1 (14)

£. *

%

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

AND

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

4

#

1 (15)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE

1.1 Introduction

Culture from a sociological perspective has evolved along with the

evolution of mankind. Every ancient civilisation had its own cultural

component which knitted together the social fabric of that civilisation. This

culture permeates into all the institutions such as family, religion, business etc.

In the context of an organisation, though culture existed, a conscious effort to

recognise and study the same started over the last thirty years.

Anthropologists provided definitional frames for analysing culture. Herskowitz

(1948) viewed culture as a construct describing the total body of belief,

behaviour, knowledge, sanctions, values, and goals that make up the way of life

of people.

Organisations develop a culture of their own which can be either an asset

or a liability. Culture can be an important source of commitment and

continuity. On the other hand, culture can also be a source of resistance to

change and inflexibility. Therefore, it is important to nurture and develop a

healthy culture and change the unhealthy elements so that an appropriate

culture is developed for improving the effectiveness of the organisation.

Martin (1985) points out that, raising the question, whether culture can

be changed and/or managed itself has been a subject of argument, that culture,

being a key to commitment, productivity and profitability, can and should be

changed. Some other sociologists question the very idea of creating and/orchanging the culture of an organisation, because, in their view, culture is not

created by any one leader or leaders, but by the members, as an expression of

their deepest needs and as a means of endowing their experiences with

1 (16)

2

meaning in a spontaneous manner over a period of interaction in a given

context.

Nonetheless, it should be recognized that organisational culture is not

static. Its dynamics implicitly calls for an understanding of the important role

culture plays for different groups at different points of time in their growth and

development. Culture may serve as glue in a newly formed and growing

organisation to keep the members together and thus determine their identity,

strength and solidarity. It may serve as a source of stability and consistency for

an organisation in its mid-age. Similarly, for an organisation that has grown or

has been in business experiencing a decline on account of its inability to cope

with the challenges and has thus become stagnant and uncreative, culture

serves as a beacon necessitating change in those things that require change and

stabilizing those that need to be done so, for the growth of the organisation.

Studying organisational culture has evoked the interest of social

scientists for a long time. However, most of these studies have been focussing

on understanding organisational culture and evaluating the same. There has

not been much effort on designing a process, that can enable organisations to

develop a distinctive culture. At the same time there is a great deal of interest

in many organisations in acquiring usable concepts about organisational

culture that can really make a difference to how they manage change more

sensitively and successfully. This study primarily aims at addressing the above

need of the organisations from a sociological perspective.

The key to developing culture in organisations is through the definition,

construction and adoption of a set of values by the participants in the

organisation. Mere adoption of a set of values produces only “cognitive’'

change, in the sense of organisational participants “knowing” about values. It is

only when the organisation enables the individuals to internalise the values

through various processes that the real culture emerges. It is this process of

culture development through the internalisation of values, which is referred to

1 (17)

3

in this work as the “Values Clarification process”. Values Clarification process,

therefore, goes beyond mere understanding of values to a more internalized

sensing of values in different events, situations, decisions, problems and

relationships confronting individual and group participants in their

organisational life.

It is with this perspective that this study has been carried out intensively

in the context of one organisation. The attempt is not only to develop a

systematic approach to the Clarification Process for the development of culture,

but also to develop a methodology to bring about value changes through the

Values Clarification processes.

Culture and Society: Select Definitions and Meanings1.2

This section attempts to survey the available literature on organisation

culture, organisational values, value studies, evolution of organisation culture,

and Values Clarification processes. The review is oriented towards clarifying

some key concepts, which will in turn lead to the definition of the research

objectives of the study.

The term “culture” comes from the Latin word “Cultura”, the verb form

of which is “Colere” meaning to fill or to cultivate or to worship (Macdonald,

1980).

Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) cite no less than 164 definitions of

culture, which have been categorized as descriptive, historic, normative,

psychological, structural and genetic.

culture have received particular focus in organisational studies, since it deals

with values and norms and the conceptions of what is desirable vis-ÿ-vis

conduct, that affect organisational behaviour. Culture can be understood as a

way of life of a group of people (Kluckhohn, 1951; Hall, 1959) reflected through

integrated behavioural patterns (Broom & Selznic, 1970; Hall, 1959; Kroeber &

Of these, normative dimensions of

1 (18)

4

Kluckhohn, 1952), that are learnt and transmitted from generation to

generation (Kluckhohn, 1951; Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1952). The behavioural

patterns include thought, speech, action, and artefacts. Culture creates a silent

language that is interpreted by meanings from one’s own perception rather

than being stated obviously.

Culture is seen as the “form of things that people have in mind, their

models of perceiving, relating, and otherwise interpreting them” (Keesing,

1974. p.73). It consists of internally consistent patterns of affirmation,

restrictions and permissions that guide people to behave in sanctioned ways,

and that enable people to judge others and justify themselves to others

(Keesing, 1974). Culture consists of a person’s theory of what his fellows know,

believe and mean, a theory of what code they are following (Weick, 1985).

These behavioural patterns are learnt and transmitted through generations.

Culture, according to Borheek and Curtis (1975), consists of a learned (as

opposed to innate) and shared (as opposed to truly idiosyncratic) ideas (as

opposed to physical artifacts). Culture, therefore, depends on man’s capacity for

learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations (Webster’s

Dictionary, 1990). It is, therefore, for this reason that in social sciences, the

term culture refers to a social heritage, that is, all the knowledge, beliefs,

customs and skills that are available to the members of a society. The social

heritage is the product of a specific and unique history. It is the “distinctiveway of life of a group of people, their complete design for living”(Kluckhohn,

1951, p.86).

Culture reflects the distinctive achievements of human groups. The

essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e. historically derived and

selected) ideas, especially their attached values. Culture systems may, on one

hand be considered as products of action, on the other as conditioning elements

of further action (Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1952). Culture has many expanded

dimensions in its meaning. “Culture is not restricted to certain fields of

knowledge, it includes ways of behaving derived from a whole range of human

1 (19)

5

activity” (Broom and Selznic, 1970, p.51). For an anthropologist, "culture has

long stood for the way of life of a people, for the sum of their learned

behaviour patterns, attitudes and material things" (Hall, 1959, p.43).

Culture exhibits its dimensions through referential and expressive

symbols. The referential symbols are denotative; they are words or objects that

have a specific reference; they are instrumental e.g. a typewriter. Expressive

symbols are connotative. They evoke associations that are defined and open-

ended rather than specific and limited e.g. professor. Expressive symbols have

a special importance for culture. Expressive symbolism is capable of

contributing a social solidarity by affirming shared ideas and perspectives

(Broom and Selznick, 1970). A symbol can be broadly understood as that

which denotes or represents something. A symbol gives a meaning to an act or a

thing and this meaning of the symbol is social in its origin. The meaning of a

symbol is given by those who use it. Any repetitive human act, any object,

however simple or routine, can have expressive meaning. A meal, a form of

dress, a greeting, a dwelling, a public gathering place - any of these may be rich

with connotation. Thus, culture includes everything that is produced by, and is

capable of sustaining shared symbolic experience. Through symbolism culture

creates a silent language which needs to be interpreted by attaching meaning to

be understood. What seems to be obvious interaction may not be so as one

interprets the transaction by attaching his own meaning to it, thus leaving

many things to be perceived than being obviously stated. “Culture creates a

world taken for granted: it forms the unconscious premises of thought and

action. Culture tends to be pervasive, touching every aspect of life” (Broom and

Selznick, 1970, p.29).

The varied definitions of culture from a sociological perspective have

spawned some interesting insights into culture as:

Model of perceiving

Code of what they are following

1 (20)

6

Learned and shared ideas

Design for living

Conditioning elements of further action

Way of life of a people

Expressive symbolism signifying social solidarity

Expressive meaning

Connotation

Culture can, therefore, be interpreted to be that code, model, design and

connotation which underlines individual and collective experiences of

possessing, perceiving, thinking, living and acting together in community. The

sociological significance of the codes and connotations of what lies behind the

crafting of human and social existence have been discussed this far. Attention

can now be turned to the conceptualisation of culture in the microcosm of

society ; life and work in organisation.

