1 (14)
£. *
%
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
AND
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
4
#
1 (15)
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE
1.1 Introduction
Culture from a sociological perspective has evolved along with the
evolution of mankind. Every ancient civilisation had its own cultural
component which knitted together the social fabric of that civilisation. This
culture permeates into all the institutions such as family, religion, business etc.
In the context of an organisation, though culture existed, a conscious effort to
recognise and study the same started over the last thirty years.
Anthropologists provided definitional frames for analysing culture. Herskowitz
(1948) viewed culture as a construct describing the total body of belief,
behaviour, knowledge, sanctions, values, and goals that make up the way of life
of people.
Organisations develop a culture of their own which can be either an asset
or a liability. Culture can be an important source of commitment and
continuity. On the other hand, culture can also be a source of resistance to
change and inflexibility. Therefore, it is important to nurture and develop a
healthy culture and change the unhealthy elements so that an appropriate
culture is developed for improving the effectiveness of the organisation.
Martin (1985) points out that, raising the question, whether culture can
be changed and/or managed itself has been a subject of argument, that culture,
being a key to commitment, productivity and profitability, can and should be
changed. Some other sociologists question the very idea of creating and/orchanging the culture of an organisation, because, in their view, culture is not
created by any one leader or leaders, but by the members, as an expression of
their deepest needs and as a means of endowing their experiences with
1 (16)
2
meaning in a spontaneous manner over a period of interaction in a given
context.
Nonetheless, it should be recognized that organisational culture is not
static. Its dynamics implicitly calls for an understanding of the important role
culture plays for different groups at different points of time in their growth and
development. Culture may serve as glue in a newly formed and growing
organisation to keep the members together and thus determine their identity,
strength and solidarity. It may serve as a source of stability and consistency for
an organisation in its mid-age. Similarly, for an organisation that has grown or
has been in business experiencing a decline on account of its inability to cope
with the challenges and has thus become stagnant and uncreative, culture
serves as a beacon necessitating change in those things that require change and
stabilizing those that need to be done so, for the growth of the organisation.
Studying organisational culture has evoked the interest of social
scientists for a long time. However, most of these studies have been focussing
on understanding organisational culture and evaluating the same. There has
not been much effort on designing a process, that can enable organisations to
develop a distinctive culture. At the same time there is a great deal of interest
in many organisations in acquiring usable concepts about organisational
culture that can really make a difference to how they manage change more
sensitively and successfully. This study primarily aims at addressing the above
need of the organisations from a sociological perspective.
The key to developing culture in organisations is through the definition,
construction and adoption of a set of values by the participants in the
organisation. Mere adoption of a set of values produces only “cognitive’'
change, in the sense of organisational participants “knowing” about values. It is
only when the organisation enables the individuals to internalise the values
through various processes that the real culture emerges. It is this process of
culture development through the internalisation of values, which is referred to
1 (17)
3
in this work as the “Values Clarification process”. Values Clarification process,
therefore, goes beyond mere understanding of values to a more internalized
sensing of values in different events, situations, decisions, problems and
relationships confronting individual and group participants in their
organisational life.
It is with this perspective that this study has been carried out intensively
in the context of one organisation. The attempt is not only to develop a
systematic approach to the Clarification Process for the development of culture,
but also to develop a methodology to bring about value changes through the
Values Clarification processes.
Culture and Society: Select Definitions and Meanings1.2
This section attempts to survey the available literature on organisation
culture, organisational values, value studies, evolution of organisation culture,
and Values Clarification processes. The review is oriented towards clarifying
some key concepts, which will in turn lead to the definition of the research
objectives of the study.
The term “culture” comes from the Latin word “Cultura”, the verb form
of which is “Colere” meaning to fill or to cultivate or to worship (Macdonald,
1980).
Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) cite no less than 164 definitions of
culture, which have been categorized as descriptive, historic, normative,
psychological, structural and genetic.
culture have received particular focus in organisational studies, since it deals
with values and norms and the conceptions of what is desirable vis-ÿ-vis
conduct, that affect organisational behaviour. Culture can be understood as a
way of life of a group of people (Kluckhohn, 1951; Hall, 1959) reflected through
integrated behavioural patterns (Broom & Selznic, 1970; Hall, 1959; Kroeber &
Of these, normative dimensions of
1 (18)
4
Kluckhohn, 1952), that are learnt and transmitted from generation to
generation (Kluckhohn, 1951; Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1952). The behavioural
patterns include thought, speech, action, and artefacts. Culture creates a silent
language that is interpreted by meanings from one’s own perception rather
than being stated obviously.
Culture is seen as the “form of things that people have in mind, their
models of perceiving, relating, and otherwise interpreting them” (Keesing,
1974. p.73). It consists of internally consistent patterns of affirmation,
restrictions and permissions that guide people to behave in sanctioned ways,
and that enable people to judge others and justify themselves to others
(Keesing, 1974). Culture consists of a person’s theory of what his fellows know,
believe and mean, a theory of what code they are following (Weick, 1985).
These behavioural patterns are learnt and transmitted through generations.
Culture, according to Borheek and Curtis (1975), consists of a learned (as
opposed to innate) and shared (as opposed to truly idiosyncratic) ideas (as
opposed to physical artifacts). Culture, therefore, depends on man’s capacity for
learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations (Webster’s
Dictionary, 1990). It is, therefore, for this reason that in social sciences, the
term culture refers to a social heritage, that is, all the knowledge, beliefs,
customs and skills that are available to the members of a society. The social
heritage is the product of a specific and unique history. It is the “distinctiveway of life of a group of people, their complete design for living”(Kluckhohn,
1951, p.86).
Culture reflects the distinctive achievements of human groups. The
essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e. historically derived and
selected) ideas, especially their attached values. Culture systems may, on one
hand be considered as products of action, on the other as conditioning elements
of further action (Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1952). Culture has many expanded
dimensions in its meaning. “Culture is not restricted to certain fields of
knowledge, it includes ways of behaving derived from a whole range of human
1 (19)
5
activity” (Broom and Selznic, 1970, p.51). For an anthropologist, "culture has
long stood for the way of life of a people, for the sum of their learned
behaviour patterns, attitudes and material things" (Hall, 1959, p.43).
Culture exhibits its dimensions through referential and expressive
symbols. The referential symbols are denotative; they are words or objects that
have a specific reference; they are instrumental e.g. a typewriter. Expressive
symbols are connotative. They evoke associations that are defined and open-
ended rather than specific and limited e.g. professor. Expressive symbols have
a special importance for culture. Expressive symbolism is capable of
contributing a social solidarity by affirming shared ideas and perspectives
(Broom and Selznick, 1970). A symbol can be broadly understood as that
which denotes or represents something. A symbol gives a meaning to an act or a
thing and this meaning of the symbol is social in its origin. The meaning of a
symbol is given by those who use it. Any repetitive human act, any object,
however simple or routine, can have expressive meaning. A meal, a form of
dress, a greeting, a dwelling, a public gathering place - any of these may be rich
with connotation. Thus, culture includes everything that is produced by, and is
capable of sustaining shared symbolic experience. Through symbolism culture
creates a silent language which needs to be interpreted by attaching meaning to
be understood. What seems to be obvious interaction may not be so as one
interprets the transaction by attaching his own meaning to it, thus leaving
many things to be perceived than being obviously stated. “Culture creates a
world taken for granted: it forms the unconscious premises of thought and
action. Culture tends to be pervasive, touching every aspect of life” (Broom and
Selznick, 1970, p.29).
The varied definitions of culture from a sociological perspective have
spawned some interesting insights into culture as:
Model of perceiving
Code of what they are following
1 (20)
6
Learned and shared ideas
Design for living
Conditioning elements of further action
Way of life of a people
Expressive symbolism signifying social solidarity
Expressive meaning
Connotation
Culture can, therefore, be interpreted to be that code, model, design and
connotation which underlines individual and collective experiences of
possessing, perceiving, thinking, living and acting together in community. The
sociological significance of the codes and connotations of what lies behind the
crafting of human and social existence have been discussed this far. Attention
can now be turned to the conceptualisation of culture in the microcosm of
society ; life and work in organisation.
