Bruce M. TharpORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE WHITE PAPERFour O.docx

Bruce M. Tharp
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE WHITE PAPER
Four Organizational Culture Types
04.09
2
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
Through decades of empirical research, scholars have
established abundant links between organizational
culture and organizational performance. While
previously businesses were either unaware of culture’s
importance or believed it too difficult to manage, today
they recognize that it can be used for competitive
advantage. This is something that Apple Computer
gets. By leveraging their culture of innovation toward
product as well as internal processes, they have been
able to survive — despite incredible competition —
as well as venture into new and profitable markets. But
in order to use culture strategically, a company first
needs to understand its culture. And there’s the rub.
Culture is a complex issue that essentially includes all
of a group’s shared values, attitudes, beliefs, assump-
tions, artifacts, and behaviors. Culture is broad —
encompassing all aspects of its internal and external

relationships—and culture is deep in that it guides
individual actions even to the extent that members
are not even aware they are influenced by it. Scholars
tend to agree that the root of any organization’s
culture is grounded in a rich set of assumptions about
the nature of the world and human relationships.
For example, the underlying belief that people are
selfish and only out for themselves might unwittingly
influence a company’s attitudes and behaviors toward
outside salespeople, vendors, and consultants. This
is profound stuff that is largely invisible, unspoken,
and unknown to an organization’s members. So
is it possible to really know a company’s culture?
While admittedly it would be a daunting (and some
might claim impossible) task to fully account for all
components of a company’s culture, the dominant
attributes can generally be identified. In focusing on
“effective organizations”, research has uncovered many
critical dimensions. John Campbell (1974) and his
fellow researchers identified thirty–nine impor-
tant indicators. While such a list is helpful, it is still
impractical for organizations to account for so many
dimensions. Realizing this, Robert Quinn and John
Rohrbaugh (1983) reviewed the results of many studies
on this topic and determined that two major dimensions
could account for such a broad range. Their Competing
Values Framework combines these two dimensions,
creating a 2x2 matrix with four clusters.
THE COMPETING VALUES FRAMEWORK
The first dimension places the values of flexibility,
discretion, and dynamism at one end of the scale with
stability, order, and control on the other. This means
that some organizations emphasize adaptation,

change, and organic processes (like most start-up
companies) while others are effective in emphasizing
stable, predictable, and mechanistic processes (like
NASA, Citigroup, and most universities).
Competing Values Framework
Four Organizational
Culture Types
Acknowledging that organizational culture
is an important aspect for space planners,
this paper provides an overview of four
organizational culture types: Control (hier-
archy), Compete (market), Collaborate (clan),
and Create (adhocracy). This typology reflects
the range of organizational characteristics
across two dimensions that were found
critical to organizational effectiveness. The
spatial implications for each type are presented
so that workspace planners might be able
to interpret the results of an organizational
culture assessment in their process of designing
environments that support the way companies
work and represent themselves.
FLEXIBILITY
DISCRETION
DYNAMISM
STABILITY
ORDER
CONTROL
EXTERNAL FOCUS

DIFFERENTIATION
RIVALRY
INTERNAL FOCUS
INTEGRATION
UNITY
04.09
3
The second value dimension is marked by internal
orientation, integration, and unity at one end of the
scale with external orientation, differentiation, and
rivalry on the other. Some organizations are effective
through focusing on themselves and their internal
processes—“If we improve our efficiency and do
things right, we will be successful in the marketplace.”
Others excel by focusing on the market or competition
—“Our rivals have weak customer service, so this is
where we will differentiate ourselves.”
Further work on defining how each of the four quad-
rants (formed by combining these two dimensions) is
related to company characteristics was conducted by
Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn (1999). Each quad-
rant represents those features a company feels is the
best and most appropriate way to operate. In other
words these quadrants represent their basic assumptions,
beliefs, and values—the stuff of culture. None of the