1.3 Organisation Culture

Organisations being part of the larger society the cultural patterns within

the society permeate the organisation. All the ingredients of the societal culture

such as the norms, beliefs, values, attitudes and assumptions, therefore,

become part of the organisations, as members entering the organisation bring

these components with them.

Cultures differ depending on the context in which it operates. Schneider

(1994), in his book “The Re-engineering Alternative", focuses on types of

organisation culture. His aim is to provide a classification system for the

personality of the organisation similar to the Myers-Briggs Type for the

individual personality. Many re-engineering attempts fail to deliver the desired

results because they treat all organisations as if they have the same personality.

1 (21)

7

Schneider's theory, which builds on the earlier work of Harrison (1972) and

Handy (1976), is that there are four basic organisation culture types:

Control

Collaboration

Competence

Cultivation

Different enterprises and environments adorn different cultures, though

no one culture type is better than any other.

actuality-impersonal culture. What it pays attention to most is concrete,

tangible reality; actual experience; and matters of practicality and utility. Its

decision-making process is analytically detached, formula oriented, and

prescriptive'’ (Schneider, 1994, p.115). Control cultures are best suited to large

production companies or financial institutions.

The control culture is “...an

The collaboration culture on the other hand is “...an actuality-personal

culture. It pays a great deal of attention to concrete, tangible reality; actual

experience; and matters of practicality and utility. However, its decision¬

making process is people driven, organic, and informal” (Schneider, 1994,

p.117). This type of culture is more suited to some of the helping professions, or

companies that are highly people focused.

The competence culture is “... a possibility-impersonal culture. It pays

attention to potentiality, imagined alternatives, creative options, and

theoretical concepts. Its decision-making process is analytically detached,I

formula oriented, scientific, and prescriptive” (Schneider,1994, p.119). This

culture thrives in research organisations, advertising agencies, partnerships,

and consultancies in organisations where there is a strong emphasis on

achievement and there is a competitive meritocracy.

1 (22)

8

The cultivation culture is “...a possibility-personal culture. It pays

attention chiefly to potentiality, ideals and beliefs, aspirations and inspirations,

and creative options. Its decision-making method is people driven, organic,

open-minded, and subjective” (Schneider, 1994, p.121). It flourishes in religious

and therapeutic organisations where there is a strong emphasis on personal

development.

Schneider’s work follows a number of mainly American writers,

consultants, and researchers who have developed classification systems for

organisation. He evolved a taxonomy of taxonomies showing the links with

various other classification systems for organisations. For clarity and easier

understanding, the table below depicts a comparison of organisational culture

typologies.

TABLE1

Comparison of Organisational Culture Typologies

Deal &

Kennedy

HarrisonSchneider Bennis &

Nanus

1985

HirshQuinn &

McGrath

O'Toole

1994 19721985 1985(Handy

1976)

19821985

Tough-Guy

Macho

TaskIntuition

(Thinking

Rational Competence CollegialMerito¬

cracy

NT)

Consensual Collabo-Sensation

Feeling

Egalitarian Work Hard

Play Hard

Collegial

ration

(SF)

Ideological Intuition

Feeling

CultivationHumanism Person

(Diony-sus)

Persona-

listic

(NF)

ControlSensation

Thinking

Hierar¬

chical

Behaviou- Bet your

company

Process

Role(Apollo

Power(Zeus)

Formu-

listicnsm

(ST)

1 (23)

9

Schneider's classification is the most useful and well documented of all

the taxonomies. This approach, however, raises fundamental questions about

whether such classifications are nominalising a dynamic concept and seeing

culture as something an organisation has, rather than being an integral part of

what an organisation is.

Further different kinds of cultures have different assumptions. In

rational cultures individual information processing (goal

judgement, and direction setting) is assumed to be a means to the end ofimproved performance (efficiency, productivity, and profit or impact). In adevelopmental culture, intuitive information p

innovation) is assumed to be a means to the end of revitalisation (external

support, resource acquisition, and growth).

collective information processing (discussion, participation, and consensus)

are assumed to be means to the end of cohesion (climate, morale, and

teamwork). In the hierarchical culture, formal information processing

(documentation, computation, and evaluation) is assumed to be a means to

the end of continuity (stability, control, and co-ordination).

clarification, logical

rocessing (insight, invention, and

In the consensual culture,

The primary concern of organisational development has been improving

performance (profits, return on equity, etc.) and the well being of the people.

Practitioners of organisation development assume that the best way to achieve

both outcomes (improving performance and well being of people) is through

trust, open confrontation of problems, employee empowerment and

participation, the design of meaningful work co-operation between groups, and

full use of human potential (Boer and Walton, 1990).

According to Porter, Lawler and Hackman (1975) “Organisational culture

(is) a set of customs and typical patterns of ways of doing things. The force,

persuasiveness and nature of such model beliefs and values vary considerably

from organisation to organisation. Yet, it is assumed that an organisation that

has any history at all has developed some sort of culture and that this will have

1 (24)

10

a vital impact on the degree of success of any efforts to alter or improve the$

organisation...”

Reimann & Weiner(1988) argue that as foundations of strong culture,

shared values play a double role: They serve as powerful, built-in motivational

forces for members and they provide guides for corporate goals, policies,

strategies and actions. The nature of the value systems is also a crucial factor,

in the impact of culture on organisational effectiveness.

Culture, either universal or particular, is concerned with context.

Managerial and organisational culture is concerned with the particular

environment, situation, or set of problems in which skills, techniques, and

approaches will be applied. The key questions about managerial and

organisational culture are: Are these applications appropriate to the

circumstances? and, is the framework of values on which these applications are

based consistent with the framework of values in the situation in which the

applications will be made? “Managerial culture, is not an issue about the fit of

values, techniques, applications, and situations, the nature of the environment,

along with the type of national culture involved. The issue for training is not

only to develop appropriate methods to fit the specific cultural setting but also

to improve managerial skills” (Swierczek, 1988. p.75).

Organisational culture has become one of the most active research areaswithin organisational studies. It also has been emphasized heavily in recent

popular, practitioner-oriented management books - Deal and Kennedy (1982);

Peters and Waterman (1982). One impetus for the study of organisational

culture came from a realisation by a number of people in the 1970s that

traditional organisational approaches were not as useful as they might be in

leading to an understanding of observed disparities between organisational

goals and outcome or between strategy and implementation.

Shared values or assumptions form the basis tor consensus and

1 (25)

11

integration, which encourages motivation and commitment of meaningful

membership. The same shared values that define organisational purpose also

provide meaning and direction. From these come organisations with high

levels of built-in co-ordination and the capacity to adapt by projecting existing

values and assumptions on ambiguous situations.

This kind of thinking led to a number of publications in the early and

middle 1980s emphasizing organisational culture like those of Frost, Moore,

Louis, Lundberg and Martin (1985); Kilmann, Saxton and Serpa (1983); Schein(1985).

The emphasis on organisation culture and its importance for

organisational effectiveness have received much greater, wider and sharper

focus during the eighties. It has been pointed out that: “After a prolonged

emphasis on organisational culture, strategy and design, researchers began to

investigate the plethora of values, beliefs, rituals, customs and other

characteristics of life in an organisation which seem to affect the behaviour of

organisational participants and in turn, influence organisational effectiveness"-

(Bourantas, 1990, p.26l).

A number of leading journals like Organisational Dynamics(1983),

Organisational Studies(1986) and Administrative Science Quarterly(1983) ha

brought issues that specifically speak about organisation culture.

ve

But when we study the cultures of organisations and classify them, we

need to focus our attention on the behavioural process (rooted in the values and

attitudes of the members) of such organisations. Such a behavioural order is

distinguishable from one company to another, and in that process, one can

hope to recognize patterns of behavioural order.