1.3 Organisation Culture
Organisations being part of the larger society the cultural patterns within
the society permeate the organisation. All the ingredients of the societal culture
such as the norms, beliefs, values, attitudes and assumptions, therefore,
become part of the organisations, as members entering the organisation bring
these components with them.
Cultures differ depending on the context in which it operates. Schneider
(1994), in his book “The Re-engineering Alternative", focuses on types of
organisation culture. His aim is to provide a classification system for the
personality of the organisation similar to the Myers-Briggs Type for the
individual personality. Many re-engineering attempts fail to deliver the desired
results because they treat all organisations as if they have the same personality.
1 (21)
7
Schneider's theory, which builds on the earlier work of Harrison (1972) and
Handy (1976), is that there are four basic organisation culture types:
Control
Collaboration
Competence
Cultivation
Different enterprises and environments adorn different cultures, though
no one culture type is better than any other.
actuality-impersonal culture. What it pays attention to most is concrete,
tangible reality; actual experience; and matters of practicality and utility. Its
decision-making process is analytically detached, formula oriented, and
prescriptive'’ (Schneider, 1994, p.115). Control cultures are best suited to large
production companies or financial institutions.
The control culture is “...an
The collaboration culture on the other hand is “...an actuality-personal
culture. It pays a great deal of attention to concrete, tangible reality; actual
experience; and matters of practicality and utility. However, its decision¬
making process is people driven, organic, and informal” (Schneider, 1994,
p.117). This type of culture is more suited to some of the helping professions, or
companies that are highly people focused.
The competence culture is “... a possibility-impersonal culture. It pays
attention to potentiality, imagined alternatives, creative options, and
theoretical concepts. Its decision-making process is analytically detached,I
formula oriented, scientific, and prescriptive” (Schneider,1994, p.119). This
culture thrives in research organisations, advertising agencies, partnerships,
and consultancies in organisations where there is a strong emphasis on
achievement and there is a competitive meritocracy.
1 (22)
8
The cultivation culture is “...a possibility-personal culture. It pays
attention chiefly to potentiality, ideals and beliefs, aspirations and inspirations,
and creative options. Its decision-making method is people driven, organic,
open-minded, and subjective” (Schneider, 1994, p.121). It flourishes in religious
and therapeutic organisations where there is a strong emphasis on personal
development.
Schneider’s work follows a number of mainly American writers,
consultants, and researchers who have developed classification systems for
organisation. He evolved a taxonomy of taxonomies showing the links with
various other classification systems for organisations. For clarity and easier
understanding, the table below depicts a comparison of organisational culture
typologies.
TABLE1
Comparison of Organisational Culture Typologies
Deal &
Kennedy
HarrisonSchneider Bennis &
Nanus
1985
HirshQuinn &
McGrath
O'Toole
1994 19721985 1985(Handy
1976)
19821985
Tough-Guy
Macho
TaskIntuition
(Thinking
Rational Competence CollegialMerito¬
cracy
NT)
Consensual Collabo-Sensation
Feeling
Egalitarian Work Hard
Play Hard
Collegial
ration
(SF)
Ideological Intuition
Feeling
CultivationHumanism Person
(Diony-sus)
Persona-
listic
(NF)
ControlSensation
Thinking
Hierar¬
chical
Behaviou- Bet your
company
Process
Role(Apollo
Power(Zeus)
Formu-
listicnsm
(ST)
1 (23)
9
Schneider's classification is the most useful and well documented of all
the taxonomies. This approach, however, raises fundamental questions about
whether such classifications are nominalising a dynamic concept and seeing
culture as something an organisation has, rather than being an integral part of
what an organisation is.
Further different kinds of cultures have different assumptions. In
rational cultures individual information processing (goal
judgement, and direction setting) is assumed to be a means to the end ofimproved performance (efficiency, productivity, and profit or impact). In adevelopmental culture, intuitive information p
innovation) is assumed to be a means to the end of revitalisation (external
support, resource acquisition, and growth).
collective information processing (discussion, participation, and consensus)
are assumed to be means to the end of cohesion (climate, morale, and
teamwork). In the hierarchical culture, formal information processing
(documentation, computation, and evaluation) is assumed to be a means to
the end of continuity (stability, control, and co-ordination).
clarification, logical
rocessing (insight, invention, and
In the consensual culture,
The primary concern of organisational development has been improving
performance (profits, return on equity, etc.) and the well being of the people.
Practitioners of organisation development assume that the best way to achieve
both outcomes (improving performance and well being of people) is through
trust, open confrontation of problems, employee empowerment and
participation, the design of meaningful work co-operation between groups, and
full use of human potential (Boer and Walton, 1990).
According to Porter, Lawler and Hackman (1975) “Organisational culture
(is) a set of customs and typical patterns of ways of doing things. The force,
persuasiveness and nature of such model beliefs and values vary considerably
from organisation to organisation. Yet, it is assumed that an organisation that
has any history at all has developed some sort of culture and that this will have
1 (24)
10
a vital impact on the degree of success of any efforts to alter or improve the$
organisation...”
Reimann & Weiner(1988) argue that as foundations of strong culture,
shared values play a double role: They serve as powerful, built-in motivational
forces for members and they provide guides for corporate goals, policies,
strategies and actions. The nature of the value systems is also a crucial factor,
in the impact of culture on organisational effectiveness.
Culture, either universal or particular, is concerned with context.
Managerial and organisational culture is concerned with the particular
environment, situation, or set of problems in which skills, techniques, and
approaches will be applied. The key questions about managerial and
organisational culture are: Are these applications appropriate to the
circumstances? and, is the framework of values on which these applications are
based consistent with the framework of values in the situation in which the
applications will be made? “Managerial culture, is not an issue about the fit of
values, techniques, applications, and situations, the nature of the environment,
along with the type of national culture involved. The issue for training is not
only to develop appropriate methods to fit the specific cultural setting but also
to improve managerial skills” (Swierczek, 1988. p.75).
Organisational culture has become one of the most active research areaswithin organisational studies. It also has been emphasized heavily in recent
popular, practitioner-oriented management books - Deal and Kennedy (1982);
Peters and Waterman (1982). One impetus for the study of organisational
culture came from a realisation by a number of people in the 1970s that
traditional organisational approaches were not as useful as they might be in
leading to an understanding of observed disparities between organisational
goals and outcome or between strategy and implementation.
Shared values or assumptions form the basis tor consensus and
1 (25)
11
integration, which encourages motivation and commitment of meaningful
membership. The same shared values that define organisational purpose also
provide meaning and direction. From these come organisations with high
levels of built-in co-ordination and the capacity to adapt by projecting existing
values and assumptions on ambiguous situations.
This kind of thinking led to a number of publications in the early and
middle 1980s emphasizing organisational culture like those of Frost, Moore,
Louis, Lundberg and Martin (1985); Kilmann, Saxton and Serpa (1983); Schein(1985).
The emphasis on organisation culture and its importance for
organisational effectiveness have received much greater, wider and sharper
focus during the eighties. It has been pointed out that: “After a prolonged
emphasis on organisational culture, strategy and design, researchers began to
investigate the plethora of values, beliefs, rituals, customs and other
characteristics of life in an organisation which seem to affect the behaviour of
organisational participants and in turn, influence organisational effectiveness"-
(Bourantas, 1990, p.26l).
A number of leading journals like Organisational Dynamics(1983),
Organisational Studies(1986) and Administrative Science Quarterly(1983) ha
brought issues that specifically speak about organisation culture.
ve
But when we study the cultures of organisations and classify them, we
need to focus our attention on the behavioural process (rooted in the values and
attitudes of the members) of such organisations. Such a behavioural order is
distinguishable from one company to another, and in that process, one can
hope to recognize patterns of behavioural order.
