Research Article: 2024 Vol: 28 Issue: 3
Mohammed Al Shehri, Saudi Electronic University
Citation Information: Al Shehri, M., (2024). The Influence of Culture on Organizational Culture – Saudi Arabia Case Study. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 28(S3),1-24
The Saudi Arabia 2030 vision has set a transition period for the country's economy in motion. This crucial stage of vision implementation profoundly impacts the organizational culture previously established in Saudi Arabia across both the government and private sectors. As the vision's implementation progresses, a large number of business activities have been undertaken to expedite the shift toward the new business model. This necessitates a greater emphasis on employee participation and engagement, as these behaviors are integral to managing business activities and driving business development. The primary objective of this paper is to provide a thought-provoking opportunity to enhance our understanding of the intricate link between culture and organizational culture within the unique setting of Saudi Arabia. A qualitative research approach was employed to enable a deeper exploration of the subject matter. The findings of this study have shed light on the influence of culture on organizational culture, with a specific focus on the Saudi Arabian landscape. This research helps us understand how organizational culture in Saudi Arabia is changing as they work towards the goals of the 2030 vision. It provides valuable information about how culture and organizations' work are connected. Such insights are crucial for policymakers, leaders, and practitioners alike as they navigate the evolving economic landscape and strive to foster a conducive environment for sustainable growth and development
Saudi Arabia, 2030 Vision, Transition, Economy, Organizational Culture, Government, Private Sectors
In today's globalized world, the impact of culture on organizations has become increasingly recognized as a significant factor in shaping their values, norms, and practices. (Hofstede, 1980) Organizational culture plays a crucial role in determining an organization's behavior, decision-making processes, and overall effectiveness. Understanding how culture influences organizational culture is essential for organizations to thrive in diverse and rapidly changing environments (Schein, 2010). Moreover, corporate culture has an impact on organizational performance and productivity (Levinson, 2007).
Saudi Arabia, a Gulf country known for its Islamic heritage, holds great significance for millions of Muslims who visit its holy mosques to perform Hajj and Umrah. Additionally, the discovery of oil has given the country significant economic importance. Islam's influence can be observed in various aspects of Saudi society, including its economy, social structures, and even political systems (Harper, Subanthore, & Gritzner, 2007).
In the realm of cultural dimensions, Hofstede categorized Saudi Arabia in his 6-D cultural dimension model (Hofstede & Minkov, 2010). This model identified dimensions that exist at both individual and national levels. Hofstede categorized national culture into seven dimensions “Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism vs. Collectivism, Masculinity vs. Femininity, Long Term Orientation Index, Indulgence vs. Restraint Index, and Monumentalism vs. Self-Effacement."
Saudi Arabia scores 95 on the Power Distance dimension, indicating a high acceptance of hierarchical order without justification. Centralism is widespread, with subordinates expected to comply with the leader's requests. Individualism is 25, reflecting a collective society that values long-term commitment and loyalty to extended family groups. Relationships between employees and leaders are often likened to familial bonds.
Saudi Arabia's score of 60 in Masculinity and 80 in the Uncertainty Avoidance dimensions suggest a masculine society with influential and confident leaders. Emotional needs drive rules and regulations, and security is a fundamental requirement for individuals. (Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990).
The Saudi Arabia 2030 vision has embarked on a transformative journey, shaping the future of the country's economy (Moshashai, Leber, & Savage, 2018). This visionary initiative has set in motion a critical transition period that profoundly impacts the established organizational culture across Saudi Arabia's government and private sectors. As the implementation of the vision progresses, numerous business activities have been undertaken to expedite the shift toward the new business model. Consequently, there is a growing recognition of the need for enhanced employee participation and engagement, as these behaviors play a vital role in managing business activities and driving business development. (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015)
Aims and Objectives
The primary objective of this research paper is to enhance our understanding of the intricate link between culture and organizational culture within the unique context of Saudi Arabia, particularly in light of the ongoing implementation of the Saudi Arabia 2030 vision. This period of economic transition initiated by the vision has profoundly impacted the previously established organizational culture across the country's government and private sectors. By employing a qualitative research approach, this study delves deeper into the subject matter, offering valuable insights into the influence of culture on organizational culture, with a specific focus on the Saudi Arabian landscape. This study aims to contribute to our understanding of how cultural factors shape and drive organizational practices.
Culture
Background
Denison (1996) defines culture as "a collection of structures, routines, rules, and norms that guide and constrain behavior." According to Schein (2004), culture is a structure formed by an organization's common knowledge and preferences that aids in navigating the problems of adaptation and integration. According to Hofstede and Minkov (2010), culture may be viewed as a reaction to standard mental training among individuals. This method has been passed down through ancestors as the approved technique to overcome problems.
Over time, the definitions of culture have evolved to encompass various elements such as knowledge, beliefs, morals, laws, customs, and behaviors acquired by groups of people (Gump, 2009). These descriptions highlight that organizational culture, tied to mental conventions, can manifest as a specific set of activities based on a thorough understanding of the group's conventions (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006).
Culture is a complex concept that includes variables other than race and ethnicity, such as age, social standing, gender, physical and mental talents, and religious and spiritual beliefs. Globalization has aided in the evolution of culture by exposing people to a wide range of cultural influences. Culture is sometimes defined as a group's shared tastes in cuisine, music, and standard of living. However, it also includes various other elements such as gender, socioeconomic status, age, physical and mental talents, and religious and spiritual inclinations. (Zion, Kozleski & Fulton 2005).
Culture is a fundamental factor in the development process, providing context, values, attitudes, subjectivity, and skills. It is a variable concept constantly evolving as individuals grow, question, change, and rediscover themselves. It is claimed that organizational culture, in particular, replaces individuals' own opinions with common ideals within a company. However, the linkage between values, beliefs, norms, and assumptions in the context of constant member interactions remains unexplained (Maraña, 2010).
Hall (1976) stated that culture is a shared and created aspect within a community rather than an inherent heritage passed down from generation to generation. Hofstede (1980) disagreed, viewing culture as a "differentiating factor" that molds a group's collective beliefs. People appreciate their culture and values, which influence their decisions in both private and professional settings. Spencer-Oatey (2012) believes that culture is common among group members but disagrees with Hofstede's claim that it impacts people's conduct and assessments of the behavior of others.
National Culture
National culture is a concept that identifies certain behaviors exhibited by individuals or groups (Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov, 2005; Schein, 2007), while organizational culture differentiates one organization from another (Hofstede, 2001). Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory provides a valuable framework for understanding cultural variations and their impact on organizational practices (Ebadollah, 2011). Hall's study in 1960 revealed that cultures significantly influence the work practices within different societies, categorizing them as either "high context" or "low context" societies. "High context" societies rely less on written formal communications and exhibit greater flexibility in their work approach, while "low context" individuals prefer written formal communications and follow a more structured and uninterrupted work style known as "monochromic."