The idea that cultural processes are crucial to the dynamics of

organisational life has a long and venerable history. There have been

1 (26)

12

understandings on how interpretations, values and elaborate behaviouralrituals shape the manner in which organisations perform.

The challenge for management is to institute a new organisational

culture that reflects shared values regardless of previous organisation affiliation

or geographic location (Offerman and Gowing, 1990).

Levinson(1988) predicted that Top managers will have to adjust their

styles considerably to be effective in these new organisational environments.

Specifically Levinson stated, when costs have been cut to the bone and controls

tightened into rigidity, the resulting insensitivity and lack of flexibility will

inhibit competitive adaptation. Managers and executives will necessarily have

to be more closely involved with their subordinates over the longer period of

time required to establish and maintain commitment. They will have to

become more psychologically minded, that is, they will have to understand the

personalities of their subordinates better, particularly the unconscious factors

in motivation.

French and Bell (1983) refer the unconscious factors to informal system

of culture. They state culture includes “the notion of the informal system

including feelings; informal action and interaction; group norms and values”.

In some ways the informal system is hidden or suppressed domain of

organisational life - the covert part of the “Organisational Ice Berg”.

as

Cultural change in the context of organisation calls for understanding

the dynamics of interaction within and between the members of the

organisation. Cultures are produced interactively and therefore can only be

changed interactively. The quality of the interaction will be reflected in the

quality of relationships and in the dialogue within and among different i

groups and subcultures, both inside and outside the organisation.

interest

Thus, any cultural change effort must focus primarily on changing the

1 (27)

13

networks of relationships, commitments, and scripts that bind people together

in organisational settings (Bate, 1994).

Though we see how significant it is to understand the underlying

patterns of behaviour of the individuals belonging to a group or organisation

while working towards developing an organisational culture, there is no single

best method for changing culture. When the organisation is committed to a

culture change, it can be effected in many ways (Amarchand and Jayaraj, 1992).

Change, however is more than an intellectual process; it is a

psychological process as well. Unless the change being proposed strengthens in

a visible and unambiguous way the psychological security of the people

affected, it will be resisted.

Drucker (1966) asserts, “But there has to be conditions for

psychological readiness to change. The change must appear rational to him;

man always presents to himself as rational even his most irrational, most

erratic changes. It must appear as an improvement. And it must not be so

rapid or so great as to obliterate the psychological landmarks which make a

man feel at home; his understanding of Ms work, Ms relations to his fellow-

workers, his concepts of skill, prestige and social standing in certain jobs” - As

quoted by Judson (1966, p.87).

man’s

Some researchers who recognise that organisations are themselves

culture-producing phenomena and have used the same understanding are,

Louis (1980); Deal and Kennedy (1982); Tichy, (1982); Martin and Powers,

(1983). Various scholars and researchers have defined organisation culture as

being a subset of the societal culture with only marginal variations in the way

orgamsation culture has been perceived. A comparison of some defimtions is

attempted below.

Bosman, Phatak and Schellenberger (1985) define organisation culture

1 (28)

14

as a system of norms, attitudes, values, beliefs and customs which govern the

, behaviour of people within organisations; corporate culture is the sum total of

how people in an organisation think and act as employees/ members of the

organisation.

Sathe (1985), Schein (1985) viewed organisation culture as a set of key

values, guiding beliefs and understandings that are shared by members of an

organisation.

Schall (1983) ...as a relatively enduring, independent symbolic system of

values, beliefs and assumptions evolving from and imperfectly shared by

interacting organisation members that allows them to explain, coordinate and

evaluate behaviour in organisational context; these functions are accomplished

through the mediation of implicit and explicit rules that act as cultural

warrants.

Davis (1984) as a set of shared beliefs and values that gives the

members of an institution/ organisation meaning for their existence and

Ml

provides them with the norms for self-directed behaviour.

Kilmann and Saxton (1983) as a reference to the unwritten, often

unconscious message that fills in the gaps between what is formally decreed

and what actually takes place; it involves shared philosophies, ideologies,

values, beliefs, expectations and norms.

t ••

Schein (1984) ...as the pattern of basic assumptions that a given group

has invented, discovered and developed in learning to cope with its problems of

external adaptation and internal integration and that have worked well enough

to be considered valid, and therefore to be taught to new members as the

correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to the problem.

The discussion of various conceptual approaches to organisational

1 (29)

15

culture leads to some significant insights into the role of values and Values

Clarification processes in the development of culture:

Organisational culture comprises several ingredients.

Values form a significant aspect of the ingredients, which go into theevolution, and sustenance of organisation culture.

Key values, as shared values, play an important role in the •

development of culture in organisations.

The clarification of values in organisation has an important role in

the behaviour of interacting individuals and groups in organisation.

Values Clarification and internalisation helps iin giving meaning to

organisational members and a possible basis for role fulfillment.

Values Clarification processes can also help in identifying and

bridging gaps between the formal, intended organisational values and

the informal undercurrent of member values.

Value internalisation through Clarification Processes not only help in

building organisational cohesiveness but help in the socialisation

process of new entrants to the organisation.

1.4 Understanding Values

It might be appropriate at this stage to take a closer look at the concept

of values in literature.

The English word value is derived from the Latin verb ‘Valere’, which

means to be strong, or to be worth. In economics, it is the price of an article or

1 (30)

16

that, which refers to purchase or exchange power. Musicologists employ it to

mean the length of a tone. Moralists and ethicists regard “value” as a standard

or norm of goodness, desirability, and propriety. In the social sciences, the

term value “has come to denote the shared cultural standards according to

which the relevance - moral, aesthetic or cognitive - of the objects of attitudes,

desires and needs can be compared and judged” (Gould and Kelb(Ed), 1964,

p.744; Ganguli, H.C, 1990). In welfare economics, the word “value” occurs in

phrases such as “a person’s values” or “a society’s values”, and there it means

much the same as a person’s preferences or tastes. Given a knowledge of his

resources, his prospects and his tastes, a person is thought to be able to allocate

his resources in a way which will realise his values (Baier and Rescher(Ed),

1969, p-71). These are summarized in the table below:

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF ‘VALUE’ DEFINITIONS

MeaningSource

To be strong, worth

Price of an article/ purchase or exchange

power

Length of a tone

Standard or a norm of goodness, desirability

and propriety

Shared cultural standards. Moral, aesthetic

and cognitive relevance of the objects of

attitudes, desires and needs that can be

compared and judged

Person’s preferences or tastes

Latin word ‘Valere’

Economics

Musicology

Morality and Ethics

Social Sciences

Welfare Economics

Viewing at it as an end state, “a value is an enduring belief that a specific

mode of conduct or end state of existence is personally or socially preferable to

1 (31)

17

an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end state of existence” (Rokeach,

1973, p.5). Values refer to the cherished end-state, and the awareness of actions

that direct human endeavour to reach it (Yuktananda Swami, 1989, p.2). There

is an intimate connection between process and value, and between organismic

togetherness and the structure of value. Value is the goals of process, process is

the means to value. Process allows for the successive realisation of mutually

exclusive values. Process also allows for progressive growth (Hirst, 1970).

Values are considered “what ought to be, as distinct from what is” (Schein,

1985).

A value is a type of belief, centrally located within one’s total beliefsystem, about how one ought or ought not to behave, or about some end-state

of existence worth or not worth attaining. Values are thus abstract ideals,

positive or negative, not tied to any specific object or situation, representing a

person’s beliefs about modes of conduct and ideal terminal modes (Rokeach,

1968), what Lovejoy (1950) calls generalised adjectival and terminal values.

Values, therefore, are global beliefs that “transcendentally guide actions and

judgements across specific objects and situations” (Kroeber and Kluckhohn,

1952). Values are usually thought of as global beliefs about desirable end-

states; these beliefs are seen to underlie attitudinal and behavioural processes

(Rokeach, 1968, p.160).

