Group or corporate culture change and evolve through time resulting from the dynamics of various contributing factors (Cummings & Worley, 2005).
On the contrary, the components and influencing factors of organizational culture are intertwined and complex. Therefore, the market and the management may be too slow in implementing evolutionary changes. The issue crops up in whether changes in group or organization can be managed. Organizational culture according to some researchers questions its manageability owing to the existence of countercultures or subcultures. They offer competing definitions of the nature of circumstances within organizational scope.
Ashforth and Mael (2006) note that no one authentically tends to dispute cultures as being incapable of new directions and absolutely inert. However, the degree of ease with which change can be managed and introduced is shrouded in controversy. The debate lingers on whether the famous texts simply relate to strategic structures and directions or whether they essentially relate to culture (Schein, 2004; Cummings & Worley, 2005). Many of the changes relate to improved entrepreneurship are championed and discussed as successful cultural changes. The adoption of financial discipline, market orientation, or a customer, or teamwork is important.
Superficial indicators of cultures as described. Hatch and Majken (2001) argue that such orientations would have been subsumed under umbrella terms like strategy or structure. Changes in norms that shape behavior and the underlying values are not likely to change. Companies witness behavioral compliance hence such orientations may be short-lived due to implied benefits of the adoption (Bennett, 2003). Culture cannot change unless they are confronted and brought to the surface since it operates as a set of implicit assumptions. Change comes by re-examining the assumptions employees hold and getting them to the surface (Henderson & Cote, 2003).
Manipulating and identifying culture-influencing factors is the role of management. This will motivate and potentially change employees to re-examine their own internal values and assumptions. Managers form the company culture hence their assumptions and own values need review. Overall, managerial activities instead of being dictators of change act as catalysts. Corporate Identity The corporate identity concept is akin to talking about our own identities. These are those specifics differentiating us from individuals. It is our character and personality sustaining our own individuality expressed through behavior, speech, and dress.
Similarly, a business differentiates through the image it portrays to the entire world by way of collateral such as business cards, brochures, and letterheads. The company's brand is physically expressed by extending the culture through behavior and communication style (Cummings & Worley, 2005). The Corporate Identity concept draws the attention of a company in the manner it perceives oneself. Identity can be misleading by sticking to rigid limits between management, shareholders, suppliers, and employees. With corporate identity, a company presents itself as an ideal entity.
However, this is consciously dealt with a thorough assessment of its own behavior. Companies perceive better by potentials and limits which are the basics of the corporate culture.
Alessandrini, S. W. (2001). Modeling corporate identity: A concept explication and theoretical explanation.Corporate Communications, 6(4): 173-183.
Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding Organizational Culture, Sage, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi.
Ashforth, B. & Mael, F. (2006), Social identity theory and the organization, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 20-39.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2001). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing-Seeing through the fog. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4): 248-270.
Bennett, N. (2003). Structure, culture and power in Organizations, in: Effective Educational Leadership. Ed.: Bennett N., Crawford, M. & Cartwright M. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Black, R.J. (2003). Organizational Culture: Creating the Influence Needed for Strategic Success, London UK
Christensen, L. Th. & Morsing, M. (2008). Bagom corporate communication. Frederiksberg. Samfundslitteratur.
Cummings, T.G. & Worley, C.G. (2005). Organization Development and Change, 8th Ed., Thomson South-Western, USA
Hatch, M. J. & Majken, S. (2001). Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31:356-365.
Hampden-Turner, C. (1994). Corporate culture. How to generate organizational strength and lasting commercial advantage. London: Piatkus. Henderson, P. W., & Cote, J. A. (2003). Building strong brands in Asia: Selecting the visual components of image to maximize brand strength. International Journal of Marketing Research, 20: 297-313.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Shelley L. B. (2005). Organizational Identity Orientation: Forging a Link between Organizational Identity and Organizations' Relations with Stakeholders, Administrative Science Quarterly Volume: 50, Issue: 4, Pages: 576-609. Stuart, H. & Muzzelec, L. (2004). Corporate makeovers: can hyena be rebranded? Journal of Brand Management, 11(6): 472-483.