quadrants—Collaborate (clan), Create (adhocracy),
Control (hierarchy), and Compete (market)—is inherently
better than another just as no culture is necessarily
better than another. But, some cultures might be more
appropriate in certain contexts than others. The key to
using culture to improve performance lies in matching
culture or attributes to organizational goals.
CONTROL (HIERARCHY)
Hierarchical organizations share similarities with the
stereotypical large, bureaucratic corporation. As in the
values matrix, they are defined by stability and control
as well as internal focus and integration. They value
standardization, control, and a well-defined structure
for authority and decision making. Effective leaders
in hierarchical cultures are those that can organize,
coordinate, and monitor people and processes.
Good examples of companies with hierarchical
cultures are McDonald’s (think standardization and
efficiency) and government agencies like the Depart-
ment of Motor Vehicles (think rules and bureaucracy).
As well, having many layers of management—like
Ford Motor Company with their seventeen levels—is
typical of a hierarchical organizational structure.
COMPETE (MARKET)
While most major American companies throughout
the 19th and much of the 20th centuries believed
a hierarchical organization was most effective, the
late 1960s gave rise to another popular approach—
Compete (market) organizations. These companies
are similar to the Control (hierarchy) in that they value
stability and control; however, instead of an inward

focus they have an external orientation and they value
differentiation over integration. This began largely
because of the competitive challenges from over-
seas that forced American companies to search for a
more effective business approach. With their outward
focus, Compete (market) organizations are focused on
relationships—more specifically, transactions—with
suppliers, customers, contractors, unions, legislators,
consultants, regulators, etc. Through effective external
relations they feel that they can best achieve suc-
cess. While Control (hierarchy) optimize stability and
control through rules, standard operating procedures,
and specialized job functions, Compete (market)
organizations are concerned with competitiveness
and productivity through emphasis on partnerships
and positioning. General Electric, under the leader-
ship of former CEO Jack Welch, is a good example
of a Compete (market) organization. He famously
announced that if businesses divisions were not first
or second in their markets then, simply, they would be
sold. Their corporate culture was (and still largely is)
highly competitive where performance results speak
louder than process.
COLLABORATE (CLAN)
In the values matrix Collaborate (clan) are similar to
Control (hierarchy) in that there is an inward focus
with concern for integration. However, Collaborate
(clan) emphasize flexibility and discretion rather than
the stability and control of Control (hierarchy) and
Compete (market) organizations.
With the success of many Japanese firms in the late
1970s and 1980s, American corporations began
to take note of the different way they approached

business. Unlike American national culture, which
is founded upon individualism, Japanese firms had
a more team-centered approach. This basic under-
standing affected the way that Japanese companies
structured their companies and approached problems
Their Collaborate (clan) organizations operated more
like families—hence the name—and they valued
cohesion, a humane working environment, group
The key to using culture to improve performance lies in
matching culture or attributes to organizational goals.
04.09
4
commitment, and loyalty. Companies were made up
of semi–autonmous teams that had the ability to hire and
fire their own members and employees were encouraged
to participate in determining how things would get done.
A good example of a Collaborate (clan) in American
business is Tom’s of Maine, which produces all-natural
toothpastes, soaps, and other hygiene products. The
founder, Tom Chappell, grew the company to respect
relationships with coworkers, customers, owners,
agents, suppliers, the community, and the environment.
According to their company statement of beliefs, they
aim to provide their employees with “a safe and fulfilling
environment and an opportunity to grow and learn.”
Typical of Collaborate (clan) cultures, Tom’s of Maine,
is like an extended family with high morale and Tom
himself takes on the role of mentor or parental figure.

CREATE (ADHOCRACY)
In the values matrix Create (adhocracy) are similar to
Collaborate (clan) in that they emphasize flexibility
and discretion; however, they do not share the same
inward focus. Instead they are like Create (adhocracy)
in their external focus and concern for differentiation.
With the advent of the Information Age, a new approach
developed to deal with the fast-paced and volatile business
environment. Social, economic, and technological
changes made older corporate attitudes and tactics
less efficient. Success now was envisioned in terms of
innovation and creativity with a future-forward posture.
An entrepreneurial spirit reigns where profit lies in finding
new opportunities to develop new products, new
services, and new relationships—with little expectation
that these will endure.
Adhocratic organizations value flexibility, adaptability,
and thrive in what would have earlier been viewed
as unmanageable chaos. High-tech companies like
Google are prototypical Create (adhocracy). Google
develops innovative web tools, taking advantage of
entrepreneurial software engineers and cutting-edge
processes and technologies. Their ability to quickly
develop new services and capture market share has
made them leaders in the marketplace and forced less
nimble competition to play catch-up.
SPATIAL IMPLICATIONS
Since each of these organizational types is distinguished
by different attitudes, values, behaviors, and beliefs it
is understandable that the same workspaces would

