a hybrid model for the assessment of the organizational culture at company level, adapted to the...

REVISTA ECONOMICĂ Supplement No. 5/2012

Journal of economic-financial theory and practice CNCSIS reference: B+, Code 478 Frequency: 6 issues/year Editor Prof. Dan Popescu, Ph.D., Dr. H.C. of University of Rennes 1, France and Dr.H.C. of Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova Deputy Editor Prof. Liviu Mihăescu, Ph.D. Scientific Committee Prof. Dan Popescu, Ph.D., Dr.H.C. – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Prof. Liviu Mihăescu, Ph.D. – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Prof. Livia Ilie, Ph.D. – “Lucian Blaga” University of Sibiu, Romania Acad. Prof. Iulian Văcărel, Ph.D. – Romanian Academy Prof. Lucian–Liviu ALBU, Ph.D. – Director, Institute of Economic Forecasting of the Romanian Academy, corresponding member of the Romanian Academy Prof. Sergiu Chircă, Ph.D., Dr. hab. – Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova, Honorary Member of the Romanian Academy Prof. Mircea Ciumara, Ph.D. – Director, National Institute of Economic Research, Romania Prof. Viorel Cornescu, Ph.D. – The University of Bucharest, Romania Prof. Francesco d'Esposito, Ph.D. – The Gabrielle d'Annunzio University, Pescara, Italy Prof. Ion Pohoaţă, Ph.D. – Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iaşi, Romania Prof. Robert Labbé, Ph.D. – University of Rennes 1, France Acad.Prof. Grigore Belostecinic, Ph.D. Dr. hab., Dr.H.C. – Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova Prof. Alexander Kostov, Ph.D. – Director, Institute for Balkan Studies, Sofia, Bulgaria Assoc. Nicolae Petria, Ph.D. – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Assoc. Razvan Șerbu, Ph.D. – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Lect. Bogdan Mârza, Ph.D. – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Prof. Carmen Comaniciu, Ph.D. – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Prof. Emanoil Muscalu, Ph.D. – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Prof. Ilie Rotariu, Ph.D. – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Assoc. Mihaela Herciu, Ph.D. – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Assoc. Silvia Mărginean, Ph.D. – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Assoc. Claudia Ogrean, Ph.D. – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Assoc. Cristina Tănăsescu, Ph.D. – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Assoc. Marian Cristescu, Ph.D. – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Lect. Dan Alexandru Popescu, Ph.D. – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Lect. Liviu Florea, Ph.D. – Washburn University, USA Prof. Eugen Iordănescu, Ph.D. – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania

Editorial Board Prof. Dan Popescu, Ph.D., Dr.H.C. – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Prof. Liviu Mihăescu, Ph.D. – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Assoc. Nicolae Eșanu, Ph.D. – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Assist. Alin Opreana, Ph.D. student – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Assist. Eduard Stoica, Ph.D. – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Assist. Florin Martin, Ph.D. student – Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Indexed in: RePeC Ulrich`s Periodicals Directory DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu No.10, Victoriei Bd. Postal Code 550024, Sibiu, Romania Center for Economic Research Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu No.17, Calea Dumbrăvii Street Postal Code 550324, Sibiu, Romania Phone/Fax: +40 (269) 23.58.79 G.P.E. «Continent» No.2, Dr. Ion Raţiu Street Postal code 550012, Sibiu, România Phone: 40-269-243 210 Copyright All the copyright of the present volume belongs to the 19th International Economic Conference – IECS 2012, Faculty of Economic Sciences, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu. All rights reserved. All the papers of the present volume where peer reviewed by two independent reviewers of The Scientific Committee of the IECS 2012 Conference. Acceptance was granted when both reviewers’ recommendations were positive. All papers were presented at the IECS 2012 Conference. The papers of this volume are full responsibility of the authors. Mail: [email protected] Web: http://economice.ulbsibiu.ro/revista.economica ISSN: 1582-6260

Revista Economică Supplement No. 2/2012 Management: New Coordinates and Challenges

40

A HYBRID MODEL FOR THE ASSEMENT OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AT COMPANY LEVEL, ADAPTED TO THE ROMANIAN BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

CERCEL Mihai Ovidiu Associated Assistant professor/PhD, Faculty of International Business and Economics

The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, email: [email protected]

Abstract: The study aims to present a hybrid, complex model to assess the organizational culture of a company, by taking into consideration the influence of societal and organizational values, a tool better adapted to the Romanian business environment. The assessment instrument has to be able to determine the employee’s societal values and the organizational culture of the company providing the link between those behaviours and attitudes which increase the social and economic performance of the organization. The results have to highlight how the difference of perception between peoples’ values and behaviours influences the performance of the organization.

