Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness:Is Asia Different From the Rest of the World?
DANIEL R. DENISON STEPHANIE HAALAND PAULO GOELZER
留學生畢業(yè)dissertationOne of the most difficult challenges forthe field of international managementis the application of theories and modelsdeveloped in one part of the world to understandphenomena that occur in another partof the world. Much of the early concern aboutthis issue concentrated on the relevance ofAmerican theories abroad. But more recently,the same problemhas been faced by Japanesetheories of quality control and knowledgecreation; or by European theories of jointventures or organizational design. The goalof these efforts is to develop a useful generalframe of reference, but also allow for theneeded sensitivity to local variation.Some of the biggest challenges for developingtheories with cross-cultural relevancecome in the area of organizational studies.
Differences in behavior, work values, andculture have been studied by many researchersinmany different countries. Several frameworkshave proven useful for understandingcultural differences (e.g., Trompenaars andHofstede) and have helped to establish somerelatively universal dimensions (e.g., individualism,power distance) that can be useful inunderstanding differences across nationalcultures. But few researchers have attemptedto understand the impacts these behavioraldifferences have in different national contexts.
The logic of cross-cultural comparisonand validation has been discussed at lengthby several authors. In most areas of the literature,however, the biggest challenge is the
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 98–109, 2004 ISSN 0090-2616/$ – see frontmatter
R E S E A R C H I N A C T I O N
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the International Institute for ManagementDevelopment for their support of this research. In addition, we are grateful for the involvement
of all the managers and executives who participated in this study.98 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICSalmost total absence of comparative data.Our literature review found very few studiesthat offered a comparison of the effectivenessof organizations across several countries thatcould be linked to differences in organizationalculture, work values, and behavior.The evidence global leaders need in order
to understand the impact of the organizationalcultures they are creating is usuallyunavailable.
This paper takes a bold but riskyapproach to these challenges by examiningthe link between organizational culture andeffectiveness with two separate studies. Thefirst study examines this link with data from230 organizations in Europe, North Americaor Asia, and reveals a surprising level ofsimilarity in the results across these regions.The second study examines the same topicusing data from 218 organizations fromseven countries: Canada, Australia, Brazil,U.S.A., Japan, Jamaica, and South Africa.
The second study focuses on samples ofsupermarkets that were part of an independentcooperative operating in a similar fashionin each country. The results show a highlevel of similarity in five of the countries, buta divergent pattern of findings from Japanand Jamaica. These two studies constitute apreliminary and exploratory step rather thana comprehensive study, but they do illustrate#p#分頁標題#e#
that a general theory about organizationalculture can be applied in multiple contexts,with results that highlight both similaritiesand differences across regions.
The paper begins by describing a modelof organizational culture used in this studyand discusses some of the research, conductedprimarily in the U.S.A., that hasestablished a link between culture and effectiveness.We then pose several generalresearch questions that guided our study.After that, we describe our samples, the datacollection and analysis strategies, and reportour results for both of the studies. Our discussionat the end of this paper summarizesour findings, reflects upon their implicationfor cross-national research and then considerssome of the approaches that might facilitatefuture research in this area.
CORPORATE CULTURE AND
ORGANIZATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS
A number of scholars have developed integrativeframeworks of organizational culture,but little consensus exists with regardto a general theory. Since culture is a complexphenomenon ranging fromunderlying beliefsand assumptions to visible structures andpractices, healthy skepticism also exists asto whether organizational culture can actuallybe ‘‘measured’’ in a comparative sense.Research on the link between organizationalculture and effectiveness is also limited bylack of agreement about the appropriate measuresof effectiveness. Despite these challenges,better understanding of this topicremains critical to the development of organizationalstudies.