not best support their different cultures. A Collaborate
(clan) organization, with its emphasis on teamwork
and sociality, needs spaces that foster and reflect this.
Rows of high paneled cubes, that might be appropriate
in certain Compete (market) companies, would be
incompatible with the way a Collaborate (clan) orga-
nization works and how it wants to present itself. The
diagrams on the following page outline specific work
space implications relative to the four organizational
culture types.
COMPANY CULTURE AND SUB-CULTURES
It is very important to note that the substantial research
that contributed to the development and validation of
the organizational culture types focused on companies
as a whole. Other research being conducted around
the same time as the Competing Values Framework
— Martin and Siehl (1983), Louis (1983), Gregory
(1983)—emphasizes that the company culture is
not homogeneous.
Instead, other subcultures are present and often even
contradict aspects of the company culture. In her
recent book, Companies are People, Too, Sandy Fekete
reports that functional teams within the 57 corpora-
tions that they studied had a different organizational
type than their company 81% of the time. Schein
(1999) notes that this is not necessarily dysfunctional,
rather it allows the company to perform effectively in
different environments based on function, product,
market, location, etc. In order to get a more accurate
picture of the company, it is important to understand
not only the company organizational type, but the
cultures of departments or other important groups

as well. The same organizational culture types —
Control (hierarchy), Compete (market), Collaborate
(clan), Create (adhocracy)—apply at both levels. So, a
Control (hierarchy) company may contain a research
group that is a Create (adhocracy), an engineering
department that is a Compete (market), and a human
resources department that is a Collaborate (clan). The
spatial implications for these different groups may also
compete with those of the company, so space planners
are faced with greater complexity in space solutions.
DOMINANT AND SUB-DOMINANT TYPES
As a company culture containing potentially numerous
subcultures adds to the complexity of this approach,
one other important issue must also be considered.
The Competing Values Framework and its inclusion of
04.09
5
the four organizational culture types offers a simple
means of categorization and understanding; however,
it is possible for a company or department to have
subdominant elements. This means that an accounting
department that is a Control (hierarchy) may still have
substantial Compete (market) traits.
In fact, pure Control (hierarchy), Compete (market),
Collaborate (clan), or Create (adhocracy) are extremely
rare. Most of the company cultures that have been

diagnosed using Cameron and Quinn’s Organizational
Culture Assessment Instrument indeed have a strong
secondary component. This is also the case at the
department/group level. Their research has addi-
tionally shown that it is rare to have companies that
share equal traits of all four culture types—with no
dominant or barely dominant type.
WHAT GOOD ARE THESE CATEGORIES?
These organizational categories are helpful in that
they provide a foundation upon which space planners
can begin to structure their solutions and thus account
for the important role that culture plays. Each of the
different organization types has different cultural
attributes and preferred methods and concerns for
work. The means of assessing an organization’s
(company, group, or both) culture type using the
OCAI is relatively simple given the potential complexity
of a comprehensive investigation.
Even though this procedure provides an easy
mechanism for assessment and the four types are
easy to understand, space planners still must look
deeper and consider potential sub-dominant traits
“Compete (Market)” Culture
A results-driven organization focused on
job completion. People are competitive
and goal-oriented. Leaders are demanding,
hard-driving, and productive.The emphasis
on winning unifies the organization.
Reputation and success are common
concerns. Long-term focus is on competitive
action and achievement of measurable