Keywords: organizational behaviors, organizational culture and climate, societal values, organizational culture assessment instruments.

JEL classification: A13, D23, M14

1. Introduction Research conducted worldwide show that there are cultural patterns specific to each nation.

These cultural patterns are determined by history, culture, education, but also by religion or beliefs and will be reflected in thinking and acting of people, stressing their perceptions on the values of the society they belong to. (Hofstede, 2001). Gerry Johnson believes that "history, religion and even the climate can explain these differences" (G. Johnson, 2008, p. 224).

Studies conducted by different worldwide research project highlighted differences of perception between peoples’ societal values, regarding the importance that people grants to work, leisure, family, social status, etc. Some patterns were identified and allow us to define a series of cultural dimensions that characterize individual companies. These cultural dimensions are related to: the degree of accepting inequality among people, aversion or tolerance to situations of uncertainty, the existence of differences between male and female roles in society, role of the individual within the group where he/she belongs, the degree to which society rewards collective action and reallocation of resources, the perception of present and future.

Professor Geert Hofstede gives us an explanation in his book "Software of the Mind - Management of multicultural structures" (1996):"Each individual is the bearer of patterns of thinking, feelings and actions acquired during his lifetime. Many of them have been acquired during childhood, when the individual is able to learn and assimilate. [...]Because some thinking pattern were deeply embedded in a person's mind, learning something different is heavier than their initial learning "(translation from Romanian edition, Hofstede G. 1996, p. 20).

In this article we intend to present the theoretical framework of a new tool for assessing the organizational culture of a company, an instrument better adapted to the Romanian business and social environment, by measuring simultaneously the individual cultural values modeled by the society that he belongs to and the cultural values modeled by the company where he is working. Such a model will provide an easy understanding of societal values’ influence on organizational culture of the company, and of the discreet way in which organizational culture positively or negatively affects employee performance and, ultimately, the company itself.


41

2. Characteristics of organizational culture in Romania 2.1. At Society level

The GLOBE research (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) was a sophisticated project at global scale, which involved considerable human and material forces. The project lasted 10 years and included 62 companies, aiming to measure the nine so-called fundamental attributes or dimensions of organizational culture, and then evaluate how they shape the leadership in analyzed companies (Bibu N., Brancu L., 2008). The results grouped the countries in ten "clusters", based on cultural proximity. The following clusters were identified: British Europe, Eastern Europe, German Europe, Latin Europe, Northern Europe, Latin America, Sub -Saharan Africa, Middle East, South Asia and Confucian Asia (Grove, 2005).

Regarding the space that we are interested of, namely the European continent, GLOBE study results show that, in terms of organizational culture, Europe can be cut into two areas: the Northern area, which includes states that are above an imaginary line joining the UK and Austria and Southern area, which includes the entire South of the continent, from Portugal to Georgia, including Central and Eastern European countries in this subspace. (House, R. J. and others, 2004)

A significant difference compared to Hofstede model for example, is that each of these dimensions was measured in two ways: how is the society at a certain moment in time (called "societal practices" aspect by GLOBE scientists) and how the society wishes to be like (called "societal values" aspect by GLOBE researchers). Research conducted in different countries showed that the most difficult to change is societal culture, stressing the obvious differences between the values that society seeks and the current, real values of society at a certain moment.