The idea that cultural processes are crucial to the dynamics of
organisational life has a long and venerable history. There have been
1 (26)
12
understandings on how interpretations, values and elaborate behaviouralrituals shape the manner in which organisations perform.
The challenge for management is to institute a new organisational
culture that reflects shared values regardless of previous organisation affiliation
or geographic location (Offerman and Gowing, 1990).
Levinson(1988) predicted that Top managers will have to adjust their
styles considerably to be effective in these new organisational environments.
Specifically Levinson stated, when costs have been cut to the bone and controls
tightened into rigidity, the resulting insensitivity and lack of flexibility will
inhibit competitive adaptation. Managers and executives will necessarily have
to be more closely involved with their subordinates over the longer period of
time required to establish and maintain commitment. They will have to
become more psychologically minded, that is, they will have to understand the
personalities of their subordinates better, particularly the unconscious factors
in motivation.
French and Bell (1983) refer the unconscious factors to informal system
of culture. They state culture includes “the notion of the informal system
including feelings; informal action and interaction; group norms and values”.
In some ways the informal system is hidden or suppressed domain of
organisational life - the covert part of the “Organisational Ice Berg”.
as
Cultural change in the context of organisation calls for understanding
the dynamics of interaction within and between the members of the
organisation. Cultures are produced interactively and therefore can only be
changed interactively. The quality of the interaction will be reflected in the
quality of relationships and in the dialogue within and among different i
groups and subcultures, both inside and outside the organisation.
interest
Thus, any cultural change effort must focus primarily on changing the
1 (27)
13
networks of relationships, commitments, and scripts that bind people together
in organisational settings (Bate, 1994).
Though we see how significant it is to understand the underlying
patterns of behaviour of the individuals belonging to a group or organisation
while working towards developing an organisational culture, there is no single
best method for changing culture. When the organisation is committed to a
culture change, it can be effected in many ways (Amarchand and Jayaraj, 1992).
Change, however is more than an intellectual process; it is a
psychological process as well. Unless the change being proposed strengthens in
a visible and unambiguous way the psychological security of the people
affected, it will be resisted.
Drucker (1966) asserts, “But there has to be conditions for
psychological readiness to change. The change must appear rational to him;
man always presents to himself as rational even his most irrational, most
erratic changes. It must appear as an improvement. And it must not be so
rapid or so great as to obliterate the psychological landmarks which make a
man feel at home; his understanding of Ms work, Ms relations to his fellow-
workers, his concepts of skill, prestige and social standing in certain jobs” - As
quoted by Judson (1966, p.87).
man’s
Some researchers who recognise that organisations are themselves
culture-producing phenomena and have used the same understanding are,
Louis (1980); Deal and Kennedy (1982); Tichy, (1982); Martin and Powers,
(1983). Various scholars and researchers have defined organisation culture as
being a subset of the societal culture with only marginal variations in the way
orgamsation culture has been perceived. A comparison of some defimtions is
attempted below.
Bosman, Phatak and Schellenberger (1985) define organisation culture
1 (28)
14
as a system of norms, attitudes, values, beliefs and customs which govern the
, behaviour of people within organisations; corporate culture is the sum total of
how people in an organisation think and act as employees/ members of the
organisation.
Sathe (1985), Schein (1985) viewed organisation culture as a set of key
values, guiding beliefs and understandings that are shared by members of an
organisation.
Schall (1983) ...as a relatively enduring, independent symbolic system of
values, beliefs and assumptions evolving from and imperfectly shared by
interacting organisation members that allows them to explain, coordinate and
evaluate behaviour in organisational context; these functions are accomplished
through the mediation of implicit and explicit rules that act as cultural
warrants.
Davis (1984) as a set of shared beliefs and values that gives the
members of an institution/ organisation meaning for their existence and
Ml
provides them with the norms for self-directed behaviour.
Kilmann and Saxton (1983) as a reference to the unwritten, often
unconscious message that fills in the gaps between what is formally decreed
and what actually takes place; it involves shared philosophies, ideologies,
values, beliefs, expectations and norms.
t ••
Schein (1984) ...as the pattern of basic assumptions that a given group
has invented, discovered and developed in learning to cope with its problems of
external adaptation and internal integration and that have worked well enough
to be considered valid, and therefore to be taught to new members as the
correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to the problem.
The discussion of various conceptual approaches to organisational
1 (29)
15
culture leads to some significant insights into the role of values and Values
Clarification processes in the development of culture:
Organisational culture comprises several ingredients.
Values form a significant aspect of the ingredients, which go into theevolution, and sustenance of organisation culture.
Key values, as shared values, play an important role in the •
development of culture in organisations.
The clarification of values in organisation has an important role in
the behaviour of interacting individuals and groups in organisation.
Values Clarification and internalisation helps iin giving meaning to
organisational members and a possible basis for role fulfillment.
Values Clarification processes can also help in identifying and
bridging gaps between the formal, intended organisational values and
the informal undercurrent of member values.
Value internalisation through Clarification Processes not only help in
building organisational cohesiveness but help in the socialisation
process of new entrants to the organisation.
1.4 Understanding Values
It might be appropriate at this stage to take a closer look at the concept
of values in literature.
The English word value is derived from the Latin verb ‘Valere’, which
means to be strong, or to be worth. In economics, it is the price of an article or
1 (30)
16
that, which refers to purchase or exchange power. Musicologists employ it to
mean the length of a tone. Moralists and ethicists regard “value” as a standard
or norm of goodness, desirability, and propriety. In the social sciences, the
term value “has come to denote the shared cultural standards according to
which the relevance - moral, aesthetic or cognitive - of the objects of attitudes,
desires and needs can be compared and judged” (Gould and Kelb(Ed), 1964,
p.744; Ganguli, H.C, 1990). In welfare economics, the word “value” occurs in
phrases such as “a person’s values” or “a society’s values”, and there it means
much the same as a person’s preferences or tastes. Given a knowledge of his
resources, his prospects and his tastes, a person is thought to be able to allocate
his resources in a way which will realise his values (Baier and Rescher(Ed),
1969, p-71). These are summarized in the table below:
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF ‘VALUE’ DEFINITIONS
MeaningSource
To be strong, worth
Price of an article/ purchase or exchange
power
Length of a tone
Standard or a norm of goodness, desirability
and propriety
Shared cultural standards. Moral, aesthetic
and cognitive relevance of the objects of
attitudes, desires and needs that can be
compared and judged
Person’s preferences or tastes
Latin word ‘Valere’
Economics
Musicology
Morality and Ethics
Social Sciences
Welfare Economics
Viewing at it as an end state, “a value is an enduring belief that a specific
mode of conduct or end state of existence is personally or socially preferable to
1 (31)
17
an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end state of existence” (Rokeach,
1973, p.5). Values refer to the cherished end-state, and the awareness of actions
that direct human endeavour to reach it (Yuktananda Swami, 1989, p.2). There
is an intimate connection between process and value, and between organismic
togetherness and the structure of value. Value is the goals of process, process is
the means to value. Process allows for the successive realisation of mutually
exclusive values. Process also allows for progressive growth (Hirst, 1970).
Values are considered “what ought to be, as distinct from what is” (Schein,
1985).
A value is a type of belief, centrally located within one’s total beliefsystem, about how one ought or ought not to behave, or about some end-state
of existence worth or not worth attaining. Values are thus abstract ideals,
positive or negative, not tied to any specific object or situation, representing a
person’s beliefs about modes of conduct and ideal terminal modes (Rokeach,
1968), what Lovejoy (1950) calls generalised adjectival and terminal values.
Values, therefore, are global beliefs that “transcendentally guide actions and
judgements across specific objects and situations” (Kroeber and Kluckhohn,
1952). Values are usually thought of as global beliefs about desirable end-
states; these beliefs are seen to underlie attitudinal and behavioural processes
(Rokeach, 1968, p.160).