Uncertainty Avoidance, Power Distance, Masculinity vs. Femininity, Individualism vs. Collectivism, Indulgence against Restraint Index, Long Term Orientation Index, and Monumentalism vs. Self-Effacement are Hofstede's seven aspects of national culture. His study covered Saudi Arabia, but the results may change with time (Ford & Chan, 2003; Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov, 2005; Hofstede, 2017). The image below depicts Saudi Arabia's cultural score in Hofstede's 6-D cultural dimension Model.
Saudi Arabia has a high score on the Power Distance dimension, which shows the value of organizational hierarchy, centralism, and the expectation that subordinates will obey their leader's orders. This is exemplified by a high score of 95 on the Power Distance dimension. (Hofstede, 2017).
Saudi Arabia scores 25 in the individualism dimension, indicating a collective society with long-term loyalty. The bond between employees and bosses is similar to a family, and the society has an elevated masculinity score of 60, which values competition, performance, and influential and confident leaders. (Hofstede, 2017).
Saudi Arabia scored an Uncertainty Avoidance score of 80, suggesting a culture with a poor tolerance for varied views and actions. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, scored relatively low in the Long-Term Orientation category, with 36, indicating a normative culture that values tradition but places less emphasis on saving for the future and a penchant for getting quick results. The modest score on the Indulgence dimension does not indicate a strong tendency in this area. According to Minkov and Hofstede (2011), cultures tend to develop in a cohesive direction within the same cultural setting, and the Hofstede dimensions are intended to identify and categorize these distinctions into six dimensions.
Studies have looked at how the national culture of Saudi Arabia affects numerous facets of society and workplace behavior (Idris, 2007). Al-Meer (1989) contrasted organizational commitment across Asian, Saudi, and Western cultures; Hunt and At-Twaijri and Al-Muhaiza (1996) investigated the principles held by Saudi managers. Idris (2007) investigated the impact of cultural barriers on raising productivity and organizational performance.
Religion significantly influences Arabic culture (Kalliny & Gentry, 2007), with Islamic principles being the fundamental core (Ali 1995, Kavoossi 2000 & Al-Shaikh 2003). The Islamic management system incorporates concepts like excellence, participation, consultation, and equitable promotion of chances (Abedifar, Mirjalili, & Eshghi, 2015). Work is viewed as an act of worship (Dadfar, 1984, 1987; Alderfer & Smith, 1982). Saudi Arabia has an Islamic banking system distinguished by interest-free transactions and is regarded as the center of the Islamic world and culture. These ideas influence how people live their everyday lives, behave, and value loyalty, integrity, and trust.
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture has been a hotly debated topic in management, owing in large part to the success of Japanese corporations in the 1970s. It is critical to have an effective culture and values to attain success and effectiveness in a firm (Liu, Shuibo, & Meiyung, 2006). Employee engagement is critical in achieving excellent results for the company and work, such as dedication, fulfillment, efficiency, creativity, and retention (Halbesleben, 2010).
Relations, a healthy balance between work and life, and principles are the three environmental aspects linked to engagement, according to Wildermuth and Pauken (2008). Values are linked to engagement and the evaluation of organizational and personal values. Maslowski (2006) argues that values are unspoken ideas or guidelines that guide how people should act. According to Schein (1990), organizational culture consists of values, ideals, presumptions, attitudes, and customs.
According to Wildermuth and Pauken (2008), values are linked to participation on two levels: safety and meaningfulness. According to Kahn (1990) and Chalofsky (2003), meaningfulness in the workplace is more likely to emerge when employees' values fit with their employer's ideals. Saks (2017) goes on to say that if employees feel mentally prepared and their work environment offers them safety and meaning, they will be more engaged and productive. These findings imply that engagement can only be established when an organization's values correspond with those of its employees.
The values and beliefs of a leader and an organization are critical components of their vision (Cameron & Quinn, 2006). William Kahn popularized the phrase "engagement" in 1990, and it has since spread to Japan, China, Egypt, Australia, Romania, South Africa, Finland, Spain, Greece, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, Belgium, South Korea, and Egypt. These principles are mirrored in an organization's mission and objectives (Schein, 2004).
Organizational culture is a complex combination of collective values, ideas, and assumptions that influence how a group considers, observes, and responds to its varied settings (Schein, 1996, p. 236). Scholars employed anthropological ideas throughout the 1950s and 1960s, such as culture, to investigate the behavior of people and groups inside organizations (Faris & Parsons, 1953; Crozier, 1964 & Bennis, 1969). Despite substantial research on this topic, a commonly accepted definition of organizational culture has yet to be found. However, certain points of agreement exist, such as viewing organizational culture as a multifaceted entity shared by members at all levels (Glisson & James, 2002; Trice & Beyer, 1993). Schein (1996) offers a thorough description of organizational culture, including the many perspectives in the literature.
Organizational Culture Types
Cameron and Quinn (1999) proposed that organizational culture encompasses essential concepts, beliefs, analyses, and approaches. It can be examined through two lenses: internal cohesion, integration, and preservation, and external dynamics involving competition and differentiation. While machine-like processes are characterized by hardness and control, organic processes are flexible and dynamic. Additionally, Krog (2014) asserts that the fusion of opposing ideologies would give rise to four different culture types: "clan culture, adhocracy culture, market culture, and hierarchy culture."
According to Acar and Acar (2014), clan culture is an encouraging atmosphere that emphasizes the internal environment and is highly correlated with employee engagement and cooperation. According to Aktaş, içek, and Kyak (2011), it is founded on a strong family feeling and emphasizes preserving stability, loyalty, cohesion, and engagement as the essential ingredients for success. The invention, risk-taking, originality, openness to new ideas, and an outward-focused, dynamic structure are characteristics of an adhocracy culture (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991; Acar & Acar, 2014).
Adhocracy culture provides ample opportunities for individual development aligned with organizational objectives and fosters innovation, such as the use of the Internet in business operations (Aktaş, Çiçek, & Kıyak, 2011).
As Quinn and Spreitzer (1991) outlined, market culture prioritizes stability and control with an external focus. It is characterized by a rational nature, emphasizing goal attainment, efficiency, and accomplishment. Hierarchy culture, also known as control culture, is commonly connected within an organization and strives for stability and control. (Acar & Acar, 2014). It is characterized by bureaucratic structures and an internal emphasis on control (Cameron and Quinn, 2006). Rulebooks and procedures maintain organizational cohesion, while stability and predictability are vital to operational efficiency (Hartnell, Ou, & Kinicki, 2011).
Organizational psychologists began to focus on organizational culture in the early 1980s, following the influential discourse by Pettigrew in 1979. Benjamin, Ehrhart, and Macey (2013) further contributed to this development by incorporating a sociological and anthropological perspective. Since then, the research landscape on organizational culture has significantly expanded, with over 4,600 articles published on the topic since 1980. There is an increasing expectation that future research will involve even more investigations. (Sackmann, 2011 & Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013).
