Thesis Oral Defense


Published on

Slides for the oral defense of my Org Psych thesis

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Presentation slide for courses, classes, lectures et al.
  • Objectives for instruction and expected results and/or skills developed from learning.
  • Relative vocabulary list.
  • A list of procedures and steps, or a lecture slide with media.
  • Example graph/chart.
  • Conclusion to course, lecture, et al.
  • An opportunity for questions and discussions.
  • Thesis Oral Defense

    1. 1. Measuring organizational subcultures: An application of Hofstede’s Value Survey Model across a Major Joint Command <br />A Thesis Defense <br />Dean A. Call <br />
    2. 2. Support and Thanks<br /><ul><li>Thesis Chair
    3. 3. Dr. John Schmidt
    4. 4. Editor
    5. 5. Barb Elwert
    6. 6. Support
    7. 7. Kim, Greg, Alex, Sam
    8. 8. Bellevue University for library access
    9. 9. All those with unsecured WiFi, and anyone else who let me borrow bandwidth</li></li></ul><li>Introduction<br />The long strange trip<br />US Navy (Interior Communications)<br />Associates of Applied Science Computer Programming and Networks<br />B.S. - Business Information Systems<br />MBA with a concentration in MIS<br />PhD in Organizational Psychology<br />NOT a psychologist<br />Decided business slant to everything<br />Contractor at US Joint forces Command<br />Ultimate Multi-organizational-cultured organization<br />
    10. 10. Agenda<br />Introduction/Background <br />Research Question<br />Methodology <br />Population/Sample<br />Future Research <br />Implications <br />Questions <br />
    11. 11. Introduction/Background<br />Early thinkers on culture<br />Hippocrates - theory of humors<br />biological by tradition<br />implies an analysis of behavior that involves the concept of traits of personality (Kimble & Schlesinger, 1985). <br />surmised that differences in the character of various cultures are the result of the different climates or institutions in the various cultures (as cited in Adler & Gielen, 2001<br />
    12. 12. Introduction/Background<br />Early psychological thoughts<br />Wundt Volkerpsychologie<br />higher mental processes should be examined in the context of culture and language (as cited in Sheehy, 2004). <br />analysis and interpretations of language, art, mythology, and religion and dealt with organizations from families to group affiliations, tribes, local and national communities, and humankind as a whole (as cited in Kusch, 1999) <br />Supported the anthropological view of culture<br />the complex whole, encompassing all of the capabilities and habits acquired by individuals as members of society (Tylor, 1871). <br />
    13. 13. Organizational Culture<br />Organizations - “social relations deliberately created, with the explicit intention of continuously accomplishing some specific goals or purposes” (Stinchcombe, 1965, p. 142). <br />organizational culture - defined by Pettigrew (1979) as the system of such publicly and collectively accepted meanings operating for a given group at a given time. <br />consisting of the publicly and collectively accepted terms, form, categories, and images used by individuals to interpret a given situation to themselves.<br />Organization culture is the sum total of the interactions between the individual and the organization (Witte & Van Muijen, 1999),<br /> includes the shared perceptions and shared practices (Hofstede et al., 1990);<br />the shared individual cultures of the members (Hallett, 2003);<br />and the process of individual influence, contained by the agreed upon cultural contexts (Geertz, 1973). <br />
    14. 14. Hofstede’s Measure of National Culture<br />Hofstede <br />Arguably the most influential researcher in the field of organizational culture. <br />3,000 citations between 1999 and 2003, his five universal dimensions of culture have arguably become the standard for studies in organizational culture.<br />Hofstede (1983a, 1983b) utilized data collected by IBM to develop four universal dimensions of national cultures. A fifth dimension was added later. <br />large or a small power distance index (PDI) (Hofstede, 1983b, 1998); <br />a strong or weak uncertainty avoidance index (UAI) (Hofstede, 1983b, 1998);<br />individualism vs. collectivism (IDV) (Hofstede, 1983b, 1998), and<br />masculinity vs. feminism (MAS); (Hofstede, 1983b, 1998);<br />long-term versus short-term orientation was added later (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).<br />
    15. 15. Hofstede’s Measure of National Culture<br />Power distance: Power distance is the extent to which the members of a society accept the unequal distribution of power (Hofstede et al., 1990).<br />Uncertainty avoidance: This is the degree of comfort or discomfort felt by members of a society when dealing with uncertainty and ambiguity (Hofstede et al., 1990).<br />Individualism: the preference for a loose social framework where individuals take care of themselves and their immediate families only, contrasted with collectivism (Hofstede et al., 1990). <br />Collectivism: Collectivism is the preference for a tight social framework where individuals expect their relatives or other in the group to look after them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty, as contrasted with individualism (Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990).<br />Masculinity: Masculinity, in contrast to femininity, isthe tendency to place more value on achievement and success (Hofstede et al., 1990). <br />Femininity: Femininity is the tendency to place more value on caring for others and the quality of life, which is in contrast to masculinity (Hofstede et al., 1990). <br />Long-term orientation: This is a society that exhibits a pragmatic, future-oriented perspective rather than a short-term orientation (Hofstede & Bond, 1988).<br />Short-term orientation: This is a characteristic of a society that exhibits a conventional historic or short-term point of view (Hofstede & Bond, 1988). <br />
    16. 16. Problem Statement<br />Will the universal dimensions of culture be suitable for use at any level or are they only applicable at the national level.<br />reliable measures across disparate organizational groups<br />Hofstede’sdimensions are supposedly present across all parts of a nation, but only when they are utilized at the level of a contained entity. (Hofstede (1998) defined this as an area determined to be homogeneous enough.)<br />The applicability of Hofstede’s dimensions to measure the cultural norms of other homogeneous enough subunits is unknown. <br />