goals and targets. Sucess means market
share and penetration. Competitive pricing
and market leadership are important.
“Create (Adhocracy)” Culture
A dynamic, entrepreneurial, and creative
place to work. Innovation and risk-taking
are embraced by employees and leaders.
A commitment to experimentation and
thinking differently are what unify the
organization. They strive to be on the leading
edge. The long-term emphasis is on growth
and acquiring new resources. Success
means gaining unique and new products
or services. Being an industry leader is
important. Individual initiative and freedom
are encouraged.
“Control (Hierarchy)” Culture
A highly structured and formal place to
work. Rules and procedures govern behavior.
Leaders strive to be good coordinators and
organizers who are efficiency-minded.
Maintaining a smooth-running organization
is most critical. Formal policies are what hold
the group together. Stability, performance,
and efficient operations are the long-term
goals. Success means dependable delivery,
smooth scheduling, and low cost. Manage-
ment wants security and predictablity.
“Collaborate (Clan)” Culture
An open and friendly place to work where

people share a lot of themselves. It is like
an extended family. Leaders are considered
to be mentors or even parental figures. Group
loyalty and sense of tradition are strong.
There is an emphasis on the long-term
benefits of human resources development
and great importance is given to group
cohesion.There is a strong concern for people.
The organization places a premium on
teamwork, participation, and consensus.
04.09
6
as well as the relationship between groups and the
company as a whole. Using the OCAI for diagnosis
makes the process more objective, but still allows—
and demands— that workspace planners and
designers interpret the results. Indeed, it is their crucial
talents of interpretation that add value and allow the
production of workspaces that account for the way
companies think and behave as well as how they
want to represent themselves to the world.
REFERENCES:
Cameron, Kim S. and Quinn, Robert E. (1999),
Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture.
New York: Addison-Wesley.
Campbell, John P., Brownas, E.A., Peterson, N.G., and

Dunnette, M.D. (1974), The Measurement of
Organizational Effectiveness: A Review of Relevant
Research and Opinion. Minneapolis: Final Report, Navy
Personnel Research and Development Center,
Personnel Decisions.
Fekete, S., Keith, L. (2001), Companies are People, Too:
Discover, Develop, and Grow Your Company’s
Personality. New York: Wiley.
Gregory, K. (1983), Native-view Paradigms: Multiple
Cultures and Culture Conflicts in Organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 359-376.
Louis, M. (1983), Organizations as Culture-bearing
Milieux, in Pondy L.R., Frost, P.M., Morgan, G.,
Dandridge, T.C. (1983) Organizational Symbolism.
Greenwich, CT: JAI, 39-54.
Martin, J., Siehl C. (1983), Organizational Culture and
Counter-Culture: An Uneasy Symbiosis. Organizational
Dynamics, 12(2): 52-64.
Quinn, Cameron and Rohrbaugh, John (1983), A spa-
tial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing
values approach to organizational analysis.
Management Science, 29(3): 336-377.
04.09

11/14/2015 Org.culture
http://www.brainboxx.co.uk/A3_ASPECTS/pages/org_culture.ht
m 1/4
Organisational culture
Culture is a shared (though sometimes unacknowledged) interpr
etation of experience within a nation, section of
society, organisation or group of people. This “common underst
anding” may stem from previous shared experience
(or from a pooling of interpretations of separate individual expe
riences) and may result in a common pattern of
responses to internal and external stimuli.
DEFINITIONS
Organisational culture has been defined as "the specific collecti
on of values and norms that are shared by people
and groups in an organization and that control the way they inte
ract with each other and with stakeholders outside
the organization.”
Hill, C.W.L and Jones, G.R. (2001) Strategic Management: An I
ntegrated Approach. Boston MA, HoughtonMifflin

Edgar Schein defines organisational culture as "A pattern of sha
red basic assumptions that the group learned as it
solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integrati
on, that has worked well enough to be considered
valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct
way you perceive, think, and feel in relation to
those problems".
Schein, E.H. (2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership, San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass
Putting it simply, Deal and Kennedy (1982) define organisation
al culture as “the way things get done around here.”
Deal T. E. and Kennedy, A. A. (1982) Corporate Cultures: The
Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life,Harmondsworth, Penguin B
ooks.
ELEMENTS
G. Johnson (1988) identified a number of elements that can be u
sed to describe or influence organisational culture.
The Paradigm expresses what the organisation is about; what it
does; its mission; its values. However, it should be
recognised that formal “mission statements”, although designed
to encapsulate the goals and values of an