According to Schein (2010), an organizational culture is a group of principles and values that new and experienced employees pick up to synchronize and adapt to internal and external surroundings. New and seasoned employees see This as a common set of ideals and principles.
Trice and Beyer (1993) defined culture as having four characteristics: it is communal, historically based, emotionally changing, dynamic, symbolic, and fuzzy, and constructed on emotive, frequently imprecise, and perplexing emphasis. Culture is developed solely via interactions between people through time, and it is communal, historically based, emotionally changing, dynamic, metaphorical, and hazy.
Smircich's (1983) taxonomy is grounded on four major viewpoints of organizational culture, each of which has several micro and macro-level ramifications. According to the cognitivist perspective, culture is seen as a body of common knowledge, with shared knowledge, values, and beliefs serving as the cornerstone of the connections between a company and its customers, workers, and managers (Deal & Kennedy, 1983; Trice & Beyer, 1993). Symbolic anthropologists believe that individual acts must also be felt and understood. The crucial role of the "manifestation of unconscious psychological processes" is highlighted by the structural and psycho-dynamic viewpoint on culture, which is based on a multi-leveled and complex process. Last but not least, the fundamental metaphor presupposition regards an organization as an increasingly expressive social reality based on the importance of human consciousness in shaping organizational culture—1985's Smircich.
In conclusion, Organizational culture is a significant aspect of dynamic firms' ability to compete and improve performance. Leaders may impact the growth of culture, propelling their firm to the top of the competitive ladder. Organizational culture, according to Khan and Afzal (2011) and Parumasur (2012), is an "invisible web of values, expectations, power structures, control systems, rituals, and myths that group members circle and spin through time."
Models have the most significant influence on how organizational culture is portrayed in literature. The most influential models are highlighted in this section.
SCHEIN’S Model of Organizational Culture
According to Schein (1990), culture is a collection of underlying assumptions generated, found, or evolved by a community as it learns to meet external and internal issues. The Schein Model explores corporate culture from an individual's perspective, emphasizing their personal experience. Schein's organizational culture levels model gives insights into an organization's essential features, such as its physical structure, dress code, communication patterns, and even the tiniest elements of the environment.Schein contends that the "second level of culture"—consisting of beliefs, norms, ideologies, codes, and philosophies—can be evaluated using interviews, questionnaires, and other survey techniques. This comprises philosophies, laws, ideologies, and codes (Hogan and Coote, 2014).
The third level of culture is a complex process that requires a profound understanding of processes, emotions, and behaviors. To thoroughly examine, it is necessary to ensure that the dimensions experienced align with the organization (Dimitrov, 2013). This is called the "third level of culture" and calls for extensive self-reflection by organization members. The model also asserts that while members may comprehend and experience the culture, interpreting, analyzing, and categorizing it into distinct categories is considerably more challenging. According to Hogan and Coote (2014), a company's culture is a broad component where employees experience different intensity levels.
The Martin Model
Martin (1992, 2002) provided three techniques for analyzing organizational culture: the integrationist view, the fragmented viewpoint, and the differentiated perspective. The integrationist viewpoint stresses the wide range of cultural values, whereas the fragmented approach emphasizes how much organizational members share certain values.
The integrationist viewpoint, to start, stresses the presence of a single, underlying culture that everyone in the community share. Conflicts may either be dismissed from this viewpoint or seen as problems that must be fixed (Ostroff, Kinicki, & Muhammad, 2012).
According to the fragmented approach, a unified culture shared by all members is optional, focusing on the ambiguity and inconsistencies within a culture. According to this viewpoint, only a tiny percentage of employees worked in various departments within the company and had varied personal traits which would experience common cultural values.
Thirdly, by acknowledging the existence of diverse subcultures inside the organization, the differentiation view synthesizes components of the first two perspectives. According to Schneider, Ehrhart, and Macey (2013), these subcultures show how various groups share specific values and views. Martin (2002), Ostroff, Kinicki, and Muhammad (2013), as well as Schneider, Ehrhart, and Macey (2013), support the thorough implementation of these three techniques to account for the organizational culture's innate complexity.
The Deal and Kennedy Organizational Culture Model
The degree of risk involved in a company's actions and the speed at which businesses and their workers get feedback were two crucial aspects of organizational culture that Deal and Kennedy (1983) examined. They further described four generic cultures: tough guy macho culture, work hard/play hard culture, bet-your-company culture, and process culture (Ebadollah, 2011). While the work tough/play hard culture encourages high activity and minimum risk, with perseverance serving as a measure of success, the tough guy macho culture is defined by managers' need to make rapid judgments and handle risk. Managers must ensure that tasks receive high energy and maintain high quality simultaneously (Gajendran et al., 2012).
The “bet-your-company culture” is characterized by a high value placed on critical decisions, which are communicated to employees only after a significant amount of time. This culture is common in organizations involved in long-term projects with substantial resources and emphasizes expert-led meetings, bureaucratic processes, and low-risk and slow feedback. Employees tend to focus more on the work procedure than the outcomes and may fear punishment and defensiveness if the process is flawed. This model posits that the overall organizational culture is shaped by the organization's reactions to stimuli from the business environment (Morente, Ferràs, & Žizlavský, 2017).
Organizational Culture by Handy
According to Handy's concept, there are four different sorts of cultures: the power culture, the role culture, the task culture, and the person culture. It is based on the connection between organizational structure and culture, which makes it simpler to recognize and comprehend various cultures (Omotola and Oladipupo, 2011). Power culture is the name of Handy's model's first culture type. Power cultures, which tend to be seen in tiny business enterprises and political groupings, are characterized by low bureaucracy and a small number of regulations. From the web's hub, authority and decision-making are dispersed.
The presence of explicitly designated powers inside a clearly defined structure, represented as a column and beam building, all of which are equally significant, is another crucial aspect of role culture. Organizations in the public sector have a distinct role culture where rules and procedures are essential, and people play a defined role that lasts even after they exit the organization.
Thirdly, task culture is viewed as a net of thicker and thinner strands and loops that symbolize the many spheres of power inside the company. This culture is centered on the notion that collective strength and people associating with the organization's goals are the keys to increasing efficiency. Teams are generally at the center of matrix or project-based organizations in this culture since they are meant to address issues (Kaouache, 2016).
Finally, personal cultures are unique to companies where workers believe they are more important than their company. In this culture, the organization's major goal is to help each person while keeping the organization's overarching goal in mind. Experienced advisors hired by each partner inside the company are frequently needed to support this culture (Cacciattolo, 2014).
Finally, Handy's framework (1985) and Schein's study (1986) highlight the importance of the link between organizational structure and culture as well as the critical impact that leadership has on the atmosphere of an organization. The current model's role and task cultures, which correspond with hierarchical and matrix structures, respectively, are used to illustrate this link.
Cultural Web Model by Johnson
According to the cultural web paradigm, each neighboring piece symbolizes a part of corporate culture (Johnson, 1988). Control systems are employed to oversee existing processes and activities. At the same time, power structures focus on decision-making employees, the extent of power distribution, and the underlying elements upon which power is based (Johnson, 2015).