People build their values and other cognitive maps out of

personal experiences, though a part of these personal experiences are the

values of the society which exist prior to their own existence and are

communicated to them as members of society. A person’s values are rooted in

his/her personality, and also in the norms of reference groups and of the society

to which the individual belongs. People interrelate their values and form value

systems, which indicate their choices in their affairs. The values and value

systems of an individual are unique and characteristic of the person concerned.

It is this uniqueness which Allport emphasised when in his definition of

personality, he wrote: “Even the acts and concepts that we apparently ‘share’

their own

1 (32)

18

with others are at bottom individual and idiomatic. It is true that some act and

concepts are more idiosyncratic than others are, but none can be found that

lacks the personal flavour (Allport, 1961, p.29). It would therefore, be incorrect

to look upon the values of an individual as a mere reflection or mirror image of

the values of society. By doing so one would fall prey to an extreme

anthropological fallacy.

Roubiczek, P. (1969) has stated that we tend to identify an embodiment

of a value with the value itself, or atleast to consider the embodiment as an

integral part of the value. Many people believe for instance, that it is not only

just to punish criminals, but that the concept of justice is connected with the

punishment of criminals.

Values do not exist independently in the same way as things; they must

be embodied to be experienced. We cannot know goodness or beauty in the

abstract.

Values are canons of judgement; through their application we become

aware of certain qualities in the action or object and these in turn produce in us

an appreciation of the values which are embodied.

Evaluation belongs to the subjective method. Thus values require

personal participation to come into being - that is to become more than abstract

concepts. Something must be valuable to us (or the opposite) otherwise we get

to know facts and not values. A thing is not useful of itself, but for the purpose

for which we need it. Therefore, values are not expressed by factual statements,

but by judgements; our personal participation and the conclusions derived form

it are of the essence.

our

Although personal participation is required to bring values into being,

they refer to something which is objective. Our values - judgements about

things, about human behaviour and even about works of art can be right or

1 (33)

19

wrong; which shows that values possess a foundation, which is independent of

us.

Since each value has a positive and a negative form, we are bound to

arrange everything - objects and events, actions and experiences, and even the

value themselves in scales, according to the degree to which each item

contributes to, or prevents, the realisation of a particular value. Anything we

evaluate tends to take its place in such a scale more or less automatically so that

we are not only confronted with the values themselves, but with corresponding

scales of values.

Since we have to choose the scale, which we should apply, we need also a

hierarchy of values, in spite of all the contradictions to which they give rise.

The values themselves have to be evaluated and therefore grouped in a scale.

Whenever values conflict they reveal their relative importance.

Since there are so many values and scales of values, their clarification

appeals to the many potentialities of our whole being; they stimulate us to

exercise our freedom and elucidate and enrich our moral experience .

Values can reconcile statements referring to what exists with those

referring to what we ought to do. This may, at first sound surprising, for values

are norms of judgement and “behaviour; they therefore seem to be abstract and

to lack existence and moreover, they are not formulated as demands.

Nevertheless, the norms, when accepted, make potentialities actual and give

rise to actions, so that what they entail becomes real by being lived, and their

inner reality is confirmed by the resistance which one encounters when making

wrong judgements. At the same time, existence is reconciled with obligation,

because when a value is experienced as positive it makes that desirable and

thus raises a demand that it should be made real; these demands become

obligations when we experience the reality a value acquires once it has led to

an action.

1 (34)

20

Thus, while values can be understood as an ideal or desired terminalstate of being, they are also referred to as convictions or as an object of interest

«

or looked at as basic needs.

The sense in which value occurs is what is called value imputations, i.e.,

claims imputing values to people. Having values is, like having convictions

about, or like valuing (in the sense of cherishing, treasuring, prizing)

something. It is what might be called an essentially appraisal dependent

attitude. “That I believe or value something consists in my having a certain

attitude or behavioural disposition: I am disposed to act on my belief, to take

protective action in defence of what I value. The connection between value

assessments and value' imputations is thus a complicated one.

imputations are typically made from the sociologists’ point of view and so are

typically noncommittal, detached” (Baier and Rescher (Ed), 1969, p.71).

Value

Ralph, Barton Perry define value as a thing - anything has value, or is

valuable, in the original and generic sense when it is the object of an interest -any interest. The valuableness of peace is the characteristic conferred on peace

1 by the interest, which is taken in it, for what it is, or for any of its attributes,

effects or implications.

Value is thus defined in terms of interest, and its meaning thus depends

on the definition of ‘interest’. Interest is a train of events determined by

expectation of its outcome. Or a thing is an object of interest when its being

expected induces actions looking to its realisation or non-realisation. Thus

peace is an object of interest when acts believed to be conducive to peace, or

preventive of peace, are performed on that account, or when events are selected

or rejected because peace is expected of them (Frankena and Ganrose (Ed),

1974). All our efforts to identify values converge on the individual’s “I - ness”,

they reveal that “I” is the valued identity and whatever is pleasing to “I” is

valuable. A value never remains a value if it is isolated from its source - an

individual or a group (Swami Yuktananda, 1989).

1 (35)

21

To Thomas and Znaniecki, “value is a sociological concept, a natural

object that has, in fact, acquired social meaning and, consequently, “is or may

be an object of activity”( Thomas and Znaniecki, 1918, p.21).

Abraham Maslow affirms that basic needs and basic values are one and

the same. Fulfillment of such value - needs depends upon the richness or

poverty of the physical and social environment. The development of the

individual however illumines value patterns that are unique. These patterns

are related to the potentials of the person and also reflect uniqueness in

everybody’s environment (Maslow, 1968).

Carl Rogers postulates fundamentally generic or organismic bases for

value directions in human behaviour. Such organismic commonality refers not

to norms but to categories of things which people desire or need because they

are human. These categories are not limited to questions of morality or taste,

but cover the full gamut of human needs and aspirations from the most

mundane to the loftiest, from the most immediate to the most distant (Rogers,

1964).

The cross-cultural and socio-political studies of values and valuing by

Harold Lasswell (1948, 1959) compliment the Rogerian approach and affirm

the species - wide value - needs suggested by Maslow. While valuing

techniques and strategies differ over long stretches of geography and time, men

everywhere and in all ages tend to direct their behaviour towards certain

categories of needs and wants. Behind the specific, which seems at first glance

to present gross difference and relativity from culture to culture, are the

sometimes heavily camouflaged but nonetheless universal value goals of men.

These are affection, respect, skill, enlightenment, power, wealth, well being and

rectitude.

The redefined categories developed by Lasswell is a framework of open

ended continuum of categories based on comprehensive cross-cultural,

1 (36)

22

psychological and historical data as well as on empirical studies.

general categories listed below is preferred for its contextuality, economy of

terms and precision in isolating fundamentally human goals (Holmberg,1965).

His list of

Affection - Provide a climate supporting acceptance, trust, emotional

security, love, congeniality, friendship and intimacy.

Respect- Provide an atmosphere in which each individual may achieve

identity, a recognised social role and self esteem without fear of

undeserved deprivation or penalty from others.

Skill- Provide opportunities for each student to develop his talents to the

limits of his potential.

Enlightenment- Provide experiences for awareness and openness and

encourages students to find their own truth in every issue without losing

sight of social norms and the significant events of human achievement.

Power- Provide situations in which the student will have opportunities

to participate in making important decisions and to exert informalinfluence according to his talents and responsibilities.

Wealth- Provide facilities, materials and services to promote excellent

learning, while guiding the student to produce wealth in the form of

materials and services himself.

Well-being- Provide resources and interpersonal relationships which

nurture the physical and mental health of each student.

Rectitude- Provide experiences enabling the student to develop a sense

of responsibility for his own behaviour, consideration for others, and a

high sense of integrity.

1 (37)

23

Values and beliefs need to be distinguished. A belief is the acceptance of

facts, statements and sets of circumstances, as truths. It is a firmly held

conviction, strong enough to affect attitudes and values, because a belief%

represents, in one’s own view, a fundamental truth (Charson, 1976). Belief

systems define what is good or valuable ... Although we speak of goals and

values as guiding behaviour, “justifying” or “legitimising” would usually be

more appropriate. Values tend to be abstract summary of the behavioural

attributes which society rewards, formulated after the fact (Borheek and Curtis,

1975). A value is a type of belief, or a set of global beliefs.