organisation, may not accurately reflect the real culture as pract
iced within the organisation.
Control Systems and the degree to which they seek to direct and
monitor what is going on.
Organisational Structures such as management hierarchies, lines
of reporting, and the way that work flows through
the business.
Power Structures: Who makes the decisions, how widely spread
is power, and on what is power based?
Symbols are a telling feature of organisational culture. Formall
y adopted logos and designs can tell much about
how the organisation would like to portray itself, but less obvio
us symbols (such as executive dining rooms and
reserved parking spaces) are a more telling indicator of the true
state of affairs.
Rituals and Routines, many of which are habitual rather than ne
cessary, also give an indication of what people
within an organisation consider to be important.
Stories and Myths (about “heroes” and “villains”; about the org
anisation’s triumphs, etc.) are a means whereby the
values of an organisation are promulgated without the necessity
to formally promote them.
Johnson, G. (1988) "Rethinking Incrementalism", Strategic Man
agement Journal Vol 9 pp75-91
STRONG & WEAK CULTURES

The culture of an organisation is determined by observation of
what actually happens. This may not match with
what senior management would have you believe to be true –
or with what an examination of the formal
documentation (the "rules and regulations") would lead you to b
elieve.
An organisation in which staff respond to stimulus in accordanc
e with the desired corporate expectations is said to
exhibit a “strong culture”. Such organisations are likely to oper
ate efficiently and achieve their corporate goals.
http://www.brainboxx.co.uk/A0_shared/pages/index.htm
http://www.brainboxx.co.uk/A3_ASPECTS/pages/aspects.htm
m 2/4
An organisation in which staff do not act in accordance with org
anisational expectations is said to have a “weak
culture”. Such organisations often resort to excessive regulator
y procedures in an attempt to ensure staff
compliance.
Strong-culture organisations are not invulnerable to problems. I
n situations where staff form a cohesive like-minded
group, there is a danger that “groupthink” comes to dominate.
This phenomenon (identified by Irving Janis) comes
into play when desire for conformity becomes an overriding feat

ure of decision-making, resulting in failure to
critically appraise all options. Failure to challenge organisation
al thinking leads to a reduced capacity for innovation
–
and can result in an organisation’s failure to adapt to challengi
ng circumstances.
Various factors can lead to “groupthink” situations.
Over-dependance on a central charismatic figure.
Unquestioning adherence to established organisational procedur
es.
Unwillingness to disagree with management or colleagues for fe
ar of being seen by the rest of the group as a
negative influence.
Janis, I.L. (1972) Victims of Groupthink. Boston. Houghton Mif
flin Company
MODEL - HARRISON - HANDY
In determining organisational culture, various models and classi
fications have been suggested.
Building on the work of Roger Harrison (1972), Charles Handy
(1985) proposed four types of culture.
Power-based culture –
in which power is concentrated in the hands of a few key player
s.

Role-based culture –
in which a person’s power derives from their position within a
highly defined (and often
bureaucratic) structure.
Task-based culture –
in which power derives from recognised expertise. Such organi
sations often adopt a team-
based, problem-solving approach.
Person-based culture –
in which individuals consider themselves (their role and contrib
ution) superior to the
organisation.
Harrison, R. and Stokes, H. (1992), Diagnosing Organizational
Culture, Pfeiffer, San Francisco.
Handy, C.B. (1985) Understanding Organizations, 3rd Edn, Har
mondsworth, Penguin Books
MODEL - DEAL & KENNEDY
Deal and Kennedy (1982) suggested 4 classifications of organis
ational culture, determined by a combination of two
parameters: feedback (monetary, praise, reward) and risk (uncer
tainty).

m 3/4
In the Tough-Guy Macho culture, feedback is quick and the rew
ards are high. This is typified in fast moving
financial activities and in competitive team sports such as profe
ssional football. It can be a very stressful culture in
which to operate.
In the Work Hard/Play Hard culture, few risks are taken and fee
dback is rapid. This is typified in large organizations
which strive for high quality customer service. In the short term
it can be an exciting culture in which to operate but
the sense of excitement may be difficult to maintain.
In the Bet Your Company culture, big stakes decisions are taken
but it may be years before the results are known.
Typically, these might involve research and development projec
ts which take years to come to fruition, such as oil
prospecting.
In the Process culture, people become bogged down with how th
ings are done and may lose focus on the bigger
picture of what is to be achieved. They may exhibit overly caut
ious bureaucratic tendencies but are nevertheless
likely to produce consistent results, which is ideal in public ser
vices, etc.