Thus, those studies showed that the Romanian society tolerates unequal distribution of power easily, is rather collectivist, and encourages individualism and aggressive attitude in social relationships, with male and female values that interpenetrate and with a high level of tolerance leading to uncertainty, great resistance to change and avoiding risk by non taking responsibilities. In terms of orientation, the Romanian society is poorly oriented towards future and mainly focused on present time rather than the future, on short or medium term rather than long term. Regarding indulgence versus restraint, Romania is characterized by low to medium degree of indulgence, which shows that Romanians allocated, often constrained by the need to meet security needs, more work and less time for leisure. As regards the last indicator, Monumentalism, Romania is characterized by average scores, showing flexibility and a certain inclination towards modesty.

It is also worth noting that significant differences in societal values are found even in different regions of Romania (Neculăesei A. and others, 2008), which can be explained knowing the way in which the three provinces have developed in time. Also, if we continue segmentation, one can see that there are differences within the same region between village and city, between individuals with different degrees of education or training, etc.. This last remark leads us to claim that within each company there is a sui generis mix of individual organizational culture, influenced blend of education at home and at school, nationality, grade and type of training, the career paths of each individual. These differences of organizational culture at society level are translated at the level of organization in a cultural conditioning of values, attitudes, perceptions, behaviors and rules specific to each individual. Furthermore, over these societal cultural differences overlap each individual characteristic values (regional specificities, education, training, experience, etc.) and values and norms imposed to the organization by its leaders. The result of these interactions is a sui generis mixture, specific to each organization, of values, beliefs, attitudes, norms and rules, rituals and symbols that form the organizational culture. Thus we can explain why an organization's culture differs from other similar culture in terms of industry, ethnic composition of employees, size of turnover, number of employees, training them, etc..

2.2. At organization level Each company is a social group by itself, with its own values derived from both the mission

and vision of stakeholders, and the interactions among employees. Thus, each company will have an organizational culture driven both by leaders and employees. Education at home and at school, geographic area, urban-rural differences, previous work experience, age, etc., are all factors that determine individual variations in organizational culture. These differences, sometimes major ones, other times relatively minor, ultimately modulate the organizational culture of each company. All


42

these values acquired or learned during lifetime, shape the individual behaviors and further the behaviors of the organization. (Nastase, 2004)

In the international literature, there are described several tools for evaluating organizational culture, but they are focused on organizational culture at society level (Hofstede, GLOBE, ETC.), or organizational culture at company level (Human Synergistics OIC, Denison, OCAI, etc.). According to research conducted by Human Synergistics in Romania, the organizations culture in our country is dominated by the Aggressive-Defensive styles, mainly Competition and Power.

Regarding secondary dominations, we note the orientation towards Constructive style, especially, Self-actualizing and Achievement styles, as well as passive defensive styles such as Dependent and Avoidance orientation.

In our opinion, these results can be explained by the influence of cultural features at society level on the culture of the organization. We appreciate that high scores for dependent styles found in many Romanian companies are caused by the influence of high power distance traits, a cultural dimension specific to Romanian society.

Regarding negative orientations, we note the effects determined by the secondary dominant orientation such as fight power and internal competition over resources. These traits determine a hierarchical and non-participating organization and a structure that is influenced by the positions occupied by employees and their status. In such an organization decisions are taken centrally and the fight power is a common behavior for achieving higher positions and status. The competitiveness of the company is negatively affected and employees are determined to do just what they are told and check every decision with their superiors. The performance is diminished by the lack of individual initiative, spontaneity, flexibility and taking necessary decisions in due time. These organizations, while rewarding success (the influence of constructive styles, as well as orientation towards competitiveness), penalize mistakes more than necessary, which causes employees to transfer their responsibilities to others. Also, in these organizations employees are rewarded for competition between themselves. People are working in a "win-lose" environment and consider that in order to be noticed it is better to work (rather) against their colleagues than together.

We noted that regardless of the size of the organization, its turnover, field of activity, or human resources capabilities, there is a certain pattern of behavior and attitudes of the organizations that we find, in varying proportions, within all companies in a given society. Unlike the internationally ideal culture, where constructive styles are dominant, in the case of Romanian companies the ideal organizational culture is a balance of constructive and aggressive defensive style (with higher scores for the opposition, competitive and power orientations) and passive aggressive styles (with higher scores for dependent orientation). In our opinion, these differences regarding the organizational culture of Romanian companies determine different behaviors, perceptions and attitudes of the Romanian employees. These differences can be explained by taking into account the influence of the societal values in modeling the organization culture at company level.