Jastrow (1927, p.284) has pointed out that the "human" mind is belief¬

seeking rather than a fact-seeking apparatus”. A belief is any simple

proposition, conscious or unconscious, inferred from what a person says or

does, capable of being preceded by the phrase “I believe that

a belief may describe the object of belief as true or false, correct or incorrect;

” The content of•••*

value it as good or bad; or advocate a certain course of action or a certain state

of existence as desirable or undesirable. The first kind of belief may be called a

descriptive or existential belief, those capable of being true or false (I believe

that the sun rises in the east); the second kind of belief may be called an

evaluative belief- when the object of belief is to be good or bad (I believe this ice

cream is good); the third kind may be called a prescriptive or exhortatory belief,

wherein some means or end of actions judged to be desirable or undesirable (I

believe it is desirable that children should obey their parents). Whether or not

the content of a belief is to describe, evaluate, or exhort, all beliefs are pre¬

dispositions to action, and an attitude is thus a set of interrelated pre¬

dispositions to action organised around an object or situation.

A value is a belief of the third kind - a prescriptive or proscriptive belief

(Rokeach, 1968). Allport opines that a value is a belief upon which a man acts

by preference (Allport, 1961).

Rokeach (1973) further proposes the following four defining

1 (38)

24

assumptions or criteria of connection between values and beliefs:

Existential versus non-existential beliefs - Beliefs directly concerning

one’s own existence and identity in the physical and social world are

assumed to have more functional connections and consequences for

other beliefs than those which less directly concern one’s existence and

identity.

Shared versus unshared beliefs about existence and self- identity -Beliefs concerning existence and self-identity may be shared or not

shared with others. Those shared with others are assumed to have more

functional connections and consequences for other beliefs than those not

shared with others.

Derived versus underived beliefs - Many beliefs are learnt not by direct

encounter with the object of belief, but indirectly, from reference persons

and groups. We refer to such beliefs as “derived” beliefs. Derived beliefs

are assumed to have fewer functional connections and consequences for

other beliefs than the beliefs from which they are derived.

Beliefs concerning and not concerning matters of taste - Many beliefs

represent more or less arbitrary matters of taste and are often so

perceived by the individual holding them. Such beliefs are assumed to

have relatively fewer functional connections and consequences for other

beliefs than beliefs that do not represent arbitrary matters of taste.

The above imply three specific hypotheses. The first is that types of belief

located along a central peripheral dimension are functionally distinct. The

second being that the more central a belief the more it will resist change. The

third, changes in central beliefs will produce greater changes in the rest of the

belief system than changes in less central beliefs.

1 (39)

25£Studying the organisation of values/beliefs, Darry.J.Bem has said that

there are primitive beliefs and high order beliefs. The primitive beliefs are those

that are seen to rest ultimately upon a basic belief. These basic beliefs are

accepted, as given. They demand no independent formal or empirical

confirmation and require no justification beyond a brief citation of direct

experience (Bern, 1970). These are among the first beliefs that a child learns as

he interacts with its environment, and in a psychological sense, they are

continuously validated by experience. As a result, we are usually unaware of

the fact that alternatives to these beliefs could exist, and it is precisely for this

reason that we remain unaware of the beliefs themselves.

Values are ends, not means and their desirability is either non-

consciously taken for granted (a zero-order belief) or seen as a direct derivation

from one’s own or from some external authority (a first-order belief). While

values are considered “what ought to be, as distinct from what is” (Schein,

1985), beliefs are an indication of “what is”. This layer shows ways in which

individuals communicate, explain, and rationalise or justify what is said and

done in a community. In other words, it shows how they make sense of the

ideologies, attitudes, and ethical/moral codes. At first glance, this layer appears

to provide accurate information about the organisational culture, thus making

the basic assumptions layer unnecessary. However, the difference here is in

espoused values (what people say; second layer) and values-in-use (what people

will do; basic assumptions level). Espoused values often serve important

symbolic functions and may remain in an organisation for a long time even

though they are inconsistent with values-in-use. Values/beliefs are closer to the

third layer (basic underlying assumptions) than are the artifacts and patterns of

behaviour in the outer layer.

The principle of belief congruence asserts that we tend to value a given#

belief, subsystem, or system of beliefs in proportion to its degree of congruence

with our own belief system and, further, that we tend to value people in

proportion to the degree to which they exhibit beliefs, subsystems, or systems of

1 (40)

26

belief congruent with our own. Congruence can be defined both in terms of

similarity and importance. Given two beliefs or subsystems of belief equal in

importance, the one more similar to our own is the more congruent; conversely,

given two beliefs or subsystems perceived to be equally similar to our own, the

one judged as more important is the more congruent with our own belief

system (Connor and Becker, 1975). Values are then the beliefs one holds within

oneself, which governs his/her behaviour in a given context.

There is a great deal of confusion that exists on the difference that exists

between values and attitudes. Many use these term as synonyms. An attitude

is defined simply as an organisation of interrelated beliefs around a common

object, with certain aspects of the object being at the focus of attention for some

persons and other aspects for other persons (Rokeach, 1973). An attitude

involves an organisation of beliefs focused upon a single object or situation

(Rokeach, 1973). One’s attitude towards religion, for example, involves a

number of beliefs concerning that specific object. In contrast a value refers to a

single study of the social comparison processes (Festinger, 1964); (Jones and

Gerard, 1967).

Attitudes constitute cognitive and affective orientations toward specific

objects or situations. Behaviour is generally viewed as a consequence of one’s

values and attitudes. When attitudes and behaviour are observed in general

patterns, they are seen mainly to provide a basis for inference about the

underlying values.

To Campbell (1963), Jones and Gerard (1967), and to many others

value seems to be synonymous with attitude because the attitude object has

valence or cathexis. In this conception, a person has as many values as there

are valanced or cathected attitude objects.

a

Several considerations require the nomination of value concept ahead of

the attitude concept. First, value seems to be a more dynamic concept since it

1 (41)

27

has a strong motivational component as well as cognitive, affective, and

behavioural components. Second, while attitude and value are both widely4

assumed to be determinants of social behaviour, value is a determinant of

attitude as well as of behaviour. Third, if we further assume that a person

possesses considerably fewer values than attitudes, then the value concept

provides us with a more economical analytic tool for describing and explaining

similarities and differences between persons, groups, nations and cultures.

While attitudes seem to be a specialized concern mainly of psychology

and sociology, values have long been a center of theoretical attention acrossmany disciplines - philosophy, education, political science, economics,

anthropology, and theology, as well as psychology and sociology. All these

disciplines share a common concern with the antecedents and consequent of

value organisation and value change (Rokeach, I960).

Values differ from attitudes in several important respects. While an

attitude represents several beliefs focused on a specific object or situation, a

value is a single belief that transcendentally guides actions and judgements

across specific objects and situations, and beyond immediate goals to more

ultimate end-states of existence. Moreover, a value unlike an attitude, is an

imperative to action, not only a belief about the preferable but also a preference

for the preferable (Lovejoy, 1950). Finally a value, unlike an attitude, is a

standard or yardstick to guide actions, attitudes, comparisons, evaluations, and

justifications of self and others. Kerlinger (1967) has pointed out that for two

individuals who are said to have an attitude about the same object (for example,

Negro education), different beliefs about the object may be “criteria”, or at the

center of attention.