The current literature has its roots in theearly 1980s and focused attention on the strategicimportance of organizational culture.Kotter andHeskett expanded on this by exploringthe importance of adaptability and the‘‘fit’’ between an organization and its environment.This paper applies the cultureframework developed by Denison and hiscolleagues. This stream of research has developed
an explicit model of organizational cultureand effectiveness and a validated methodof measurement. Using data from 764 organizations,Denison and colleagues showed thatfour different cultural traits (mission, consistency,adaptability and involvement) wererelated to different criteria of effectiveness.Their research found that the traits of missionand consistency were the best predictors of
profitability, the traits of involvement andadaptability were the best predictors of innovation,
and the traits of adaptability and missionwere the best predictors of sales growth.Later research has linked the elements of themodel to differences in customer satisfactionin two industries, and others have presentedan application of this model to foreign-ownedfirms operating in Russia.The Denison model is based on fourcultural traits of effective organizations that
are described below. Suggested referencesare included in the subsequent bibliographysection.
Involvement
Effective organizations empower their people,build their organizations around teams,and develop human capability at all levels.Executives, managers, and employees arecommitted to their work and feel #p#分頁標題#e#http://www.400190.com/dissertation_writing/that theyown a piece of the organization. People at alllevels feel that they have at least some inputinto decisions that will affect their work, andthat their work is directly connected to thegoals of the organization.
Consistency
Organizations also tend to be effectivebecause they have ‘‘strong’’ cultures that arehighly consistent, well coordinated, and wellintegrated. Behavior is rooted in a set of corevalues, and leaders and followers are skilledat reaching agreement even when there arediverse points of view. This type of consistencyis a powerful source of stability andinternal integration that results from a commonmindsetand a high degree of conformity.
Adaptability
Ironically, organizations that are well integratedare often the most difficult ones tochange. Internal integration and externaladaptation can often be at odds. Adaptableorganizations are driven by their customers,take risks and learn from their mistakes, andhave capability and experience at creatingchange. They are continuously changingthe system so that they are improving theorganizations’ collective abilities to providevalue for their customers.MissionSuccessful organizations have a clear sense ofpurpose and direction that defines organizationalgoals and strategic objectives andexpresses a vision of how the organizationwill look inthe future.Whenan organization’sunderlying mission changes, changes alsooccur in other aspects of the organization’sculture.
Like many contemporary models of leadershipand organizational effectiveness, thismodel focuses on the contradictions that occuras organizations try to achieve internal integration
and external adaptation. For example,organizations that are market-focused andopportunistic often have problems with internalintegration. On the other hand, organizationsthat are well-integrated andovercontrolledusually have a hard time adaptingto their environment. Organizations with atop-down vision often find it difficult to focuson the empowerment and the ‘‘bottom-up’’
dynamics needed to implement that vision. Atthe same time, organizations with strong participationoften have difficulty establishingdirection. Effective organizations are those
that are able to resolve these contradictionswithout relying on simple trade-offs.At the core of this model are underlyingbeliefs and assumptions. The ‘‘deeper’’ levelsof organizational culture are typically quiteunique to each firm and are thus difficult tomeasure and harder to generalize about.They are often best understood from a qualitativeperspective. Nonetheless, they providethe foundation from which behaviorand action spring. The four traits of organizationalculture presented by Denison andMishra have been expanded upon to includethree sub-dimensions for each trait, for a totalof 12 dimensions. This version of the model ispresented in Fig. 1.#p#分頁標題#e#
This model is often used as part of adiagnostic process to profile specific organizationsin order to highlight the strengths
and weaknesses of their cultures and to suggestways in which the organization’s culturemay influence its effectiveness. The followingexample helps illustrate the applicationof the model.
Example of a Japanese Consumer
Electronics Company
This section of the paper illustrates the applicationof the culture model by presenting a100 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICSbrief example of the globalization of a majorJapanese consumer electronics company.Like most, this company began by designingand producing their products in Japan, anddeveloping extensive sales organizations anddealer networks in Europe, the U.S.A., andother markets. As the company evolvedthrough the 1980s and 1990s, they graduallymoved some low-end production out ofJapan, primarily to other, lower-cost productionlocations in Asia. The strength of the
company’s products and technology, andtheir established global brands and marketingpresence allowed them to continue successfullythroughout the 1990s despite thedecline in the Japanese economy.