For this reason, a full analysis of organizational culture at company level must determine all these influences that shape the organizational culture of each individual, based on the values of the society in which the respective individual was raised and educated and reaching to the values of the company where he operates. (Cercel, 2011)

In our opinion, in the case of Romania there are some societal values whose features play an important role in managing employee performance and building an organizational culture focused on performance. These are: distance to power, masculine vs. feminine values, degree of individualism and, respectively, tolerance to uncertainty.

A high index of distance to power determines a poor communication within the organization, withholding information, finding subterfuge in the procedures.

A high degree of tolerance to uncertainty determines aversion towards the structures, rules, clear norms and procedures, staff always looking to avoid them. A typical Romanian employee feels comfortable in situations of uncertainty, "is resourceful," refuses to take responsibility thus not being sanctioned, formally respects hierarchy, but informally applies the principle "say as the boss says and do as you like".

Although masculinity index vs. femininity is not directly associated with economic and financial performance of the organization, there are indirect influences. A high index value for feminine values contribute to increasing employees satisfaction, by improving the workplace climate and organization’s involvement in CSR projects and therefore a high degree of motivation and loyalty,


43

while a high index of masculinity is associated with rewarding results, recognition of merit, challenge and competition.

Also, a high degree of collectivism, Romanians’ strong attachment to the group to which they belong (family in the broad sense) leads to a weak connection with the organization, lack of loyalty and responsibility. Experimental studies have shown that rich countries consistently record high values of individualism index, collectivism being associated with rather low developed states.

We believe that for companies operating in the business environment in Romania, it is essential to quantitatively diminish the influence of these factors on the organization's culture, to encourage the establishment of a true dialogue between management and employees, in order to increase accountability of employees and to foster the development of thinking "outside the box".

3. Proposition of a hybrid model for assessing the Organizational Culture of Romanian companies A full analysis of organizational culture at the company level must determine not only the

organization's climate and staff behaviors and attitudes, but must investigate in depth, trying to highlight the societal values of all members of the organization (especially when we are in a multicultural environment). In our opinion, a complete analysis at the company level must determine all influences that shape the organizational culture of each individual, starting with the values of society in which he was raised and educated up to its company’s values. Thus, we used the results obtained in research to build a hybrid, complex model, able to provide a detailed image of the organizational culture, adapted to the business environment in Romania. This model brings together societal values of employees and their organizational values.

The model that we are proposing use a bottom-up approach, respectively from organizational culture values of individuals to determine organizational culture of the whole, as a result of individual societal values and organizational behavior existing at the company level.

The model must be able to provide a quantitative assessment (based on survey, by interviewing a representative population, selected on the basis of probability) of employee perceptions about societal values of individuals and groups and the organizational culture of the respondents.

To meet these requirements, the model aims to measure separately societal values and indicators present in the organization culture of the organization.

Thus, the societal values that we believe are relevant for the Romanian business environment are as follows: distance to power (DIFP), tolerance to uncertainty (TINC), reporting to the group/family values (RAGP), Masculine vs. feminine values (MAS).

In terms of cultural indices, we consider that the following have the ability to capture those details relevant to the organizational climate in Romania: Assuming responsibility (ASRE), Flexibility (FLEX), Empowerment (IMP), Organizational learning (INOG), Customer orientation (FOCL), Team orientation (ORECH), Skills development (DZC), Participatory Attitude (ATP), Competitiveness (COMI), and Fundamental values (VAL).

The graphical representation of results can be built as a circumplex in such a way so as to bring societal values of employees and the climate of the organization under the same picture (Figure 1). Such an image becomes a tool that provides an overview of organizational culture, easily interpreted by managers, so that they can understand the influences of organizational culture on performance and quickly discern levers on which action must be taken within a cultural transformation process.


44

Figure 1: The ECORG circumplex

Within the quantitative and qualitative research we identified a number of societal values that

have a direct influence on organizational culture of the Romanian employees. Although Geert Hofstede does not recommend his model for characterizing organizational culture at the individual or organization level, we believe that multiculturalism of organizations and various professional experiences of employees impose the necessity of analyzing, at this level of company, the societal values that characterize the individuals from that respective company. Such an analysis allows, in addition to assessing the culture traits at the organization level, to identify certain specific societal values that shape behaviors in the whole group.