Each belief within an attitude organisation is conceived to have three

components: a cognitive component, because it represents a person’s

knowledge, held with varying degrees of certitude, about what is true or false,

good or bad, desirable or undesirable; an affective component, because under

1 (42)

28

suitable conditions the belief is capable of arousing affect of varying intensity

centering around the object of the belief, around other objects (individuals or

groups) taking a positive or negative position with respect to the object of belief,

around the belief itself, when this validity is seriously questioned, as in an

argument; and a behavioural component, because the belief, being a response

predisposition of varying threshold, must lead to some action when it is suitably

activated. The kind of action it leads to is dictated strictly by the content of the

belief. Even a belief that merely describes is a predisposition to action under

appropriate conditions (Rokeach, 1973).

or

Fishbein and Raven (1962) originally distinguished attitude from belief

by attributing the evaluative component to attitude and the cognitive

component to belief, but this distinction is not maintained in later work: all

beliefs are conceived to have evaluative as well as cognitive components«

(Fishbein, 1963, 1967). Any belief considered singly, representing as it does a

predisposition to respond in a preferential way to the object of the belief, can

be said to have an affective as well as a cognitive component. This affective

component will not manifest under all conditions but only when the belief is

somehow challenged by the attitude object or by some one else or unless the

preferential action toward which one is predisposed or is somehow blocked.

Values, on the other hand, have to do with modes of conduct and end-

states of existence. Once a value is internalised it becomes, consciously

unconsciously, a standard or criterion for guiding action, for developing and

maintaining attitudes toward relevant objects and situations, for justifying

one’s own and others’ actions and attitudes, for morally judging self and others,

and for comparing self with others. Finally, a value is a standard employed to

influence the values, attitudes and actions of at least some others, children’s, for

example. This definition of value is highly compatible with those advanced by

Kluckhohn (1951), Smith (1963), Rokeach (I960).

or

It is possible to discern the outlines of at least four separate subsystems

1 (43)

29

within the value-attitude system just described, and we may concern ourselves

with problems of measurement, organisation, and change within any one of this

subsystems considered separately. First, several beliefs may be organised

together to form a single attitude focused on a specific object or situation.

Second, two or more attitudes may be organised together to form a larger

attitudinal system, say, a religious or political ideology. Third and fourth, two

or more values may be organised together to form an instrumental or a

terminal value system.

Classification of allies

The earliest efforts in classifying values were made by Allport and his

associates. They identified six types of values. The following table gives in brief

the various classifications of values.

1.5

TABLE - 3

DEFINITIONS OF VALUES

Author Value Definition

Allport Theoretical Places high importance on the discovery of

truth through a critical and rational approach.

Economic. Emphasizes the useful and practical.

Aesthetic. Places the highest value on form and harmony.

Social Assigns the highest value to the love of people.

Politick: Places emphasis on acquisition of power and

influence.

1 (44)

30

Religious: Is concerned with the unity of experience

and understanding of the cosmos as a whole.

Instrumental Values: values referring to modes of

conduct. E.g. honesty, love, courage etc. He further

classified Instrumental values into two kinds: (i)

Values with moral focus, (ii) Competence or self-

actualisation values which have a personal focus.

Terminal values: referring to end-state of existence,

with two types : (i) Terminal values having personal

focus - salvation, inner harmony. (ii).Terminal values

having social forms - world peace or universal

brotherhood.

Rokeach

Innate human value or primary value, which are of 3

kinds: (i) Selfish values concerned with individual

survival (ii) Social values concerned with welfare and

survival of the social group. (iii)Intellectual values to

motivate intellectual activities.

Compliance values'. A belief in strict discipline.George Edgin Pugh

Conformity values: A belief in an emphasis on

conformance to established norms and procedures.

Mumford (1981)

Performance values: A belief in an emphasis on

efficiency and high production.

Task values. A belief in tightly structured tasks.

1 (45)

31

Functional values concern functions performed for and

relations with important organisational public

(customers, shareholders, suppliers, competitors and

employees).

Elitist values view the primacy or superiority of the

firm's membership, products, or services as an end in

itself.

Bernard C. Reimann

and Yoash Weiner

(1988)

Individual values: Those to which an individual is

committed and which influence his behaviour.

Those that are shared culturalBoris W Becker,

Patrick E Connor

Collective values:

standards. They refer essentially to those values that

are not individually specific; the collectiveness may

range from immense sub-cultural collectiveness, such

as social classes, to small primary social groups.

(1983)

Basically most of the classification schemes stem from personal

focus and social focus, the former emphasising the selfish interests of the

individual and the latter referring to broad social/ human advantage. Another

classification based on the focus and source of values is the four generic

corporate culture types that emerge based on this classification, they are:

Four generic Corporate Culture Types

OrganisationalTraditions

Source of ValuesFocus

Charismatic Leadership

Entrepreneurial

(External, Short term)

Strategic

(External, Short term)

Functional Focus

Exclusive

(External, Short term)

Chauvinistic

(External, Short term)

Elitist Focus

1 (46)

•32

Entrepreneurial: Functional Charismatic. The functional dimension of

this value system type suggests a potential for effective organisational

outcomes.

Strategic: Value systems that are classified both as functional and

traditional are most likely to contribute to the development of proper values

and, consequently, to organisational effectiveness. This value system also

seems most likely to encourage two elements, as suggested by Hayes (1985),

that are necessary for the effective setting of corporate goals, policies, and

strategies: (a) broad organisational participation embedded in the realities of

day-to-day business conduct, rather than a analytic, top-down approach and (b)

patient, hard-to-copy, step-by-step changes and improvements, rather than

grandiose, flamboyant, or trendy strategic leaps. The value systems in many

Japanese firms particularly the large and prosperous ones, seem to fit this type.

Elitist and charismatic valueChauvinistic: Elitist-Charismatic.

dimensions described above comprise the value system least likely to result in

long-term organisational success. Further, the combined effect of these two

dimensions is likely to produce organisational dynamics that are highly

susceptible to group thinking, with the illusion of invulnerability, self-

righteousness, and stereotyping (Janis, 1972).

Many examples of such value systems may be found among the “exciting,

new, high-tech business springing up in Boston and Silicon Valley in California”

(Deal and Kennedy, 1982, p. 8).

Exclusive: Elitist-Traditional. This value system sustains a stable, long

term, elitist dimension. “When organisations perpetuate an elitist, club-link

value system, they do so to serve specific organisational purposes, such as

satisfying the needs of customers. This is especially typical of knowledge

industries such as the big law firms of Wall Street (Smigel, I960), the

prestigious management consulting establishment, of some highly selective

1 (47)

33

private universities.

However central a value may be to one’s personality or to an

organisation, the conversion of a value into an action denotes the effective use

of it. Depending on their use, values can be more operative, less operative or

non-operative. This is particularly important when values must be ascertained

by observing the behaviour of persons. Therefore, the emphasis should be on

the values in action rather than on one’s contemplation.

Another classification of values given by Becker and Connor(1983) is :

Work related values: Those values that are related to the work and work

related behaviour (perfection, cost effectiveness, optimisation etc.).

Person related values: Those values that are concerned with self and in

personal relations (sincerity, honesty, loyalty etc.).

Values are viewed as forms of beliefs, and a major source of these values

may be social expectations, particularly when they are shared. Thus, social

values may be viewed as normative beliefs complementing instrumental beliefs

as antecedents of behaviour. Further, values can be construed as internalised

normative beliefs. Once established, they may act as built-in normative guides

to behaviour, independent from the effect of rewards and punishments as

consequences of actions (Wiener, 1982).

Smith’s work on value as a determinant of attitude (1963), White’s

approach to value analysis (1951), Morris’ formulation of 13 ways (1956), and

Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s cross-cultural study of value orientations (1961),

are some of the studies undertaken in values.

that scienceAn abstract of Schwartz’s (1990) study, talks

characteristically pursues generalisations thought to approximate eternal

1 (48)

34

truths. Thus, a science of values would be expected to specify the natural laws

that govern human values and their effects on action. But research in

psychology suggests that values are often contextually determined, socio-

historical phenomena that can be created or destroyed by the very beings whose

behaviour is guided by them. Historical change in human values changes the

social institutions that embody these values and help individuals pursue

them. When social institutions are transformed in this way, it becomes easy

to mistake contingent, cultural truths for eternal, natural ones. Science tends to

tell people that what is the case must be the case because it is the result of

natural law. Applied to human values such a message has significant normative

consequences, affecting people’s conceptions of what is possible and thus their

aspirations and plans. The task of a “science” of values should instead be to

make the historical contingency of values clear, thus encouraging discussion of

what values people ought to have and what social arrangements would best

contribute to the development of those values.