By the late 1990s, however, they began toconsider a different model of globalization.Growing emphasis on the Internet in businessand consumer applications led to
increasing demand for their products to beintegrated with more general informationtechnology solutions. Selling discrete products(‘‘boxes’’) was still the core of their
business, but they experienced growingdemand for both integration and for thecustomization of their products to meet theneeds of local and regional markets. Thesechanges led the company to begin planningthat the next stage of their evolution wouldinvolve the creation of more fully-integratedoperations in each of the major geographic
FIGURE1 THE DENISON ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE MODEL
regions. Research and product development,as well as production, needed to be establishedin each of the regions outside of Japan.The culture profile for a top managementsample of this organization is presented inFig. 2. The data for this profile came from asurvey of 75 executives who were two tothree levels from the top of the organization,
represented all geographic regions, andincluded both expats and locals. Each ofthe 12 indexes are measured by five surveyitems, using a five-point Likert scale, whichare averaged to produce an index score. Theresults are presented here in terms of percentilescores, indicating the percentage oforganizations in the benchmark database ofover 700 organizations that scored lowerthan the organization being profiled.
Examination of this culture profile
reveals some key organizational issues.
Overall, the highest scores are only slightly
above average, pointing to the many challenges
that face management. Two of the
indexes, creating change (21st percentile)
and coordination and integration (16th percentile)
are particularly low, pointing to the#p#分頁標題#e#
challenges the organization faces in reacting
to the demands in the marketplace. When
both adaptability and consistency scores are
low, this usually points to an organization
that is struggling with the logic of their value
chain or trying to reinvent their value chain.
FIGURE2 PROFILE OF a JAPANESE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS COMPANY
102 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS
Both are true in this case. Another area that
presents a major challenge is capability
development (31st percentile). Creating a
more fully integrated organization in each
major region of the world will require a
significant change in the competencies and
capabilities of executives and employees. In
the past, investment in career development
was primarily targeted at Japanese employees
who were on foreign assignment.
As our brief example shows, this
approach was useful in helping to highlight
several key cultural issues that are critical to
the company’s future evolution. The survey
and model has been translated into 14 languages
and used with organizations in over
30 countries. In practice, the model has
worked well in many different national contexts.
As we noted in our literature review, a
number of studies have examined the
empirical link between culture and effectiveness
in North America, but very few have
attempted to examine this link across cultures.
That is the purpose of this paper.
EXPLORING CROSSCULTURAL
DIFFERENCES
This study explores one basic research question:
Are there cross-cultural differences in the
relationship between organizational culture and
effectiveness? The general research question
has many facets, but in this paper, we focus
on whether the pattern identified in the original
research in North America is similar to
the pattern in other parts of the world, and
whether there are distinctive patterns that
are unique to specific countries. This question
also requires us to see whether the culture
data itself varies significantly across
different regions of the world. A final question
concerns the explanation for the pattern
of findings—which factors account for the
observed differences or similarities? These
are the general research questions that
guided the research presented in this chapter.
The sample for the first study reported in
this chapter was drawn from the archive of
organizations that have completed the Denison
Organizational Culture Survey over the
past five years. The sample comprised
36,820 individuals from 230 organizations
drawn from different industries, and including
organizations of all sizes and stages of
growth. In order to be part of the study, firms
had to have at least 25 respondents from a#p#分頁標題#e#
representative population of employees in
the firm. On average, the response rate for
each of these organizations was around 60
percent, from internal samples that varied
frommanagement teams to a complete census
of the organization. The majority of companies
inthesample are based inNorthAmerica.
Eight of the companies are based in Asia, and
34 are from Europe/Middle East/Africa
(EMEA). Global companies headquartered
in all regions typically have many respondents
from outside of the region.
