Problems Facing Leader in Multinational Organization Essay

annulThis research suggests that there is a lack of congruity betwixt the Persian Institutes of Higher Education civilisation and the faculties desired finishing. This conclusion is based on empirical data that indicate that faculties believe that they operate on a day-to day basis in a profession whose culture is characterized by an overarching desire for st king and control, formal rules and policies, coordination and efficiency, remnant and results oriented, and harddriving competitiveness. Emphasizing this lack of heathenish congruence, the respondents of this poll as well indicated that the faculties culture should be one that emphasizes flexibility, discretion, varyicipation, human option development, innovation, creativity, risk-taking, and a long- stipulation emphasis on professional growth and the learning of saucily professional knowledge and skills, which is more(prenominal) aligned with the universities strategic outside environment.One of the principal re asons for the popular interest in the read of memorial tabletal culture is to determine the linkage among it and organisational transaction (Berrio, 2003). This study has analyzeed a previously assumed but unverified connection betwixt organizational culture and leadership geniuss. It has uncovered a lack of congruence between the dominant type of organizational culture and leadership styles. This citeed lack of congruence may be inhibiting performance and unconsciously perpetuating a cycle of caution and an over reliance on stability and control. blusher words Organizational culture- Leadership styles-Higher procreation1.IntroductionAn examination of the literature in the fields of organizational culture and leadership finds that the two argonas have been separately linked to organizational performance. For example, researchers have examined the links between leadership styles and performance (see Bycio et al., 1995), and alsobetween organizational culture and perfo rmance (see Kotter and Heskett, 1992). Furthermore, legion(predicate) aspects of the organizational culture literature in allude to the role of leaders in creating and maintaining particular proposition types of culture (for example, Schein , 1992). Equally, the literature on leadership suggests that the ability to understand and bailiwick within a culture is a prerequisite to pluckrial metier. However, despite the implicit and explicit linking of culture and leadership in many move of organization theory, little critical research attention has been devoted to reasonableness the links between the two concepts and the impact that such(prenominal) an association powerfulness have on managerial lastingness.The absence of critical literature exploring the effectiveness implications of the links between organizational culture and leadership is surprising presumptuousness the numerous references to the importance of the two concepts in the functioning of organizations (see, S chein, 1992). The force of this theme is to provide empirical evidence of the links between diametrical types of organizational culture, a range of leadership styles and managerial effectiveness. This is achieved through the giveation of the results of a cross sectional survey of leadership style, organizational culture, and managerial effectiveness across nine universities in Iran. The paper begins with a brief review of the literature on organizational culture and leadership. This is followed by a word of honor of the methodology adopted for the study and the presentation of the findings and analysis of responses to questionnaire exploring the links between the two concepts and managerial effectiveness. The evidence demonstrates that the relationship between leadership style and effectiveness is mediated by pagan congruence.In the final part of the paper, the conclusions and implications of the study are highlighted. As more and more universities enter into new arrangements in 21st century, the need to assess organisational cultures becomes more important .The term organisational culture has proved difficult to define, but several of its important components are agreed on by most researchers. These include the norms, perspectives, value, assumptions and beliefs shared by organisational members. Due to the abstract nature of these elements, there is a considerable challenge for external researchers who want to assess organisational culture. It is even difficult for members of an organization to list their own culture. Cameron and Freeman (1991, p.31) use the oldproverb Fish discover water last to illustrate the problem of assessing culture among those immersed in it.The aim of this study is to provide insight into the construct of culture and its relationship with leadership styles in the context of high education institutions , and to discuss competing values mannikin as one of approaches to measurement of culture. The paper starts with a discussi on on how the concept of organisational culture is understood in the setting of high education institutions, and is followed by a brief introduction to the trade onwards between qualitative and tercet-figure approaches to assess culture. Based on the basal psychometric requirements for measuring culture, this study concludes by identifying some of the implications of selecting or designing instruments for assess cultural differences in higher education institutions.2.Organizational Culture and Leadership StylesBefore attempting to describe the meat of organizational culture, one should foremost know the concept of organisational culture. Organizational culture has been criticized as being conceptually weak, since it has been defined in many ship canal (Jelinek et al., 1983) and each commentary emphasizes a particular focus or level. Since Schein (1992) print the book Organisational Culture and Leadership, more researchers have recognized culture as a multidimensional and mul tilevel concept. Schein describes three levels of culture. The first level consists of open organisational structures and actions, such as dress code, facilities and procedures.This level of culture can be easily observed. The second level consists of espoused values manifested in the public images of organisations, such as strategies, goals, and philosophies. While non as