Deal T. E. and Kennedy, A. A. (1982) Corporate Cultures: The
Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life,Harmondsworth, Penguin B
ooks.
MODEL - CARMAZZI
Arthur F Carmazzi has suggested a spectrum of cultures.
The Blame culture is one in which individuals blame each other
to avoid being reprimanded or put down. It
cultivates distrust and fear and results in no new ideas or person
al initiative because people don’t want to risk being
wrong.
A Multi-directional culture is one in which individuals demonst
rate limited loyalty to their particular department or
m 4/4
sub-group. It is characterised by minimal interdepartmental co
mmunication and cooperation and results in each
department becoming cliquey and critical of other departments.
The resultant lack of cooperation is manifested in
the organisation's inefficiency.
Live and let live culture is characterised by complacency. Ther
e is a reasonable amount of cooperation and
communication such that things are “going ok”. However, there
is little growth or innovation because individuals

have lost their passion and their vision. A comfortable and entr
opic environment in which “things ain’t broke so why
bother to mess with it?”
A Brand congruent culture is one in which individuals believe i
n the product or service the organisation provides and
feel good about their role in achieving its declared aims. Altho
ugh they may not always agree with management
decisions, individuals are cooperative because they see their ow
n role as important. People may even be
passionate and prepared to “put themselves out” to resolve issue
s and solve problems.
In a Leadership enriched culture there is a high level of coopera
tion because individual goals are aligned with the
goals of the organisation and people will do what it takes to ma
ke things happen. The organisation may feel more
like a family in which the members consistently appreciate each
other and bring out the best in each other. In this
culture, leaders do not develop followers but develop other lead
ers.
Carmazzi suggests that “every individual in the organisation wa
nts to do a good job" and that the behaviours that
result in poor performance are the consequence of the group psy
chology created through poor leadership,
inadequate policy and poor communication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_F._Carmazzi
IMPLEMENTING CULTURAL CHANGE

Cummings & Worley (2005) give the following guidelines for in
troducing cultural change.
Formulate a clear strategic vision
Display Top-management commitment
Model culture change at the highest level
Modify the organization to support organizational change
Select and socialize newcomers and terminate deviants
Develop ethical and legal sensitivity
Burman and Evans (2008) argue that it is leadership that affects
culture rather than merely management.
Cummings, T.G., and Worley, C.G. (1997) Organization Develo
pment and Change, Cincinnati, Ohio: South-
Western College Publishing.
Burman, R. & Evans, A.J. (2008) Target Zero: A Culture of safe
ty, Defence Aviation Safety Centre Journal
2008, 22-27
Changing the culture of an organisation (for the better) is not so
mething that can be achieved overnight - even with
the introduction of new leadership. It is something that takes ti
me because it depends on establishing trust. It is a
matter of developing individuals' belief in the organisation and i
ts goals. It is a matter of developing people's
capacity and self-belief. Introducing cultural change is not just
about telling people to do things differently - it is
about encouraging and inspiring them to think differently. As s

uch, it is about promoting vision, instilling belief,
winning over hearts and minds.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture
Schein, Edgar H
Sloan Management Review (pre-1986); Winter 1984; 25, 2;
ABI/INFORM Complete
pg. 3