Of the companies in this sample, 48 percent
are listed in the Forbes Global 1,000 List
for 2001. Approximately 20 percent are from
the consumer cyclical industry—including
automotive sales and dealerships, home
building companies, publishing, and retail.
Another 13 percent come from the consumer
staples industry, including restaurants, beverage
manufacturers, personal care products,
food, and tobacco sectors. Companies in the
technology sector account for 13 percent of
the companies in this sample, and the health
care sector, basic materials sector, and financials
sector each account for 11 percent.
Seven percent of the companies come from
the capital goods sector, 3 percent each from
the utilities sector and the communications
sector, and 1 percent from the transportation
sector. The remaining 7 percent come from
public or non-profit organizations such as
schools and government agencies.
The sample for the second study reported
in this chapter included 2,162 employees of
independently-owned local grocery stores
within seven countries. The number of participants
and stores per country are as follows:
749 respondents from 92 stores in Australia,
326 respondents were from17 stores in Brazil,
197 respondents from13 stores in Canada, 306
respondents from 18 stores in Jamaica, 96
103
respondents from 20 stores in Japan, 185
respondents from 20 stores in South African,
and 255 respondents from 38 stores in the
United States. All respondents were full-time
employees with positions ranging from nonmanagement
to management to store owner.
In total, 6,736 surveys were mailed out
worldwide. Total response rate was 42 percent,
but 658 of the surveys could not be used
because respondents didn’t complete enough
of the questions or could not be linked back to
the appropriate store. This resulted in a usable
response rate of 32 percent.
The stores participating in this study are
part of the International Grocers Alliance
(IGA). IGA, headquartered in Chicago, IL,
was founded in 1926 and today is a global
alliance of more than 4,000 licensed stores,
with aggregate annual sales of $21 billion.
IGA currently has operations in 40 countries,#p#分頁標題#e#
commonwealths, and territories. Retailers
who choose to join IGA, a voluntary nonprofit
supermarket network, acquire the size
and strength to compete in the marketplace,
while maintaining their flexibility and autonomy
as small business operators. IGA is
owned by a set of wholesalers and retailers.
The system is made up of supermarkets
affiliated with IGA wholesalers and distributors
in each country. There are two types of
affiliation that supermarkets may have with
IGA: (1) as a corporate store, where the wholesaler
is the owner of the store, or (2) through a
‘‘sponsorship,’’ where the owner-operator
joins the IGA system as a licensed store.
Countries selected to participate in this
study contained a minimum of 15 IGAaffiliated
stores. All stores in Brazil and
Jamaica were surveyed because a smaller
number of total stores exist in these two countries.
In Canada, Australia, and South Africa,
supermarkets were randomly selected to participate
in the study. In the United States and
Japan, surveys were sent directly to a sample
of high and low performing stores. The U.S.
sample was chosen froma balanced sample of
stores with high and low ratings on an annual
store assessment processed by an independent
third party inspector. In Japan, an independent
‘‘retail counselor’’ identified high
and low performing stores. Stores in Japan
were surveyed in Japanese, and stores in Brazil
were surveyed in Portuguese. All other
stores were surveyed in English.
The survey items for this study were
taken from The Denison Organizational Culture
Survey. This survey measures twelve indices
of organizational culture using five questions
each for a total of 60 questions. All items used
a five-point Likert scale with response categories
ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree. These twelve indices are used
to measure the four main cultural traits
defined by the model—involvement, consistency,
adaptability, and mission. The survey
also assesses employees’ perceptions of store
performance on variables including: sales
growth, profitability, quality of products
and services, employee satisfaction, and overall
organizational performance. All measures
were aggregated to the organizational level
for this analysis. A complete listing of all
items used in this available from the authors.
RESULTS
The results from both studies are reported in
the same way. First, we report the simple
associations between the 12 indexes of organizational
culture and ratings of overall
effectiveness. Next, we examine whether
there are significant differences in scores
from each of the countries and regions.#p#分頁標題#e#
Denison Organizational
Culture Database
The relationships between the 12 culture
indices and performance for the three regions,
North America, Asia, and Europe, Mid-East,
Africa (EMEA) are presented in Table 1. All
correlations between overall performance and
culture indices were significant for North
America and EMEA. None of the correlations
were significant for the Asian companies.