Taking in consideration all the results above, we proposed a new instrument – that we called ECORG (Evaluation of the Organizational Culture), a hybrid organizational culture assessment model, which puts together the analysis of societal values and evaluation of the organizational values of employees.

Thus, the ECORG model attempts, through 14 indexes, to assess the organizational culture of the respondents by using four indexes to quantify their societal values and ten indexes to quantify their organizational values. The 14 indexes were inspired from Hofstede model (regarding the societal values) and partly from Denison and Human Synergistics model (concerning the organizational values), to which we added our own indexes (Participatory Attitude, Assuming Responsibilities and Flexibility). Also, following discussions in focus groups we reduced to four the number of statements which determine each index. Thus, we believe that the indexes proposed by the ECORG model have borrowed only the name of the above mentioned models – the questionnaire, the statements necessary to determine each index and their numerical formula, are the researcher’s own contribution.

Regarding research methodology, we chose to test the model via Linkedin web platform. The online respondents were selected from about 35 000 people across the country, with various age, gender, education and professional background, and working in organizations of different sizes and from all sectors. Also, the sample comprises both respondents who are in management positions and simple employees.

Given the research limitation (sample formed by 66 respondents), we can’t define a model benchmark. For that reason we choose to test the capability of the model to describe the organizational culture by analysing the data obtained through different segmentations and to compare the results to the previous studies realized for Romania (Hofstede and GLOBE for societal values and Human Synergistics for organizational values)

The results are shown in the following graphic representations:


45

Figure 2: The Ecorg results, segmented by gender Figure 3: The Ecorg results, segmented by age

According to figure 2, we can affirm that there are no differences in terms of organizational culture between men and women. Figure 3 shows that young employees are more willing than the average to contribute to the common effort of the company. They understand probably better that the success of their organization means a better future for themselves. Also, they are more willing to work as a team compared to their older colleagues. The figure 4 illustrates that the new employees are more enthusiastic to develop new competencies; they are more inclined to listen the organization’s customers and to take into consideration their comments. The segmentation through the position in the organization (Figure 5) shows that the managers have a more developed sense of organization’s values; they are more inclined to pay attention to the clients and more interested to develop the team work.

Figure 4: The Ecorg results, segmented by age within the same organization

Figure 5: The Ecorg results, segmented by position within the company

Figure 6 points up that the companies which are acting in services industry are more eager to

hear their clients, while this concept is almost unknown for public organizations. Figure 7 shows that employees from small and medium companies (companies with sales lower than 1.000.000 Euro) are more flexible that the bigger ones, are more willing to promote the team work and to they are aware that the good results of their company are directly linked to their own welfare. Figure 6: The Ecorg results, segmented by activity

sector Figure 7: The Ecorg results, segmented by annual

sales


46

The results obtained are in line with previous research studies for Romania, mainly Hofstede,

Globe and Human Synergistics. We can conclude that the proposed model is able to seize the intimate aspects of the organizational culture at company level. Nevertheless, further test should be carried on larger samples.

For the sample formed by 66 respondents we calculate, only for model illustration, some percentiles. The percentiles bellows are not relevant because of the size of the sample and its unprobabilistic selection, but it shows how the model can be used to compare a future assessment result with the results registered into the existing database.

Table 1: The Ecorg benchmark

DIFP TINC RAGP MAS IMP ASRE INOG FLEX FOCL OECH ATP DZC VAL COMI Percentile 25% 2,50 2,50 2,50 3,25 2,50 2,50 3,00 2,56 2,75 2,50 2,56 3,00 2,81 2,25 Percentile 50% 3 2,75 3 3,25 3,25 2,75 3,5 3,25 3,75 3,25 3,25 3,25 3,5 2,75 Percentile 75% 3,43 3,19 3,25 3,5 3,75 3 3,75 3,75 4 3,75 3,69 3,94 4 3,19

4. Conclusions

We think that the ECORG tool provides more information to a manager about the organizational culture of the assessed company, allowing the measurement of employees’ organizational values, or otherwise verify the consistency between the vision required by its leaders and the organizational culture of its employees, and the societal values of individuals in the organization. This way, the ECORG circumplex allows us to anticipate the influence of societal values of employees on organizational culture or on a future process of cultural transformation.