People build their values and other cognitive maps out of
personal experiences, though a part of these personal experiences are the
values of the society which exist prior to their own existence and are
communicated to them as members of society. A person’s values are rooted in
his/her personality, and also in the norms of reference groups and of the society
to which the individual belongs. People interrelate their values and form value
systems, which indicate their choices in their affairs. The values and value
systems of an individual are unique and characteristic of the person concerned.
It is this uniqueness which Allport emphasised when in his definition of
personality, he wrote: “Even the acts and concepts that we apparently ‘share’
their own
1 (32)
18
with others are at bottom individual and idiomatic. It is true that some act and
concepts are more idiosyncratic than others are, but none can be found that
lacks the personal flavour (Allport, 1961, p.29). It would therefore, be incorrect
to look upon the values of an individual as a mere reflection or mirror image of
the values of society. By doing so one would fall prey to an extreme
anthropological fallacy.
Roubiczek, P. (1969) has stated that we tend to identify an embodiment
of a value with the value itself, or atleast to consider the embodiment as an
integral part of the value. Many people believe for instance, that it is not only
just to punish criminals, but that the concept of justice is connected with the
punishment of criminals.
Values do not exist independently in the same way as things; they must
be embodied to be experienced. We cannot know goodness or beauty in the
abstract.
Values are canons of judgement; through their application we become
aware of certain qualities in the action or object and these in turn produce in us
an appreciation of the values which are embodied.
Evaluation belongs to the subjective method. Thus values require
personal participation to come into being - that is to become more than abstract
concepts. Something must be valuable to us (or the opposite) otherwise we get
to know facts and not values. A thing is not useful of itself, but for the purpose
for which we need it. Therefore, values are not expressed by factual statements,
but by judgements; our personal participation and the conclusions derived form
it are of the essence.
our
Although personal participation is required to bring values into being,
they refer to something which is objective. Our values - judgements about
things, about human behaviour and even about works of art can be right or
1 (33)
19
wrong; which shows that values possess a foundation, which is independent of
us.
Since each value has a positive and a negative form, we are bound to
arrange everything - objects and events, actions and experiences, and even the
value themselves in scales, according to the degree to which each item
contributes to, or prevents, the realisation of a particular value. Anything we
evaluate tends to take its place in such a scale more or less automatically so that
we are not only confronted with the values themselves, but with corresponding
scales of values.
Since we have to choose the scale, which we should apply, we need also a
hierarchy of values, in spite of all the contradictions to which they give rise.
The values themselves have to be evaluated and therefore grouped in a scale.
Whenever values conflict they reveal their relative importance.
Since there are so many values and scales of values, their clarification
appeals to the many potentialities of our whole being; they stimulate us to
exercise our freedom and elucidate and enrich our moral experience .
Values can reconcile statements referring to what exists with those
referring to what we ought to do. This may, at first sound surprising, for values
are norms of judgement and “behaviour; they therefore seem to be abstract and
to lack existence and moreover, they are not formulated as demands.
Nevertheless, the norms, when accepted, make potentialities actual and give
rise to actions, so that what they entail becomes real by being lived, and their
inner reality is confirmed by the resistance which one encounters when making
wrong judgements. At the same time, existence is reconciled with obligation,
because when a value is experienced as positive it makes that desirable and
thus raises a demand that it should be made real; these demands become
obligations when we experience the reality a value acquires once it has led to
an action.
1 (34)
20
Thus, while values can be understood as an ideal or desired terminalstate of being, they are also referred to as convictions or as an object of interest
«
or looked at as basic needs.
The sense in which value occurs is what is called value imputations, i.e.,
claims imputing values to people. Having values is, like having convictions
about, or like valuing (in the sense of cherishing, treasuring, prizing)
something. It is what might be called an essentially appraisal dependent
attitude. “That I believe or value something consists in my having a certain
attitude or behavioural disposition: I am disposed to act on my belief, to take
protective action in defence of what I value. The connection between value
assessments and value' imputations is thus a complicated one.
imputations are typically made from the sociologists’ point of view and so are
typically noncommittal, detached” (Baier and Rescher (Ed), 1969, p.71).
Value
Ralph, Barton Perry define value as a thing - anything has value, or is
valuable, in the original and generic sense when it is the object of an interest -any interest. The valuableness of peace is the characteristic conferred on peace
1 by the interest, which is taken in it, for what it is, or for any of its attributes,
effects or implications.
Value is thus defined in terms of interest, and its meaning thus depends
on the definition of ‘interest’. Interest is a train of events determined by
expectation of its outcome. Or a thing is an object of interest when its being
expected induces actions looking to its realisation or non-realisation. Thus
peace is an object of interest when acts believed to be conducive to peace, or
preventive of peace, are performed on that account, or when events are selected
or rejected because peace is expected of them (Frankena and Ganrose (Ed),
1974). All our efforts to identify values converge on the individual’s “I - ness”,
they reveal that “I” is the valued identity and whatever is pleasing to “I” is
valuable. A value never remains a value if it is isolated from its source - an
individual or a group (Swami Yuktananda, 1989).
1 (35)
21
To Thomas and Znaniecki, “value is a sociological concept, a natural
object that has, in fact, acquired social meaning and, consequently, “is or may
be an object of activity”( Thomas and Znaniecki, 1918, p.21).
Abraham Maslow affirms that basic needs and basic values are one and
the same. Fulfillment of such value - needs depends upon the richness or
poverty of the physical and social environment. The development of the
individual however illumines value patterns that are unique. These patterns
are related to the potentials of the person and also reflect uniqueness in
everybody’s environment (Maslow, 1968).
Carl Rogers postulates fundamentally generic or organismic bases for
value directions in human behaviour. Such organismic commonality refers not
to norms but to categories of things which people desire or need because they
are human. These categories are not limited to questions of morality or taste,
but cover the full gamut of human needs and aspirations from the most
mundane to the loftiest, from the most immediate to the most distant (Rogers,
1964).
The cross-cultural and socio-political studies of values and valuing by
Harold Lasswell (1948, 1959) compliment the Rogerian approach and affirm
the species - wide value - needs suggested by Maslow. While valuing
techniques and strategies differ over long stretches of geography and time, men
everywhere and in all ages tend to direct their behaviour towards certain
categories of needs and wants. Behind the specific, which seems at first glance
to present gross difference and relativity from culture to culture, are the
sometimes heavily camouflaged but nonetheless universal value goals of men.
These are affection, respect, skill, enlightenment, power, wealth, well being and
rectitude.
The redefined categories developed by Lasswell is a framework of open
ended continuum of categories based on comprehensive cross-cultural,
1 (36)
22
psychological and historical data as well as on empirical studies.
general categories listed below is preferred for its contextuality, economy of
terms and precision in isolating fundamentally human goals (Holmberg,1965).
His list of
Affection - Provide a climate supporting acceptance, trust, emotional
security, love, congeniality, friendship and intimacy.
Respect- Provide an atmosphere in which each individual may achieve
identity, a recognised social role and self esteem without fear of
undeserved deprivation or penalty from others.
Skill- Provide opportunities for each student to develop his talents to the
limits of his potential.
Enlightenment- Provide experiences for awareness and openness and
encourages students to find their own truth in every issue without losing
sight of social norms and the significant events of human achievement.
Power- Provide situations in which the student will have opportunities
to participate in making important decisions and to exert informalinfluence according to his talents and responsibilities.
Wealth- Provide facilities, materials and services to promote excellent
learning, while guiding the student to produce wealth in the form of
materials and services himself.
Well-being- Provide resources and interpersonal relationships which
nurture the physical and mental health of each student.
Rectitude- Provide experiences enabling the student to develop a sense
of responsibility for his own behaviour, consideration for others, and a
high sense of integrity.
1 (37)
23
Values and beliefs need to be distinguished. A belief is the acceptance of
facts, statements and sets of circumstances, as truths. It is a firmly held
conviction, strong enough to affect attitudes and values, because a belief%
represents, in one’s own view, a fundamental truth (Charson, 1976). Belief
systems define what is good or valuable ... Although we speak of goals and
values as guiding behaviour, “justifying” or “legitimising” would usually be
more appropriate. Values tend to be abstract summary of the behavioural
attributes which society rewards, formulated after the fact (Borheek and Curtis,
1975). A value is a type of belief, or a set of global beliefs.