Similar results were also found for four other
subjective indicators of performance: sales
growth, profitability, quality, and employee
satisfaction.
104 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS
We also tested to see if there were differences
between the culture scores for the three
regions. Interestingly enough, the three
regions did not differ significantly from each
other on any of the four organizational culture
traits measured in this study. The mean
scores for each region are presented in Table 2
and show that the differences are very small.
The Asian companies in the sample had
slightly stronger scores on mission compared
with companies from North America or
EMEA, and slightly lower scores on consis-
TABLE1 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DIMENSIONS OF CORPORATE CULTURE
AND OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS BY REGION
NORTH AMERICA ASIA EMEA
Empowerment .65* .57 .60*
Team orientation .61* .71 .53*
Capability development .70* .48 .50*
Core values .61* .65 .69*
Agreement .58* .62 .73*
Coordination and integration .69* .62 .74*
Creating change .48* .87 .68*
Customer focus .36* .19 .62*
Organizational learning .50* .82 .52*
Strategic direction and intent .55* .66 .79*
Goals and objectives .60* .54 .62*
Vision .53* .71 .67*
Number of organizations 169 7 34
* p < :05.
TABLE2 AVERAGE CULTURE
TRAIT SCORES BY REGION
REGION
CULTURE
TRAIT
NORTH
AMERICA ASIA EMEA
Mission 3.32 3.39 3.35
Adaptability 3.25 3.28 3.26
Involvement 3.43 3.42 3.45
Consistency 3.28 3.21 3.26
TABLE3 CORRELATION BETWEEN PERFORMANCE AND
THE 12 INDICES BY COUNTRY
SOUTH AFRICA CANADA JAMAICA AUSTRALIA UNITED STATES BRAZIL JAPAN
Empowerment .60* .38 .08 .27* .68* .84* .08
Team orientation .61* .43
.06 .32* .60* .86* .11
Capability development .70*
.06 .26 .23* .56* .81* .14
Core values .54* .34 .34 .39* .63* .83* .47*
Agreement .63* .37 .20 .34* .54* .78* .28
Coordination and integration .54* .45 .18 .37* .56* .88* .23
Creating change .82* .34 .00 .35* .63* .75* .23
Customer focus .45* .06 .25 .24* .45* .62* .24
Organizational learning .12 .13 .11 .33* .67* .76*
.10
Strategic direction and intent .69* .77* .44 .38* .57* .79* .55*
Goals and objectives .76* .58* .22 .42* .68* .81* .25
Vision .45* .43 .26 .36* .61* .79* .29
Number of stores 20 13 18 92 38 17 20#p#分頁標題#e#
* p < :05.
105
tency. Overall, however, these differences are
very small.
Grocery Stores
The relationships between the 12 cultural
indices and performance ratings for each
country are presented in Table 3.All 12 culture
indices were significantly correlated with
overall performance ratings in Australia
(mean r ¼ :33), the United States (mean
r ¼ :60), and Brazil (mean r ¼ :79). All indices
except organizational learning were significantly
correlated with overall performance
ratings in South Africa. In Canada, however,
only strategic direction and intent (r ¼ :77)
and goals and objectives (r ¼ :58) were significantly
correlatedwithoverall performance
ratings. For Japanese stores, only core values
(r ¼ :47) and strategic direction and intent
(r ¼ :55) were significantly correlated with
overall performance. Finally, no significant
correlations betweenculture indices andoverall
performance ratings emerged for Jamaica.
We also tested to see whether there were
differences in the organizational culture ratings
across countries in this second study.