Organizational logos, designs, and physical symbols of authority all play a significant part in the concept. Monthly events, board reports, and regular management meetings are examples of organizational rituals and routines as reflections of organizational ideals, stories, and myths develop from the experiences of individuals and events inside the company.
An organization's relevance, missions, and distinctive values are related to the cultural web that exists inside it. It includes the components that decide the kind of organizational level to use depending on each level that influences the organization (Johnson, 2015).
To conclude, the model mentioned above has facilitated the researcher's comprehension of the key components and analytical tools for examining organizational culture at the organizational level.
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s Model (1997)
The Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner Model, which builds on Hofstede's description of national cultures, divides cultures into seven categories based on behavioral and value patterns (Balan and Vreja, 2013).
The first dimension, “universalism vs. particularism," explores how a culture applies its principles, with universalism emphasizing rules that apply regardless of individual circumstances. In contrast, particularism focuses on adaptability and handling issues differently based on the context and individuals involved.
The second dimension, “individualism vs. collectivism," examines culture's focus, with individualism highlighting self-sufficiency and personal freedom and collectivism emphasizing the importance of the group and loyalty to it.
The third dimension, “neutral vs. affective," looks at a culture's approach to expressing emotions, with neutral cultures valuing impartiality and individuals concealing their true feelings, while affective cultures emphasize emotional expression.
The fourth dimension, “specific vs. diffuse," centers around the coordination of work and personal life, with specific cultures separating work and personal relationships and diffuse cultures integrating both aspects.
The fifth dimension, “achievement vs. ascription," focuses on status allocation within a culture, with achievement valuing performance regardless of individual attributes. In contrast, ascription emphasizes status based on age, level of education, gender, and individual traits.
The sixth dimension, “sequential vs. synchronous," explores a culture's orientation towards time, with sequential cultures emphasizing chronological events, punctuality, and schedules. In contrast, synchronous cultures view time as flexible and interconnected, often working on multiple projects simultaneously.
The seventh dimension, internal direction vs. external direction, examines the relationship between people and their cultural environment, with internal direction cultures believing in control and goal attainment and external direction cultures emphasizing adaptation and collaboration with the environment (Balan and Vreja, 2013).
Trompenaars interviewed 15,000 workers from diverse organizations in fifty countries to create this framework (Balan and Vreja, 2013). There have been comparisons made between this model and Hofstede's. However, the Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner Model is thought to be more user-friendly and gives behavioral elements more weight (Darko, 2010).
Organizational Culture Profile Model
O'Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell developed the Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) for the first time in 1991. Their goal was to evaluate organizational cultural dynamics and employee alignment. Creativity, stability, person orientation, result orientation, details orientation, teamwork orientation, and aggression are the seven categories that the OCP uses to classify organizational culture. Abdul Nifa (2013) claims that the OCP is made up of 54 value statements that are used to assess how corporate values and employee value preferences interact. Utilizing the Q-sort approach, respondents categorize the assertions into nine categories, starting with the weakest organizational feature (category 1) and moving up to the strongest (category 9). Consideration is given to a neutral rating of "5" (O'Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell, 1991).
Participants were told to score the 54 items according to a specified pattern of 2-4-6-9-12-9-6- 4-2, as stated by O'Reilly et al. (2005), with the bulk of the items being classified as neutral (O'Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell, 1991). Repeating the earlier stages while this time illustrating the desired organization is the next phase. The organizational values and individual preferences profiles may also be compared to determine how well an individual fits into a particular culture (O'Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell, 1991).
The Competing Values Framework
Quinn and Rohrbaugh created the Competing Values Framework (CVF) to examine various organizational contexts in 1981. Quinn and McGrath expanded on it in 1985 to pinpoint the components essential for raising organizational performance. According to Cameron and Quinn (1999), this paradigm has successfully raised organizational quality. Colyer (2000) asserts that the CVF holds that organizations may be classified based on all companies' cultural traits. Clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy are the four cultural values kinds that make up the framework. Each kind has unique traits, such as common ideals, leadership philosophies, essential qualities, and success standards.
Various researchers have discussed the most appropriate organizational culture model, offering different measurements and dimensions. Detert, Schroeder, & Mauriel (2000) proposed eight common dimensions of organizational culture, including truth and rationality in the organization, time and time horizon, motivation, stability versus change/innovation, orientation to work/co-workers, isolation versus collaboration, control versus autonomy, and internal versus external. Other models, such as the Organizational Culture Survey (which includes six items), the Organizational Culture Inventory (Cooke and Rousseau, 1988), and the Multidimensional Model of Organizational Cultures by (Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990)), have been proposed by different researchers.
Harrison Culture Dimensions Model
The Culture Dimensions Model, according to Roger Harrison (1993), may appear to be evaluative. However, its primary function is descriptive since it draws attention to the difference between a culture's actual and desired states. "Power-oriented culture," “role oriented culture," “achievement-oriented culture," and “support-oriented culture” are the four cultural aspects identified by the model. Levels of formalization and centralization, which range from low to high, are used to quantify these dimensions (Taştan and Türker, 2014).
A hierarchical web-like organization with a solid relationship to the central authority, where the highest power sits, characterizes a power-oriented culture. This culture stresses a personal, informal, and power-based management style where authority is shared from the top down. Both big and small firms may adopt power-oriented cultures; however, in the latter, a limited number of highly skilled leaders retain complete control over the workforce (Taştan and Türker, 2014).
As Harrison and Stokes (1992) described, role-oriented culture, on the other hand, acts as a "substituting" structure for the leader's direct power. It places greater emphasis on specific work requirements, specialization, and understandable policies and procedures than it does on the individual employee (Harrison, 1993).
All members of an achievement-oriented culture, often called a task culture, share a shared goal or objective that they are working toward. According to Brown (1998), ability rather than appeal or popularity underlies the power dynamics in task cultures. According to Harrison (1993), an achievement-oriented culture has a network-like structure, with certain parts being stronger than others. Short-term goals determine who has power, and cooperation and job accomplishment are valued equally. However, as sources of authority, employee advancement is viewed as less relevant than talents, competencies, and professional power (Hampden Turner, 1990).
Support-oriented cultures stress the significance of cooperation and put people at the company's heart, which contrasts sharply with achievement-oriented cultures (Harrison & Stokes, 1992, p. 20). It is described as having a person-centered culture built on mutual trust between people and the company. A support-oriented culture's organizational structure consists of a benign cluster structure with less hierarchy, which denotes less employee control (Harrison, 1993). People in this society influence one another by setting an example and offering assistance. Organizations with a role-oriented culture share characteristics, including the perception of authority as being comparable to task competency, the sharing of power, and the use of power only when necessary (Brown, 1998).