Jastrow (1927, p.284) has pointed out that the "human" mind is belief¬
seeking rather than a fact-seeking apparatus”. A belief is any simple
proposition, conscious or unconscious, inferred from what a person says or
does, capable of being preceded by the phrase “I believe that
a belief may describe the object of belief as true or false, correct or incorrect;
” The content of•••*
value it as good or bad; or advocate a certain course of action or a certain state
of existence as desirable or undesirable. The first kind of belief may be called a
descriptive or existential belief, those capable of being true or false (I believe
that the sun rises in the east); the second kind of belief may be called an
evaluative belief- when the object of belief is to be good or bad (I believe this ice
cream is good); the third kind may be called a prescriptive or exhortatory belief,
wherein some means or end of actions judged to be desirable or undesirable (I
believe it is desirable that children should obey their parents). Whether or not
the content of a belief is to describe, evaluate, or exhort, all beliefs are pre¬
dispositions to action, and an attitude is thus a set of interrelated pre¬
dispositions to action organised around an object or situation.
A value is a belief of the third kind - a prescriptive or proscriptive belief
(Rokeach, 1968). Allport opines that a value is a belief upon which a man acts
by preference (Allport, 1961).
Rokeach (1973) further proposes the following four defining
1 (38)
24
assumptions or criteria of connection between values and beliefs:
Existential versus non-existential beliefs - Beliefs directly concerning
one’s own existence and identity in the physical and social world are
assumed to have more functional connections and consequences for
other beliefs than those which less directly concern one’s existence and
identity.
Shared versus unshared beliefs about existence and self- identity -Beliefs concerning existence and self-identity may be shared or not
shared with others. Those shared with others are assumed to have more
functional connections and consequences for other beliefs than those not
shared with others.
Derived versus underived beliefs - Many beliefs are learnt not by direct
encounter with the object of belief, but indirectly, from reference persons
and groups. We refer to such beliefs as “derived” beliefs. Derived beliefs
are assumed to have fewer functional connections and consequences for
other beliefs than the beliefs from which they are derived.
Beliefs concerning and not concerning matters of taste - Many beliefs
represent more or less arbitrary matters of taste and are often so
perceived by the individual holding them. Such beliefs are assumed to
have relatively fewer functional connections and consequences for other
beliefs than beliefs that do not represent arbitrary matters of taste.
The above imply three specific hypotheses. The first is that types of belief
located along a central peripheral dimension are functionally distinct. The
second being that the more central a belief the more it will resist change. The
third, changes in central beliefs will produce greater changes in the rest of the
belief system than changes in less central beliefs.
1 (39)
25£Studying the organisation of values/beliefs, Darry.J.Bem has said that
there are primitive beliefs and high order beliefs. The primitive beliefs are those
that are seen to rest ultimately upon a basic belief. These basic beliefs are
accepted, as given. They demand no independent formal or empirical
confirmation and require no justification beyond a brief citation of direct
experience (Bern, 1970). These are among the first beliefs that a child learns as
he interacts with its environment, and in a psychological sense, they are
continuously validated by experience. As a result, we are usually unaware of
the fact that alternatives to these beliefs could exist, and it is precisely for this
reason that we remain unaware of the beliefs themselves.
Values are ends, not means and their desirability is either non-
consciously taken for granted (a zero-order belief) or seen as a direct derivation
from one’s own or from some external authority (a first-order belief). While
values are considered “what ought to be, as distinct from what is” (Schein,
1985), beliefs are an indication of “what is”. This layer shows ways in which
individuals communicate, explain, and rationalise or justify what is said and
done in a community. In other words, it shows how they make sense of the
ideologies, attitudes, and ethical/moral codes. At first glance, this layer appears
to provide accurate information about the organisational culture, thus making
the basic assumptions layer unnecessary. However, the difference here is in
espoused values (what people say; second layer) and values-in-use (what people
will do; basic assumptions level). Espoused values often serve important
symbolic functions and may remain in an organisation for a long time even
though they are inconsistent with values-in-use. Values/beliefs are closer to the
third layer (basic underlying assumptions) than are the artifacts and patterns of
behaviour in the outer layer.
The principle of belief congruence asserts that we tend to value a given#
belief, subsystem, or system of beliefs in proportion to its degree of congruence
with our own belief system and, further, that we tend to value people in
proportion to the degree to which they exhibit beliefs, subsystems, or systems of
1 (40)
26
belief congruent with our own. Congruence can be defined both in terms of
similarity and importance. Given two beliefs or subsystems of belief equal in
importance, the one more similar to our own is the more congruent; conversely,
given two beliefs or subsystems perceived to be equally similar to our own, the
one judged as more important is the more congruent with our own belief
system (Connor and Becker, 1975). Values are then the beliefs one holds within
oneself, which governs his/her behaviour in a given context.
There is a great deal of confusion that exists on the difference that exists
between values and attitudes. Many use these term as synonyms. An attitude
is defined simply as an organisation of interrelated beliefs around a common
object, with certain aspects of the object being at the focus of attention for some
persons and other aspects for other persons (Rokeach, 1973). An attitude
involves an organisation of beliefs focused upon a single object or situation
(Rokeach, 1973). One’s attitude towards religion, for example, involves a
number of beliefs concerning that specific object. In contrast a value refers to a
single study of the social comparison processes (Festinger, 1964); (Jones and
Gerard, 1967).
Attitudes constitute cognitive and affective orientations toward specific
objects or situations. Behaviour is generally viewed as a consequence of one’s
values and attitudes. When attitudes and behaviour are observed in general
patterns, they are seen mainly to provide a basis for inference about the
underlying values.
To Campbell (1963), Jones and Gerard (1967), and to many others
value seems to be synonymous with attitude because the attitude object has
valence or cathexis. In this conception, a person has as many values as there
are valanced or cathected attitude objects.
a
Several considerations require the nomination of value concept ahead of
the attitude concept. First, value seems to be a more dynamic concept since it
1 (41)
27
has a strong motivational component as well as cognitive, affective, and
behavioural components. Second, while attitude and value are both widely4
assumed to be determinants of social behaviour, value is a determinant of
attitude as well as of behaviour. Third, if we further assume that a person
possesses considerably fewer values than attitudes, then the value concept
provides us with a more economical analytic tool for describing and explaining
similarities and differences between persons, groups, nations and cultures.
While attitudes seem to be a specialized concern mainly of psychology
and sociology, values have long been a center of theoretical attention acrossmany disciplines - philosophy, education, political science, economics,
anthropology, and theology, as well as psychology and sociology. All these
disciplines share a common concern with the antecedents and consequent of
value organisation and value change (Rokeach, I960).
Values differ from attitudes in several important respects. While an
attitude represents several beliefs focused on a specific object or situation, a
value is a single belief that transcendentally guides actions and judgements
across specific objects and situations, and beyond immediate goals to more
ultimate end-states of existence. Moreover, a value unlike an attitude, is an
imperative to action, not only a belief about the preferable but also a preference
for the preferable (Lovejoy, 1950). Finally a value, unlike an attitude, is a
standard or yardstick to guide actions, attitudes, comparisons, evaluations, and
justifications of self and others. Kerlinger (1967) has pointed out that for two
individuals who are said to have an attitude about the same object (for example,
Negro education), different beliefs about the object may be “criteria”, or at the
center of attention.
