مدل رفتار عمومی و تعریف جدیدی از فرهنگ های سازمانی

Current definitions of organization/corporate cultures overemphasize long-run equilibrium and underplay short-run dynamics; they stress commonalities and overlook diversities, underscore emic analyses and lose sights of etic analyses, and separate the intangible from the tangible; plus are “model unfriendly.” As an alternative approach addressing these problems, we propose a new General Behavioral Model (GBM) and then derive two new definitions of OC that view organizational cultures as [1] accumulated choices and [2] interactions among critical masses of people. Theoretical characteristics and managerial implications are discussed.

1.1. Introducing GBM We now present an axiomatic model that may be called the “General Behavioral Model”. In its symbolic form we have: equation(1) View the MathML sourceyt,i=f∑k=1K1yt−k,i∑k=0K2pt−k,if∑k=0K3∑j≠iJxt−k,j, ∑k=0K4τt−k Turn MathJax on The left hand side denotes a particular behavior of the ith individual at time t. In an organization, this could be a top executive's untruthful quarterly finance report to Wall Street, or, in a more positive spirit, an employee's decision to stay extra hours until clients’ problems get fixed. Terms on the right hand side are divided into three sets by two vertical lines, where terms before the vertical line are conditional upon the terms after. Thus, the first term denotes the same ith individual's similar, related, or identical behavior at previous times (from one up to K1 steps back in one's lifetime). Using the same examples, this could be the executives’ untruthful move in the previous quarters. The next p stands for (personal) preferences of the same ith individual at present time t as well as at previous times (up to K2, which may or may not equal K1), as revealed or stated from past behaviors under similar tradeoff situations. The third term is a complex function (note the extra ‘f’ in front of the nested parenthesis) of two terms. One sigma (∑) collects impacts along time from the instantaneous t to a potentially long way (up to K3 steps, ∀K3 > K1; ∀K3 > K1, considering that aggregates last longer than individuals) back, and another stands for the “critical masses of people” or a function of social aggregates excluding the ith individual. The last term, τ, separated by a comma, represents resource constraints, including natural, technical, and situational constraints facing the ith individual at time t and possibly before that (up to K4, ∀K4 ≤ K1, considering that the constraints for any particular behavior last shorter than one's lifetime, steps back). In words, the GBM says one's current behavior is contingent on his/her past behaviors, his/her revealed and stated preferences, the aggregates’ influences and external factors or resource constraints either shared or unique to each behavior/person. Fig. 1 below shows the GBM graphically.