visible as the artefacts present in the first level, these values can be ascertained by norms, the way things are done in the organisation. The thirdlyly level consists of basic assumptions, or unconscious beliefs, perceptions, thoughts, and feelings. These determine both deportment norms (the way mountain should behave) and organisational values (the things that are highly valued).According to Buono and Bowditch (1989, p.137-139), the visible elements created by an organization on the first level are treated as purpose organizational culture, speckle the elements on the second and the third levels are ha ve-to doe with with subjective organizational culture. Most researchers agree that subjective culture is more important as a significant determinant of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours, and it thus provides a more distinctive basis for characterizing and interpreting similarities and differences among people in different organizations. On this understanding, university culture as a particular form of organisational culture can be defined as the collective, mutually shaping patterns of norms, values, practices, beliefs, and assumptions that scout the behaviour of individuals and groups in an institute of higher education and provide a frame of reference within which to interpret the meaning of events and actions on and off campus (Kuh & Whitt, 2000, p.162).While the term organisational culture is used as if an organisation has a monolithic culture, most organisations have more than one set of beliefs influencing the behaviour of their members (Morgan, 1986 Sathe, 1985). Cultural d iversity appears to be more obvious in higher education institutions (Kuh & Whitt, 2000, p.161). The small homogenous society analogues used in anthropological studies of culture is sorely strained when applied to many contemporary institutions of higher education. Large public, multipurpose universities are comprised of many different groups whose members may or may not share or abide by all of the institutions norms, values, practices, beliefs, and meanings. Instead of viewing colleges and universities as monolithic entities, it is more realistic to analyze them as multicultural contexts that are host to numerous subgroups with different priorities, traditions, and values (Kuh & Whitt, 2000 p.161) .This study pays particular attention to academic lag and specifically those engaged at the departmental level. Therefore, from the perspective of this paper, the culture refers to values, beliefs, and assumptions highly-developed within an academic department by academic stave andthose who manage academics through joint experiences over long periods of time. Nevertheless, disciplinary identity is not the sole source of the culture shared by academic staff members within an academic sub-unit. It is also subject to a variety of circumstances, such as national context, professional culture and organisational character (Austin, 1992 Clark, 1983, p.75 Vlimaa, 1998).3.A followup of the CVF Model and the Study MethodologyAn Overview of the Competing value Framework (CVF) Model The Competing Values Framework (CVF) evolved from the work of Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1981, 1983) as they attempted to circumscribe the elusive definition for a generally agreed upon theoretical framework of the concept of organizational effectiveness. This framework was chosen for this study because it was experimentally derived and found to have a high degree of face and empirical validity. Additionally, the CVF was identified as having a high level of reliability matching or exceeding that of ot her instruments commonly used in the social and organizational sciences (Cameron and Ettington, 1988 Cameron and Quinn, 2006 Berrio, 2003). The tetrad quadrants of the framework, representing the four major cultural types clan, adhocracy, market, hierarchy, provide a robust explanation of the differing tastes and competing values that characterize human behavior.The richness provided by the CVF is based on its ability to identify the basic assumptions, orientations, and values of each of the four cultural types. These three elements comprise the core of organizational culture. The OCAI, therefore, is an instrument that allows you to diagnose the dominant orientation of your own organization based on these core culture types. It also assists you in diagnosing your organizations cultural strength, cultural type, and cultural congruence (Cameron and Quinn,2006, p. 33). In their research concerning organizational effectiveness, Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1981, 1983) statistically analyzed 3 9 indicators of organizational effectiveness as identified by Campbell, et al, (1974). Quinn and Rohrbaughs analysis resulted in the bifurcation of the 39 effectiveness criteria between two major dimensions.The first dimension, which is labeled the social structure dimension, differentiates the organizational effectiveness criteria between those that emphasize flexibility, discretion, and vigour and those thatemphasize stability, order, and control. The second dimension, which is labeled the Focus dimension, differentiates the organizational effectiveness criteria between those that emphasize internal orientation, integration, and unity and those effectiveness criteria that emphasize an external orientation, differentiation, and contention (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1981 and 1983 Cameron and Quinn, 2006).Within each of these two dimensions there is also a third set of values, which set outs an emphasis ranging from organizational processes, such as planning and goal setting at one en d of the spectrum, to an emphasis on results, such as resource acquisition at the other end. Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1981) labeled this third set of values as the organizational message Ends continuum. The two ancient dimensions differentiating between organizational values emphasizing Structure and Focus produce four clusters of effectiveness criteria as depicted in Figure 1. The Structure axis is represented 100 by the Flexibility Control continuum, while the Focus axis is represented by the People Organization continuum in Figure 1 . Within each of these four quadrants the relevant Means Ends values are enumerated.