Each belief within an attitude organisation is conceived to have three
components: a cognitive component, because it represents a person’s
knowledge, held with varying degrees of certitude, about what is true or false,
good or bad, desirable or undesirable; an affective component, because under
1 (42)
28
suitable conditions the belief is capable of arousing affect of varying intensity
centering around the object of the belief, around other objects (individuals or
groups) taking a positive or negative position with respect to the object of belief,
around the belief itself, when this validity is seriously questioned, as in an
argument; and a behavioural component, because the belief, being a response
predisposition of varying threshold, must lead to some action when it is suitably
activated. The kind of action it leads to is dictated strictly by the content of the
belief. Even a belief that merely describes is a predisposition to action under
appropriate conditions (Rokeach, 1973).
or
Fishbein and Raven (1962) originally distinguished attitude from belief
by attributing the evaluative component to attitude and the cognitive
component to belief, but this distinction is not maintained in later work: all
beliefs are conceived to have evaluative as well as cognitive components«
(Fishbein, 1963, 1967). Any belief considered singly, representing as it does a
predisposition to respond in a preferential way to the object of the belief, can
be said to have an affective as well as a cognitive component. This affective
component will not manifest under all conditions but only when the belief is
somehow challenged by the attitude object or by some one else or unless the
preferential action toward which one is predisposed or is somehow blocked.
Values, on the other hand, have to do with modes of conduct and end-
states of existence. Once a value is internalised it becomes, consciously
unconsciously, a standard or criterion for guiding action, for developing and
maintaining attitudes toward relevant objects and situations, for justifying
one’s own and others’ actions and attitudes, for morally judging self and others,
and for comparing self with others. Finally, a value is a standard employed to
influence the values, attitudes and actions of at least some others, children’s, for
example. This definition of value is highly compatible with those advanced by
Kluckhohn (1951), Smith (1963), Rokeach (I960).
or
It is possible to discern the outlines of at least four separate subsystems
1 (43)
29
within the value-attitude system just described, and we may concern ourselves
with problems of measurement, organisation, and change within any one of this
subsystems considered separately. First, several beliefs may be organised
together to form a single attitude focused on a specific object or situation.
Second, two or more attitudes may be organised together to form a larger
attitudinal system, say, a religious or political ideology. Third and fourth, two
or more values may be organised together to form an instrumental or a
terminal value system.
Classification of allies
The earliest efforts in classifying values were made by Allport and his
associates. They identified six types of values. The following table gives in brief
the various classifications of values.
1.5
TABLE - 3
DEFINITIONS OF VALUES
Author Value Definition
Allport Theoretical Places high importance on the discovery of
truth through a critical and rational approach.
Economic. Emphasizes the useful and practical.
Aesthetic. Places the highest value on form and harmony.
Social Assigns the highest value to the love of people.
Politick: Places emphasis on acquisition of power and
influence.
1 (44)
30
Religious: Is concerned with the unity of experience
and understanding of the cosmos as a whole.
Instrumental Values: values referring to modes of
conduct. E.g. honesty, love, courage etc. He further
classified Instrumental values into two kinds: (i)
Values with moral focus, (ii) Competence or self-
actualisation values which have a personal focus.
Terminal values: referring to end-state of existence,
with two types : (i) Terminal values having personal
focus - salvation, inner harmony. (ii).Terminal values
having social forms - world peace or universal
brotherhood.
Rokeach
Innate human value or primary value, which are of 3
kinds: (i) Selfish values concerned with individual
survival (ii) Social values concerned with welfare and
survival of the social group. (iii)Intellectual values to
motivate intellectual activities.
Compliance values'. A belief in strict discipline.George Edgin Pugh
Conformity values: A belief in an emphasis on
conformance to established norms and procedures.
Mumford (1981)
Performance values: A belief in an emphasis on
efficiency and high production.
Task values. A belief in tightly structured tasks.
1 (45)
31
Functional values concern functions performed for and
relations with important organisational public
(customers, shareholders, suppliers, competitors and
employees).
Elitist values view the primacy or superiority of the
firm's membership, products, or services as an end in
itself.
Bernard C. Reimann
and Yoash Weiner
(1988)
Individual values: Those to which an individual is
committed and which influence his behaviour.
Those that are shared culturalBoris W Becker,
Patrick E Connor
Collective values:
standards. They refer essentially to those values that
are not individually specific; the collectiveness may
range from immense sub-cultural collectiveness, such
as social classes, to small primary social groups.
(1983)
Basically most of the classification schemes stem from personal
focus and social focus, the former emphasising the selfish interests of the
individual and the latter referring to broad social/ human advantage. Another
classification based on the focus and source of values is the four generic
corporate culture types that emerge based on this classification, they are:
Four generic Corporate Culture Types
OrganisationalTraditions
Source of ValuesFocus
Charismatic Leadership
Entrepreneurial
(External, Short term)
Strategic
(External, Short term)
Functional Focus
Exclusive
(External, Short term)
Chauvinistic
(External, Short term)
Elitist Focus
1 (46)
•32
Entrepreneurial: Functional Charismatic. The functional dimension of
this value system type suggests a potential for effective organisational
outcomes.
Strategic: Value systems that are classified both as functional and
traditional are most likely to contribute to the development of proper values
and, consequently, to organisational effectiveness. This value system also
seems most likely to encourage two elements, as suggested by Hayes (1985),
that are necessary for the effective setting of corporate goals, policies, and
strategies: (a) broad organisational participation embedded in the realities of
day-to-day business conduct, rather than a analytic, top-down approach and (b)
patient, hard-to-copy, step-by-step changes and improvements, rather than
grandiose, flamboyant, or trendy strategic leaps. The value systems in many
Japanese firms particularly the large and prosperous ones, seem to fit this type.
Elitist and charismatic valueChauvinistic: Elitist-Charismatic.
dimensions described above comprise the value system least likely to result in
long-term organisational success. Further, the combined effect of these two
dimensions is likely to produce organisational dynamics that are highly
susceptible to group thinking, with the illusion of invulnerability, self-
righteousness, and stereotyping (Janis, 1972).
Many examples of such value systems may be found among the “exciting,
new, high-tech business springing up in Boston and Silicon Valley in California”
(Deal and Kennedy, 1982, p. 8).
Exclusive: Elitist-Traditional. This value system sustains a stable, long
term, elitist dimension. “When organisations perpetuate an elitist, club-link
value system, they do so to serve specific organisational purposes, such as
satisfying the needs of customers. This is especially typical of knowledge
industries such as the big law firms of Wall Street (Smigel, I960), the
prestigious management consulting establishment, of some highly selective
1 (47)
33
private universities.
However central a value may be to one’s personality or to an
organisation, the conversion of a value into an action denotes the effective use
of it. Depending on their use, values can be more operative, less operative or
non-operative. This is particularly important when values must be ascertained
by observing the behaviour of persons. Therefore, the emphasis should be on
the values in action rather than on one’s contemplation.
Another classification of values given by Becker and Connor(1983) is :
Work related values: Those values that are related to the work and work
related behaviour (perfection, cost effectiveness, optimisation etc.).
Person related values: Those values that are concerned with self and in
personal relations (sincerity, honesty, loyalty etc.).
Values are viewed as forms of beliefs, and a major source of these values
may be social expectations, particularly when they are shared. Thus, social
values may be viewed as normative beliefs complementing instrumental beliefs
as antecedents of behaviour. Further, values can be construed as internalised
normative beliefs. Once established, they may act as built-in normative guides
to behaviour, independent from the effect of rewards and punishments as
consequences of actions (Wiener, 1982).
Smith’s work on value as a determinant of attitude (1963), White’s
approach to value analysis (1951), Morris’ formulation of 13 ways (1956), and
Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s cross-cultural study of value orientations (1961),
are some of the studies undertaken in values.
that scienceAn abstract of Schwartz’s (1990) study, talks
characteristically pursues generalisations thought to approximate eternal
1 (48)
34
truths. Thus, a science of values would be expected to specify the natural laws
that govern human values and their effects on action. But research in
psychology suggests that values are often contextually determined, socio-
historical phenomena that can be created or destroyed by the very beings whose
behaviour is guided by them. Historical change in human values changes the
social institutions that embody these values and help individuals pursue
them. When social institutions are transformed in this way, it becomes easy
to mistake contingent, cultural truths for eternal, natural ones. Science tends to
tell people that what is the case must be the case because it is the result of
natural law. Applied to human values such a message has significant normative
consequences, affecting people’s conceptions of what is possible and thus their
aspirations and plans. The task of a “science” of values should instead be to
make the historical contingency of values clear, thus encouraging discussion of
what values people ought to have and what social arrangements would best
contribute to the development of those values.