In general, Jamaica, Brazil and Australia
received the highest scores, while Japan,
U.S.A. and South Africa received the lowest
scores. As shown in Table 4, these patterns
were quite consistent across the four culture
traits, although Brazil did depart from this
pattern by having high scores on the external
traits of mission and adaptability combined
with relatively low scores on the internal traits
of involvement and consistency. Canada
showed the opposite pattern: the internal
traits of involvement and consistency
received the highest scores, while the external
traits of mission and adaptability received
lower scores.
DISCUSSION
The two studies reported here help us understand
one of the fundamental challenges of
leadership in a global environment. The first
study presents a summary of a large empirical
database on organizational culture and
effectiveness. Despite everything that we
know about the importance of cross-cultural
differences, these results show a very similar
pattern across these major regions of the
world. The link between company culture
and effectiveness appears to be both strong
and consistent. In addition, the scores for the
culture measures are essentially the same for
the samples of organizations in each of these
three regions.
How can this be? Almost every article or
discussion on the topic focuses on the importance
of cultural differences. Yet, in one of the
few comparative examinations of the issue,
we see almost no difference. After scratching
our heads for a while, we offer several explanations#p#分頁標題#e#
for this unexpected outcome.
First, the purpose of the model used for
this study was to help understand the impact
that organizational culture has on organizational
effectiveness. Thus, the purpose of the
concepts is to build an organizational-level
model that elaborates the cultural factors that
TABLE4 RANK ORDER OF CULTURE TRAITS BY COUNTRY
CULTURE TRAIT RANK
COUNTRY MISSION ADAPTABILITY INVOLVEMENT CONSISTENCY
Jamaica 1st 1st 2nd 2nd
Brazil 2nd 3rd 5th 5th
Australia 3rd 2nd 1st 1st
Canada 4th 5th 3rd 3rd
South Africa 5th 4th 4th 4th
United States 6th 6th 7th 6th
Japan 7th 7th 6th 7th
106 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS
help distinguish effective and ineffective
organizations. It is designed to be general
enough to apply to a wide range of organizations
and to predict one narrow, but important
outcome. The intent of the model is quite
different from those that are specifically
designed to describe the differences that exist
between national cultures.
Even though these results provide support
for the usefulness of these organizational
characteristics and measures for
predicting the effectiveness of firms in different
national contexts, we would not argue
that the characteristics are expressed in the
same way in each of these contexts. Nor
would we argue that the same meaning
would be attached to the same behaviors
in different national contexts. On the contrary,
we would take these results to mean
that a concept like empowerment is important
around the world, but we would not
argue that this means the same behaviors
would necessarily constitute empowerment
in different national contexts. Thus, the
model probably says much more about the
presence of a desirable set of traits than it
does about how those traits are expressed.
Examples help to illustrate this dilemma
for all of the concepts in the model. But some
of the most vivid examples concern the
expression of involvement and empowerment
in high power distance countries.
One career ex-patriot Citibank executive told
this story about taking a new job in Riyadh to
help revitalize a Saudi-Pakistani joint venture
bank:
Each day, when I went in, everyone who
was working in the area outside my office
would stand up and salute. The first day I
was honored, but it soon became annoying.
One day, I left something in my car
and had to go back out to get it, and then
come back in. Each time they stood up and
saluted! Up, down, up, down—how were
we supposed to get anything done? When
I told them not to stand up and salute
when I came in, they obeyed, but I
had hurt their feelings. They saw this
as conveying respect, not subservience,#p#分頁標題#e#
and were a bit insulted that their attempt
to honor me had been rebuffed. It took me
some time to recover.My admonition that
we were ‘‘all working together as a team’’
was confusing to them—I was moving
too far too fast. Only then did I understand
the true challenge that I faced.