The GBM cheers for choices as [1] the contents of OC as all choices are cultural ones (to the extent that all choices are made within cultural contexts into which they have to fit); [2] the manifestation of OC, as all cultures are defined by the choices they made and we read and understand OC by observing choices made by organizations and their members, both overtime and instantaneously; [3] the vehicles or carriers of OC, as cultures pass along over time and renew themselves by the continuity of choices; and [4] milestones of OC as choices are discrete or separable events yet flow seamlessly through chain reactions. The GBM also hails critical masses of people as the ultimate units in OC, as a continuum ranging from a single person to the entire organization. Essentially, what this people definition emphasizes is neither demographics, nor those based on hierarchical positions in an organization (at least not only that); rather, it stresses the people residing in organizational relationships, and the continuous interplay between people and their functions, roles, activities and behaviors, as exemplified by cases listed in Table 1. We now present several propositions to highlight our thinking and to mark up where we stand in several debated issues. These propositions are logical extensions rather than proven facts, and we intend to subject them to rigorous empirical tests in the future. Proposition 1. The most efficient way of identifying the key masses of people is through accumulated choices and revealed preferences, rather than by departments, functionalities and demographics in an organization. This proposition simply repeats what has been said earlier and we skip elaborations. However, it does help highlight the need to bring harmony between the two new definitions in order to bring harmony between OC and OB, to which we turn to next. One of the debates concerns whether organizational cultures are merely one of the variables or anything beyond (Lewis, 1996). Redefining OC as choices and critical masses of people helps raise the stakes of OC and brings it to the forefront or one of the central stages in OB. For example, the three components of an organization are [1] people, with [2] structures, for [3] achieving goals. But if they remain true, then our people definition is directly relevant to the first two components, while the choice definition is inseparable from the last. Therefore, our new definitions imply that OC defines an organization and is involved in, for example, strategic innovation, corporate citizenship and social responsibilities, sustainable growth, strategic alliance/collaboration and core competencies. We summarize this into two propositions: Proposition 2. OC defines every organization because the critical masses of people structured in and outside organizations are making constant choices toward achieving goals. Missions, visions, goals, assumptions and values are cultural products, not OC itself. Proposition 3. (The new 80/20 rules): At least 80% of organizational behaviors can be attributed to the 20% of relationships (exchanges and competitions) among the critical masses of people. Another OB debate is highlighted by Zbaracki (1998) between managerial practitioners and organizational scholars about the validity of the Total Quality Management (TQM)—whether they are fads, hypes or lasting authentic progresses. The GBM highlights both short- and long-run studies, so we hold that in order to fully understand organizational phenomena, scholars need to expand research horizon to both short-run phenomena (including fads and hypes) and long-term behaviors, because both are part of organizational behaviors worth looking into. Thus, Proposition 4. Expanding research horizons to all organizational phenomena including short-run dynamics will promote scholarly efficiency and form a better alliance with management practitioners. Turning now to the methodological issues in studying OB and OC, we believe a multi-disciplinary research of OC will bring to the table a diverse set of methodologies. Therefore, Proposition 5. The multi-disciplinary, multi-method studies of OC are to be merged with OB studies to bring a boom in organizational research. For example, organizational anthropologists could study the “genesis choices” for organizations, tracing back to the beginning days of an organization and finding out how founders of each organization made initial choices and how their influences shape up today's choices (e.g., Schein, 1983). Organizational psychologists could have their hands full: identifying the mental processes behind major organizational choices, the cognitive patterns and emotion's role in choice making; how groups influence each other's choices; and how macro cultural environments charge tolls on micro cultures, to name just a few. Human Resources Management scholars could focus on how different organizations pick new hires and how this choice leaves its dents on later choices. Corporate finance scholars could examine how top managers’ stock ownership impacts corporate debt maturity in order to find whether managers really are making optimal financial choices for stockholders or for themselves. Finally, the economists could identify/analyze opportunity costs of various actions, among other things. Turning to the managerial implications. To be a smart chooser or decision maker, managers need to learn from past managements’ choices and to learn from the critical masses of stakeholders. New managers, for example, could start from looking at past choices made by previous executives: how the key choices were made in various situations, their consequences, the follow-ups, etc. Another approach could be to follow the normal organizational cycle, starting from the founders, the capital suppliers, or the very first management team, moving to the HR departments, where the people choices were made: how the organizations recruit people. Business activities are the next: how new initiatives get passed down, how meetings held, jobs assigned, monitored and accomplished, and how crises were handled. Employees’ preferences are also part of culture as they decide which incentives to respond to and which not. Continuing on with management efficiency, we believe managing through leveraging positioning powers represents a traditional approach, while managing through critical masses people could mean flexibility and efficiency. The reason: leading by cultures is much easier than leading against prevailing cultures. Managements can borrow momentum and powers from critical masses to strengthen the leadership. They can, for example, get the innovative group of people behind to push for the diffusion of a new technology. Once the majority of employees are willing to adopt the technique, the rest will unfold automatically. Managing critical masses also means leveraging relationships among groups, as in the case after mergers. In sum, Proposition 6. Managements could enlarge leadership power through alliances with as many critical masses of people as possible during any given period. In general, managements should respect employees’ different choices, listen to messages and feedbacks from them, and encourage employees to make diverse choices that are good for themselves as well as the organizations. Some of the choices will be adopted immediately, while others are to be reserved for the future and for the long run. Thus, Proposition 7. Strong organizational cultures are not necessarily built on consensus but on a pro-choice culture, with rooms for changes and potential for new ideas and directions.