The literature survey has led to the following conclusions:
Values are those that govern the behaviour of the individual. The
behaviour of the individual therefore indicates what the person values.
The meaning of values the researcher has arrived to is: Values are the
beliefs one holds within oneself, which governs his behaviour in any
given situation. One is aware of some of these beliefs while a lot of them
are not known to oneself. But, they still exist and govern the behaviour.
When values are governed by the beliefs one holds, then it also implies
that values are dynamic. They are contextual. But what is consistent is
that for similar contexts, similar beliefs operate.
There exists a hierarchy amongst values. Put in a situation, the
individual's behaviour is governed by this hierarchy of values.
1 (49)
35
The hierarchy of values, in a particular context leads to contradictions.
Therefore, it becomes important that a process of evaluating and
clarifying values gives space for appropriate behaviour to emerge and it
stimulates the person to exercise his choice with awareness.
1.6 Linkage and Relationship of Values and Organisation
Culture.
Extensive literature is available indicating the close linkage of values and
culture. Understanding values would lead to understanding the culture and vice
versa. Some of the supporting literature is given in the following paragraphs.
By definition, individual values serve as a guide to a person’s intentions
Similarly, organisational value systems provide guides for
organisational goals, policies, and strategies. Thus, the nature of the values is a
crucial factor, in the impact that culture will have
and actions.
on organisational
effectiveness (Weiner, 1982). If the prevailing values support appropriate goals
and strategies, the culture is an important asset. Conversely, the wrong values
can make the culture a major liability. It may be useful to theoretically identify
value system conditions and forms that are most likely to yield proper values -those more likely to contribute to overall organisational effectiveness.
Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) emphasise that every culture has a
dominant value system, to which the subcultures within the larger culture
subscribe in varying degrees. In management, it may be comparatively easier
to infer by observing behaviour., i.e. the values of specific individuals.
It has been assumed that the cultural differences are reflected in the
employee’s value system and are central to his motivational system, his
expectation of organisational rewards, and his job satisfaction (Barrett and
Bass, 1972; Davis, 1971; Fitzgerald, 1971; Grozier, 1970; Hesseling, 1970;
1 (50)
36
Uris, 1973). The basic categories become clear whether one is searching within
man’s organismic nature or within the social contexts he creates out of his
behaviour. Valuing becomes the most fundamental human function.
It has been suggested that individual's values affect not only perception
of appropriate ends, but also perception of the appropriate means to those
ends, (Gibson, Ivancevich, and Donnelly, 1976; Guth and Tagiuri, 1965;
Tagiuri, 1965; McMuriy, 1963; Shartle, Brumbeck, and Rizzo, 1964). Job
behaviour itself has been linked to values. For example, England, Dhingra, and
Agarwal (1974) concluded that in different countries, Personal values of
managers are related to and/or influence the way managers behave on the job.
In developing the culture of an organisation, leaders are believed to play
a vital and important role. They are considered the influencers and the values
they hold goes a long way in influencing the values the group holds.
The leadership of an organisation plays an important role in shaping the
organisation culture. The leadership has the critical role in managing
boundaries between organisation and its environment. The leader provides
vision, make sense of things, puts them into a language that is meaningful to
large number of people, guides and directs them in such a way that a healthy
culture grows and the effectiveness of the organisation improves (Lundberg,
1985).
The leaders’ behaviour reveals, as well as determines the culture of an
organisation. They can assert the underlying assumptions or perspectives of
the culture of the organisation reinforcing innovative and competence driven
culture, one, through their personal behaviour - what they say, where they
spend time, what they reward, what questions they ask, etc., and two, through
avoiding rigid systems of evaluation or information and at the same time
encouraging formal systems (Wilkins, 1983).
1 (51)
37
More recently, Peters and Waterman (1982) have highlighted the
important role played by the leaders in making their organisation excellent by
being the value shapers, the exemplars and the maker of meanings for
individuals.
Schein (1983) points out that the ideas, values and beliefs held by the
founder create the mould for the organisation’s culture. When the employees
share those values, beliefs and assumptions to such an extent that it becomes a
‘second nature’ and/or taken-for-granted way of life, the culture will continue
to be so even when the firms grow dramatically, modify a few aspects of their
business, and change the leadership at the top.
Linda Smircich (1985) in her article ‘Is the concept of culture a paradigm
for understanding organisations and ourselves?’ opines that culture could be
associated with a dramatic redirection - a paradigm shift - if it were
accompanied by a major reorientation in how we see both, organisations and
ourselves.
Martin et.al (1985) portray the culture creation process to be beyond the
control of the founder. From their study of an electronics manufacturing
company, located near Silicon Valley, California, they suggest that culture is not
created by any single person, not even the founder of an organisation, but it is
a socially constructed reality. According to them, leaders are not the only
who generate values, understanding, and behavioural norms that become part
of organisation cultures but, other organisational members too play an active
role in the culture creation process. The content of a given culture or subculturecan also be influenced by the task or technology used by employees, by the
constraints of the organisation’s stage in its life cycle or by external factors
as major changes in firm’s environment; in a Copemican revolution, cultureportrays founder as simply one among many planets orbiting a sun. Rather
than creating a culture in his or her own image, the founder is cast into asystem mould by forces beyond his or her individual control .
ones
such
1 (52)
38
1.7 Values Clarification to Develop Culture
Values Clarification became a popular approach in education and in
other helping profession with the publication of “Values and Teaching” by
Harmin and Simon (1966). In their book they described seven sub-processes
that lead to value clarity. These sub processes are:
(1) choosing from alternatives
(2) thoughtfully considering the consequences of alternatives
(3) choosing freely
(4) pricing and cherishing
(5) publicly affirming
(6) acting repeatedly
(7) acting with a pattern of consistency.
Subsequent publications explored new strategies to teach the seven sub¬
processes. Simon Howe and Kirschenbann (1978) found ways to combine
Values Clarification with traditional school curricula (Harmin, Kirschenbann
and Simon, 1973). Interestingly most of the work on Values Clarification has
been in the field of education. Early research on Values Clarification, provided
tentative support for the hypothesis that Values Clarification experiences
contributed positively towards the objectives, although the results were not
totally consistent, the direction of the findings tended to support Rath’s theory.
One of the questionnaire measures each of these values and discusses what
ought to be the state of affairs in an organisation on each of these issues and
how to go about building them within the organisation. Eight conditions are
stated on what a clarified value should be and they are:
Values must be chosen from alternatives,
1 (53)
39
Values must be consistent with each other,
Values must be limited in number,
Values must be actionable,
Values must be performance enhancing,
Values must be attractive and pride giving,
Values must be capable of being communicated,
Values must be written down.
Values have been referred to as an important ingredient of
organisational culture and thus there is a focus on changing the values in every
attempt to build organisational culture.
When individual values collectively function to determine the efficacy of
organisations, organisational values assume significance. Values are considered
significant in organisational functioning because they provide the basis for the
design of human organisations. Efficient organisational functioning requires
that the variability in the behaviour of organisational members should be kept
at a minimum (Katz and Kahn, 1970). Various designs of organisations
suggested by organisation theorists actually seek to reduce the variability of
human behaviour within organisations. Member integration can be achieved
by bringing the personal values of organisational members in line with the
organisational values.
Peters and Waterman (1982 p.280) in their book “In Search of
Excellence” highlighted the corporate culture as the main determinant
distinguishing successful organisations. They wrote “Every excellent company
we studied, is clear on what it stands for, and takes the process of value shaping
seriously. In fact, we wonder whether it is possible to be an excellent company,
without clarity on values and without having the right sort of values”.