Expressing regard for cultural diversity
itself can also vary across cultures. A Dutchman
who ran Hewlett-Packard Tech Support
call centers inAmsterdam that operated in 38
languages contributed this story about visiting
corporate headquarters:
When I first went to work in California, I
would describe the way that we worked in
Amsterdam, by saying things like, ‘‘well
the Italians did it this way, and the Germans
did it that way, and the French did it
their own way—what a mess,’’ and then
we would laugh and sort things out. But
before long, one of the American managers
pulled me aside and said, ‘‘Stop
saying that—it is offensive to all of
us.’’ I was really confused until I realized
that Europeans naturally explain everything
in terms of nationality, whereas
Americans rarely speak directly about
national differences at work.
Considering the results from these two
studies does help to identify future targets
for research. A focus on industries such as
retail or hospitality that have comparable
operating units in many locations and comparable
measures of their performance
would offer several advantages. It would
offer a point of reference for understanding
differences between countries, plus a way to
move beyond the subjective measures of
effectiveness used in the studies reported
in this chapter. Choosing several multinational
corporations with different national
origins, but a common presence in different
national contexts, would also provide an
important point of comparison.
For global leaders, these studies provide
an interesting point of reference for
the choices they make about building their
107
organizations and their cultures. The findings
suggest that a common perspective on
organizational culture may indeed be possible
in multinational corporations. Furthermore,
these characteristics can be measured
and tracked and appear to have a somewhat
predictable impact on effectiveness. Nonetheless,
the discussion of these results also
emphasizes that the way in which these traits
are expressed varies greatly across national
cultures. This additional complexity paints
a clear, yet challenging picture of the challenges
facing a global leader—attempting to
create a common set of organizational traits
that are expressed in different ways in different#p#分頁標題#e#
national contexts.
108 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
For further readings on organizational culture
see Y. Allaire andM. Firsirotu, ‘‘Theories
of Organizational Culture,’’ Organization Studies,
1984, 5, 193–226; T. E. Deal and A. A.
Kennedy, Corporate Cultures: The Rites and
Rituals of Corporate Life (Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Co., 1982); D. R. Denison,
Corporate Culture and Organizational
Effectiveness (New York: Wiley, 1990); J. P.
Kotter and J. L. Haskett, Corporate Culture and
Performance (New York: Free Press, 1992); E.
Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership
(San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1985); E.
Schein, ‘‘Organizational Culture,’’ American
Psychologist, 1990, 45, 109–119.
For additional detail on the Denison
Organizational Culture measure see: D. R.
Denison, H. J. Cho and J. Young, ‘‘Diagnosing
Organizational Culture: Validating a
Model and Method,’’ working paper, International
Institute for Management Development,
Lausanne, Switzerland, 2000; D. R.
Denison and A. K. Mishra, ‘‘Toward a Theory
of Organizational Culture and Effectiveness,’’
Organization Science, 1995, 6 (2), 204–
223; and D. R. Denison and W. S. Neale,
Denison Organizational Culture Survey (Ann
Arbor, MI: Aviat, 1996). Additional information
is also available online at www.denisonculture.
com.
Daniel R. Denison is a professor of management and organization at thenternational Institute for Management Development (IMD) in LausanneSwitzerland and the founder of Denison Consulting in Ann Arbor,Michigan. He is a former professor of organizational behavior andhuman resources management at the University of Michigan in Ann
Arbor. He is the author of Corporate Culture and OrganizationalEffectiveness (1990) and a number of articles on the link between cultureand business effectiveness.  Haaland is the research director at Denison Consulting in AnnArbor Michigan. She earned her Ph.D. in industrial/organizational
Psychology from Central Michigan University. She manages the researchprogram at Denison Consulting and consults with companies that are
interested in empirically demonstrating the link between organizationalculture and leadership and their bottom-line business measures.
Paulo Goelzer is president of the IGA Institute, an educationalfoundation providing training in 40 countries in five languages, and
oversees their international operations. He holds master’s degrees in
http://www.400190.com/dissertation_writing/marketing and economics and is a Ph.D. candidate at Benedictine
University. He previously served as an assistant professor of business#p#分頁標題#e#
strategy and marketing at Pontifical University in Brazil, as marketing
director for a grocery wholesale company, and as a consultant.
109