Additionally, there are similarities between organizational culture and support-oriented culture, particularly regarding both cultures' emphasis on people. The effects of choices on employees' well-being and productivity are highly valued in support-oriented cultures, claim Martins & Martins (2002, p. 381). This kind of culture is frequently observed in small businesses where staff members have built strong bonds over time based on support and trust (Harrison, 1993). To unite employees and meet their needs, relationships are essential (Wiseman, Ngirande, & Setati, 2017). Its little formal central power and the substitution of consensual decision-making through multidirectional informal verbal communication for managerial control are what distinguish this sort of culture (Harrison & Stokes, 1992).
This section has explored various assessment models of organizational cultures, each contributing to our understanding of organizational culture and its associated beliefs. These models have also facilitated the development of strategies to identify different types of organizational cultures.
The current study explores corporate culture using Schein's (1985) and Schein's (1992) structural model of culture as a lens. This framework, which sees the organization as a useful social structure, was chosen because it has been applied in the past (Schein, 1996), has received less criticism (Mats Alvesson, 1992), and may include many viewpoints in cultural studies (Kong, 2003).
To achieve this goal, Schein's definition of "organizational culture," which characterizes it as a set of shared ideas that help group members overcome integration and adaptation issues internally and externally, is used. It also stands for a set of timeless principles that are passed down through the generations, influencing the right perspectives on the difficulties as mentioned earlier (Schein, 1985). According to Schein, culture is also seen as a multi-layered framework that is closely related to the subconscious, founded in the group's basic needs as a whole, and that aids individuals in forging close bonds with both nature and other people.
Measuring Organizational Culture
Organizational culture is a complex concept encompassing a group's hidden values, beliefs, and assumptions, operating at multiple levels and comprising various subcultures (Martin, 2002; Ostroff, Kinicki, & Muhammad, 2013; Schein, 2010). Initial studies on organizational culture were qualitative and anthropological, but quantitative surveys have been surpassed by qualitative methods (Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013). However, as the field progressed, quantitative surveys gained popularity for their ability to measure and quantify cultural dimensions (Ehrhart, Schneider, & Macey, 2013)
Surveys as acceptable investigative techniques have changed from contentious to universally accepted (Ostroff, Kinicki, & Muhammad, 2013). Compared to qualitative techniques, they have benefits like being more time-efficient, and their major strength is the sort of information they produce (Denison, Nieminen, & Kotrba, 2014; Xenikou & Furnham, 1996). According to Denison et al. (2014), surveys can be classified as either typing or profiling surveys.
Kotrba et al. (2012) and Hartnell et al. (2011) have criticized typing surveys for needing more empirical backing, relying on incompatible culture kinds, limiting the potential of high scores across different culture types, and oversimplifying what culture means. In contrast, profiling surveys consider that an organization may have numerous cultural dimensions, allowing for high or low results on each analyzed component. This method makes it easier to describe and comprehend the culture of a business (Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013). For more classification, see Jung et al. (2009), Denison, Nieminen, and Kotrba (2014), and Ashkanasy, Wilderom, and Peterson (2000). Profiling surveys can be used for formative or diagnostic reasons. Instead of connecting culture dimensions to outside criteria like "organizational performance," formative measurements concentrate on building an organization's culture profile. Diagnostic surveys make this connection.
A research technique for examining corporate culture is the Competing Values Framework (CVF) (Harris & Mossholder, 1996). It looks at control and flexibility, as well as their effects on organizations and rivalry between internal and external contexts. Externally oriented businesses prioritize expansion, resource acquisition, and contact with the external environment, whereas internally focused organizations prioritize integration, information management, and communication (Schraeder, Tears, & Jordan, 2005).
Organizations prioritizing control prioritize stability and unity, while those emphasizing flexibility prioritize adaptability and spontaneity (Zammuto, Gifford, & Goodman, 2000). This creates four primary organizational culture types, with hierarchical cultures using information management and communication tools to establish stability and control (Denison & Spreitzer, 1991).
Strong and Weak Organizational Culture
Martins and Terblanche (2003) divide organizational culture into weak and robust categories. The organization's basic principles are strongly held and broadly accepted when a robust organizational culture increases member commitment. Strong organizations are considered influential in shaping behavior and serve as powerful drivers (Deal and Kennedy, 1983). They exhibit consistent norms and significantly impact their members' behavior (Martins and Martins, 2002). Brown (1998) asserts that a strong organizational culture enables goal alignment, fosters high employee motivation, and facilitates learning from past experiences.
Martins and Martins (2002) further suggest that a strong organizational culture can lead to lower employee turnover, as clear definitions and shared values promote cohesiveness, loyalty, and organizational commitment.
On the other hand, a weak culture is characterized by a lack of shared beliefs, values, and norms among its members. O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell (1991) define weak cultures as the opposite of strong cultures, where employees need help to identify with the organization's core values and objectives. Different departments within weak cultures may have conflicting values that do not align with the organization's overall aims. Weak cultures hurt employees and are associated with increased turnover (Trice and Beyer, 1993).
The Distinction Between Organizational Culture and Climate
Describing organizational culture requires acknowledging its connection to organizational climate and exploring the relationship, comparisons, and interdependencies between the concepts. Previous researchers, such as Payne (2000) and Schein (1990), have delved into this topic. Organizational climate and organizational culture serve as surrogate terms used to understand individuals' perceptions of their work environments and are essential for analyzing and describing organizational phenomena (Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013). However, climate studies differ in their focus by placing greater value on processes and measures closely tied to organizational life. The climate is primarily concerned with the social aspects identified by organizational members (Ostroff, Kinicki, & Muhammad, 2012). It is more immediate and biased compared to culture, as employees can quickly grasp and interpret an organization's climate based on their observations of the physical space, individual performance, and behaviors, as well as how visitors and new members are welcomed and perceived (Benjamin, Brown, & Shapiro, 2013).
The idea of "observable artifacts," which Schein (2010) views as the top layer of organizational culture, is also linked to organizational climate. Artifacts operate as a bridge between people's interpretations of the climate and the core cultural ideas and ideals. Organizational culture is supposed to support and align with the company's structure, practices, rules, and routines, establishing the context in which climate perceptions arise, as suggested by Ostroff, Kinicki, and Muhammad (2013). Disclosing different psychological subtleties inside an organization, culture, and environment is currently seen as being both similar to and different from one another (Ostroff, Kinicki, & Muhammad, 2013; Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013).
Recent decades have seen an increase in the amount of research on organizational culture. This research is still growing and is showing how important factors like financial performance, operational effectiveness, employee satisfaction, and commitment are positively impacted by organizational culture (Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Peterson, 2011; Denison, Nieminen, & Kotrba, 2014; Hartnell & Kinicki, 2011; Sackmann, 2011). To succeed, organizational cultures need to be evaluated and modified (Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Peterson, 2011).