1 (54)
40
By definition, individual values serve as a guide to a person’s intentions
Similarly, organisational value systems provide guides for
organisational goals, policies, and strategies. Thus, the nature of values is a
crucial factor in the impact that culture will have on organisational
effectiveness.
and actions.
Research has indicated an increasing difference between value systems
held by young and old American workers. A recent review concluded that
emerging cultural trends have transformed the American work ethic into
something very different from previous years. These trends include: (a) a
changing definition of success to include self-realisation and fulfillment
(coupled with) (b) lessening fears of economic insecurity. It is not surprising
therefore, that recent reviewers often stress the necessity of studying personal
values which have been the neglected ingredient of job motivation (Brown,
1976; Connor and Becker, 1975; Herzberg, 1974; Mankoff, 1974).
“By definition, a corporate culture cannot be pressed down upon
a collective, nor can it be controlled or manipulated at will. A true
strategic change programme does not impose anything but makes
people aware of and illuminates certain aspects of the culture in
which they exist. In this sense it is also a creative process: by
bringing values, principles and behaviours to the surface, and by
providing people with a framework with which they can interpret
what they see, a creative and emancipatory process is started. The
step between emancipation and manipulation is however not a
very long one. The basic difference is in the quality of the
dialogue that is created rather than in the content of the outcome.
To interpret a culture requires a dialogue between different levels
of an organisation. A true dialogue, once where the parties are
really open do not know what will come out of it, required risk¬
taking and courage. It also requires an “opening” (as opposed to
open) attitude, a will to go deep into a joint exploration of the
1 (55)
41
company and what it stands for” . (Berg, 1983, p. 24-27)
In an interview, CEO of Levi Strauss, Robert Haas, gives his
organisation’s perspective on values to a question on "How does a CEO manage
values?".
“The first responsibility for me and for my team is to examine
critically our own behaviours and management styles in relation
to the behaviours and values that we profess and to work to
become more consistent with the values that we are articulating.
It is tough work. We all fall off the wagon. But you can’t be one
thing and say another. People have unerring detection
systems for fakes, and they won’t put up with them. They won’t
put values into practice if you are not”. (Howard, 1990. pl33-
144)
For the question "Can you really train people in new values?"
“You can’t train anybody to do anything that he or she doesn’t
fundamentally believe in. That’s why we have designed leadership
week to give people an opportunity to reflect on their own values
and to allow them to say what they want to get from work. In
most cases, people learn that their personal values are aligned
with those of the company. Of course, not eveiybody will buy into
it. We’ve had some very honest discussions where managers say,
“Look, I am 53 years old, I have managed one way all my life and
been successful, and now the company wants me to change. I
don’t know if I can do it.” (Howard, 1990. pl33-144)
1 (56)
42
Kirrane (1990) opines, that altering people’s values or souls isn’t the
aim of organisational ethics programs - managing values and conflicts among
them is. •' HR9HHHH!11
The first challenge in creating a system for managing values, says
Berrien, is to make ethics one of the organisation’s core priorities. In practice,
this requires “clarification and articulation at the top about what the
organisation stands for”. Special retreats and seminars are useful for starting
management-level discussions to clarify organisational values and principles.
After such beliefs have been articulated and defined, follow-up management
meetings and activities focus on current company systems and practices to
ensure that they support, rather than clash with, stated organisational beliefs. If
cultural change has to take deep roots, it is essential to have the clarification
process for every individual irrespective of the level at which he or she is
working. While commitment from the leadership could help accelerate the
process, the leadership alone cannot bring about the cultural change without
the involvement of each of the members of the organisation.
In the recent years there has been a growing interest among researchers
in India in the study of the role of values and their relevance in understanding
functioning of work organisations (Chakraborthy, 1991; Dayal, 1977; Garg &
Parikh, 1988; Gupta, 1990; Pareek, 1988; Prakash, 1982; D. Sinha, 1988; JBP
Sinha, 1990; Tripathi, 1990).
1 (57)
43
1.8 Summary
If organisation culture is the perceived thread of its members’ attitudes,
beliefs, values, behaviours, inter-personal relationships, then a self-realisation
as to one’s own values and that as held by others, brought about by the Values
Clarification process amongst the members of the organisation help collectively
change the organisation culture to a desired state. The values that members
bring to an organisation from diverse cultural backgrounds, from a multitude of
contexts and situations and heritage, may result in a complex web within the
organisation. As an Organisation Development effort and an intervention
strategy, the Values Clarification process is an effective tool to bring about a
personal development which collectively help the organisation in changing and
growing by bringing in an awareness, the desire to change and the empathy to
appreciate others’ value system, which together can be predicted to bring about
a better synergy within the organisation.
The above review of literature sets the perspective that values play a vital
role in cultural change and therefore Values Clarification process is an
important process to stimulate and facilitate development of organisation
culture. Lasswell (1948, 1959), has pointed out that there are certain universal
value goals such as affection, respect, skill, enlightenment, power, wealth, well
being and rectitude. In this research, based on over hundred workshops
conducted, five values emerged predominantly, which are Freedom,
Relationships, Power, Learning and Honesty. These have relatedness to
Lasswell's universal goals. Lasswell’s Affection relates to Relationship. Affection
was defined by Lasswell as providing a climate supporting acceptance, trust,
emotional security, love, congeniality, friendship and intimacy. Whereas in this
research study Relationship refers to expression, giving freedom, responsibility,
involvement and discipline. Though Lasswell refers to Power as opportunities
to participate in making important decisions and to exert informal influence
according to one’s talents and responsibilities, the research study relates power
1 (58)
-44
to authority, giving freedom, credibility, involvement (task and people) and
discipline. In this research study, freedom relates to aspiration, responsibility,
involvement and discipline; Learning refers to the urge to learn, openness,
initiative, involvement and discipline; and Honesty refers to outspokenness,
concern, responsibility, initiative and discipline. The sub-values under each of
the major values listed here appear as repetition under major values, as they are
interdependent, and under different contexts, result in different value profiles
of members. These five factors cover almost all the dimensions of life. The value
values. Tomodification occurs when a person understands his/her own
understand one's own values, it becomes important to understand how the
people around the person experience his/her values since values are expressed
in each and every action of a person in his/her interactions with the world
around. This multiple feedback provides the individual an insight into the gap
between one's known self and the unknown self. This awareness is the prelude#
to looking at one's belief system and making attempts to modify it. Coupled
with a systematic change efforts from the top, the process quickly helps in
shaping the culture of the organisation.
To summarise, the review of literature substantiates the following
dimensions of this research study. Firstly, the important and the vital role
values play in shaping the individual members of the organisation; secondly,
the influence of organisation culture and values being a part of it; thirdly the
effect clarifying values can have on individuals and their behaviour and further
the culture of the community. It also further substantiates the following
understanding about values:
Values form an important basis of culture-as-experienced in community.
Values refer to the cherished "end-stage" and give a certain inner
awareness to actions that drive human endeavor.
Values are “experienced” and therefore become intensely personal as
well as social.
on
1 (59)
45
Values may take various “forms” and may “express” themselves in
various ways like love, respect for others, skill, power, search for wealth,
rectitude, freedom and so on.
Value orientation and commitment leads to convictions and beliefs
which deep down determines choices and action.
Values affect behaviour, not in a desperate and isolated way but “hang
together” to form meaningful value “system” within the individual to
guide choices and actions.
Although communities are value driven, advocates of value inculcation
for culture development postulate the need for a systematic and
methodical approach to develop values in culture building processes.
The review of literature further establishes the need for evolving a
systematic and methodical approach to develop organisational culture through
a process of Values Clarification. Though the role Values Clarification plays in
the development of organisational culture is evident, there is a need to enquire
into the kind of impact this process would have on the behaviour of the
individual members and the culture of the organisation.
The perspectives on which this research study can throw light on are:
The influence of Values Clarification process on the individual in
different contexts.
The use of Values Clarification process as an intervention strategy for
organisation culture building.
The impact of Values Clarification process on the development oforganisational culture.