The literature survey has led to the following conclusions:

Values are those that govern the behaviour of the individual. The

behaviour of the individual therefore indicates what the person values.

The meaning of values the researcher has arrived to is: Values are the

beliefs one holds within oneself, which governs his behaviour in any

given situation. One is aware of some of these beliefs while a lot of them

are not known to oneself. But, they still exist and govern the behaviour.

When values are governed by the beliefs one holds, then it also implies

that values are dynamic. They are contextual. But what is consistent is

that for similar contexts, similar beliefs operate.

There exists a hierarchy amongst values. Put in a situation, the

individual's behaviour is governed by this hierarchy of values.

1 (49)

35

The hierarchy of values, in a particular context leads to contradictions.

Therefore, it becomes important that a process of evaluating and

clarifying values gives space for appropriate behaviour to emerge and it

stimulates the person to exercise his choice with awareness.

1.6 Linkage and Relationship of Values and Organisation

Culture.

Extensive literature is available indicating the close linkage of values and

culture. Understanding values would lead to understanding the culture and vice

versa. Some of the supporting literature is given in the following paragraphs.

By definition, individual values serve as a guide to a person’s intentions

Similarly, organisational value systems provide guides for

organisational goals, policies, and strategies. Thus, the nature of the values is a

crucial factor, in the impact that culture will have

and actions.

on organisational

effectiveness (Weiner, 1982). If the prevailing values support appropriate goals

and strategies, the culture is an important asset. Conversely, the wrong values

can make the culture a major liability. It may be useful to theoretically identify

value system conditions and forms that are most likely to yield proper values -those more likely to contribute to overall organisational effectiveness.

Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) emphasise that every culture has a

dominant value system, to which the subcultures within the larger culture

subscribe in varying degrees. In management, it may be comparatively easier

to infer by observing behaviour., i.e. the values of specific individuals.

It has been assumed that the cultural differences are reflected in the

employee’s value system and are central to his motivational system, his

expectation of organisational rewards, and his job satisfaction (Barrett and

Bass, 1972; Davis, 1971; Fitzgerald, 1971; Grozier, 1970; Hesseling, 1970;

1 (50)

36

Uris, 1973). The basic categories become clear whether one is searching within

man’s organismic nature or within the social contexts he creates out of his

behaviour. Valuing becomes the most fundamental human function.

It has been suggested that individual's values affect not only perception

of appropriate ends, but also perception of the appropriate means to those

ends, (Gibson, Ivancevich, and Donnelly, 1976; Guth and Tagiuri, 1965;

Tagiuri, 1965; McMuriy, 1963; Shartle, Brumbeck, and Rizzo, 1964). Job

behaviour itself has been linked to values. For example, England, Dhingra, and

Agarwal (1974) concluded that in different countries, Personal values of

managers are related to and/or influence the way managers behave on the job.

In developing the culture of an organisation, leaders are believed to play

a vital and important role. They are considered the influencers and the values

they hold goes a long way in influencing the values the group holds.

The leadership of an organisation plays an important role in shaping the

organisation culture. The leadership has the critical role in managing

boundaries between organisation and its environment. The leader provides

vision, make sense of things, puts them into a language that is meaningful to

large number of people, guides and directs them in such a way that a healthy

culture grows and the effectiveness of the organisation improves (Lundberg,

1985).

The leaders’ behaviour reveals, as well as determines the culture of an

organisation. They can assert the underlying assumptions or perspectives of

the culture of the organisation reinforcing innovative and competence driven

culture, one, through their personal behaviour - what they say, where they

spend time, what they reward, what questions they ask, etc., and two, through

avoiding rigid systems of evaluation or information and at the same time

encouraging formal systems (Wilkins, 1983).

1 (51)

37

More recently, Peters and Waterman (1982) have highlighted the

important role played by the leaders in making their organisation excellent by

being the value shapers, the exemplars and the maker of meanings for

individuals.

Schein (1983) points out that the ideas, values and beliefs held by the

founder create the mould for the organisation’s culture. When the employees

share those values, beliefs and assumptions to such an extent that it becomes a

‘second nature’ and/or taken-for-granted way of life, the culture will continue

to be so even when the firms grow dramatically, modify a few aspects of their

business, and change the leadership at the top.

Linda Smircich (1985) in her article ‘Is the concept of culture a paradigm

for understanding organisations and ourselves?’ opines that culture could be

associated with a dramatic redirection - a paradigm shift - if it were

accompanied by a major reorientation in how we see both, organisations and

ourselves.

Martin et.al (1985) portray the culture creation process to be beyond the

control of the founder. From their study of an electronics manufacturing

company, located near Silicon Valley, California, they suggest that culture is not

created by any single person, not even the founder of an organisation, but it is

a socially constructed reality. According to them, leaders are not the only

who generate values, understanding, and behavioural norms that become part

of organisation cultures but, other organisational members too play an active

role in the culture creation process. The content of a given culture or subculturecan also be influenced by the task or technology used by employees, by the

constraints of the organisation’s stage in its life cycle or by external factors

as major changes in firm’s environment; in a Copemican revolution, cultureportrays founder as simply one among many planets orbiting a sun. Rather

than creating a culture in his or her own image, the founder is cast into asystem mould by forces beyond his or her individual control .

ones

such

1 (52)

38

1.7 Values Clarification to Develop Culture

Values Clarification became a popular approach in education and in

other helping profession with the publication of “Values and Teaching” by

Harmin and Simon (1966). In their book they described seven sub-processes

that lead to value clarity. These sub processes are:

(1) choosing from alternatives

(2) thoughtfully considering the consequences of alternatives

(3) choosing freely

(4) pricing and cherishing

(5) publicly affirming

(6) acting repeatedly

(7) acting with a pattern of consistency.

Subsequent publications explored new strategies to teach the seven sub¬

processes. Simon Howe and Kirschenbann (1978) found ways to combine

Values Clarification with traditional school curricula (Harmin, Kirschenbann

and Simon, 1973). Interestingly most of the work on Values Clarification has

been in the field of education. Early research on Values Clarification, provided

tentative support for the hypothesis that Values Clarification experiences

contributed positively towards the objectives, although the results were not

totally consistent, the direction of the findings tended to support Rath’s theory.

One of the questionnaire measures each of these values and discusses what

ought to be the state of affairs in an organisation on each of these issues and

how to go about building them within the organisation. Eight conditions are

stated on what a clarified value should be and they are:

Values must be chosen from alternatives,

1 (53)

39

Values must be consistent with each other,

Values must be limited in number,

Values must be actionable,

Values must be performance enhancing,

Values must be attractive and pride giving,

Values must be capable of being communicated,

Values must be written down.

Values have been referred to as an important ingredient of

organisational culture and thus there is a focus on changing the values in every

attempt to build organisational culture.

When individual values collectively function to determine the efficacy of

organisations, organisational values assume significance. Values are considered

significant in organisational functioning because they provide the basis for the

design of human organisations. Efficient organisational functioning requires

that the variability in the behaviour of organisational members should be kept

at a minimum (Katz and Kahn, 1970). Various designs of organisations

suggested by organisation theorists actually seek to reduce the variability of

human behaviour within organisations. Member integration can be achieved

by bringing the personal values of organisational members in line with the

organisational values.

Peters and Waterman (1982 p.280) in their book “In Search of

Excellence” highlighted the corporate culture as the main determinant

distinguishing successful organisations. They wrote “Every excellent company

we studied, is clear on what it stands for, and takes the process of value shaping

seriously. In fact, we wonder whether it is possible to be an excellent company,

without clarity on values and without having the right sort of values”.