Characteristics of Saudi Organizational Culture
The business culture in Saudi Arabia is predominantly hierarchical, where employees typically follow their leaders' instructions. Managers make decisions that subordinates implement, reflecting a micromanagement style often seen in Western (Hani Brdesee, Corbitt, Siddhi Pittayachawan, & Wafaa Alsaggaf, 2012). Saudi managers are perceived as authoritarian, providing explicit instructions to their subordinates for task completion (Aldhuwaihi et al., 2012). This type of culture can have drawbacks, such as sending the wrong message to employees and challenging managers to manage their subordinates' behavior (Hani Brdesee, Corbitt, Siddhi Pittayachawan, & Wafaa Alsaggaf, 2012).
Key goals, including stability, growth, strength, tolerance, quality, opportunity, and investment, are outlined on the Vision 2030 government website. It strives to create a powerful, prosperous, and stable Saudi Arabia that offers chances to everyone (Khan, 2016). It highlights the requirement for a work environment that supports all employees' professional development while valuing and rewarding effort. To prepare young people for future jobs, education, and training programs must be developed and made available to them (Thompson, 2017). The writers of Goal 2030 acknowledge the significance of certain values, such as moderation, tolerance, discipline, equity, and transparency, for the success of Saudi society in achieving the goal.
However, achieving these values across all sectors of society can be challenging. The 2030 vision document avoids explicit references to government measures aimed at winning the cooperation of the Saudi public (Khan, 2016).
Organizational Culture Change
Armstrong (2006) and Zedeck (2011) state that organizations increasingly realize the value of change and that most culture change initiatives start with an examination of the current culture. This analysis helps organizations understand the current situation before implementing changes that may have cultural implications. However, changing culture is a complex process that is often more challenging than changing organizational climate. Organizations may decide to change culture due to specific environmental factors, but changing culture is a complex process that is often more challenging than changing organizational climate (Luthans, Fred & F, 2008).
Organizational climate and organizational culture are distinct concepts that influence the quality of the work environment, its friendliness, and ease of interaction. It also serves as a psychological climate, reflecting shared perceptions among employees about the organization and their work environments. Psychological climates are easier to change as they stem from individuals' reactions to management or the organization (Martins & Coetzee, 2011). According to Martins and Coetzee (2011), psychological climates significantly impact employees' job satisfaction, engagement, commitment, and motivation.
The most important details in this text are that introducing new values and behaviors to an organization requires more than developing a strategy and imposing it on employees (Davidson, 2003). According to Martin and Coetzee (2011), employees at a business with a strong culture place a high value on its guiding principles and often share them, which lowers employee turnover and strengthens the culture. Although it is difficult to show how culture affects group values and behaviors in theory or practice, organizational values, as defined by Martins and Coetzee (2011), indicate profoundly held views that employees share.
Therefore, the effectiveness of a culture change program depends on the quality of change management processes, as highlighted by Armstrong (2006) and Luthans, Fred & F (2008). Employees play a key role in determining the need for change and selecting strategies to address any emerging issues.
Unfreezing, altering, and refreezing are the three processes that make up Lewin's Change model, which was first presented by Kreitner and Kinicki in 2007. Kotter (1996) created a paradigm that stresses companies' leadership, as opposed to management, of change. According to Schein (2007), all cultures develop similarly, which also underlines organizational leaders' crucial role in influencing and transforming culture. Leaders who are consistent with the company's culture, values, and policies get the respect of their followers and are crucial in ensuring that organizational systems within the culture continue to operate as intended.
This study presents a framework that can be applied in Saudi banks to enhance the organizational culture and contribute to overall progress and profitability. Organizational culture is particularly impacted by the significant changes occurring in Saudi Arabia across various cultural aspects and requires careful attention and management. The Saudi 2030 Vision strategy strongly emphasizes organizational change, including the intention to modify performance evaluation and appraisal criteria to link employee performance with benefits and compensation, fostering employee engagement. These changes were necessitated, in part, by the concept of "rewards for all."
Furthermore, the study recognizes the importance of diversity management in the ongoing transformation phase in Saudi Arabia, specifically in providing greater opportunities for women to assume leadership positions in the government and private sectors. These changes may introduce diverse perspectives, opinions, and styles, underscoring the need for effective diversity management practices that enable banks to navigate such variations and address potential resistance.
By implementing the proposed framework, Saudi banks can proactively shape and nurture their organizational culture to align with the changing economic landscape and the goals set forth by the Saudi 2030 Vision. This framework takes into account the unique cultural context of Saudi Arabia, the emphasis on performance-based rewards, and the increasing importance of diversity management. It provides guidance and strategies to help banks create a positive and engaging organizational culture that supports the growth, innovation, and long term sustainability of their institutions.
During the course of this research, several obstacles were encountered. One limitation is that the findings are based solely on the Saudi Arabian context, and it would be advantageous to broaden the scope to include other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries for a more comprehensive understanding. Additionally, the effectiveness of implementing the proposed interventions in another organization would be contingent upon the specific state of the organizational culture in that context. While the recommended interventions may have some relevance in different organizations, assessing the unique challenges hindering the organizational culture in those contexts is crucial before suggesting appropriate remedies. The study may have been limited by time constraints, preventing an in-depth exploration of all relevant aspects of organizational culture and its influence. A more comprehensive and longitudinal study would provide a more robust understanding of the dynamic nature of organizational culture in the Saudi Arabian context.
Future Research Recommendations
First, it is advised to keep delving into engagement culture. Future studies might include more elements that affect involvement over time because this phenomenon is dynamic and not static. Additionally, there is a focus on the responsibilities of female employees, considering the major shift Saudi Arabia is presently through. Notably, the choice of a woman as the head of Medina's municipality represents the growing influence of women in leadership positions. Further investigation of female engagement would therefore provide insightful information about company culture. Furthermore, Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods in future research can offer a more comprehensive understanding of the influence of culture on organizational culture.
Although this study focused on Saudi Arabia, it would be advantageous to carry out comparable research in other Gulf nations, including Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. This would give a comparative viewpoint on involvement's effects on organizations in these various circumstances.
Furthermore, because this study was carried out, especially in Saudi Arabia, another avenue for future research could be to examine organizational culture in different sectors of the country, such as the public or private sector. Future research could focus on specific industries or sectors within Saudi Arabia to explore how cultural influences shape organizational culture in different contexts. This would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the cultural dynamics within specific organizational contexts.
Abdul Nifa, F. A. (2013). Development of a framework for partnering through aligning organizational cultures in the Malaysian construction industry (Doctoral dissertation).
Abedifar, V., Mirjalili, S. M., & Eshghi, M. (2015). A two-objective optimization scheme for high-OSNR and low-power-consuming all-optical networks. Optical Fiber Technology, 21, 115-121.
Acar, A. Z., & Acar, P. (2014). Organizational culture types and their effects on organizational performance in Turkish hospitals. EMAJ: Emerging Markets Journal, 3(3), 18-31.
Adkins, B., & Caldwell, D. (2004). Firm or subgroup culture: where does fitting in matter most?. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(8), 969-978.
Ahmady, G. A., Nikooravesh, A., & Mehrpour, M. (2016). Effect of organizational culture on knowledge management based on Denison model. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 230, 387-395.