    17. 17. Two hypotheses<br />H01: USJFCOM scores are not statistically different from the national scores found by Hofstede.<br />Ha1: USJFCOM scores are statistically different from the national scores found by Hofstede.<br />H02: USJFCOM directorate scores are not statistically different from the scores obtained by other USJFCOM directorates.<br />Ha2: USJFCOM directorate scores are statistically different from the scores by other USJFCOM directorates.<br />
    18. 18. Methodology<br />Value Survey Module<br />self-report survey <br />questions pertaining to private life and ideal situations that may, or may not, be similar to their current environment without fear of embarrassment, identification, or retribution.<br />utilized at the organizational level to compare the culturally influenced values and sentiments of similar respondents from two or more directorates within the USJFCOM. <br />Two divisions of the scores from a single application of the survey. <br />First, the VSM 08 scores will be calculated for each dimension, and those scores compared against the national dimensions found in Hofstede, 2001). <br />The second measure will consist of the same survey collated by directorate to facilitate comparison of the directorates using the five dimensions. <br />
    19. 19. Population/Sample<br />The United States Joint Forces Command<br /> population of approximately 4,900 individuals<br />to limit the scope of the study, the sample will be drawn from only the three largest directorates within the USJFCOM: J6, J7, and J9.<br />The J7 Joint Warfare Fighting Center and the J9 Joint Futures Lab were selected because they represent formerly standalone commands that have been absorbed by the USJFCOM and have strong individual cultures that are separate from USJFCOM as a whole. <br />The J6 was selected because it is the largest pure USJFCOM directorate. <br />The total possible population for this survey includes 2,337 individuals. <br />J6 - approximately 330 employees<br />57 government civilians, 181 contractors, and all others as military members.<br />J7 - approximately 1,517 employees<br />192 government civilians, 1,031 contractors, and areal others as military members. <br />J9 - approximately 490 employees<br />89 government civilians, 326 contractors, and all others as military members. <br />Military members include active-duty and reservist individuals, officers, and enlisted personnel from the Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy, and Coast Guard. <br />The contractors are employed by Capstone, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Old Dominion University, Rolands & Associates, and Northrop Grumman. <br />Sample will comprise the total number of participants from the chosen directorates who respond to the survey.<br />
    20. 20. Future Research<br />To ensure that Hofstede’s (1983b) measures, are valid regardless of the level of culture (national, organizational, or other), it is important to include as large a sample as possible and to divide that culture along lines other than nationality. <br />Similar to the original participants who completed the IBM surveys, the members of the USJFCOM share a common mission,<br />Government, military and contractors,<br />all of whom are from different regions, states, and cities in the United States. <br />Each of these minor differences can provide its own influence on the culture represented by the individual (Lowie, 1936). <br />additional research will be needed to overcome criticism of Hofstede (McSweeney, 2002). <br />demographic information used to define other cultural subsets will serve only to confound the results. <br />it is reasonable to expect that that new subcultures will present themselves for analysis;<br />care must be taken to avoid the infinite division of the population into smaller cultural groups.<br />
    21. 21. Implications<br />potential to provide measures of culture at the organizational level. <br />may provide a singular measure for cultural studies at all levels. <br />the potential to provide a standardized measure that can be utilized, regardless of how the culture is defined, provided that a large enough sample can be obtained to provide adequate reliability. <br />provide support to the plethora of researchers who wish to study and measure culture, and the organizational leaders who wish to reduce and understand cultural differences. <br />if the hypotheses are supported, the next step will <br />involve implementing programs within the military community for the development of common cultural norms, <br />followed by an expansion of the study to cover all of the USJFCOM <br />possibly the individual military branches to note their scores in contrast with those obtained from the USJFCOM. <br />establish a joint operating environment that could decrease the differences between the cultural dimensions and move toward the establishment of a more homogeneous culture.<br />
    22. 22. References<br />Adler, L. L., & Gielen, U. P. (2001). Cross-cultural topics in psychology (2nd ed.). London: Greenwood.<br />Geertz, C. (1973). Interpretations of culture. New York: Bantam Books.<br />Hallett, T. (2003). Symbolic power and organizational culture. Sociological Theory,21(2), 128-149<br />Hofstede, G. (1983a). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, xx, 75-89.<br />Hofstede, G. (1983b). National cultures in four dimensions: a research-based theory of cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management and Organization, 1983(1-2), 46-73.<br />Hofstede, G. (1998). Attitudes, values and organizational culture: Disentangling the concepts. Organization Studies, 19(3), 477-492.<br />Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5-21.<br />Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.<br />Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.<br />Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 286-316.<br />Kimble, G. A., & Schlesinger, K. (1985). Topics in the history of psychology: Vol. 2. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.<br />Kusch, M. (1999). Psychological knowledge ( ed.). New York: Routledge.<br />McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith - A failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89-118.<br />Pettigrew, A. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 570-581.<br />Sheehy, N. (2004). Fifty key thinkers in psychology. New York: Routledge.<br />Stinchcombe, A. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142-169). Chicago: Rand McNally. <br />Tylor, E. B. (1871). The origins of primitive culture. New York: Gordon Press.<br />Witte, K. D., & Van Muijen, J. J. (1999). Organizational culture: Critical questions for researchers and practitioners. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(4), 583-595.<br />