In our opinion, the results obtained during the test phase are promising, the tool was able to capture the societal characteristics of Romanian employees, consistent with the results of scientific studies conducted using Hofstede and GLOBE models, and characteristics of the culture at organization level, highlighted within our research using Denison and Human Synergistics models.

To conclude, the test of the ECORG tool on a sample of 66 respondents gave conclusive results on the evaluation of organizational culture. Given the research limitations (small sample sizes and non-probabilistic selection of respondents), we cannot state that these results validate the proposed instrument, however it was a first step, promising for further research by increasing the sample and ensure its statistical representation across the country. Also, increasing the sample will allow us to better define the benchmark of the model, which will mainly include Romanian companies.


47

5. References Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding the Organizational Culture. Londra: Editura Sage

Publications. Bibu, N., & Brancu, L. (2008, 02 23). Convergences of the Romanian Societal Culture with

European Culture Clusters in the process of European integration. Retrieved on 08.01.2010, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1166343.

Cercel, M. O. (2011). A Study of correlations between Human Synergistics And Denison Models for evaluating The Organizational Culture. Journal of Management and Governance , 5.

Cercel, M. O. (2011). The Influence of Societal Values on Organizational Culture at Company Level –the Romanian Case. Review of International Comparative Management , 12 (4), 747-754.

Denison, D. (1990). Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Denison, D., Janovics, J., Young, J., & Hee, J. (2006). Diagnosing Organizational Cultures: Validating a Model and Method. Lausanne: International Institute for Management Development.

Dygert, C., & Jacobs, R. (2006). Managementul culturii organizaţionale. Iaşi: Editura Polirom.

Grove, N. (2005). Introduction to the GLOBE Research Project on Leadership Worldwide. Accessed on 29.12.2010, on Grovewell LLC Professional Knowledge Center: www.grovewell.com

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences - Comparing Values Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. USA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1996). Software-ul gândirii. Managementul structurilor multiculturale. Bucureşti: Editura Economică.

House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., & şi alţii. (2004). Culture. Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks: Editura Sage Publications.

Johnson, G., Wittongton, R., & Scholes, K. (2011). Exploring Strategy. Text & Cases (9th ed.). Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Nastase, M. (2004). Cultura organizaţională şi managerială. Bucureşti: Biblioteca digitala ASE, accessed on: http://www.biblioteca-digitala.ase.ro/biblioteca/pagina2.asp?id=introd.

Năstase, M., & Cercel, M. O. (2011). The Role Of Success In Modelling The Organizational Culture. Globalization and Higher Education in Economics and Business Administration (GEBA 2011). Iași: Alexandru Ioan Cuza University Press.

Neculăesei, I., & Tătărușanu, M. (2008). Romania - Cultural and Regional differences. Analele Științifice ale Universității A.I. Cuza , LV (Științe Economice).

Payne, R. (2000). Climate and Culture. In N. Ashkanazi, C. Wilderom, & M. Peterson, Handbook of the Organizational Culture and Climate. Thousand Oaks: Editura Sage Publications.

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1984). In search of excellence: lessons from America's best-run companies. Warner Books.

Schein, E. (2004). Leadership, Organizational culture and Leadership (3rd edition ed.). Jossey-Bas Publisher.

Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2008). L'entreprise multiculturelle (a 3-a ed.). Paris: Editura Maxim - Laurent du Mesnil.

Zait, D. (2002). Management intercultural - valorizarea diferentelor culturale. Bucuresti: Editura Economică.

*** Human Synergitics Romania. Cultura organizaţiilor româneşti. Accessed on 05.05.2011, http://www.humansynergistics.ro/Cultura%20organizațiilor%20românești-cercetarea%20nationala-40.html

a hybrid model for the assessment of the organizational culture at company level, adapted to the...

Documents

university of rennes

washburn university

university of bucharest

romania assist

romania center

romania phonefax

gabrielle dannunzio

romania editorial board