1 (54)

40

By definition, individual values serve as a guide to a person’s intentions

Similarly, organisational value systems provide guides for

organisational goals, policies, and strategies. Thus, the nature of values is a

crucial factor in the impact that culture will have on organisational

effectiveness.

and actions.

Research has indicated an increasing difference between value systems

held by young and old American workers. A recent review concluded that

emerging cultural trends have transformed the American work ethic into

something very different from previous years. These trends include: (a) a

changing definition of success to include self-realisation and fulfillment

(coupled with) (b) lessening fears of economic insecurity. It is not surprising

therefore, that recent reviewers often stress the necessity of studying personal

values which have been the neglected ingredient of job motivation (Brown,

1976; Connor and Becker, 1975; Herzberg, 1974; Mankoff, 1974).

“By definition, a corporate culture cannot be pressed down upon

a collective, nor can it be controlled or manipulated at will. A true

strategic change programme does not impose anything but makes

people aware of and illuminates certain aspects of the culture in

which they exist. In this sense it is also a creative process: by

bringing values, principles and behaviours to the surface, and by

providing people with a framework with which they can interpret

what they see, a creative and emancipatory process is started. The

step between emancipation and manipulation is however not a

very long one. The basic difference is in the quality of the

dialogue that is created rather than in the content of the outcome.

To interpret a culture requires a dialogue between different levels

of an organisation. A true dialogue, once where the parties are

really open do not know what will come out of it, required risk¬

taking and courage. It also requires an “opening” (as opposed to

open) attitude, a will to go deep into a joint exploration of the

1 (55)

41

company and what it stands for” . (Berg, 1983, p. 24-27)

In an interview, CEO of Levi Strauss, Robert Haas, gives his

organisation’s perspective on values to a question on "How does a CEO manage

values?".

“The first responsibility for me and for my team is to examine

critically our own behaviours and management styles in relation

to the behaviours and values that we profess and to work to

become more consistent with the values that we are articulating.

It is tough work. We all fall off the wagon. But you can’t be one

thing and say another. People have unerring detection

systems for fakes, and they won’t put up with them. They won’t

put values into practice if you are not”. (Howard, 1990. pl33-

144)

For the question "Can you really train people in new values?"

“You can’t train anybody to do anything that he or she doesn’t

fundamentally believe in. That’s why we have designed leadership

week to give people an opportunity to reflect on their own values

and to allow them to say what they want to get from work. In

most cases, people learn that their personal values are aligned

with those of the company. Of course, not eveiybody will buy into

it. We’ve had some very honest discussions where managers say,

“Look, I am 53 years old, I have managed one way all my life and

been successful, and now the company wants me to change. I

don’t know if I can do it.” (Howard, 1990. pl33-144)

1 (56)

42

Kirrane (1990) opines, that altering people’s values or souls isn’t the

aim of organisational ethics programs - managing values and conflicts among

them is. •' HR9HHHH!11

The first challenge in creating a system for managing values, says

Berrien, is to make ethics one of the organisation’s core priorities. In practice,

this requires “clarification and articulation at the top about what the

organisation stands for”. Special retreats and seminars are useful for starting

management-level discussions to clarify organisational values and principles.

After such beliefs have been articulated and defined, follow-up management

meetings and activities focus on current company systems and practices to

ensure that they support, rather than clash with, stated organisational beliefs. If

cultural change has to take deep roots, it is essential to have the clarification

process for every individual irrespective of the level at which he or she is

working. While commitment from the leadership could help accelerate the

process, the leadership alone cannot bring about the cultural change without

the involvement of each of the members of the organisation.

In the recent years there has been a growing interest among researchers

in India in the study of the role of values and their relevance in understanding

functioning of work organisations (Chakraborthy, 1991; Dayal, 1977; Garg &

Parikh, 1988; Gupta, 1990; Pareek, 1988; Prakash, 1982; D. Sinha, 1988; JBP

Sinha, 1990; Tripathi, 1990).

1 (57)

43

1.8 Summary

If organisation culture is the perceived thread of its members’ attitudes,

beliefs, values, behaviours, inter-personal relationships, then a self-realisation

as to one’s own values and that as held by others, brought about by the Values

Clarification process amongst the members of the organisation help collectively

change the organisation culture to a desired state. The values that members

bring to an organisation from diverse cultural backgrounds, from a multitude of

contexts and situations and heritage, may result in a complex web within the

organisation. As an Organisation Development effort and an intervention

strategy, the Values Clarification process is an effective tool to bring about a

personal development which collectively help the organisation in changing and

growing by bringing in an awareness, the desire to change and the empathy to

appreciate others’ value system, which together can be predicted to bring about

a better synergy within the organisation.

The above review of literature sets the perspective that values play a vital

role in cultural change and therefore Values Clarification process is an

important process to stimulate and facilitate development of organisation

culture. Lasswell (1948, 1959), has pointed out that there are certain universal

value goals such as affection, respect, skill, enlightenment, power, wealth, well

being and rectitude. In this research, based on over hundred workshops

conducted, five values emerged predominantly, which are Freedom,

Relationships, Power, Learning and Honesty. These have relatedness to

Lasswell's universal goals. Lasswell’s Affection relates to Relationship. Affection

was defined by Lasswell as providing a climate supporting acceptance, trust,

emotional security, love, congeniality, friendship and intimacy. Whereas in this

research study Relationship refers to expression, giving freedom, responsibility,

involvement and discipline. Though Lasswell refers to Power as opportunities

to participate in making important decisions and to exert informal influence

according to one’s talents and responsibilities, the research study relates power

1 (58)

-44

to authority, giving freedom, credibility, involvement (task and people) and

discipline. In this research study, freedom relates to aspiration, responsibility,

involvement and discipline; Learning refers to the urge to learn, openness,

initiative, involvement and discipline; and Honesty refers to outspokenness,

concern, responsibility, initiative and discipline. The sub-values under each of

the major values listed here appear as repetition under major values, as they are

interdependent, and under different contexts, result in different value profiles

of members. These five factors cover almost all the dimensions of life. The value

values. Tomodification occurs when a person understands his/her own

understand one's own values, it becomes important to understand how the

people around the person experience his/her values since values are expressed

in each and every action of a person in his/her interactions with the world

around. This multiple feedback provides the individual an insight into the gap

between one's known self and the unknown self. This awareness is the prelude#

to looking at one's belief system and making attempts to modify it. Coupled

with a systematic change efforts from the top, the process quickly helps in

shaping the culture of the organisation.

To summarise, the review of literature substantiates the following

dimensions of this research study. Firstly, the important and the vital role

values play in shaping the individual members of the organisation; secondly,

the influence of organisation culture and values being a part of it; thirdly the

effect clarifying values can have on individuals and their behaviour and further

the culture of the community. It also further substantiates the following

understanding about values:

Values form an important basis of culture-as-experienced in community.

Values refer to the cherished "end-stage" and give a certain inner

awareness to actions that drive human endeavor.

Values are “experienced” and therefore become intensely personal as

well as social.

on

1 (59)

45

Values may take various “forms” and may “express” themselves in

various ways like love, respect for others, skill, power, search for wealth,

rectitude, freedom and so on.

Value orientation and commitment leads to convictions and beliefs

which deep down determines choices and action.

Values affect behaviour, not in a desperate and isolated way but “hang

together” to form meaningful value “system” within the individual to

guide choices and actions.

Although communities are value driven, advocates of value inculcation

for culture development postulate the need for a systematic and

methodical approach to develop values in culture building processes.

The review of literature further establishes the need for evolving a

systematic and methodical approach to develop organisational culture through

a process of Values Clarification. Though the role Values Clarification plays in

the development of organisational culture is evident, there is a need to enquire

into the kind of impact this process would have on the behaviour of the

individual members and the culture of the organisation.

The perspectives on which this research study can throw light on are:

The influence of Values Clarification process on the individual in

different contexts.

The use of Values Clarification process as an intervention strategy for

organisation culture building.

The impact of Values Clarification process on the development oforganisational culture.