Aktaş, E., Çiçek, I., & Kıyak, M. (2011). The effect of organizational culture on organizational efficiency: The moderating role of organizational environment and CEO values. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1560-1573.
Alderfer, C. P., & Smith, K. K. (1982). Studying intergroup relations embedded in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35-65.
Aldhuwaihi, A., Shee, H. K., & Stanton, P. (2012). Organisational culture and the job satisfaction-turnover intention link: A case study of the Saudi Arabian banking sector. World, 2(3), 127-41.
Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change. Journal of organizational change management, 28(2), 234-262.
Ali, A. J. (1995). Cultural discontinuity and Arab management thought. International Studies of Management & Organization, 25(3), 7-30.
Al-Meer, A. R. A. (1989). Organizational commitment: A comparison of Westerners, Asians, and Saudis. International Studies of Management & Organization, 19(2), 74-84.
Al‐Shaikh, F. N. (2003). The practical reality theory and business ethics in non‐Western context: evidence from Jordan. Journal of Management Development, 22(8), 679-693.
Alvesson, M., & Berg, P. O. (2011). Corporate culture and organizational symbolism: An overview.
Armstrong, M. (2006). A handbook of human resource management practice. Kogan Page Publishers.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P., & Peterson, M. F. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of organizational culture and climate. Sage.
At-Twaijri, M. I., & Al-Muhaiza, I. A. (1996). Hofstede's cultural dimensions in the GCC countries: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 9(2), 121-131.
Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2010). Where to go from here: Integration and future research on work engagement. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research, 181-196.
Balan, S., & Vreja, L. O. (2013, November). The Trompenaars’ seven-dimension cultural model and cultural orientations of Romanian students in management. In Proceedings of the 7th International Management Conference" New Management for the New Economy", November 7th-8th, Bucharest, Romania.
Benjamin, D. J., Brown, S. A., & Shapiro, J. M. (2013). Who is ‘behavioral’? Cognitive ability and anomalous preferences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(6), 1231-1255.
Bennis, W. G. (1969). The temporary society. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 3(4), 223-242.
Brown, M. F. (1998). Can culture be copyrighted?. Current anthropology, 39(2), 193-222.
Cacciattolo, K. (2014). Understanding organisational cultures. European scientific journal.
Chalofsky, N. (2003). An emerging construct for meaningful work. Human Resource Development International, 6(1), 69-83.
Colyer, S. (2000). Organizational culture in selected Western Australian sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 14(4), 321-341.
Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1988). Behavioral Norms and Expectations. Group & Organization Studies, 13(3), 245–273.
Crozier, M. (1964). Pouvoir et organisation. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 5(1), 52-64.
Dadfar, H. (1984). Organization as a Mirror for Reflection of National Culture: A study of organizational characteristics in Islamic nations.
Dadfar, H. (1987). Organizational responses to a revolutionary environment: The case of Iran. Scandinavian Journal of Management Studies, 3(3-4), 213-232.
de Mello e Souza Wildermuth, C., & Pauken, P. D. (2008). A perfect match: decoding employee engagement–Part I: Engaging cultures and leaders. Industrial and commercial training, 40(3), 122-128.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1983). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life: Addison-Wesley, 1982. ISBN: 0-201-10277-3. $14.95. Business Horizons, 26(2), 82-85.
Denison, D. (2011). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness, Denison consulting.
Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native's point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of management review, 21(3), 619-654.
Denison, D. R., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). Organizational culture and organizational development: A competing values approach. Research in organizational change and development, 5(1), 1-21.
Denison, D., Nieminen, L., & Kotrba, L. (2014). Diagnosing organizational cultures: A conceptual and empirical review of culture effectiveness surveys. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(1), 145-161.
Detert, J. R., Schroeder, R. G., & Mauriel, J. J. (2000). A framework for linking culture and improvement initiatives in organizations. Academy of management Review, 25(4), 850-863.
Dimitrov, K. (2013). Edgar Schein’s model of organizational culture levels as a hologram. Икономически изследвания, (4), 3-36.
Ebadollah, A. (2011). Organizational culture and productivity. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 772-776.
Ehrhart, M. G., Schneider, B., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture: An introduction to theory, research, and practice. Routledge.
Faris, E., & Parsons, T. (1953). The Social System. American Sociological Review, 18(1), 103.
Ford, D. P., & Chan, Y. E. (2003). Knowledge sharing in a multi-cultural setting: a case study. Knowledge management research & practice, 1(1), 11-27.
Gajendran, T., Brewer, G., Dainty, A. R., & Runeson, G. (2012). A conceptual approach to studying the organisational culture of construction projects. Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, The, 12(2), 1-26.
Giffords, E. D., & Dina, R. P. (2003). Changing organizational cultures: The challenge in forging successful mergers. Administration in Social Work, 27(1), 69-81.
Glisson, C., & James, L. R. (2002). The cross‐level effects of culture and climate in human service teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(6), 767-794.
Gump, S. E. (2009). Book Review: Gary P. Ferraro, The Cultural Dimension of International Business, 5th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006. 216 pp. ISBN 978—0-13—192767—4. Price $53.33. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 9(3), 382-385.
Halbesleben, J. R. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research, 8(1), 102-117.
Hall, E. T. (1960). The silent language in overseas business. (No Title).
Handy, C. B. (1976). So you want to change your organisation? Then first identify its culture. Management education and development, 7(2), 67-84.
Hani Brdesee, Corbitt, B., Siddhi Pittayachawan, & Wafaa Alsaggaf. (2012). Organisational culture and adoption of electronic commerce: A study of the Saudi Arabian tourism market. In 2012 7th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE) (pp. 857-862). IEEE.
Harper, R. A., Subanthore, A., & Gritzner, C. F. (2007). Saudi Arabia. In Google Books.
Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1996). The affective implications of perceived congruence with culture dimensions during organizational transformation. Journal of management, 22(4), 527-547.
Harrison, R. and Stokes, H. (1992) . Diagnosing Organizational Culture Instrument. 1st ed. John Wiley & Sons.
Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: a meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework's theoretical suppositions. Journal of applied psychology, 96(4), 677.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 5). sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage publications.
Hofstede, G. (2017). Country Comparison-Hofstede Insights. Hofstede Insights.
Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. (2010). Long-versus short-term orientation: new perspectives. Asia Pacific business review, 16(4), 493-504.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (Vol. 2). New York: Mcgraw-hill
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative science quarterly, 286-316.
Hogan, S. J., & Coote, L. V. (2014). Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: A test of Schein's model. Journal of business research, 67(8), 1609-1621.
Johnson, G. (2015). Cultural Web. Wiley Encyclopedia of Management, 1-2.
Johnson, M. K. (1988). Reality monitoring: An experimental phenomenological approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117(4), 390.
