Abstract
While the last chapter examined culture at the organizational level, this chapter focuses on how culture influences an individual in performing control.1 This chapter reveals under what conditions organizational members follow organizational interests rather than personal ones. For example, under what conditions does culture reinforce that people give their best effort for the organization and do not sleep on the job? How can culture assure that people do not steal assets or otherwise behave in a way that does not support the organization’s long-term interests? This chapter provides theoretical patterns in order to analyze the tension between individual and organizational interests. More specifically, the analysis turns towards possible reasons to explain under what conditions people follow their individual interests and under what conditions they follow organizational interests in their control behavior (see Fig. 7.1).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Discussing first the organizational level and then the individual level is based on the assumption that an individual typically enters an organizational culture that already exists (except that he or she is the organizational founder).
- 2.
See Sect. 2.2.3.
- 3.
The emphasis in this approach is on values and not on social norms. However, values and norms interrelate and their functions are partially interchangeable. Therefore the chapter also covers aspects of social norms.
- 4.
Meglino and Ravlin (1998, p. 354).
- 5.
Meglino and Ravlin (1998, p. 355), Simon (1990), Wanous and Colella (1989).
- 6.
Kluckhohn (1951, p. 418). A study from Keller et al. (1992, p. 79) concluded that, based on a study of twins who grew up apart from each other, 40% of work values could be explained by genetic factors.
- 7.
Bern (1970, p. 14), Jones and Gerard (1967, p. 181).
- 8.
Meglino and Ravlin (1998, pp. 353-354).
- 9.
Ouchi (1979, p. 837).
- 10.
This application of personal values is based on Rokeach (1973), which has been widely replicated and discussed until today. See for example: Agle and Caldwell (1999), Bardi and Schwartz (2003), Meglino and Ravlin (1998), Van Rekom et al. (2006). Another commonly accepted value framework offer Schwartz (see Schwartz and Bilsky 1990).
- 11.
See Rokeach (1973).
- 12.
Meglino and Ravlin (1998, p. 353).
- 13.
Rokeach (1973, p. 8).
- 14.
COSO (1992, p. 13), Rokeach (1973, p. 12).
- 15.
This goes together with Meglino and Ravlin (1998, p. 353) who find in their literature review on organizational behavior that a greater amount of research has been spent on instrumental values as opposed to terminal values. In general, instrumental values are more common to describe organizational culture than terminal values (Schein 1985, p. 2).
- 16.
Rokeach (1973, p. 8).
- 17.
Guilt needs to be distinguished from shame, which is a related emotion. Shame and guilt have often been used as synonyms even though many researchers agree they are different emotions, for example, in the degree of focus on the self. Shame is related to discrepancies between one’s beliefs about the self and beliefs about what the self ought to be or what the ideal self would be. In contrast, guilt refers to a specific behavior and is therefore less focused on the self (see Eisenberg 2000).
- 18.
Liedtka (1989, p. 806); Williams (1968, p. 287).
- 19.
Meglino and Ravlin (1998, p. 358).
- 20.
Glover et al. (1997, p. 13).
- 21.
Rokeach (1973, p. 14).
- 22.
The literature distinguishes between values in a general sense and work values. Pine and Innis (1987, p. 280) define these work values as “an individual’s needs and priorities and consequent personal dispositions and orientations to work roles that have the perceived capability to satisfy those needs and priorities”. Thus, some studies on organizational values are criticized as investigating work instead of general organizational values. These difficulties with consistently defining and measuring of organizational culture have contributed to the inclusiveness of the research (Lim 1995, p. 20).
- 23.
Wiener (1988, p. 536).
- 24.
Wiener (1988, p. 544).
- 25.
Van Rekom et al. (2006, p. 180).
- 26.
See Pant and Lachman (1998), Van Rekom et al. (2006, p. 176).
- 27.
Collins and Porras (1996, p. 66).
- 28.
Schein (1985, p. 9).
- 29.
Wiener (1988, p. 535).
- 30.
O’Reilly (1989, p. 17).
- 31.
Chatman and Jehn (1994, p. 524).
- 32.
To give an idea of different value dimensions and their possible influences on the individual, the value dimensions of the organizational culture profile (OCP) are discussed. The OCP is a widely accepted measurement method that assumes every organizational culture is measurable through the dimensions of innovation, stability, respect for people, outcome orientation, detail orientation, team orientation, and aggression (O’Reilly et al. 1991, p. 494-495).
- 33.
Chatman and Jehn (1994, p. 527).
- 34.
Pennings and Harianto (1992, p. 357-358).
- 35.
Chatman and Jehn (1994, p. 527), Kanter (1988, p. 98). See also the, flexible’ firm according to Mouritsen (1999).
- 36.
This echoes the finding of Ashbaugh-Skaife et al. (2007, p. 3), Doyle et al. (2007, p. 5), Ge and McVay (2005, p. 138). Firms in industries such as computers, services, retail, pharmaceuticals and medical products have a higher relative incidence of material weaknesses in internal control. These industries usually require more innovation and risk taking and are more competitive because product lifetimes are relatively short compared to those in more traditional industries.
- 37.
Ouchi (1979, p. 842).
- 38.
CoCo (1995b, p. 14).
- 39.
Kluckhohn (1951, p. 395).
- 40.
Meglino and Ravlin (1998, p. 356).
- 41.
Becker et al. (1996, p. 481), Chatman and Jehn (1994, p. 523), Deal and Kennedy (1982, p. 8), Kotter and Heskett (1992, p. 8), Wilkins and Ouchi (1983, p. 364).
- 42.
McMurray (1963, p. 144).
- 43.
Becker et al. (1996, p. 481), Lee and Mowday (1987, p. 144).
- 44.
Miceli and Near (1994, p. 773).
- 45.
Cable and Judge (1996, p. 294), Lee and Mowday (1987, p. 421).
- 46.
Meglino and Ravlin (1998, p. 356) On the other hand, variations in the values held by organizational members can also be positive for creativity and innovation.
- 47.
For example, Chatman (1991) and O’Reilly et al. (1991).
- 48.
Kluckhohn (1951, p. 394).
- 49.
Rokeach (1973, p. 13).
- 50.
Meglino and Ravlin (1998, p. 354), Rokeach (1973, p. 11), Williams (1968, p. 15).
- 51.
Anand et al. (2005, p. 11).
- 52.
Van Rekom et al. (2006, p. 179).
- 53.
Barlow et al. (2003, p. 567), Sarros et al. (2005, p. 160).
- 54.
Rokeach and Ball-Rokeach (1989, p. 777).
- 55.
Wilkins and Ouchi (1983, p. 498).
- 56.
In this context Rokeach and Ball-Rokeach (1989, p. 777) argue that a good way to assess organizational values is to evaluate the values of people that aspire to having membership in an organization.
- 57.
Kirsh (2000, p. 111).
- 58.
Freedman and Fesko (1996, p. 49).
- 59.
Van Rekom et al. (2006, p. 180).
- 60.
Chatman and Jehn (1994, p. 524).
- 61.
Wiener (1988, p. 541).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Physica-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pfister, J. (2009). The Individual Level. In: Managing Organizational Culture for Effective Internal Control. Contributions to Management Science. Physica, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2340-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2340-0_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Physica, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-7908-2339-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-7908-2340-0
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)