3
BMGT 365 Organizational Leadership- Assignment 1: Dunn’s
Ski Emporium
In preparation for this assignment, it will be helpful to review
the discussions and instructor notes on vision, mission and
organizational structure from week 1-3. Instructions follow the
case.
Joseph Dunn is the owner and general manager of Dunn’s Ski
Emporium. In business for twenty-five years, Dunn’s Ski
Emporium is known for its state-of-the-art ski equipment and
repairs offered under one roof. It offers moderate prices to
skiers in the bustling town of Vail, Colorado. Dunn’s Ski
Emporium has a cozy ambiance, with a Western décor and a
two-story fireplace with large windows that overlook the Rocky
Mountains.
Catering to skiers, the sporting goods store helps many skiers
with their broken or challenged ski equipment. They specialize
in hourly turn-around times on repairs and one day pick up
adjustments on new equipment.
This fast service has set Dunn’s sporting goods store way above
their competitors in the area for return business both from
locals and visitors. Skiers can ski right to their door and leave

from their back door to get back on the slopes. The staff is
friendly, knowledgeable, and local. Most of them work year
round.
Dunn has decided to expand his business. For some time, Dunn
noticed that the Deli next door picks up a lot of his business
from the waiting repair customers and he has seen the Deli
customers step in to purchase gloves, goggles, and other
merchandise after eating at the deli. The Deli would make an
interesting addition to his future business plans.
The Deli, like Dunn’s Ski Emporium, has always done a brisk
business especially in season. Designed in a similar western
motif, Dunn thought he would be able to expand easily to
include the Deli into his Emporium. The cross traffic might
even increase business. However, Dunn knows nothing about
the Deli business. The deli’s owner, George Atkins, knows and
loves his business a great deal.
Dunn has known George for years and he is aware that George
is thinking of retiring in the next few years. If he buys the Deli
now and can get George to stay on at the Deli, George could
train and mentor a new managerial staff comprised of some
of Dunn’s staff and return employees who work the seasonal
Dunn has decided that his best-selling point to George is to
design an organizational structure based on George’s vision and
mission. Dunn realizes that the design must reflect George’s
relative importance within this acquisition and merger yet must
empower the staff of both the new Deli Department and the
current employees of Dunn’s Ski Emporium to grow the
business.
Dunn Assignment Instructions
Dunn has hired your as an organizational leadership consultant.
You have prepared a paper with information that he help him
think through the process ti successfully merge his ski
emporium with George’s deli.

Discuss the leadership considerations in a three to five page
paper, in the third person under the headings below. Include a
separate title page and reference page(s). These are not included
in the three to five pages. You may be creative and invent
names and positions of employees, financial goals and the type
of culture that would best help him merge the two
organizations.
Introduction: write an introductory paragraph to the paper (do
not write the word Introduction for this paragraph. Just write
the introduction. Under each heading below discuss the
concepts that you have learned related to the heading. Support
your discussion with references to the material you have learned
in the course to date.
Dunn as social architect
Define what is meant by social architect per the reading
materials. Discuss why Dunn would be considered a social
architect in designing the new organizational structure. Discuss
the organizational purpose of Dunn’s Ski Emporium and The
Deli.
Vision statement
Discuss vision and how it is different from an organization’s
mission. What should Dunn consider in developing a vision for
the new organization? How should he include George’s vision
in the new vision?
Organizational Structure
Discuss the factors Dunn needs to consider when developing an
organizational structure to fit the new vision, including the
types of employees he will need. Remember to use the reading
material to support your discussion.
Organizational Culture
After reading through the Organizational Culture Survey
Inventory (OCAI),what type of organizational culture do you
think he should establish?
Conclusion

Required Formatting of the paper:
Write in single space with a double space between paragraphs.
Use 12-point font, and three -five pages in length including
diagrams.
Title page with your name, the course name, the date, and
instructor’s name;
Use headings as indicated;
Reference page;
Summary that provides the key points of Dunn’s plan;
Writing is expected to be clear and concise;
Write in the third person;
Use APA formatting for in-text citations and reference page.
You are expected to paraphrase and not use direct quotes.
Deductions will be taken when direct quotes are used and found
to be unnecessary;
Outside resources may be used but the majority of the support
will come from the course readings with a wide array of
readings used;
Submit the paper in the Assignment Folder.

Bruce M. TharpORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE WHITE PAPERFour O.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Bruce M. TharpORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE WHITE PAPERFour O.docx

Similar to Bruce M. TharpORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE WHITE PAPERFour O.docx (20)

More from hartrobert670

More from hartrobert670 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Bruce M. TharpORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE WHITE PAPERFour O.docx