Jung, T., Scott, T., Davies, H. T., Bower, P., Whalley, D., McNally, R., & Mannion, R. (2009). Instruments for exploring organizational culture: A review of the literature. Public administration review, 69(6), 1087-1096.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of management journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Kalliny, M., & Gentry, L. (2007). Cultural values reflected in Arab and American television advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 29(1), 15-32.
Kaouache, R. (2016). Analysis of organizational cultures. 45-56.
Kavoossi, M. (2000). The globalization of business and the Middle East: Opportunities and constraints. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Khan, M. A., & Afzal, H. (2011). High level of education builds up strong relationship between organizational culture and organization performance in Pakistan. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(07), 1387-1400.
Khan, S. (2016). Influence of Organizational Culture on Teacher's Work Engagement: An Empirical Study. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(4).
Kokt, D., & Van der Merwe, C. A. (2009). Using the competing values framework (CVF) to investigate organisational culture in a major private security company. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 12(3), 343-352.
Kong, S. H. (2003). A portrait of Chinese enterprise through the lens of organizational culture. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 8(1), 83-102.
Kotrba, L. M., Gillespie, M. A., Schmidt, A. M., Smerek, R. E., Ritchie, S. A., & Denison, D. R. (2012). Do consistent corporate cultures have better business performance? Exploring the interaction effects. Human relations, 65(2), 241-262.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard business review, 73(2), 59-67.
Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, Á. (2007). Comportamiento organizacional. Nova York, NY: McGraw Hill Irwin, 9.
Krog, A. K. (2014). The relationship between organizational culture and work engagement: A multilevel investigation (Master's thesis).
Levinson, E. (2007). Developing high employee engagement makes good business sense. Interaction Associates.
Liu, A. M., Shuibo, Z., & Meiyung, L. (2006). A framework for assessing organisational culture of Chinese construction enterprises. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 13(4), 327-342.
Luthans, Fred, T. & F. (2008). Organizational behavior. 11th ed. Boston : McGraw Hill/Irwin, c2008.
Maraña, M. (2010). Cultura y Desarrollo. Evolución y perspectivas. Unesco.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. (2001). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. Sage publications.
Martins, E. C., & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European journal of innovation management, 6(1), 64-74.
Martins, E., & Martins, N. (2002). An organisational culture model to promote creativity and innovation. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28(4), 58-65.
Martins, N., & Coetzee, M. (2011). Staff perceptions of organisational values in a large South African manufacturing company: Exploring socio-demographic differences. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(1), 01-11.
Maslowski, R. (2006). A review of inventories for diagnosing school culture. Journal of educational administration, 44(1), 6-35.
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2011). The evolution of Hofstede's doctrine. Cross cultural management: An international journal, 18(1), 10-20.
Morente, F., Ferràs, X., & Zizlavsky, O. (2018). Modelos culturais de inovação: revisão e proposta de seguintes passos. Revista Universidad y Empresa, 20(34), 53-81.
Moshashai, D., Leber, A. M., & Savage, J. D. (2020). Saudi Arabia plans for its economic future: Vision 2030, the National Transformation Plan and Saudi fiscal reform. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 47(3), 381-401.
O'Reilly III, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of management journal, 34(3), 487-516.
Obeng-Darko, D. (2010). Cross Cultural Business Communication: A case of Lower Silesia Chamber of Commerce, Wroclaw, Poland.
Omotola, A. O., & Oladipupo, A. O. (2011). Concepts and measurement of culture in organisations. Journal of Communication and Culture, 1(1/2), 64-86.
Chatman, J. A., & Spataro, S. E. (2005). Using self-categorization theory to understand relational demography–based variations in people's responsiveness to organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 321-331.
Zohar, D., & Hofmann, D. A. (2012). Organizational culture and climate.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Muhammad, R. S. (2013). Organizational culture and climate. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Oatey, H. S. (2012). What is culture? A compilation of quotations. Global PAD Core Concepts, 1-21.
Parumasur, S. B. (2012). The effect of organisational context on organisational development (OD) interventions. SA journal of industrial psychology, 38(1), 1-12.
Payne, D. (2000). Reporting errors. Cheesed off with the blame culture. Nursing times, 96(25), 10-11.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative science quarterly, 24(4), 570-581.
Quinn, R. E., & McGrath, M. R. (1985). The transformation of organizational cultures: A competing values perspective.
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness. Public productivity review, 122-140.
Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). The psychometrics of the competing values culture instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life. Emerald.
Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of management journal, 49(3), 433-458.
Roger Harrison, H. S. (1993), Diagnosing organizational culture, in Diagnosing organizational culture. Pfeiffer & Co. - Business & Economics, 32.
Sackmann, S. A. (2011). Culture and performance. The handbook of organizational culture and climate, 2, 188-224.
Saks, A. M. (2017). Translating employee engagement research into practice. Organizational Dynamics, 2(46), 76-86.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
Schein, E. H. (1986). What you need to know about organizational culture. Training & Development Journal.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture (Vol. 45, No. 2, p. 109). American Psychological Association.
Schein, E. H. (1992). How can organizations learn faster?: the problem of entering the Green Room.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Administrative science quarterly, 229-240.
Schein, E. H. (2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership. Leadership, 7, 437. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. In Google Books. John Wiley & Sons.
Schein, V. E. (1985). Organizational realities: The politics of change. Training & Development Journal.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual review of psychology, 64, 361-388.
Schraeder, M., Tears, R. S., & Jordan, M. H. (2005). Organizational culture in public sector organizations: Promoting change through training and leading by example. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(6), 492-502.
Smircich, L. (2017). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. The Anthropology of Organisations, 255-274.
Stanton, J. M. (2021). Evaluating equivalence and confirming the null in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 24(3), 491-512.
Taştan, S. B., & Türker, M. V. (2014). A study of the relationship between organizational culture and job involvement: the moderating role of psychological conditions of meaningfulness and safety. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149, 943-947.
Thompson, M. C. (2017). ‘Saudi vision 2030’: A viable response to youth aspirations and concerns?. Asian Affairs, 48(2), 205-221.
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Xenikou, A., & Furnham, A. (1996). A correlational and factor analytic study of four questionnaire measures of organizational culture. Human relations, 49(3), 349-371.
Yu, T., & Wu, N. (2009). A review of study on the competing values framework. International journal of business and management, 4(7), 37-42.
Zammuto, R. F., Gifford, B., & Goodman, E. A. (2000). Managerial ideologies, organization culture and the outcomes of innovation: A competing values perspective.
Zedeck, S. E. (2011). APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol 3: Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization.
Zion, S., Kozleski, E., & Fulton, M. L. (2005). Understanding culture. National Institute for Urban School Improvement.
Received: 26-Jan-2024, Manuscript No. IJE-24-14535; Editor assigned: 29-Jan-2024, Pre QC No. IJE-24-14535 (PQ); Reviewed: 12-Feb-2024, QC No. IJE-24-14535; Revised: 16-Feb-2024, Manuscript No. IJE-24-14535 (R); Published: 23-Feb-2024